Tuesday, June 17, 2008

We hold these truths to be self-evident

I am redating this post as well.

This is one of two posts I did last February, redating so as to come up on the blog now.

Perhaps some of the best-known words from our American heritage are the words from the Preamble of 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 Inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

But, if you are an atheist, there is no Creator, so we couldn't be created equal. Advanced thinker that he was for his time, TJ seems to have imbibed some creationist nonsense. Hence to reflect what an atheist really believes, it would have to be rewritten as follows:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men have evolved equally, and that they are endowed by Evolution with certain Inalienable Rights, that among these are Life , Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

But thus altered, isn't this statement howlingly false? Evolution doesn't make people equal, it doesn't endow anyone with inalienable rights, and among these is certainly not life, or liberty, or the pursuit of happiness.

I'm not going to argue that atheists are bad citizens. But my question is what sense an atheist can make of these statements in the Preamble. Doesn't it conflict, profoundly, with what an atheist believes?

25 comments:

The Un-Apologetic Atheist said...

The Declaration of Independence was written to a king whose rule was given by "divine right." We were challenging that rule, asserting that it was only the "consent of the governed" by which governments were granted authority.

The references to Providence and The Creator were, like Jefferson, Deist references to the type of God who (in their view) formed the universe, leaving it alone to evolve into what it has become.

Try this re-write:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that government can only be called fair if it rules by the consent of the governed, and each of those citiens has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, which may not be infringed upon by the government or a tyrannical majority."

Rakshasas said...

Having read a bit of Jefferson's writings, I think it's safe to say that any claim that he is either explicitly Christian or explicitly Deist is intentionally ignoring some aspect of TJ's writings.

That can be ignored however. The term "created" and "creator" here can have lexical force without requiring a literal intent of diety.

The claim is that all people by virtue of being people are granted certain rights by that virtue, and not by any act of government or political process. There is no necessary conflict for an atheist unless the atheist is looking for fight.

Phil Aldridge said...

The term "created" and "creator" here can have lexical force without requiring a literal intent of diety. This may be true, but it would be quite a leap to make the case Jefferson is trying to make if he did not intend to be literal in his discussion of a Creator.

He is arguing that people have have rights that inherently transcend governments, that these rights are inalienable. He is appealing to some sort of authority greater than man or state. He takes pains to make sure we know why we have these rights. Notice he did not say: "We have these rights just because we exist". He says "We were endowed by a Creator".

This ought not make you run to the nearest church to devote your life to missions work, but it is a provocative case and I think it's a bit of a leap to assume Jefferson is using "creator" as some sort of rhetorical device.

Victor Reppert said...

Yes. The idea here is that it is a function of how we came to be what we are that gives us those rights. My question was if you supplant the creator with an evolutionary process, then couldnt we say "It's a dog eat dog world, and we're top dogs," and on that basis deny someone those rights. The robber barons of the 19th century used social Darwinism to support their rapacious business practices. The guy back then who tried to protect the little guy against the likes of the big oil companies, William Jennings Bryan, is now ridiculed for prosecuting Scopes in Tennessee, but he was motivated by his fear that the "survival of the fittest" would be used against the less privileged members of society. Of course these days, the religious conservatives and the oil companies are writings checks to the same presidential candidate, but we won't get into that here.

Jason said...

Well, the rewrite above _looks_ nifty at first glance; but I think it sidesteps the point Victor is making.

Let us say I agree with the rewrite as given by our un-ap-ath {s}--which I do. Why do I agree this claim about certain truths to itself be true? Am I supposed to be agreeing with it apart from grounding in my philosophical beliefs?

I think not. Rather, I think our un-ap-ath's restatement fits right into a robustly orthodox trinitarian theism--but _not_ into a mere monotheism, especially not a nominal deism. I can ground his restatement (and might have arrived at it myself, as a conclusion), and can present it in coherent reference, _with_ my metaphysical beliefs.

Victor's question, essentially, was: if we decide atheism is true, then how do we ground a claim similar in positive force (as well as truth) to the opening of the Declaration, within and on our atheism--especially in light of the other explanations we give about human behavior thereby?

