RSS

Tuesday Night Radio: Chimeras, Literary Caution, Homosexual Rights, 21 USC 321 Definitions .

20 May

American Independence Hour hosted by Alfred Adask; 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM Central time, Tuesday nights, on AmericanVoiceRadio.com and also on the KU band, free-to-air satellite link at Galaxy 19.  There’ll be call-ins at 1-800-596-8191.

 
57 Comments

Posted by on May 20, 2014 in American Independence Hour, Radio

 

Tags: , ,

57 responses to “Tuesday Night Radio: Chimeras, Literary Caution, Homosexual Rights, 21 USC 321 Definitions .

  1. Henry

    May 20, 2014 at 7:34 PM

    Suggested topic:

    When you go to a doctor’s office and fill out the forms to be treated with “drugs”, “medical devices”, etc. – things all defined as for use on “man or other animals” – are you not declaring yourself, in writing, to be an animal?

     
  2. Bobby

    May 20, 2014 at 7:48 PM

    You couls write “Non-animal” before your name.

     
    • Adask

      May 20, 2014 at 11:35 PM

      I wouldn’t rely on that tactic. You can’t prove a negative statement. Declaring yourself to be a “non-animal” probably can’t be proven.

      If it were me, I’d write “man made in God’s image as per Genesis 1:26-28”. That’s a positive, provable statement supported by the Bible and the 1st Amendment’s freedom of religion.

       
  3. Toland

    May 20, 2014 at 8:12 PM

    Also, it follows that only “man or other animals” are eligible for health insurance covering “drugs”, “medical devices” and such.

    So, if you’ve taken this type of insurance, you defined yourself as an animal.

     
  4. Bobby

    May 20, 2014 at 10:01 PM

    If the government has defined man as animalsm then all the federal statutes only apply to animals. An accused defendant can deny he is an animal and therefore the statutes do not apply to him, unless the PA can prove he is an animal.

     
  5. Adask

    May 20, 2014 at 11:43 PM

    I’s not necessarily true that ALL modern, federal statutes presume us to be animals.

    The “man or other animals” definitions have been found primarily in Title 21 of the United States Code. That Title deals with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and “food,” drugs” and medical “devices”. Insofar as any statute outside of Title 21 implicates that use of “food,” “drugs” and medical “devices,” that statute would PRESUMABLY presuppose that you and I are mere “animals”. But it’s entirely possible (and even likely) that some federal statutes do suppose us to be something other than animals.

    Nevertheless, if you identify yourself in a way that makes clear that you are not an “animal” as seen in 21 USC 321, but your are a man made in God’s image as per Genesis 1:26-28, what will government do? Deny your claim on the record? Once they admit that I’m a man made in God’s image and endowed by my Creator with certain unalienable Rights, for me, that’s as good as it gets. Recognized in that status, I will willingly enter any judicial court in this country.

     
    • Henry

      May 21, 2014 at 1:01 AM

      In answer to your question, a likely government response to an “I’m no animal” claim is to attack its credibility by showing how your own behavior is inconsistent with it.

      To this end, the government could check if you’ve ever contracted for the services of a licensed medical provider, since all such businesses operate under the “man or other animals” jurisdiction of the FDA.

       
  6. palani

    May 21, 2014 at 7:23 AM

    Following are affirmative defenses

    Click of a topic below to learn what facts or elements must be proved to establish the defense.

    1. Accord and satisfaction;
    2. Collateral estoppel;
    3. Discharge in bankruptcy;
    4. Duress;
    5. Equitable Estoppel;
    6. Failure of consideration;
    7. Failure to mitigate damages;
    8. Failure to satisfy a condition precedent
    9. lllegality;
    10. Judicial estoppel;
    11. Laches;
    12. Mistake;
    13. Novation;
    14. Proportionate Responsibility;
    15. Quasi-estoppel;
    16. Ratification;
    17. Release;
    18. Setoff and recoupment;
    19. Statute of frauds;
    20. Statute of limitations;
    21. Waiver;
    22. Express Assumption of Risk

    Two of interest to MOOA are Waiver and Laches

    WAIVER
    Waiver is the intentional relinquishment of a known right or intentional conduct inconsistent with claiming that right. Jernigan v. Langley, 111 S.W.3d 153, 156 (Tex.2003). A waivable right may spring from law or from a contract.

    LACHES

    The two essential elements of laches are

    (1) An unreasonable delay by one having legal or equitable rights in asserting them; and
    (2) A good faith change of position by another to his detriment because of the delay.

    Rogers v. Ricane Enterprises, Inc., 772 S.W.2d 76, 80 (Tex.1989).

     
    • Cody

      May 31, 2014 at 6:24 PM

      Hey Palani,
      You may have missed “capacity.”
      Good list, though.

       
  7. Adask

    May 21, 2014 at 11:31 AM

    In CRIMINAL cases, all affirmative defenses are first and foremost, CONFESSIONS. For example, the “insanity defense” is an affirmative defense wherein the defendant first ADMITS (confesses) that he did commit the offense (murder, for example) BUT claims he was crazy when he did so. The affirmative defense is equivalent to saying “De devil made me do it.” The defendant admits to committing the offense as charged, but tries to justify his conduct by claiming that external forces compelled him to do so.

    Given that an affirmative defense in criminal matters is, first, a confession, very few people realize that having confessed to the crime charged, there is no further burden of proof on the prosecution. Instead, the burden of proof now shifts to the DEFENDANT. If the defendant claimed he was insane when he committed the admitted offense, it is now up to the defendant to prove to court and/or jury that he was, in fact, insane when he committed the offense. If the defendant can’t prove to the jury that he was insane at the time of the offense, he’s going to jail because he confessed by making an affirmative defense.

    Another example of an affirmative defense in criminal or penal matters is “willfulness”. I.e., if a defendant argues that he did not act “willfully” when he failed to file his income tax return, he first of all confesses that he 1) was legally obligated to file; and 2) failed to file.

    Same thing with child support. There is an express proviso in many (all?) states’ laws that it is an affirmative defense to child support prosecution to claim that the obligor was somehow prevented by external forces from sending the money and therefore, his failure to pay was not “willful”. That affirmative defense is tempting (I lost my pay check, I lost my job, I needed a new engine on my car to get to work, etc.), but is always dangerous since the affirmative defense is 1) a confession (which means the prosecutor has made his case); and 2) the defendant then assumes the burden of proving that he did, in fact, have reasonable cause to not pay the child support.

