Claus, why? It doesn't matter.
I would just like to know. Is that a bad thing?
I'm not demanding it, I would just like to know. If you have that information, why not share it? Do you think every piece of information has to be used in a war?
We could learn from this. It's interesting. OK?
For one, the DoI refers to the life, libery, and the pursuit of happiness. These are not mentioned in the USC. Likewise, the USC/BoR refers to different rights than the DoI and even specifies that the rights refered to in the DoI can be impinged.
But those are not contradictions, it is merely mentioning A and not B, and B and not A.
What are the contradictions of the Freedom Chapters?
You might as well argue that without the DoI, there would have been no AoC.
What's an AoC? You lost me there.
Without the AoC, there would have been no USC. Just because the DoI preceeds the USC does not mean that it has any current standing in the US Government.
It paves the way. It lays down the foundations of all subsequent documents. Will you acknowledge this?
You say you're familiar with logical fallacies, do you know what a
Post Hoc argument is?
...
Post-hoc.
That's a gross misapplication. If you want to argue that, then you cannot possibly argue any legal precedence.
Am I to take it that you can't answer the question, then?
No. You are to take it as that I won't go over points we have been through several times in this very thread.
Jeebus Creebus, can't I ever get a little credit here? If I repeat the same points, I'm obsessive. If I don't, I'm running away.
Do you have evidence to support this?
Oh, for Pete's sake:
It has been a conviction of pressing necessity, it has been a belief that we are to be deprived in the Union of the rights which our fathers bequeathed to us, which has brought Mississippi into her present decision. She has heard proclaimed the theory that all men are created free and equal, and this made the basis of an attack upon her social institutions; and the sacred Declaration of Independence has been invoked to maintain the position of the equality of the races. That Declaration of Independence is to be construed by the circumstances and purposes for which it was made. The communities were declaring their independence; the people of those communities were asserting that no man was born—to use the language of Mr. Jefferson—booted and spurred to ride over the rest of mankind; that men were created equal—meaning the men of the political community;
that there was no divine right to rule; that no man inherited the right to govern; that there were no classes by which power and place descended to families, but that all stations were equally within the grasp of each member of the body politic. These were the great principles they announced; these were the purposes for which they made their declaration; these were the ends to which their enunciation was directed.
Jefferson Davis' Farewell Address
If I misunderstand so much of American history, why am I the one bringing up the historical facts?
And what definition of God are you speaking of?
The definition of God that people used in those days.
It isn't the interpretation that is the issue, it's the context.
You can't have context without interpreting that context.
What, in your mind, are the respective contexts at play here? How are they similar? How are they different?
I already explained this: If Creator can mean whatever people put into it, then you cannot possibly have anything against "special creation" being taught in class. Why do you deny them that?
That doesn't answer my question. Where, exactly, did I say that a word can mean whatever people put into it?
I
asked you if that was what you were arguing. If I am wrong, just say so.
I reject that King George got his powers from God and I doubt that all of the colonists thought so either.
It's not a question of whether or not you accept or reject that George got his powers from God. It's a question of what people believed at the time.
It is possible that "Creator" and "Nature's God" means something religious. Given the context in which it is used, I doubt that is their primary meanings.
Why wouldn't it? Atheism wasn't particular prominent in Colonial times. Wasn't the colonies seen as a haven for persecuted religious people?
It is of little concern, however, since the DoI has absolutely no legal standing in the US Government as defined by the USC. Do you understand this?
Already answered, post #1015.
Do you admit that I have already answered this?