I know how the phrase "government can only be called fair if it rules by the consent of the governed" fits into, and could even flow from, my trinitarian theism. What principles of atheism per se does this restatement follow from? A principle of physics perhaps? Is there a principle of biological evolution from which we can derive this? From something within atheism more fundamental than these? If, on the other hand, a "higher-level" discipline provides the derivation, how is this higher discipline itself derived from the more fundamental facts claimed by atheism, and are the links clearly consonant?

Chris said...

First off, to think that only theists have a claim to morality is to make a big mistake. Agnostic philosophers have had plenty to say about morality; where it comes from, what it is, how we can evaluate it, etc.

Also, there are plenty of problems with a Divine Command Theory of morals--that is, the theory that what is good is approved by God. Allow me to list a few:

(1) Things are only moral because God approves. If this were true then rape, murder, etc., would be moral if only God approved.

(2) What is right can change accordingly the aesthetic tastes of God.

(3) Saying "God is benevolent," which means "God always does what is good," would, upon the Divine Command Theory, mean nothing more than "God approves of himself and his actions."

(4) God is arational - that is, he has no logical (or illogical) reasons for believing the good is good.

Notice that if you want to disagree with (4) and say that God does have rational reasons, then surely these reasons are equally available to the atheist as well, and we needn't quibble over whether the rights given by Jefferson's Declaration requires a creator or not.

Chris said...

I see now, by reading some of your other posts, that you're aware of the questionable status of moral objectivism, so I hope I didn't come off too coarse.

Jason said...

Chris' points are a very well-put demonstration of the Euthyphro Question (ported from 'the gods' to 'God', of course, as has been standard for millennia now.)

They apply, however, to mere monotheism (including the various nominal deisms, such as Jefferson's.) I personally recognize their force quite robustly--but then, I am a trinitarian theist.

Whatever problems there may be with the claim that the foundational Fact of all reality (including the Fact itself) is an eternally, actively interPersonal unity, it _does_ at least give a different answer than the horns of the Euthyphro dilemma anticipates. God does not follow a standard of good superior to Himself (rationally perceived or otherwise); and God does not merely declare the good by Divine fiat.

What we call love and justice, the actively caring interactions between persons, is a derivation of what the foundation of all reality eternally does: Persons coherently interacting in support of other Persons. (Something the pantheon of Socrates' day, or thereafter, certainly wasn't reported to be doing, btw. {g})

Giordano Sagredo said...

One reason I like the US Constitution (a binding document, unlike the Declaration of Independence, which is historically interesting because of its connection with the war for independence) is that it doesn't mention God or a Creator anywhere. Its preamble only mentions certain goals that we are trying to attain through it:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The US Constitution sets up a truly secular government.

Steven Carr said...

Americans certainly do not believe that the right to life is 'inalienable' as many believe the right to life can be forfeited, and that , for example, Saddam Hussein has forfeited his right to life.

Steven Carr said...

Victor - 'My question was if you supplant the creator with an evolutionary process, then couldnt we say "It's a dog eat dog world, and we're top dogs," and on that basis deny someone those rights.'

What happens if the creator creates through an evolutionary process?

Edward T. Babinski said...

Both the Brits and Americans claimed "God" was on their side. You probably had to back then when speaking about politics at all. As for "equality," St. Paul preached "equality" in Christ, but then proceeded to add that men were the "head" of the family, and "slaves" had to remain obedient to their masters, and everyone should "obey the powers that be, put there by God." That's "equality" for you, straight from the Bible. Even Jesus got into the act adding [in a parable] that "The slave who did not his master's will was beaten with many stripes."

thematthew88 said...

Edward T. Babinski said...
"As for "equality," St. Paul preached "equality" in Christ, but then proceeded to add that men were the "head" of the family, and "slaves" had to remain obedient to their masters, and everyone should 'obey the powers that be, put there by God.' That's "equality" for you, straight from the Bible. Even Jesus got into the act adding [in a parable] that 'The slave who did not his master's will was beaten with many stripes.'"

That is a blatant and irresponsible mis-reading of scripture. To take time to refute those claims individually would be a complete waste of time.

Edward T. Babinski said...

You not only redated the post, but added the old comments I had made there as well.

But since you're reinvestigating the matter may I add that I find the matter of getting to the bottom of "self-evident truths" as involving an endless debate? Just because you cease asking questions as some point and declare that this or that is "self-evident truth" does not make it so, does not end all questions.