    I suspect that even in penal matters, an affirmative defense invokes a court of equity wherein the judge can rule any way he pleases. Once you’ve made an affirmative defense (confession) you can bet that you’ll probably be found guilty. An affirmative defense in criminal matters is an act of desperation and often a choice for fools.

     
    • Cody

      May 31, 2014 at 6:35 PM

      Affirmative defenses can be a good way of mitigating responsibility. For example you can be charged with trespassing when you didn’t know you were on someone else’s property. Your affirmative defense would be “Yes I was in that location. However, the owner failed to post his land.” At that point you’ve shown no criminal intent and you’ve made the landowner partially or entirely responsible for your “crime.” I call it the “Yeah, but” defense.

      “AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE. In code pleading. New matter constituting a defense; new matter
      which, assuming the complaint to be true, constitutes a defense to it. Carter v. Eighth Ward
      Bank, 33 Misc.” 128, 67 N.Y.S. 300. Black’s 4th p. 83

       
  8. palani

    May 21, 2014 at 1:57 PM

    Non assumpsit by way of confession and avoidance is the old school approach. The confession is “I did it but so what? I have no obligation NOT to do it.” However, common law pleading has been replaced with code pleading which has been replaced with notice pleading so there we are. One modern approach is now “I plead guilty to the FACTS but not the CONTROVERSY.” Which then acts as an estoppel to the appeal process because the appeals judge has not facts to consider … the plea closed the record before any facts could get entered.

    Confessing to be a man (made in God’s image) is still a confession. A WAIVER might tend to act against you if you know that animals do one thing while man does something different and you have been acting as an animal. Under these conditions you should not expect to be treated different from an animal. LACHES could work in your favor if you are proactive and cause a legal notice to be published or process to be served on any alphabet agency that has rules that would treat you differently than a man. Complete administrative procedure on them and then use LACHES when you are treated as an animal. Is LACHES a confession? If so, the confession is that you took some steps to establish your status and all indications were that the alphabet agency agreed with you.

     
  9. Henry

    May 21, 2014 at 2:04 PM

    Thanks, palani. You caught that on the fly. I’d say the most relevant item is this:

    “Waiver is the intentional relinquishment of a known right or intentional conduct inconsistent with claiming that right.”

    However useful the words “I am not an animal” may be in theory, their practical effect is neutralized if your actions contradict them – for example, if there’s a paper trail proving you’ve sought the services of doctors licensed to practice on “man or other animals”.

    So get ready for questions about this in court.

     
  10. Roger

    May 21, 2014 at 8:50 PM

    Since the MOOA defense is clearly open to the “waiver” attack you describe, what’s a non-animal to do, drop all medical insurance and stop going to the doctor?

    Who’s got a clever way to act like an animal (by receiving treatment involving “drugs”, “medical devices”, etc.) and still plausibly claim to not be one?

     
    • palani

      May 21, 2014 at 9:15 PM

      Roger … do a search for the Affordable Care Act sec 1551 to find

      SEC. 1551. <> DEFINITIONS.

      Unless specifically provided for otherwise, the definitions
      contained in section 2791 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
      300gg-91) shall apply with respect to this title.

      Then do a search for 42 U.S.C 300gg-91 to find

      (2) Medical care
      The term “medical care” means amounts paid for—
      (A) the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease, or amounts paid for the purpose of affecting any structure or function of the body,
      (B) amounts paid for transportation primarily for and essential to medical care referred to in subparagraph (A), and
      (C) amounts paid for insurance covering medical care referred to in subparagraphs (A) and (B).

      So … anytime anyone asks you for money in conjunction with some medical treatment then should you do so YOU are providing medical care. This bets the question … Are you licensed to provide medical care? Ask your primary physician if he knows he is seeking medical care from you and that the law does not permit you to provide him medical care without the proper license.

       
    • Adask

      May 21, 2014 at 10:17 PM

      I doubt that 99% of the doctors understand the significance of MOOA. You might send a letter to a doctor to ask if he works on animals or just people. If he answers, he’s sure to deny working on “animals”.

      You might carry a concealed digital recorder with you the next time you visit your doctor and ask him or the clerk in Admissions if they work or animals or just people.

      This is a complex issued and there’s no easy answer. But if you can CREATE EVIDENCE that you claim to be a “man made in God’s image” and the doctor and/or insurance company knows or has reason to know that you are not an “animal,” you would thereby create a line of defense that the Powers That Be would not willingly confront. That doesn’t mean that the PTB can’t get you if they really, really want you. But they might give you some space rather than confront this issue.

      In fact, your first letter might be sent by registered mail to your insurance company. I’ll bet they have to answer your letters. I doubt that they can or will cancel your policy. Ask them if they understand that you are a “man made in God’s image”. Ask them if the insurance policy is intended to cover people or animals. I can’t imagine that they’d admit to protecting animals. I can’t imagine that they’d risk cancelling your policy if you claim to be “man made in God’s image”–the political fallout and possible public relations nightmare should probably be enough for the insurance company to answer that the policy covers “men made in God’s image” like YOU.

       
  11. Roger

    May 21, 2014 at 10:53 PM

    palani,

    OK I’m providing the “medical care.” But the doctor is providing the “drugs” and “medical devices” (to animals).

    The problem, as I see it (and I think Alfred agreed in a previous thread), is that “drugs” and “medical devices” exist in “this state”, which is the same place man is defined as an animal. Clearly “this state” is a good place to stay out of.

    Thusly, it is evident that we must find a way to get medical services in “the State”, to avoid becoming animals which renders the MOOA defense impossible.

    Alfred,

    Surely your doctor and insurance company are going to say they serve people, not animals. But the bigger concern is that they conform in a thousand other ways to the legal definitions of the products and services they provide. They have to, to stay in business in “this state”.

    Someone already said actions speak louder than words. If a health care provider says the nice words “we service people”, but, in point of fact, their “drugs” and “medical devices” are legally defined as being for animals, what’s a jury going to conclude is actually happening?

