Yes, if any of the three conservatives or two flip-floppers on the Court are replaced by Ovomit, we can kiss the Constitution goom-bye.

Ahhh, now I understand, and completely agree. Thanks for the clarification.

And no, you certainly don't strike me as a mystic :-)

yea, I was worried

My mistake. I did not make myself clear. I meant to suggest removing the God attributions and inserting natural law. You must have thought I was going all mystic or something. :) Not to worry. Great commentary!
Regards,
O.A.

thank you. well done

I understand, but to me it seems that confounding divine law with natural law—and God-given rights for natural rights—is unnecessary and can potentially be a dangerous path to tread.

Natural law can be understood using the scientific method—reason, rationality, and empirical observation. But by what means may we understand divine law? Perhaps by faith, scripture, or revelation? And then what prevents our descent into barbarism and human sacrifice? Is it not reason, rationality, and empirical observation? Or perhaps the scriptures and revelations of our God have led us on a more enlightened path, and hence our faith is correctly placed? But then are there not implicit processes of reason and rationality underlying our choice of faith? Have we not empirically observed that human sacrifices are an ineffectual means of increasing the fecundity of our lands?

Perhaps our ability to think scientifically is a gift from God, but is faith in God actually necessary in order to use this gift effectively? I would argue that it is not, and in support of my argument I would cite the scientific contributions of atheists such as Richard Dawkins, whose work in the field of evolutionary biology has led to important advances in modern medicine which have saved lives and improved our quality of living.

My point is that our faculties of perception, reason, and rationality can operate independently of our belief in God. Whether or not God has given us those faculties is a separate argument. Regardless, we can use those faculties to understand our world, and on this understanding we can base our system of ethics, which constitutes the foundation of a just political system. And indeed, a very compelling case can be made for the role of freedom, property rights, meritocracy, etc. in human advancement—with or without reference to God. And in my view, this case is weakened by unnecessarily confounding it with arguments for or against religious belief.

It only seems fair!

Inflation adjusted!

If he throws you out, then I will be in good company! :)

I'm kicking dirt on the ump!

Hey! I want a refund! :)

I always read these things with an eye for the principles rather than the attributed source. Most of the old material I read of this nature I usually interpose/ exchange natural rights for God given. The principles transcend.

you go girl!

but did we pay for the use of that field? :)

Very well said, and an excellent point. I think I'm going to write something for the paper clearly outlining the infringements and outright damage being done to our Constitution. I may get hate mail, I don't care. This clearly needs attention. No fear, otherwise no progress.

wait a minute! I just looked this up. considering the author frames his story around 28 principles which include God defining what is virtuous. How does this help make a leap to Rand's works?

I think we should take our Constitution and go home... the children on the field don't want to play by the rules...

Yes, ditto what kh said.

I think you hit that clearly on the head. That is how many anti gun people are trying to cast it. That it was written with the use of muskets in mind. The writers clearly were more shrewd than that, though.

thanks for the book tip, OA

yet where was the outcry last September when the AIA was passed changing actual words in the Constitution. "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"
In that case, rights of the "inventor" have been changed by law to be "first to file."
It is a huge blow to any inventor who is not a multinational company-think of it this way, last year IBM was granted 6000 patents. They have perfected the concept of "first to file"
yet hardly a peep from Constitutionalists over this significant change Madison in particular, would have said was not the intent of the framers.

well said, lost

It does boggle the mind doesn't it. To imagine that the founders would believe that technology and therefore weaponry would remain stagnant in an ever changing world is to disregard the words themselves. I often argue that the beauty of the Constitution is as much in what it says, as it is in what it does not say. It does not say the second amendment only pertains to the weapons prevalent at the time of adoption. All that it doesn't say is beyond the rightful purview of the government. Thus the explicit language in the ninth and tenth amendments.