Re: The United States Declaration of Independence

[Kalkidas]

<trol...@go.com> wrote in message
news:412b98f9-8ee3-4b02...@googlegroups.com...
>
> Clearly the founding fathers ordered that creationism
> be taught in public schools. This can be plainly read
> in the second sentence of the U.S. Declaration of
> Independence.
>
> 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all
> men are created ... that they are endowed by their
> Creator ... .'
>
> This clearly shows that the teaching of evolution is
> contrary to law and the founding documents of the
> land.
>
> No deist or pantheistic sophistry can wheedle out
> of this plain and simple argument.

The Declaration of Independence is not law. The Constitution is law. The
establishment of mandatory government (so-called "public") schools is a
violation of the Constitution, since they abridge the freedom of speech.
It doesn't matter what they teach. The mere act of choosing one
curriculum and rejecting another is an abridgment of free speech by the
government.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Kalkidas]

<trol...@go.com> wrote in message
news:0089dbc6-21d3-42d3...@googlegroups.com...
> On Saturday, July 4, 2015 at 7:46:18 AM UTC-7, Kalkidas wrote:
>> <trolidougo.com> wrote in message
>> news:412b98f9-8ee3-4b02-b898-307846f1d00googlegroups.com...

>> >
>> > Clearly the founding fathers ordered that creationism
>> > be taught in public schools. This can be plainly read
>> > in the second sentence of the U.S. Declaration of
>> > Independence.
>> >
>> > 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all
>> > men are created ... that they are endowed by their
>> > Creator ... .'
>> >
>> > This clearly shows that the teaching of evolution is
>> > contrary to law and the founding documents of the
>> > land.
>> >
>> > No deist or pantheistic sophistry can wheedle out
>> > of this plain and simple argument.
>>
>> The Declaration of Independence is not law. The Constitution is law.
>> The
>> establishment of mandatory government (so-called "public") schools is
>> a
>> violation of the Constitution, since they abridge the freedom of
>> speech.
>> It doesn't matter what they teach. The mere act of choosing one
>> curriculum and rejecting another is an abridgment of free speech by
>> the
>> government.
>

> Yet when Lincoln argued in some of his speeches that
> States can not secede he quoted the Articles of
> Confederation.

If the Articles of Confederation had been in force, no state would ever
have wanted to secede. The Articles would have been much more difficult
for the advocates of Federal tyranny to usurp.

> In some ways the Constitution is an amendment of
> the Articles of Confederation, which in some ways
> had been granted legitimacy through the States and
> Congress, which itself had been granted legitimacy
> through the Declaration of Independence.
>
> There are some arguments in favor of the idea
> that the Declaration of Independence is law.

[Chris Thompson]

On 7/4/2015 11:04 AM, trol...@go.com wrote:
> On Saturday, July 4, 2015 at 7:46:18 AM UTC-7, Kalkidas wrote:
>> <trolidougo.com> wrote in message
>> news:412b98f9-8ee3-4b02-b898-307846f1d00googlegroups.com...
>>>

>>> Clearly the founding fathers ordered that creationism
>>> be taught in public schools. This can be plainly read
>>> in the second sentence of the U.S. Declaration of
>>> Independence.
>>>
>>> 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all
>>> men are created ... that they are endowed by their
>>> Creator ... .'
>>>
>>> This clearly shows that the teaching of evolution is
>>> contrary to law and the founding documents of the
>>> land.
>>>
>>> No deist or pantheistic sophistry can wheedle out
>>> of this plain and simple argument.

I'm calling troll. How are things under the bridge?

>> The Declaration of Independence is not law. The Constitution is law. The
>> establishment of mandatory government (so-called "public") schools is a
>> violation of the Constitution, since they abridge the freedom of speech.
>> It doesn't matter what they teach. The mere act of choosing one
>> curriculum and rejecting another is an abridgment of free speech by the
>> government.

The government has always restricted free speech. Do we need to talk
about yelling "FIRE!" in a theater yet _again_?

> Yet when Lincoln argued in some of his speeches that
> States can not secede he quoted the Articles of
> Confederation.
>

Sure. Article 2 of the Articles of Confederation granted states the
right to secede. Is it a coincidence that right is not in the
Constitution? Perhaps James Madison wasn't familiar with the Articles of
Confederation? Or maybe he was just beat the day he was writing it up,
and thought to himself, "Oh, Tommy will stick it into that Bill thingy
he's working on. I'm for bed."

> In some ways the Constitution is an amendment of
> the Articles of Confederation,

Except for the 98% of the Constitution that's completely different from
the AoC.

