"... that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights ..."

[Oceandan]

I have no idea if this thread is in the right place, but oh well.

Anybody who has stuck around for more than 30 seconds of a discussion of Constitutional rights has had the term "unalienable rights" (or inalienable, if the speaker is confused) thrown at them. These words are nowhere to be found in the Constitution, of course, but the Declaration of Independence -- a document which is an integral piece of our history and which reflects the mindset of many of the framers, but which has no legal standing under the Constitution.

Nevertheless, it got me thinking: If we assume that those words had been included in the Constitution, then they would have legal standing -- but what would they mean? Well, "Creator" suggests that these rights come from a divine source of some kind. Many of the religions known to the framers came complete with holy books that we are told were divinely inspired. I haven't read most of them, but I'm familiar enough with the Bible to say with confidence that god never sat down with his children and laid out a list of our human rights. People keep telling me this is a Christian nation, after all, so I figured it was a good place to start.

Could someone, anyone, point to a canonized or otherwise divinely inspired religious text that would've factored into the thinking of the framers which lays out these rights for us?

Interesting questions.

Pardon my redundancy but put your self in the frame of mind of the framers. What were they attempting to escape or rectify. Escaping King George's demand for a single denomination was one aspect. I believe they were brilliant in making no mention of a religious denomination in the instruments that birthed our nation.

When you think of it, "they are endowed by their creator", allows for most any belief system. My creator may be different from your creator. The words chosen were not "we are endowed by Thee Creator, right? I believe this was part and parcel of their seeking to have "separation of Church and state". Again, though realize they didn't say "separation of Church from state.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are Biblical principles, although I'm not a theologist who can direct you to specific chapter/verse. It's undeniable many of the framers had a belief in God.

Again, I would submit they were masterful in refraining from quoting specific texts, since the crux of their thought process was "for all".

Anywho, my two cents. Very interesting manner in which you are processing information. I commend you.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Thanks for responding, folks, I appreciate it...

Could you point them out to me? I'm not a biblical scholar, so I wouldn't have a clue to begin.

Here's a go:

Life: Genesis [2:7] then the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being.

Pursuit of Happiness: Genesis [2:8] And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

Liberty (harder): Isaiah 61:1 "The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because the Lord has anointed me to bring good news to the poor; he has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to those who are bound;"

Galatians 5:1 "For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery."

So it's possible to use Biblical interpretations to support unalienable rights. However, as other's have explained, the Founding Fathers were calling on God in confirmation of elightenment views of "self-evident" rights.

 

[Paschendale]

Here's a go:

Life: Genesis [2:7] then the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being.

Pursuit of Happiness: Genesis [2:8] And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

Liberty (harder): Isaiah 61:1 "The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because the Lord has anointed me to bring good news to the poor; he has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to those who are bound;"

Galatians 5:1 "For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery."

So it's possible to use Biblical interpretations to support unalienable rights. However, as other's have explained, the Founding Fathers were calling on God in confirmation of elightenment views of "self-evident" rights.

These passages merely talk about god making people live. One could just as easily interpret the many passages where god kills people or commands people to kill others as evidence for a lack of a right to life. Likewise, there are plenty of passages that suggest that earthly pursuits are irrelevant and that only faith matters. That means that happiness doesn't matter, only obedience to god's law does. And for any passages supporting liberty, scripture explicitly condones slavery, and not in the clearly defined racial slavery we had here, where a person was clearly delineated between slave and free person. These slaves were captives of war. Meaning that any person's liberty could be stolen by the mere application of superior force against them. And god then commands slaves to obey their masters. God could free any slave, but did not.

I don't think one can really find any of our modern values in scripture without a powerful exercise in cherry picking.

 

[greyhat]

Here's a go:

Life: Genesis [2:7] then the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being.

Pursuit of Happiness: Genesis [2:8] And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

Liberty (harder): Isaiah 61:1 "The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because the Lord has anointed me to bring good news to the poor; he has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to those who are bound;"

Galatians 5:1 "For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery."

So it's possible to use Biblical interpretations to support unalienable rights. However, as other's have explained, the Founding Fathers were calling on God in confirmation of elightenment views of "self-evident" rights.

Wow- now that is a stretch- not even close by a mile.

 

[Captain Adverse]

These passages merely talk about god making people live... I don't think one can really find any of our modern values in scripture without a powerful exercise in cherry picking.

Wow- now that is a stretch- not even close by a mile.

Guys, in my original response I said it would be easy to find "Life" in the Bible, the others (liberty and pursuit of happiness) not so easy. Arguing that that God did not give us Life is just silly. The rest....well I said it was subject to interpretation; did you both miss the last part...

...So it's possible to use Biblical interpretations to support unalienable rights. However, as other's have explained, the Founding Fathers were calling on God in confirmation of elightenment views of "self-evident" rights.

Relax, he asked me to try to find some, so I made the attempt.

 

[Visbek]

Guys, in my original response I said it would be easy to find "Life" in the Bible, the others (liberty and pursuit of happiness) not so easy. Arguing that that God did not give us Life is just silly.

Unless you are not a theist.

That said, it is possible to believe in a deity without believing in inherent rights. It would not be a stretch for a deist to say that once God set up the universe, It refrains from subsequent interference, including granting rights to a bunch of meatbags on one tiny planet in one of the 100+ billion galaxies in the universe.

That said, I concur with the above that your interpretation doesn't hold. There is no explicit listing of protected or granted rights in the New Testament, nor an embrace of democracies, republics or elections. In addition, numerous monarchs, feudal lords and church officials spent centuries defending their regimes and hierarchical organizations by citing Christian theological principles.

I.e. phrases in most religious texts are ambiguous enough to justify a wide variety of behaviors or political beliefs. Not all, but a surprisingly broad array.

 

[Thoreau72]

I have no idea if this thread is in the right place, but oh well.

Anybody who has stuck around for more than 30 seconds of a discussion of Constitutional rights has had the term "unalienable rights" (or inalienable, if the speaker is confused) thrown at them. These words are nowhere to be found in the Constitution, of course, but the Declaration of Independence -- a document which is an integral piece of our history and which reflects the mindset of many of the framers, but which has no legal standing under the Constitution.

Nevertheless, it got me thinking: If we assume that those words had been included in the Constitution, then they would have legal standing -- but what would they mean? Well, "Creator" suggests that these rights come from a divine source of some kind. Many of the religions known to the framers came complete with holy books that we are told were divinely inspired. I haven't read most of them, but I'm familiar enough with the Bible to say with confidence that god never sat down with his children and laid out a list of our human rights. People keep telling me this is a Christian nation, after all, so I figured it was a good place to start.

Could someone, anyone, point to a canonized or otherwise divinely inspired religious text that would've factored into the thinking of the framers which lays out these rights for us?

A good question Dan. I'll pass on the religious text part, but would point out that the founders were very much "enlightenment" thinkers, which included an awareness that religion and politics are separate issues, and a smart society will see to it that things remain that way. Hence the First Amendment and its demand for neutrality on the part of the government in religious matters.

As for the matter of rights, I would offer the Ninth Amendment as an example of their idea that an exhaustive listing of The Rights Of Man is virtually impossible. That is, man has more rights than any political document could possibly include.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

Pardon my redundancy but put your self in the frame of mind of the framers. What were they attempting to escape or rectify. Escaping King George's demand for a single denomination was one aspect. I believe they were brilliant in making no mention of a religious denomination in the instruments that birthed our nation.

I agree.

When you think of it, "they are endowed by their creator", allows for most any belief system. My creator may be different from your creator. The words chosen were not "we are endowed by Thee Creator, right? I believe this was part and parcel of their seeking to have "separation of Church and state". Again, though realize they didn't say "separation of Church from state.

I agree.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are Biblical principles, although I'm not a theologist who can direct you to specific chapter/verse.

Well, that's what I'm looking for. Also, someone else made the point earlier that a right to liberty and the pursuit happiness are in fact not Biblical principles at all.

Very interesting manner in which you are processing information. I commend you.

I'm a big believer in asking, "says who?"

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

Here's a go:

Life: Genesis [2:7] then the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being.

Okay.

Pursuit of Happiness: Genesis [2:8] And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

Which makes sense, but then they sinned and were booted out.

Liberty (harder): Isaiah 61:1 "The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because the Lord has anointed me to bring good news to the poor; he has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to those who are bound;"

Galatians 5:1 "For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery."

I always thought that had more to do with freedom from sin, or at least freedom from certain eternal punishment for sin.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

A good question Dan. I'll pass on the religious text part, but would point out that the founders were very much "enlightenment" thinkers, which included an awareness that religion and politics are separate issues, and a smart society will see to it that things remain that way. Hence the First Amendment and its demand for neutrality on the part of the government in religious matters.

As for the matter of rights, I would offer the Ninth Amendment as an example of their idea that an exhaustive listing of The Rights Of Man is virtually impossible. That is, man has more rights than any political document could possibly include.

Did "enlightenment" thinkers have definite thoughts about divinely imparted rights? If they did, then I guess that sort of precludes trying to find the source for the idea in a religious text.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Which makes sense, but then they sinned and were booted out.

But the dominion was never withdrawn. They just lost eternal physical life (could not eat of the fruit of the Tree of Life anymore because they no longer had access).

