Last year, I wrote a column rebutting Sen. Tim Kaine’s (D., Va.) attack on a nominee for expressing his belief in natural rights that derive from God, not the government. (He later backtracked after a public outcry). Now, MSNOW host Katy Tur seems to be echoing the same concern over Speaker Mike Johnson expressing his faith in natural rights at the “Rededicate 250” rally on the mall in Washington, DC.
Those voices have seeked to distort the self-evident truth that we know so well, that our founders boldly proclaimed in the Declaration: That our rights do not derive from the government. They come from you, our creator and heavenly father.
The line clearly caused Tur some alarm. The host raised it with the show’s panelists:
What about this passage from Mike Johnson declaring that our rights do not derive from government? They come from you, our creator and heavenly father. Is this him putting God over the Declaration of Independence?
It is an astonishing question given that express reliance on God as the source for the rights declared in that document.
In my new book, Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution, I detail how the Declaration of Independence (and our nation as a whole) was founded on a deep belief in natural laws coming from our Creator, not government. Ours was the world’s first major Enlightenment revolution based on those very natural rights.
That view is captured in the Declaration, which states, “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.”
The view stated by Kaine did exist at the founding — and it was rejected. Alexander Hamilton wrote that “The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old parchments or musty records. They are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the Divinity itself, and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.”
The irony is that the acknowledgment of natural rights does not “put God over the Declaration of Independence.” It is the very premise of that Declaration.
As I discuss in the book, the right of the colonists to rebel was a major question debated before the Revolution. Loyalists would often cite Romans 13, in which Paul the Apostle reminds Christians that they must obey civil authorities and be loyal subjects. It would be Reverend Jonathan Mayhew to put this argument to bed, using his pulpit at Boston’s Old West Church to explore the moral foundations for both fealty and rebellion for citizens:
“His published sermon “A Discourse Concerning Unlimited Submission and Non-Resistance to the Higher Powers” was given on January 30, 1750, and proved to be one of the most significant publications leading up to the Revolution. Paine’s Common Sense would not be published for twenty-five years, and it was Mayhew who would lay out the moral right, if not obligation, to rebel when natural rights are denied. Mayhew gave the lecture on the one hundredth anniversary of the execution of Charles I, who was experiencing a revival in the minds of many as a martyr.
Mayhew would have none of it and laid out the “general nature and end of magistracy” for a people denied the rights given to them by the Creator. He directly took on the oft-cited biblical authority for those demanding blind loyalty to the King: Romans 13. In the chapter, Paul the Apostle reminds Christians that they must obey the civil authorities and be loyal subjects. The use of this passage, he argued, was a blasphemy in suggesting that a tyrant violating the very natural laws set by God could be treated as “God’s Minister.” To the contrary, there is a moral obligation to oppose such tyrants in defense of God-given rights.”
The Revolution was fought over natural rights that belonged to colonists as human beings, bestowed by God and defended by the American Revolution. The Constitution created a system that guaranteed the protection of those rights contained in the Declaration of Independence.
Speaker Johnson was speaking directly to the foundation of this Republic in reaffirming his faith in natural rights. Of course, the rejection of natural rights in academia and politics is consistent with the view that our rights evolve with a “living Constitution.” What the government giveth, the government may taketh away.
The debate reflected in Tur’s comments could not be more timely or elemental on our 250th anniversary. We must again decide not just who we were then but who we are now as Americans. There are many who want to decouple our system from natural rights as they “reimagine” American democracy and “trash” the American Constitution. It is the same Siren’s Call heard at the founding. That is precisely why Franklin was right that this remains our Republic “if [we] can keep it.”
Atheists need not comment
Some great question for the Press to ask Mike Johnson:
Does Johnson still oppose birth control? Does Johnson still believe it should be a felony for unmarried straight couples to live in the same dwelling? Does Johnson still believe it should be felony for straight married couples to engage on oral sex? Does Johnson believe it should be felony for straight married couples to engage in recreational sex?
Johnson has a legal and constitutional right to believe all of this on his own personal time. Johnson doesn’t have the authority to impose his religious interpretation onto us with government authority.
