Their Creator

Published by

Clarissa

July 9, 2013

In the ad, which has an Independence Day theme, an actor says, “All men are created equal, that they are endowed with certain unalienable rights: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” The Declaration of Independence states ”…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.”

The ad has aired for about three weeks focusing on the July Fourth holiday, but the company is still receiving angry comments posted on its Facebook page.

I don’t know why people are choosing to see the censored words as necessarily religious. The text says specifically “THEIR Creator.” For atheists and agnostics, their Creator is not God. It can be nature or simply their mother / father.

Before you object, let’s remember that authorial intention cannot possibly matter to responsible readers, especially when the authors are dead and cannot be consulted.

Rate this:

18 responses to “Their Creator”

el

July 9, 2013

If 99.99% of people mean “God”, it’s God. That doesn’t mean censoring is right, of course. Also, “Creator” has a capital “C”, which is another hint it isn’t a parent.

LikeLike

Reply
1. bloggerclarissa
  
  July 9, 2013
  
  Who has done the calculations? 🙂
  
  And some people have a lot if respect for their parents. 🙂
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
2. Pen
  
  July 9, 2013
  
  Keep in mind that everyone used capital letters for lots of pronouns–and nouns–back when the Declaration of Independence was written. If you take a look at the original document, it’s got capitalization all over the place. And it doesn’t have to mean God. One interpretation by x number of people is just one interpretation, whether that’s the majority interpretation or no. And since not everyone is religious in the same way–and some aren’t religious at all–there are going to be different interpretations.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. bloggerclarissa
    
    July 9, 2013
    
    “One interpretation by x number of people is just one interpretation, whether that’s the majority interpretation or no. And since not everyone is religious in the same way–and some aren’t religious at all–there are going to be different interpretations.”
    
    – That’s what I’m saying!
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
David Gendron

July 9, 2013

“Their Creator” was intended to be “God”. And “created” was intended to be a creationist statement. Thus this is a religious statement. Atheists, agnostics and even pro-evolution theists admit no creator.

LikeLike

Reply
1. bloggerclarissa
  
  July 9, 2013
  
  Please reread the last paragraph of my post. 🙂 What anybody intended is beyond the point.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. David Gendron
    
    July 9, 2013
    
    The problem is that many judges are interested by the intention. Of course, this should not be used as a judiciary tool, but…
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
    1. bloggerclarissa
      
      July 9, 2013
      
      We are not in court, though.
      
      LikeLike
      
      Reply
charlesrowley

July 9, 2013

The Constitution of the United States is interpreted through many channels. One is strict construction, which requires an understanding of the words as they were meant in 1787. There can be no question that those who wrote the Constitution used the word Creator to mean God. The word was also written to mean God as it is understood inthe Holy Bible. One can play around with words, of course, but such plays may cut little ice in the federal courts.

LikeLike

Reply
1. bloggerclarissa
  
  July 9, 2013
  
  They had their intentions and we can have ours. 🙂 A text belongs to the readers once it has been made public.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. Pen
    
    July 9, 2013
    
    Exactly. They should stop teaching authorial intent in schools. It confused the heck out of me in high school (if I didn’t know what I meant by my writing how could I know what anybody else meant by theirs?) and now I’m taking a class where authorial intent is part of a valid response to a topic because it’s a general education requirement and we’re not expected to know better. It’s annoying how few people teach the difference between historical interpretation and authorial intent.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
2. Pen
  
  July 9, 2013
  
  I think federal courts are a lot less religious than you’re thinking. Local courts, too. There’s a reason separation of church and state was written into the Constitution.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
3. Jonathan Mayhew
  
  July 9, 2013
  
  That’s not the Constitution it’s the declaration of independence.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
charlesrowley

July 9, 2013

I was cut off before I could add that The Declaration of Independence is similarly subjected to strict constructionism. So the material that you refer to is indeed accurately portraying the meaning of the words.

LikeLike

Reply
1. Jonathan Mayhew
  
  July 9, 2013
  
  Well, no. Constructionism in this sense is a legal theory, and the Declaration is not a legally binding document that must be interpreted to see whether other laws are valid. Also, most of the founding fathers were Deists, so it is a vague “Creator” not the God of the bible.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
David Gendron

July 9, 2013

Off-topic: http://www.southernstudies.org/2009/08/alabama-city-destroying-ancient-indian-mound-for-sams-club.html

LikeLike

Reply
Lear

July 9, 2013

For me the Creator in this phrase is clearly the biblical God. Historically the US is ideologically Christian. Remember “In God we trust” is the US motto. Any historical document reflect this. Regarding the censoring I would have personally done the same even if I lost a few fundamental Christians clients along the way.

LikeLike

Reply
musteryou

July 9, 2013

I’m my creatore:

LikeLike

Reply