James A. Garfield Quote - Liberty Quotes Blog

"Liberty is no negation. It is a substantive, tangible reality."

by:	James A. Garfield (1831-1881) 20th President of the United States (1881), assassinated
Rating:
Categories:	Liberty, Truth, Reality
	Tweet

Reader comments about this quote:

I dunno about this. For the Colonialists it was a negation of monarchy. For the religionists it was a negation of heirarchy etcetera. For many liberty also was a call for equality and fraternity. -- Waffler, Smith 1
This definition separates the blue sky watching / star gazing slave's perception from those who perceive, understand, and desire natural law's liberty for their being. -- Mike, Norwalk 2
Liberty is God given-not delegated by government. -- cal, lewisville, tx 2
Liberty is as natural as the Sun. Tyranny and control are man made and evil in nature. -- J Carlton, Calgary 2
I like it. Not something the average 'Joe' would get, though. The Common Law is based upon substance and the 'real' which is the proper jurisdiction founded on the premise of Liberty. Injustice is the treating of the unreal as if real -- like promissory notes instead of gold -- in fact, any 'promises' treated as the 'real thing' is a violation of fundamental Natural Law. Liberty is the real thing; socialism is but promises of good things to come but is always 'tomorrow.' -- E Archer, NYC 2
What is Liberty if you have no food, no home, no hope, but Liberty - Life is the negation of Liberty -- RBESRQ 2
Archer, well said. Robert, you've read some of my life story here. I've been sufficiently without that my family or I had not even a car to sleep in. Food was scarce for the family and did not present itself on a daily basis. I was neither without hope or liberty. Life is great then it just gets better. I've been regularly ridiculed for my Christian faith in the world of academia. Parents wouldn't let their kids play with mine because of our faith. I was not without liberty or hope. I've been beaten by police (just because they needed a little fun diversion) had a child retained under the patriot act, had friends gone to prison after breaking no laws, been confronted by the most vile and tyrannical attorneys and judges on the planet, and never have I been without liberty or hope. The economy is preparing to collapse and I've been trying to prepare for my family and neighbors - I still maintain my liberty and a hope. Liberty without food, or shelter is the same liberty with food and shelter, it is a birthright to be sought with continual hope (and not the hope President Obamunist Goodwrench represents). -- Mike, Norwalk 2
Mike, you sound like a good fellow and responsible. But your life as above has me betwixt because the norm in America is that the fascist (soft) government is far more religiously motivated than otherwise. When the White Starts of the day with a daily prayer I think that says it all. When we use :In God we Trust" nearly at every official function I would think you are on the right side of the fence - its people like me that are badgered by society for my beliefs. I'm interested to know why as a child you were thought of as either radical or different to main line society. I know Mormons, Presbyterians, Baptists, Jews, Muslims, and Buddhists, all of which are good people and allow me my life as an Atheist - some say "then you don't believe in anything" well, that couldn't be further from the truth - I believe in life, humanity, and individual rights to exist equally regardless of faith, creed, race, gender, and philosophy. It is us in our daily actions that represent heaven and hell not some nefarious myth that has never been proved - my faith is in the human race that one day we will all live in peace and throw ego out of the window. -- RBESRQ
Oops! that's "White House" -- RBESRQ
I am curious, as well, why you suffered. I think that this quote is telling us, that no matter the circumstances, we have a mind from which we grow hope and we have the liberty to think, in spite of all that goes on around us. And it is that spark, that desire to reach for something that no one else can touch, that makes Liberty a tangible reality. -- aa, hb
Robert, I smile, yeah, I'm not sure I was ever comfortable in or, exemplary of the 'norm' (what ever that is). I would have been considered different as a youth, I think, because I learned early that there is no difference between people (no matter where they came from, what they look like, their belief system, preferences, etc. - sort of an equal before the law kinda thang) AND, I don't take anyone's word for anything, do my own original research, put it to the test, and come up with my own censorial, thoughts, and conclusions. I agree that the government is more religiously motivated than not but, I think that's as much a left, as it is a right thing. As evidenced by their works, prayer in the White House is a false facade to hide a most sinister belief system and shift blame. The statist theocracy that infests this land, while abusing both yours and my belief