Calvin's Influence
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|Mike Curtis wrote:
>:|>
>:|> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|>
>:|> Argue with Allison about Allison.
>:|
>:|When you butt in and defend him, you invite a response.
>:|
>:|Don't defend him if you don't want to answer for it.
Sheesh, my name seems to appear an lot in your posts.
You seem a bit obsessed or something with me. LOL
**********************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
Page is a member of the following web rings:
The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
Freethought Ring--&--The History Ring
Legal Research Ring
**********************************************
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|
>:|>Mike Curtis wrote:
>:|>>
>:|>> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|>>
>:|>> I'm not saying in all this that people were not religious.
>:|>>
>:|>> There may be some confusion as to what my position is.
>:|>>
>:|>> Help me out by telling me what you think my position is.
>:|>
>:|>All I know is that you have consistently expressed a problem with my thesis
>:|>that "the religious context of the American colonies permeated the colonists lives."
>:|
>:|Yet you refuse to help me understand what you think I'm saying and
>:|therefore I can't correct your perceptions.
>:|
>:|>Reading wills, birth records, nomenclature, etc., really highlights my point.
>:|
>:|Not really. It shows a facet of the character of a particular culture.
>:|Northern visitors to the south noticed a different emphasis.
>:|
>:|Visitors from the North saw the mid-18th century south as " remarkably
>:|easy going and even frivolous. In Williamsburg and Annapolis, the two
>:|tiny capitals, cards, racing, and the theater were normal pursuits of
>:|the legislative season. Parson seldom opposed these pursuits and
>:|sometimes took cordial part in them. In correspondence of young men of
>:|the dominant class, a light tone was conventional, with much sighing
>:|over the cruelty of the fair Belinda or Phyllis and a complete absence
>:|of religious references. As young men grow older, the lightness
>:|usually vanishes, giving place to irritable complaints about the
>:|unreliability of weather, prices, neighbors, and slaves, not without
>:|occasional reflections of the unsatisfactoriness of human nature
>:|itself. Good manners might require an appearance of ease and
>:|geniality, but what really counted were such virtues as prudence,
>:|caution, and hard work. Planters were seldom interested in theological
>:|dispute or mystical contemplation. what they wanted was a decent,
>:|orderly religion which would remind everybody of his position, his
>:|duties, and his limitations." (Page 69 of _The Enlightenment in
>:|America_ by Henry F. May, Oxford, 1976)
>:|
Nice post
Nice job of filling in all the various details that does not get included
as some do a duper job of generalizing history.
Mike Curtis
Thanks. Gardiner called May's book "tunnel history." Well, this is
another book our minister hasn't read.
Mike
Mike Curtis
Ambrose Bierce wrote:
BASTINADO, n. The act of walking on wood without exertion.
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>:|>
>:|> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|>
>:|> >:|jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>:|> >:|>
>:|> >:|>
>:|> >:|
>:|> >:|Excellent. Well, we are at least in agreement on one thing.
>:|> >:|
>:|>
>:|> You forgot to address any of the points:
>:|
>:|I don't have to time nor inclination to play with you.
>:|
>:|Furthermore, there are no "points"
>:|
>:|> ***********************************************************************************
>:|> >:|A lot leads back to Judeo-Christian origins as well. This is the part which
>:|> >:|embarrasses the ACLU crowd who futily attempt to extricate mainstream
>:|> >:|religious elements from our socio-cultural fiber.
>:|>
>:|> Your politics are clouding your vision.
>:|
>:|That's a point? That's just speculation about my politics. Are you alleging
>:|that the ACLU does not attempt to extricate religious elements from public
>:|life in the U.S.?
>:|
Not speculation. (The speculation claim is made by someone who makes a
career out of speculating.)
As to part two, I am saying the ACLU defends both the establishment clause
and free exercise clause of the Constitution.
>:|> Embarrasses the ACLU crowd? Yea Right
>:|
>:|That's a "point"? Yeah right.
>:|
As much a point as your comment was.
>:|> >:|In doing so, they make silly
>:|> >:|arguments like "the founders were all deists and unitarians" (that was the
>:|>
>:|> Many were, therefore it isn't silly.
>:|
>:|That's a "point." Using that logic, I could say that since many were orthodox
>:|Christians, it's not silly to say that all the founders were all orthodox
>:|Christians. It's very silly. It's stupid. It's a reckless use of universal
>:|quantifiers like "all" and "none" and "everyone." Learn a little logic.
>:|
>:|> >:|line of argument presented by a fellow in this group named Bob Johnson which
>:|> >:|ignited this debate).
>:|>
>:|> Yea, the man you stated would have to accept your conclusions, if he had
>:|> any integrity.
