Proof in writing that this country was not founded on any religion.

[Leo123]

There are no religious laws based on beliefs of any religious organization in the US Constitution.

I never said there were religious laws in America. Maybe let's do it this way. Imagine you are part of creating a nation. From where do your laws come?

 

[whutTHEYsay]

I never said there were religious laws in America. Maybe let's do it this way. Imagine you are part of creating a nation. From where do your laws come?

They didn’t come from a burning bush revealed to Moses. It’s not against the law to have other Gods or no God before the God of Abraham.

Most laws and punishments for crimes come from English Common Law / not a church.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

You have settled in your mind it’s a right to terminate one’s own pregnancy for convenience.

No, like you convenience is just the real reason I support it, not because I am foolish enough to believe/claim it says so in the constitution.

What constitutionality are you considering Saint Frankeneinstein?

If you were not so busily engaged in deception you would see that there is none for me to consider, which is also why you have to ask that question.

 

[Leo123]

They didn’t come from a burning bush revealed to Moses. It’s not against the law to have other Gods or no God before the God of Abraham.

Most laws and punishments for crimes come from English Common Law / not a church.

Where did English common law get those laws?

 

[whutTHEYsay]

No, like you convenience is just the reason I support it, not because I am foolish enough to believe it says so in the constitution.

I have never argued that it says so in the Constitution. It’s not addressed in the Constitution. It’s an unenumerated right wherein one’s body is one’s castle and a right to privacy and due process is a part of that.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

I have never argued that it says so in the Constitution. It’s not addressed in the Constitution.

You're getting there, we got ya moving in the right direction.

It’s an unenumerated right wherein one’s body is one’s castle and a right to privacy and due process is a part of that.

and "convenience" is the real reason for constructing a fortress around/for that "enumerated right", not the faux compassion used to defend the castle.

 

[Leo123]

I have never argued that it says so in the Constitution. It’s not addressed in the Constitution. It’s an unenumerated right wherein one’s body is one’s castle and a right to privacy and due process is a part of that.

Fronm Where did that right originate?

 

[konradv]

Fronm Where did that right originate?

It originates from common consent.

 

[Leo123]

It originates from common consent.

So if 'common consent' is that murder is acceptable then murdering would be within the law and a right?

 

[whutTHEYsay]

So if 'common consent' is that murder is acceptable then murdering would be within the law and a right?

Nope: never. Every human being, having met a live birth requirement from day one upon separation from their mother are guaranteed the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness so long as they do no harm to others and the property of others.

When one murders a human being that has met a live birth requirement, and it is not in self-defense, the murderer is depriving the victim of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. The murderer must be pursued tried convicted and punished, and there can be no common consent for murdering a person who has met a live birth requirement. This is not even open for debate.

 

[Leo123]

Nope: never. Every human being, having met a live birth requirement from day one upon separation from their mother are guaranteed the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness so long as they do no harm to others and the property of others.

When one murders a human being that has met a live birth requirement, and it is not in self-defense, the murderer is depriving the victim of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. The murderer must be pursued tried convicted and punished, and there can be no common consent for murdering a person who has met a live birth requirement. This is not even open for debate.

You didn't answer my question. From where does this 'common law' come? You say the murderer must be pursued and punished. Why? 'Common consent' is not good enough as murdering a developing human being is now 'common consent.' So, were do all your moral platitudes come from? Or are they just in force until somebody changes their mind?

 

[whutTHEYsay]

So, were do all your moral platitudes come from?

Modern natural law theories took shape in the Age of Enlightenment, combining inspiration from Roman law, Christian scholastic philosophy, and contemporary concepts such as social contract theory. It was used in challenging the theory of the divine right of kings, and became an alternative justification for the establishment of a social contract, positive law, and government—and thus legal rights—in the form of classical republicanism. In the early decades of the 21st century, the concept of natural law is closely related to the concept of natural rights. Indeed, many philosophers, jurists and scholars use natural law synonymously with natural rights (Latin: ius naturale), or natural justice,[7] though others distinguish between natural law and natural right.[8]

Natural law - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[whutTHEYsay]

So if 'common consent' is that murder is acceptable then murdering would be within the law and a right?

Proof in writing that this country was not founded on any religion. 240604 {post•211}. Leo123 Jun’24 Spiwtt: You say the murderer must be pursued and punished. Why? lvvnnn 240604 Spiwtt00211


Proof in writing that this country was not founded on any religion. 240604 {post•213}

NotfooledbyW Jun’24 Vpiwtt: No; permitting society to descend into chaos by accepting murder is not rational or reasonable under natural law and natural rights.

See the following post Vwcbtw00556 from a couple months ago answering the same question. nfbw 240694 Vpiwtt00213





Women can't be trusted with their own bodies. 240404 {post•556}. NotfooledbyW Apr’24 Vwcbtw: When any born person is killed by another it is of two major concerns to me as part of the entire concerned public.