systems, has its own third party agenda. By way of example: In all the horaah of California prop 8 I lost work, was verbally abused, and physically accosted because of my religious beliefs. I've never been against gays getting married. I have my own religious beliefs concerning marriage and believe all should have that same right. I've alway been against the secular government creating for itself a monopoly over the religious sacrament marriage (inclusive of all granted privileges). The divine right of kings, granting (selling) titles of religious privilege was replaced by each individual, heir to the King of the Universe, being sovereign, having innate personal authority, power, and right to accept or deny his/her own religious sacraments. Your above comment on liberty was out of character for you, not the norm. Your comment seemed to be a sad, dismal and without hope state of affairs that reduced liberty's nobility to a mere, limited, and depressing faculty of materialism. -- Mike, Norwalk 2
-- Wayne, Naples
Mike, I agree, but everyone is an individual and very different; what makes us the same is our indoctrination towards any subject you wish to choose - we lose our individuality to social and political ideology that wishes you to conform to its belief system. Putting your research to the test! well, that's a tall order but, I think I know what you mean. By the way, the homophobes and religious right won re Prop 8 so I'm not sure where you are coming from by saying you were verbally abuse. Look at the terrible abuse gays suffers from placards that read "God hates fags" (the list is long re; disgusting and hate rhetoric towards gays). If gays gave you abuse over your religious beliefs re; the sanctity of marriage you can understand as Americans are the last to live by any such covenant (what hypocrisy). I'm curious as to why you were abused and physically accosted over prop 8, please elaborate as you seem to have the belief that gays also have the right to marry. The point of a secular government is precisely the opposite to your statement above. Here I'm very confuse because you are now saying that a secular government is trying to have a monopoly over the religious sacrament marriage - what balderdash. A secular government would be the opposite as they would recognize your right for ANY religious belief - are you confusing a secular government with communism? A secularism believes that government should exist separately from religion.Why do you thing our founding farther wanted a separation between church and state. The audacity of religion to dictate the rights of individuals and the administration of government is beyond me. When religion rears its staff and dictates how society should operate we become fundamentalists like many Muslim countries; this creates fear, and stifles imagination and creativity (just to name a few). Many Christian actual support secularism because its provides freedom from persecution - in others words, equality for all. Life is indeed a negation of Liberty as life (the government under which you exist) always dictates what and how your Liberty should be defined. True Liberty is not possible in a world that is confined to the dictates of any particular regime. Life is as we exist in it and not some ideological belief that is never experienced. Our rhetoric with regards to natural law and universal law is in most case highly misrepresented as it is not reflective of Life and our daily activities - it is more reflective of what we think as apposed to how we live. If you wish to discuss materialism just take a look at the Vatican and how many religions wants their tithing. Give me St.Francis any day - now he was a true and compassionate individual. Sorry for the rant... -- RBESRQ 1
Robert, you're preaching to the choir. You miss the point entirely because in most ways, your examples prove my point. I was castigated as much by gays as I was by the religious right and left. I understand both their sides, I just don't agree with them. You're right, a secular government would be the opposite of a theocratic government. Though communism is a specific form of theocracy, that's not what I was talking about. No State recognizes any longer common law marriages. Those states that say they recognize common law marriages, now supply dozens of statutory hoops to qualify as a common law marriage, in toto, negating what common law is (by definition it can't be a common law marriage). All States now only recognize the monopoly of their privileged sacrament. If two (or more) individuals wish to enter a relationship they wish to structure under the religious sacrament title, 'marriage' (a private agreement - contract, covenant, etc.) no State will allow to that union the same privileges it offers its own autonomous sacrament. A secular government neither has the authority, power, right, or lawful jurisdiction to address, in anyway, religion or its non-criminal canons, ordinances, sacraments, etc. "The audacity of religion to dictate the rights of individuals and the administration of government is beyond me. When religion rears its staff and dictates how society should operate we become fundamentalists like many Muslim countries; this creates fear, and stifles imagination and creativity (just to name a few)." Marriage is a religious sacrament dictated to fundamentalists of the statist theocracy. I for one Christian, completely support secular government. That body of natural law and justice, addressing each and every, any and all beings (life, liberty, property) falls within the jurisprudence of secular representation. Private relationships, contracts, etc. may be religious in scope, but are in no lawful way to be addressed by a secular government. Life is indeed an expression of liberty. Unrighteous theocracies and other tyrannical governments, with their patrons negate liberty and freedom. -- Mike, Norwalk 2
Mike, I didn't quite understand the (or more) thought. Marriage has nothing to do with religious sacraments - if Christianity wishes to use the word marriage as part of their autonomous sacrament and associate the word marriage with divine intervention and beliefs that's OK. It's when religious groups steal words that are common to all peoples that I have a problem. If Christians and other religious groups wish to use the word marriage as part of their divine union they can but all should be allowed to use the same word in their union too. Marriage is not the property of religion, marriage is a word used to identify the relationship between either individuals, groups, etc. Why do religious group think they own the word marriage? Marriage is also used for any close intimate association or agreements between entities. You may not believe in the use of the word marriage for any other reason than one of Christian sacrament - while we are on that subject tell me where in the bible is the word marriage used expressly to marry only a man and a women. Well, marriage should be lawful in a secular government and are more like to be so if there is a separation of church and state. The law and rights provided to those who either marry in a church, or registry office, should be for all people if they so wish. Many Gay marriages are sanctified by religious groups outside the official dictum's of their hierarchy. If there are Gays who are Christian they should be given the same rights as the marriage between a man and a women. It's time for society to rid itself of dogma and prejudice and live freely regardless of sexual orientation. Mike, yes, "Life is indeed an expression of liberty. Unrighteous theocracies and other tyrannical governments, with their patrons negate liberty and freedom". Good people exist in all facets of life and NO ONE has rights over another because they believe they are morally correct. What is morally correct is in the hearts of people and not written in the law books - if only we disobeyed what was told to us as a moral objective but in our hearts we knew otherwise - wars may stop today. -- RBESRQ 1
Robert, marriage has always been a religious ordinance, in all of history, and in all religions. Your biased against Christianity has clouded your definitions and understanding. The Atheist and other anti-Christian movements in the West (Europe, Americas, etc.) have diligently worked at redefining words, terms, and concepts to make them Christian specific derogatory (by way of example: religion - what it is). Marriage as you have accurately stated is an intimate and formal relationship between individuals. Different religions define that relationship differently (some one man - multiple women, some one woman, multiple men, some one man - one woman, some one man - one man) The Judeo - Christian defines it as a man - woman relationship complete with pro-creation and other inherent responsibilities. The point is, it is not just a Christian sacrament, or how the individual defines his relationships to Judeo - Christian norms, it is a relationship, ordinance, formal decree for all lawful and other secular purposes, a personal relationship, of a religious historical nature, beyond the purview of representative government. To try and put marriage into a Christian 'norm' box is a mis-direction, off legal subject diversion that is not related to the lawful subject of personal relationships. Cohabitation with another(s) in marriage is a lawful happenstance in a secular government (again, beyond the legal / lawful and legitimate authority, power, rights, prowess of secular government). Personal (non-natural law crimes) contracts, covenants, commercial activities, intimate relationships between consenting adults (marriage or otherwise) are non-inclusive of life, liberty, or property authority given to representatives in a secular government. Secular governments have no authority, power, rights or lawful purview to compel compliance, license, create victimless crimes, decide which larceny is permissible or interfere with individual's contracts, covenants, religious beliefs or actions, etc. Gay or otherwise marriages, no