     
    • Adask

      May 22, 2014 at 1:03 AM

      If you can present this argument competently, the jury will be shocked that the government deems them to be animals. The jury will be enraged that the government strips not only you, but the jurors, of their God-given, unalienable Rights by virtue of some sneaky, wicked definition of “drugs” and even “food” that condemns the people to the status of animals. If you can make the pitch–especially if you’ve filed an effective counter-suit–the jury may rule so strongly against the government as to break their bank account(s). What else can the jury do? Render a verdict that accepts both you as an “animal” and the jurors, and the jurors’ families as “animals”.

      The question is, can you “make the pitch”. Can you communicate the MOOA concept in a way that the jurors can understand and can’t deny?

      There’s no way that the government can be openly justified in defining the people to be “animals” in violation of God’s law and the Declaration of Independence.

       
    • palani

      May 22, 2014 at 5:48 AM

      @ Roger “the doctor is providing the “drugs” and “medical devices” (to animals)”
      The doctor is working within the scope/jurisdiction of his license. Licenses are required for things that would otherwise be illegal. The word ‘illegal’ comprehends things within ‘this state’ while the word ‘lawful’ comprehends things within ‘the state’. You can convert your physician to lawful activities by engaging him in a contract. Make him an offer. Include a Fox stamp (Scott 3036) with it. The courts of ‘this state’ will not support such a contract ( duhhhh … they are illegal after all) so the problem becomes then one of finding a jurisdiction to specify where your contract is binding on both parties. A contract that is not enforceable is mostly worthless.

       
  12. Toland

    May 22, 2014 at 1:44 AM

    Adask said >> Ask them if the insurance policy is intended to cover people or animals. I can’t imagine that they’d admit to protecting animals. <<

    I can easily image them admitting this, since they have the law on their side. The relevant law says man is a type of animal. They are unlikely to deny insuring men.

    If you claim to be "made in God's image", they won't have a problem conceding this. They will simply point out the absence of a conflict between being "made in God's image" and being an "man" (a type of "animal") in the legalese their legal department uses.

    Then they will claim the evil you read into "man or other animals" is based on a wrong definition of "animal" which is possibly a form of domestic terrorism. Can they transfer you to a doctor for some Prozac to make you spend less time on your "curious preoccupations"?

    Then they will ask: if you feel debased by the terms of our contract, why did you sign up in the first place?

    Then they will either hang up on you or put you on indefinite hold with soothing Muzak.

     
  13. Henry

    May 22, 2014 at 6:32 AM

    @Adask “There’s no way that the government can be openly justified in defining the people to be “animals” in violation of God’s law and the Declaration of Independence.”

    Be advised that defining the people to be “animals” is NOT in violation of the Declaration of Independence. We have no less an authority than the author of that document himself, Thomas Jefferson, to tell us this. In fact, Jefferson explicitly said the Founders of this country, himself included, considered man to be an “animal”. And, yes, he used that exact word:

    “We believed, with them, that man was a rational animal, endowed by nature with rights, and with an innate sense of justice; and that he could be restrained from wrong and protected in right, by moderate powers, confided to persons of his own choice, and held to their duties by dependence on his own will.”

    – Thomas Jefferson, 1823

    Anyone working on a MOOA defense should take note of this information.

     
    • Adask

      May 22, 2014 at 10:35 AM

      Jefferson’s external remarks about the Declaration of Independence or any issue associated with the Declaration of Independence are largely irrelevant. Everyone thinks Jefferson “authored” the Declaration but that’s not precisely true. He wrote that document only in the sense of a secretary transcribing his boss’s words. But Jefferson gave the document no AUTHORITY.

      I can write Declaration. Maybe even a better Declaration than the one credited to Jefferson. So what? My Declaration, no matter how brilliant or screwed up, would have no authority.

      What I mean by that that is the Declaration would be politically irrelevant except that a fraction of the American PEOPLE gave that document AUTHORITY by fighting for its principles against the world’s only “super-power” of that time (Great Britain) and WINNING.

      If Great Britain has won that war, the Declaration would be viewed today as nothing but a statement of blasphemy written by arch-terrorist and traitor, Thomas Jefferson.

      Jefferson may have been the principle author of the Declaration, but he was not the man who gave that document any political or legal authority. That AUTHORITY was provided by the American people who fought and won the American Revolution.

      The fact that Jefferson made some offhand remark about “animals” has not bearing on the meaning of the Declaration that was authorized and adopted by the American people. That Declaration stands as a single law in the same sense that a modern Statute stands as a law. The fact that one of the Congressmen who voted for that Statute expresses and opinion in some other forum that seems to contradict the words of the Statute is irrelevant. The Statute is LAW according to words within that Statute and without regard to anyone’s external opinions expressed on that law and/or offhand remarks about a subject that touches on that law.

      The “Declaration of Independence” is LAW. Even today, the Declaration is still every bit as much the LAW as the Constitution. (See, https://adask.wordpress.com/2011/05/30/the-organic-laws-of-the-united-states-of-america/)

      There is no proviso for any single man or woman to alter the clear meaning of the words of the Declaration with external remarks or opinions. The Declaration stands as written and cannot be amended by any single man or even Statute passed by Congress.

      Jefferson’s subsequent reference to “rational animals” is simply a remark made by a single man in a letter over two hundred years ago. It has no more to do with the meaning of the Declaration than the words carved into a tree that read “I love Sally Hemings”. Insofar as no one fought and died for Jefferson’s remark, or enacted that remark into law by constitutional process, his comment on “rational animals” has no more legal AUTHORITY than your or my comments on this blog.

      Too many people regard Jefferson as some sort of god. He wasn’t. He was just a guy who was pretty bright and occasionally expressed some ideas that were subsequently adopted and given AUTHORITY of law by the American PEOPLE.

      Jefferson gave us the words of the “Declaration of Independence”. But the people who fought for those words in the American Revolution gave the Declaration its AUTHORITY. They gave no such legal authority to Jefferson’s comment on “rational animals” or to his relationship to Sally Hemings. Comments and relationships without legal authority may be interesting, but they are without legal weight.

       
  14. Jethro!

    May 22, 2014 at 8:42 AM

    Al,

    Regarding your position that Congress’ taxing power over the territorial possessions of the U.S. comes from Article 4 (not Article 1), here is some nearly impeachable evidence this is correct:

    “The power of Congress, in the imposition of taxes and providing for the collection thereof in the possessions of the United States, is not restricted by constitutional provision (section 8, article 1), which may limit its general power of taxation as to uniformity and apportionment when legislating for the mainland or United States proper, for it acts in the premises under the authority of clause 2, section 3, article 4, of the Constitution, which clothes Congress with power to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States. Lawrence v. Wardell, (C.C.A. 9th Cir. 1921) 273 Fed. 405.”

