Our Rights Do Not Come From God’

According to CNN morning Anchor Chris Cuomo, that is.

Cuomo was debating Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage. Near the end of the back-and-forth and after Moore argued that rights cannot be handed down by men,

Cuomo blurted out:
"Our rights do not come from God, your honor, and you know that. They come from man... That’s your faith, that’s my faith, but that’s not our country. Our laws come from collective agreement and compromise."

Maybe Mr. Cuomo flunked elementary civics. The opening sentence of the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence clearly affirms:


“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/curtis-kalin/cnn-anchor-our-rights-do-not-come-god

Skeptical wrote:According to CNN morning Anchor Chris Cuomo, that is.

Cuomo was debating Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage. Near the end of the back-and-forth and after Moore argued that rights cannot be handed down by men,

Cuomo blurted out:
"Our rights do not come from God, your honor, and you know that. They come from man... That’s your faith, that’s my faith, but that’s not our country. Our laws come from collective agreement and compromise."

Maybe Mr. Cuomo flunked elementary civics. The opening sentence of the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence clearly affirms:


“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/curtis-kalin/cnn-anchor-our-rights-do-not-come-god

If Chief Justice Moore is going to take every word at face value, not open to interpretation, then where does that leave the almost 51% of our population that are women?  What he is saying is simply absurd.  This man's closed mindedness and desire to push his own agenda, given his position, is a real threat to our democracy and our way of life. Hats off to Cuomo for going toe to toe with this beast.

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:According to CNN morning Anchor Chris Cuomo, that is.

Cuomo was debating Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage. Near the end of the back-and-forth and after Moore argued that rights cannot be handed down by men,

Cuomo blurted out:
"Our rights do not come from God, your honor, and you know that. They come from man... That’s your faith, that’s my faith, but that’s not our country. Our laws come from collective agreement and compromise."

Maybe Mr. Cuomo flunked elementary civics. The opening sentence of the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence clearly affirms:


“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/curtis-kalin/cnn-anchor-our-rights-do-not-come-god

If Chief Justice Moore is going to take every word at face value, not open to interpretation, then where does that leave the almost 51% of our population that are women?  What he is saying is simply absurd.  This man's closed mindedness and desire to push his own agenda, given his position, is a real threat to our democracy and our way of life.  Hats off to Cuomo for going toe to toe with this beast.

You puking moron, go to a dictionary of the time period and find out what the word meant then.  Words do have a way of changing over the course of time.

If you go to a 1768 dictionary you will find the various meanings of the word man.  The number 1 meaning was:  "Human Being"  -  The 6th meaning given for the word is "one, anyone" ----  8th meaning  "A human being qualified in any particular manner"  the 10th meaning given was "not a beast"  the 11th meaning given was "a wealthy or independent person"

And yes, the 2nd meaning provided was "not a woman".  So we know what a dumbass liberal who hates this country and its Founding Fathers will default to.  However, reasonable people understand that the Founders were referring to all mankind.

By the way you dumbass POS, the definition for mankind back in 1768 was "The race or species of human beings".

Jammer wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:According to CNN morning Anchor Chris Cuomo, that is.

Cuomo was debating Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage. Near the end of the back-and-forth and after Moore argued that rights cannot be handed down by men,

Cuomo blurted out:
"Our rights do not come from God, your honor, and you know that. They come from man... That’s your faith, that’s my faith, but that’s not our country. Our laws come from collective agreement and compromise."

Maybe Mr. Cuomo flunked elementary civics. The opening sentence of the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence clearly affirms:


“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/curtis-kalin/cnn-anchor-our-rights-do-not-come-god

If Chief Justice Moore is going to take every word at face value, not open to interpretation, then where does that leave the almost 51% of our population that are women?  What he is saying is simply absurd.  This man's closed mindedness and desire to push his own agenda, given his position, is a real threat to our democracy and our way of life.  Hats off to Cuomo for going toe to toe with this beast.

