>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 — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
to our views today? yes. to their views in the 18th century, no.
Christian Torres
>hypocrite: a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
>all men are created equal
I don't think that the definition has changed in a while
David Sullivan
>slaves >men
Jacob Reed
Who would ever think that a bunch of diest Freemasons in the pockets of Jewish bankers rebelling against their divinely appointed king in order to destroy Christianity and move toward a Satanic one world government would be hypocrites?
Robert Miller
>divinely appointed king
Mason Wilson
Slaves aren't men
Christopher Garcia
we got to our views today because of what they did then. in 1776 you would be seen as absolutely mad for even thinking that a black man and white man were of the same caliber. what they were fighting for then was equal rights for white, landowning men. the definition of what a "man" is in the eyes of the general public, and the ones who hold power has changed. everything has to start somewhere. >see "rome wasnt built in a day"
Nicholas Russell
You're right. Having an aristocracy and monarchy was obviously too worldly. It's much better now that our rulers are determined by being born into international Jewish finance dynasties.
Kevin Fisher
>implying that both aren't worldly as fuck
Jayden Sanders
>divinely appointed king I think you need to read Locke
James Richardson
Seriously who wrote this crap? What kind of fedora did it?
Adrian Garcia
>unalienable Rights, that among these are LIFE, LIBERTY and the pursuit of HAPPINESS
nor are death row criminals, it seems
Landon Roberts
You're attaching your own connotation to those words that the authors didn't believe. That phrase comes from 18th century understanding of natural law, aka all men are created equally wild in nature and that all governments are social constructs. Not that all men actually equal.
The rest of the phrase "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" comes from John Locke's argument that people should be able to defend "Life, health, Liberty, or Possessions". The reason that the founding fathers used these phrased was to argue for a natural right for the american subjects of England to defy their government after it has stopped protecting their promised rights.
It's only because later generations have reinterpreted those words to mean something different.
Levi Mitchell
social contracts* not constructs.
Carson Peterson
No, most people just can't into historical context.
Adam Ward
/thread
Jace Miller
well, than could that mean that some men are inherently above others?
wasn't one of the main concerns of the Founding Fathers the fact that they didn't see their king and aristocracy as divinely appointed because all men are equal under Nature's law?
Logan Bennett
The Declaration shouldn't really be read as the founders' ethical world view but as "reasons we should be allowed to leave the King". Because they obviously had no legal right to do so, they had to fall back on some god ordained natural right to declare independence. You can contrast this with the various southern states' later ordinances of secession from the union which was entirely made up of legal arguments.
Benjamin Miller
Think about "created equally" this way: if one half of a pair of twins is brilliant and works his ass off and becomes a doctor with a hot wife and then goes into politics while the other is a Dillard who drops out of high school and ends up working a menial job to feed his pot habit until dying at age 40 from a combination of being fat and liver disease, are those brothers "equals" in the eyes of any sane individual just because they sprang from the same womb at the same time?
Jace Lewis
>well, than could that mean that some men are inherently above others?
I think most people of the 18th century including the founding fathers would agree with that statement. I think you'd enjoy listening to this.