    Cited in Federal Statutes Annotated, Supplement, 1921 – Supplemental Notes on the Constitution of the United States, pp. 819-820.

     
    • Adask

      May 22, 2014 at 10:37 AM

      Thanks. Good find.

       
    • Cody

      May 31, 2014 at 6:38 PM

      “…which clothes Congress with power to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States…”
      Pursuant to Article 1’s exclusive jurisdiction over said territories.

       
      • Adask

        May 31, 2014 at 6:50 PM

        Congress’s exclusive legislative jurisdiction is found at Article 4 Section 3 clause 2. So far as I know, the word “territory” does not appear in Article 1. Article 1 is primary about the federal government’s relationship to the States of the Union. Under Article 1, the federal government has only LIMITED powers in relation to the States of the Union. Under Article 4.3.2, the national government has UNLIMITED powers over the territories. This distinction gives weight to the The State (of the Union) vs this state (territory) hypothesis. If Congress can persuade us to voluntarily enter into a territory, it can treat us like subjects, slaves or even animals. Anything goes, in the territories.

         
  15. Henry

    May 22, 2014 at 2:02 PM

    @Adask

    Are you contending that the intent of the authors of the Declaration of Independence and other founding documents is “irrelevant”? Isn’t the intent of the authors of a law the very meaning of the law? This intent is what Thomas Jefferson is addressing when he says “we believed” man is an “animal”.

    His comment occurs in the context of a long letter in which he expands on his thoughts and experiences at the founding of the United States. All the signs are that it was no mere “offhand remark”. Of course what Jefferson said in a letter has no legal force in itself. But the intent of the Founders, which Jefferson is obviously qualified to discuss, does carry such force.

    Jefferson, based on having being there at the time, characterizes this founding intent as including a concept of man as an “animal” (his word). What more authoritative statement on the intent of the Founders concerning this “animal” issue do we have, to trump Jefferson’s first-person testimony?

     
    • Adask

      May 22, 2014 at 2:55 PM

      The Founders are just a bunch of guys who had an idea. It was the People who gave that idea authority. The idea is interesting. The authority controls. The People provided the authority. Jefferson was one of the People, but he did not provide the Declaration’s authority.

      It’s the intent of the LEGISLATURE that controls the meaning of the law. Jefferson did not draft the Declaration as a “legislative” act. The Declaration was a revolutionary act committed without the authority of the existing “legislature authority” (which, at that time, was King George). The Founders may have participated in a “legislature” after the Revolutionary War was won, but they were not a “legislature” when the Declaration was drafted.

      Jefferson described man as a “rational animal” in letter to some friend. Jefferson also described man as “endowed by his Creator with certain unalienable Rights” (that were certainly not extended to “animals”). Given that there are two contradictory documents, which one controls? What was Jefferson’s true opinion? “Man made in God’s image” or “rational animal”? Who cares? Jefferson is not God is is not the Law-giver. Jefferson was merely one of the more intelligent members of the People. It’s the People who fought for that Declaration. It’s the American People whose definition of “man” controlled the meaning of the Declaration.

      Are you asserting that the average American of A.D. 1776 believed man was merely a “rational animal” rather than a “man made in God’s image”? If you tried to argue to the American people of A.D. 1776 that they were fighting for the right to be treated as a “rational animal” do you suppose they’d shoot your or just give you a fresh coat of tar and feathers.

      Jefferson is not a god. He is not the “law-giver”. He was merely a talented writer and thinker. It was the People who gave us the Declaration’s authority. The Declaration means what the people of the time meant it to mean and I’ll guarantee that they would never have fought for the American Revolution if all they stood gain was status of “rational animal” (and therefore someone’s property).

      What do we have to “trump” Jefferson’s description in a letter of man as a “rational animal”? We have the American Revolution where people fought and died for “unalienable Rights” that were granted by God to men made in God’s image, but never granted by God to animals–not even “rational animals”.

      I have a War to back my argument. What’ve you got? A postmark?

      More, while there can be absolutely no doubt that the Declaration of Independence was written and became an authoritative part of The Organic Law of The United States of America, what proof exists that Jefferson even wrote the letter you’ve described? No one believes the Declaration is some sort of counterfeit. Can the same be said for your “letter”?

      Even if you letter is authentic, it carries no authority.

      The preponderance of the evidence favors my argument that the Declaration never intended “man” to be viewed as an “animal”. If it did, wouldn’t it follow the cows, pigs and goats also had the unalienable Rights granted by God? If the cows had the unalienable Right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, wouldn’t the cows have to be set free from the farms to wander wherever they liked? Wouldn’t that have an adverse affect on agriculture? Wouldn’t that have an adverse affect on our nation’s ability to feed itself and grow?

      There’s no way that the People of A.D. 1776 ever believed that the Declaration declared them to be mere “rational animals”. How do I know? Because the Declaration makes no such statement. Jefferson may have made such statement in some other document, but so what? He has no unilateral power to amend the meaning of the words of the Declaration.

      Finally, although Jefferson is credited with being primarily responsible for drafting the Declaration, that instrument was signed by Jefferson and about 55 other signatories. It’s reasonable to presume that that some or all of those other 55 signatories had some input as to the ideas and words used in that document. Do you have verified copies of letters or documents of at least 28 (a majority) of those other signatories who also defined the word “man” (as used in the Declaration) to be merely a “rational animal”? If not, who elected Jefferson to be the king and law-giver for those 56 men? Why should we value the statement of one man who participated in drafting the Declaration and ignore the contributions of the other 55?

       
      • Henry

        May 22, 2014 at 3:39 PM

        Adask said > “Jefferson described man as a “rational animal” in letter to some friend. Jefferson also described man as “endowed by his Creator with certain unalienable Rights” (that were certainly not extended to “animals”). Given that there are two contradictory documents, which one controls?”

        These documents are not contradictory, since it’s possible to reconcile them. Indeed, the fact that Jefferson made both statements is evidence that man can be both an “animal” and “endowed by his Creator with certain unalienable Rights”, in Jefferson’s opinion. This is entirely plausible given the wide range of definitions for the word “animal”.