You puking moron, go to a dictionary of the time period and find out what the word meant then.  Words do have a way of changing over the course of time.

If you go to a 1768 dictionary you will find the various meanings of the word man.  The number 1 meaning was:  "Human Being"  -  The 6th meaning given for the word is "one, anyone" ----  8th meaning  "A human being qualified in any particular manner"  the 10th meaning given was "not a beast"  the 11th meaning given was "a wealthy or independent person"

And yes, the 2nd meaning provided was "not a woman".  So we know what a dumbass liberal who hates this country and its Founding Fathers will default to.  However, reasonable people understand that the Founders were referring to all mankind.

By the way you dumbass POS, the definition for mankind back in 1768 was "The race or species of human beings".

Your preaching to the choir here.  I'm well aware of the arbitrary nature of the use of the phrase "all men are created equal".  It's meant to convey a message, not to hang your hat on, as goes for the phrase "endowed by your creator".  "Creator" has as much secular relevance as it does religious, depending on your beliefs. You can't simply pick and choose which statements to take literally, and which to sweep under the rug. And you can't lay religious claim to words that have a multitude of meanings, unless of course you are trying to rewrite our founding documents to promote your own agenda.  I've come to expect that from you, but coming from a court justice, that is truly disturbing.

Let's take a look at the first paragraph:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth(their "creator"), the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature (science, or secular) and of Nature's God(religious) entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Our founding fathers made a point of distinguishing between the power science and the power of religion as well as considering them to be equals.

Dr. Jones wrote:Let's take a look at the first paragraph:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth(their "creator"), the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature (science, or secular) and of Nature's God(religious) entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Our founding fathers made a point of distinguishing between the power science and the power of religion as well as considering them to be equals.

(Music from Twilight plays here)

You're traveling through another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind; a journey into a wondrous land whose boundaries are that of imagination. That's the signpost up ahead—your next stop, the Twilight Zone.

—Rod Serling

Dr. Jones wrote:Let's take a look at the first paragraph:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth(their "creator"), the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature (science, or secular) and of Nature's God(religious) entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Our founding fathers made a point of distinguishing between the power science and the power of religion as well as considering them to be equals.

since when do the laws of nature have to be separate from religion?

BladeRunner wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:Let's take a look at the first paragraph:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth(their "creator"), the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature (science, or secular) and of Nature's God(religious) entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Our founding fathers made a point of distinguishing between the power science and the power of religion as well as considering them to be equals.

since when do the laws of nature have to be separate from religion?

Natural law (or the law of nature) is God's law.  Jefferson's document we call the Declaration of Independence was crafted by him from 8 different ancient principles that he deeply believed in.

We need to understand what kind of creature can be on the other side of this argument.  Once you analyze that issue you come to understand it can only be someone who hates this country and the people who created it.  As a result they will make all of these ridiculous arguments to push their agenda of fundamentally transforming this country.  These people including the POS of shite arguing with us are pure evil.

The only good news in this is that I sincerely feel we are within a year or two of these people being the most despised scum on the earth.

Dr. Jones wrote:

Jammer wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:According to CNN morning Anchor Chris Cuomo, that is.

Cuomo was debating Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage. Near the end of the back-and-forth and after Moore argued that rights cannot be handed down by men,

Cuomo blurted out:
"Our rights do not come from God, your honor, and you know that. They come from man... That’s your faith, that’s my faith, but that’s not our country. Our laws come from collective agreement and compromise."

Maybe Mr. Cuomo flunked elementary civics. The opening sentence of the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence clearly affirms:


“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/curtis-kalin/cnn-anchor-our-rights-do-not-come-god

If Chief Justice Moore is going to take every word at face value, not open to interpretation, then where does that leave the almost 51% of our population that are women?  What he is saying is simply absurd.  This man's closed mindedness and desire to push his own agenda, given his position, is a real threat to our democracy and our way of life.  Hats off to Cuomo for going toe to toe with this beast.

