>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?
All men created equal means no Counts, no Barons, no Dukes and no Kings. It was the idea behind the revolution, that a man calling himself king has no divine right to rule us. And they do not.
Do you support the concept of our representative constitutional republic and the equality and natural rights of man?