A third time?

[SolomonVII]

why is this important? the Declaration of Independence isn't a binding legal document and has no force of law and the USSC has only referred to it a few times.

so the president does or doesn't believe in God. big deal, its a "gotcha" moment.

This is not a gotcha moment. It is a learning moment.
There is not even a percentage point that would vote for or against Obama for this omission. This is not one of the trillions of reasons that people have for turning against the current administration.
There is no reason for a gotcha, nor was the thrice repeated omission a mistake.

But it is very important anyways because so many Americans are so clueless as to why this is so important. So many Americans seem to think that all choices and options and roads taken lead to the same path, and that the freedoms that America enjoys, and the world enjoys on account of the American example, will always be there for us. they seem to think that the freedoms that once defined our lives, always will, or were not so great in the first place.

That is simply not true. This was an exceptional moment in human history, unique and unlike any other from the very founding of human civilization. The ideals that were realized in that Revolution fundamentally changed the role of the everyday citizen in relation to the powers and principalities that ruled over them.
Moments of political genius such as this are rare, and rare still does it come to pass that such moments can bring about a new order into fruition.

This was one of those moments.

Rest assured that the powers and principalities that have ruled this world from the moment of the Fall, from the beginning of civilization if you prefer, have not looked favorably on this kind of revolution.

Perhaps it is already too late. But it is not yet to late to remember, once there was freedom.
Even now that moment is starting to fade from the collective memory even as this remembrance of the one nation under God becomes erased from even our history.

Not from the pharoah, not from the King, not from the Lords and presidents and powers and principalities, but from the Most High, God himself. That is the only source of our unalienable rights of freedom. This was the truth that the Revolution defined.
Shall we forget then, and go back to living the lie, under the Father of Lies?

I am guessing yes.

 

[AMDG]

This is not a gotcha moment. It is a learning moment.
There is not even a percentage point that would vote for or against Obama for this omission. This is not one of the trillions of reasons that people have for turning against the current administration.
There is no reason for a gotcha, nor was the thrice repeated omission a mistake.

But it is very important anyways because so many Americans are so clueless as to why this is so important. So many Americans seem to think that all choices and options and roads taken lead to the same path, and that the freedoms that America enjoys, and the world enjoys on account of the American example, will always be there for us. they seem to think that the freedoms that once defined our lives, always will, or were not so great in the first place.

That is simply not true. This was an exceptional moment in human history, unique and unlike any other from the very founding of human civilization. The ideals that were realized in that Revolution fundamentally changed the role of the everyday citizen in relation to the powers and principalities that ruled over them.
Moments of political genius such as this are rare, and rare still does it come to pass that such moments can bring about a new order into fruition.

This was one of those moments.

Rest assured that the powers and principalities that have ruled this world from the moment of the Fall, from the beginning of civilization if you prefer, have not looked favorably on this kind of revolution.

Perhaps it is already too late. But it is not yet to late to remember, once there was freedom.
Even now that moment is starting to fade from the collective memory even as this remembrance of the one nation under God becomes erased from even our history.

Not from the pharoah, not from the King, not from the Lords and presidents and powers and principalities, but from the Most High, God himself. That is the only source of our unalienable rights of freedom. This was the truth that the Revolution defined.
Shall we forget then, and go back to living the lie, under the Father of Lies?

I am guessing yes.

 

[Alicia_M]

why is this important? the Declaration of Independence isn’t a binding legal document and has no force of law and the USSC has only referred to it a few times.

so the president does or doesn’t believe in God. big deal, it’s a “gotcha” moment.

Telling of the British response, I would say that they also didn’t count the DOI as a binding legal document with a force of law to back it up. If my history is correct, they did; however, encounter a force to support the rhetoric.

@Michie: thanks for the link provided.

 

[Alicia_M]

I think I'll be careful in my judgements concerning Obama. The Lord's been denied publicly three times before.

 

[JoabAnias]

I think I'll be careful in my judgements concerning Obama. The Lord's been denied publicly three times before.

I fail to see how that relates at all.

Obama =/= St. Peter.

Its good not to judge rashly but justice demands right judgment.

 

[Alicia_M]

I fail to see how that relates at all.

Obama =/= St. Peter.

Its good not to judge rashly but justice demands right judgment.

I know Obama doesn't equal St. Peter. Maybe it was a poor example, but it was the best I could come up with. I, myself, am trying to remain hopeful. I meant no offense. I feel somewhat responsible for helping find the links to the transcripts. A link provided later on in the discussion alluded to the president including "by their Creator" during later speeches?

As to the second, I agree. His term in office is not yet over, but while he does with this full term, I think, will be the glimpse as to his proposed second term in office. If he goes against what we believe in, he should be fired. Of course, Obama *is* a politician and knows well that the majority *can* unseat him. Were his later inclusions used only for that basis? Only God knows.

