| 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: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
11 Dec 2003 07:37:33 AM |
|
|
(ambrose searle) wrote:
Do you contend that Buddhists are non-religious or that they are
theist?
If they are religious in the plain sense of the word, they believe in
God
Religion \Re*li"gion\ (r[-e]*l[i^]j"[u^]n), n. [F., from L. religio;
cf. religens pious, revering the gods, Gr. 'ale`gein to heed, have a
care. Cf. {Neglect}.] 1. The outward act or form by which men indicate
their recognition of the existence of a god or of gods having power
over their destiny, to whom obedience, service,
and honor are due.
Picking and choosing your definitions again, I see:
Merriam-Webster:
Main Entry: 1re·li·gious
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&s
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French religieus, from Latin religiosus, from religio
Date: 13th century
1 : relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged
ultimate reality or deity <a religious person> <religious attitudes>
2 : of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances
3 a : scrupulously and conscientiously faithful b : FERVENT, ZEALOUS
Of course, in the Lechevalierian world, to be religious might just
mean that they are, by definition, serial killers. Does that make any
sense?
Only if they practice human sacrifice.
Are Christians who believe in transubstantiation not cannibals?
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: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
10 Dec 2003 03:29:28 PM |
|
|
In article <fe9a0c54.0312091540.29d72135@posting.google.com> (ambrose searle) writes:
{...}
<
<> <I agree with Jefferson. Certain rights come from God an are
<> <inalienable.
<> <
<> <However, Government is the divinely ordained instrument to insure
<> <these rights.
<>
<> As in the Divine Right of Kings?
<
<Nope. As in the "sacred and undeniable" rights of the Declaration:
<among these is this one: "that to secure these rights governments are
<instituted among men."
Ah. So you think /our/ government is God's chosen instrument to
insure those rights He granted. So unlike all, or at least most, of
the others kinds which appeared before it.
So, what do you think took Him so long?
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "ambrose searle" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
10 Dec 2003 10:29:05 PM |
|
|
(Cary Kittrell) wrote in message news:<br837o$76a$1@oasis.ccit.arizona.edu>...
In article <fe9a0c54.0312091540.29d72135@posting.google.com> (ambrose searle) writes:
{...}
<
<> <I agree with Jefferson. Certain rights come from God an are
<> <inalienable.
<> <
<> <However, Government is the divinely ordained instrument to insure
<> <these rights.
<>
<> As in the Divine Right of Kings?
<
<Nope. As in the "sacred and undeniable" rights of the Declaration:
<among these is this one: "that to secure these rights governments are
<instituted among men."
Ah. So you think /our/ government is God's chosen instrument to
insure those rights He granted.
Jefferson said that is the goal of any government:
"We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable; that all men are
created equal and independent, that from that equal creation they
derive rights inherent and inalienable, among which are the
preservation of life, and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that
to secure these ends, governments are instituted among men"
Searle
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
01 Dec 2003 01:31:05 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 07:34:45 -0500, "JTEM" <jaytem@yahoo.com> wrote:
<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).
The man is completely indifferent to what is actually true. He enjoys
babbling. He thinks it makes him look clever.
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
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "ambrose searle" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
01 Dec 2003 01:46:53 PM |
|
|
wrote in message news:<7i0msvoaqhcqllsqc5fjk2iudd3i1r7k86@4ax.com>...
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.
Please quote one law or court decision that explicitly states that I
have the right to drive down to the 7-11, buy a bag of Utz potato
chips, bring them home and eat a turkey sandwich with those potato
chips, while watching TV and drinking a Hawaiian Punch.
Guess what: you won't find any "court decision" that explicitly states
I have the right to do all that.
Guess what else: I still have the right to do it.
In short, your logic is terribly flawed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
01 Dec 2003 02:30:56 PM |
|
|
(ambrose searle aka richard gardiner) wrote:
:|Please quote one law or court decision that explicitly states that I
:|have the right to drive down to the 7-11, buy a bag of Utz potato
:|chips, bring them home and eat a turkey sandwich with those potato
:|chips, while watching TV and drinking a Hawaiian Punch.
:|
:|Guess what: you won't find any "court decision" that explicitly states
:|I have the right to do all that.
:|
:|Guess what else: I still have the right to do it.
:|
:|In short, your logic is terribly flawed.
Ho hum
Welcome to the posting world of Richard Gardiner AKA Ambrose Searle
**************************
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: "ambrose searle" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
03 Dec 2003 10:16:10 PM |
|
|
wrote in message news:<t69nsvonbtss4f512nkqa27dmogcsp4e4j@4ax.com>...
ambrosesearle@yahoo.com (ambrose searle aka richard gardiner) wrote:
:|Please quote one law or court decision that explicitly states that I
:|have the right to drive down to the 7-11, buy a bag of Utz potato
:|chips, bring them home and eat a turkey sandwich with those potato
:|chips, while watching TV and drinking a Hawaiian Punch.
:|
:|Guess what: you won't find any "court decision" that explicitly states
:|I have the right to do all that.
:|
:|Guess what else: I still have the right to do it.
:|
:|In short, your logic is terribly flawed.
Ho hum
Welcome to the posting world of Richard Gardiner AKA Ambrose Searle
Wow, Buckeye, what a persuasive rebuttal and response!
What's next? nanee nanee boo boo?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
04 Dec 2003 08:43:00 AM |
|
|
(ambrose searle) wrote:
:|buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote in message news:<t69nsvonbtss4f512nkqa27dmogcsp4e4j@4ax.com>...