You puking moron, go to a dictionary of the time period and find out what the word meant then.  Words do have a way of changing over the course of time.

If you go to a 1768 dictionary you will find the various meanings of the word man.  The number 1 meaning was:  "Human Being"  -  The 6th meaning given for the word is "one, anyone" ----  8th meaning  "A human being qualified in any particular manner"  the 10th meaning given was "not a beast"  the 11th meaning given was "a wealthy or independent person"

And yes, the 2nd meaning provided was "not a woman".  So we know what a dumbass liberal who hates this country and its Founding Fathers will default to.  However, reasonable people understand that the Founders were referring to all mankind.

By the way you dumbass POS, the definition for mankind back in 1768 was "The race or species of human beings".

Your preaching to the choir here.  I'm well aware of the arbitrary nature of the use of the phrase "all men are created equal".  It's meant to convey a message, not to hang your hat on, as goes for the phrase "endowed by your creator".  "Creator" has as much secular relevance as it does religious, depending on your beliefs.  You can't simply pick and choose which statements to take literally, and which to sweep under the rug.  And you can't lay religious claim to words that have a multitude of meanings, unless of course you are trying to rewrite our founding documents to promote your own agenda.  I've come to expect that from you, but coming from a court justice, that is truly disturbing.

You piece of dogshit, the Chief Justice like other people of reason also rely on the other writings of the Founders to better understand their meaning.  Some of these greatest insights come from the Federalist Papers.  But regardless of where they draw their conclusions from, it is a well thought out attempt to understand the Founders and not hijacking portions of these documents by twisting them like you do to justify your feel good socialist agenda.

BladeRunner wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:Let's take a look at the first paragraph:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth(their "creator"), the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature (science, or secular) and of Nature's God(religious) entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Our founding fathers made a point of distinguishing between the power science and the power of religion as well as considering them to be equals.

since when do the laws of nature have to be separate from religion?

Not necessarily separate in that respect but there are certainly separate opinions on where everything that is natural to us comes from.  The Declaration of Independence addresses this.

We seem to be forgetting that the nature of the Declaration of Independence is that it is a Declaration, not a suggestion or concept to be hashed over until all agree to it's definition.  Many of the problems we have today are because we fail to interpret the meaning of the Declaration and Constitution based on what the words meant when they were written and have allowed too many general re-definitions based on what we think it says or what we wished it said.

Clicker wrote:We seem to be forgetting that the nature of the Declaration of Independence is that it is a Declaration, not a suggestion or concept to be hashed over until all agree to it's definition.  Many of the problems we have today are because we fail to interpret the meaning of the Declaration and Constitution based on what the words meant when they were written and have allowed too many general re-definitions based on what we think it says or what we wished it said.

Well said.

Dr. Jones wrote:

Clicker wrote:We seem to be forgetting that the nature of the Declaration of Independence is that it is a Declaration, not a suggestion or concept to be hashed over until all agree to it's definition.  Many of the problems we have today are because we fail to interpret the meaning of the Declaration and Constitution based on what the words meant when they were written and have allowed too many general re-definitions based on what we think it says or what we wished it said.

Well said.

So why do you, Obama and all of the rest of the progressive socialists do this on a daily basis?

Clicker wrote:We seem to be forgetting that the nature of the Declaration of Independence is that it is a Declaration, not a suggestion or concept to be hashed over until all agree to it's definition.  Many of the problems we have today are because we fail to interpret the meaning of the Declaration and Constitution based on what the words meant when they were written and have allowed too many general re-definitions based on what we think it says or what we wished it said.

Words do not retain the same meaning over 220+ years ago.

Also the framers knew that the Church was a bad influence, they saw what it did to England.

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:

Clicker wrote:We seem to be forgetting that the nature of the Declaration of Independence is that it is a Declaration, not a suggestion or concept to be hashed over until all agree to it's definition.  Many of the problems we have today are because we fail to interpret the meaning of the Declaration and Constitution based on what the words meant when they were written and have allowed too many general re-definitions based on what we think it says or what we wished it said.

