| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
13 Nov 2003 06:09:17 AM |
| Object: |
Re: church/state seperation |
(Ryanshort1) wrote:
:|If he does somehow get a political office out of this, you can be that
:|it is in an attempt to right the wrongs that are clearly being done
:|now. And believe me, I know some folks who are in AL with the CJ now
:|and he is one genuine fellow. You did bring up a good point- that the
:|definitions of words used such as "church", "religion", "Congress",
:|and "separation" have a lot to do with this battle. The documents (The
:|US and AL constitutions) clearly use some "religious" terminology and
:|or refer to documents that clearly appeal to Almighty God for the
:|source of their rights, authority, and jurisdiction to create those
:|very documents, and the position that those opposed to Judge Moore is
:|very disturbing. They believe in a very dangerous evolving view of the
:|Constitution and other documents that (as seen now) twists their
:|original meanings completely around and is being used exactly opposite
:|to what the Founding Fathers would have meant.
:|BTW. An interesting site related to this issue is at
:|www.visionforum.org
As or more interesting is the following:
Study Guide: Separation of Church and State - Indepth
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd0.htm
Christian Orthodoxy And The Founders
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/orthodox.htm
The word Religion does not mean Christian.
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/minor.htm
**************************
OCTOBER 1, 1803
Notes for annual message, Oct. 17, 1803: alterations and additions, etc [1]
(3) after "assure"-are proposed "in due season, and under prudent
arrangements, important aids to our Treasury, as well as," an ample etc.
Quere: if the two or three succeeding paragraphs be not more
adapted to the separate and subsequent communication, if adopted as above
suggested.
(4) For the first sentence, may be substituted "In the territory between
the Mississippi and the Ohio another valuable acquisition has been made by
a treaty etc."[3.] As it stands, it does not sufficiently distinguish the
nature of the one acquisition from that of the other, and seems to imply
that the acquisition from France was wholly on the other side of the
Mississippi
May it not be as well to omit the detail of the stipulated
considerations, and particularly that of the Roman Catholic Pastor. The
jealousy of some may see in it a principle, not according with the
exemption of Religion from Civil power. In the Indian Treaty it will be
less noticed than in a President's speech.[4.]
[The principle referred to above was the principle of Church (religion)
state (govt) separation.]
FOOTNOTES:
[1.] For TJ's third annual message to Congress, Oct. 17, 1803, see Ford,
VIII, pp. 266-7)
[3.] TI's message announced the acquisition of territory by treaty from the
Kaskaskia Indians; see
Ford, VIII, pp. 269-70.
[4.] TJ accepted JM's suggestion to omit any discussion of Indian treaty
requirements to maintain a Roman Catholic priest, leaving the stipulations
in the treaty to "the competence of both
houses.... as soon as the senate shall have advised its ratification"; see
ibid.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, Washington, Oct.
1, 1803, Notes for annual message, Oct. 17, 1803: alterations and
additions, etc.[1.],
The Republic of Letters, the Correspondence between Thomas Jefferson and
James Madison, 1776- 1826, Edited by James Morton Smith, Vol. II, 1790
-1804, W. W. Norton & Company, New York, London, (1995) pp 1297-98)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and
Madison's vetoes: Some of The First Official Meanings Assigned to The
Establishment Clause
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/madvetos.htm
and
************************************************************
James Madison on Separation of Church and State
Direct references to separation to be found in the writings of James
Madison
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/qmadison.htm
----------------------------------------
OCTOBER 1, 1803
Notes for annual message, Oct. 17, 1803: alterations and additions, etc [1]
(3) after "assure"-are proposed "in due season, and under prudent
arrangements, important aids to our Treasury, as well as," an ample etc.
Quere: if the two or three succeeding paragraphs be not more
adapted to the separate and subsequent communication, if adopted as above
suggested.
(4) For the first sentence, may be substituted "In the territory between
the Mississippi and the Ohio another valuable acquisition has been made by
a treaty etc."[3.] As it stands, it does not sufficiently distinguish the
nature of the one acquisition from that of the other, and seems to imply
that the acquisition from France was wholly on the other side of the
Mississippi
May it not be as well to omit the detail of the stipulated
considerations, and particularly that of the Roman Catholic Pastor. The
jealousy of some may see in it a principle, not according with the
exemption of Religion from Civil power. In the Indian Treaty it will be
less noticed than in a President's speech.[4.]
[The principle referred to above was the principle of Church (religion)
state (govt) separation.]
FOOTNOTES:
[1.] For TJ's third annual message to Congress, Oct. 17, 1803, see Ford,
VIII, pp. 266-7)
[3.] TI's message announced the acquisition of territory by treaty from the
Kaskaskia Indians; see
Ford, VIII, pp. 269-70.
[4.] TJ accepted JM's suggestion to omit any discussion of Indian treaty
requirements to maintain a Roman Catholic priest, leaving the stipulations
in the treaty to "the competence of both
houses.... as soon as the senate shall have advised its ratification"; see
ibid.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, Washington, Oct.
1, 1803, Notes for annual message, Oct. 17, 1803: alterations and
additions, etc.[1.],
The Republic of Letters, the Correspondence between Thomas Jefferson and
James Madison, 1776- 1826, Edited by James Morton Smith, Vol. II, 1790
-1804, W. W. Norton & Company, New York, London, (1995) pp 1297-98)
---------------------------------------------------
JUNE 3, 1811
"To the Baptist Churches on Neal's Greek on Black Creek, North Carolina I
have received, fellow-citizens, your address, approving my objection to the
Bill containing a grant of public land to the Baptist Church at Salem
Meeting House, Mississippi Territory. Having always regarded the practical
distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the
purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States,
I could not have other wise discharged my duty on the
occasion which presented itself"
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Letter to Baptist Churches in North Carolina, June
3, 1811. Letters And Other Writings of James Madison Fourth President Of
The United States In Four Volumes Published By the Order Of Congress,
Vol..II, J. B. Lippincott & Co., Philadelphia, (1865) pp 511-512)
-----------------------------------------------------------
MARCH 2, 1819
"The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated
hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions
with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of
the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly
increased by the total separation of the church from the State."
