The Saga of Harry S

[JakeStarkey]

PC is right that almost all colonists believed in a form of God.

Thus, Jefferson used language that both Christians and non-Christians could accept.

An aside: I see that she has achieved a mediocre understanding of Economics 200.

 

[JakeStarkey]

A Folio Society survey conducted by YouGov has asked members of the British public to name the books of most significance for the modern world.

The Bible came out top with 27 per cent of the vote, pipping Charles Darwin’s The Origin of Species, which explains natural selection, while Stephen Hawking’s A Brief History of Time, which tries to tackle some of the universe’s biggest questions, came third.

The ten books voted most valuable to humanity. Most thinking true-believing Christians will agree with the first four and their order.

1. The Bible (37%)

2. The Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin (35%)

3. A Brief History of Time, by Stephen Hawking (17%)

4. Relativity, by Albert Einstein (15%)

5. Nineteen-Eighty-Four, by George Orwell (14%)

6. Principia Mathematica, by Isaac Newton (12%)

7. To Kill a Mockingbird, by Harper Lee (10%)

8. The Qur’an (9%)

9. The Wealth of Nations, by Adam Smith (7%)

10. The Double Helix, by James D Watson (6%)

Bible edges out Darwin as most valuable to humanity in survey of influential books Books The Guardian

 

[Wry Catcher]

1. There are four references to ‘Divine’ in Declaration of Independence:
1) in first paragraph ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’
2) next paragraph ‘endowed by their Creator,”
3) Supreme Judge of the world, and
4) ‘divine’ Providence, last paragraph.


This is important because our historic documents memorialize a government based on individuals born with inalienable rights, by, in various references, by the Divine, or Nature’s God, or their Creator, or the Supreme Judge, or divine Providence.

And the counter-argument of the times was that the monarch derived his power from God, referred to as the divine right of kings.

Therefore it became a contest between mortal men over which side was God on;

the question of course was not settled by some God, but by men with guns.

You are truly an uneducated dolt.

And to prove it, you persist in parading your ignorance in public.

When did the belief in such 'divine rights of kings' end?

Get a pencil and paper, and prepare to be educated:


1. Quia Emptoresis a statute passed in the reign of Edward I of England in1290 that prevented tenants from alienating their lands to others by subinfeudation (the practice by which tenants, holding land under the king or other superior lord, carved out new and distinct tenures in their turn by sub-letting or alienating a part of their lands), instead requiring all tenants who wished to alienate their land to do so by substitution.

By effectively ending the practice of subinfeudation, Quia Emptores hastened the end of feudalism in England,...

Direct feudal obligations were increasingly being replaced by cash rents and outright sales of land which gave rise to the practice of livery and maintenance or bastard feudalism, the retention and control by the nobility of land, money, soldiers and servants via direct salaries, land sales and rent payments.
Quia Emptores - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



a. The result of Edward I reforms was that England now had a justice system based on contracts, adversarial jurisprudence, and traditional ideas of fairness and property rights that no king or bishop could sweep away.


Again?
"....no king or bishop could sweep away."


2. By restricting the jurisdiction of clerks to church law, Edward I created a secular profession of lawyers and judges.

3. The next step leading to a capitalist society was the fact that the kingdom of England had no internal barriers to trade, a major difference from other European realms: it was a ready-made national market for goods.
See "Freedom Just Around the Corner: A New American History: 1585-1828," by Walter A. McDougall

Ummmm: A SPEACH TO THE LORDS AND COMMONS OF THE PARLIAMENT AT WHITE-HALL, ON WEDNESDAY THE XXI. OF MARCH. ANNO 1609 [1610 new style].

"The State of MONARCHIE is the supremest thing vpon earth: For Kings are not onely GODS Lieutenants vpon earth, and sit vpon GODS throne, but euen by GOD himselfe they are called Gods. There bee three principall similitudes that illustrate the state of MONARCHIE: One taken out of the word of GOD; and the two other out of the grounds of Policie and Philosophie. In the Scriptures Kings are called Gods, and so their power after a certaine relation compared to the Diuine power. Kings are also compared to Fathers of families: for a King is trewly Parens patriæ, the politique father of his people. And lastly, Kings are compared to the head of this Microcosme of the body of man."