:|> (ambrose searle aka richard gardiner) wrote:
:|>
:|> >:|Please quote one law or court decision that explicitly states that I
:|> >:|have the right to drive down to the 7-11, buy a bag of Utz potato
:|> >:|chips, bring them home and eat a turkey sandwich with those potato
:|> >:|chips, while watching TV and drinking a Hawaiian Punch.
:|> >:|
:|> >:|Guess what: you won't find any "court decision" that explicitly states
:|> >:|I have the right to do all that.
:|> >:|
:|> >:|Guess what else: I still have the right to do it.
:|> >:|
:|> >:|In short, your logic is terribly flawed.
:|>
Ho hum
Welcome to the posting world of Richard Gardiner AKA Ambrose Searle
http://makeashorterlink.com/?C363237B6
.
|
|
|
| User: "ambrose searle" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
04 Dec 2003 08:29:45 PM |
|
|
Ho hum
Welcome to the posting world of Richard Gardiner AKA Ambrose Searle
http://makeashorterlink.com/?C363237B6
"You aren't arguing your beliefs or opinions you are arguing me.
When you have nothing, I guess you have only two choices, disappear or
focus on the messenger."
-JIM BUCKEYE ALLISON
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&selm=71i1au82l749pfd65dmuodo96gq8mvp1s4%404ax.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
05 Dec 2003 01:40:08 PM |
|
|
(ambrose searle aka richard gardiner) wrote:
:|> Ho hum
:|>
:|> Welcome to the posting world of Richard Gardiner AKA Ambrose Searle
:|> http://makeashorterlink.com/?C363237B6
:|
:|"You aren't arguing your beliefs or opinions you are arguing me.
:|When you have nothing, I guess you have only two choices, disappear or
:|focus on the messenger."
:|
:|-JIM BUCKEYE ALLISON
:|
:|http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&selm=71i1au82l749pfd65dmuodo96gq8mvp1s4%404ax.com
Jefferson and Hemings too no less. Kewl, it will be fun working that into
all of this
Heheheheheheheh
The problem with what you are offering is this:
You are offerign nothing, whereas I am offering discussions, debaters, you
caught lying, valid historical documentation, you caught insulting,
personally attacking others, misrepresenting, in short operatign your
entire M.O. to the fullest.
SO YOU SEE SONNY
:|"You aren't arguing your beliefs or opinions you are arguing me.
:|When you have nothing, I guess you have only two choices, disappear or
:|focus on the messenger."
I have something and I offer that something in the URls here. That
something is about the message as well as the messenger, actually that
somethign lets the messenger bury himself with the M.O. he can't breal away
from.
Welcome to the posting world of Richard Gardiner AKA Ambrose Searle
http://makeashorterlink.com/?C363237B6
*******************************
[Evaluation of March 1999]
http://makeashorterlink.com/?F3E6121B6
*****************************
[orthodox and founders]
http://makeashorterlink.com/?T22952AB6
Hey you remember this:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
As maff91 likes to finish his posts with:
Gardiner ineffectually crosses swords with Jim Alison.
<http://www.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/qs.xp?ST=PS&QRY=Gardiner+AND+%7Ea+%28jalison*%29&defaultOp=AND&DBS=1&OP=dnquery.xp&LNG=ALL&subjects=&groups=&authors=&fromdate=&todate=&showsort=date&maxhits=100>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Too bad the ole deja.com URL doesn't work anymore, but hey I have found
some that do work
Many of the ones in this original article by Sinclair does work again
[Evaluation of March 1999]
http://makeashorterlink.com/?F3E6121B6
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Will" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
02 Dec 2003 10:57:13 PM |
|
|
(ambrose searle) wrote in message news:<fe9a0c54.0312011146.16b6eb2b@posting.google.com>...
tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk wrote in message news:<7i0msvoaqhcqllsqc5fjk2iudd3i1r7k86@4ax.com>...
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.
Please quote one law or court decision that explicitly states that I
have the right to drive down to the 7-11, buy a bag of Utz potato
chips, bring them home and eat a turkey sandwich with those potato
chips, while watching TV and drinking a Hawaiian Punch.
Guess what: you won't find any "court decision" that explicitly states
I have the right to do all that.
Guess what else: I still have the right to do it.
In short, your logic is terribly flawed.
You're right, the Second Amendment is based, on the idea that a
militia was necessary to fight off savages, foreign marauders, or a
government that had had become tyrannical (this last was more of an
afterthought, but it was there). So what? No one believes in it and
there's been a tacit conspiracy to ignore it, except in the case of
hand guns, for a good part of the 20th century.
The Amendment is completely permissive. It was written before the turn
of the 19th century and it allows the citizenry to possess all the
armaments that any army of its time would have, from bayonettes to
canon. It is still just as permissive. According to the Second
Amendment, I have the absolute right to set up a perimeter around my
home, just as I would have in Vietnam -- razor edge concertina wire,
anti-personnel mines, 50 caliber machine guns, a few Claymores, a ring
of M-16s, a ton of grenades, and, of course, a few canon and recoiless
rifles. Wouldn't you want your next door neighbor to set himself up
like that? Wouldn't you support his right to do so to the last drop of
blood? Hell, that Amenment allows me to own nuclear weapons, if I can
find them. Don't you support my right to own and use nuclear weapons?
Don't you think the government should offfer them for sale to its
citizens? If you don't, you don't believe in the Second Amendment,
either, so shut up.
Will
.
|
|
|
| User: "ambrose searle" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
04 Dec 2003 07:45:31 PM |
|
|
You're right, the Second Amendment is based, on the idea that a
militia was necessary to fight off savages, foreign marauders, or a
government that had had become tyrannical (this last was more of an
afterthought, but it was there).