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Excert of a letter to Robert Walsh from James
Madison. MARCH 2, 1819 Letters and Other writings of James Madison, in
Four Volumes, Published by Order of Congress. VOL. III, J. B. Lippincott &
Co. Philadelphia, (1865), pp 121-126. James Madison on Religious Liberty,
Robert S.Alley, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, N.Y. (1985) pp 82-83)
----------------------------------------------------------
1817-1833
"Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and Gov't in the
Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by
Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents' already furnished
in their short history"
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Excerpt from Madison's Detached Memoranda. This
document was discovered in 1946 among the papers of William Cabell Rives, a
biographer of Madison. Scholars date these observations in Madison's hand
sometime between 1817 and 1832. The entire document was published by
Elizabeth Fleet in the William and Mary Quarterly of October 1946.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
JULY 10, 1822
"Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation
between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have
no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done,
in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity
the less they are mixed together"
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Excerpt of letter to Edward Livingston from James
Madison, July 10, 1822. Letters and Other writings of James Madison, in
Four Volumes, Published by Order of Congress. VOL. III, J. B. Lippincott &
Co. Philadelphia, (1865), pp 273-276. James Madison on Religious Liberty,
Robert S.Alley, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, N.Y. (1985) pp 82-83)
--------------------------------------------------------------
SEPTEMBER 1833
"I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to
trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil
authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on
unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other
or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them will be best guarded
against by entire abstinence of the government from interference in any way
whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order and protecting
each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others".
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Letter written by James Madison to Rev. Jasper
Adams, September, 1833.Writings of James Madison, edited by Gaillard Hunt,
[not sure what the volume number is but have enough information presented
here to locate the letter] microform Z1236.L53, pp 484-488. )
*********************************************************************
Some Thoughts on Religion and Law
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/bthot-lr.htm"
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
16 Dec 2003 02:16:49 PM |
|
|
In article <okmutvgrmbh900fg2udo7shmk8208us02b@4ax.com>,
buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:
It produced a document which was a new government. Granted the states could
have rejected it which would have put it all back where it was.
But the fact remains they acted beyond their authority.
Even today a constitutional convention could be called. If a consitutional
convention were called today, anything could happen. With enough support
among the delegates, the current constitution could be ratically altered
or even scrapped entirely. Sure it's unlikely, but it's still possible.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
16 Dec 2003 04:11:56 PM |
|
|
<danco@ns2.pebble.org> wrote
Even today a constitutional convention could be called.
If a consitutional convention were called today,
anything could happen. With enough support among the
delegates, the current constitution could be ratically
altered or even scrapped entirely. Sure it's unlikely,
but it's still possible.
It's unlikely one would be called but it's a virtual certainty
that the United States of America would be abolished in
favor of a neo-Confederacy.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
03 Dec 2003 07:07:21 PM |
|
|
(ambrose searle) wrote:
It is quite apparent that JTEM *does* "deny the truth or accuracy of"
the D of I.
If so, in 1776, he would have been known as a "Tory," a "Loyalist," a
"traitor to the United States."
But this isn't 1776, which was his point. We've since been through
the revolutions of 1787 and 1861-5, and our sense of truth has
changed.
Tar & Feathers was usually the antidote.
But this isn't 1776, which was his point.
Thus, the Supreme Court said:
"It is to be remembered, that the government of the United States is
based on the principles promulgated in the Declaration of
Independence, by the congress of 1776; 'that all men are created
equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable
rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness; and that to secure these rights, governments are
instituted.'" (Amistad, 1841).
But those aren't the principles being discussed in this thread. As
JTEM noted, on the matter being discussed, the founders obviously
changed their minds, as evidenced by the words of Washington, and the
passage of a Constitution which in many ways ran counter to the
concepts discussed in the DofI.
Probably one of the silliest arguments that you and Allison have ever
tried to make is that the Declaration of Independence is not the birth
certificate of the United States.
I look forward to your response in which you make this silly argument
one more time.
Why bother? You know our position, and it isn't relevant to this
thread.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
03 Dec 2003 10:15:49 PM |
|
|
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote
But those aren't the principles being discussed in this thread.
As JTEM noted, on the matter being discussed, the founders
obviously changed their minds, as evidenced by the words
of Washington, and the passage of a Constitution which in
many ways ran counter to the concepts discussed in the DofI.
I have reason to doubt that "changed their minds" is correct
here. The "Founding Fathers" most certainly did come to rule
out revolution, but they provided an alternative means to
achieve the identical ends.
It's not that they decided that the people don't have the right to a
change in government. They provided the people with a peaceful
means of doing so that was assured of stopping the ever-present
threat of "tyranny" -- from both the government and the people, be
it from a minority or a simple majority.
We went to war against England, declared ourselves independent
BECAUSE the English crown left us with no alternatives. We had
no voice in government. We had no means to alter or abolish the
English form of government OTHER THAN a revolution. The
"Founding Fathers" gave us an alternative, and denounced any other
option.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "ambrose searle" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
02 Dec 2003 12:16:41 AM |
|
|
Take George Washington,
for example... It's a bit lengthy, and no doubt will prove to be
too much for one so intellectually challenged as yourself:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/washing.htm
You like that address eh?
I'm sure you want us all to embrace this part of the address:
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political
prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain
would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to
subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of
the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the
pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not
trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it
simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation,
for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which
are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us
with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained
without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined
education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both
forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of
religious principle."
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
02 Dec 2003 02:49:40 PM |
|
|
"ambrose searle" <ambrosesearle@yahoo.com> wrote
Take George Washington,
for example... It's a bit lengthy, and no doubt will prove to be
too much for one so intellectually challenged as yourself:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/washing.htm
You like that address eh?
It completely disproves your position. Then there's the truth behind
the Jefferson quote you like to pervert for your agenda. That
disproves your position as well.
And, oh, here's Washington's take on religion & politics:
"If I could now conceive that the general government might ever be so
administered as to render the liberty of conscience insecure, I beg you
will be persuaded, that no one would be more zealous than myself to
establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and
every species of religious persecution... [E]very man, conducting
himself as a good citizen, and being accountable to God alone for his
religious opinions, ought to be protected in worshipping the Deity
according to the dictates of his own conscience."