In 2003 Johnson opposed the “Lawrence v. Texas” ruling and it’s unclear where he stands in 2026. The Press and voters have a right to know does Johnson believe in American religious freedom or 18th Century foreign style theocracy?
Anon, for the sake of brevity there’s political science and political philosophy and moral/ethical philosophy which I think is known as epistemology. There are smart people here. They can explain it better in compare and contrast.
If the founders had been islamic what would the Constitution look like? Is that possible?
Personally, marriage is registration of offspring identifying male and female parents or gamete joining of male female. The political system requires a count of newborns for various fiduciary responsibilities. Beyond that interest you’re free until it impacts others. Imo
To achieve the goal of maximum individual freedom, the Founding Fathers outlawed Congress from imposing any religious interpretation onto Americans under the First Amendment.
Without rules and laws there is no freedom, there is no restraint on powerful groups to violate your individual freedom.
The Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights was in direct response of the Anglican Church (Church of England in the 1700’s) to punish Baptists, Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, Catholics or any non-Anglican Americans for their free exercise of religion. Only the American rules and laws restrained those taking away our freedoms.
Mike Johnson made a promise to GOD in taking his Oath of Office to NOT impose his religious interpretation onto others using his government job. Johnson promised GOD to follow the First Amendment.
As recent as 2003, Johnson opposed the “Lawrence v. Texas” U.S. Supreme Court ruling imposing his religious interpretation onto all of us – violating his promise to GOD and violating the First Amendment.
Although “Lawrence v. Texas” was weaponized and primarily selectively enforced against LGBT-Americans, this ruling also protected straight heterosexual married couples and straight unmarried couples.
Under “Lawrence v. Texas” sexual intercourse was exclusively designed for baby-making, even between straight married couples. It was a felony in some states for straight couples to live together unmarried. A felony to participate in oral sex between straight married couples.
It’s quite possible the biggest winners of “Lawrence v. Texas” providing maximum individual freedom for consenting adults in our own bedrooms are Trump voters.
Mike Johnson apparently still opposes “Lawrence v. Texas” individual freedom and apparently opposed the First Amendment in 2026. To the best of my knowledge, Johnson never changed his view of “Lawrence v. Texas” to impose his own personal religious interpretation onto all of us. Johnson is free to go to church every day on his own personal time, he has no authority to impose his religious interpretation onto you or me.
Speaker johnson does have ethics that information his decisions as each person has or hasn’t. Speaker Johnson’s ethics are those of the founders. He’s not hiding that.
The existential in the crowd impose there personal instincts instead of ethics. There were no laws imposed by him during his speech.
Register your offspring. Get out of the marriage business, government. Its a count, a number of persons present with gamete donors listed because I’m not paying for them or am I? Next of kin is all that’s required cause we’re sending you the bill. Btw the gestation female is next of kin my 2 daddies. 😂
^^^ inform
Sorry for the errors. Johnson has specific morals and ethics. Someone else disagrees with the existence of such. The founders said we hold these truths to be self evident and so says Johnson.
Oh gosh I’m shocked /s
Isn’t it really free will? There are those who think free will is fiction.
I don’t think that ‘Nature’s God’ carries any implication of divine authority, granted exclusively to homo sapiens, to discover and enact that God’s will by means of majority rule and democracy.
Our notion that The People are Sovereign appears to have evolved over the course of centuries in the West as a set of simple decision-making rules that avert violence and that thus have Darwinian survival value for the species. At the same time, the human tendency to think that one religion or tribe has unique divine authority to use violence against others on God’s behalf seems to be an obvious self-contradiction.
Nature’s creator references empirical evidence. Nature when observed has observable facts. Mammals come in male and female is a fact, observable. Self evident facts are present.
I’ll just stop there. It’s profound ignorance. Storks bring babies.
Our rights derive from government?
Upside down.
The government derives from us.
Says so right at the beginning of the Constitution.
“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.”
I capitalized ‘We the people’ because leftists seem always to forget that part.
