Passenger killed by air marshall

This argument sounds like it has boiled down to two concepts that have been debated here before ad nauseum.

On the one hand, you have the argument that the people grant powers to the government and retain all others. See Locke and The State of Nature which was a major inspirational source for our Founding Fathers.

On the other hand, you have the argument that the people are given their rights/powers by the government. Otherwise, they have none. And that is very much against the American grain.
 
It was a bitchslap to a king. Nothing more, nothing less. Perhaps Claus can understand my explanation.

I'd call it a really rude hand gesture with accompanying pantomime, but yeah.

The introduction states that this document will "declare" the "causes" that have made it necessary for the American colonies to leave the British Empire. Having stated in the introduction that independence is unavoidable, even necessary, the preamble sets out principles that were already recognized to be "self-evident" by most 18th- century Englishmen, closing with the statement that "a long train of abuses and usurpations . . . evinces a design to reduce [a people] under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." The first section of the body of the Declaration gives evidence of the "long train of abuses and usurpations" heaped upon the colonists by King George III. The second section of the body states that the colonists had appealed in vain to their "British brethren" for a redress of their grievances. Having stated the conditions that made independence necessary and having shown that those conditions existed in British North America, the Declaration concludes that "these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved."
Source

I'm sorry, chaps, but your attempts to downplay the importance of the DoI are not convincing.
 
I'm sorry, chaps, but your attempts to downplay the importance of the DoI are not convincing.

Not surprisingly you missed (or ignored) the point. DoI is import; DoI is very important to the history of United States and what led to its creation. However, legally it matters about as much as your monarch's opinion on our legal system.

If you want to find out about US rights and laws, this is where you start.
 
It was written to define that Americans had rights of their own, and that those rights were endowed by a supernatural being.
Incorrect. So much for paying attention. :rolleyes:

Do you really think that they would have gotten the public to accept that they could just disregard King George's god-given right to rule them, without claiming that God had given them this right? I don't.
Why is it always all about God with you?

Yes, I do think that the vast majority of Americans would have accpeted the revolution with or without invoking God. I seriously doubt that many people at all considered King George's rule devinely inspired.

CFLarsen said:
I'm sorry, chaps, but your attempts to downplay the importance of the DoI are not convincing.
Your quoted passage does not disagree with our analysis, generalized though it may be. The DoI was meant to inform King George that the colonists were seperating from his empire and to explian why. It was not meant as a definition of American rights.
 
Incorrect. So much for paying attention. :rolleyes:

I've presented my evidence.

Why is it always all about God with you?

It isn't. But if it is about God, I point it out.

Yes, I do think that the vast majority of Americans would have accpeted the revolution with or without invoking God. I seriously doubt that many people at all considered King George's rule devinely inspired.

Now I understand more why you reject the God-explanation. This was a time in history, where European regents depended on God to rule their subjects. They had to, because already, there were calls for reforms to counter the absolute rule of the Kings, leading to the French Revolution.

Your quoted passage does not disagree with our analysis, generalized though it may be. The DoI was meant to inform King George that the colonists were seperating from his empire and to explian why. It was not meant as a definition of American rights.

It was a definition of where those rights came from, as well as laying down the basic tenets of American rights.
 
I've presented my evidence.
Which completely ignores the context and is near enough to worthless.

It was a definition of where those rights came from, as well as laying down the basic tenets of American rights.
Did you even read the passage you quoted? Your ability to creatively interpret a passage into whatever you want it to say is truely astounding.
 
Which completely ignores the context and is near enough to worthless.

This is simply not true. I have definitely presented evidence in context, and argued from that.

Did you even read the passage you quoted? Your ability to creatively interpret a passage into whatever you want it to say is truely astounding.

It's odd that I am not a woo, isn't it? Because if I really was able to do what you say, I should gobble up every paranormal belief and conspiracy theory out there.

Yet, I don't.
 
It's odd that I am not a woo, isn't it? Because if I really was able to do what you say, I should gobble up every paranormal belief and conspiracy theory out there.

Yet, I don't.

Oh that's just not true. Most woos only follow one woo belief, like you keep demonstrating on this forum.
 
It's odd that I am not a woo, isn't it? Because if I really was able to do what you say, I should gobble up every paranormal belief and conspiracy theory out there.

Yet, I don't.
Claus, this thread has really led me to question your ability to think in a logical fashion.

Just how does the ability to twist any passage to mean anything you choose lead to conclusion you should necessarily buy into all forms of woo? While such an ability would certainly be useful to someone who believes it is neither a necessity nor a prerequisite. Can you see that the two do not have a causal relationship with one another?
 