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "ambrose searle" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
01 Dec 2003 08:16:39 AM |
|
|
"JTEM" <jaytem@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<7sWdnU41jpiudleiRVn-jw@comcast.com>...
"ambrose searle" <ambrosesearle@yahoo.com> wrote
The idea that the people have the right and duty to alter or
abolish a tyrannical government is not MY idea. It was
Jefferson & friends.
It was not. You are lying.
1. Professor Sanford Levinson (Ph.D. Harvard, J.D., Stanford) of the
University of Texas, said:
"the Second Amendment was created because people believed guns
provided an important way of protecting their liberty against the
potential tyranny of government."
http://www.law.yale.edu/outside/html/faculty/sl1/profile.htm
http://www.rice.edu/projects/reno/rn/20021205/guncontrol.html
See also, Sanford Levinson, THE EMBARRASSING SECOND AMENDMENT, Yale
Law Journal, Volume 99, pp. 637-659.
2. Hon. Congressman Bernard Sanders, formerly on the faculty of
Harvard University, who wishes to repeal the 2nd Amendment:
"One of the founding principles of the Revolution had been that the
people had the right to overthrow the government if they believed it
to be unworthy. One of the most effective means to overthrow the
government was, of course, with firearms and so the Second Amendment
was born."
http://www.house.gov/bernie/town_meeting/1997/daniel_luzor.html
http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=S000033
3. Scott Bursor, lawyer and editor of the legal journal, Texas Law
Review, who is on the other side of the issue, writes:
"The belief that an armed citizenry would subdue aggressive rulers and
keep them sensitive to the rights of the people was perhaps the most
important motivation for the inclusion of the right to keep and bear
arms in the Constitution. Thus, the continued vitality of an armed
populace as a check on the modern state should have important
implications on our interpretation of the Second Amendment."
74 Texas Law Rev. 1125-1151 (1996).
5. Joseph Story, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice, wrote:
"The next amendment is 'A well regulated militia being necessary to
the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear
arms shall not be infringed.' ... The right of the citizens to keep
and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the
liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against
the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even
if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to
resist and triumph over them."
Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States,
Vol. 3 at pp. 746-747 (1833).
6. Alan Keyes (Ph.D. Harvard University), who disagrees with Levinson
and Sanders, wrote--
"It is right there in the Declaration that if a government becomes
subversive of liberty, and in the end a design is evinced to destroy
the liberty of the people, 'they have the right,' he said, 'they have
the duty'--okay?--'to alter or abolish it.' And that means that
ultimately the people of the country are the arbiters. And they must
be prepared to defend themselves if push comes to shove. That is why
the Second Amendment is there. We can be timid about it if we like,
but that is the truth of it."
http://www.renewamerica.us/keyes/whois.htm
http://www.renewamerica.tv/archives/media/interviews/00_01_25hardball.htm
4. This is how the Second Amendment was defended by its supporters in
1789!!--
"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before
them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must
be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their
power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed
by the next article [2nd Amendment] in their right to keep and bear
their private arms."
Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal
Constitution, Moved on the 8th Instant in the House of
Representatives, Fed. Gazette & Phila. Evening Post, June 18, 1789.
----
So you see, there is no debating this issue. Scholars on both sides of
the spectrum recognize the original intent of the 2nd Amendment.
The "founding fathers," through great
efforts, produced a constitution designed to eliminate such a "need."
George Washington himself -- who presided over the constitutional
convention (and is a far more credible authority on the subject
than yourself) -- denounced such talk.
During his presidency, how convenient. At the same time that
Washington was "denouncing" the likes of the Whiskey Rebels, what was
Thomas Jefferson saying? He is a rather credible authority, wouldn't
you say? Do you remember your history? Remember Jefferson's statement
about how a popular rebellion is necessary about every 25 years or so?
And who were the folks who wanted the Bill of Rights? Was it not the
Anti-Federalists, later the Jeffersonian Republicans who championed
the ideals of the 2nd amendment?
By the way, what was Washington's view on armed rebellion against his
own government 1775-1783?
Furthermore, the idea that the second amendment is largely based on
this sentiment is the view of constitutional scholars with much better
credentials than yours or mine.
That's *****. The "Founding fathers" were obsessed with the idea
of tyranny -- and whether it came from the government or the people
it was all the same to them. "Revolution" was abhorrent.
Huh? Which of the founding fathers (excluding the Tories, who are not
properly founding fathers) abhorred the American Revolution?
Searle
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
01 Dec 2003 11:14:13 PM |
|
|
"ambrose searle" <ambrosesearle@yahoo.com> wrote
"the Second Amendment was created because people believed guns
provided an important way of protecting their liberty against the
potential tyranny of government."
Great. On the other hand, I produced quotes from George Washington,
who presided over our constitutional convention, he denounced the
very idea of any changes to our government apart from the means
established by the constitution.
I think I'll take George Washington's word on what the "Founding
"Fathers" were thinking, over the word of people born 200 years
later.
The "founding fathers," through great
efforts, produced a constitution designed to eliminate such a
"need." George Washington himself -- who presided over
the constitutional convention (and is a far more credible
authority on the subject than yourself) -- denounced such talk.
During his presidency, how convenient.
No. His "farewell address."
At the same time that Washington was "denouncing" the likes of
the Whiskey Rebels, what was Thomas Jefferson saying? He is
a rather credible authority, wouldn't you say?
He wasn't present. He was in France.
Do you remember your history?
Rather ironic, that.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: ambrose searle caught lying, yet again (was Re: church/state seperation) |
01 Dec 2003 11:30:44 PM |
|
|
"ambrose searle" <ambrosesearle@yahoo.com> wrote
At the same time that Washington was "denouncing" the likes
of the Whiskey Rebels, what was Thomas Jefferson saying?
He is a rather credible authority, wouldn't you say? Do you
remember your history? Remember Jefferson's statement about
how a popular rebellion is necessary about every 25 years
or so?
You've completely misrepresented the context of Jefferson's remarks,
perverted them to suit your own agenda.