Your honesty is a rare treat in this thread.
So what? No one believes in it and
there's been a tacit conspiracy to ignore it, except in the case of
hand guns, for a good part of the 20th century.
I'll agree.
The Amendment is completely permissive. It was written before the turn
of the 19th century and it allows the citizenry to possess all the
armaments that any army of its time would have, from bayonettes to
canon. It is still just as permissive. According to the Second
Amendment, I have the absolute right to set up a perimeter around my
home, just as I would have in Vietnam -- razor edge concertina wire,
anti-personnel mines, 50 caliber machine guns, a few Claymores, a ring
of M-16s, a ton of grenades, and, of course, a few canon and recoiless
rifles. Wouldn't you want your next door neighbor to set himself up
like that? Wouldn't you support his right to do so to the last drop of
blood? Hell, that Amenment allows me to own nuclear weapons, if I can
find them. Don't you support my right to own and use nuclear weapons?
Don't you think the government should offfer them for sale to its
citizens? If you don't, you don't believe in the Second Amendment,
either, so shut up.
My comments about the 2nd amendment were neither pro nor con, but only
to point out the historical context and intent, which, when
understood, shows that the likes of the ACLU, Jim Allison, or any
other champions of the "Bill of Rights" pick and choose the amendments
that they really want to champion.
Searle
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
03 Dec 2003 03:07:13 AM |
|
|
On 2 Dec 2003 20:57:13 -0800, (Will) wrote:
(ambrose searle) wrote in message news:<fe9a0c54.0312011146.16b6eb2b@posting.google.com>...
tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk wrote in message news:<7i0msvoaqhcqllsqc5fjk2iudd3i1r7k86@4ax.com>...
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.
Please quote one law or court decision that explicitly states that I
have the right to drive down to the 7-11, buy a bag of Utz potato
chips, bring them home and eat a turkey sandwich with those potato
chips, while watching TV and drinking a Hawaiian Punch.
Guess what: you won't find any "court decision" that explicitly states
I have the right to do all that.
Guess what else: I still have the right to do it.
In short, your logic is terribly flawed.
You're right, the Second Amendment is based, on the idea that a
militia was necessary to fight off savages, foreign marauders, or a
government that had had become tyrannical (this last was more of an
afterthought, but it was there).
Where was it? It certainly is not in the amendment.
So what? No one believes in it and
there's been a tacit conspiracy to ignore it, except in the case of
hand guns, for a good part of the 20th century.
It is fairly easy to ignore something that is not there.
The Amendment is completely permissive. It was written before the turn
of the 19th century and it allows the citizenry to possess all the
armaments that any army of its time would have, from bayonettes to
canon. It is still just as permissive. According to the Second
Amendment, I have the absolute right to set up a perimeter around my
home, just as I would have in Vietnam -- razor edge concertina wire,
anti-personnel mines, 50 caliber machine guns, a few Claymores, a ring
of M-16s, a ton of grenades, and, of course, a few canon and recoiless
rifles. Wouldn't you want your next door neighbor to set himself up
like that? Wouldn't you support his right to do so to the last drop of
blood? Hell, that Amenment allows me to own nuclear weapons, if I can
find them. Don't you support my right to own and use nuclear weapons?
Don't you think the government should offfer them for sale to its
citizens? If you don't, you don't believe in the Second Amendment,
either, so shut up.
The words "a well ordered militia" are the words usually ignored. It
is not granting individuals unlimited rights to possess any weapons.
It is not about individuals but well ordered militias. I doubt very
seriously that the men like those who fought against the state in
"Shay's Rebellion" would past muster in court as a well ordered
militia.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
03 Dec 2003 01:45:46 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 22:57:13 -0600, Will wrote
(in message <e6e41727.0312022057.45ed810e@posting.google.com>):
Don't you support my right to own and use nuclear weapons?
Don't you think the government should offfer them for sale to its
citizens? If you don't, you don't believe in the Second Amendment,
either, so shut up.
So you prefer that the National Government should sell firearms rather than
allowing the present firearm dealers to do so?
That makes me more than a little nervous.
Gray Shockley
--------------------------
"Swinehood hath no remedy." - Sidney Lanier
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
01 Dec 2003 02:40:49 PM |
|
|
In article <fe9a0c54.0312011146.16b6eb2b@posting.google.com> (ambrose searle) writes:
<
<tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk wrote in message news:<7i0msvoaqhcqllsqc5fjk2iudd3i1r7k86@4ax.com>...
<> 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.
<
<Please quote one law or court decision that explicitly states that I
<have the right to drive down to the 7-11, buy a bag of Utz potato
<chips, bring them home and eat a turkey sandwich with those potato
<chips, while watching TV and drinking a Hawaiian Punch.
<
<Guess what: you won't find any "court decision" that explicitly states
<I have the right to do all that.
<
But you will, in the process, find a number of decisions in
which the court seriously disapproved of people busying themselves
with abolishing a tyrannical government, from John Brown to
Timothy "Boom-Boom" MacVeigh. I know of no case in which
the question of whether the government was REALLY tyrannical
was even brought up. The courts appear automatically to look askance at the
very attempt -- even when the defendants were quite explicit that their
act was meant to be the precipitating event of an armed insurrection.
I suppose, viewed through the lens of your argument, that these may well have
been unconstitutional decisions by these various courts.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "ambrose searle" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
03 Dec 2003 11:35:42 PM |
|
|
(Cary Kittrell) wrote in message news:<bqg90h$sat$1@oasis.ccit.arizona.edu>...
In article <fe9a0c54.0312011146.16b6eb2b@posting.google.com> (ambrose searle) writes:
<
<tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk wrote in message news:<7i0msvoaqhcqllsqc5fjk2iudd3i1r7k86@4ax.com>...