 

[JoabAnias]

I know Obama doesn't equal St. Peter. Maybe it was a poor example, but it was the best I could come up with. I, myself, am trying to remain hopeful. I meant no offense. I feel somewhat responsible for helping find the links to the transcripts. A link provided later on in the discussion alluded to the president including "by their Creator" during later speeches?

As to the second, I agree. His term in office is not yet over, but while he does with this full term, I think, will be the glimpse as to his proposed second term in office. If he goes against what we believe in, he should be fired. Of course, Obama *is* a politician and knows well that the majority *can* unseat him. Were his later inclusions used only for that basis? Only God knows.

Oh, well, I'm not just thinking of this one article but all the legislation and the whole agenda since before Obama was even a candidate.

If you look at all that big picture, then its easy to judge that Obama has denied the Lord in some very substantial ways. Much more so than St. Peter did out of fear. The difference is, St. Peter knew he erred and repented right away. Obama doesn't know the meaning of that word because he thinks his agenda is all that matters.

For some legislative facts let me refer you to this article:
Obama's First 100 Days: The anti-life plan is now established

This was just 100 days mind you.

Proportionately speaking, I was anti-Obama before it was cool.

 

[Wirraway]

This is not a gotcha moment....
I am guessing yes.

could you sum up your statement in maybe 50 words?

 

[Wirraway]

Telling of the British response, I would say that they also didn’t count the DOI as a binding legal document with a force of law to back it up. If my history is correct, they did; however, encounter a force to support the rhetoric....

at least we agree its rhetoric.

whatever the brits thought isn't important. I said the DOI isn't a legal document in american law. its brevity makes it ideal for the short attention span theater of modern politics, but ... so what of obama misquotes it? exactly what does in matter beyond the "gotcha"?

 

[SolomonVII]

could you sum up your statement in maybe 50 words?

If not God as the source or our freedoms, then government will be.

The more the government is in charge of defining our rights, the more those rights will be defined to the advantage of the government.

The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.

Ergo, what Obama left out was the very cornerstone of our freedom.

 

[Wirraway]

If not God as the source or our freedoms, then government will be.

The more the government is in charge of defining our rights, the more those rights will be defined to the advantage of the government.

The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.

Ergo, what Obama left out was the very cornerstone of our freedom.

thanks for the summary.

I disagree. while its very important that the source of human rights not emanate from the government, they don't necessarily have to come from God, as there political philosophers have stated, e.g., Ayn Rand,

"The Declaration of Independence stated that men “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” Whether one believes that man is the product of a Creator or of nature, the issue of man’s origin does not alter the fact that he is an entity of a specific kind—a rational being—that he cannot function successfully under coercion, and that rights are a necessary condition of his particular mode of survival.

“The source of man’s rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A—and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational.” (Atlas Shrugged)"

you don't have to believe Rand, but you've got to accept that not everyone who believes the government isn't the source of human rights accepts that God must necessarily be so.

 

[SolomonVII]

thanks for the summary.

I disagree. while its very important that the source of human rights not emanate from the government, they don't necessarily have to come from God, as there political philosophers have stated, e.g., Ayn Rand,

"The Declaration of Independence stated that men “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” Whether one believes that man is the product of a Creator or of nature, the issue of man’s origin does not alter the fact that he is an entity of a specific kind—a rational being—that he cannot function successfully under coercion, and that rights are a necessary condition of his particular mode of survival.

“The source of man’s rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A—and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational.” (Atlas Shrugged)"

you don't have to believe Rand, but you've got to accept that not everyone who believes the government isn't the source of human rights accepts that God must necessarily be so.

Is Obama a believer in Ayn Rand?

I think not.


True or not, Ayn Rand's statement lacks the succintness and the clarity of the DOI. The mental gymnastics that atheism has to go through to arrive at the same point that this single sentence in the DOI show the basic pragmatic difficulty of atheism.

For those with IQs of 130 ir greater, atheism may tentatively supply a certain amount of tangible relative meanings to life's ultimate questions, within a predefined range of previously defined parameters of course.

For those who want these answers summed up in fifty words or less while standing on one foot, 'unalienanble rights endowed by our Creator' supplies a clarity that even a fifth grader is able to grasp.

I already stated twice, now thrice, that this statment on God is not a theological, but a political one.
So whatever you are disagreeing with, it is not me.

 

[Wirraway]

Is Obama a believer in Ayn Rand?

I think not.


True or not, Ayn Rand's statement lacks the succintness and the clarity of the DOI. The mental gymnastics that atheism has to go through to arrive at the same point that this single sentence in the DOI show the basic pragmatic difficulty of atheism.

