ronbo, it is inconsistent logically for you to simultaneously have recursive (or even flawed/nonsensical, as shown by Diogenes) “cites” and 'facts", while simultaneously requiring cites for anything you don’t know. However, in the interest of refuting your points for our viewing audience, we forge on:
Well, I suppose I could cite the whole “this government endorses christianity, and many christians have hurt me” argument, and further cite a testimonial of mine, but I’m pretty sure you’d call that anecdotal. I don’t have an academic citation to back up my claim of being hurt inasmuch as I’ve never been in one. However, the premise that “Pursuit of Happiness does not cause harm to anyone else, it should not be illegal” is unsubstantiated. IE just because you assert that something is valid does not necessitate its validity.
Ah, good. You know how to type that phrase. Now show what bearing it has on the meaning you attach to it. I posit to you that the DoI is not commonly regarded as a higher power/god figure. It was the written establishment of our rebellion/separation from Europe. It is not a deity.
Jefferson did not say “these truths are evident.” He said, and I quote:
The two statements are NOT logically identical nor, for these purposes, conflatable.
Many religions profess a faith in a singular deity. Many do not. If we use God in a general sense meaning a higher power (which is coupled with the meaning that it is a religious symbol, inasmuch as absent things like “goddamnit” and such, which have become commonplace to the point where many do not realize what they are saying, one does not reference God without intending to convey a religious/higher power definition), we necessarily use it in a religious fashion, unless you’d like to posit that there is a definition of God independent of a religious or “higher power” (which is a religious belief) sense.
In God We Trust is this country’s national motto, and which is printed on paper money (E Pluribus Unum [Out of many, one] is on coins). As of yet this has been held by SCOTUS decisions to be … what’s the term, nonspecific religious belief? The Pledge of Allegience was, interestingly enough, not originally written with any religious observation. “under God” was added to it in the 1950s during the second Red Scare because of the belief (at the time) that communists were also atheists.
That these things exist and are permitted in this society does not necessitate the conclusion that they are based on an accurate reading of the law involved.
ronbo did not define God properly in that he did not cite factual information proving his assertation regarding same’s said existence (Dio posted in response to his creation bit and did a proper job, I’d say). He posted that because we exist now, God must have created us. This is fallacious argumentation, because he did not present valid premises that necessitate his posted conclusion. And I’ll ask for a scientific cite on the notion that God is a scientific concept recognized by the scientific community as the generally-regarded cause of the existence of all things (personal/religious beliefs are not a scientific cite; they are anecdotal information, which is not being requested. If I want to go looking for scientists who are Christian, I know where to find them:)).
Not a problem in the least. Desire to learn is contagious and always good to see, and I personally (as long as you consider me anything of an educator;)) am flattered to be asked. IMNSHO, if you are able to keep your zeal for learning, your willingness to be corrected and accept correction, and your admissions of failure (which are nothing to be ashamed of in the least:)), you will find great success here.
Dio, if’t seems I’m treading on your toes here sorry 'bout that. I think I have some points [b[ronbo** (and nodope could do to see:)
See above re: "We hold these truths to be self-evident.
[/quote]
They believed they were.
Relevant portion of the DoI:
They are truths, not laws. The only reference to laws in the entire document deal with the King of Great Britain, not the bit quoted above. I think you are making a scrambled argument.
The 9th Amendment and the DoI do not interrelate, at least not in this instance; that is, the one does not affect the other. The 9th Amendment:
IOW, the constitution said nothing about walking on your hands at midnight in your own home. Per Amendment 9, its lack of stating such cannot be construed as refusal of permission to do so.
The Declaration of Independence, to repeat, is and was a document announcing separation from GB (Great Britain) for reasons detailed and outlined in same document. It was written before the United States as it was known even post-Revolutionary War existed. They were colonies. It did not detail specific laws or rights except in discussing their inherent right to rebel, etc.
More later if I am here. I must off elsewhere for now.