While I'm sure Claus will spin this, it is worth providing this for the rational among us:

Unlike most governments of the past, the American Founding Fathers set up a government divorced from any religion. Their establishment of a secular government did not require a reflection to themselves of its origin; they knew this as a ubiquitous unspoken given. However, as the United States delved into international affairs, few foreign nations knew about the intentions of the U.S. For this reason, an insight from at a little known but legal document written in the late 1700s explicitly reveals the secular nature of the U.S. goverenment to a foreign nation. Officially called the "Treaty of peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary," most refer to it as simply the Treaty of Tripoli. In Article 11, it states:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."



The preliminary treaty began with a signing on 4 November, 1796 (the end of George Washington's last term as president). Joel Barlow, the American diplomat served as counsel to Algiers and held responsibility for the treaty negotiations. Barlow had once served under Washington as a chaplain in the revolutionary army. He became good friends with Paine, Jefferson, and read Enlightenment literature. Later he abandoned Christian orthodoxy for rationalism and became an advocate of secular government. Joel Barlow wrote the original English version of the treaty, including Amendment 11. Barlow forwarded the treaty to U.S. legislators for approval in 1797. Timothy Pickering, the secretary of state, endorsed it and John Adams concurred (now during his presidency), sending the document on to the Senate. The Senate approved the treaty on June 7, 1797, and officially ratified by the Senate with John Adams signature on 10 June, 1797. All during this multi-review process, the wording of Article 11 never raised the slightest concern. The treaty even became public through its publication in The Philadelphia Gazette on 17 June 1797.

So here we have a clear admission by the United States in 1797 that our government did not found itself upon Christianity. Unlike the Declaration of Independence, this treaty represented U.S. law as all U.S. Treaties do (see the Constitution, Article VI, Sect.2: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.")
http://www.nobeliefs.com/Tripoli.htm
 
While I'm sure Claus will spin this, it is worth providing this for the rational among us:
and this:
You hear it all the time from the right wing. The United States was founded as a Christian country. What do you make of that?


Well, first of all, it wasn't. The United States wasn't founded as a Christian country. Religion played very little role in the American Revolution and it played very little role in the making of the Constitution. That's largely because the Founding Fathers were on the whole deists who had a very abstract conception of God, whose view of God was not a God who acted in the world today and manipulated events in a way that actually changed the course of human history. Their view of religion was really a view that stressed ethics and morals rather than a direct divine intervention.
 
Claus, this thread has really led me to question your ability to think in a logical fashion.

Just how does the ability to twist any passage to mean anything you choose lead to conclusion you should necessarily buy into all forms of woo? While such an ability would certainly be useful to someone who believes it is neither a necessity nor a prerequisite. Can you see that the two do not have a causal relationship with one another?

Allow me to expound, then.

I have heard that my motives for criticizing the US and Americans are based on my so-called hatred of the US and Americans. Yet, this is not true. If I hated you guys, would I have moved to the US? ◊◊◊◊, no. I'd stay the hell away! Yet, I did move to the US, and I loved it there. I learned a lot from you guys, and most of it was very, very positive.

What I didn't like was that you guys have a very hard time dealing with criticism of any kind. If anyone even dares to raise a critical finger, you go into some sort of panic-mode, frantically defending your society, especially if the criticism comes from a foreigner. Gee, no non-American can possibly know anything about the US, right? So, let's tell the bugger that he is wrong!

If I am wrong, then show me that I am wrong. For starters, you can tell me what kind of criticism of the US and Americans you would accept as valid.
 
Oh, we don't mind criticisms. In fact, we criticize ourselves. What we don't like is when people make up BS, like you do.
 
Allow me to expound, then.

I have heard that my motives for criticizing the US and Americans are based on my so-called hatred of the US and Americans. Yet, this is not true. If I hated you guys, would I have moved to the US? ◊◊◊◊, no. I'd stay the hell away! Yet, I did move to the US, and I loved it there. I learned a lot from you guys, and most of it was very, very positive.

What I didn't like was that you guys have a very hard time dealing with criticism of any kind. If anyone even dares to raise a critical finger, you go into some sort of panic-mode, frantically defending your society, especially if the criticism comes from a foreigner. Gee, no non-American can possibly know anything about the US, right? So, let's tell the bugger that he is wrong!

If I am wrong, then show me that I am wrong. For starters, you can tell me what kind of criticism of the US and Americans you would accept as valid.

"What we have here is a failure to communicate."

Good movie.

Anyway, Claus, I think what is happening here is that there is a misunderstanding going on. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you want to talk about where Americans think their rights come from. You appear to believe we (or our Founding Fathers) think they were magically bestowed upon us by some God.

And at the root of this is the real point you are trying to make, which is that if rights don't come from God, then they are not inalienable. And if they aren't inalienable, then that makes them artificial, and our dogged attachment to them is kinda cute but overzealous and silly.

Am I on the right track?

ETA: I don't think you hate America. And I don't think anyone else does, either. Anyone who matters, anyway. :D
 

Back
Top Bottom