If "Our Creator" endowed us with rights...

they didnt, it wasnt separated then and its not now.

 

Anybody can use slavery as an example.

The problem I was referring to is that not having slavery is good, but it isn't even slightly good enough.

Having no slavery is necessary, but not sufficient.

 

Hey will, maybe you should consider readingmore so we dont have to suffer though the constant stream of uneducated bullshit you put out here? Ya think?

A New York State law in 1788, cited by Professor Foner, prohibited selling a slave out of the state. An 1809 law prohibited the forced breakup of slave families and allowed slaves to legally marry. By the 1790s, he said, slaves were negotiating with their owners about matters like their sale and how they might become free, “but whether that was something codified in law I tend to doubt.”

With American independence began a slow, halting improvement in the lives of New York slaves. A 1785 law guaranteed blacks a jury trial if charged with capital crimes. The Gradual Emancipation Act of 1799 and another in 1817 mandated the liberation of most slaves in New York by 1827. The law spurred negotiated manumissions of slaves by their masters, 260 of them between 1799 and 1801. Patrick Rael, in “The Long Death of Slavery” (2005, in “Slavery in New York” by the New-York Historical Society), wrote, “Masters and slaves negotiated nearly every facet of bondage and freedom: slaves’ length of remaining service, the cost of self-purchase, slaves’ capacity to purchase family and friends, conduct expected of slaves during the remainder of their service, possibilities for resale, and sometimes goods or funds to be furnished to slaves upon manumission.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/30/nyregion/determining-the-legal-rights-of-slaves.html

 

ANY debt that transfers from parent to offspring is a form of slavery call debt bondage, and its alive and well.

 

any claim of right that neither cause injury nor damage to another is a legitimate right. You have the right regardless if someone is going to VIOLATE your rights.

It foolishness to say you dont have a right because someone might violate it, or because you dont have an army in your back pocket, changes nothing, you still have the right despite despotism and atrocities others commit.

 

You missed the point enirely.

Do you know what "necessary, but not sufficient" means?

I said that absence of slavery is necessary, but not sufficient.

And, we're all fully aware that it took more than 80 years and a civil war to make significant progress just on slavery - with more decades of civil rights failures even to today (the slavery as "not sufficient" part).

Please keep up if you're going to jump in.

 

At most this is support of my point that people are not born with rights.

 

not when we are born into slavery

as I said we are born into slavery, which is a VIOLATION of the rights we are born with, since last I checked the state is not capable of producing children.

slavery was and always will be a way of life.

Today its accomplished through the monetary system, now its easy for accounting and taxable.

Pretty tough to tax slaves, the real reason we ended it.

you need to read more, will


Indentured servitude in British America
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Indentured servitude in British America was the prominent system of labor in British American colonies until it was eventually overcome by slavery.[1] During its time, the system was so prominent that more than half of all immigrants to British colonies south of New England were white servants, and that nearly half of total white immigration to the Thirteen Colonies came under indenture.[2]

The consensus view among economic historians and economists is that indentured servitude became popular in the Thirteen Colonies in the seventeenth century because of a large demand for labor there, coupled with labor surpluses in Europe and high costs of transatlantic transportation beyond the means of European workers.[3][4] Between the 1630s and the American Revolution, one-half to two-thirds of white immigrants to the Thirteen Colonies arrived under indentures.[5] Half a million Europeans, mostly young men, also went to the Caribbean under indenture to work on plantations. Most indentures were voluntary, although some people were tricked or coerced into them.[6] A debt peonage system similar to indenture was also used in southern New England and Long Island to control and assimilate Native Americans from the 1600s through the American Revolution.[7]

Indentured servitude continued in North America into the early 20th century, but the number of indentured servants declined over time.[8] Although experts do not agree on the causes of the decline, possible factors for the American colonies include changes in the labor market and the legal system that made it cheaper and less risky for an employer to hire African slave labor or paid employees, or made indentures unlawful; increased affordability of travel to North America that made immigrants less likely to rely on indentures to pay travel costs; and effects of the American Revolution, particularly on immigration from Britain. In the Caribbean, the number of indentured servants from Europe began to decline in the 17th century as Europeans became aware of the cruelty of plantation masters and the high death rate of servants, largely due to tropical disease.[9] After the British Empire ended slavery in 1833, plantation owners returned to indentured servitude for labor, with most servants coming from India,[10] until the British government prohibited the practice in 1917.[11]

 

So, you would argue that those in China have free speech, freedom of religion, freedom to carry arms in public, etc.?

