Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

Back to the beginning

This letter has not been edited

David Cook, Loveland

Published July 9, 2008 at 6 p.m.

Text size  

“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"...

With these words the United States of American was brought into existance. It seem that in the past 30 to 50 years, there are those who deny them. There are those who say that America is not a Godly nation but a secular one. This is what is taught in the schools right in town there today. Well, nothing could be further from the truth. The above makes it clear that the soul of our nation is founded in “Creation", that that soul has a “Creator” and not an evolution. Unalienable” settles it. That means “God given". And therein lies the rub. If our rights come from God, they cannot be taken by government. If they come from evolution and thus man, a government of men can dictate them totally.

The above statement of rights is unique in the history of men. Individual liberty with God given personal rights. Where did that come from?

“It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by rreligionists, but by Christians, not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ!” John Quincy Adams, son of the founder John Adams ( who assisted Thomas Jefferson in writing those words) and President of the United States.

Comments

  • July 9, 2008

    7:03 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    me2 writes:

    At the time, this was the best the founding fathers could think of, and it is too bad they used "created" which implies a creator.

    They had never heard of evolution at the time, although there were people all over the world getting the idea of natural selection.

    The only right humans have is to be conceived human, after that they have no more rights than a chipmunk.

    The use or misuse of words does not "settle" anything.

  • July 9, 2008

    9:22 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    me2 writes:

    Well, here we are again, the Three Musketeers.

  • July 9, 2008

    9:38 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    jgd writes:

    More like the Three Stooges!

  • July 10, 2008

    7:23 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    becca00 writes:

    Regarding the Creator of the Declaration of Independence:

    The philosophical intent of the use of "Creator"—"… endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights …"—is to state that the rights we possess are inherent and inalienable by virtue of our very existence, regardless of whether we are created by the Judeo-Christian God, some other god, or by cosmic happenstance. Thus, even if it is somehow proven that no god exists at all and we are the creations of little green men from another galaxy, it still stands that our rights to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" are, and remain, inalienable.

    Yet the Declaration’s language of “Nature’s God” and the “Creator”--tenuously religious terms of 18th Century Deists, skeptical of religion and the Judeo-Christian God--are nowhere to be found in the U.S. Constitution. Instead we find prohibitions. Article VI mandates that “no religious test” shall be required to hold public office, and the First Amendment prohibits government from taking any official action with respect to religion, or prohibiting the free exercise, thereof. From these prohibitions, Jefferson’s wall of separation between church and state is clearly visible, and the Judeo-Christian God (or any god, for that matter) are forever shut out of our Constitution.

    The idea of a Christian Nation becomes little more than the wishful thinking of religious-minded power-mongers and mealy-mouthed ministers seeking to expand the scope of their influence beyond their congregation—a concept that is utterly and completely at odds with the core principles at the heart of our guarantees of life, liberty, and property.

    More ...

    http://blog.themadmanspeaks.com/relig...

  • July 10, 2008

    7:54 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    becca00 writes:

    For the letter writer and his supporters, I have a very simple question. To anyone that wants to argue that the United States is a Christian nation or founded upon the Christian religion, I ask you this:

    Q. Where in our Constitution does it acknowledge or state that the U.S. relies upon the Judeo-Christian God, Christianity, or Christian morality?

    A. It doesn’t. Period. God is not mentioned once. Religion appears exactly twice, once in Article VI where the “no religious test” prohibition is articulated, and once in the First Amendment prohibiting the establishment of any religion.

    Now, if an entire Constitutional Convention comprised of 55 delegates from 12 states, laboring for 2.5 months, sought to “establish a Christian nation,” it would stand to reason that our Constitution would be more reflective of the alleged Christian establishment than a document devoid of reference to the Judeo-Christian God and explicitly banning any establishment, requirement, or reliance upon any “religion” which, by definition, includes Christianity.

    Or did they just forget to add that part in?

    Of course, there have been multiple attempts to amend our Constitution to explicitly include Christianity: In 1863, 1874, 1896, 1910, 1954, 1962, and 1998. All have failed.

    Q. So where is the Christian God?

    A. NOT in the U.S. Constitution.

  • July 10, 2008

    8:04 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    becca00 writes:

    One must wonder how Mr. Cook gets from Jefferson's use of "Creator" to "Creation" and a refutation of evolution. That is truly a piece of intellectual gymnastics.

    I don't even know where to begin addressing it because it so monumentally ignorant and devoid of reasoning.

  • July 10, 2008

    3:30 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    rpmcmurphy writes:

    Taken from becca00 723am post:

    Article VI mandates that “no religious test” shall be required to hold public office, and the First Amendment prohibits government from taking any official action with respect to religion, or prohibiting the free exercise, thereof.

    If the government is prohibited from taking any official action with respect to religion, or prohibiting the free exercise, thereof, then why can't children pray in schools or before sporting events if they want to? That doesn't seem to me to be an official endorsement of one religion over another.

    Freedom OF religion, as espoused by the nations founders is totally different from freedom FROM relgion as espoused by so many today.

  • July 10, 2008

    5:43 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    IronmanCarmichael writes:

    If David Cook of Loveland is on the comeback trail (remember when there would be a letter from him nearly every day?), you'd think he could at least offer new material. Yeah, yeah, we get it: the Founding Fathers believed in God more than two centuries ago, so all subsequent Americans are obligated to do so as well. Been there, heard that, didn't buy the T-shirt.

    Next!

  • July 10, 2008

    5:44 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    me2 writes:

    Children can pray in school. But the teacher can`t officially lead them. This also applies to the coach, principal, anyone in authority.

    I do think I may be the first person to ever point this out to you rpmcmuphy, and it pains me to think that no one has ever thought enough of your opinion on this to remind you that prayer in the head is always allowed, and prayer out loud is always allowed before and after class. In class, if you remember your childhood, when the teacher said be quiet, that was it.

    No praying out loud, no whispering to your girl friend about Jesus or anything else.

    In class we keep our hands on the desk and our mouths shut.

  • July 10, 2008

    9:34 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    becca00 writes:

    Thanks, Me2. Well stated.

    To rpmcmurphy: If you're going to belly-ache about something, at least bother to educate yourself on the facts.

    Prohibitions on school prayer target officially led/sanctioned prayers in school. As noted by Me2, children are free to pray on their own in school--they can do so while ignoring the teacher's lesson or walking to/from classes.

    Besides, why do you need the government to assist in promoting your religion? Is it so weak that it requires government assistance? We can put government support of your religion in the building right next to where they hand out the government cheese. On stop shopping.

  • July 11, 2008

    11:11 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    me2 writes:

    Your welcome becca00, it makes me all warm and happy to be quoted.

    Imagine rpmcmurphy if the teacher is a Muslim and leads the kids in that kind of prayer.

  • July 11, 2008

    1:42 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    rpmcmurphy writes:

    me2 and becca00, your are both very successfull at being snide, coarse, and sarcastic. You must be part of the new humanist movement or something. You go Comrades!

  • July 12, 2008

    12:39 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    me2 writes:

    I am a proud member of the secular/humanist/liberal movement. And the term is comadres.

  • July 12, 2008

    12:48 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    me2 writes:

    rpmcmurphy, I successfully refuted your statement that kids can`t pray in school, which should have been that kids can`t pray in school with a figure of authority leading them.

    The way to avoid our sarcasm is to not spout propaganda, but say the truth, such as: children can pray by themselves in school, the teachers can`t order the pray time.

    When people complain that "children can not pray in school", what they really are upset about is that "Teachers can not lead children in Christian prayer".

    Be more honest and we won`t snark you.