Will you have the backbone to write about Trump’s slush fund and how the “Injustice Department” issued a memo prohibiting any audits of Trump’s Taxes or his sons? Will you talk about the 3500 trades, about the crypto scam his sons have pulled, about his sons peddling their drone technology–or is that not important?
Take your TDS meds and stay on topic.
Thorazine shuffle…the damage is done.
Envy
PMS NOW
You’ve come to the right place.
Referring to MS NOW and Katy TURD!!!
What about this passage from Mike Johnson declaring that our rights do not derive from government? They come from you, our creator and heavenly father. Is this him putting God over the Declaration of Independence?
A person actually said this, not as a joke? Wow.
And on the same day we have news that a Dem politician says to round up Jews and put them in internment camps?
If you had to write fiction about an entire political party descending into farcical lunacy and abject evil, you couldn’t come up with a more convincing portrayal than the reality of the Democrat party in America today.
Oldman–
Same conclusion I have reached: the current Democrat party has become evil.
And they seem proud of it.
👍 omfk
Stone age awaits
Natural rights and freedoms are commonly understood to exist prior to the creation of government, not as grants from it.
On that view, Americans do not request rights from government; they are born with them, and government’s proper role is to recognize, protect, and secure them.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Article I, Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes…to pay…Debts…Defense and general Welfare (i.e. all, or the whole, well proceed – Samuel Johnson’s dictionary, 1773 – We’lfare. n.s. [well and fare.] Happiness; success; prosperity.)…etc….
_______________________________________________________________
“[Private property is] that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.”
– James Madison
_____________________
“…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”
“…men…do…what their powers do not authorize, [and] what [their powers] forbid.”
“[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
– Alexander Hamilton
Americans are maximally free while the government is severely limited and restricted and infinitesimal.
The entire communist American welfare state is illicit and unconstitutional.
Samuel Johnson’s Dictionary, 1773
GE’NERAL. adj. [general, French; generalis, Latin.]
1. Comprehending many species or individuals; not special; not particular.
_________________________________________________________________________________
We’lfare. n.s. [well and fare.] Happiness; success; prosperity.
We don’t need no southern evangelicals telling us our business. They are, in fact, the LAST people we want influencing public policy.
Constitution Bozo!
We don’t need no southern poverty law center saying moderate conservatives are Hitler and then massively funding the KKK.
Southern Poverty Law Center funds KKK..?? No, that’s Trump’s grievance fund.
We don’t need no southern evangelicals telling us our business.
Yeah! James Madison, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton . . . all them thar southern evangelicals most of whom are from the northeast. HAHAHAHAHA!
None of those five were evangelicals. They were all best described as Unitarians, although they identified in public as Anglicans. The only orthodox Christian in that clique was George Mason. I think John Adams was the only one who openly identified as Unitarian, but they all agreed with his views.
This whole “consent of the governed” thing is just lost on you, isn’t it?
Turley has to dig deep, really deep, to ignore the anti-Constitutional realities of current politics. Why doesn’t he address the Trump $1.7 billion slush fund–Trump essentially sued himself over the IRS leaking his tax returns while he was president the first time. The statute of limitations had run when the suit was filed, and Trump tried to argue that it should be tolled because he allegedly didn’t know about the disclosure–which is a lie. No other POTUS has sued the federal government for money damages. Nixon tried to sue for a declaratory judgment over his presidential papers, and lost. Anyway, the federal judge in the case ordered briefing to be filed as of Monday, May 18, for Trump to explain why he, as nominal plaintiff, and de facto defendant, with the power to settle the case. So, Blanche, obedient lap dog that he is, “settled” the case and put in a clause that neither Trump, any member of his family or any of his companies could be audited or prosecuted for tax matters. Blanche also will set up a “commission” of persons he nominates and can fire at will, to dole out our taxpayer dollars, including payments to January 6th insurrectionists, including those who beat up and assaulted Capitol Police Officers who were defending members of Congress from the angry mob sent by Trump to the Capitol to try to stop, by force, Biden’s victory from being certified. They were shouting “hang Mike Pence”, and would have killed him and Nancy Pelosi if they could have gotten to them. One of them was Andrew Paul Johnson. From “People” magazine:
“Andrew Paul Johnson, who worked as a handyman in Florida, was convicted of five criminal charges, including molestation, lewd and lascivious exhibition and transmission of material harmful to a minor in February 2026. He was sentenced to life in prison for his crimes against two minors, who were between the ages of 12 and 16
Johnson was among the 1,500 January 6 rioters pardoned by President Donald Trump at the start of Trump’s second term”,
Todd Blanche refused to rule out paying “damages” to the insurrectionists, and failed to disclose, prior to testifying before Congress (so he couldn’t be questioned about it), the “settlement” that prevents Trump, his family and companies from being audited or prosecuted for IRS matters. The issue of Trump cheating on his taxes had nothing to do with the disclosure of his tax returns. Johnson has said, in social media posts, that he expects to receive “restitution” from Trump for being arrested and prosecuted for his conduct on January 6th. This was before the “settlement” was announced publicly.