I've never heard that position before.

 

Yes - the federal count of slaves in the US is something like 80,000.

The point is that it is 100% illegal - not that it is 100% enforced.

No law can be enforced to 100% for several reasons.

 

the civil war was a war on states rights, federal supremacy, the king must win.

in logic but ou have not shown anything it applies to yet?

 

rights and political libery is 2 entirely different things

 

its literally the very first amendment to the constitution. religion and law are completely separate.

 

except of course the fact that our gubmint has and continues with impunity to allow slavery in their country instituted by their corporations.

 

oh its da lew? there you have it rahl said its da lew, dat settles it!

 

hey rahl, if it were 'in fact' separate then any decision made in court regarding religion is treason and fraud against the people.

people keep grabbing these stupid inet arguments go down in flames when its examined based upon reality

 

Yes, even our SC thinks corporations are humans and can use their wealth to sway the government in all sorts of ways that are detrimental to actual humans.

For example, Trump has given meat processors a full pass on following any COVID safety issues, even protecting them from health and safety related law suits.

And, even though they have been shown to be a serious community threat wherever they are, many are allowing data on COVID in those places to be available to public health and others who care.

I agree with you that these acts and many others are an assault on our rights.

 

​

“It's called the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe it.”Aug 3, 2010 George Carlin:

 

No, that's not what is happening.

The issue has more to do with the degree to which race, religion, etc. can be the basis for denying products, services and access to goernment features.

Can a government trained and licensed pharmacist refuse to fill a legitimate prescription? Can a doctor refuse to treat a patient based on religious differences? Can a licensed public accommodation deny access based on religious differences. Can an employer fire someone who doesn't share the religion of the employer? Can a construction license be denied on the grounds of the beliefs of the home owner (like it is in Israel)?

 

You need to be taught to not eat other humans? What?

It is best you stay with religion, it will keep other humans around you safe.


According to researchers at Yale University's Infant Cognition Center, also known as "The Baby Lab," babies can actually tell good from evil, even as young as 3 months old. That research is the focus of a three-part series this week on "Anderson Cooper 360," which airs weeknights at 8 p.m. ET.
https://www.cnn.com/2014/02/13/living/what-babies-know-anderson-cooper-parents/index.html

 

I see Creator. I don't see god, God, YHWH.

I also see the word 'their'.

If they meant the god of the bible, God would have been the word used. It was not. And on purpose.
They wanted freedom of religion, not lock into a religion.

 

Human beings are capable of terrible atrocities. The arrogance of saying I'm a better person, because I was born better ...well thats pretty arrogant, and that's your argument. And that attitude can bite you in the butt when you least expect it.

And yes, Christianity values within our society do keep us all safer.

 

He types a lot of words, but seems to say so little.

 

Some are terrible. Most are not. Otherwise humanity would never have advanced to where we are. We would have killed ourselves off. And a couple of despots with nuke can still do it.

But the majority of humans are born understanding good. If for no other reason, they learn what it's like to have bad happen to them and have empathy.
The study I linked you to suggest as early as 3 months old babies know good from bad.

It has nothing to do with arrogance. It is ignorance to suggest so.

 

My point still stands. The white people of the United States did not invent slavery; they were among the first to start outlawing it. The Constitution gave a cut-off date for the importation of slavery (1808.)

We can invoke all kinds of periods of history, but the most modern efforts to outlaw began with white countries and the newly formed United States at the forefront. Slavery would begin,lose favor, be banned and then return somewhere else. Morally speaking we've always had some form of slavery and EVERYBODY supports it. Having said that, the Bible is the primary source of our unalienable Rights. I want to share an excerpt from an article for you:

"...the Bible played a significant part in the revolution. Other influences on the revolution were English common law, the Magna Carta, the Enlightenment , Locke, Montesquieu, classic and civic republicanism (Cicero and the ancients, but also Machiavelli). George Washington identified the Bible as a major influence on the republic. Washington said that “the foundation of the American Empire was not laid in a gloomy age of dogma and superstition, but in the pure and benign light of Revelation that has had a meliorating influence on mankind.” The founders looked to the Bible for insights into “civic order and civic virtue.” They believed that the Bible offered ways to resist tyrannical government and choose righteous rulers."

https://juicyecumenism.com/2017/05/26/bibles-significance-american-founders/