        For example, “animal” is often defined as an organism with a backbone. Men endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights are organisms with backbones. Sometimes an “animal” is defined as a breathing creature. Men endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights are breathing creatures.

        Also, Jefferson wasn’t merely stating a personal opinion when he said man is an “animal”. He stated that man being an “animal” was one of the motivating concepts of the founding of the United States. He said this in a letter relating his first-hand experiences as one of the Founders.

        Adask said > “Are you asserting that the average American of A.D. 1776 believed man was merely a “rational animal” rather than a “man made in God’s image”?”

        No, I’m quoting Jefferson’s assertion about himself and his fellow Founders of 1776. He asserts that these Founders, himself included, believed man is an “animal” (his word). Elsewhere, Jefferson implies that man is made in God’s image. On this basis we conclude that Jefferson believed man is both an “animal” and made in God’s image.

         
  16. Adask

    May 22, 2014 at 6:16 PM

    Yes, the two documents can be reconciled. Black can also be reconciled with white. Up can be reconciled with down. Blue can be defined to mean red. All of these seeming conflicts can be reconciled. For example, when Jefferson wrote “rational animal” he may have meant “man made in God’s image”. How’s that for reconciliation?

    Further, note that in A.D. 1776, when Jefferson participated in drafting the “Declaration of Independence,” he was 33 years old. His mind was sharp and agile. But, if I understand correctly, Jefferson wrote the letter that included the phrase “rational animal” in A.D. 1823–47 years after he helped draft the Declaration. Jefferson would’ve been about 80 years old (he died at age 83). Was his recollection at age 80 of events that transpired 47 years earlier still accurate? Was Jefferson’s mind still as sharp as it had been when he helped draft the Declaration? At age 80, was Jefferson prone to forget or even lie?

    But in the end, who care’s what Jefferson said? He’s not a god. He’s not the “law-giver” whose authority gave the Declaration force. He was simply a man who, like me or you, wrote opinions on pieces of paper. The fact that Jefferson is credited with being the primary author of the Declaration gave that document no more special authority than the grocery list he may have penned for Sally Hemings. Similar to a contract, the Declaration presupposes a “meeting of minds” of not only those 56 men who signed the document, but also the tens of thousands who fought for the Declaration. The Declaration’s authority and meaning are based in the mutual agreement (express or implied) of all those who signed and fought for that instrument.

    It’s even possible that Jefferson wanted to write “rational animal” into the Declaration. But if he was the only author, why didn’t he? I’m sure his grasp of language was sufficient for him to have understood that “man” and “rational animal” were very different terms. But if Jefferson wanted to write “rational animal,” was he overruled by some or all of the other 55 men who also signed and played some role drafting the Declaration? If Jefferson was overruled, what is the true meaning of “Men” as written in the 2nd sentence of the Declaration? Was it Jefferson’s “rational animal”? Or was it whatever meaning was attached by the the majority of the other signatories and the majority of those who fought for the terms of the Declaration?

    If Jefferson meant “Men” in the Declaration to mean “rational animals” when he helped draft that instrument in A.D. 1776, why did he wait until A.D. 1823 (47 years later) to mention about “rational animals”? Do you have any other letters from Jefferson from A.D. 1777 or even A.D. 1787 when he alleged that the term “Men” in the Declaration meant “rational animal” rather than “men made in God’s image”? If not, all you have to support your argument is one letter written by an 80-year old man about event that took place 47 years earlier. That’s not convincing evidence.

     
    • Henry

      May 22, 2014 at 9:30 PM

      Jefferson was not a god. He wasn’t even a demigod. Perhaps he was a type of hero, though even this much is of secondary importance here. What makes Jefferson’s account of the founding principles of the United States relevant is that he was a centrally placed witness to, and a key participant in, the founding events in question.

      It is Jefferson’s capacities of witness and participant that give credibility to his testimony that the founding principles of the United States included a concept of man as an “animal” (his word).

      And the letter in which this “animal” account appears is up to his usually standard of eloquently lucid prose. So attempts to suggest he was going senile by then are not supported by the evidence.

      As to the supposed irreconcilability of man as “animal” versus man “made in God’s image”, I have already shown that there are definitions of “animal” (e.g. “a breathing creature”) that obviously include man made in God’s image.

      On what basis should we ignore these definitions, nearly all of which predate 1776, and count it impossible that Jefferson thought “animal” and “made in God’s image” can be reconciled?

       
      • Jethro!

        May 23, 2014 at 9:32 AM

        If by “man” the Declaration signers and the People of the time merely meant a subset of an “animal”, I’d expect to see a tremendous amount of evidence supporting it >>at that time<< than a private letter 40-some years after the event. Sorry, but that position doesn't add up.

        As for "reconciliation", I think Rush Limbaugh put it best: "Words mean things." If up can mean down and left can mean right, then everything means nothing. The act of attempting to confuse matters by muddying the waters is a very strong indication that promoting an ULTERIOR AGENDA is at hand. And because the attempt is covert, it also indicates that its proponent knows darn well he cannot succeed if the true nature of the effort were brought to light.

         
      • EarlatOregon

        May 23, 2014 at 4:32 PM

        .
        .
        .
        .
        .

        In Law,
        Status determines Which law applies.
        .
        .

        If you compare man to Angels,
        then man looks like an Animal.

        Man may Look like an Animal,
        God made Man’s Status,
        to be Over the Animals.

        And God said,
        Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:
        and let them have dominion
        over the fish of the sea,
        and over the fowl of the air,
        and over the cattle,
        and over all the earth,
        and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

        Thomas Jefferson’s context may have been,
        man having a Body like animals have.

        Luke 24

        Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself:
        handle me, and see;
        for a spirit hath not flesh and bones,
        as ye see me have.

        And when he had thus spoken,
        he shewed them his hands and his feet.

        .
        .
        .

        Back to Status.
        .
        .

        Man’s Status is
        dominion over animals.
        .
        .

        an Animal has a lesser and different Status,
        than Man.
        .
        .

        In Law,
        Status determines Which law applies.

        .
        .
        .
        .
        .

         
      • Roger

        May 23, 2014 at 5:04 PM

        Jethro, you say words mean things. I agree.