I always thought that had more to do with freedom from sin, or at least freedom from certain eternal punishment for sin.

As I said, Liberty is not clearly indicated in the Bible. I just tried t locate wherever liberty or freedom was used. It appears several times, but without clear reference to what Jefferson was writing about.

Again, I don't think Jefferson was claiming the Bible contained support for his points in the declaration. The preamble starts with "We hold these truths to be self-evident..." that certain rights exist. The mention of the Creator is to call on an ultimate source to allay dispute.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

But the dominion was never withdrawn. They just lost eternal physical life (could not eat of the fruit of the Tree of Life anymore because they no longer had access).

As I said, Liberty is not clearly indicated in the Bible. I just tried t locate wherever liberty or freedom was used. It appears several times, but without clear reference to what Jefferson was writing about.

Again, I don't think Jefferson was claiming the Bible contained support for his points in the declaration. The preamble starts with "We hold these truths to be self-evident..." that certain rights exist. The mention of the Creator is to call on an ultimate source to allay dispute.

I see what you're getting at.

 

[Thoreau72]

Did "enlightenment" thinkers have definite thoughts about divinely imparted rights? If they did, then I guess that sort of precludes trying to find the source for the idea in a religious text.

It's my understanding that most of the founders were 'deists', in that they recognized the spiritual side of our existence on this planet, and recognized the Rights Of Man, as Paine described them. Many referred to them as Natural Rights, Birth Rights, and a number of other descriptions, I suppose.

I would agree that no religious text was cited as the source for these rights.

 

[Erod]

Good discussion.

The beauty of the Constitution, to me, was that it was almost entirely based on the Bible, namely the Ten Commandments and teachings of Jesus, and yet it was written in a way that didn't exclude anyone from its promisings. It is secularly unsecular. Same for the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights.

Yes, this even for the slaves. You can almost hear in Jefferson's and Madison's writings that they knew slavery would not last forever, and that the nation would correct its ugly side if it adhered to the new law.

 

[Visbek]

The beauty of the Constitution, to me, was that it was almost entirely based on the Bible, namely the Ten Commandments and teachings of Jesus....

Uh, no, it really wasn't.

The Constitution does not include injunctions against adultery, murder or to keep the Sabbath. The principles behind the Ten Commandments are "Do what God tells you to do, or else." The principles behind the Constitution are "the people should have a say in how they are governed, as long certain rights are not abused." The Constitution also rather explicitly restricts Congress from establishing a state religion.

Jesus never advocated a republican form of government; if anything, he probably would have associated that with Rome, whom he regarded as the enemy of the Jews. He did not espouse democracy, or elections, or any theories of natural or inherent rights. The concept of "rights" didn't really exist at that time. The most successful religious organizations based on Jesus' teachings were not only hierarchical and anti-democratic, they also willingly supported monarchies and feudal states.

I.e. the framers were Christians, but the basic ideas of the Constitution were formed by Enlightenment philosophers like Locke, Hobbes and Rousseau.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

The beauty of the Constitution, to me, was that it was almost entirely based on the Bible, namely the Ten Commandments and teachings of Jesus

Upon what do you base this assertion?

 

[Erod]

Upon what do you base this assertion?

It, and our basic legal system, is based on Judao Christian values. It's rather self evident.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

It, and our basic legal system, is based on Judao Christian values. It's rather self evident.

What parts of the Constitution lend themselves to a Judao Christian origin?

 

[zgoldsmith23]

What parts of the Constitution lend themselves to a Judao Christian origin?

Well, at first, it didn't outlaw slavery. :lol:

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

Well, at first, it didn't outlaw slavery. :lol:

Oh, Christ advocated slavery? Must've missed that gospel.

 

[zgoldsmith23]

Oh, Christ advocated slavery? Must've missed that gospel.

Didn't say that.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

Didn't say that.

Oh, okay. Then maybe you want to restrict your snark to the Old Testament.

 

[zgoldsmith23]

Oh, okay. Then maybe you want to restrict your snark to the Old Testament.

You did say Judeo, no? Did Jesus denounce slavery, too?

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

You did say Judeo, no? Did Jesus denounce slavery, too?

Jesus taught that everybody sins and falls short, god loves everybody and that as we treat the least so we treat him. Oh, and he hated rules lawyers, so he wouldn't have approved of your asking for something that explicit when it should be obvious to anyone who paid attention to what he said.

 

[zgoldsmith23]

Jesus taught that everybody sins and falls short, god loves everybody and that as we treat the least so we treat him. Oh, and he hated rules lawyers, so he wouldn't have approved of your asking for something that explicit when it should be obvious to anyone who paid attention to what he said.

Idk, I've read the New Testament - doesn't exactly seem like it denounces slavery too well. :shrug: