State Rep. Wants Tenn. Constitution To Say That 'Our Liberties' Come From God

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by steve knight, Feb 16, 2015.

  1. steve knight macrumors 68020

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #1
    well I guess he forgot who elected him and the oath he swore.

    http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/109/Bill/HJR0071.pdf
    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/tennessee-constitution-almighty-god


    Tennessee state Rep. James VanHuss (R) introduced a resolution that would add a new line to the state constitution acknowledging God, The Tennessean reported.

    House Joint Resolution 71 would add a line reading, "We recognize that our liberties do not come from governments, but from Almighty God, our Creator and Savior."

    VanHuss' colleague, Rep. Jerry Sexton (R) also introduced a bill last week that would make the Holy Bible the state book.
     
  2. Technarchy macrumors 603

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #2
    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...

    Not so strange of a notion.
     
  3. kds1 Suspended

    kds1

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2013
    Location:
    New York, New York
    #3
    While some of the original signatories to the Declaration of Independence may have been thinking of some sort of "God" , I think the real gist of what they were trying to say is that you are born with these rights, and no more.

    The guy in TN is an idiot.
     
  4. samiwas macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #4
    Glad to see legislators working on the truly important issues.
     
  5. steve knight thread starter macrumors 68020

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #5
    yes if you read the rest of it and the first of it then it says it all.
     
  6. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #6
    Not so strange of a notion, yes..

    .. but the Declaration of Independence does leave up to the individual who and what their Creator is.

    This representative is wanting everyone to acknowledge that their "Creator" (in this case) is "God", when that may not be the case.

    This would run roughshod of the 1st Amendment.

    BL.
     
  7. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #7
    No, but the state can't acknowledge a single religion as the most self evident of all the self evident sources of their liberty.

    Our representatives can be Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Atheist whatever. They're free to choose and worship whatever they deem to be worthy, or chose not to worship at all. Nothing bounds them, or their freedom of religion. But by choosing to endorse a religion on the government level, they're potentially limiting someone else's freedom of religion by association.

    So it comes down to the basic conundrum that all rights face, and the one thing most of the MAH RIGHTS people seem to miss. You're free to do what you want, so long as that freedom doesn't infringe on someone else's freedom to do what they want.
     
  8. iBlazed macrumors 68000

    iBlazed

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2014
    Location:
    New Jersey, United States
    #8
    Notice how they specifically used the word "creator" so as to not to refer to any specific faith. Christians have God, Jews have Hashem or sometimes G-d, Muslims have Allah, native Americans and pagans believe that "God" is Mother Earth. "Creator" is inclusive of any belief or even non-belief that someone may have, the gist of the sentence mean that we are all born with these basic rights (And by all I mean white Protestant male land owners).

    This Tennessee proposal on the other hand uses the words "God" and "savior" and "almighty", which are inherently Christian terms in the way which they are used here. It's not the same.
     
  9. kds1 Suspended

    kds1

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2013
    Location:
    New York, New York
    #9
    This is true, but that notion can be perverted. Libertarians are quite good at doing that.
     
  10. steve knight thread starter macrumors 68020

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #10
    When God runs for election then they'll can do this.
     
  11. Technarchy macrumors 603

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #11
    I can agree with your reasoning. I think using the term "creator" is ambiguous enough and would keep the intent intact and be inline with the founder's accepted languange.
     
  12. iBlazed macrumors 68000

    iBlazed

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2014
    Location:
    New Jersey, United States
    #12
    He did, his name was Ronald Reagan. That was really the second coming. :D
     
  13. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #13
    So the DoI is part of the federal legal code?
     
  14. kds1 Suspended

    kds1

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2013
    Location:
    New York, New York
    #14
    The best part is "making the Bible the state book." Do these numbnuts not realise they are putting themselves in the same league as those wreaking havoc in the Middle East who want to create a theocracy in the region?

    ----------

    Republicans worship Reagan because they've had nary anyone to venerate. OTOH, Democratic presidents like Kennedy, Roosevelt and Wilson Are all over the place, and this made Republicans sad :(
     
  15. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #15
    Most modern libertarians, at least those you see screaming about things on the internet, tend not to put much thought into it. They think the enumerated rights are unlimited. It doesn't matter that exercising my rights might infringe on your rights, because if there were a limit, then it's wouldn't really be "freedom", would it?
     
  16. Technarchy macrumors 603

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #16
    Abraham Lincoln
    Dwight D. Eisenhower
    Theodore Roosevelt

    Pretty big deal names in American history. Abraham Lincoln especially.
     
  17. kds1 Suspended

    kds1

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2013
    Location:
    New York, New York
    #17
    Yes, except that Teddy Roosevelt, though nominally a Republican, espoused very liberal ideas, and was a member of the Progressive movement. By todays standards, he would have been a Democrat. Probably Lincoln too.
     
  18. Technarchy macrumors 603

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #18
    One wanting to rewrite history doesn't make it so. There are venerated members of the GOP and DNC.

    And Reagan won with landslide victories in two elections. Landslides that any modern president only dreams about.

    525 electors in 1984 and 489 in 1980. That's over 90% of the vote twice. Lets not pretend Reagan was just the conservative president. He was the people's president by an overwhelming majority.
     
  19. kds1, Feb 16, 2015
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2015

    kds1 Suspended

    kds1

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2013
    Location:
    New York, New York
    #19
    Rewriting history?

    Teddy Roosevelt was a Progressive President

    Though a member of the Republican Party, he was a RINO by today's standards:

    Teddy Roosevelt was really a progressive liberal

    Compare the platform of the Progressive Party, founded by Teddy Roosevelt, to the Republican/Tea Party platform and agenda of today:

    Progressive Party Platform and Agenda, founded by Teddy Roosevelt
     
  20. Technarchy macrumors 603

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #20
    Goal posts shall not pass!!!

    [​IMG]

     
  21. kds1, Feb 16, 2015
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2015

    kds1 Suspended

    kds1

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2013
    Location:
    New York, New York
    #21
    I see you have no argument. You see, Republicans don't really like to own up to Teddy Roosevelt. But they loooooooove Reagan, despite all the damage he did to this country. And they want as many things as possible named after him, including a part of the ocean

    I'm going to try to find it, but, there was this Republican congressman, who thought that there weren't enough highways, bridges, airports, buildings, schools what have you named after Republican presidents, as there were for Democratic presidents (Kennedy, FDR, Wilson), so he set out on a quest to get as many things as he could named after reagan. I can't remember his name right now.

    EDIT: It was not a congressman, but Grover Norquist
     
  22. jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #22
    The National Debt is something that the modern GOP can get behind:

    [​IMG]
     
  23. 556fmjoe macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2014
    #23
    I think this is what it should be changed to, if it must be changed at all.
     
  24. kds1 Suspended

    kds1

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2013
    Location:
    New York, New York
    #24
    It doesn't need to be changed.
     
  25. Technarchy macrumors 603

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #25
    Not sure of the relevance, but what is the source of that infographic.

    Here is one from the treasury.

    [​IMG]
     

Share This Page