        This MOOA topic I want to understand. You seem to have a different opinion. I’m willing to change my mind if I’m wrong. But first, kindly explain something to me….

        When Jefferson wrote that he and his fellow founders believed man is an “animal”, what definition of “animal” do you think he was using?

        Please paste a dictionary definition here, or make up you own best guess. Just show me a specific example of what this definition of “animal” could look like which Jefferson had in mind when he wrote his letter.

        Thanks.

         
      • EarlatOregon

        May 23, 2014 at 6:56 PM

        …………………………………….
        .

        .
        .
        .
        .

        ANIMAL, property. A name given to every animated being
        endowed with the power of voluntary motion.
        In law, it signifies all animals except those of the him, in species.

        2. Animals are distinguished into such as are domitae,
        and such as are ferae naturae.

        3. It is laid down,
        that in tame or domestic animals,
        such as horse, kine, sheep, poultry, and the like,
        a man may have an absolute property,
        because they coutiaue perpetually in his possession and occupation,
        and will not stray from his house and person
        unless by accident or fraudulent enticement,
        in either of which cases the owner does not lose his property.

        2 Bl. Com. 390; 2 Mod. 319. 1.
        .
        .

        4. But in animals ferae naturae,
        a man can have no absolute property;
        they belong to him only while they continue in his keeping or actual possession;
        for if at any they regain their natural liberty,
        his property instantly ceases,
        unless they have animum revertendi,
        which is only to be known by their usual habit of returning.

        2 Bl. Com. 396;
        3 Binn. 546;
        Bro. Ab. Propertie, 37;
        Com. Dig. Biens, F; 7 Co. 17 b;
        1 Ch. Pr. 87; Inst. 2, 1, 15.
        See also 3 Caines’ Rep. 175;
        Coop. Justin. 457, 458;
        7 Johns. Rep. 16;
        Bro. Ab. Detinue, 44.

        5. The owner of a mischievous animal,
        known to him to be so,
        is responsible,
        when he permits him to go at large,
        for the damages he may do.

        2 Esp. Cas. 482;
        4 Campb. 198;
        1 Starkie’s Cas. 285;
        1 Holt, 617;
        2 Str.1264;
        Lord Raym. 110;
        B. N. P. 77;
        1 B. & A. 620;
        2 C. M.& R. 496;
        5 C.& P. 1;
        S. C. 24 E. C. L. R. 187.

        This principle agrees with the civil law.
        Domat, Lois Civ. liv. 2, t. 8, s. 2.

        And any person may justify the killing of such ferocious animals.

        9 Johns. 233;
        10. Johns. 365;
        13 Johns. 312.
        .
        .

        The owner, of such an animal may be indicted for a common nuisance.

        1 Russ. Ch. Cr. Law, 643;
        Burn’s Just., Nuisance, 1.
        .
        .

        6. In Louisiana,
        the owner of an animal is answerable for the damage he may cause;
        but if the animal be lost, or has strayed more than a day,
        he may discharge himself from this responsibility,
        by abandoning him to the person who has sustained the injury;
        except where the master turns loose a dangerous or noxious animal;
        for then he must pay all the harm done,
        without being allowed to make the abndonment.

        Civ. Code, art. 2301.
        See Bouv. Inst. Index, h. t.
        .
        .

        ANIMANLS OF A BASE NATURE.
        Those which, though they may be reclaimed,
        are not Such that at common law
        a larceny may be committed of them,
        by reason of the baseness of their nature.

        Some animals,
        which are now usually tamed,
        come within this class;
        as dogs and cats; and others
        which, though wild by nature,
        and oftener reclaimed by art and industry,
        clearly fall within the same rule;
        as, bears, foxes, apes, monkeys, ferrets, and the like.

        3 Inst. 109,;
        1 Hale, P. C. 511, 512;
        1 Hawk. P. C. 33, s. 36;
        4 Bl. Com. 236; 2 East, P. C. 614.
        See 1 Saund. Rep. 84, note 2.
        .
        .

        http://www.constitution.org/bouv/bouvier_a.htm
        .
        .
        .
        .

        MAN. A human being.
        This definition includes not only the adult male sex of the human species,
        but women and children;

        examples:
        “of offences against man,
        some are more immediately against the king,
        other’s more immediately against the subject.”

        Hawk. P. C. book 1, c. 2, s. 1.

        Offences against the life of man
        come under the general name of homicide,
        which in our law signifies the killing of a man by a man.”
        Id. book 1, c. 8, s. 2.

        .
        .
        http://www.constitution.org/bouv/bouvier_m.htm
        .
        .
        .
        .
        .

         
      • Roger

        May 23, 2014 at 7:49 PM

        EarlatOregon,

        Could you narrow that list down to the 1 or 2 most likely definitions of “animal” intended by Jefferson when he wrote that he and his fellow founders believed man is an “animal”?

         
      • EarlatrOregon

        May 24, 2014 at 3:39 PM

        Roger,
        Jefferson wrote a Book,
        commonly named “The Jefferson Bible”.

        Here is the Answer to your Question.

        In Law,
        Status determines Which law applies.
        .
        .

        If you compare man to Angels,
        then man looks like an Animal.

        Man may Look like an Animal,
        God made Man’s Status,
        to be Over the Animals.\
        .
        .
        .

        And God said,
        Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:
        and let them have dominion
        over the fish of the sea,
        and over the fowl of the air,
        and over the cattle,
        and over all the earth,
        and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

        Thomas Jefferson’s context may have been,
        man having a Body like animals have.
        .
        .

        Luke 24

        Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself:
        handle me, and see;
        for a spirit hath not flesh and bones,
        as ye see me have.

        And when he had thus spoken,
        he shewed them his hands and his feet.

        .
        .
        .

        Back to Status.
        .
        .

        Man’s Status is
        dominion over animals.
        .
        .

        an Animal has a lesser and different Status,
        than Man.
        .
        .

        In Law,
        Status determines Which law applies.

         
      • Jethro!

        May 24, 2014 at 11:10 AM

        Roger wrote: “When Jefferson wrote that he and his fellow founders believed man is an ‘animal'”

        Who appointed Jefferson spokesman for the entirety of the Founders’ will and intent, particularly for the next nearly half-century?

        “what definition of ‘animal’ do you think he was using?”

        1. I don’t know.
        2. It doesn’t matter in (context of MOOA).

         
      • Roger

        May 24, 2014 at 12:34 PM

        Jefferson was not acting as spokesman for the founders. From reading his letter, it looks like he was relating the content of discussions he had with his fellow founders on the philosophy of their shared project.

        Thomas Jefferson had the benefit of personal experience to draw from. He was also trusted by the other founders to perform some of the most important word-choice duties. So if TJ chooses the word “animal” to describe what he and his fellow founders thought of man in 1776, I’d say that’s a major clue about the MOOA conspiracy which Alfred has been investigating.

        Though if your mind is already made up, and key evidence like Jefferson’s confession “doesn’t matter”, then you don’t have to participate in the investigation.

         
      • Jethro!

        May 24, 2014 at 3:01 PM

        Roger, are you suggesting there was a vast conspiracy among the Founders to covertly deem “We the People” to be animals, and that conspiracy remained successfully hidden for nearly 5 decades until Tommy J. spilled the beans in an offhand remark in a private letter?

         
      • Roger

        May 24, 2014 at 4:25 PM

        The conspiracy was hidden for a lot longer than five decades. It remained a secret until the outstanding detective work of Alfred Adask uncovered it only a few years ago. However, I gather that so far Alfred has traced the MOOA conspiracy back only as far as the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, where the phrase “man or other animals” occurs.

        Now this detailed confession by Thomas Jefferson, to the effect that he and the other founders were motivated by a concept of man as an “animal”, has come to light (courtesy of Toland, who posts here). It shows the MOOA conspiracy by which government defines man to be an animal – an act of genocide, as Alfred characterizes it – actually goes back all the way to 1776.

         
      • Jethro!

        May 25, 2014 at 11:43 AM

        There is plenty of verifiable evidence of a MOOA conspiracy or effort since A.D. 1906. There’s virtually none of one dating to 1776. If Jefferson’s 1823 letter is a confession of such a conspiracy, where is the preexisting corroboratory evidence?

         
      • Roger

        May 25, 2014 at 2:56 PM

        As the saying goes, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Yet, in fact, there is not an absence of evidence for MOOA prior to 1906. We have a golden confession from no less than Thomas Jefferson that he and his fellow founders not only thought of man as an “animal”, but founded the Republic on this basis.

        His account is clear and straightforward, leaving no need to read between the lines. This confession by Jefferson is the strongest evidence of a MOOA agenda we have so far. Whereas exactly what the 1906 law means by “animal” is unconfirmed. And whereas we are speculating somewhat about the intent of this law, Jefferson spells out what he and his collaborators were doing in no uncertain terms.

        Collaborative evidence is unnecessary when we have a written confession in hand. Still, more evidence will turn up. Give it time. This is a new field and, so far, the evidence is understandably scant.

        Until only a few years ago, researchers had no idea of MOOA. This genocidal conspiracy to define man as an animal remained a secret until Al deduced its evil-doings from a clue which a lesser detective would have overlooked. Now we have the 1906 law and a confession by Thomas Jefferson as major items of evidence. There’s more to come, soon.

         
  17. Cody

    May 22, 2014 at 10:32 PM

    The “laws of nature” and “Nature’s God” were incorporated into the Law of Nations at the Treaty of Paris.

    “Article 1st:
    His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and Independent States; that he treats with them as such, and for himself his Heirs & Successors, relinquishes all claims to the Government, Propriety, and Territorial Rights of the same and every Part thereof.”

    http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=6&page=transcript

     
    • EarlatOregon

      May 23, 2014 at 4:08 PM

      .
      .
      .
      .
      .

      Re: Treaty of Paris

      Transcript of Treaty of Paris (1783)
      (from .gov website)

      The Definitive Treaty of Peace 1783

      ” In the Name of the most Holy & undivided Trinity.

      It having pleased the Divine Providence
      to dispose the Hearts of the most Serene and most Potent Prince George the Third,
      by the Grace of God,
      King of Great Britain, France, and Ireland,
      Defender of the Faith,
      Duke of Brunswick and Lunebourg,
      Arch- Treasurer
      and
      Prince Elector of the Holy Roman Empire etc.. and of the United States of America, … . ”

      end Quote.

      Read that Quote again:

      ” Prince Elector of the Holy Roman Empire etc..
      and of the United States of America, … . ”

      The Treaty of Paris made King George,
      Prince Elector of the United States of America.

      .
      .

      http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?doc=6&page=transcript

      .
      .
      .
      .
      .

       
      • Cody

        May 31, 2014 at 6:21 PM

        No problem with that at all. That was the salutation that was appropriate at the time. Further, the peace treaty bound him to protect the peace of the new sovereign states by use of his military might if needed. Maybe you should cross-reference the Declaration of Independence a little more carefully. Remember the phrase “Friends in peace, enemies in war?”

         
  18. Roger

    May 23, 2014 at 2:44 AM

    Thomas Jefferson talking about the founding philosophy of this country is about as close to the “horse’s mouth” as it gets.

    Maybe he was inverting things in this letter, maybe he was hallucinating, maybe this, maybe that. But, absent solid evidence to the contrary, Jefferson’s written admission that the founders considered man an animal stands as unrefuted testimony from a highly credible witness.

    OK so the government TJ helped create considers man an animal. This isn’t exactly news! The government has even codified this man = animal equation into law. We’ve been talking about it for a long time on this blog.

    Think of this admission by TJ as just another confirmation of what readers of this blog already knew about government.

     
  19. Adask

    May 23, 2014 at 11:11 AM

    Jefferson’s comment on “rational animals” has as much to do with the meaning of the Declaration of Independence as President Obama’s promise that you’ll be able to keep your pre-existing health insurance policy has to do with ObamaCare. What Obama said was essentially irrelevant. What he did by signing ObamaCare into law is what mattered. What he said was interesting. But what mattered was the actual LAW.

    There are things people say, and things people do. Jefferson’s letter was merely something he said. The Declaration was something he (and others) did and more, provided with legal authority.

     
  20. Roger

    May 23, 2014 at 1:12 PM

    Sure, what Thomas Jefferson said in his letter is not law, but there are other ways for statements to be relevant. I would hardly call how TJ characterized this country’s foundering philosophy, in what amounts to an essay on the subject, “irrelevant”. It’s a key to history!