"The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and
model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world
has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the
ministers themselves have come to believe them, & what is more
wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this
anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance
of Massachusetts? And can history produce an instance of rebellion
so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were
founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be
20 years without such a rebellion."
Jefferson wasn't talking about the over-throw of the government. He
was denouncing British claims that the former colonies had decayed
to the point of anarchy without British rule. He was saying that the
only supposed "anarchy" was the Massachusetts "Whisky Rebellion,"
and that had the positive effect of keeping the government on its toes.
What was Jefferson *NOT* saying: The government should be
over-thrown by revolution.
What WAS Jefferson saying: Anarchy? You call *This* anarchy? Ha!
We should be so lucky to have such anarchy every 20 years or so, just
to keep us on our toes.
Another way to look at (within it's proper context) is if the British
were saying that the Americas were dangerous, not because of anarchy
but, because of a lot of fires. And Jefferson, in response to this, says,
"What fires? You mean that outhouse that burnt down? We should be
so lucky to have an outhouse fire every few years or so, just to keep
our firemen on their toes."
But, you, well, you being one sick mother fucker, you misquote Jefferson,
pervert his words for your own evil agenda.
I suggest Drano. Take big sips. Thanks in advance.
.
|
|
|
| User: "dpr" |
|
| Title: Re: ambrose searle caught lying, yet again (was Re: church/state seperation) |
01 Dec 2003 11:58:49 PM |
|
|
"JTEM" <jaytem@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:aP2dnUlOMthbv1GiRVn-sA@comcast.com...
"ambrose searle" <ambrosesearle@yahoo.com> wrote
At the same time that Washington was "denouncing" the likes
of the Whiskey Rebels, what was Thomas Jefferson saying?
He is a rather credible authority, wouldn't you say? Do you
remember your history? Remember Jefferson's statement about
how a popular rebellion is necessary about every 25 years
or so?
You've completely misrepresented the context of Jefferson's remarks,
perverted them to suit your own agenda.
If you had paid attention during your American history class, you would
realize you are wrong.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: ambrose searle caught lying, yet again (was Re: church/state seperation) |
01 Dec 2003 11:54:20 PM |
|
|
"dpr" <&^%@&^%.com> wrote
If you had paid attention during your American history class, you would
realize you are wrong.
You've completely misrepresented the context of Jefferson's remarks,
perverted them to suit your own agenda.
"The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and
model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world
has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the
ministers themselves have come to believe them, & what is more
wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this
anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance
of Massachusetts? And can history produce an instance of rebellion
so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were
founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be
20 years without such a rebellion."
Jefferson wasn't talking about the over-throw of the government. He
was denouncing British claims that the former colonies had decayed
to the point of anarchy without British rule. He was saying that the
only supposed "anarchy" was the Massachusetts "Whisky Rebellion,"
and that had the positive effect of keeping the government on its toes.
What was Jefferson *NOT* saying: The government should be
over-thrown by revolution.
What WAS Jefferson saying: Anarchy? You call *This* anarchy? Ha!
We should be so lucky to have such anarchy every 20 years or so, just
to keep us on our toes.
Another way to look at (within it's proper context) is if the British
were saying that the Americas were dangerous, not because of anarchy
but, because of a lot of fires. And Jefferson, in response to this, says,
"What fires? You mean that outhouse that burnt down? We should be
so lucky to have an outhouse fire every few years or so, just to keep
our firemen on their toes."
But, you, well, you being one sick mother fucker, you misquote Jefferson,
pervert his words for your own evil agenda.
I suggest Drano. Take big sips. Thanks in advance.
.
|
|
|
| User: "dpr" |
|
| Title: Re: ambrose searle caught lying, yet again (was Re: church/state seperation) |
02 Dec 2003 12:11:36 AM |
|
|
"JTEM" <jaytem@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:lMKdnf4hVq_QtVGiRVn-tw@comcast.com...
"dpr" <&^%@&^%.com> wrote
If you had paid attention during your American history class, you would
realize you are wrong.
You've completely misrepresented the context of Jefferson's remarks,
perverted them to suit your own agenda.
Poor little jtem, lost another one so now he repeats himself like a broken
record.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: ambrose searle caught lying, yet again (was Re: church/state seperation) |
02 Dec 2003 12:48:49 AM |
|
|
"dpr" <&^%@&^%.com> wrote
You've completely misrepresented the context of Jefferson's
remarks, perverted them to suit your own agenda.
Poor little jtem,
Not in the present context, no. I've got a wealth of honesty that
squashes you meager lies.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: ambrose searle caught lying, yet again (was Re: church/state seperation) |
02 Dec 2003 07:38:43 AM |
|
|
"dpr" <&^%@&^%.com> wrote:
"JTEM" <jaytem@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:lMKdnf4hVq_QtVGiRVn-tw@comcast.com...
"dpr" <&^%@&^%.com> wrote
If you had paid attention during your American history class, you would
realize you are wrong.
You've completely misrepresented the context of Jefferson's remarks,
perverted them to suit your own agenda.
Poor little jtem, lost another one so now he repeats himself like a broken
record.
Look in the mirror and say that, Mr. broken-record repeater of
copyright-violation punditry.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ambrose searle caught lying, yet again (was Re: church/state seperation) |
02 Dec 2003 06:42:52 AM |
|
|
"JTEM" <jaytem@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|
:|"ambrose searle" <ambrosesearle@yahoo.com> wrote
:|
:|> At the same time that Washington was "denouncing" the likes
:|> of the Whiskey Rebels, what was Thomas Jefferson saying?
:|> He is a rather credible authority, wouldn't you say? Do you
:|> remember your history? Remember Jefferson's statement about
:|> how a popular rebellion is necessary about every 25 years
:|> or so?
:|
:|You've completely misrepresented the context of Jefferson's remarks,
:|perverted them to suit your own agenda.
:|
:|"The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and
:|model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world
:|has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the
:|ministers themselves have come to believe them, & what is more
:|wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this
:|anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance
:|of Massachusetts? And can history produce an instance of rebellion
:|so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were
:|founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be
:|20 years without such a rebellion."