Congress would have no oversight over this payout of our tax money, even though the Constitution says that Congress holds the power of the purse. Not only would Trump get away with pardoning criminals who protected members of Congress, but they would be rewarded for doing Trump’s bidding–out of our tax money. This would incentivize future Trump fans to commit additional crimes at his behest–not only would there be no risk of criminal prosecution, they would actually come out ahead financially! If the outrageous reality of this scheme does not offend you, then you MUST be suffering from “Trump Derangement Syndrome”–the real mental illness that prevents you from perceiving the reality of what a truly despicable excuse for human life Donald Trump is, how he exists to feed that massive ego of his and how he does everything possible to get his way. He admitted he does not care about how his stupid war with Iran is affecting ordinary Americans financially. Millions were spent by wealthy Republicans to defeat candidates who stood up against Trump’s bullying, especially Thomas Massie, who voted for Trump’s agenda 91% of the time–he stood his ground on Epstein, against the US not only supplying Israel with weapons, but with our tax dollars, and he opposed the Iran war. Massie paid the price for being ethical and having a conscience. Here’s what he said yesterday:
“If the legislative branch always votes with the president, we do have a king,” Massie told cheering supporters Tuesday night. But if lawmakers follow the Constitution, he said, “we have a republic.”
Trump called Massie “a low life”. Then, there are the Republicans in Indiana who were primaried for daring to carry out the will of Hoosiers who overwhelmingly didn’t want redistricting. Billionaires will spend anything for that ego. Rich Jews will spend anything to keep our tax dollars and weapons going to Israel.
Todd Blanche is under a fiduciary obligation of loyalty to the American people to protect the Treasury against frivolous lawsuits. He and/or Bondi failed to avail themselves of the absolute defense of statute of limitations. Blanche agreed to a “settlement” to avoid losing on the merits because he could not defend the issue of whether there really was adversity between the parties–Trump WAS both Plaintiff and Defendant, and that alone should cause the case to have been dismissed. Blanche was clearly advocating in favor of Trump and against the American taxpayers. He should NEVER be confirmed as AG, and he should lose his law license for unethical conduct and dereliction of duty.
Too long, didn’t read.
Too deranged, didn’t read.
Too Gigi, didn’t read.
Too hysterical, didn’t read.
We all know that you MAGA morons have very limited reading skills and almost non-existent comprehension skills, so your comment is not in the least surprising.
Because Gigi’s lunacy dumps are just soooooooooo enlightening! Moron.
ANON MORON!!!
The guy is a silly joke no one can.take seriously.. when he gets a law degree, becomes a constitutional scholar and writes his own column I will still ignore the weirdo.
^^^ I’m censored but this drivel is not.
There is no fault in Speaker Johnson’s speech.
Nutcase troll
OMG! Don’t you know rights come from the government? There is no God. Wait, I just said Oh My God. I’m so confused. I will have to take six pills now, go to my therapist and scream and cry over people that think God gives them rights. Have the not read Chairman Mao? Or General Secretary Stalin? They would straighten those fools out.
Bad Anon – It’s on every Dollar bill issued by the U.S. Government: “In God We Trust”
Now go take your pills with a shot of Rockgut and go to sleep.
“In God We Trust” did not appear on dollar bills until 1957.
Presumably, we did not trust god before that.
Natural rights and freedoms are commonly understood to exist prior to the creation of government, not as grants from it.
On that view, Americans do not request rights from government; they are born with them, and government’s proper role is to recognize, protect, and secure them.
Mayhew is correct and so is Mr Turley. The Bible tells us to obey authority (Romans) as long as we do not disobey God (Luke). Yes, we are to fear those in authority; but more so, we are to fear God.
Romans 13:3-5 – For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience.
Luke 12:4-5 – I tell you, my friends, do not fear those who kill the body, and after that have nothing more that they can do. But I will warn you whom to fear: fear him who, after he has killed, has authority to cast into hell.
We are always given the choice and we are to obey God over man – even to the risk of death – which is the path our Founders chose. We are indeed fortunate to live in a nation based upon Biblical, God’s, principles, and not upon mans’.
I am not bound in any way by your old book.
Not a problem: my comment was not intended for you
Some excellent comments below by Olly, edwadmahl, esquire and a few others
OldFish,
Was thinking and going to comment the same.
Today’s column by PT has generated some really good comments. Well, expect most of the annonys. They are mostly worthless. Although Sally’s comments did generate some really good comments that proved her wrong.
Nobody proved Sally wrong.
All they did was hurl insults, which in the MAGA world is the only form of argument.
By the way, why aren’t you out on your “farm” instead of spending all day every day here reading everything and making worthless comments
OLLY effectively proved her wrong.
And where did OLLY throw around insults?
Upstate thank you. Here’s what’s telling about Anonymous’s comment. He claims Sally was never proven wrong but cannot identify a single specific argument of hers that went unanswered. He claims my responses were insults but cannot point to a single insult. The only way my responses could be construed as insulting is if demonstrating that someone’s argument is historically and philosophically illiterate is itself an insult. That’s not on me. That’s on the argument. And then having made zero substantive contribution to this entire thread he turns around and takes a personal shot at you. That’s not a rebuttal. That’s what you do when you’ve lost the argument and you know it. Well perhaps not even know it.
Here’s what telling about Olly’s comment.
He seems to think that simply answering Sally is in and of itself an argument that proves her wrong. That is only true if the answer is a coherent and rational statement that makes sense to anyone with more than a few functioning brain cells. Unfortunately his “answers”, just like all his comments here, are simply a word salad of gibberish wherein he uses terminology that he has invented in his own little fantasy world, and which have no meaning whatsoever to anyone living in the real world.
His “answers”, which he believes to be rational counterarguments, are quite simply insults to the intelligence of any rational observer, but in the MAGA fantasy world they pass as intellectual observations of the highest order.
The real problem is that Olly uses what is essentially a “secret language” that he has invented for himself in the same manner of little girls. He has failed to grow out of that childish phase and his completely meaningless comments are insulting to normal, rational adult thinkers.
“Nobody proved Sally wrong.”
There’s one intractable problem with your oft-repeated comment:
Proving that a person is wrong presupposes that they made an *argument*. She does not make arguments. She issues assertions.
The Founders held “a deep belief in natural laws coming from our Creator [. . .]. That view is captured in the Declaration . . .” (JT)
That notion is routinely cited by religionists who argue that the Founders relied heavily on a belief in God and on the Bible. Fair enough. But why, then, ignore these pesky facts:
The DoI is a terse, brilliant call for a total break from tyranny, and names some of the moral and political justifications for that break. That document is a *single* page.
By comparison:
The Constitution is the nation’s founding document — the law of the land. It is the result of years of deliberation, arguments and counter-arguments. There are exactly *zero* references to God in the Constitution. And there is only one oblique reference to a higher power — in the citation of a date. The Bible is not quoted once.