>:|
>:|That's a "point"? Talk about DISTORTION! You derived the above from my
>:|statement "I hope you at least have the integrity to admit that Jefferson was
>:|not at the Constitutional Convention in 1787"
No distortion at all, you are the one who said it.
>:|
>:|> I don't have to time nor inclination to play with you.
>:|
>:|Now that's a good point. So stop doing it. I totally ignore your massive
>:|cut-and-pastes regarding your "tunnel" of the 1787 constitution. I am
>:|attempting to stay on track with Mr. Curtis regarding the sources of the
>:|theory behind American independence. I don't have time nor inclination to play
>:|your games.
Sorry about that, you weren't doing to well were you?
Most of those cut and pastes that bug you so much directly counter claims
you have previously made.
I don't suppose that would have anything to do with your choice of ignoring
them? yea, right. :-)
>:|
>:|Since I own "the Godless Constitution" I have no disposition whatsoever to
>:|review your massive cuts and pastes.
It is a real pity that you apparently chose not to read it or dismiss it.
it does offer information that directly counters some of your cherished
claims.
>:|Perhaps someone else in this group will
>:|find it amusing. As Mr. Curtis said so correctly yesterday, newsgroups are
>:|supposed to be used for a personal exchange, not for the impersonal and
>:|effortless posting of texts which he said are "boring."
>:|
Actually, IIRC, Mike enjoyed the material on the religious test ban which
included some of the Godless Constitution material.
You know, as one who is suppose to be interested in history, you should be
willing to take a look at any historical data that anyone provides.
We aren't talking opinions here, we are talking about documented historical
data.
It is interesting that you don't seem to want to consider all such
material.
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|Mike Curtis wrote:
>:|>
>:|> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|>
>:|> > I believe
>:|> >that Christianity permeates the Declaration of Indepence,
>:|>
>:|> I'm glad you have this belief. Yet you have provided very little here
>:|> in this news group to support that belief. We started a discussion on
>:|> this when we started to discuss Calvin's influence and Jefferson. we
>:|> also saw hand wave away Jefferson's contention that the laws of New
>:|> England were foreign laws.
>:|
>:|What? "hand wave Jefferson's contention"? First, please show me when and where
>:|Jefferson said this. I don't doubt it, but if it were said prior to the
>:|unification of the states, it makes perfect sense. Second, please explain what
>:|this has to do with the subject matter of Calvin's influence?
>:|
>:|> > and I believe that,
>:|> >on a subconscious
>:|>
>:|
>:|> > level Christianity permeates the Constitution.
>:|>
Oh yes that is a good one.
Well you are entitled to what you want to believe. Beliefs do not
automatically equal truths.
They equal personal truths for your perhaps, but they do not equal actual
truths.
>:|> And thus far you have been lacking in evidence to support this
>:|> assertion or belief you have. With that belief and the mind reading
>:|> your doing I'd still have to give you two dollars for a cup of coffee.
>:|
>:|Read Donald Lutz: A Covenanted People. Religious Tradition and the Origin of
>:|American Constitutionalism (The John Carter Brown Library: Providence, RI, 1987.)
Donald Lutz is giving the truth? All agree with him?
No dissents, huh?
This is the same Donald Lutz that did the other study that forget to
mention Luther or Calvin and mentioned something to the effect that the
influence of the Bible was less doing the founding years then prior to the
founding years.
Founding years meaning the framing etc of the Constitution.
Lutz has written a book and that is kewl. In it he is given his opinion.
probably his informed opinion based on research he has done. That's kewl,
too.
I doubt if his work is the final word on the matter.
I would be worthwhile reading and studying, but so would others who
probably disagree with him.
>:|
>:|Also, if you know how to interpret the documents of a historical context,
>:|consider the information posted at http://www.universitylake.org/primarysources.html
>:|
>:|> > Although
>:|> >Christianity was not always on the lips and pens of the founders, I believe it
>:|> >ran through their veins.
You believe it ran through their veins, but because it wasn't in their
writings etc you can't prove it?
Ahhh, I see. So what we are really dealing with is your opinion.
(The observed is influenced by the observer)
>:|>
>:|> Of course you do.
>:|>
>:|> > To prove this point, simply take a close look at
>:|> >http://www.universitylake.org/primarysources.html. Look at the socio-cultural
>:|> >context. Consider it carefully. Yes, you will find it dripping with religion.
>:|>
>:|> A smattering of documents
>:|
>:|I think you better look again. What documents do you find missing from this collection?
>:|
>:|> not connected to any particular thesis mean
>:|> nothing. At least Allison addresses your points with the writings of
>:|> actual framers.