    Appellate courts often look into the personal writings of legislators to determine legislative intent. Are these personal writings the law? No, but they reveal the intent behind the law.

    Now this letter by TJ doesn’t play this role. Still it has a large relevance in a related way. Not as law, but as revealing the mindset of the lawmakers who founded the United States. By the admission of one of the founders’ own key players, we caught ’em at “man or other animals”! Why fight it?

    Alfred, the same conspiracy your detective work uncovered from 1906 is now revealed to go back to 1776. Congrats on another confirmation of MOOA.

     
    • Adask

      May 24, 2014 at 5:22 PM

      I disagree. If you’re right, the Declaration of Independence is a meaningless document. The great significance if the Declaration was that it declared all men (but not animals) to receive their most important rights from their Creator (God) and thereby elevate all men to the status of “sovereigns”. This principle is implicit in Chisholm v. Georgia.

      Bear in mind that the Declaration was enacted before any States or national government even existed.

      The authors of the Declaration could only have barely supposed that they’d actually win their Revolution. They could not have been engaged in a conspiracy to rule the American peoples as animals. If they had been engaged in that conspiracy, why is there no further evidence of the conspiracy after the Revolution was won–at least not until A.D. 1906?

      If it were true that the Declaration declared men to be animals, my argument in the first MOOA case would probably have been defeated.

       
      • Roger

        May 24, 2014 at 5:50 PM

        Adask asked, “If they had been engaged in that conspiracy, why is there no further evidence of the conspiracy after the Revolution was won–at least not until A.D. 1906?”

        I’m sure there’s a huge amount of MOOA evidence yet to be discovered, based on texts dating from 1776 until today.

        Even the 1906 act was only discovered (by you) less than 10 years ago. This is a new field. Just wait, tons more evidence of MOOA is sure to be found once this thing goes viral on the internet and thousands more investigators join the search.

        The discovery of Jefferson’s confessed complicity is likely the big break MOOA needed to be more that just a “patriotard” curiosity in the public’s mind. MOOA is going to blow up into a legit field of research, with Adask as the new Snowden who legitimized what was once dismissed as “conspiracy theory”.

        You’re going to be famous, Al — celebrate it.

         
  21. Adask

    May 24, 2014 at 5:57 PM

    I don’t care about fame. In fact, if it was up to me, I’d be delighted if no one knew my name or face and assumed I was just a retired roofer. But I do care about effectiveness. I want to find and publish concepts and strategies that have a high probability of succeeding in court. That’s about all I really care about–other than service to the Good LORD.

     
  22. Adask

    May 26, 2014 at 1:47 PM

    The Supreme Court declared in part in the 1987 case of Edwards v Aguillard (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/482/578.html) that:

    “While the “meaning and scope of the First Amendment” must be read “in light of its history and the evils it was designed forever to suppress,” Everson v. Board of Education, supra, at 14-15, this Court has also recognized that “this Nation’s history has not been one of entirely sanitized separation between Church and State.” Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, supra, at 760. “The fact that the Founding Fathers believed devotedly that there was a God and that the unalienable rights of man were rooted in Him is clearly evidenced in their writings, from the Mayflower Compact to the Constitution itself.” Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 213 (1963). 5 The Court properly has noted “an unbroken history of official acknowledgment . . . of the role of religion in American life.” Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S., at 674 , and has recognized that these references to “our religious heritage” are constitutionally acceptable. Id., at 677.”

    This quote doesn’t prove, but is consistent with, the idea that there was no “conspiracy” in A.D. 1776 to degrade the people made in God’s image to the status of “animals”.

     
  23. Toland

    May 26, 2014 at 2:52 PM

    Thomas Jefferson was ahead of his time in many ways, including his use of “rational animal” in 1823. This phrase did not come into wide use, even among “intellectuals”, until the 20th century.

    Nowadays, many Christians, whom the academic priesthood has persuaded man “evolved” from a monkey, see no inconsistency between man being made in God’s image and man as a type of “animal”, not least because the word “animal” was a very wide range of definitions.

    The point being, Thomas Jefferson & The Animals (i.e. the founders of the US government), though probably not evolutionists, did not consider it “degrading” to define man as an “animal”. They simply thought of the phrase “rational animal” as a factually accurate term according to the classification scheme of the biological sciences.

    The meaning of the word “animal” is so elastic that, unless a particular definition is indicated, being an “animal” is not in itself inconsistent with being made in God’s image.

     
  24. ct3

    May 30, 2014 at 12:14 AM

    i laughed, when i finally re-read what i wrote before about the queen of Ethiopia etc. (in another thread). Even my word “misspelling” was misspelled, if i’m not mistaken! Hah! . . . Well, the esteemed Thomas Jefferson was a Deist, if i remember correctly. I believe he was not totally on board with some of the other Founding Fathers as far as religion was concerned. The others may not have agreed or applauded much when he took a penknife to the Bible and simply cut out a few passages he didn’t like. Benjamin Franklin was very intelligent and may have agreed with some of Jefferson’s opinions, but i doubt he was nearly as liberal as Jefferson.

     
  25. Cody

    May 31, 2014 at 6:48 PM

    “I said to myself concerning the sons of men, “God has surely tested them in order for them to see that they are but beasts.”
    For the fate of the sons of men and the fate of beasts is the same. As one dies so dies the other; indeed, they all have the same breath and there is no advantage for man over beast, for all is vanity.”
    Ecclesiastes 3:18-19

     
  26. Henry

    May 31, 2014 at 11:35 PM

    Toland wrote > The meaning of the word “animal” is so elastic that, unless a particular definition is indicated, being an “animal” is not in itself inconsistent with being made in God’s image. <

    For a definition of "animal" consistent with man being made in God's image, we need look no further than the Bible:

    Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

    The word translated "soul" here is the Hebrew word "nephesh" which means "a breathing creature". God made man a breathing creature.

    The English word "animal" is derived from the Latin word "animalis", meaning "having breath".

    Thus, the words "nephesh" and "animalis" (the root of "animal") have essentially identical meanings. So the Bible itself defines man as an "animal" in at least one sense of the word: the root sense of "having breath".

    Perhaps, to be taken seriously on this topic, a minimum requirement is being able to identify what the "man or other animals" legislators meant by the words they used, or at least exclude meanings that disprove your case.

     

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s