Words do not retain the same meaning over 220+ years ago.

Also the framers knew that the Church was a bad influence, they saw what it did to England.

So now you are an expert in linguistics?

How about providing the "modern interpretation" of the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence and your justification, expert source, for your narrative.

Skeptical wrote:

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:

Clicker wrote:We seem to be forgetting that the nature of the Declaration of Independence is that it is a Declaration, not a suggestion or concept to be hashed over until all agree to it's definition.  Many of the problems we have today are because we fail to interpret the meaning of the Declaration and Constitution based on what the words meant when they were written and have allowed too many general re-definitions based on what we think it says or what we wished it said.

Words do not retain the same meaning over 220+ years ago.

Also the framers knew that the Church was a bad influence, they saw what it did to England.

So now you are an expert in linguistics?

How about providing the "modern interpretation" of the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence and your justification, expert source, for your narrative.

Why don't you do the same?

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:

Clicker wrote:We seem to be forgetting that the nature of the Declaration of Independence is that it is a Declaration, not a suggestion or concept to be hashed over until all agree to it's definition.  Many of the problems we have today are because we fail to interpret the meaning of the Declaration and Constitution based on what the words meant when they were written and have allowed too many general re-definitions based on what we think it says or what we wished it said.

Words do not retain the same meaning over 220+ years ago.

Also the framers knew that the Church was a bad influence, they saw what it did to England.

So now you are an expert in linguistics?

How about providing the "modern interpretation" of the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence and your justification, expert source, for your narrative.

Why don't you do the same?

No Caitlyn, the original is good enough.

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:

Clicker wrote:We seem to be forgetting that the nature of the Declaration of Independence is that it is a Declaration, not a suggestion or concept to be hashed over until all agree to it's definition.  Many of the problems we have today are because we fail to interpret the meaning of the Declaration and Constitution based on what the words meant when they were written and have allowed too many general re-definitions based on what we think it says or what we wished it said.

Words do not retain the same meaning over 220+ years ago.

Also the framers knew that the Church was a bad influence, they saw what it did to England.

So now you are an expert in linguistics?

How about providing the "modern interpretation" of the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence and your justification, expert source, for your narrative.

Why don't you do the same?

Why don't you pull your head out of your ass?

Jammer wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:

Clicker wrote:We seem to be forgetting that the nature of the Declaration of Independence is that it is a Declaration, not a suggestion or concept to be hashed over until all agree to it's definition.  Many of the problems we have today are because we fail to interpret the meaning of the Declaration and Constitution based on what the words meant when they were written and have allowed too many general re-definitions based on what we think it says or what we wished it said.

Words do not retain the same meaning over 220+ years ago.

Also the framers knew that the Church was a bad influence, they saw what it did to England.

So now you are an expert in linguistics?

How about providing the "modern interpretation" of the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence and your justification, expert source, for your narrative.

Why don't you do the same?

Why don't you pull your head out of your ass?

No wonder he has such a shitty outlook when his optic nerve got all mixed up and connected to his alimentary canal.

Here's an interesting article on this:

http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/current-events/what-is-the-law-of-natures-god

This is a brilliant article.  The author makes the distinction between the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God as two completely different sets of laws that coincide and supports that distinction with evidence.  Ultimately he points to the latter of the two being the laws of the Bible itself.  Although his article is intended to prove the existence of God's word in the Declaration of Independence, and therefore doesn't expound upon secular nature the Laws of Nature, it is certainly implied.

Dr. Jones wrote:Here's an interesting article on this:

http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/current-events/what-is-the-law-of-natures-god

This is a brilliant article.  The author makes the distinction between the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God as two completely different sets of laws that coincide and supports that distinction with evidence.  Ultimately he points to the latter of the two being the laws of the Bible itself.  Although his article is intended to prove the existence of God's word in the Declaration of Independence, and therefore doesn't expound upon secular nature the Laws of Nature, it is certainly implied.

