James Otis Quote

"There can be no prescription old enough to supersede the Law of Nature
and the grant of God Almighty, who has given to all men a natural right
to be free, and they have it ordinarily in their power to make
themselves so, if they please."

by:	James Otis (1725-1783) American revolutionary politician from Massachusetts
Rating:
Categories:	Civil Rights, Freedom, God, Government, Individual Rights, Liberty, Republic, Rights, Tolerance
	Tweet

A brillant leader & revolutionary ~ the true Father of the Revolution. For his ideas, borrowed from Locke & Rosseau, are the cornerstones of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, & Bill of Rights.  -- dragonswizardz
In spite of news reports of government spending "trillions" there is no branch of government spending a dime or paying anyone for anything and they have no need for money as long as all of us will risk our lives or even die for strips of paper. A dime is a silver coin and none circulate. We use copper slugs disguised with cheap silvery looking silver and Nobel Laureate, Paul Samuelson said the Federal Reserve is an "omnipotent counterfeiter in his Economics 4th edition.  -- Dave Wilber, St. Louis
WOW, we hold this truth to be self evident as it has been proven by history innumerable times. He would be persecuted and prosecuted by the statist theocracy and its patrons that now infest this land for saying such if he held any political position today.  -- Mike, Norwalk
Because americans have become apathetic an individual who wishes to make himself free is not allowed anymore due to the thousands of laws and statutes that prevent this from happening. In today's world it is the unordinary individual who has to fight for his freedom to reclaim the natural law granted by God almighty.  -- Anon
Gee, that would mean we don't really need an imported Community Organizer in Chief, wouldn't it? Good Quote.  -- J Carlton, Calgary
We can start back on the road to freedom in November by voting the bums out and not replacing them with other liberals.  -- jim k, Austin
I'm with you Jim, that is exactly what we must do!!!!!!!  -- cal, lewisville, tx
Another religious hijacking of what is rightfully the rights of all Human beings - God didn't give man a natural right to freedom man did. Man can indeed fight for his freedom and it will not be the behest of any God but himself. We can start on the road to freedom by outlawing religion and kicking out all the right wing fanatics and over zealous nationalistic rednecks.  -- RBESRQ      1
Again a three. RBESRQ is adding something to this conversation. Even Adam may have been created "free" but he was forbidden to do something or to suffer a penalty. We have all been suffering penalties for using our freedom to its full. We are restricted in our freedom every which way we turn, by roads that do not go the way we want to go (get a map), by all kind of obstacles and by othe human beings like Adam was restricted by Eve. So maybe we over state this idea of freedom. It is definetly a relational, societal concept at best.  -- Waffler, Smith      1
Waffler, you are correct, Adam was forbidden to do something or suffer the consequences. The shape our country is in is caused by the same conditional consequences. Fortunately it will all fall apart soon and true justice will reign again though probably not in my lifetime. God bless America!  -- Anon
Natural laws can never be broken without consequences. You may get away with it for a while, but the price will always have to be paid. From the law of supply/demand to the law of gravity; if you try to interfere with it, you will regret it. The natural law that the individual is by right free (not a perquisite granted by other men) likewise cannot be violated without consequences. If you want a slave prepare to be a made a slave yourself.  -- Ken, Allyn, WA      1
Robert, your narrow, bigoted, and prejudiced definition of religion is but a selectively reduced version of what the word or concept (religion) has evolved into in the (non-legal, Christian venue specific) western, mostly Christian world. Your delineation of accolades directed towards the subject is a highly specialized image of a non-legal, non-worldly, non-Buddhist, non-Islam, non-Hindu, non-Sikh, non-socialist, non-Tao, etc. belief. The term ('religion', 'non-religion', or 'anti-religion') as you're using does not relate to any society or language prior to Europe's Christianization. Dictionaries for public consumption, playing to anthological self examinations of Christian separatists (prideful - unlawful exclusionists), have morphed the term into a non-legally useful or binding exclusionary depiction of self. The closest legal meaning of the term 'religion', specific to the self describing Christian world was at the time of the founders was / is: "real piety in practice, consisting in the performance of all known duties to God and our fellow men." (Bouvier's Law Dictionary) The world's understanding (and a more accurate legal definition) of what religion is, is a rectitude obligation, a moral relativism or, otherwise rousing tenet authorizing, empowering, rationalizing and vindicating endowments, entitlements, relationships and all other qualitative / quantitative states of being and doing as may exist. As this differs distinctly from the founders secular absolutes concerning life, liberty, and property, it still stands as a great way to distinguish between secular law (as set forth by the individual sovereign's limited representation. its / their Constitution and understanding for the several State's foundation of de jure jurisprudence - natural law) and religious cannons. The etymology of the word (from the Latin re-ligio) would lend itself to a sense of choice as is averse to how the founders used natural law. As to your statement of the origin of rights, you may not believe in the same source of rights that the founders did but, that does not make those rights any less eternal (before, during, and after man's existence on this orb), corporeal man having no such ability to cerate rights, law, or justice. Your piety in practice, relating a rectitude obligation and duty (a moral relativism) to your fellow man's health care is an absolute statement of your religion. The reason you refuse to accept the existence of natural law is because it is at odds with your moral relativism. The reason you can't accept the world's or a lawful definition of religion is because it is at odds with your moral relativism. Your road to freedom (such rousing tenet authorizing, empowering, rationalizing and vindicating endowments, entitlements, relationships of your dutiful choice towards your fellow men) a theocracy's outlawing all competing moral relativism, is an extremely immoral cannon that is neither freedom or lawful.  -- Mike, Norwalk