matter the religious affiliation or belief system, have nothing to do with secular rights. De jure sovereign representative secular governments posses no rights to give, they only have limited duties to perform (the Judeo / Christian lawful foundation of the US was that all rights are unalienable - unable to be given or taken from the individual sovereign). NO rights or privileges can be given by a de jure secularly representative government. Individual patrons of any given organic / inorganic ethos (religion, government) that submits his/her person to that ethos (evidenced by receiving privilege from a master that has rights beyond the individual sovereign), gives legal silent notice that he/she is no longer a sovereign participant in a representative body but rather, a patron to their master, in church / government theocracy form. If and when Atheists, Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, philosophers, teachers, etc. will accept natural law (that which is, and a path to discovery, in fact and accurately describing law) man will suffer no more under the negation of liberty and find joy in liberty's substance and tangibility, realizing the liberty and freedom so long sought. -- Mike, Norwalk 1
Mike, First, you must understand what an Atheist is they are just a-theist. I’m sorry but civil unions regarding marriage, which are not a religious ordinance, have been performed for many years. I’m also not bias towards Christianity, the whole point of Atheism and Secularism is that we are not opposed to anyone choosing what ever religion they wish to worship. Please understand that Atheism is only disbelief in ANY religion. It’s not anti-Christian or anti any belief system; I would never presume my beliefs over that of others, therefore Atheist’s are NOT anti-religion and, as far as they are concerned its a non sequitur. Using the word anti provides an active response (that you oppose), which we do not rhetorically or physically react too. Yes, we are redefining words, words that have been bastardized, co-opt, and hijacked to fit a religious or cult’s agenda. Out of interest, please tell me the religion that practices one woman and multiple men and the other inherent responsibilities mentioned. In Mormonism they have multiple wives though the government outlawed this in 1895 though it is still practiced today and the government turns a blind eye to it. How about turning a blind eye and allow Gays to marry – many Christian’s and Jews have been enlightened and do allow marriage of “same sex” couples in their churches. Yes, you hit the nail on the head when you mention “beyond the purview of representative government” it is exactly this that a secular movement disagrees with. Why do you limit your understanding of equality to only that which fits your religious agenda? That, my dear friend, is not kosher. We are trying to change the law for all to have equality and the church keeps on actively and aggressively trying to stop that by funding all Anti-Gay marriage proposals with millions of dollars – what are Christians scared of? It should be the lawful subject of a personal relationship, to think otherwise is bigotry and prejudice. By the way a secular government or come to that, any government whether it be secular, fascist, democratic, or theocratic, makes their own laws that is NO SUCH THING as a law that can supersede any of those governments if they so wish. Just look what happened to Thomas Becket who was killed by Catholics/Christian and later made a Saint. Actually, again, you hit the nail on the head. When will Christian’s see the light and natural law (not the Thomas Aquinas type I mean real Natural Law not the Natural Law Christians or Muslims or Jews wish to define). Natural law is totally without thought and without objectives; it is absolute beyond human intervention either religious or governmental. Natural law only answers to one other law and that is Universal law. Dust to dust, ashes to ashes, that is Universal Law. The path to discovery is hindered by religion and any other from of egocentric relationship. Joy in Liberty will only be achieved when man’s dominance over the life of others is eliminated. The substance of JOY can only come about by TOTAL disassociation with the material world – until we throw off the yoke of theocratic, dictatorial governments, and religious ordinances we will never experience the joy of liberty and life and the Universal principle. In the actual natural world, of man-made laws, homosexuality is common in most species. Therefore, it is occurring naturally even as we speak. One chooses religion not your sexuality. You obtain your sexual preference when you are born. Until you agree with this any further conversation is irrelevant. Though, we can still discuss common law. -- RBESRQ 1
