“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; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principals and organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”
2007-11-08 05:45:47 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
The problem is, that this is based on Utilitarianism, however, the creator of Utilitarianism, found it to be distasteful that the founding fathers fell back on the "endowed by their creator" bit, as a means of expressing why they felt that we had certain rights. He felt that it was really cutting alot of corners, but , I think it was understandable, since, this was considered a compromise that would be acceptable to all of them...Appeasing the religious with a reference to Deity, but appeasing the Deist and Agnostic among them, with it being a reference to a non-defined concept of God.
Notice, that in all the writings, that references are to Creator or just God, with no specific reference to any one God, such as Allah, or YHVH or Jesus. This is the mark of Deism and Agnosticism, and not worship or allegiance to any one concept of Deity.
So, while most of the founding fathers weren't Atheist (which I believe a few were) some were believers, but a good number were Agnostic or Deists. In reality, tho, it is just a restatement of the philosophy of Utilitarianism, which is an Atheist philosophy, and a means of making ethical decisions based off of logic, and the perceived effects of those decisions, and not having anything to do with religious belief.
2007-11-08 06:02:26 · answer #1 · answered by Hatir Ba Loon 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
How about this?
“We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are equal; that they each possess 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; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principals and organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”
No mention of God (or any creator), but it contains the exact same message.
2007-11-08 05:53:34 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
And when that piece of paper is written, slavery persisted for more than 100 years...
The paper was written by man for governing purposes of a new republic and a statement of seperation from the British, it is not a moral code nor is it a proof of a god. Were it intended as a true moral code, the men who had written it would have given up their own slaves and followed the 'all men are created equal' phrase. Alas, it is not so...
2007-11-08 05:58:48 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
There is another famous "quote" athiests live by.....too bad others don't:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
How I wish the so-called "religious" people would have this done up in needlepoint, framed and hung in their living room........
2007-11-08 05:58:09 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Don't think there are too many agnostics or atheists out there that would find anything but something right with the ideals espoused by the declaration of ind. The thinking however that led to writing this document was most heavily influenced by John Locke's "The rights of man".
2007-11-08 05:51:33 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
The fact that they say Creator instead of God shows that they are talking about the watchmaker deity of Deism. I have no problem with this view. Besides, the Constitution, which unlike the Declaration of Independence, is a legal document, has no mention of any deity.
2007-11-08 05:55:22 · answer #6 · answered by Eiliat 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I agree that nature endowed me with certain unalienable rights.
You call the creator God, your neighbors call him Allah, and still others call her Vishnu or Thor.
I believe that our survival as top species dictates that all humans whether black, white, yellow or red are equal. Your creator, indicates in the bible that this isn't the case and that its ok fo some of the colored folks to be enslaved.
I disagree.
2007-11-08 05:55:19 · answer #7 · answered by ɹɐǝɟsuɐs Blessed Cheese Maker 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I prefer this:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
2007-11-08 05:55:56 · answer #8 · answered by Beavis Christ AM 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
My parents were my creator. I know they endowed me with rights. But I still had to eat my veggies.
(Gee, God still isn't in the Declaration of Independence!)
2007-11-08 05:48:04 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋
The quote is from the Declaration of Independence.
"God" isn't named as God.....but referred to as "Creator."
2007-11-08 05:52:36 · answer #10 · answered by Richard F 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