The Federalist Papers are a work of political genius. It is comprised of *85* essays (some 180,000 words). The essays are a comprehensive explanation of arguments and counter-arguments for adopting America’s unique system of government. In those essays, there are exactly *two* references to God — one a metaphorical swipe at Netherlands, the other a rhetorical reference to an unrelated topic. In those 85 essays, there is not a single reference to or quote from the Bible.
Far from relying heavily on the Bible, in our nation’s two most comprehensive documents, the Founders gave it short shrift.
It was not given “short shrift.” Far from it; the Founders held the Truth to be “self-evident.” The Constitution is meant as a governance framework for everyone, believers and skeptics alike. Hence the “absence” of specific references to God, higher powers, Bible quotations, and the like. The Constitution and contemporaneous writings are infused with deep understanding of natural rights from the writings of Locke, Hobbes, Rosseau and other giants of Enlightenment philosophy. Pick up a copy of Main Currents of Western Thought for a primer.
“. . . infused with deep understanding of natural rights from the writings of Locke . . .”
Thank you for reinforcing my point. None of those are religious writings.
Since I taught and wrote on political philosophy for some 25 years, I don’t think I need your “primer.”
P.S. Rousseau was not an Enlightenment thinker. He was an *anti*-Enlightenment writer.
Wow your comment hits the bullseye. Some deeper reading with open minds would improve the conversation here immensely.
If you want a set of natural laws by which to lead a life of righteousness, then look no further than the Eight “I’d Really Rather You Didn’ts” of Pastafarians who belong to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
These principles were given to a pirate named Captain Mosey by the Flying Spaghetti Monster on Mount Salsa in the form of stone tablets. There were originally ten tablets, but Mosey dropped two of them which completely shattered.
1. Don’t act holier-than-thou.
I’d really rather you didn’t act like a self-righteous idiot when describing my Noodly Goodness. If some people don’t believe in me, that’s okay. Seriously, I’m not that vain. Besides, this isn’t about them, so don’t change the subject.
2. Don’t use my name to oppress.
I’d really rather you didn’t use my existence as a means to oppress, subjugate, punish, eviscerate, and/or you know, be mean to others. I don’t require sacrifices, and purity is for drinking water, not people.
3. Don’t judge people by their looks.
I’d really rather you didn’t judge people by the way they look, or how they dress, or the way they talk, or, well, just play nice, okay? Oh, and get this through your thick heads: woman = person. Man = person. Samey-samey. One is not better than the other, unless we’re talking about fashion, and then, I’m sorry, but I gave that to women and some guys who know the difference between teal and fuchsia.
4. Don’t offend yourself or your partner.
I’d really rather you didn’t indulge in behavior that offends yourself, or your willing, consenting partner of legal age and mental maturity. As for anyone who objects, I think the expression is “go f*** yourself,” unless they find that offensive, in which case they can turn off the TV for a change and go for a walk.
5. Don’t challenge bigots on an empty stomach.
I’d really rather you didn’t challenge the bigoted, misogynistic, hateful ideas of others on an empty stomach. Eat, then go after them.
6. Don’t build expensive shrines.
I’d really rather you didn’t build multimillion-dollar churches, temples, mosques, or shrines to my Noodly Goodness when the money could be better spent (take your pick):
Ending poverty
Curing diseases
Living in peace, loving with passion, and lowering the cost of cable.
I may be a complex-carbohydrate omniscient being, but I enjoy the simple things in life. I should know. I am the Creator.
7. Don’t go around telling people I talk to you.
I’d really rather you didn’t go around telling people I talk to you. You’re not that interesting. Get over yourself. And I told you to love your fellow man, can’t you take a hint?
8. Don’t treat others like you wouldn’t want to be treated.
I’d really rather you didn’t do unto others as you would have them do unto you if you are into, um, stuff that uses a lot of leather/lubricant/Las Vegas. If the other person is into it, however (pursuant to #4), then have at it, take pictures, and for the love of Mike, wear a condom! Seriously, it’s a piece of rubber. If I didn’t want it to feel good when you did it, I would have added spikes, or something.
