alt.education

On Apr 6, 11:09=A0am, buckeye wrote:
> Peter Franks wrote:
> >:|buckeye wrote:
> >:|> Peter Franks wrote:
> >:|>
> >:|>> :|mizlee wrote:
> >:|>> :|> Wrong again. =A0The 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." =A0It was NOT a document of law at a=
ll.
> >:|>> :|
> >:|>> :|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!!!!! =A0My opinion. Not even close. I provided primary source
> documentation of exactly what it was, it's function, it's purpose =A0and I=
IRC
> secondary source =A0information 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? =A0We are discussing the
> >:|foundation of the country. =A0The Declaration of Independence was one o=
f
> >:|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.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-=AD----
> =A0Ordinary or extraordinary claims require ordinary or =A0extraordinary p=
roof.
> 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. =A0 "Where's the beef?" =A0Where's the ordinary or
> extraordinary proof for their ordinary or extraordinary claims? =A0If 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?
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-=AD--
> [as Gray Shockley said:]
> =A0Your "opinion" is not an =A0adequate 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 wit=
h
> those who are attempting to manipulate rather than those who are attemptin=
g
> to clarify.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-=AD--------
> 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 =
=A0
>
> =A0You want a =A0foundation of law:
>
> Roots of American Lawhttp://members.tripod.com/~candst/histlaw.htm
>
> and again
>
> The Declaration of Independence (1776)
> =A0 =A0 * Introduction
>
> =A0 =A0 * Declaration of Independence: Its Purposehttp://members.tripod.co=
m/~candst/doipurp.htm
>
> =A0 =A0 * Jefferson's Declaration of Independence did not use the word
> "Creator"http://members.tripod.com/~candst/doitj.htm
>
> =A0 =A0 * Lincoln's reinventing of the Declaration of Independence
>
> =A0 =A0 * The United States Supreme Court and the Declaration of Independe=
ncehttp://members.tripod.com/~candst/doisussc.htm
>
> =A0 =A0 * An analysis of the Declaration of Independence
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 o Declaration of Independence: Preamblehttp://members.=
tripod.com/~candst/doi-pream.htm
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 o Declaration of Independence is not lawhttp://members=
.tripod.com/~candst/doinotlaw.htm
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 o The Declaration of Independence Didn't Create Indepe=
ndence,
> Didn't "Found" Anything, Didn't Separate Anything: It Was an Explanationht=
tp://members.tripod.com/~candst/doiexplain.htm
>
> "Founding" Documents and Religion (1776-1791)
>
> =A0 =A0 * Founding Documents and Religion, DOI, AOC, Constitution, BORs
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 o A Big Fuss Over Nothing: An analysis of real and ima=
gined
> 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 Stateshttp://memb=
ers.tripod.com/~candst/bigfuss.htm
>
> ***************************************************************
> You are invited to check out the following:
>
> The Rise of the Theocratic States of Americahttp://members.tripod.com/~can=
dst/theocracy.htm
>
> American Theocrats - Past and Presenthttp://members.tripod.com/~candst/the=
ocrats.htm
>
> The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and Statehttp://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 =B7 Historical Reality SepChurch&Statehttp://groups.yahoo.com/gro=
up/HRSepCnS/
>
> ***************************************************************
> . . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
> respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. =A0Word=
s
> take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "=
a
> page of history is worth a volume of logic." =A0New York Trust Co. v. Eisn=
er,
> 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.
>
> *****************************************************************
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
> =A0 =A0 SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
>
> http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
> ****************************************************************- Hide quo=
ted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I believe it makes no difference if the Declaration was law or not.
What it says in a formal way is:
" We the people are making a claim, and if you don't agree with it, we
will kill you all until you leave. You are no longer our judge, jury,
nor law maker for any of us, get out or we will force you out." I
just made it shorter and less eloquent. But, that is what Jefferson
was saying. Ken Hogan