alt.education

Peter Franks wrote:

>:|buckeye wrote:
>:|> Peter Franks wrote:
>:|>
>:|>> :|mizlee wrote:
>:|>> :|> Wrong again. The Declaration of Independence was an "internal memo"
>:|>> :|> to the king, essentially saying "we're sick and tired, and we're not
>:|>> :|> going to take it any more." It was NOT a document of law at all.
>:|>> :|
>:|>> :|What is the foundation of the law?
>:|>
>:|>
>:|> LOL. Why doesn't the above surprise me.
>:|> The never ending questions
>:|>
>:|> Foundation of what or which law?
>:|
>:|You discard the Declaration of Independence as a source because in your
>:|opinion, it is not a document of law.

Ahem, I asked you foundation of which law. which you didn't bother to
answer. No suprise there


BZZZZZZZ!!!!! My opinion. Not even close. I provided primary source
documentation of exactly what it was, it's function, it's purpose and IIRC
secondary source information that backed that up by respected scholars.

It is not law, it never was law. It was propaganda designed to elict
foreign aid


>:|
>:|What relevance is it that it is or isn't law? We are discussing the
>:|foundation of the country. The Declaration of Independence was one of
>:|the founding documents, and as I pointed out, makes mention of deity.
>:|

What YOU SAY (pointed out) is totally and completely irrelevant

Here is my comment to that

Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ordinary or extraordinary claims require ordinary or extraordinary proof.
If you're going to claim something and especially something outlandish
you're going to need some pretty extraordinary and/or irrefutable proof to
back up such a claim. "Where's the beef?" Where's the ordinary or
extraordinary proof for their ordinary or extraordinary claims? If one is
not responding with ordinary or extraordinary, *factual* proof, then the
claim is not worth considering
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[ as Homer@nospam said]
Why is asking for "proof" considered truculence? Do you consider it
truculence for a judge to ask for evidence in a trial. Would you rather
that
people just testified that they believed in the guilt of the suspect?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[as Gray Shockley said:]
Your "opinion" is not an adequate citation.
You forgot your citations.
Or, are your opinions more valid than facts?
You do realize, do you not?, that opinion without substantiation is just
propaganda for those without critical thinking abilities and originate with
those who are attempting to manipulate rather than those who are attempting
to clarify.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The late USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote

"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"

That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.

It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.

>:|My original response stands, still unchallenged.


Only in your dreams

You passed on my comments that the Constitution was illegal. what a pity


You want a foundation of law:

Roots of American Law
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/histlaw.htm


and again

The Declaration of Independence (1776)
* Introduction

* Declaration of Independence: Its Purpose
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/doipurp.htm

* Jefferson's Declaration of Independence did not use the word
"Creator"
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/doitj.htm

* Lincoln's reinventing of the Declaration of Independence

* The United States Supreme Court and the Declaration of Independence
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/doisussc.htm

* An analysis of the Declaration of Independence
o Declaration of Independence: Preamble
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/doi-pream.htm

o Declaration of Independence is not law
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/doinotlaw.htm

o The Declaration of Independence Didn't Create Independence,
Didn't "Found" Anything, Didn't Separate Anything: It Was an Explanation
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/doiexplain.htm

"Founding" Documents and Religion (1776-1791)

* Founding Documents and Religion, DOI, AOC, Constitution, BORs
o A Big Fuss Over Nothing: An analysis of real and imagined
references to God, Christianity and Religion and lack thereof in obvious
places in five documents from the founding period of our history: the
Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, Northwest
Ordinance, Federalist Papers, Constitution of the United States
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/bigfuss.htm

***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:

The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm

American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm

The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html

[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]

HRSepCnS · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/

***************************************************************
. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote

"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"

That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.

It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.

*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************