James VI I on Divine Right

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. There are four references to ‘Divine’ in Declaration of Independence:
1) in first paragraph ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’
2) next paragraph ‘endowed by their Creator,”
3) Supreme Judge of the world, and
4) ‘divine’ Providence, last paragraph.


This is important because our historic documents memorialize a government based on individuals born with inalienable rights, by, in various references, by the Divine, or Nature’s God, or their Creator, or the Supreme Judge, or divine Providence.

And the counter-argument of the times was that the monarch derived his power from God, referred to as the divine right of kings.

Therefore it became a contest between mortal men over which side was God on;

the question of course was not settled by some God, but by men with guns.

You are truly an uneducated dolt.

And to prove it, you persist in parading your ignorance in public.

When did the belief in such 'divine rights of kings' end?

Get a pencil and paper, and prepare to be educated:


1. Quia Emptoresis a statute passed in the reign of Edward I of England in1290 that prevented tenants from alienating their lands to others by subinfeudation (the practice by which tenants, holding land under the king or other superior lord, carved out new and distinct tenures in their turn by sub-letting or alienating a part of their lands), instead requiring all tenants who wished to alienate their land to do so by substitution.

By effectively ending the practice of subinfeudation, Quia Emptores hastened the end of feudalism in England,...

Direct feudal obligations were increasingly being replaced by cash rents and outright sales of land which gave rise to the practice of livery and maintenance or bastard feudalism, the retention and control by the nobility of land, money, soldiers and servants via direct salaries, land sales and rent payments.
Quia Emptores - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



a. The result of Edward I reforms was that England now had a justice system based on contracts, adversarial jurisprudence, and traditional ideas of fairness and property rights that no king or bishop could sweep away.


Again?
"....no king or bishop could sweep away."


2. By restricting the jurisdiction of clerks to church law, Edward I created a secular profession of lawyers and judges.

3. The next step leading to a capitalist society was the fact that the kingdom of England had no internal barriers to trade, a major difference from other European realms: it was a ready-made national market for goods.
See "Freedom Just Around the Corner: A New American History: 1585-1828," by Walter A. McDougall

Ummmm: A SPEACH TO THE LORDS AND COMMONS OF THE PARLIAMENT AT WHITE-HALL, ON WEDNESDAY THE XXI. OF MARCH. ANNO 1609 [1610 new style].

"The State of MONARCHIE is the supremest thing vpon earth: For Kings are not onely GODS Lieutenants vpon earth, and sit vpon GODS throne, but euen by GOD himselfe they are called Gods. There bee three principall similitudes that illustrate the state of MONARCHIE: One taken out of the word of GOD; and the two other out of the grounds of Policie and Philosophie. In the Scriptures Kings are called Gods, and so their power after a certaine relation compared to the Diuine power. Kings are also compared to Fathers of families: for a King is trewly Parens patriæ, the politique father of his people. And lastly, Kings are compared to the head of this Microcosme of the body of man."

James VI I on Divine Right

Ever hear of this, you dope? Magna Carta (Latin; "Great Charter"), also called Magna Carta Libertatum or The Great Charter of the Liberties of England, is an Angevin charter originally issued in Latin. It was sealed under oath by King John at Runnymede, on the bank of the River Thames near Windsor, England, on 15 June 1215. Magna Carta - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[JakeStarkey]

PC, check out the Glorious Revolution, then Walpole, and the relationship of Parliament and King that developed in the early 18th century.

 

[Wry Catcher]

1. There are four references to ‘Divine’ in Declaration of Independence:
1) in first paragraph ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’
2) next paragraph ‘endowed by their Creator,”
3) Supreme Judge of the world, and
4) ‘divine’ Providence, last paragraph.


This is important because our historic documents memorialize a government based on individuals born with inalienable rights, by, in various references, by the Divine, or Nature’s God, or their Creator, or the Supreme Judge, or divine Providence.

And the counter-argument of the times was that the monarch derived his power from God, referred to as the divine right of kings.

Therefore it became a contest between mortal men over which side was God on;

the question of course was not settled by some God, but by men with guns.

You are truly an uneducated dolt.

And to prove it, you persist in parading your ignorance in public.

When did the belief in such 'divine rights of kings' end?