<> 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.
<
<Please quote one law or court decision that explicitly states that I
<have the right to drive down to the 7-11, buy a bag of Utz potato
<chips, bring them home and eat a turkey sandwich with those potato
<chips, while watching TV and drinking a Hawaiian Punch.
<
<Guess what: you won't find any "court decision" that explicitly states
<I have the right to do all that.
<
But you will, in the process, find a number of decisions in
which the court seriously disapproved of people busying themselves
with abolishing a tyrannical government, from John Brown to
Timothy "Boom-Boom" MacVeigh.
When the Court disapproves of rebellion it is expressing a view that
is consonant with the Declaration which says that the people are
REQUIRED to do everything possible other than revolt in attempt to
work with a sour government; it even says that revolution SHOULD NOT
be entered into often or for light and transient causes.
But... WHEN A LONG TRAIN OF TYRANNICAL ABUSES are committed by the
government, it is the right and DUTY of the people to alter or abolish
that government. Clearly, the USSC has never felt that there has ever
been a long train of tyranny in the U.S. government, and thus, no
popular rebellion has ever been warranted. Furthermore, if indeed the
Federal government was ever legitimately abolished, the Court would no
longer be in existence, and could not, thus, rule on whether the act
was legitimate or not.
I know of no case in which
the question of whether the government was REALLY tyrannical
was even brought up. The courts appear automatically to look askance at the
very attempt -- even when the defendants were quite explicit that their
act was meant to be the precipitating event of an armed insurrection.
The Court could indeed NEVER rule that a overthrow of the government
was legitimate, because if indeed such rebellion ever did occur, the
Court, which is part of the government, would be overthrown and no
longer in power.
I suppose, viewed through the lens of your argument, that these may well have
been unconstitutional decisions by these various courts.
John Brown is an interesting case because although he claimed to be
overthrowing a tyrannical government and was hanged for it, history
vindicated him to some degree.
Martin Luther King, Jr. was another who wrote that it is the people's
DUTY to disobey the government when the government is in violation of
"higher law." And again, history vindicated his illegal actions to a
large degree.
Most of the advances in civil rights in American history were a result
of religious people refusing to abide by the constitutionally
authorized authorities. Abolitionism was largely a product of Quakers
and Evangelicals. Women's rights arose parallel to the work of the
WCTU (Women's Christian Temperance Union) which accomplished the vote
for women and prohibition almost simultaneously, after much civil
disobedience. King's movement in the 50's and 60's was spearheaded by
the SCLC (Southern Christian Leadership Conference) and employed
violations of the law as the principal strategy.
You will find very few, if any, "atheist" movements that have
contributed to the progress of liberty in this country. As Alan Keyes
told Alan Dershowitz, that is largely because it takes spiritual
courage to take on injustice; atheists, who are mostly materialists,
have no hope for the afterlife, and thus laying their lives down for
the principles of goodness, justice, liberty, and peace just doesn't
make any sense. So the difficult work is left to the believers.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
04 Dec 2003 10:47:41 AM |
|
|
In article <fe9a0c54.0312032135.ce98884@posting.google.com> (ambrose searle) writes:
<cary@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote in message news:<bqg90h$sat$1@oasis.ccit.arizona.edu>...
<> <
<> <
{...}
<>
<> But you will, in the process, find a number of decisions in
<> which the court seriously disapproved of people busying themselves
<> with abolishing a tyrannical government, from John Brown to
<> Timothy "Boom-Boom" MacVeigh.
<
<When the Court disapproves of rebellion it is expressing a view that
<is consonant with the Declaration which says that the people are
<REQUIRED to do everything possible other than revolt in attempt to
<work with a sour government; it even says that revolution SHOULD NOT
<be entered into often or for light and transient causes.
Really? I'm not aware of this ever having been explicitly
stated in any court decision: "As per the Declaration (q.v.),
this Court feels you should have tried other approaches before
coming to this pass".
<
<But... WHEN A LONG TRAIN OF TYRANNICAL ABUSES are committed by the
<government, it is the right and DUTY of the people to alter or abolish
<that government. Clearly, the USSC has never felt that there has ever
<been a long train of tyranny in the U.S. government, and thus, no
<popular rebellion has ever been warranted. Furthermore, if indeed the
<Federal government was ever legitimately abolished, the Court would no
<longer be in existence, and could not, thus, rule on whether the act
<was legitimate or not.
If the Federal government were ever abolished, it would be
by definition a legitimate act -- because the victors
make the definitions. As we did. Had we lost the Revolution,
we would be no less free today than Canadians or Kiwis, but
our history books would paint the insurrection as a curiousity
and a failure, something like that unfortunate Whiskey business.
{...}
<
<Martin Luther King, Jr. was another who wrote that it is the people's
<DUTY to disobey the government when the government is in violation of
<"higher law." And again, history vindicated his illegal actions to a
<large degree.
<
<Most of the advances in civil rights in American history were a result
<of religious people refusing to abide by the constitutionally
<authorized authorities. Abolitionism was largely a product of Quakers
<and Evangelicals. Women's rights arose parallel to the work of the
<WCTU (Women's Christian Temperance Union) which accomplished the vote
<for women and prohibition almost simultaneously, after much civil
<disobedience. King's movement in the 50's and 60's was spearheaded by
<the SCLC (Southern Christian Leadership Conference) and employed
<violations of the law as the principal strategy.
<
<You will find very few, if any, "atheist" movements that have
<contributed to the progress of liberty in this country.