Is it "self-evident" that all men are created equal? "Created?" What does one mean by that today? And "equal?" "Equal" how? In exactly what manner of ways are "all men equal?" And by what unquestionable means could one measure this assumed equality (whatever that means) of all persons?

And why the patriarchal non-inclusive language, "all men?" Is that the best anyone can ever do, communication wise?

I suggest that "equality" as spoken of in the Declaration of Independence must be considered in contrast to the "inequality" of having the land of the colonists being taxed (and parceled out to relatives and friends) by a far off "king" who was believed to have been granted by God a state that was "more equal" than that of other men in Britain or the U.S. The "divine right of kings" was being disputed, and the right of people to rule themselves and form their own governments.

This is in contrast to the apostle Paul's letters by the way about the divine necessity of "obeying the powers that be, for they are put there by God."

B H said...

While I certainly admire TJ and the Declaration and acknowledge the change they brought about, I'd have to agree with the theme of the last post by ETB.

The evolution rephrasing sounds so howling off because, like the original, it describes rights descriptively. An atheist rewrite would need to make clear that the source of rights is culture, not nature, divinity, or even reason. That is, rights are proposed, argued over, and agreed upon, but not discovered.

exapologist said...

Plato and Aristotle provided the metaphysical basis for equality among humans -- in terms of accounts of universals -- long before Christianity. Thus, just as two things can be *equally* red, since they both have the same exact universal (viz., redness) within them, so two things can be *equally* human, since they same exact universal (viz., humanness) within them.

Plato and Aristotle were both theists (of sorts), of course, but as I've argued before, I think that the necessary existence of universals is a decent argument against any form of theism that requires a doctrine of absolute creation (i.e., creation of *everything*, including universals).

Much more needs to be said, but if the issue is just the one about how a non-theist can make sense of equality, then there you go.

Anonymous said...

"all men are created equal"

Ex 11:7 "But against any of the children of Israel shall not a dog move his tongue, against man or beast: that ye may know how that the LORD doth put a difference between the Egyptians and Israel."

Ex 19:5 "Now therefore, if ye [Jews] will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people"

"that they are endowed by their Creator with certain Inalienable Rights, that among these are Life,

Gen 7:21-23 "And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark."

"Liberty,"

Ex 31:14 "Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people."

and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Lev 20:13 "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

Come on, this is just too easy.

Jason Pratt said...

Exap: seems a bit of a bare tautology, though. All humans are created (ahem, produced, evolved, etc.) equally human. (Well, except for the humans who weren't evolved as equally human as other humans but were evolved as differently human, etc. Where differently means either non-equal or perhaps a-equal.)

As it is, this would be a ground for human rights to exactly the same degree that equal 'redness' would be a ground for rights. Makes for an interesting clan/race-based rights conflict setup, though. (Okay, so maybe we're all 'human' in some x/un-definable way. But we're _American_ humans! You-all over there are, um, Ugandan humans or something. Our rights are special rights and don't have anything to do with you. You can have your own rights, I guess, but there's no reason for us to recognize or accept or honor or respect them, really. Oh, and some of us are Christian American humans. We have our own rights distinct from whatever 'rights' you atheist or anyway non-Christian American humans have, which we don't have to recognize, honor, respect, etc, if we don't happen to want to...)

This is aside from problems I have with appealing to universal properties; but if the issue is just the one about how a non-theist can make sense of equality... um, well, there we go. {g}


BH: {{An atheist rewrite would need to make clear that the source of rights is culture, not nature, divinity, or even reason.}}

The _source_ of rights is a second-or-third derivative abstraction ('culture') from humanity?? And this derivative abstraction is _not_ itself sourced in nature or even reason!?

An atheist would need to make this a little more clear, I think. {s!} (And a philosophical naturalist would have instantly contradicted his own position by proposing it.)

{{That is, rights [if atheism is true] are proposed [without reasonable grounding], argued over [without dependence upon reason], and agreed upon [without dependence upon reason], but not discovered [via reason or otherwise].}}

Even _I_ think atheists have a better case for ethics than _this_. {amused g}

{{Come on, this is just too easy.}}

Yeah, just a little _too_ easy, Anon. Convenient prooftexting is a very fundy thing to do; thanks for the contrib. If you know that much you ought to know there are other prooftexts that can be marshalled on the other side, which I won't bother to repeat here.