Get a pencil and paper, and prepare to be educated:


1. Quia Emptoresis a statute passed in the reign of Edward I of England in1290 that prevented tenants from alienating their lands to others by subinfeudation (the practice by which tenants, holding land under the king or other superior lord, carved out new and distinct tenures in their turn by sub-letting or alienating a part of their lands), instead requiring all tenants who wished to alienate their land to do so by substitution.

By effectively ending the practice of subinfeudation, Quia Emptores hastened the end of feudalism in England,...

Direct feudal obligations were increasingly being replaced by cash rents and outright sales of land which gave rise to the practice of livery and maintenance or bastard feudalism, the retention and control by the nobility of land, money, soldiers and servants via direct salaries, land sales and rent payments.
Quia Emptores - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



a. The result of Edward I reforms was that England now had a justice system based on contracts, adversarial jurisprudence, and traditional ideas of fairness and property rights that no king or bishop could sweep away.


Again?
"....no king or bishop could sweep away."


2. By restricting the jurisdiction of clerks to church law, Edward I created a secular profession of lawyers and judges.

3. The next step leading to a capitalist society was the fact that the kingdom of England had no internal barriers to trade, a major difference from other European realms: it was a ready-made national market for goods.
See "Freedom Just Around the Corner: A New American History: 1585-1828," by Walter A. McDougall

Ummmm: A SPEACH TO THE LORDS AND COMMONS OF THE PARLIAMENT AT WHITE-HALL, ON WEDNESDAY THE XXI. OF MARCH. ANNO 1609 [1610 new style].

"The State of MONARCHIE is the supremest thing vpon earth: For Kings are not onely GODS Lieutenants vpon earth, and sit vpon GODS throne, but euen by GOD himselfe they are called Gods. There bee three principall similitudes that illustrate the state of MONARCHIE: One taken out of the word of GOD; and the two other out of the grounds of Policie and Philosophie. In the Scriptures Kings are called Gods, and so their power after a certaine relation compared to the Diuine power. Kings are also compared to Fathers of families: for a King is trewly Parens patriæ, the politique father of his people. And lastly, Kings are compared to the head of this Microcosme of the body of man."

James VI I on Divine Right

Ever hear of this, you dope? Magna Carta (Latin; "Great Charter"), also called Magna Carta Libertatum or The Great Charter of the Liberties of England, is an Angevin charter originally issued in Latin. It was sealed under oath by King John at Runnymede, on the bank of the River Thames near Windsor, England, on 15 June 1215. Magna Carta - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yep. I have in fact. I also know James I believed in the Divine Right of Kings and his son, Charles I was eventually beheaded when he acted as if he were above the law.

Why do you lie by omission?

 

[NYcarbineer]

1. There are four references to ‘Divine’ in Declaration of Independence:
1) in first paragraph ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’
2) next paragraph ‘endowed by their Creator,”
3) Supreme Judge of the world, and
4) ‘divine’ Providence, last paragraph.


This is important because our historic documents memorialize a government based on individuals born with inalienable rights, by, in various references, by the Divine, or Nature’s God, or their Creator, or the Supreme Judge, or divine Providence.

And the counter-argument of the times was that the monarch derived his power from God, referred to as the divine right of kings.

Therefore it became a contest between mortal men over which side was God on;

the question of course was not settled by some God, but by men with guns.

You are truly an uneducated dolt.

And to prove it, you persist in parading your ignorance in public.

When did the belief in such 'divine rights of kings' end?

Get a pencil and paper, and prepare to be educated:


1. Quia Emptoresis a statute passed in the reign of Edward I of England in1290 that prevented tenants from alienating their lands to others by subinfeudation (the practice by which tenants, holding land under the king or other superior lord, carved out new and distinct tenures in their turn by sub-letting or alienating a part of their lands), instead requiring all tenants who wished to alienate their land to do so by substitution.

By effectively ending the practice of subinfeudation, Quia Emptores hastened the end of feudalism in England,...

Direct feudal obligations were increasingly being replaced by cash rents and outright sales of land which gave rise to the practice of livery and maintenance or bastard feudalism, the retention and control by the nobility of land, money, soldiers and servants via direct salaries, land sales and rent payments.
Quia Emptores - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



a. The result of Edward I reforms was that England now had a justice system based on contracts, adversarial jurisprudence, and traditional ideas of fairness and property rights that no king or bishop could sweep away.


