Re: church/state seperation

On 27 Nov 2003 19:28:24 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (ambrose
searle) wrote:

>> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>> >>
>> >> The fact remains that you lied about what the amendment said.
>> >
>> >The wording of an amendment and what it says are not synonymous. 
>> 
>> First of all you claimed words that were not in it. 
>

>Which words did I claim were in it? Please provide a cite to that
>post.



>
>> Secondly the
>> amendment contradicts your interpretation of it.
>
>"My" interpretation? or the interpretation of the preponderance of
>Constitutional Scholars?


Please name one court case in which armed insurrection was found to be
a constitutional right.  The entire concept is absurd.  


>
>> >The first amendment says that church and state are to be separated,
>> >the explicity wording does not include that precise phrase.
>> 
>> There is a state.  Where is the church that is to be separated from
>> it?   
>
>Man, you really aren't educated are you?
>
>The church that they had in mind is the 3rd Presbyterian Church of
>Dubuque, Iowa.


In other words you have no answer.  Your phony sarcasm does not hide
that.


>
>> >Protection from what? The founders were clear: 1) protection from
>> >external invaders, AND 2) protection against tyrants who may have the
>> >reigns of our government.
>> >
>> >Why is this so hard for you to grasp?
>> 
>> Perhaps because the amendment specifically says that the militia is
>> for the protection of the state.  It says exactly the opposite of why
>> you are claiming for it.
>

>The security of a state can be threatened from without or within. 

Yes, by rebellion for example.

When
>the founders of the U.S., who were British citizens, took up arms
>against Britain, they felt they were protecting their own state.
>Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God, they said. We must be
>willing to protect our country from our government they said.

They may have said many things.  The amendment in question does not
give people the right of insurrection.   


>
>> >> >I will educate you.
>> >> 
>> >> No thank you. 
>> >
>> >I didn't think you had any interest in learning. Continue in your
>> >ignorance, then.
>> 
>> In short I will not buy your silly lies.
>
>Everything I have said to you is documented.

Distortions are also lies.  Your lie about Moore was based on
documented quotes for example.



None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.