(That being said, I agree it's a good caution against naively supposing BIBLICAL AUTHORITY!!! {thoom} makes everything crystal clear to the dullest reader and so synchs in without any problem to a document written partly by nominal deists.)

For those not really interested in entering into a prooftexting war (ahem), I've redated the Heart of Freedom entry from July 4th this year, up to the top of the Cadre page. It has more than a few connections to the current topic; and also has a link to an ongoing series on ethical grounding I've been contributing in recent months. (The most recent entry of which ought to be rejoicement time for numerous sceptics, incidentally. {s!})

JRP (7/19/2007)

B H said...

I was using "nature" in the popular man-vs-nature sense. Of course I believe human culture is natural, but I meant an atheist/naturalist would want to avoid an appeal to nature in naming basic rights (e.g., arguing that evolution has given us these rights or the desire for these rights). And what I'm ultimately trying to avoid is stating human rights in terms that reference an extra-human source. I think it's clear from history and even current politics that there aren't a set of well-defined inalienable rights that we can reason toward or that we're inevitably moving toward when we engage in politics with good intentions. Defining rights is a human process and subject to all the usual variation associated with culture. If we as a society accept an agreement like the Constitution, then the source of our rights is in our acceptance of that document.

Does this open up lots of ethical problems that aren't easy to solve? Certainly. But then, that's what naturalism tends to do when applied to our own species and societies.

Jason Pratt said...

BH: a superior reply, btw! {bow!} Sort of. {g}

{{I was using "nature" in the popular man-vs-nature sense.}}

Even as a matter of practical application though (as well as for purposes of metaphysical analysis), that popular 'man-vs-nature' sense is difficult to distinguish from the same one-and-only Nature that happens to produce and ground all our behaviors, if natualism is true.

Admittedly, even atheistic naturalists who attempt to explain morality on genetic grounds (i.e. that evolution has given us at least the desire for 'rights'), have a peculiar tendency to admit that they have explained it away and/or to ignore their own proferred ground for human ethical behavior when it comes time to make an ethical appeal they themselves really care about and want other people to care about, too.

And yet, the intention to avoid stating human rights in terms that reference an extra-human source, seems to me to be a way of avoiding a realistic accounting of our place in reality. One way or another, humans do depend upon an extra-human source for our existence and abilities; and not just as a matter of chronological priority, but as a continuing underlying (or underwriting!?) foundation.

If you don't think an atheistic Nature can properly ground our morality (and that's what we're more fundamentally talking about here--I'm willing to agree that discourse over 'rights' per se tends to dodge or beg some crucial points), then you're going to be left with human-invented moralities being just as ultimately ungrounded (even if it happens to feel to us in our delusion as though we're doing something else), or else you're going to be proposing that we humans can be, and are, routinely and crucially doing something actually _more_ and _beyond_ what Nature of itself can provide.

That position is indistinguishable from supernaturalism of some kind; and it only avoids being a recognition and proposal of supernaturalistic theism by conveniently ignoring the highly evident facts of our own ontological state: we are not the ground of reality. But apparently something _like_ us must be: like us, in a way that we are somehow unlike Nature.

{{Defining rights is a human process and subject to all the usual variation associated with culture.}}

Insofar as we are humans, enacting a definition of rights, it would be ridiculous for me not to grant this. {g} And that's regardless of the metaphysical truths otherwise involved (e.g. naturalism/supernaturalism; atheism/theism).

Even so, I haven't forgotten that this definition process is supposed to be done without source-referencing to _reason_. Men may reason on a topic and reach different answers from one another; for they may not share the same data/premises, and may or may not be reasoning validly with what data they possess. But that is a very different thing from doing 'propositions', 'argumentation' and 'agreements' _without_ source-referencing reason. I can't help but suspect that you nixed the notion that the source of rights is 'reason', because sooner or later that 'reason' would turn out to be an 'extra-human' source reference.

And I think we all know what _that_ would be pointing toward. {g}

(Incidentally, rational invention of ethics is the first of the general theories of ethics that I discuss in that Eth&t3rdPers series I mentioned earlier--and not without some real sympathy and credit for it. In fact, I'll be coming back to a special variation of it presently--having discussed a fatal error in theistic ethical grounding meanwhile.)