That's because you will find few, if any, sizeable atheist
movements period. We're not joiners. There's not a massive
Souther Atheist Convention (denouncing the Northern
Atheists and the Latter Day Atheists as heretics). We
thought high school pep rallies were silly. We're not
big on group hugs.
If you need to organize massive protests, it takes massive
organizations.
On the other hand, those godless commies at the ACLU have
been amazingly effective, far beyond their numbers, in
protecting your right to call me names and my right to
not have your religion shoved in my face -- and the rights
of protestors of all ideologies to be heard.
I also doubt that the Southern Poverty Law Center, which
has done a bit here and there to see that progress in
Civil Rights endures, is widely regarded as a hotbed
of faith.
<As Alan Keyes
<told Alan Dershowitz, that is largely because it takes spiritual
<courage to take on injustice;
Really? Alan knows that atheists took no part in Selma,
in the civil rights movement in general? In the March on
Washington. Viet Nam protests? I know of no such research.
<atheists, who are mostly materialists,
<have no hope for the afterlife, and thus laying their lives down for
<the principles of goodness, justice, liberty, and peace just doesn't
<make any sense. So the difficult work is left to the believers.
And that last argument can be remarkably effective in practice --
look what the promise of 72 virgins has accomplished.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
04 Dec 2003 04:49:21 AM |
|
|
On 3 Dec 2003 21:35:42 -0800, (ambrose searle)
wrote:
cary@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote in message news:<bqg90h$sat$1@oasis.ccit.arizona.edu>...
In article <fe9a0c54.0312011146.16b6eb2b@posting.google.com> (ambrose searle) writes:
<
snip
But you will, in the process, find a number of decisions in
which the court seriously disapproved of people busying themselves
with abolishing a tyrannical government, from John Brown to
Timothy "Boom-Boom" MacVeigh.
When the Court disapproves of rebellion it is expressing a view that
is consonant with the Declaration which says that the people are
REQUIRED to do everything possible other than revolt in attempt to
work with a sour government; it even says that revolution SHOULD NOT
be entered into often or for light and transient causes.
But... WHEN A LONG TRAIN OF TYRANNICAL ABUSES are committed by the
government, it is the right and DUTY of the people to alter or abolish
that government. Clearly, the USSC has never felt that there has ever
been a long train of tyranny in the U.S. government, and thus, no
popular rebellion has ever been warranted. Furthermore, if indeed the
Federal government was ever legitimately abolished, the Court would no
longer be in existence, and could not, thus, rule on whether the act
was legitimate or not.
I know of no case in which
the question of whether the government was REALLY tyrannical
was even brought up. The courts appear automatically to look askance at the
very attempt -- even when the defendants were quite explicit that their
act was meant to be the precipitating event of an armed insurrection.
The Court could indeed NEVER rule that a overthrow of the government
was legitimate, because if indeed such rebellion ever did occur, the
Court, which is part of the government, would be overthrown and no
longer in power.
You have just admitted that there is no legal right of armed
insurrection.
I suppose, viewed through the lens of your argument, that these may well have
been unconstitutional decisions by these various courts.
John Brown is an interesting case because although he claimed to be
overthrowing a tyrannical government and was hanged for it, history
vindicated him to some degree.
History is not a court. He was found guilty and hanged.
Martin Luther King, Jr. was another who wrote that it is the people's
DUTY to disobey the government when the government is in violation of
"higher law." And again, history vindicated his illegal actions to a
large degree.
And they remain illegal.
Most of the advances in civil rights in American history were a result
of religious people refusing to abide by the constitutionally
authorized authorities. Abolitionism was largely a product of Quakers
and Evangelicals. Women's rights arose parallel to the work of the
WCTU (Women's Christian Temperance Union) which accomplished the vote
for women and prohibition almost simultaneously, after much civil
disobedience. King's movement in the 50's and 60's was spearheaded by
the SCLC (Southern Christian Leadership Conference) and employed
violations of the law as the principal strategy.
You will find very few, if any, "atheist" movements that have
contributed to the progress of liberty in this country. As Alan Keyes
told Alan Dershowitz, that is largely because it takes spiritual
courage to take on injustice; atheists, who are mostly materialists,
have no hope for the afterlife, and thus laying their lives down for
the principles of goodness, justice, liberty, and peace just doesn't
make any sense. So the difficult work is left to the believers.
Gratuitous insults having nothing to do with the debate, which you
have just admitted that you have lost.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ambrose searle" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
04 Dec 2003 08:26:32 PM |
|
|
The Court could indeed NEVER rule that a overthrow of the government
was legitimate, because if indeed such rebellion ever did occur, the
Court, which is part of the government, would be overthrown and no
longer in power.
You have just admitted that there is no legal right of armed
insurrection.
No. What I stated was that in the event of a legitimate overthrow of
the government, the government officials would be deposed, and would
not, therefore, be in a position to rule on the legitimacy of the
revolt.
I would even go so far as to say that the government recognizes no
right to revolution granted by positive law, but that such a right is,
as Jefferson said, a right endowed by the Creator, a divine right.
Martin Luther King, Jr. was another who wrote that it is the people's
DUTY to disobey the government when the government is in violation of
"higher law." And again, history vindicated his illegal actions to a
large degree.
And they remain illegal.
Not all. Some of the acts that were considered "illegal" actions of
civil disobedience, like a black drinking from a white water fountain,
are now, as an ultimate result of that disobedience, LEGAL.