The Pastafarian hat fits well with Alton Brown’s principle of avoiding single purpose kitchen tools👍
Let me start this by stating that I am a “fundamentalist” Christian and I have a Bible school education. Bear in mind that Jefferson’s idea of God and scripture was whatever he wanted to make it to be. He evidently never read Romans 13, or he ignored it. In that letter, Paul states clearly that while authority comes from God, he bestows that authority on “rulers.” Jefferson and the small percentage of colonists who rebelled against King George’s government were rebelling against the principle of the divine right of kings. The idea of “natural rights” does not come from scripture, it comes from the minds of men and flies in the face of history throughout which men (meaning the human race) were subordinate to other men, whether chiefs like Abraham or kings. We here in the United States have rights bestowed by amendments to the Constitution, which did not address rights at all and had to be amended in order to be ratified by the states, particularly Virginia, Jefferson’s home colony/state. In short, the idea of “natural rights” came from Greek philosophers than, later, from British philosophers, namely John Locke. Incidentally, Jefferson and other rebels weren’t rebelling because of “natural rights,” they were rebelling because of taxation without representation. When they finally won the war – with the help of the French – they did not seek to establish a nation accepting rights, they didn’t even address rights when they drew up the Constitution.
To say that the colonists were rebelling over taxes and not natural rights is binary, blindered thinking.
First, natural rights are not defined by biblical texts. Natural rights are the rights the we have simply by virtue of being human. Those rights are bestoyed upon you by nature, whether you believe nature to be an ordered creation of some god or just a giant, random, churning accident. The supposed letters of an “apostle” don’t negate those rights or subject us to anyone.
“We here in the United States have rights bestowed by amendments to the Constitution, which did not address rights at all…”
The US Constitution defines a form of government that was intended to restrain the vile proclivities of those with power. The Bill of Rights, which by the way is actually part of the Constitution!!!, does not “bestow” rights, it requires that the government may not trod on certain rights held by the people, thus defining a partial list of natural rights.
“First, natural rights are not defined by biblical texts.”
Biblical texts do not define natural rights, at least not in the fashion of Locke. It commands the individual and creates duties. Those duties inherently result in the natural law and protections you speak of.
In the simplest of terms:
1. Thou shalt not kill- Life
2. “Proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof” and the Jubilee Laws- Liberty
3. Thou shalt not steal- Property
Thomas Jefferson’s intent was discovered through recovery of Jefferson’s own Redactions within the Danbury Baptist letter.
“Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience I shall see with friendly dispositions the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced that he has no natural rights in opposition to his social duties.”
Ref.: The Library requested the assistance of FBI Director Louis Freeh, who generously permitted the FBI Laboratory to apply its state-of-the-art technology to the task of restoring Jefferson’s obliterated words. The FBI was successful, with the result that the entire draft of the Danbury Baptist letter is now legible (below). This fully legible copy will be seen in the exhibition in the company of its handwritten, edited companion draft.
Click here to see Jefferson’s unedited text. By examining both documents, viewers will be able to discern Jefferson’s true intentions in writing the celebrated Danbury Baptist letter.
https://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpost.html
—
Ref.: (near bottom of article)
… Jefferson’s public support for religion appears, however, to have been more than a cynical political gesture. Scholars have recently argued that in the 1790s Jefferson developed a more favorable view of Christianity that led him to endorse the position of his fellow Founders that religion was necessary for the welfare of a republican government, that it was, as Washington proclaimed in his Farewell Address, indispensable for the happiness and prosperity of the people. Jefferson had, in fact, said as much in his First Inaugural Address. His attendance at church services in the House was, then, his way of offering symbolic support for religious faith and for its beneficent role in republican government.
It seems likely that in modifying the draft of the Danbury Baptist letter by eliminating words like “eternal” and “merely temporal,” which sounded so uncompromisingly secular, Jefferson was motivated not merely by political considerations but by a realization that these words, written in haste to make a political statement, did not accurately reflect the conviction he had reached by the beginning of 1802 on the role of government in religion. Jefferson would never compromise his views that there were things government could not do in the religious sphere — legally establish one creed as official truth and support it with its full financial and coercive powers. But by 1802, he seems to have come around to something close to the views of New England Baptist leaders such as Isaac Backus and Caleb Blood, who believed that, provided the state kept within its well-appointed limits, it could provide “friendly aids” to the churches, including putting at their disposal public property that even a stickler like John Leland was comfortable using.