JRP

exapologist said...

Hi Jason,

You're certainly right that what I said isn't sufficient to ground *ethical* principles of equality all by itself, which is why I said that more needs to be said. My point was the more fundamental one that the naturalist can provide *the bedrock metaphysical basis upon which such ethical principles of equality rest*, viz., equality in terms of *the sharing of a property* (humanness, personhood, sentience, the capacity for suffering and enjoyment, or whatever turns out to be the appropriate locus of ethical principles). Once you have that, you can apply whatever ethical principles you have that apply to *one* human/person/sentient creature/sufferer-enjoyer to *every* creature that instantiates that property.

The reason I brought this up is because I sometimes hear, by people like Moreland, that if God isn't real, then equal treatment has no ground, for people deserve equal treatment if (i) they have something in common that *makes* them equal, and (ii) the thing they have in common is *relevant* to equal treatment. But the only thing that could play that role is the equal bearing of the image of God.

Well, I just think that's a ridiculous argument. I can't even believe Moreland can make it with a straight face (although he does over and over and over... in public apologetic lectures). I'm ashamed of myself for having accepted it and argued with "non-believers" about it when I was a Christian.

Duke of Earl said...

What happens if the creator creates through an evolutionary process? Steven Carr

He wouldn't be the creator of the Bible would he? :-)

You're certainly right that what I said isn't sufficient to ground *ethical* principles of equality all by itself, which is why I said that more needs to be said. My point was the more fundamental one that the naturalist can provide *the bedrock metaphysical basis upon which such ethical principles of equality rest*, viz., equality in terms of *the sharing of a property* (humanness, personhood, sentience, the capacity for suffering and enjoyment, or whatever turns out to be the appropriate locus of ethical principles). Once you have that, you can apply whatever ethical principles you have that apply to *one* human/person/sentient creature/sufferer-enjoyer to *every* creature that instantiates that property.

The reason I brought this up is because I sometimes hear, by people like Moreland, that if God isn't real, then equal treatment has no ground, for people deserve equal treatment if (i) they have something in common that *makes* them equal, and (ii) the thing they have in common is *relevant* to equal treatment. But the only thing that could play that role is the equal bearing of the image of God.

Well, I just think that's a ridiculous argument. I can't even believe Moreland can make it with a straight face (although he does over and over and over... in public apologetic lectures). I'm ashamed of myself for having accepted it and argued with "non-believers" about it when I was a Christian.
exapologist

That's okay, we're embarressed by you too.

However the theistic argument is fundamental. That is to be in the image of God is a fundamental characteristic of human beings.

You can define any person you like out of the congregation of humanity. I can claim that as religion seems to be a characteristic of human beings atheists are not human. The highly intelligent can claim that the retarded are not human. The sensate can claim that the comatose are not human. The born can define the unborn as unhuman. The white can claim the black is not a person, the Nazi can dehumanize the Jew, the list is endless.

The theist claims that all human beings are created in the image of God. This applies whether they are a terrific image, or a flawed and broken image. It is based on what they are and leaves no person in the privileged position of defining whether another person meets their arbitary requirement of humanhood.

While I hesitate to call our criteria objective, at least it is not as vulnerable to human whim as your own.

Jason Pratt said...

{{That's okay, we're embarressed by you too.}}

Now now, Duke. Exap is a friend of Victor and myself and (at least in discussion with us) has routinely carried himself well. He can fly off the handle when provoked, and admittedly I wish he wouldn't (Paul Manata either, to give an example off the top of my head on our side of the aisle), but he wasn't flying off the handle there, and I have no problem with his reply. Well, no problem with him in replying there anyway. (I do have problems with his reply. {g} But not with him.)

Exap (and hereafterward): {{My point was the more fundamental one that the naturalist can provide *the bedrock metaphysical basis upon which such ethical principles of equality rest* [Exap's emphasis]}}

This rather misses my point, I think, although you seem to make my own point a minute later. It obviously provides no such metaphysical grounding whatever--or provides it to exactly the same degree that 'redness' as a shared e-quality (so to speak) would provide it.