You need to read many more articles like this and then perhaps you would begin to understand conservative principles.  What the author is saying is there are laws of nature or natural law.  This is like the concept of gravity.  And then there are the laws of nature's God which is like the 10 Commandments.  They both come from our Creator.

For some reason liberals think they can pass governmental laws that violate natural law and therefore override natural law.  I for one wish they would pass a law against gravity and then jump off a 30 story building to prove to us they were right.  But so far the morons have passed laws that violate almost every other natural law that exists except gravity, but I am hoping Obama takes the lead on that one.

As for the laws of nature's God, for some reason liberals believe you can be an atheist and still be a moral and virtuous person.  Perhaps, but most of the time that is pretty close to the gravity thing. Either way, liberals believe that GOVERNMENT trumps all and you can just ignore natural law (mother nature) and the law of nature's God (human nature)  

The author and conservatives believe that the law of nature's God has been revealed by God whereas the laws of nature (or the universe) must be learned.  I know, liberals believe that Al Gore invented the Internet and that Isaac Newton invented gravity.  But alas, Newton was just able to understand gravity and explain it to others.  Our Creator gave us gravity and yes, Al Gore gave us global warming.

Jammer wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:Here's an interesting article on this:

http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/current-events/what-is-the-law-of-natures-god

This is a brilliant article.  The author makes the distinction between the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God as two completely different sets of laws that coincide and supports that distinction with evidence.  Ultimately he points to the latter of the two being the laws of the Bible itself.  Although his article is intended to prove the existence of God's word in the Declaration of Independence, and therefore doesn't expound upon secular nature the Laws of Nature, it is certainly implied.

You need to read many more articles like this and then perhaps you would begin to understand conservative principles.  What the author is saying is there are laws of nature or natural law.  This is like the concept of gravity.  And then there are the laws of nature's God which is like the 10 Commandments.  They both come from our Creator.

For some reason liberals think they can pass governmental laws that violate natural law and therefore override natural law.  I for one wish they would pass a law against gravity and then jump off a 30 story building to prove to us they were right.  But so far the morons have passed laws that violate almost every other natural law that exists except gravity, but I am hoping Obama takes the lead on that one.

As for the laws of nature's God, for some reason liberals believe you can be an atheist and still be a moral and virtuous person.  Perhaps, but most of the time that is pretty close to the gravity thing.  Either way, liberals believe that GOVERNMENT trumps all and you can just ignore natural law (mother nature) and the law of nature's God (human nature)  

The author and conservatives believe that the law of nature's God has been revealed by God whereas the laws of nature (or the universe) must be learned.  I know, liberals believe that Al Gore invented the Internet and that Isaac Newton invented gravity.  But alas, Newton was just able to understand gravity and explain it to others.  Our Creator gave us gravity and yes, Al Gore gave us global warming.

WTF are you talking about? Gravity?!? The birds and the bees and the trees and the chimpanzees and blah, blah, blah, blah, fukcing blah. Do you really think they spent time addressing mother nature?!?! Do you think they were a bunch of tree huggers?!? That has to be the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

They were referring to human nature, and human nature that is derived from God. They are one in the same and yet completely different. It all depends on your beliefs. But they are both where your natural rights come from.

Dr. Jones wrote:

Jammer wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:Here's an interesting article on this:

http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/current-events/what-is-the-law-of-natures-god

This is a brilliant article.  The author makes the distinction between the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God as two completely different sets of laws that coincide and supports that distinction with evidence.  Ultimately he points to the latter of the two being the laws of the Bible itself.  Although his article is intended to prove the existence of God's word in the Declaration of Independence, and therefore doesn't expound upon secular nature the Laws of Nature, it is certainly implied.