For those with IQs of 130 ir greater, atheism may tentatively supply a certain amount of tangible relative meanings to life's ultimate questions, within a predefined range of previously defined parameters of course.

For those who want these answers summed up in fifty words or less while standing on one foot, 'unalienanble rights endowed by our Creator' supplies a clarity that even a fifth grader is able to grasp.

I already stated twice, now thrice, that this statment on God is not a theological, but a political one.
So whatever you are disagreeing with, it is not me.

you're not a clear writer, so I cordially asked for a better explanation, I get this "fifth grader" nonsense?

what Rand believes is not important except to illustrate two points of political history: first, there are several theories about the source of human rights that exclude God; and second, whatever source is asserted, the salient point is that it not be the government itself.

concocting another obama-bad moment over the mangling of the DOI is trite.

 

[Alicia_M]

Oh, well, I'm not just thinking of this one article but all the legislation and the whole agenda since before Obama was even a candidate.

If you look at all that big picture, then its easy to judge that Obama has denied the Lord in some very substantial ways. Much more so than St. Peter did out of fear. The difference is, St. Peter knew he erred and repented right away. Obama doesn't know the meaning of that word because he thinks his agenda is all that matters.

For some legislative facts let me refer you to this article:
Obama's First 100 Days: The anti-life plan is now established

This was just 100 days mind you.

Proportionately speaking, I was anti-Obama before it was cool.

Thanks for the link.

I also went and poked around the white house website a bit. Following, in turn, to the Born Alive Act since it had been mentioned in the thread.

...

As it was, I "predicted" Obama would win the presidency during the infancy of his campaign due to the "tone" in America. I didn't, though, encourage voting for him. (My hubby and grandpa hated those words from my lips.) I'm not trying to ascribe to prophetics; it was merely noticing the "feelings" of the American public.

*begs the pardon of the OP* Sorry, AMGD. Not trying to derail the thread. I'll keep the side thoughts to PMs from now on.

 

[AMDG]

*begs the pardon of the OP* Sorry, AMGD.

No problem. Honest. Your posts are interesting.

 

[Alicia_M]

at least we agree its rhetoric.

Rhetoric (contained within the DOI) that early Americans died for? Yes. Rhetoric only? No.

whatever the brits thought isn't important.

Exactly, and it's where my point stems from (paraphrased): wether seen as a force of law or not, the rhetoric contained within the DOI was, infact, backed up by a force--a force of blood that outlined that every person is endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights...

I said the DOI isn't a legal document in american law. its brevity makes it ideal for the short attention span theater of modern politics, but ... so what of obama misquotes it? exactly what does in matter beyond the "gotcha"?

As to the first sentece, the response I could give would be the first written in the second paragraph. Beyond the "gotcha"? Maybe we could point to Obama's proposed "amendment" in later speeches.

 

[Wirraway]

... Beyond the "gotcha"? Maybe we could point to Obama's proposed "amendment" in later speeches.

if you think you can turn this into more votes for the GOP in a few days, I'm all for flogging it around. but I wouldn't invest too heavily in the possibilities.

 

[Alicia_M]

if you think you can turn this into more votes for the GOP in a few days, I'm all for flogging it around. but I wouldn't invest too heavily in the possibilities.

Sorry, I took humor.

What did I find amusing? Obama's campaign was designed around a form of "hope": possibilities. Irony, maybe?

People will vote their conscience come election time. In other words, what their hopeful candidate stands for and against. The "yea" and "nay" makes the difference.

The point I made of Obama's proposed "amendment" was that regardless of his own agendas, he *must* comply with the will of the people or be fired.

If the majority wills that all people are indeed endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, the president *must* echo the sentiment or be out of a job.

 

[Wirraway]

...

The point I made of Obama's proposed "amendment" was that regardless of his own agendas, he *must* comply with the will of the people or be fired.

If the majority wills that all people are indeed endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, the president *must* echo the sentiment or be out of a job.

he'll pay lip service to the sentiment, depending on his audience at the time. at some point, he'll address a conference of southern baptists and rest assured the One will mention The One many times.

if the phrase "endowed by their Creator" ever became substantive law, we're all in trouble.

 

[Alicia_M]

he'll pay lip service to the sentiment, depending on his audience at the time.

Which brings us to SolomonVII's point:

I already stated twice, now thrice, that this statment on God is not a theological, but a political one.
So whatever you are disagreeing with, it is not me.

(If I'm misrepresenting you, SolomonVII, correct me.)

I share the above sentiments if I'm interpreting correctly.

at some point, he'll address a conference of southern baptists and rest assured the One will mention The One many times.

Creepy, right?

if the phrase "endowed by their Creator" ever became substantive law, we're all in trouble.

Obama's "version" if portrayed in this light? We could be.