Most of the advances in civil rights in American history were a result
of religious people refusing to abide by the constitutionally
authorized authorities. Abolitionism was largely a product of Quakers
and Evangelicals. Women's rights arose parallel to the work of the
WCTU (Women's Christian Temperance Union) which accomplished the vote
for women and prohibition almost simultaneously, after much civil
disobedience. King's movement in the 50's and 60's was spearheaded by
the SCLC (Southern Christian Leadership Conference) and employed
violations of the law as the principal strategy.
You will find very few, if any, "atheist" movements that have
contributed to the progress of liberty in this country. As Alan Keyes
told Alan Dershowitz, that is largely because it takes spiritual
courage to take on injustice; atheists, who are mostly materialists,
have no hope for the afterlife, and thus laying their lives down for
the principles of goodness, justice, liberty, and peace just doesn't
make any sense. So the difficult work is left to the believers.
Gratuitous insults having nothing to do with the debate, which you
have just admitted that you have lost.
There is no insult in the passage above, especially not the kinds of
insults you have slung throughout the thread.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
05 Dec 2003 01:01:29 AM |
|
|
On 4 Dec 2003 18:26:32 -0800, (ambrose searle)
wrote:
The Court could indeed NEVER rule that a overthrow of the government
was legitimate, because if indeed such rebellion ever did occur, the
Court, which is part of the government, would be overthrown and no
longer in power.
You have just admitted that there is no legal right of armed
insurrection.
No. What I stated was that in the event of a legitimate overthrow of
the government, the government officials would be deposed, and would
not, therefore, be in a position to rule on the legitimacy of the
revolt.
I would even go so far as to say that the government recognizes no
right to revolution granted by positive law, but that such a right is,
as Jefferson said, a right endowed by the Creator, a divine right.
You have admitted again that there is no legal right of insurrection
under the US Constitution.
Martin Luther King, Jr. was another who wrote that it is the people's
DUTY to disobey the government when the government is in violation of
"higher law." And again, history vindicated his illegal actions to a
large degree.
And they remain illegal.
Not all. Some of the acts that were considered "illegal" actions of
civil disobedience, like a black drinking from a white water fountain,
are now, as an ultimate result of that disobedience, LEGAL.
The law has been changed. What he did (morally justified as it may
have been) was illegal at the time. You have not established that
there is a legal right of insurrection.
Most of the advances in civil rights in American history were a result
of religious people refusing to abide by the constitutionally
authorized authorities. Abolitionism was largely a product of Quakers
and Evangelicals. Women's rights arose parallel to the work of the
WCTU (Women's Christian Temperance Union) which accomplished the vote
for women and prohibition almost simultaneously, after much civil
disobedience. King's movement in the 50's and 60's was spearheaded by
the SCLC (Southern Christian Leadership Conference) and employed
violations of the law as the principal strategy.
You will find very few, if any, "atheist" movements that have
contributed to the progress of liberty in this country. As Alan Keyes
told Alan Dershowitz, that is largely because it takes spiritual
courage to take on injustice; atheists, who are mostly materialists,
have no hope for the afterlife, and thus laying their lives down for
the principles of goodness, justice, liberty, and peace just doesn't
make any sense. So the difficult work is left to the believers.
Gratuitous insults having nothing to do with the debate, which you
have just admitted that you have lost.
There is no insult in the passage above, especially not the kinds of
insults you have slung throughout the thread.
What I have said about you is the simple truth recognized by many
others in this group - in fact by any in this group who have read your
posts. It is not ad hominem, because it is not only true; it directly
and negatively affects the possibility of conducting a reasonable
discussion.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
05 Dec 2003 06:26:26 AM |
|
|
wrote:
:|What I have said about you is the simple truth recognized by many
:|others in this group - in fact by any in this group who have read your
:|posts. It is not ad hominem, because it is not only true; it directly
:|and negatively affects the possibility of conducting a reasonable
:|discussion.
You have that right. His style is leaving him fewer and fewer people who
are willing to play with him. The sane thing happened to a fella a few
years back a guy who called himself Riley M. Sinder.
He was all the rage back in 95 and early 96. A half a dozen or dozen
threads all going at once in a number of newsgroups, all church state
related, balancing arguing with ten - twenty people at once for months.
Either he left or people got fed up with his M.O. and began ignoring him or
both. At any rate he dropped from sight for some time, a year or more.
He has tried a couple comebacks since then but never has been able to
reclaim the action he once had.
Richard Gardiner AKA Ambrose Searle is experiencing that same situation.
It either has not dawned on him that people get tired of his M.O. and begin
to ignore him or drop off in any actual attention they give him or he is
unable to help himself and change his M.O. So he continues on, a slave to
his own inability to change and thus remains his own worse enemy if he
truly does like to post/reply and enjoys actual discussions.
The M.O. is more important to him or he is helpless to change it.
The result is he is getting less and less action in these various threads.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ambrose searle" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
05 Dec 2003 04:11:05 PM |
|
|
wrote in message news:<1bt0tv0jetejplflt176dmnndl1c61t0pc@4ax.com>...
tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk wrote:
:|What I have said about you is the simple truth recognized by many
:|others in this group - in fact by any in this group who have read your
:|posts. It is not ad hominem, because it is not only true; it directly
:|and negatively affects the possibility of conducting a reasonable
:|discussion.
You have that right. His style [blah blah blah]
"All of this personality crap is beginning to be a real bore... You
aren't arguing your beliefs or opinions you are arguing me. When you
have nothing, I guess you have only two choices, disappear or focus on
the messenger."
--JIM BUCKEYE ALLISON
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&selm=71i1au82l749pfd65dmuodo96gq8mvp1s4%404ax.com
Richard Gardiner AKA Ambrose Searle is experiencing that same situation.
It either has not dawned on him that people get tired of his M.O.