Robert, I agree that most of the conversation is; we're going to have to agree to disagree. For example, as a hard core believing Christian, I believe gays have just as much right to get married as anybody else. Marriage is a formal religious definition, having a history of thousands of years. Civil unions don't have the same history or meaning. I'm as happy with my religious definition of marriage, as I am happy with your religious definition of marriage. Both beliefs are outside the purview (complete with associated privilege) of secular government. Atheism, when being the basis for directing actions is by definition a religion, no matter how you try and squirm around it. You may not be actively involved in attacking Christianity but, many religious Atheists are. You're general innuendos do seem to be on the religious fringe. Contrary to Atheists and the current statist theocracy patrons, secular law (verses religious cannons) has nothing to do with Atheism, Christianity, etc. With in the body of natural law (by the way, pretty good description), that subset which deals universally with all individuals (life, liberty, property - all else being religious cannon) is what separates religion form secular government. Secularism, as is averse to secular government is just another religion. The Gay movement that is enlarging the statist theocracy's world of privilege (titles of nobility), is a movement to make all slaves equal. My religious agenda is to have all free (to marry whom they will, with all related privileges, outside the statist theocracy's domain). My religious agenda, and otherwise, is to return to the individual sovereigns, a concept of limited natural law government. Common law is a great topic. -- Mike, Norwalk 1
The first part was good until you got to Atheism -- this is obviously a subject you need more education about. Atheists do not believe in God -- this is incorrect as by definition there is no need to elaborate. The literal meaning of Atheist means you don't believe in God without God, 'a' equals without and 'theos' equals Gods. So, it is redundant to say Atheists don't believe in God. To say Atheists are religious is absurd and using the color Black analogy is buffoonery. How do you classify Atheism as a religion? There are many classifications for Christianity. The disbelief of a God is not grounds to contradict "Atheism is a Religion" as many beliefs like Jainism, Buddhism, Taoism, and many others are classified as religions as the Christian criteria for being religious is also met by these other beliefs systems. This following paragraph is from a friend when I asked him to comment on the argument: "The argument that atheism is a religion is silly on its face. There is no dogma; there are no artifices, no high priests, no liturgy, no ritual, no offer of a special treatment at sometime in the future in exchange for practices performed today, no need for sacrifices or offerings, no large special class of individuals whose livelihood is supported by the lay people to explain the mysteries to them- the list goes on and on. Belief or lack of belief in any particular myth does not constitute a religion. To say that it does is the same tactic used by Creation Scientists, to try to co-opt the word "science" to make it meaningless, and just another synonym for faith. Faith, on the other hand, is belief in the unbelievable. Amongst the religious, of any denomination or creed, the greater the belief in the unbelievable, the greater the stature of the individual, because the greater the faith." Atheists are not bound by the common ideology that religious beliefs systems practice. Purely speaking and from many English lit professors the word Atheism needs no further explanation. The word itself defines its position, it needs no qualifier. I agree secular law has nothing to do with Atheism or Christianity. All is encompassed within Natural Law as we are all its subjects regardless of our beliefs. A secular government includes any belief system; the difference being is that those belief systems are outside the administration of a secular state. Secularism is not a religion as I have explained with regard to atheism, it follows the same analogy; secularism does not have the same tenets, or need for faith, that are part of a religious ideology. I have no idea what you mean by the Gay movement the only gay movement I am aware of is their need for equal rights. Is there another movement that you can enlighten me about? It is precisely the Gay agenda that all should be free and have the same rights without the need to categorize groups into religious and non-religious. I admire your position on your own religious agenda - if there are religious orders within your statist theocracy■s domain that do recognize Gay marriage then that is there right as much as it is yours and your particular religious order not to do so. Yes, the history of Common and Civil Law is a fascinating subject. -- RBESRQ

Bio of James A. Garfield
More James A. Garfield Quotes
Books by or about James A. Garfield
James A. Garfield Videos
Wikipedia
This James A. Garfield quote is found in these quote Categories:
Liberty Quotes
Truth Quotes
Reality Quotes

Quotes & Quotations - Send This Quote to a Friend

© 1998-2024 Liberty-Tree.ca