• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is the Bill of Rights based on the Ten Commandments?

No, nothing in the Constitution is based on The 10 commandments or the bible in general. It is a secular document based on the Magna Carta and the principles of enlightenment.

Hume, Locke, Descartes, Paine, Hobbes, Rousseau and others.
 
Last edited:
The sources for the BOR isn’t some esoteric or arcane knowledge. A principal source was the Magna Charta. Another source was Natural Law Rights and Liberties, primarily a Lockean notion of natural liberty. The English statute of 1350 first making reference to “due process of law.” The English Bill of Rights in 1689, various state constitutions’ recognition of rights, the common law expounding these sources, other decisions by the English courts, and the writings of famed jurists such as Sir Edward Coke, Blackstone, and others.

Exactly but these rights were never really listed or codified, they were merely stated as rights a human being has theoretically due to be a human being. The BOR listed some that meant a lot to the founders but they knew that was not the full list, that is why we have the 9th. Folks tend to forget that the century prior to our founding was revolutionary in terms of philosophy, thought and the idea that all men are equal at least in theory. As it turns out, our founders were heavily influenced by highly intelligent Native Americans as well. If you are interested in this type of stuff, go get this book https://www.amazon.com/Dawn-Everything-New-History-Humanity/dp/B08TYBMHGV/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3GHEWJPR1JSA2&keywords=graeber+and+wengrow+the+dawn+of+everything&qid=1648754391&s=books&sprefix=graeber,stripbooks,137&sr=1-1

Really interesting stuff about debates and conversations between some Iriquois intellectuals and Europeans on the nature of both world views.
 
Those words will win over even more evangelicals.
 
And you can't comprehend why that makes zero sense to anyone but you.

It's like this.

After being exposed deliberately editing his posts to make it appear he said something he didn't, you didn't even acknowledge that willful deception.
Instead, you had the audacity to continue questioning him on that very same duplicitous premise.
 
Retired general and conspiracy theorist Michael Flynn spoke at a campaign rally this past Saturday for MAGA pastor Jackson Lahmeyer who is running against fellow Republican, Sen. James Lankford. During his rather incoherent speech, I guess he learned from Donnie, that America needs to get back to the Christianity that the nation was founded upon. After stating that the word "Creator" may be read four times in the Constitution, he also said the following:


If the Bill of Rights isn't based on the Ten Commandments, what is the origin of those enumerated rights?

In case you don't know, the word "Creator" is not in the Constitution nor is the word "God".
Look up the philosopher John Locke and his ideas.

Locke came up with an idea of sovereignty that didn't depend on nobility and that was the state of the art in terms of the philosophy of human rights at the time.
 
I think that's his point, as he has enumerated several examples of "rights" that are supposedly protected under the Constitution that have been revoked for some when it is expedient for the government to do so. In many respects, the BOR is an illusion when it suits the government.
Which has frequently been corrected by the courts when those rights have been threatened.
 
And you can't comprehend why that makes zero sense to anyone but you.

Oh the irony. The above is from someone who resorted to intentionally cutting and pasting my comments in a specific manner to purposely present a falsehood of what I in fact did say, all done because you screwed up the easy to read, plain English in my post.

My retort doesn’t make sense to you but that consistent with you, as the plain English, impossible to screw up of my post was screwed up by your tortured reading.
 
Oh the irony.

I doubt you know what irony is
Hint: It's not rain on your wedding day, or the good advice that you just didn't take...

The above is from someone who resorted to intentionally cutting and pasting my comments in a specific manner to purposely present a falsehood of what I in fact did say, all done because you screwed up the easy to read, plain English in my post.

Oh the irony !

My retort doesn’t make sense to you but that consistent with you, as the plain English, impossible to screw up of my post was screwed up by your tortured reading.

Or, I suspect, anyone.
 
I doubt you know what irony is
Hint: It's not rain on your wedding day, or the good advice that you just didn't take...



Oh the irony !



Or, I suspect, anyone.

Nothing to say about the absolutely dishonest editing of his post that you earlier engaged in, at least twice?
 
Oh the irony. The above is from someone who resorted to intentionally cutting and pasting my comments in a specific manner to purposely present a falsehood of what I in fact did say, all done because you screwed up the easy to read, plain English in my post.

My retort doesn’t make sense to you but that consistent with you, as the plain English, impossible to screw up of my post was screwed up by your tortured reading.

 
Though shall not commit adultery

That one was left out of the Constitution intentionally.😉
 
I doubt you know what irony is
Hint: It's not rain on your wedding day, or the good advice that you just didn't take...



Oh the irony !



Or, I suspect, anyone.

No, just you. You have already demonstrated you will descend to dishonestly represent my view because your hubris prohibitively left you with only that recourse.

And the act of fraudulently representating what I said was to cover up your inexplicable blunder of misreading the simply, plain English in my post.

You’ve demonstrated, factually, a difficulty to properly and correctly understand what another has said in plain English. That includes the word “irony.”
 
And the act of fraudulently representating what I said was to cover up your inexplicable blunder of misreading the simply, plain English in my post.

You’ve demonstrated, factually, a difficulty to properly and correctly understand what another has said in plain English. That includes the word “irony.”
Is it possible that the misrepresentation was not fraudulent but simply the result of trying to make sense out of massive amounts of undisciplined verbiage?
 
Is it possible that the misrepresentation was not fraudulent but simply the result of trying to make sense out of massive amounts of undisciplined verbiage?

Would that account for-twice-selectively editing his words? The editing is what changed the meaning.

NotreDame wrote: It says YOU tragically (the tragedy continues unabated) thought I was asserting as a fact natural law/natural rights exist.

Rich's edit: I was asserting as a fact natural law/natural rights exist.
 
Last edited:
The sources for the BOR isn’t some esoteric or arcane knowledge. A principal source was the Magna Charta. Another source was Natural Law Rights and Liberties, primarily a Lockean notion of natural liberty. The English statute of 1350 first making reference to “due process of law.” The English Bill of Rights in 1689, various state constitutions’ recognition of rights, the common law expounding these sources, other decisions by the English courts, and the writings of famed jurists such as Sir Edward Coke, Blackstone, and others.
the next post is
Where can I find these "Natural Law" rights ?
The answer should have been something like: "In the document XX by BBB" or "In the philosophy of VV found in RR collection" For some reason the immediate answer was this incomprehensible nastiness:
My god man, if you thought I referenced them to make the point they exist, you are way off the reservation. You’ll find them
right where you’ll find the rational practice of reading and accurately understanding what you read, wherever that may exist for you.
Again Rich asked:
If they exist, where can I find a source to look them up ?
Again the answer should either have given a source or apologized for not knowing the source. But the answer to the fairly reasonable question was to inexplicably state "I never asserted or took the opinion they exist"
If I was asserting they existed, then I’d feel obligated to answer your question. I do not feel obligated to answer your question, hence, I never asserted or took the opinion they exist

Any other irrevelant to what I stated questions you want to pose? Care to ask for my favorite color and whether I have a natural right to so choose? Want to know my SAT scores and whether and whether I had a natural right to take the exam?

It would appear that ND is not being misquoted.
 
the next post is

The answer should have been something like: "In the document XX by BBB" or "In the philosophy of VV found in RR collection" For some reason the immediate answer was this incomprehensible nastiness:

Again Rich asked:

Again the answer should either have given a source or apologized for not knowing the source. But the answer to the fairly reasonable question was to inexplicably state "I never asserted or took the opinion they exist"


It would appear that ND is not being misquoted.

He absolutely was, and I showed exactly how. But whatever.
 
Back
Top Bottom