The concept that all men are created equal is antithetical to the idea of a man being appointed created or otherwise divinely our king. Our revolution was directly anti royalist in concept and execution.
The kings of Europe DID claim a divine right to rule.
We put that claim to the test, to their detriment and our relief.
I cannot believe it is a point of contention with you. Do you propose support the concept of Queen Elizabeth of England being our divinely appointed ruler?
Our revolution put the lie to that claim.
>I cannot believe it is a point of contention with you. Do you propose support the concept of Queen Elizabeth of England being our divinely appointed ruler?
LOL - You are seeing a “point of contention” only where I am pointing out the deficiencies in definitions.
>The kings of Europe DID claim a divine right to rule.
>Our revolution put the lie to that claim.
Just because some that claimed “Divine Right to Rule” did NOT have that right does NOT mean that ALL who claim it do not. {this is why I brought up Saul & David, both were appointed [anointed] by the Priest Samuel... to argue that they [EITHER of them] did not have the [Divine] Right to Rule is to deny that Samuel was God’s Prophet & Priest.}
>I voluntarily entered that contract and can voluntarily erase it as well when I find a better job. Lets not compare employment with the armed force involved in governance.
How is that different from States entering a contract [the Constitution]? Why is it that States cannot “voluntarily erase” that contract when they find a better Union?