:|
:|Jefferson wasn't talking about the over-throw of the government. He
:|was denouncing British claims that the former colonies had decayed
:|to the point of anarchy without British rule. He was saying that the
:|only supposed "anarchy" was the Massachusetts "Whisky Rebellion,"
:|and that had the positive effect of keeping the government on its toes.
:|
:|What was Jefferson *NOT* saying: The government should be
:|over-thrown by revolution.
:|
:|What WAS Jefferson saying: Anarchy? You call *This* anarchy? Ha!
:|We should be so lucky to have such anarchy every 20 years or so, just
:|to keep us on our toes.
:|
:|Another way to look at (within it's proper context) is if the British
:|were saying that the Americas were dangerous, not because of anarchy
:|but, because of a lot of fires. And Jefferson, in response to this, says,
:|"What fires? You mean that outhouse that burnt down? We should be
:|so lucky to have an outhouse fire every few years or so, just to keep
:|our firemen on their toes."
:|
:|But, you, well, you being one sick mother fucker, you misquote Jefferson,
:|pervert his words for your own evil agenda.
:|
:|I suggest Drano. Take big sips. Thanks in advance.
You shouldn't even be remotely surprised by the obsessive M.O. practiced by
Richard Gardiner AKA Ambrose Searle. After all, all have been warned.
What you are complaining about here is standard operating procedure for
one Richard Gardiner AKA Ambrose Searle as what follows shows.
Having dealt with the character almost daily from 3/3/99 to 927/00 and
again from May 2001 to July 2001 and finally in recent months again, he is
very predictable and constantly employs the same M.O. over and over again.
His M.O. was so noticeable that someone went to all the trouble to put the
following together documenting it
********************************************************
http://makeashorterlink.com/?F3E6121B6
ambrosesearle@yahoo.com (ambrose searle) wrote:
:|By and large, what one sees in these newsgroups is name-calling and
:|insults. Genetic fallacies abound.
One of the biggest offenders has been:
Richard Gardiner as himself 3/99 to 9/00
Richard Gardiner as Ambrose Searle 5/02-7/02 and various spells in 2003
Here is something interesting referring to just one month
Now if you really want. Jeff Sinclair compiled THIS:
========================================
To: [DELETED, NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS]
Subject: Gardiner's Posts: March, 1999
From: Jeff Sinclair
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 21:25:11 -0600
I have compiled and organized Gardiner's posts for March, 1999 and saved
relevant bits of information, along with URLs for the curious. I think
you'll find it interesting, especially as there are several arguments here
he has repeated almost verbatim in the last month. As promised, I am
sending this file along to you for comments. Eventually, I hope to go back
and attach the "solutions" to the problems his various forms of
pseudohistory presents as we have tackled all these.
But that's for later.
That would go a long way toward explaining why he is able to post so
prodigiously, of course. If anything, this fairly well established him as
the "cut and paste king"; ironic especially since he accuses everyone else
of cutting and pasting.
He will be back of course. I did a thorough search of Deja News including
looking for characteristic phrases that he uses, as well as Schulman and
Childress. I will continue to do so.
Jeff
HERE IS HOW HE ORGANIZED IT:
-------------------------------------------------
File on Richard Gardiner
Table of Contents
Slanderous Statements/Misrepresentation of Opponents
Misuse of Sources
Snipping/Doctoring Quotes
Pseudo-History
Undue Prominence/Influence Given to Historical Figures
Undue Influence of Christianity
Undue Influence Given Historical Documents
Undue Influence Given to Teachers/Nominal Religious Affiliation
Lies
Threats
Insults
Religious Right Ideology
Support for Establishment
Founders as Orthodox Christian
Basis For Citizenship
Religious Right Associations
Use of Typical Religious Right Quotes/Pseudo-History
Background
Selling Book
------------------------------------------------------------------------
its quite long and only covers one month
I actually have the URls that was supplied with the original. The only
problem is, they were complied before Deja.com sold out to Google. Thus
those particular URLs won't work with Google, Google never adapted them to
their own system. However, from the sheer numbers of URls provided it does
show how meticulous the person was in compiling the information and could
actually be cross referenced since the month in question that was
documented was only one, March 1999.
***********************************************
**************************
Now for Ambrose Searle AKA Richard Gardiner's rambling discourse I add
this:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[as Gray Shockley said:]
(Your "opinion" is not an adequate citation.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Dave Thompson" said to another but it can be applied to Ambrose Searle
AKA Richard Gardiner as well
Ummmm, you are a historical troll that has been posting this dreck for a
while now. It doesn't matter if you stopped for a while or not. None of
your posts are new, they're just the same thing you've posted before and
have been shown to be baseless. You obviously don't like it when you've
been caught right in the beginning. I'm sure it won't stop you but at least
it serves notice to others that aren't familiar with you who they are
dealing with.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take anything that Ambrose Searle aka Richard Gardiner types with a grain
of salt. As he has demonstrated time and time again in the past of several
years ago, the past of a year and half ago and finally quite recently.
Truth and him with regards to posting are not on speaking terms.
MY EVIDENCE:
*************************
Gardiner AKA Searle's church state posting history covering 3-99 to 902,
5/02 - 7/02 and this current year
http://makeashorterlink.com/?N16F22596
http://snurl.com/2ws8
http://makeashorterlink.com/?Q54F21596 (up to date as of 11/18/03)
*************************
http://makeashorterlink.com/?I2AF32596
http://snurl.com/2wsb
*************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: ambrose searle caught lying, yet again (was Re: church/state seperation) |
02 Dec 2003 03:09:06 PM |
|
|
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote
What you are complaining about here is standard operating procedure
for one Richard Gardiner AKA Ambrose Searle as what follows
shows.
Are their no qualified mental health professionals near his home?
Is it money? Should we take up a collection to assist in covering
his therapy? What?
I thank you for detailing the extant of his illness, but is there a known
cause? And, what of a cure?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ambrose searle caught lying, yet again (was Re: church/state seperation) |
03 Dec 2003 07:10:10 AM |
|
|
"JTEM" <jaytem@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|
:|<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote
:|
:|> What you are complaining about here is standard operating procedure
:|> for one Richard Gardiner AKA Ambrose Searle as what follows
:|> shows.
