Two types of people I can't stand

I disagree, the technicalities of the law is irrelevant to who has moral claim to the money.
Refer back to original argument.

 

No, not in the conventional sense...

...but here you are quite mistaken. Clearly the revolution would have failed without popular support, so its leaders would have been fools not to gauge it somehow; and however they did it, the results show conclusively that the DoI had popular support in the most meaningful sense possible.

So you'd have have us believe the legitimacy of the DoI hinges on the approbation of the British loyalists?

 

There is no moral claim. It's what is law at current. And how it was setup and administered.

 

No, I say the legitimacy of the DoI extends no farther than the end of the revolution at which point an actual government was set up and the actual laws of the land were decided upon.

 

Because...?

All that existed as of 7/4/1776, at which point the US was under what we would call martial law.

 

Because it was a diplomatic proclamation made by revolutionaries not a foundation of government.
The elements they agreed to create America with were encoded into the constitution and the bill of rights.

 

I cannot stand my brother in law.

He makes sh!t up without googling it first on his palm device (I-phone) even when it is obviously wrong and then he spews it out of his mouth.

My sister is smarter than he is, fortunately. She is a pre/post surgery nurse.

He is a moron.

 

And that makes it illegitimate how, exactly?

Obviously not, seeing the creation of America predates the Constitution, as that very document implicitly affirms.

 

Actually, we're a secular country since our founding(ask Thomas Jefferson) Specifically, the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli states that we're not a Christian nation.

Not that I have any animosity or disrespect to my fellow Americans who are Christian.

 

So if I'm reading your post correctly; it appears that you have little or no tolerance for someone who doesn't believe as you believe.

Are you aware this country was founded by those seeking to leave countries which had no tolerance for the minority populations who felt differently then those in control? Christians such as the pilgrims, puritans, Quakers and others came to America because their native countries wouldn't allow them to worship as they believed. And as time went on, people of different religions came to this country desiring to get a better life as the country evolved.

If there are those who like living under a Socialist-type government and enough Americans want fundamental change, then let them use the time-honored mechanism to change things to their liking while keeping protections in place for the minority who don't hold the same convictions they do. If enough people wanted to live under a different type of government, then so be it, again so long as they keep the protections in place for those whom live according to their views, much like we have today. No one should have to rescind their citizenship because of their religious convictions or lack thereof or their belief in a type of government they would like to live under.

I'm happy with the current system in place; however if change were to occur that meets the test I've described, I'd live it and work to change it legally using the system in place we currently use in this great country of ours. Just my thoughts.

 

Because it wasn't made by the founders with the purpose of becoming governing law.

That doesn't change the preeminence of the constitution.

 

this is NOT a Christian country, this is a country that believe in religious freedom for all

 

why, cause he believes in religious freedom for all?

 

Yup, just not in this country, Right?

 

Not true, since the document provided a basis for charging Tories with treason, and since it was hardly possible for the US to create meaningful law without a declaration of its independence; but even if it were, that would say nothing about the legitimacy of the document.

Indeed it's the supreme law of the land, but absent recognition of the principles articulated in the DoI it might as well be the Soviet constitution. Presumably that's why the DoI is recognized as part of US organic law.

 

How do you define legitimacy, then.
Because the declaration of independence hasn't been interpreted as part of our country's law for centuries.
If the founding fathers intended for God to play an important role in our country then surely they would have made it a part of the constitution, no?

 

south of the border is 98% Christian, only 2 more percent and God is gonna pave their streets with gold

 

AFAIK, the DoI is not explicitly and universally recognized as part of U.S. law.

It is often cited in legal cases, but in the same manner as other non-legal documents, such as the statements of Founding Fathers, or the Mayflower Compact, or relevant philosophical points.

Is there a part of the U.S. code you can cite showing the DoI part of the law?

 

1. What are your feelings of other Americans who didn't want the US to succeed under President Obama? Like the ones whooping with delight when the US lost its Olympic bid? Good guys?
2. If you do want to live in a Christian country, you should move the Vatican City. Why have you not done so already?

 

yes ignorance and stupidty are not exclusive to any particular political persuasion.

 

I think you make some good points. People will always be hard on us for being christian and the fact that most christians did vote for Trump does not sit well for them. Maybe if the left were not so into having abortions and supporting gay marriage and attacking christians all the time then they might get more of the christian vote.

They try to force gay marriage on us and then say we are the ones trying to force stuff on them. I don't like to judge and I don't hate gays but I can't support gay marriage. The left wants to change America and says it is for the better but how is gay marriage or murdering a baby 10 days before it is born better for us?

 

If someone is forcing you to marry anyone then you should go to the police.

 

The question is, how is it any of your business whether gays get married or not?

Absent a strong, compelling government interest, the basic rule of democracy should be "I won't use the power of government to inflict my beliefs on you, if you won't use the power of government to inflict your beliefs on me."

So there are some areas where there is a clear, strong and compelling government interest -- laws against murder and robbery, for instance. Or environmental regulation (within reason). Or zoning laws (within reason). Or vaccinations. Or immigration policy.

There are also some gray areas, like abortion, which involves the collision of two legitimate, competing interests: the interest of a woman to control her own body and not submit to government control of it, and the interest of a fetus in being born. The only real option there is compromise: neither banning abortion nor allowing unrestricted abortion on demand is a good answer. You have to balance the competing interests in a fair and just manner. But always be aware that what we are engaging in is trying to find the balance between two LEGITIMATE interests.

Finally, because government is funded by taxes, there are some instances where you feel you are being forced to pay taxes to support programs and policies you oppose. That's inevitable, and settled the only way it can be settled: the majority decides what we're going to spend tax money on.

For nearly everything else, a "live and let live" approach would solve things.
-- Don't like gay marriage? Great. Don't get gay-married. But don't pass laws prohibiting other people from doing so.
-- Don't like contraception? Great. Don't use it. But don't pass laws prohibiting other people from doing so.
-- Don't think stores should be open on Sunday? Great. Don't open your shop on Sunday, and don't go shopping on Sunday. But don't prohibit other people from doing so.
-- Don't think ministers should discuss politics in the pulpit? Great. Don't do so, and don't attend a church that does. But don't prohibit ministers from doing so.
-- Don't like organized religion? Great. Don't join a church. But don't try to get churches zoned out of existence.

Oppose all of the above using your right to free speech, as on this forum? Sure. Just don't use the lever of government to force others to do what you believe.

 

We can't be a Christian nation because we voted for trump you say?
I have read a lot of moronic comments but that has to up there pretty high.

 

Well written piece.
Should government force people to bake the cake for a gay wedding when the bakers are religiously against gay marriage?