Dickinson indeed favored reconciliation over separation from England. Following the adoption of the Declaration, though, he at times led 10,000 militia in the revolution, presided over the state of Pennsylvania, wrote the "Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania" that earned him the sobriquet Penman of the Revolution. Regardless of the fact that of all the members of the Continental Congress his was the only signature absent from the Declaration, his understanding of liberty and the origin of human rights was profound.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created. . . " If we are not created, but merely evolved, from where do the rights spring?

Archer, courage in one's beliefs is fortitude. Faith is accepting (an idea, person, etc) as true without proof. God can not be proved. He requires faith, and He rewards it. The Author of the letter to the Hebrews in the Bible declares, "he who comes to God must BELIEVE that He is, and that He rewards those that seek Him." It is this belief in One higher than all others Who makes demands, and Who promises reward or punishment based on our response to His demands that is the true basis of morality. It is this obedience to One Who does not change. People change, societies change, science, mores, common sense all change. Basing morality on what people or society accept, what science declares, what mores currently allow or what common sense dictates means morality will change as they do. Reason and compassion lead to different conclusions for different people. Dr. Kevorkian's and Florence Nightengale's compassion led them to polar extremes in caring for the dying. Reason and compassion may help, but are not enough.

Forced charity robs the giver of joy and the receiver of gratitude. This is one of the greatest evils of the welfare state. The one who gives from compulsion resents not only the hand that compels but the recipient as well. The one who receives the public largess considers it their right, and is therefore not grateful, for what we have of right is not a gift, and demands no gratitude from us.

Mere pandering. This man who himself practiced licentiousness, who was a libertine would limit liberty, ostensibly to preserve it.

If by freedom you mean freedom from all restraint then you espouse law-lessness. Freedom from law is not liberty but anarchy. Nor is it approved by "the God of Nature's law," Who is Himself the Great Lawgiver. What Cicero intended was along the lines of saying we are a nation of laws. Not to say we are bound by myriad regulation (though we may be) nor yet that we should be self-disciplined (though truly we ought to be) but that our liberty is guaranteed by a just system of laws that apply equally to all. All are bound to obey, regardless of race, birth, or title. Cicero was protesting the ascension to power of the triumvirate, Julius Caesar, Crassus, and Pompey. Cicero sought power of his own, but had been hampered by a pedestrian pedigree. This may have been somewhat of a "sour grapes" quote from one left out of the center of power.

Definitely one of the brightest rays from freedom's flame.

In the war against Islamic fascist terror the easy, sure, inexpensive victory could have been had as recently as the mid 1980s. Thank God that Misters Bush and Blair realize we are quickly approaching that "precarious" time. Pray that their successors don't wait for some more propitious wind to blow, but finish the job.

Mr. Rosenthal correctly interprets Butler. To force someone to comply is not the same as changing their opinion so that they voluntarily comply. Remove the external force and the one compelled against his will will return to his original actions. But change a man's mind and no external force is required.

You shall know the Truth, and the Truth shall set you free.

Which is another way of saying that America's "immigration problem" is really just a welfare problem.

Separation of Church and state originally meant the state must not interfere in matters of "the church" -neither to promote nor to hinder. In Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association where the phrase was coined this is quite clearly the interpretation. Jefferson was writing to assure the Association that the state would not interfere with their beliefs, not to make a case for their beliefs to be excluded from the public forum. The whole purpose of the Constitution is to define the limits of the power granted the federal government, not to define the limits of the rights of religious groups, firearms owners, or other private citizens. Indeed, it is obvious from the Declaration of Independence that, as these rights spring not from government, society, or any other human source, but from the Creator, that no human source is authorized to retract or limit the right beyond what the Creator has allowed. It is unfortunate that Jefferson's phrase has been turned on its head and used as a basis for excluding the church from participating in any affairs of state when its only original intent was to preclude interference by the (federal) state in affairs of the church.