>:|
>:|What?? First of all my "point" is not limited to the framers.
Nor has my posted material been material by just the few men who actually
framed the Constitution or BOR's
>:|Secondly,
>:|Allison usually posts massive court decisions of later years or journal
>:|articles;
Incorrect again. Your not doing to well here.
Lets see in my many posts since early March in these threads I have posted
material from only a few court cases as I recall.
The Holy Trinity case you brought into the discussion.
Minor v Ohio was in reply to some point you were trying to make
Oh yes, about the common law I believe, and the same with the other cases.
In all respects they were in response to something you had or were
stating.
Journals? Didn't you cite Lutz above? Lutz has written articles for
Journals as well. Seems like it is allowed for you to quote from or cite
journals, huh?
Also you should know by now, journal articles usually give massive
citations to primary material.
>:| granted, he has posted a few letters of Jefferson and Madison (one
>:|of the two was a framer), but I take issue with your claim that these posts
>:|"address my points."
LOL, I have posted far more then the primary sources of a few letters from
Jefferson and Madison.
Of course you take issue that these posts address your points, but you have
just displayed your ignorance of most of these posts, so you couldn't know
if they address your points or not. You have either ignored them or quickly
scanned them without really understanding what they are saying. Or you
could not have been so off on what all I have posted that was actual
historical data
You apparently have been out to lunch recently regarding what I do post.
Your mind is so made up that you are missing vast amounts of material that
addresses your claims and points quite directly.
>:|
>:|I never read Madison saying for instance "Christianity did not permeate the
>:|colonies." Instead I read Madison saying that liberty of conscience is a
>:|fundamental principle which ought be incorporated into our mode of
>:|government--a sentiment with which I wholeheartedly agree.
Kewl, and this proves what?
>:|
>:|Your desperate attempt to defend Alison only makes you look more silly.
>:|
>:|> Some folks read them and some folks do not take the
>:|> time because they are long and tedious. Yet these documents do address
>:|> your assertions. Unfortunately Allison expects intelligent folks to
>:|> think for themselves.
>:|
>:|That is a nice way of saying that Alison just cuts-and-pastes because he is
>:|too lazy to argue a thesis in his own words using only the pertinent sections
>:|of his massive collection of documents.
LOL.
Not playing the game the way others want me to play their game does manage
to upset a lot of people.
I don't waste my time arguing with people when they have nothing to offer
except their opinion.
I have found far more times then I care to remember that so many of those
opinions are grounded in incorrect data.
I prefer to offer the evidence and then go from there if the person cares
to continue.
My experience has been, most do not want to go from there, instead they get
all bent out of shape and more then a little upset. They huff and puff,
name call, vent their anger and then disappear.
They won't address the material that just showed some of their pet theories
were based on incorrect data or assumptions.
>:|
>:|Anyone can cut and paste huge sections of a webpage. It takes someone with a
>:|little savvy to actually discuss the material academically.
>:|
Really? You know anyone like that? You haven't done so good in that
department.
All this fu*king personal shit, what does this have to do with anything?
You have made claims and comments. I have posted historical data that
didn't support your claims and comments.
I have called you to provide data that directly supports your claims, you
seldom did, instead you huffed and puffed, generated a lot of hot air in
the form of words on my screen, but didn't address the actual stuff I had
replied with.
Now all this.
LOL.
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|Mike Curtis wrote:
>:|>
>:|> 5) The two most often quoted sources by the founders were,
>:|> first, the Bible, and second, William Blackstone's Common Law
>:|> Commentaries (See Hyneman & Lutz). Blackstone was a full fledged
>:|> believer in revealed religion (i.e., the bible), and most of his
>:|> content was rooted in medieval (Catholic) political philosophy
>:|> (e.g., the Magna Carta). What's more, the entire Common Law tradition
>:|> was rooted in orthodox Christianity.
>:|>
>:|> [And it seems that Allison took issue with you on this particular
>:|> part.]
>:|
>:|He did not. I was never able to get out of him an answer "yes" or "no" to the
>:|question, "was Christianity part of the Common Law."
>:|
As I recall, I posted a series of posts on that mater.
>:|He said he's not competent enough to answer the question. He did show where
>:|Jefferson said Christianity never was part of the common law, but he also
>:|quoted a commentator who said that Jefferson had erred in this respect.
Ahhh, lets get the facts straight. This "commentator" was a well respected
scholar on the subject of the Constitution etc.
This "commenter" actually said that Jefferson's history was basically
correct, but his conclusions were not as accurate. This "commentator also
said that Story was equally incorrect in some of his comments, etc.
You seemed to have forgotten all that.