You need to read many more articles like this and then perhaps you would begin to understand conservative principles.  What the author is saying is there are laws of nature or natural law.  This is like the concept of gravity.  And then there are the laws of nature's God which is like the 10 Commandments.  They both come from our Creator.

For some reason liberals think they can pass governmental laws that violate natural law and therefore override natural law.  I for one wish they would pass a law against gravity and then jump off a 30 story building to prove to us they were right.  But so far the morons have passed laws that violate almost every other natural law that exists except gravity, but I am hoping Obama takes the lead on that one.

As for the laws of nature's God, for some reason liberals believe you can be an atheist and still be a moral and virtuous person.  Perhaps, but most of the time that is pretty close to the gravity thing.  Either way, liberals believe that GOVERNMENT trumps all and you can just ignore natural law (mother nature) and the law of nature's God (human nature)  

The author and conservatives believe that the law of nature's God has been revealed by God whereas the laws of nature (or the universe) must be learned.  I know, liberals believe that Al Gore invented the Internet and that Isaac Newton invented gravity.  But alas, Newton was just able to understand gravity and explain it to others.  Our Creator gave us gravity and yes, Al Gore gave us global warming.

WTF are you talking about?  Gravity?!?  The birds and the bees and the trees and the chimpanzees and blah, blah, blah, blah, fukcing blah.  Do you really think they spent time addressing mother nature?!?!  Do you think they were a bunch of tree huggers?!?  That has to be the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

They were referring to human nature, and human nature that is derived from God.  They are one in the same and yet completely different.  It all depends on your beliefs.  But they are both where your natural rights come from.

That is the biggest bumf u c k explanation I've ever read of the Declaration. I've got a lot to say on this topic but I've got a 7:00 am EST flight to catch so I've got to hit the rack. But let me say this, Locke (who Jefferson borrowed/stole freely from) saw Nature's Law as that which was understood by Reason. The laws of Nature's God were only seen through revelation..

Dr. Jones wrote:

Jammer wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:Here's an interesting article on this:

http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/current-events/what-is-the-law-of-natures-god

This is a brilliant article.  The author makes the distinction between the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God as two completely different sets of laws that coincide and supports that distinction with evidence.  Ultimately he points to the latter of the two being the laws of the Bible itself.  Although his article is intended to prove the existence of God's word in the Declaration of Independence, and therefore doesn't expound upon secular nature the Laws of Nature, it is certainly implied.

You need to read many more articles like this and then perhaps you would begin to understand conservative principles.  What the author is saying is there are laws of nature or natural law.  This is like the concept of gravity.  And then there are the laws of nature's God which is like the 10 Commandments.  They both come from our Creator.

For some reason liberals think they can pass governmental laws that violate natural law and therefore override natural law.  I for one wish they would pass a law against gravity and then jump off a 30 story building to prove to us they were right.  But so far the morons have passed laws that violate almost every other natural law that exists except gravity, but I am hoping Obama takes the lead on that one.

As for the laws of nature's God, for some reason liberals believe you can be an atheist and still be a moral and virtuous person.  Perhaps, but most of the time that is pretty close to the gravity thing.  Either way, liberals believe that GOVERNMENT trumps all and you can just ignore natural law (mother nature) and the law of nature's God (human nature)  

The author and conservatives believe that the law of nature's God has been revealed by God whereas the laws of nature (or the universe) must be learned.  I know, liberals believe that Al Gore invented the Internet and that Isaac Newton invented gravity.  But alas, Newton was just able to understand gravity and explain it to others.  Our Creator gave us gravity and yes, Al Gore gave us global warming.

WTF are you talking about?  Gravity?!?  The birds and the bees and the trees and the chimpanzees and blah, blah, blah, blah, fukcing blah.  Do you really think they spent time addressing mother nature?!?!  Do you think they were a bunch of tree huggers?!?  That has to be the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

They were referring to human nature, and human nature that is derived from God.  They are one in the same and yet completely different.  It all depends on your beliefs.  But they are both where your natural rights come from.