Again?
"....no king or bishop could sweep away."


2. By restricting the jurisdiction of clerks to church law, Edward I created a secular profession of lawyers and judges.

3. The next step leading to a capitalist society was the fact that the kingdom of England had no internal barriers to trade, a major difference from other European realms: it was a ready-made national market for goods.
See "Freedom Just Around the Corner: A New American History: 1585-1828," by Walter A. McDougall

Ummmm: A SPEACH TO THE LORDS AND COMMONS OF THE PARLIAMENT AT WHITE-HALL, ON WEDNESDAY THE XXI. OF MARCH. ANNO 1609 [1610 new style].

"The State of MONARCHIE is the supremest thing vpon earth: For Kings are not onely GODS Lieutenants vpon earth, and sit vpon GODS throne, but euen by GOD himselfe they are called Gods. There bee three principall similitudes that illustrate the state of MONARCHIE: One taken out of the word of GOD; and the two other out of the grounds of Policie and Philosophie. In the Scriptures Kings are called Gods, and so their power after a certaine relation compared to the Diuine power. Kings are also compared to Fathers of families: for a King is trewly Parens patriæ, the politique father of his people. And lastly, Kings are compared to the head of this Microcosme of the body of man."

James VI I on Divine Right

Ever hear of this, you dope? Magna Carta (Latin; "Great Charter"), also called Magna Carta Libertatum or The Great Charter of the Liberties of England, is an Angevin charter originally issued in Latin. It was sealed under oath by King John at Runnymede, on the bank of the River Thames near Windsor, England, on 15 June 1215. Magna Carta - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

None of that changes the fact that the adherents to divine right were just as Christian as those who revolted against the king.

btw, if Jesus is a democrat, why did he call Heaven a kingdom?

 

[NYcarbineer]

1. There are four references to ‘Divine’ in Declaration of Independence:
1) in first paragraph ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’
2) next paragraph ‘endowed by their Creator,”
3) Supreme Judge of the world, and
4) ‘divine’ Providence, last paragraph.


This is important because our historic documents memorialize a government based on individuals born with inalienable rights, by, in various references, by the Divine, or Nature’s God, or their Creator, or the Supreme Judge, or divine Providence.

And the counter-argument of the times was that the monarch derived his power from God, referred to as the divine right of kings.

Therefore it became a contest between mortal men over which side was God on;

the question of course was not settled by some God, but by men with guns.

You are truly an uneducated dolt.

And to prove it, you persist in parading your ignorance in public.

When did the belief in such 'divine rights of kings' end?

Get a pencil and paper, and prepare to be educated:


1. Quia Emptoresis a statute passed in the reign of Edward I of England in1290 that prevented tenants from alienating their lands to others by subinfeudation (the practice by which tenants, holding land under the king or other superior lord, carved out new and distinct tenures in their turn by sub-letting or alienating a part of their lands), instead requiring all tenants who wished to alienate their land to do so by substitution.

By effectively ending the practice of subinfeudation, Quia Emptores hastened the end of feudalism in England,...

Direct feudal obligations were increasingly being replaced by cash rents and outright sales of land which gave rise to the practice of livery and maintenance or bastard feudalism, the retention and control by the nobility of land, money, soldiers and servants via direct salaries, land sales and rent payments.
Quia Emptores - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



a. The result of Edward I reforms was that England now had a justice system based on contracts, adversarial jurisprudence, and traditional ideas of fairness and property rights that no king or bishop could sweep away.


Again?
"....no king or bishop could sweep away."


2. By restricting the jurisdiction of clerks to church law, Edward I created a secular profession of lawyers and judges.

3. The next step leading to a capitalist society was the fact that the kingdom of England had no internal barriers to trade, a major difference from other European realms: it was a ready-made national market for goods.
See "Freedom Just Around the Corner: A New American History: 1585-1828," by Walter A. McDougall

James VI wrote his defense of the divine right of kings around 1598. Louis XIV of France was a strong advocate for the belief.

Robert Filmer and John Locke effectively debated the idea in the early 17th century.

But you miss the point entirely, as usual.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Russian tsars claimed a divine right to rule as well.

Some of you may recall who overthrew them.