"All of this personality crap is beginning to be a real bore... You
aren't arguing your beliefs or opinions you are arguing me. When you
have nothing, I guess you have only two choices, disappear or focus on
the messenger."
--JIM BUCKEYE ALLISON
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&selm=71i1au82l749pfd65dmuodo96gq8mvp1s4%404ax.com
[snip more focus on Searle identity, Gardiner, M.O., blah blah
blah,typical Allison I can't deal with the substance so I go after the
poster, smear, ad hominem, etc. etc. ad nauseum]
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
06 Dec 2003 07:42:29 AM |
|
|
(ambrose searle aka richard gardiner) wrote:
:|buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote in message news:<1bt0tv0jetejplflt176dmnndl1c61t0pc@4ax.com>...
:|> wrote:
:|>
:|> >:|What I have said about you is the simple truth recognized by many
:|> >:|others in this group - in fact by any in this group who have read your
:|> >:|posts. It is not ad hominem, because it is not only true; it directly
:|> >:|and negatively affects the possibility of conducting a reasonable
:|> >:|discussion.
:|>
:|> You have that right. His style [blah blah blah]
:|
:|"All of this personality crap is beginning to be a real bore... You
:|aren't arguing your beliefs or opinions you are arguing me. When you
:|have nothing, I guess you have only two choices, disappear or focus on
:|the messenger."
:|
:|--JIM BUCKEYE ALLISON
:|
:|http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&selm=71i1au82l749pfd65dmuodo96gq8mvp1s4%404ax.com
:|
:|> Richard Gardiner AKA Ambrose Searle is experiencing that same situation.
:|> It either has not dawned on him that people get tired of his M.O.
:|
:|"All of this personality crap is beginning to be a real bore... You
:|aren't arguing your beliefs or opinions you are arguing me. When you
:|have nothing, I guess you have only two choices, disappear or focus on
:|the messenger."
:|
:|--JIM BUCKEYE ALLISON
:|
:|http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&selm=71i1au82l749pfd65dmuodo96gq8mvp1s4%404ax.com
:|
:|[snip more focus on Searle identity, Gardiner, M.O., blah blah
:|blah,typical Allison I can't deal with the substance so I go after the
:|poster, smear, ad hominem, etc. etc. ad nauseum]
**************************************************************************
(ambrose searle aka richard gardiner) wrote:
:|> Ho hum
:|>
:|> Welcome to the posting world of Richard Gardiner AKA Ambrose Searle
:|> http://makeashorterlink.com/?C363237B6
:|
:|"You aren't arguing your beliefs or opinions you are arguing me.
:|When you have nothing, I guess you have only two choices, disappear or
:|focus on the messenger."
:|
:|-JIM BUCKEYE ALLISON
:|
:|http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&selm=71i1au82l749pfd65dmuodo96gq8mvp1s4 %404ax.com
Jefferson and Hemings too no less. Kewl, it will be fun working that into
all of this
Heheheheheheheh
The problem with what you are offering is this:
You are offerign nothing, whereas I am offering discussions, debaters, you
caught lying, valid historical documentation, you caught insulting,
personally attacking others, misrepresenting, in short operatign your
entire M.O. to the fullest.
SO YOU SEE SONNY
:|"You aren't arguing your beliefs or opinions you are arguing me.
:|When you have nothing, I guess you have only two choices, disappear or
:|focus on the messenger."
I have something and I offer that something in the URls here. That
something is about the message as well as the messenger, actually that
somethign lets the messenger bury himself with the M.O. he can't breal away
from.
Welcome to the posting world of Richard Gardiner AKA Ambrose Searle
http://makeashorterlink.com/?C363237B6
*******************************
[Evaluation of March 1999]
http://makeashorterlink.com/?F3E6121B6
*****************************
Christian Orthodoxy And The Founders
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/orthodox.htm
FOLLOW UP
http://makeashorterlink.com/?T22952AB6
*******************************
Hey you remember this:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
As maff91 likes to finish his posts with:
Gardiner ineffectually crosses swords with Jim Alison.
<http://www.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/qs.xp?ST=PS&QRY=Gardiner+AND+%7Ea+%28jalison*%
29&defaultOp=AND&DBS=1&OP=dnquery.xp&LNG=ALL&subjects=&groups=&authors=&fr
omdate=&todate=&showsort=date&maxhits=100>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Too bad the ole deja.com URL doesn't work anymore, but hey I have found
some that do work
Many of the ones in this original article by Sinclair are working again
[Evaluation of March 1999]
http://makeashorterlink.com/?F3E6121B6
.
|
|
|
| User: "ambrose searle" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
09 Dec 2003 03:16:45 PM |
|
|
:|"You aren't arguing your beliefs or opinions you are arguing me.
:|When you have nothing, I guess you have only two choices, disappear or
:|focus on the messenger."
:|
:|-JIM BUCKEYE ALLISON
:|
:|http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&selm=71i1au82l749pfd65dmuodo96gq8mvp1s4 %404ax.com
Jefferson and Hemings too no less. Kewl, it will be fun working that into
all of this
Heheheheheheheh
The problem with what you are offering is this:
You are offerign nothing, whereas I am offering discussions,
You have NEVER been one to offer "discussions." You offer
cut-and-pastes, old URLS, chest pounding about the identity of
Searle/Gardiner.
You don't know how to carry on a meaningful conversation. And its
abundantly obvious to anyone who clicks on your username and randomly
looks at any one of your 12,000 posts over the last few years. The
majority of your posts are demonstrably cut-and-pastes.
You think that by posting randomly irrelevant huge reams of digital
material you have "won."