I am sorry but you are wrong.  I agree that using gravity as an example is one that even a dumb liberal would not try to circumvent through legislation.  However, none the less it is a natural law that God put in place by which we are bound.  When God created the universe he put in place natural laws that govern us.

I am sorry but I don't have time to debate this issue, maybe another time.  However, here is a link that may help.  I have not read the material in it. so I am not sure how good it is.  But it is what I found when I Googled Blackstone and natural law.  I remember when learning about natural law there were numerous mentions of Blackstone associated with it, hence the reason I included him in my Google search.

http://www.uark.edu/depts/comminfo/cambridge/blackstone.html

In any event you are wrong.  There are laws of nature and laws of nature's God which is called Devine law by many.  I have heard many different terminologies used for these two different sets of laws such as cosmic law and revealed law.  In any event, I understand how confusing this is for a liberal who only believes in RULER's law where the Ruler (the government) makes the laws.  I am sorry, but I don't believe in your Ruler's law, I personally believe in Peoples' law and what the Founding Fathers gave us with our Republican form of government.  I also understand how much you liberals hate it.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Jammer wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:Here's an interesting article on this:

http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/current-events/what-is-the-law-of-natures-god

This is a brilliant article.  The author makes the distinction between the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God as two completely different sets of laws that coincide and supports that distinction with evidence.  Ultimately he points to the latter of the two being the laws of the Bible itself.  Although his article is intended to prove the existence of God's word in the Declaration of Independence, and therefore doesn't expound upon secular nature the Laws of Nature, it is certainly implied.

You need to read many more articles like this and then perhaps you would begin to understand conservative principles.  What the author is saying is there are laws of nature or natural law.  This is like the concept of gravity.  And then there are the laws of nature's God which is like the 10 Commandments.  They both come from our Creator.

For some reason liberals think they can pass governmental laws that violate natural law and therefore override natural law.  I for one wish they would pass a law against gravity and then jump off a 30 story building to prove to us they were right.  But so far the morons have passed laws that violate almost every other natural law that exists except gravity, but I am hoping Obama takes the lead on that one.

As for the laws of nature's God, for some reason liberals believe you can be an atheist and still be a moral and virtuous person.  Perhaps, but most of the time that is pretty close to the gravity thing.  Either way, liberals believe that GOVERNMENT trumps all and you can just ignore natural law (mother nature) and the law of nature's God (human nature)  

The author and conservatives believe that the law of nature's God has been revealed by God whereas the laws of nature (or the universe) must be learned.  I know, liberals believe that Al Gore invented the Internet and that Isaac Newton invented gravity.  But alas, Newton was just able to understand gravity and explain it to others.  Our Creator gave us gravity and yes, Al Gore gave us global warming.

WTF are you talking about?  Gravity?!?  The birds and the bees and the trees and the chimpanzees and blah, blah, blah, blah, fukcing blah.  Do you really think they spent time addressing mother nature?!?!  Do you think they were a bunch of tree huggers?!?  That has to be the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

They were referring to human nature, and human nature that is derived from God.  They are one in the same and yet completely different.  It all depends on your beliefs.  But they are both where your natural rights come from.

That is the biggest bumf u c k explanation I've ever read of the Declaration. I've got a lot to say on this topic but I've got a 7:00 am EST flight to catch so I've got to hit the rack. But let me say this, Locke (who Jefferson borrowed/stole freely from) saw Nature's Law as that which was understood by Reason. The laws of Nature's God were only seen through revelation..

This stuff is beyond comprehension for a liberal as they completely think the polar opposite. It is a difficult area to understand and I need to study back up on it. My thoughts are from a few years ago when I studied some material on the Constitution. In any event, I have some travels also and maybe we can exchange thoughts on this later as I can always learn more about it.

In the meantime, I think we should encourage dumbshit that he can outlaw gravity with his progressive liberal ideology and have him do the leap from a tall building test.