Search results

As I said, I have neither. You're wrong again. It isn't safe to assume what you assume.:p Lol. how funny that is, watching you make up another unsafe not to say ignorant assumption. Now it's about where I'm from. :D By the way, I haven't mentioned anything about "our Constitution". I suggested...

Sounds like you need a proper Constitution. Here's a Declaration you can borrow to base one on. It is without all the religious BS that must contribute so much to the mess you describe. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and independent, & from that...

Then you must agree with him it is inconsistent with the concept that natural law could have been created by a supernatural Creator. Why do you keep shooting yourself in the foot over an an argument you don't have :D

I wouldn't know, I don't have either. You?

No one's waiting.:D While you're working out how to stop disagreeing with yourself, why not take note of this. Here's someone belonging to the same superstitious society as you, who gets it. http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1200332.htm "NEW YORK (CNS) -- Natural law is a...

Natural law is inconsistent with a religious Creator whether you believe in that Creator or not. You really should be arguing against yourself not me. :D:D

Natural law certainly is inconsistent with any kind of a religious Creator. One called God for instance. So to be consistent with your statement above, the source of natural law cannot be any kind of a religious one. To suggest otherwise would be inconsistent. The foundation of natural law...

Nah, I’m really not. That's just you without an intellect to understand the argument or address it directly. The foundational concept of inalienable rights is that they come from natural law, not so called religious "law" handed down by whatever a God is supposed to be. That is...

The founders made no mistake. Their original draft, which had no contradictory mention of a "Creator", was just fine. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That...

What a load of crap. Nature. They occur naturally. That's why they are natural. The question was also addressed in the links YOU made! No one, nothing, nobody, not 'dictators, Kings, junta, bad "judges" ' , no beliefs , religious or otherwise, or God whatever that is.... can transfer...

What's so ironic and ridiculous about your nonsense is the stuff you post that directly contradicts the brainless argument you're trying to make. :D It doesn't matter if the founders did or didn't find natural law inconsistent with a "Creator". It simply is. It's really very straightforward...

:D:D

Just another example of where the original draft was fine without the addition of ritualistic nonsense. But I see you've reached the stage of dumbing down where totally unintelligent remarks appeal to you probably more than anything else.

With no argument as usual, all you have is moronic insults and a page full of cut&paste that supports more what I've said than your own bullshit position. "In developing his ideas on the natural law, there is no doubt where the law came from" There certainly is no doubt where the law came...

Nope. You?

Inalienable rights are incapable of being endowed, transferred or repudiated. That's the whole point of inalienability. What the word means. The original draft was just fine... "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, with certain unalienable Rights, that...

What does it mean? It means people don't have an endowed right, they have an inalienable right, despite any so called "Creator" nonsense.

As opposed to the fourth iteration of yourself, from civil jem that soon turned into an ignorant jem, to an evading lying distorting jem, to all those except the first into the trolling jem, who can't hold a rational argument.

No problem , you're delusional, so of course you would say that.

thanks for pointing that out.