-- aa, hb
-- Logan, Memphis, TN
Hey RBE. if we're to go that route...can we kick out all the lefty parasites who think the world owes them a living?  -- J Carlton, Calgary
Excellent! For some, the abuses of organized religion throughout history cause a knee-jerk reaction to the word 'God.' May I suggest that the word 'God' is independent of any religion, although most religionists are happy enough that you believe in 'God' even if your beliefs about God vary widely from theirs. Just a helpful reminder that in the Judeo-Christian scriptures, 'God' changed names several times. I am sure deeper research into the word 'God' itself would reveal that it refers to something/someone that devout believers might cringe at discovering. The deist point-of-view acknowledges that God as the Creator or Source is in essence unknowable. They used terms like 'Providence' and 'Creator' and other broad terms that would be acceptable to the various religious factions in their day. But the term 'Laws of Nature' is religion-free -- and in fact, pro-science. As Mike often repeats, the Laws of Nature already are -- they need no propping up, no human intervention required to 'enforce' -- that is why they are called 'Laws' even though they are not written down -- they exist whether man is in harmony with them or not. RBE, you can't have it both ways -- you study Buddhism, the Vedas and other spiritual ideals, and you do endeavor to be a man of integrity and honor. And according to those ideologies, man cannot violate the laws of nature without consequence -- it is called 'karma' in those circles. So fess up -- you are a believer of your own ideology, and it is religious even if 'God' is merely replaced with the phrase 'higher Self.' And there is nothing wrong with that, except for the hypocrisy. And you have plenty of good reasons to disbelieve the religionists of the world -- they are enough to give God a bad name because of the actions they take in his name. But that doesn't change Natural Law one iota.  -- E Archer, NYC      1
Archer, EXCELLENT ! ! thank you. You are absolutely right about the term 'god'. Even in the earliest Hebrew, there was no word that translated into god. The term or word 'el' as translates into God today didn't mean god when first used. 'El' was a political term meaning power or strength - alluding to the head judge. The term judge could then be used for executive, judicial, legislative, president, mayor, evil spirit, etc. (Ba'al' the Aramaic equivalent (el, al) was originally the Philistines' deity of importance with Elohim being his father or principal judge). In Genesis and most of the Old Testiment, el was conjugated into Elohim. Eloi of Elohim is possessory - meaning my omnipotent king or principal judge. The m on the end is equal to adding an s in English. Elohim then means the omnipotent king of the judges' quorum. 'El' did not translate into 'God' until Babylonian captivity and, Especially enforced under Greek influence. Greek language or philosophy could not comprehend the I AM of the Hebrew or a Father in Heaven but, they did understand the concept 'god' so god it became for ever more (The modern day image of the Biblical God is more a kin to the Greek Theos than the original Hebrew omnipotent king of the judges' quorum).  -- Mike, Norwalk
-- jim k, Austin
There again natural law dwells in the hearts of the individual, Out side of any denominational affiliation attaching themselves to God. This bridges the gaps of ignorance and stupidity within the Threskeia, superficial, religious practices of denominationalism. It is the individual which follows the law of a good conscience towards their neighbor that produces a peaceful relationship regardless of their religious upbringings or current religious affiliations. We have God in contract, it is the responsibility of the individual to chasen themselves of their own lust to abuse Liberty. I do like God's name also as, ( I AM ) This is manifest in the, Open vision, afforded the world today. Though rarely or ever spoken of. This, Open Vision, will be brought to light and shown visibly before many nations not long to come. God does manifest himself through the written word, as also the visible illustration which comes to light." The beholding of the eye is better than the wandering of desire." He will show his salvation to the people and nations. The gathering continues of True Patriots, and they come from all quarters of religious denominations. No doubt ! Unity of knowledge knit together in love of Liberty and Freedom .The foundation of a just cause, before The God of Creation.  -- Ronw13, Yachats Or
-- jim k, Austin
Robert, your bigoted rant and displayed loathing of men for mere belief is very telling. Just another abominable rambling from a hateful woke progressive. In your ANTI-individual sovereignty / inalienable right / liberty outlawing religion and kicking out all those disagreeing non-patrons of your religion, do you have room for other than a narrow-minded knee jerk interpretation of terms. By example, for the non-believer in extra human existence the term "god" is used frequently at law — "acts of god in insurance nomenclature"; means, happenstance beyond man's immediate control. Freemen can allow others their beliefs while interpreting things their own way.  -- Mike, Norwalk
Waffler, your erroneous redefinition of terms never ceases to amaze. IRS personnel really have to have a sick and twisted perspective just to live with themselves. No where in a legal definition of freedom does road direction or your perception of obstacles show up. Adam's restriction by Eve was again, his free choice.  -- Mike, Norwalk

Tweet  Rate this quote! How many stars? 0 1 2 3 4 5	What do YOU think?
Your name:	Your town:     CLICK JUST ONCE!

Get a Quote-A-Day! Free!
Liberty Quotes sent to your mail box.
Email: