Tano;
You have confused "powers" with "rights"
Thank WHO???

It's not the will of the people driving government, anymore.

That's because the will of the people these days is to bury their heads in the sand & pretend everything is someone else's fault, and also that someone else will fix what's wrong.

Unfortunately, no system can overcome that. Sooner or later, either the people will wake up or the system will collapse utterly.

Lose. The government does not "set itself up" to do anything - we set it up, and we are responsible for its actions - We The People, that is

Well, that is what's supposed to happen. But it doesn't.

Um, lose again. The continuing point here is that the government does not do anything we don't allow it to do.

No sale. Ask people if they think the government is right in, in the end, taking upwards of 50% or your income and mine to give to someone else.
They'll invariably say 'no'.
It's not the will of the people driving government, anymore.

And \No, legion, while there no religious test involved, there most certainly is the government setting itself up as the arbitrator of rights in a very real way.

Lose. The government does not "set itself up" to do anything - we set it up, and we are responsible for its actions - We The People, that is. See my above points on consent of the governed. Yes, sometimes individual preferences get pushed around by the majority, but (a) if everyone had the right to do anything they wanted all the time, society would disintegrate, and (b) the purpose of the court system is to protect the minority from being pushed too far by that majority. The hoops a businessman must go through aren't put in place without reason or applied unevenly - if they are, the businessman can easily sue said council into arrears - they are there because the citizens of that municipality allow them to be there. If those hoops are too anti-business, then the city will slowly become a ghost town, or change its own rules to survive. Welcome to Capitalism - don't like it? Take your business elsewhere.

Oh... so that's what they mean by 'shall not be infringed", huh?

Um, lose again. The continuing point here is that the government does not do anything we don't allow it to do. That's why transparency is an important concept too many people don't care about. When the government does things without consequences, or secretly from from its citizens - and I don't mean 'classified' secret, I mean deliberately hidden, like the current noise about the CIA torture tapes - it is, by definition, no longer a functioning Constitutional government, and must go.

Again I say: Wha? I'm no entrepreneur - are there religious tests or political oaths required for setting up businesses these days?

Low and outside for a ball.
Tell you what; Go to a town board meeting, or a city council, or whatever, and listen to what the businessman has to go through to get a business going in the average muni in America today. And \No, legion, while there no religious test involved, there most certainly is the government setting itself up as the arbitrator of rights in a very real way.

Do you know what the term 'freedom' actually means? First of all, 'freedom of religious expression' is not the only 'freedom' people have - it must coexist with many other basic rights.

Oh... so that's what they mean by 'shall not be infringed", huh?

Tried to set up a business of late? Tell me again about how your freedoms are being protected.

Noticed how much of your income is going for taxes? Tell me about how your right of property is being respected.

Again I say: Wha? I'm no entrepreneur - are there religious tests or political oaths required for setting up businesses these days? And what does taxation have to do the erosion of rights due to secularism? Ever hear of tithing? For the truly devout in several religions, that ain't supposed to be optional. Kindly compare & contrast with taxation.

At exactly what point in history do you think we started going 'downhill' in terms of human rights? What was the apex?

explain why the press and the left filled their diapers over the image of a bookshelf which might look like a cross, and make it mesh with how we have freedom of religious expression, in this country.

Do you know what the term 'freedom' actually means? First of all, 'freedom of religious expression' is not the only 'freedom' people have - it must coexist with many other basic rights. Secondly, if there was the crisis in religious expression you seem to be up-in-arms about, Huck wouldn't have been allowed to make or air that commercial in the first place. It's existence *is* evidence of freedom of religious expression.

Freedom of expression doesn't provide immunity from being ridiculed for stating one's opinion.

yeah Bithead, I disagree strongly with that notion of yours, that our rights are being eroded. Rather the contrary - our rights are expanding. It seems in fact that those enemies of liberty - conservatives - are constantly whining about just this point. That more and more rights are being recognized by them liberal judges.

and

Wha? You're kidding, right? Go look up the "Divine Right of Kings", and then look at the general state of human rights through that period. Compare it to what we have today, and I believe you'll find that your statement is quite the opposite of correct.

Really?
Tried to set up a business of late? Tell me again about how your freedoms are being protected.

Noticed how much of your income is going for taxes? Tell me about how your right of property is being respected.

Etc.

Unfortunately, this concept plays poorly with those who would inject far more religion - invariably their own personal brand - into government. God is, or is not, whether or not the people approve.

Well, tell you what... explain why the press and the left filled their diapers over the image of a bookshelf which might look like a cross, and make it mesh with how we have freedom of religious expression, in this country. I begin to think had Huckabee decided to make his Christmas wish under a Nazi flag, the reception from the press and the left could hardly have been more angry. Indeed, they'd have considered it protected speech, instead of denouncing it, as they did.