:|
:|Are their no qualified mental health professionals near his home?
:|Is it money? Should we take up a collection to assist in covering
:|his therapy? What?
:|
:|I thank you for detailing the extant of his illness, but is there a known
:|cause? And, what of a cure?
Since he keeps coming back and since he duplicates his past via his topics,
positions, arguments, style, etc., in short his M.O. I don't think there is
a cure for him.
He isn't having as much success this time though. There are a few who
dabble with him from time to time but nothing like it was in days gone by.
So it can't be as much fun for him as it was in the past when he had as
many as half a dozen or more replying to him on sometimes a daily basis for
weeks on end. Not just replying but replying with documented factual
evidence. When some of those people were just as qualified or more
qualified to challenged him in the various areas he liked to stray into as
he was.
:|
:|
:|
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
01 Dec 2003 11:17:30 AM |
|
|
(ambrose searle aka richard gardiner) wrote:
:|> I am rejecting
:|> your absurd idea that the amendment makes legal armed insurrection
:|> against the state.
:|
:|The idea that the people have the right and duty to alter or abolish a
:|tyrannical government is not MY idea. It was Jefferson & friends.
:|Furthermore, the idea that the second amendment is largely based on
:|this sentiment is the view of constitutional scholars with much better
:|credentials than yours or mine.
:|
:|Searle aka Gardiner
(1) The Constitution - Part 3
One event that had alarmed many who would attend the 1787 Constitutional
Convention was the September 1786 revolt of Daniel Shays in Western
Massachusetts. Debt-ridden and now bankrupt as a farmer, Shays gathered
1200 sympathizers and forced the Massachusetts Supreme Court to adjourn and
flee for their lives. Shay and his followers threatened to capture an
arsenal of weapons before they were scattered and at one time fourteen
faced the death sentence for their actions. Their violence and threat of
mob rule forced the Massachusetts Legislature to drop direct taxation,
lower court fees, and make other concessions. It also reminded American
lawmakers that the states were powerless to protect themselves against mob
rule and that the absence of a strong federal government threatened the
rule of law in any state. Referring to Shay's Rebellion, George Washington
said:
Shay's Rebellion
" What a triumph of the advocates of despotism, to find that we are
incapable of governing ourselves, and that systems founded on the basis of
equal liberty are merely ideal...Would to God that wise measures may be
taken in time to avert the consequences we have but too much reason to
apprehend."
Thoughts to Ponder...
* How did Daniel Shay and his followers threaten the rule of law
Massachusetts?
* Why did Washington see Shay's Rebellion as a danger to American
democracy and the rule of law in each of the 13 colonies?
(2) Which clause of the Constitution gives the people the right to abolish
or alter the Government, beyond amending the Constitution?
(3) The Civil War
.
|
|
|
| User: "ambrose searle" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
01 Dec 2003 11:29:33 PM |
|
|
wrote in message news:<lstmsvgcvc6io77vjpobb3b1k2dpktnrhf@4ax.com>...
ambrosesearle@yahoo.com (ambrose searle aka richard gardiner) wrote:
:|> I am rejecting
:|> your absurd idea that the amendment makes legal armed insurrection
:|> against the state.
:|
:|The idea that the people have the right and duty to alter or abolish a
:|tyrannical government is not MY idea. It was Jefferson & friends.
:|Furthermore, the idea that the second amendment is largely based on
:|this sentiment is the view of constitutional scholars with much better
:|credentials than yours or mine.
:|
:|Searle aka Gardiner
(1) The Constitution - Part 3
One event that had alarmed many who would attend the 1787 Constitutional
Convention was the September 1786 revolt of Daniel Shays in Western
Massachusetts.
It's a marvel how quickly Allison abandon's his love for Thomas
Jefferson when it is convenient.
He now invokes Shay's rebellion as proof that the founders did not
promote a doctrine of divine right of revolution.
But he entirely ignores Jefferson on this score, to wit;
http://earlyamerica.com/review/summer/letter.html
George Washington
said:
Shay's Rebellion
" What a triumph of the advocates of despotism, to find that we are
incapable of governing ourselves, and that systems founded on the basis of
equal liberty are merely ideal...Would to God that wise measures may be
taken in time to avert the consequences we have but too much reason to
apprehend."
Allison quotes Washington only when convenient.
George Washington, as President, also said that religion is an
indispensible support for good government.
Allison doesn't like to quote that part of the speech.
(2) Which clause of the Constitution gives the people the right to abolish
or alter the Government, beyond amending the Constitution?
Question for you: Do you think that it is impossible for the
government of the U.S. to ever, at any time in the future, to fall
into a state of corruption and tyranny, ignoring the constitution, and
oppressing the citizenship.
If you don't think it's possible, you are far more of an optimist than
James Madison ever was.
If you do think its possible, then given your denial of the right to
"alter or abolish" a tyrannical government, you'll just have to
passively go to the gas chamber when the time comes.
Fortunately there will be those who believe that the people reserve
the right to alter or abolish any government that becomes destructive
of the ends of government.
(3) The Civil War
No one would argue that every rebellion is justifiable. Perhaps even
most are not. But the founders believed that, in the course of human
events, sometimes revolution is indeed warranted. They would say that
the Revolution of 1688 was warranted, certainly they would say that
the revolution of 1775 was warranted, they would have to say that the
alteration and abolition of the government that took place in 1787 was
warranted, and they would almost all, to a man, predict that a time
may come again in which a revolution will be warranted, and (in
Jefferson's words, "be necessary"). Thus, the second amendment.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
01 Dec 2003 11:58:09 PM |
|
|
"ambrose searle" <ambrosesearle@yahoo.com> wrote
He now invokes Shay's rebellion as proof that the founders did not
promote a doctrine of divine right of revolution.
You've completely misrepresented the context of Jefferson's remarks,
perverted them to suit your own agenda.
"The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and
model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world
has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the
ministers themselves have come to believe them, & what is more
wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this
anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance
of Massachusetts? And can history produce an instance of rebellion
so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were
founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be
20 years without such a rebellion."