(1) Is the killer at large and dangerous to more than the first victim

(2) If a killer is not punished according to law and order, it would create chaos and undermine all the normal functions of a society. Yes, chaos and dysfunction of a mad max world would be of the concern to me if killers were not apprehended, imprisoned or killed.

On the other hand, my next-door neighbor goes to the clinic and has an abortion but I know nothing about it. I don’t see it creating any chaos in my life. nfbw 240404 Vwcbtw 00556

 

[Leo123]

Proof in writing that this country was not founded on any religion. 240604 {post•211}. Leo123 Jun’24 Spiwtt: You say the murderer must be pursued and punished. Why? lvvnnn 240604 Spiwtt00211


Proof in writing that this country was not founded on any religion. 240604 {post•213}

NotfooledbyW Jun’24 Vpiwtt: No; permitting society to descend into chaos by accepting murder is not rational or reasonable under natural law and natural rights.

See the following post Vwcbtw00556 from a couple months ago answering the same question. nfbw 240694 Vpiwtt00213





Women can't be trusted with their own bodies. 240404 {post•556}. NotfooledbyW Apr’24 Vwcbtw: When any born person is killed by another it is of two major concerns to me as part of the entire concerned public.

(1) Is the killer at large and dangerous to more than the first victim

(2) If a killer is not punished according to law and order, it would create chaos and undermine all the normal functions of a society. Yes, chaos and dysfunction of a mad max world would be of the concern to me if killers were not apprehended, imprisoned or killed.

On the other hand, my next-door neighbor goes to the clinic and has an abortion but I know nothing about it. I don’t see it creating any chaos in my life. nfbw 240404 Vwcbtw 00556

There you go again, arguing with yourself, have fun.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

There you go again, arguing with yourself, have fun.

Counter this argument if you can:

When any born person is killed by another it is of two major concerns to me as part of the entire concerned public.

(1) Is the killer at large and dangerous to more than the first victim

(2) If a killer is not punished according to law and order, it would create chaos and undermine all the normal functions of a society. Yes, chaos and dysfunction of a mad max world would be of the concern to me if killers were not apprehended, imprisoned or killed.

On the other hand, my next-door neighbor goes to the clinic and has an abortion but I know nothing about it. I don’t see it creating any chaos in my life.

Will you refute the point that if a killer is not punished according to law and order, it would not create chaos and undermine all the normal functions of a society? Or run?

 

[Leo123]

Modern natural law theories took shape in the Age of Enlightenment, combining inspiration from Roman law, Christian scholastic philosophy, and contemporary concepts such as social contract theory. It was used in challenging the theory of the divine right of kings, and became an alternative justification for the establishment of a social contract, positive law, and government—and thus legal rights—in the form of classical republicanism. In the early decades of the 21st century, the concept of natural law is closely related to the concept of natural rights. Indeed, many philosophers, jurists and scholars use natural law synonymously with natural rights (Latin: ius naturale), or natural justice,[7] though others distinguish between natural law and natural right.[8]

Natural law - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

From YOUR link: "According to the theory of law called jusnaturalism, all people have inherent rights, conferred not by act of legislation but by "God, nature, or reason."

 

[whutTHEYsay]

From YOUR link: "According to the theory of law called jusnaturalism, all people have inherent rights, conferred not by act of legislation but by "God, nature, or reason."

What’s your point’ I am a rational theist as were our first four presidents. Nature and reason are synonymous with God. But not with the God of Abraham.

 

[Leo123]

Counter this argument if you can:

When any born person is killed by another it is of two major concerns to me as part of the entire concerned public.

(1) Is the killer at large and dangerous to more than the first victim

(2) If a killer is not punished according to law and order, it would create chaos and undermine all the normal functions of a society. Yes, chaos and dysfunction of a mad max world would be of the concern to me if killers were not apprehended, imprisoned or killed.

On the other hand, my next-door neighbor goes to the clinic and has an abortion but I know nothing about it. I don’t see it creating any chaos in my life.

Will you refute the point that if a killer is not punished according to law and order, it would not create chaos and undermine all the normal functions of a society? Or run?

The question is, on what basis do you define 'law and order?' Where does 'law and order' come from? Certainly not humans as they are both good and evil.

 

[Leo123]

What’s your point’ I am a rational theist as were our first four presidents. Nature and reason are synonymous with God. But not with the God of Abraham.

I never mentioned the God of Abraham but it's good to see that you recognize a higher power.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

The question is, on what basis do you define 'law and order?' Where does 'law and order' come from? Certainly not humans as they are both good and evil.

Certainly it comes from humans - God created humans to have reason and figure law and order out.

Revealed religion comes from humans too, but its believers abandon reason for comfort.