In what I consider an absolutely stunning misunuderstanding of American values, much of the right seems to be taking the Borkian view that if some liberty is not written out explicitly in the Constitution, then it doesn't really exist.

Of course the exact opposite is true. So long as the government is not empowered to restrict some right, it is retained by the people. Thank god for liberal judges!

Seriously, when have we ever been freer? (I mean all of us).

I wont bother to ask you a third time to answer my little question. I'll just accept that you concede the point - claiming rhetorically that our rights come from god has no practical effect whatsoever.

And, of course, you probalbly should know that Adams was not in on the writing of the Constitution, being our ambassador in Britain at the time.

I’ve always loved Christmas music and also music from New Orleans so whenever the two are combined I’m delighted. This video is a lighthearted parody of the 12 Days Of Christmas called “The 12 Yats Of Christmas” by the New Orleans’ group Benn...

That's certainly one of the principles this country was founded on - what with getting out from under King George's tyranny - and I would go so far as to say that it is a (arguably the) defining concept of a free society. For if the people have no real say in their government - who runs it, what it does, etc - then they are no longer citizens, but merely subjects, in the basest sense of the word.

Unfortunately, this concept plays poorly with those who would inject far more religion - invariably their own personal brand - into government. God is, or is not, whether or not the people approve. Involving any sort of religious test for office is incredibly dangerous. What a person's character is is important, but not necessarily where that character comes from - a decent, upstanding atheist (or Satanist, or Buddhist, or whatever) is far better than a lunatic or vile creep who can explain his actions away in terms of scripture. That is why there must always be a distinct separation between church and state in a free society.

And Bithead, your arguments are quite good & rational, right up to here:

I don't suppose you've noticed the trend, Tano, wherein as we move away from there being a power higher than man and his constructs (One of them being government, of course) that those rights are being slowly and relentlessly eroded?

Wha? You're kidding, right? Go look up the "Divine Right of Kings", and then look at the general state of human rights through that period. Compare it to what we have today, and I believe you'll find that your statement is quite the opposite of correct.

Oh c'mon Bit, I bet we could find a few things that Mr. Adams said that you might take exception to!

In total? Doubtless.

In terms of the constitution? Not a chance.

You see, on that subject, Adams was speaking as a designer, and speaking specifically of design requirements. I make the assumption that the person who was in on the ground floor of the design, probably has a distinct informational advantage on the topic, just as someone who designs a building or a plane or a boat or whatever has an informational advantage on what THEY were a part of building.

As for the grounding of our rights - it should be noted that these phrases appear in the Declaration - the document meant to serve as our escape from British rule. They do not appear in the Constitution. There we find the attitude that the grounding of a government, with limited powers, guaranteeing rights, is an a work of "we the people".

Let's makre sure about this... You're saying the DOI is never used as a basis of determining fouder intent? Be careful, here.

We the people establish certain principles, enshrine them in a Constitution, and thereby protect our liberty.

Actually, we do nothing of the sort. I don't suppose you've noticed the trend, Tano, wherein as we move away from there being a power higher than man and his constructs (One of them being government, of course) that those rights are being slowly and relentlessly eroded?

As for the grounding of our rights - it should be noted that these phrases appear in the Declaration - the document meant to serve as our escape from British rule. They do not appear in the Constitution. There we find the attitude that the grounding of a government, with limited powers, guaranteeing rights, is an a work of "we the people".

We the people establish certain principles, enshrine them in a Constitution, and thereby protect our liberty. There is no other protection, except violent resistance, if that ever be necessary.

Once again, you dont answer my simple question. What does a rhetorical grounding of our rights in an endowment from a higher force, add to any practical protection of those rights?

Given that the English monarchy claimed a divine right to authority, maybe the phrase in the Declaration was simply an argumentative ploy to claim equal or greater legitimacy for our revolution. A rhetorical nicety, that had no practical effect - our rights vis a vis the monarch could only be secured on the battlefield.

None.
Should we just invent one then, because to have one would be convenient for the logical path that you are on?

No, what the founders were about when they wrote that all men are endowed right by their creator, was acknoledging what already was there, in their view. Since the right were provided by that higher power, they were aand are inalienable. Should we so lightly disregard their construct for the sake of atheism?

Like it or not, our culture is, even for the unbeleiver, steeped in the Judeo-Christian ethos.

As for the quote - may I be allowed to disagree with Mr. Adams?

Of course. But I'd not advise it.

A Spanish teacher in Ohio has her students conduct a role playing exercise where she has them assume an identity of a Latino and try to apply to enter the US legally. She then stamps all their papers DENIED and tells them to figure out how to get in I...

Not only did TBogg hand delete Jaques comment, but he was apparently torn about it, changing his mind a number of times over a period of weeks.

......