Jefferson wasn't talking about the over-throw of the government. He
was denouncing British claims that the former colonies had decayed
to the point of anarchy without British rule. He was saying that the
only supposed "anarchy" was the Massachusetts "Whisky Rebellion,"
and that had the positive effect of keeping the government on its toes.
What was Jefferson *NOT* saying: The government should be
over-thrown by revolution.
What WAS Jefferson saying: Anarchy? You call *This* anarchy? Ha!
We should be so lucky to have such anarchy every 20 years or so, just
to keep us on our toes.
Another way to look at (within it's proper context) is if the British
were saying that the Americas were dangerous, not because of anarchy
but, because of a lot of fires. And Jefferson, in response to this, says,
"What fires? You mean that outhouse that burnt down? We should be
so lucky to have an outhouse fire every few years or so, just to keep
our firemen on their toes."
But, you, well, you being one sick mother fucker, you misquote Jefferson,
pervert his words for your own evil agenda.
I suggest Drano. Take big sips. Thanks in advance.
.
|
|
|
| User: "dpr" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
02 Dec 2003 12:14:07 AM |
|
|
"JTEM" <jaytem@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:R8GdnU1DjYeutFGiRVn-jg@comcast.com...
"ambrose searle" <ambrosesearle@yahoo.com> wrote
He now invokes Shay's rebellion as proof that the founders did not
promote a doctrine of divine right of revolution.
You've completely misrepresented
Since jtem cannot refute what was posted he goes into his broken record
mode.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
02 Dec 2003 02:52:30 PM |
|
|
"dpr" <&^%@&^%.com> wrote
Since jtem cannot refute what was posted
I already have. Here you go again:
The first blatantly obvious fact that you're ignoring is that
the Declaration of Independence came more than a decade
before our constitutional government, and they did some
thinking during those years.
Seriously.
The second blatantly obvious fact that you're ignoring is that,
had the English crown granted the rights in our constitution,
there wouldn't have been a revolution. The crown simply did
not offer any alternatives to a revolution.
The third blatantly obvious fact that you're ignoring is the
constitution itself. It does provide an alternative.
The fourth blatantly obvious fact that you're ignoring is the words
of the "founding fathers" themselves. Take George Washington,
for example, who addressed your brand of corruption in his
farewell address. It's a bit lengthy, and no doubt will prove to be
too much for one so intellectually challenged as yourself:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/washing.htm
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
01 Dec 2003 03:00:23 AM |
|
|
On 30 Nov 2003 22:00:13 -0800, (ambrose
searle) wrote:
I am rejecting
your absurd idea that the amendment makes legal armed insurrection
against the state.
The idea that the people have the right and duty to alter or abolish a
tyrannical government is not MY idea. It was Jefferson & friends.
Furthermore, the idea that the second amendment is largely based on
this sentiment is the view of constitutional scholars with much better
credentials than yours or mine.
Searle
And you still fail to quote one law or court decision to back up your
absurdity, preferring to continue to babble.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
01 Dec 2003 06:34:45 AM |
|
|
<tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote
ambrosesearle@yahoo.com (ambrose searle) wrote:
The idea that the people have the right and duty to alter or abolish a
tyrannical government is not MY idea. It was Jefferson & friends.
Furthermore, the idea that the second amendment is largely based on
this sentiment is the view of constitutional scholars with much better
credentials than yours or mine.
And you still fail to quote one law or court decision to back up your
absurdity, preferring to continue to babble.
But they have ignored some pretty rock-solid evidence that disproves
their claim. Take the words of George Washington, who presided over
the constitutional convention (and speaks with far greater authority than
our resident lunatic).
From Paragraph 16:
"Respect for its [the constitution's] authority, compliance with its laws,
acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental
maxims of true liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of
the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the
Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and
authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The
very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government
presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established
government."
A little further down:
"If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the
constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by
an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there
be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the
instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments
are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in
permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any
time yield."
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/washing.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "ambrose searle" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
01 Dec 2003 11:40:35 PM |
|
|
"JTEM" <jaytem@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<TNSdnYJ879k1qVaiRVn-gw@comcast.com>...
<tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote
ambrosesearle@yahoo.com (ambrose searle) wrote:
The idea that the people have the right and duty to alter or abolish a
tyrannical government is not MY idea. It was Jefferson & friends.
Furthermore, the idea that the second amendment is largely based on
this sentiment is the view of constitutional scholars with much better
credentials than yours or mine.
And you still fail to quote one law or court decision to back up your
absurdity, preferring to continue to babble.
But they have ignored some pretty rock-solid evidence that disproves
their claim.
The following cannot be ignored:
1. Professor Sanford Levinson (Ph.D. Harvard, J.D., Stanford) of the
University of Texas, said:
"the Second Amendment was created because people believed guns
provided an important way of protecting their liberty against the
potential tyranny of government."
http://www.law.yale.edu/outside/html/faculty/sl1/profile.htm
http://www.rice.edu/projects/reno/rn/20021205/guncontrol.html
See also, Sanford Levinson, THE EMBARRASSING SECOND AMENDMENT, Yale
Law Journal, Volume 99, pp. 637-659.
2. Hon. Congressman Bernard Sanders, formerly on the faculty of
Harvard University, who wishes to repeal the 2nd Amendment:
"One of the founding principles of the Revolution had been that the
people had the right to overthrow the government if they believed it
to be unworthy. One of the most effective means to overthrow the
government was, of course, with firearms and so the Second Amendment
was born."
http://www.house.gov/bernie/town_meeting/1997/daniel_luzor.html
http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=S000033
3. Scott Bursor, lawyer and editor of the legal journal, Texas Law
Review, who is on the other side of the issue, writes:
"The belief that an armed citizenry would subdue aggressive rulers and
keep them sensitive to the rights of the people was perhaps the most
important motivation for the inclusion of the right to keep and bear
arms in the Constitution. Thus, the continued vitality of an armed
populace as a check on the modern state should have important
implications on our interpretation of the Second Amendment."
