Re: church/state seperation

"JTEM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> "ambrose searle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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,

Fine. Go ahead and dismiss scholars who make a living reading,
digesting, and publishing about the intentions of the founding
fathers, and claim that they don't know what the founders really
meant.

What's funny is even the ACLU itself is not so stupid to ignore the
FEDERALIST PAPERS, which leads them to even admit that the framers of
the constitution conceived of "security against the central
government" by means of the second amendment.

See http://archive.aclu.org/library/aaguns.html

The ACLU is very aware that Federalist #28 includes the following:

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there
is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of
self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government,
and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be
exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those
of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the
persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different
parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no
distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense.
The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without
system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. The
usurpers, clothed with the forms of legal authority, can too often
crush the opposition in embryo. The smaller the extent of the
territory, the more difficult will it be for the people to form a
regular or systematic plan of opposition, and the more easy will it be
to defeat their early efforts. Intelligence can be more speedily
obtained of their preparations and movements, and the military force
in the possession of the usurpers can be more rapidly directed against
the part where the opposition has begun. In this situation there must
be a peculiar coincidence of circumstances to insure success to the
popular resistance."

The ACLU also know that Tench Coxe wrote the following 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
powers to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are
confirmed by the next article [the Second Amendment] in their right to
keep and bear their private arms."

- Tench Coxe, "Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the
Federal Constitution" Philadelphia Federal Gazette, 18 June 1789 at 2
col. 1

> 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.

You don't even deal with the citation of Jefferson I provided
regarding Shays!

http://earlyamerica.com/review/summer/letter.html

"Even this evil is productive of good. It prevents the degeneracy of
government and nourishes a general attention to the public affairs. I
hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as
necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.
Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments
on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation
of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in
their  punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It
is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."


> "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 certainly express yourself in the most scholarly, dispassionate,
and academic way. I'm sure you gain a lot of respect for being so
articulate.

Searle