It might work for those with two digit IQ's, but for the discerning
reader, you are seen for what you are.
debaters,
Certainly not you.
you
caught lying,
You mean you OBSESSING with me. You are paranoid. The record shows
that you clearly spend sleepless nights having nightmares about
"Searle aka Gardiner" and how you MUST find some way to smear him lest
he say something that undermines your left-wing atheist agenda.
valid historical documentation,
.... which is very rarely relevant to the topic under discussion.
you caught insulting,
Don't worry, you are still the undisputed heavyweight champion of
posting insults, Jimbo.
personally attacking others,
Do you say that with a straight face, Mr. "Let me warn everybody about
Searle's personality, style, M.O., etc."?
misrepresenting,
I have represented you to a tee.
in short operatign your
entire M.O. to the fullest.
Your operatign M.O. is to avoid a real, substantive, debate at any
possible cost. Focus on the messenger, post 250 URLs per post, insult
your opponent, and follow up with a few cut and pastes from your old
tired website.
I have something and I offer that something in the URls here. That
something is about the message as well as the messenger, actually that
somethign lets the messenger bury himself with the M.O. he can't breal away
from.
Don't end a sentence with a preposition.
If anyone who posts to USENET has a clear stamp and style it is one
James BUCKEYE Allison, who lives by the ad hominem. I don't even need
to post URLs here to prove it. All anyone has to do is click on your
username and randomly look at any one of your posts to the political
groups. Chances are 99 -1 that whatever post they choose will have at
least one instance of you responding very briefly by calling your
opponent a "troll" or some other insult, followed up by cut and pastes
of URLs that don't really address the matter being discussed.
It is a rather fullproof experiment that future inquirers will be able
to do as long as the Google archives survive.
Your hope of going down as an "objective, unbiased, dispassionate"
poster who buried people in the facts is entirely lost. You have gone
down as a whining, insulting, childish bully, who simply cannot bring
himself to engage in neither scholarly discourse nor any sort of adult
communication.
Welcome to the posting world of one Jim Buckeye Allison.
Hey you remember this:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
As maff91 likes to finish his posts with:
Maff? This is the person who keeps referring to me, in all
seriousness, as a confederate Klan leader? Even YOU, with all your
wild paranoia, know better than that.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=18510aff.0312090726.70e28019%40posting.google.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=18510aff.0312010427.51e23fa9%40posting.google.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=18510aff.0312010437.2649cf9e%40posting.google.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
09 Dec 2003 06:21:01 PM |
|
|
"ambrose searle" <ambrosesearle@yahoo.com> wrote
You don't know how to carry on a meaningful conversation.
Your lies about the "Founding Fathers" hardly constitute discussion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ambrose searle" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
10 Dec 2003 02:15:01 PM |
|
|
"JTEM" <jaytem@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<SL2dnS52euG3-0ui4p2dnA@comcast.com>...
"ambrose searle" <ambrosesearle@yahoo.com> wrote
You don't know how to carry on a meaningful conversation.
Your lies about the "Founding Fathers" hardly constitute discussion.
Your responses are becoming more and more scholarly, substantive, and
academic. I am wowed by your depth and breadth of research and data.
Searle
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "ambrose searle" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
05 Dec 2003 11:11:05 AM |
|
|
I would even go so far as to say that the government recognizes no
right to revolution granted by positive law, but that such a right is,
as Jefferson said, a right endowed by the Creator, a divine right.
You have admitted again that there is no legal right of insurrection
under the US Constitution.
There is a divine right to alter or abolish a tyrannical government
inherent in American Political Thinking, starting with the Declaration
of Independence and implicit in the 2nd Amendment; it was a right
recognized by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, by Jefferson, by
Lincoln, and even now by the ACLU.
You are the only person who seems to deny it.
Martin Luther King, Jr. was another who wrote that it is the people's
DUTY to disobey the government when the government is in violation of
"higher law." And again, history vindicated his illegal actions to a
large degree.
And they remain illegal.
Not all. Some of the acts that were considered "illegal" actions of
civil disobedience, like a black drinking from a white water fountain,
are now, as an ultimate result of that disobedience, LEGAL.
The law has been changed. What he did (morally justified as it may
have been) was illegal at the time.
You said, "they REMAIN illegal." You were wrong... AGAIN.
Gratuitous insults having nothing to do with the debate, which you
have just admitted that you have lost.
There is no insult in the passage above, especially not the kinds of
insults you have slung throughout the thread.
What I have said about you is the simple truth recognized by many
others in this group
your fallacy ad populum isn't going to erase your fallacy ad homimen
http://www.santarosa.edu/~dpeterso/permanenthtml/propaganda/prop_adpopulum.htm
http://www.santarosa.edu/~dpeterso/permanenthtml/propaganda/prop_adhominem.htm
Searle
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
05 Dec 2003 04:20:00 PM |
|
|
"ambrose searle" <ambrosesearle@yahoo.com> wrote
There is a divine right to alter or abolish a tyrannical government
inherent in American Political Thinking,
This would explain why they created a constitution which included
the means to alter and/or abolish the government.
And, oh, you're lying about your sources.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ambrose searle" |
|
| Title: Re: church/state seperation |
09 Dec 2003 09:37:38 PM |
|
|
"JTEM" <jaytem@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<fsGdnSKGzOpSnkyi4p2dnA@comcast.com>...
"ambrose searle" <ambrosesearle@yahoo.com> wrote
There is a divine right to alter or abolish a tyrannical government
inherent in American Political Thinking,
This would explain why they created a constitution which included
the means to alter and/or abolish the government.
And, oh, you're lying about your sources.
Would you care to put any teeth into that allegation with specifics?
No?
I didn't think so.
Searle
.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