Analyzed with the help of the latest technology, the Danbury Baptist letter has yielded significant new information. Using it to fix the intent of constitutional documents is limited, however, by well established rules of statutory construction: the meaning of a document cannot be determined by what a drafter deleted or by what he did concurrently with the drafting of a document. But it will be of considerable interest in assessing the credibility of the Danbury Baptist letter as a tool of constitutional interpretation to know, as we now do, that it was written as a partisan counterpunch, aimed by Jefferson below the belt at enemies who were tormenting him more than a decade after the First Amendment was composed.
https://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danbury.html
So as we are seeing today Speaker Mike Johnson as Jefferson had, has come under attack by his detractors (MSNOW host Katy Tur).
“… But it will be of considerable interest in assessing the credibility of the Danbury Baptist letter as a tool of constitutional interpretation to know, as we now do, that it was written as a partisan counterpunch, aimed by Jefferson below the belt at enemies who were tormenting him more than a decade after the First Amendment was composed.“
If you want a set of natural laws by which to lead a life of righteousness, then look no further than the Eight “I’d Really Rather You Didn’ts” of Pastafarians who belong to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
These principles were given to a pirate named Captain Mosey by the Flying Spaghetti Monster on Mount Salsa in the form of stone tablets. There were originally ten tablets, but Mosey dropped two of them which completely shattered.
1. Don’t act holier-than-thou.
I’d really rather you didn’t act like a self-righteous jackass when describing my Noodly Goodness. If some people don’t believe in me, that’s okay. Seriously, I’m not that vain. Besides, this isn’t about them, so don’t change the subject.
2. Don’t use my name to oppress.
I’d really rather you didn’t use my existence as a means to oppress, subjugate, punish, eviscerate, and/or you know, be mean to others. I don’t require sacrifices, and purity is for drinking water, not people.
3. Don’t judge people by their looks.
I’d really rather you didn’t judge people by the way they look, or how they dress, or the way they talk, or, well, just play nice, okay? Oh, and get this through your thick heads: woman = person. Man = person. Samey-samey. One is not better than the other, unless we’re talking about fashion, and then, I’m sorry, but I gave that to women and some guys who know the difference between teal and fuchsia.
4. Don’t offend yourself or your partner.
I’d really rather you didn’t indulge in behavior that offends yourself, or your willing, consenting partner of legal age and mental maturity. As for anyone who objects, I think the expression is “go f*** yourself,” unless they find that offensive, in which case they can turn off the TV for a change and go for a walk.
5. Don’t challenge bigots on an empty stomach.
I’d really rather you didn’t challenge the bigoted, misogynistic, hateful ideas of others on an empty stomach. Eat, then go after them.
6. Don’t build expensive shrines.
I’d really rather you didn’t build multimillion-dollar churches, temples, mosques, or shrines to my Noodly Goodness when the money could be better spent (take your pick):
Ending poverty
Curing diseases
Living in peace, loving with passion, and lowering the cost of cable.
I may be a complex-carbohydrate omniscient being, but I enjoy the simple things in life. I should know. I am the Creator.
7. Don’t go around telling people I talk to you.
I’d really rather you didn’t go around telling people I talk to you. You’re not that interesting. Get over yourself. And I told you to love your fellow man, can’t you take a hint?
8. Don’t treat others like you wouldn’t want to be treated.
I’d really rather you didn’t do unto others as you would have them do unto you if you are into, um, stuff that uses a lot of leather/lubricant/Las Vegas. If the other person is into it, however (pursuant to #4), then have at it, take pictures, and for the love of Mike, wear a condom! Seriously, it’s a piece of rubber. If I didn’t want it to feel good when you did it, I would have added spikes, or something.