74 Texas Law Rev. 1125-1151 (1996).
4. This is how the Second Amendment was defended by its supporters in
1789!!--
"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before
them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must
be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their
power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed
by the next article [2nd Amendment] in their right to keep and bear
their private arms."
Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal
Constitution, Moved on the 8th Instant in the House of
Representatives, Fed. Gazette & Phila. Evening Post, June 18, 1789.
5. Joseph Story, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice, wrote:
"The next amendment is 'A well regulated militia being necessary to
the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear
arms shall not be infringed.' ... The right of the citizens to keep
and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the
liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against
the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even
if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to
resist and triumph over them."
Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States,
Vol. 3 at pp. 746-747 (1833).
6. Alan Keyes (Ph.D. Harvard University), who disagrees with Levinson
and Sanders, wrote--
"It is right there in the Declaration that if a government becomes
subversive of liberty, and in the end a design is evinced to destroy
the liberty of the people, 'they have the right,' he said, 'they have
the duty'--okay?--'to alter or abolish it.' And that means that
ultimately the people of the country are the arbiters. And they must
be prepared to defend themselves if push comes to shove. That is why
the Second Amendment is there. We can be timid about it if we like,
but that is the truth of it."
http://www.renewamerica.us/keyes/whois.htm
http://www.renewamerica.tv/archives/media/interviews/00_01_25hardball.htm
Take the words of George Washington, who presided over
the constitutional convention (and speaks with far greater authority than
our resident lunatic).
Yeah, I'm sure you love everything Washington said in the speech you
just cited:
LOL.
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political
prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports...And let
us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be
maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence
of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and
experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail
in exclusion of religious principle."
Concede Washington's view that religion is the basis for our
government, and I'll consider concededing Washington's view that
rebellion is abhorrent to our government.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
01 Dec 2003 11:57:29 PM |
|
|
"ambrose searle" <ambrosesearle@yahoo.com> wrote
The following cannot be ignored:
1. Professor Sanford Levinson (Ph.D. Harvard, J.D., Stanford) of the
University of Texas, said:
It not only can be ignored, it is completely dismissed by historical
facts, the very testimonies of the "Founding Fathers" you dishonor.
Here, for example, is the truth about Jefferson:
You've completely misrepresented the context of Jefferson's remarks,
perverted them to suit your own agenda.
"The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and
model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world
has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the
ministers themselves have come to believe them, & what is more
wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this
anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance
of Massachusetts? And can history produce an instance of rebellion
so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were
founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be
20 years without such a rebellion."
Jefferson wasn't talking about the over-throw of the government. He
was denouncing British claims that the former colonies had decayed
to the point of anarchy without British rule. He was saying that the
only supposed "anarchy" was the Massachusetts "Whisky Rebellion,"
and that had the positive effect of keeping the government on its toes.
What was Jefferson *NOT* saying: The government should be
over-thrown by revolution.
What WAS Jefferson saying: Anarchy? You call *This* anarchy? Ha!
We should be so lucky to have such anarchy every 20 years or so, just
to keep us on our toes.
Another way to look at (within it's proper context) is if the British
were saying that the Americas were dangerous, not because of anarchy
but, because of a lot of fires. And Jefferson, in response to this, says,
"What fires? You mean that outhouse that burnt down? We should be
so lucky to have an outhouse fire every few years or so, just to keep
our firemen on their toes."
But, you, well, you being one sick mother fucker, you misquote Jefferson,
pervert his words for your own evil agenda.
I suggest Drano. Take big sips. Thanks in advance.
.
|
|
|
| User: "dpr" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
02 Dec 2003 12:12:46 AM |
|
|
"JTEM" <jaytem@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:y-6dnb5aoNGWtFGiRVn-hQ@comcast.com...
"ambrose searle" <ambrosesearle@yahoo.com> wrote
The following cannot be ignored:
1. Professor Sanford Levinson (Ph.D. Harvard, J.D., Stanford) of the
University of Texas, said:
It not only can be ignored,
Only because you keep your head stuck up your *****, just a typical leftist
loser.
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to
dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to
assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to
which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect
to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes
which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that
among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure
these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just
powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of
Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People
to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its
foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to
them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence,
indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed
for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn,
that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than
to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the
same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is
their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide
new Guards for their future security.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
02 Dec 2003 02:52:02 PM |
|
|
"dpr" <&^%@&^%.com> wrote
Only because you keep your head stuck up your *****, just a typical
leftist loser.
The Taliban has taught you well:
The first blatantly obvious fact that you're ignoring is that
the Declaration of Independence came more than a decade
before our constitutional government, and they did some
thinking during those years.
Seriously.
The second blatantly obvious fact that you're ignoring is that,
had the English crown granted the rights in our constitution,
there wouldn't have been a revolution. The crown simply did
not offer any alternatives to a revolution.
The third blatantly obvious fact that you're ignoring is the
constitution itself. It does provide an alternative.
The fourth blatantly obvious fact that you're ignoring is the words
of the "founding fathers" themselves. Take George Washington,
for example, who addressed your brand of corruption in his
farewell address. It's a bit lengthy, and no doubt will prove to be
too much for one so intellectually challenged as yourself:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/washing.htm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
02 Dec 2003 07:42:37 AM |
|
|
"dpr" <&^%@&^%.com> wrote:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to
dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to
assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to
which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect
to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes
which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that
among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure
these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just
powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of
Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People
to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its
foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to
them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence,
indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed
for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn,
that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than
to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the
same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is
their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide
new Guards for their future security.
"Poor little dpr-*****, lost another one so now he repeats himself like
a broken record."
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "dpr" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
02 Dec 2003 08:19:08 AM |
|
|
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:7k5psv8bkh3on1hi1mbjmn9u067u6fsokn@4ax.com...
"dpr" <&^%@&^%.com> wrote:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people
to
dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and
to
assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to
which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent
respect
to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes
which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that
among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to
secure
these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just
powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of
Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the
People
to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its
foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as
to
them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Prudence,
indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be
changed
for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath
shewn,
that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable,
than
to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the
same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it
is
their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to
provide
new Guards for their future security.
"Poor little
Bob still cannot refute the DOI.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