Consequently, reference then has to be made to 'the appropriate locus of ethical principles'. But these apparently don't really rest on _that_ metaphysical bedrock. The sense of equality a non-theist can make thereby, isn't a sense of equality that has anything to do with 'ethics'. It isn't an appropriate locus; indeed, it almost seems to be a poisonous locus!

Putting the analogical language another way: the ethicality of such ethics has to be imported over from something else; it isn't native to that bedrock, doesn't grow out of it, doesn't draw its strength and life from it. If it tried, the ethicality would suffer from having an intrinsically a-ethical grounding (at best). The ethicality might be _put_ on that bedrock, but if its taproot isn't found in something else, it's going to wither--or be as real as the Emperor's new clothes (to mix my metaphors a bit. {g}))

That being said, neither can (or do) I deny that a relationship of similarity is important in _some_ way to ethicality. If ethics can be adequately described as the logic of interpersonal relationships, then obviously for an ethical relationship to obtain there must be persons involved who share the quality of 'being persons'. But equality-of-quality itself cannot be _the_ metaphysical basis for the ethicality of this relationship. It's an abstracted description; a shorthand for something more real that is existent and happening and being recognized by actively rational entities.

For what it's worth, I have never been very impressed with Moreland's attempts at ethical grounding. (I occasionally mention that I agree with Richard Carrier over against Moreland's _Scaling the Secular City_, that RC's crit is principly correct, some other problems I have with RC's crit aside; though I didn't get involved with Bill's discussion of it on the Cadre journal or the extremely lengthy and detailed commentary there.) Whether your summary is accurate or not (which I can't honestly say I specifically recognize), I know he doesn't always (ever?) do a good job at this kind of thing.

Setting aside the question of accuracy to the source, my reply to the argument as represented is: well, duh, the argument basically says people deserve equal treatment if they have something in common relevant to equal treatment. This is practically the same thing as saying people deserve equal treatment if they deserve equal treatment! {insert headslapping boing sound here}{g}

That being said, the argument as presented isn't any different in form or content from the argument you yourself gave, aside from polysyllabic variances. Condition (i) if they have something (anything?) in common that 'makes them equal'; with condition (ii) being finding some locus not identifiable with (i) or else porting (i) over into it. The only difference is that (per your representation) Moreland jumps an excluded middle to assert that the only thing that could play this role is the equal bearing of the image of God, while you declined to provide something else that could play that role (but recognized it would have to exist--because (i) clearly wasn't going to do it!)

Frankly, you seem to still accept the argument so far as it goes. You just put something else into (ii).

Whereas, I think that it's a ridiculous argument, given _either_ way. {g} But, fwiw, I could see someone accepting that Moreland was actually proper in setting up (i) and (ii), and then rejecting as improper (and/or even ridiculous) a leap to filling (ii) with a specifically theistic proposition. (I would just have _more_ problems with the overall procedure than that. {s})

Whether that's an accurate summary of Moreland in some paper, btw, I do recognize that he has done similar things where I _can_ see him.

JRP

PS: if you'd like to read an(other?) entertaining scorch of Moreland's chapter on Ethics in StSC, drop me a line directly and I'll send along my notes on the chapter, either the largescale notes or my briefer (but still pretty lengthy and comprehensive) summary. I expect you'll like it a lot. {g} I think you've got my email.

Anonymous said...

hi Victor,

I have been struggling with the entirely problematic 'establishment', sometimes at risk to my well being and would like you to respond or study, perhaps even derive some inspiration from my responses to the nonsense out there being pushed by supposed academics (liars) who had the cash to get a Doctorate IMHO and 'spin' doctors.

Try the below link and look forward to any replys if any.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=318515515322

Here my take on the DOI :

The declaration of Independence was written by Masonry and thus I will prefer to not follow it as supporting the unclarified 'intent' and 'spirit' of the document may have less than positive effects. Let us write our own form of declaration or magna carta. The west has always been rife with harmful intent, especially in

Masonry/Illuminati/NWO inspired works and documents tainted with 'Evil' or littered with ambivalent nuance. Please be conscious of the spiritual aspect of such things and do not accept anything, especially from the West or First World wholesale anymore.

What do you think?

northierthanthou said...

...and thus reasons become conclusions and visa versa.