 

[Wry Catcher]

PC is right that almost all colonists believed in a form of God.

Thus, Jefferson used language that both Christians and non-Christians could accept.

An aside: I see that she has achieved a mediocre understanding of Economics 200.

I suppose those who didn't believe in supernatural forces feared The Stock, the Rack and being burned alive more so then lying.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You better explain to those believers that did go to the stocks, the racks, and the stake.

 

[regent]

Wonder why Chic and the best American historians do not see history the same? Does Chic know more history than the noted historians and presidential experts that rate the presidents?
Since Truman left office, historians have rated the presidents fifteen times, and In those fifteen ratings since 1962, Truman was rated from fifth to ninth best American president.

 

[ogibillm]

Thanks PC. You offer citations and links to the facts you present but rarely get a reasoned response from your detractors. That they don't like what you present is clear but they offer nothing in return. I look forward to your posts.

no, she doesn't. she copies and pastes things, things that often do not have anything to do with the point she is trying to make (assuming we can find one under her egregious overuse of randomly inserted numbered points. when she does manage to post something on topic, it is generally to somebody else's opinion that she is trying to pass off as factual evidence.

never forget, this is the woman who claimed she had the 'facts' on what the world would be like if obama had lost in 2008

 

[PoliticalChic]

Wonder why Chic and the best American historians do not see history the same? Does Chic know more history than the noted historians and presidential experts that rate the presidents?
Since Truman left office, historians have rated the presidents fifteen times, and In those fifteen ratings since 1962, Truman was rated from fifth to ninth best American president.

1. I wonder why you never seem able to come up with your own opinion....I provide lots of material....but all one ever hears from you is you'll allow some Leftwing stooge to give you a ready-made opinion.

Certainly you can find a way to deny what I've presented.....I mean, if you know any history yourself.



2."Does Chic know more history than the noted historians and presidential experts that rate the presidents?"

It certainly seems so.

And the reason is clear: I don't have to toe the party line.

Again: I don't simply offer an opinion, or a conclusion...I give the basis for it.



Wise up.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Thanks PC. You offer citations and links to the facts you present but rarely get a reasoned response from your detractors. That they don't like what you present is clear but they offer nothing in return. I look forward to your posts.

no, she doesn't. she copies and pastes things, things that often do not have anything to do with the point she is trying to make (assuming we can find one under her egregious overuse of randomly inserted numbered points. when she does manage to post something on topic, it is generally to somebody else's opinion that she is trying to pass off as factual evidence.

never forget, this is the woman who claimed she had the 'facts' on what the world would be like if obama had lost in 2008

Liar.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No lie, PC, you do copy and paste, you force conclusions that do not logically derive from evidence, your preconceptions bias your thesis and your work.

You truly do academic scholarship no credit.

 

[ogibillm]

No lie, PC, you do copy and paste, you force conclusions that do not logically derive from evidence, your preconceptions bias your thesis and your work.

You truly do academic scholarship no credit.

you left out that she routinely posts opinions as factual evidence.
but yep, that's pc in a nutshell. no original thought, no logical conclusions.

 

[PoliticalChic]

No lie, PC, you do copy and paste, you force conclusions that do not logically derive from evidence, your preconceptions bias your thesis and your work.

You truly do academic scholarship no credit.

" copy and paste" refers to the way material is presented, not to the substance of what is presented.
I've proven this often enough in challenging you to comment on what I've so presented...and you have been too cowardly to even try.

Being a moron, you are unable to respond to what is presented.

You have no business even using the phrase "academic scholarship."

 

[JakeStarkey]

Address the issues, not your interpretations of scholarship. We have all clearly rebutted your nonsense, which you never address except to yell "dolt". Sweet cheeks, that is not counter rebuttal.

You are an embarrassment to the entire world of journalism, you dolt.

 

[PoliticalChic]

No lie, PC, you do copy and paste, you force conclusions that do not logically derive from evidence, your preconceptions bias your thesis and your work.

You truly do academic scholarship no credit.

you left out that she routinely posts opinions as factual evidence.
but yep, that's pc in a nutshell. no original thought, no logical conclusions.

"no original thought, no logical conclusions."

The usual boilerplate lie.

In matter of fact, it is exactly what enrages you.