> which in some ways
> had been granted legitimacy through the States and
> Congress, which itself had been granted legitimacy
> through the Declaration of Independence.

The DoI is a list of grievances put forth to justify breaking away from
England. If the legitimacy of the Constitution came from anything
besides the war, it was the Continental Congresses.

> There are some arguments in favor of the idea
> that the Declaration of Independence is law.

Of course there are. There just aren't any good arguments.

Chris

[Kalkidas]

"Chris Thompson" <the_th...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3_2dnWKRM6rMYgrI...@earthlink.com...

Fraudulent speech is not "free speech". It's a crime. So is yelling
"EVOLUTION" in a classroom . The only difference is that the harm is
more immediate in the case of yelling "FIRE" in a theater, and more
long-term in the case of yelling "EVOLUTION" in a classroom.

>> Yet when Lincoln argued in some of his speeches that
>> States can not secede he quoted the Articles of
>> Confederation.
>>
>
> Sure. Article 2 of the Articles of Confederation granted states the
> right to secede. Is it a coincidence that right is not in the
> Constitution? Perhaps James Madison wasn't familiar with the Articles
> of Confederation? Or maybe he was just beat the day he was writing it
> up, and thought to himself, "Oh, Tommy will stick it into that Bill
> thingy he's working on. I'm for bed."
>
>> In some ways the Constitution is an amendment of
>> the Articles of Confederation,
>
> Except for the 98% of the Constitution that's completely different
> from the AoC.
>
>> which in some ways
>> had been granted legitimacy through the States and
>> Congress, which itself had been granted legitimacy
>> through the Declaration of Independence.
>
> The DoI is a list of grievances put forth to justify breaking away
> from England. If the legitimacy of the Constitution came from anything
> besides the war, it was the Continental Congresses.
>
>> There are some arguments in favor of the idea
>> that the Declaration of Independence is law.
>
> Of course there are. There just aren't any good arguments.
>
> Chris
>

[Chris Thompson]

On 7/4/2015 12:15 PM, trol...@go.com wrote:
> On Saturday, July 4, 2015 at 8:46:17 AM UTC-7, Chris Thompson wrote:

> Article 13 expressly delegates:
>
> 'Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State. ...'
>

And Article 2 states that each state is free, sovereign and independent. So?

Chris

[Chris Thompson]

Perhaps you should look up the legal definition of "fraud". Lying,
except in particular circumstances, is not illegal. And telling the
truth is not a "criminal" act, except in special circumstances, such as
teaching evolutionary biology to a creationist.

Chris

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 4 Jul 2015 07:43:16 -0700, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub>:

><trol...@go.com> wrote in message
>news:412b98f9-8ee3-4b02...@googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Clearly the founding fathers ordered that creationism
>> be taught in public schools. This can be plainly read
>> in the second sentence of the U.S. Declaration of
>> Independence.
>>
>> 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all
>> men are created ... that they are endowed by their
>> Creator ... .'
>>
>> This clearly shows that the teaching of evolution is
>> contrary to law and the founding documents of the
>> land.
>>
>> No deist or pantheistic sophistry can wheedle out
>> of this plain and simple argument.
>
>The Declaration of Independence is not law. The Constitution is law.

Correct.

> The
>establishment of mandatory government (so-called "public") schools is a
>violation of the Constitution, since they abridge the freedom of speech.

Well, while you are wrong, you're far from as wrong as the
OP.

>It doesn't matter what they teach. The mere act of choosing one
>curriculum and rejecting another is an abridgment of free speech by the
>government.

You seem to think that "free speech" doctrine means that any
statement uttered is a violation if it presents only one
position. Is that what you meant? And if so, whose free
speech is being violated, and how?
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Mitchell Coffey]

[snip]

What exactly did the Federal government usurp, causing secession?

Mitchell Coffey

[RSNorman]

The inalienable right of states to allow their citizens to hold human
beings as property to be disposed of on a whim. Slave states would,
of course, keep their status but the newly opened territories in the
west were a real issue. With sufficient new free states added, then
slavery would no doubt be officially abolished.

[jillery]

If the Articles of Confederation had been in force, there would very
quickly have been no Confederation from which to secede.

>> In some ways the Constitution is an amendment of
>> the Articles of Confederation, which in some ways
>> had been granted legitimacy through the States and
>> Congress, which itself had been granted legitimacy
>> through the Declaration of Independence.
>>
>> There are some arguments in favor of the idea
>> that the Declaration of Independence is law.
>>
>
>
>
>---
>This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>https://www.avast.com/antivirus

--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 10:37:12 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

Well?

[Mitchell Coffey]

That's the true response, but I was expecting something else from Kalkidas.

Mitchell Coffey