says it all

[Christians4LessGvt]

[Christians4LessGvt]

[sirs]

BINGO!!

[Xavier_Onassis]

Where, exactly, in the Bible does this appear?

In the Old Testament, the only people with full rights were old patriarchs. Women, slaves, servants, the common people and non-Hebrews had none.
What were the rights of the Caanites?  The Malkites?

Kennedy was good at making speeches. He had great speechwriters. But when he said these high sounding things, he tended to be full of shit.
I would give good odds that he never read the Bible. Neither had Reagan.  Carter, yes.

[Christians4LessGvt]

Kennedy..... tended to be full of shit.

Any questions?

ps: who or when was it stated that John F Kennedy was quoting from the Bible?

[Plane]

In the Old Testament, the only people with full rights were old patriarchs. Women, slaves, servants, the common people and non-Hebrews had none.

There were a lot of rights protected in these scriptures, but where a kings word is law there is little limit on the kings infringement  on individual rights .

Still it was infringing the rights of little guys that got both King David and King Ahab their worst problems.

Philosophy is very concerned on how a man may do right, but is law concerned with allowing a man to do right or with forcing a man to do right?

[Xavier_Onassis]

Where would an allegation that rights came from the "Hand of God" other than from the Bible?

The fact is that Rights are  either granted by some ruler, or they are decided upon by the population. In the US, the population has never voted on the Constitution. It was enacted by a legislature elected mostly by a minority of men with property long, long before any of us was ever born. And it was not written by God, either. Those who wrote it did not claim to be agents of God. That is why I say that JFK was full of crap. He knew all about American history and he still spewed this nonsense.

That is not to say that the rights granted by the Constitution were not superior to the rights granted by King George III. They clearly were. But they included the right to own slaves excluded women.

The Constitution had only marginally more participation in its writing than the rights granted by George III. Most people were not consulted nor asked to approve. And God was entirely and utterly silent on the issue, as he always has been since he gave up manifesting himself as flaming shrubbery.

[Christians4LessGvt]

Where would an allegation that rights came from the "Hand of God" other than from the Bible?

Where?
LOL
You gotta be kidding!
It would come from a belief and faith in God.
I mean.....duh

JFK may have read the The Declaration of Independence!

"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,"

[Xavier_Onassis]

This was a Deist position.  When God is referred to as a  Creator or a Supreme Being rather than God, that suggests doctrine from the French enlightenment.

But there is nonetheless no declaration from a  Creator or a Supreme Being that either of them ever bestowed anything upon anyone. God has been mute for millennia.

The appropriate slogan here is "If Ifs, Ands or Buts were candy and Nuts, we'd all have a wonderful Christmas."

[Plane]

Where would an allegation that rights came from the "Hand of God" other than from the Bible?

   If you think that rights exist only when granted by the government , then you might agree with Thomas Jefferson that government ought to fear its people more than the people fear the government.

   That "certain inalienable rights are self evident" is very likely Benjamin Franklin's contribution to the document.

  It should be axiomatic that some rights are necessary to decent life , without this basic assumption there is no real objection to slavery.

  Further it should be a basic tenant of good government that the rule of government is by consent of the  governed. Else the reason for government to exist becomes its own aggrandizement.

     The scriptures we are fond of do not establish any democracy, but you could use the Old Testament to support a case that Gods favorite form of government is anarchy.

       Where Kings are sanctioned the king bears personal responsibility for the behavior of the nation and the nation bears the burden when the king requires punishment.

        The early church in the New Testiment seems to have been ruled by consensus , which is semi democratic Hm?

[sirs]

Where would an allegation that rights came from the "Hand of God" other than from the Bible?

   If you think that rights exist only when granted by the government , then you might agree with Thomas Jefferson that government ought to fear its people more than the people fear the government.

That is indeed an extremely scary thought....when the Government is the ultimate decision maker, when it comes to rights.  Which means the Government can take them away, at any time     

 

[Plane]

Where would an allegation that rights came from the "Hand of God" other than from the Bible?

   If you think that rights exist only when granted by the government , then you might agree with Thomas Jefferson that government ought to fear its people more than the people fear the government.

That is indeed an extremely scary thought....when the Government is the ultimate decision maker, when it comes to rights.  Which means the Government can take them away, at any time     

Our government should ideally be under the control of the majority , without being unreasonable to the minority.

There may be a minority against just about anything , and the majority is against the right thing now and then.....

..... even the government itself isn't perfectly always in the right.

   There is a balance to be struck , to protect the rights of the individual even against the majority and the government , but not to frustrate the majority from having its way.

     That is what we are depending on the Constitution to do, it is a rule book by which any side may appeal or cry foul.

   Imagine depending on a political party to strike such a balance? I imagine any political party in human history would stack the advantages towards its favorites.

    People should be concerned mostly with individual rights, because the individual is the unit of humanity that has and remembers experience, unfortunately it is teams , races, nations ,tribes and bands that have the military power over individuals.

     So a rule book that gives individual rights some precedence is a key advantage to human beings living by the rules, there are times and places where there was a lot less individual right.

     In the future are we moving to more or less individual right?

[Christians4LessGvt]

This was a Deist position.

even if that were true....so what?

"they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"

Deist or non-deist...."unalienable rights from their Creator" means not from man or gvt!

ps: last time I checked John F. Kennedy was not a Deist...so his take must have been different from yours!

[Plane]

ps: last time I checked John F. Kennedy was not a Deist...so his take must have been different from yours!

  I think he understood the people of the US , this statement represents pretty well what the people think is true.

Yes , what most of us agree about does matter.

[Xavier_Onassis]

It is simply NOT TRUE.

Neither you nor I have a clue as to what JFK really believed. He did not write this speech, and did not write most of his speeches. He claimed to be a Catholic, but what he really believed is unknown.

The statement came from Deists, there is no doubt about that at all.
 There was only one good thing about JFK: he was less an asshole than Nixon.