>:|
>:|I repeat the question for Alison to answer, "was Christianity part of the
>:|common law"?
>:|
>:|(you can expect him to post an answer such as "who cares" and then post
>:|sixteen pages of a journal article which shows that the Common Law has been
>:|abrogated in some respects in 1999)
You do seem to be stuck in a 1999 rut concerning me, and I bet you cannot
produce a single comment by me that has anything to do with 1999. But I
have run across several comments of yours where you bring up your invention
regarding my alleged use of or importance placed on 1999.
I will say what I have said before. England had a union between church and
state. In essence they were one and the same. Any combining of Christianity
and the so called common law (and Mike has taken you to task on the whole
subject of "common law") is not so unusual, now is it?
What exactly did that mean in this country once the various states began
to write their own constitutions?
What exactly did that mean to this country once this nation ratified its
own national constitution?
What exactly did that mean to this country once the BOR's was ratified and
became part of the constitution?
N.Y. nullified any common law connections if, those laws conflicted with
the new NY constitution.
I provided you with a court decision of one of the states, Ohio I believe
that flatly said the common law was not part of that state's laws.
I provided you with historical evidence where one of the reasons the
country was in such an uproar with the new Federal Judiciary was because
the Supreme Court and other Federal courts (which since the justices of the
Supreme court rode circuits, would have been manned by said justices) were
applying common law without Congress ever passing laws incorporating said
common laws as part and parcel of the laws of this nation.
All the above must have been some of the material that you decided to
overlook, huh?
>:|To be fair, you have occasionally risen above Mr. Alison's narrow interest in
>:|church/state, "the only thing that matters is the constitution," and "if it's
>:|not the law presently, then its a so what," or more importantly his statement
>:|"let's face it, you're not going to influence me, and I'm not going to
>:|influence you."
>:|
Narrow interest, huh?
Does that bother you?
Actually you know little about my interests, but that's ok.
Where and when did I say that the only thing that matters is the
constitution? I suspect this is another of your inventions, or you took it
out of a complete sentence that is put back together would have a more
involved meaning then you are trying to give it.
Do you always misrepresent others so much?
Can you produce your other invented quote that you are trying to pass off
as mine?
>:|"let's face it, you're not going to influence me, and I'm not going to
>:|influence you."
Having been on here since feb 1995, I can say with some degree of accuracy
that most people who feel strongly enough to take a stand on here, takes
the time and effort to post material beyond an occasional comment ( like
half a dozen times a year or so, etc) usually has some pretty strong
feelings about the matter they are posting and replying about.
When they engage in prolonged 'discussions" with others they usually will
defend their position.
It is very rare when they change that position as a result of the
discussions that took place.
It usually does become a pro/con discussion.
The audience really does become the lurkers or readers that read such
threads in the news groups.
This is not something that is not understood by most who post and or reply
in these news groups.
I frequently find people who I argued with in 1995 or 1996 still arguing
the same positions they argued back then today.
That is quite common. I am truly surprised that you seem to think this is
odd or strange.
BTW this is another one of those examples where you have taken one sentence
from a whole discourse and like to focus on it. As mike recently said in
quoting another, *its right but not accurate.*
>:|You have also risen slightly above his extremely cantankerous and belittling style.
Have you ever bothered to read back over some of your posts? To me, to
others?
Mike has pointed out to you on more then one occasion how rude and crude
you are many times.
You have no room to talk about anyone else. LOL
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>:|>
>:|> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|>
>:|> >:|jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>:|> >:|>
>:|> >:|> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|> >:|Anyone with a modicum of knowledge knows that "Sundays excepted" has its roots
>:|> >:|in a Christian socio-cultural practice of observing a Sunday Sabbath.
>:|>
>:|> That was not the claim being made by Carey.
>:|>
>:|> BTW not all Christian sects consider Sunday to be the so called sabbath. In
>:|> fact some claim that to do so is unchristian.
>:|>
>:|> I would really like to see you try to advance the Sunday's excepted
>:|> argument.
>:|
>:|Not gonna do it. Not gonna do it. If I thought you might be cordial,
>:|professional, academic, and scholarly, I'd venture into a further debate with
>:|you.
Nice cop out.
>:| As it is, you have shown that you're not really interested in a
>:|conversation. You have explicitly said that "you won't ever change my mind,
>:|and I won't change yours." All you really want to do is berate and abuse, and
>:|I my life is too short for elementary school behavior.
And in the same time period as you used in typing the above you could have
tried to make your case.
It would help though if you actually knew what that ancient discussion was
really about.
>:|
>:|Additionally, I just don't see the need to argue the fact that the Sundays
>:|excepted clause is a characteristic of the Christian heritage of the United
>:|States. That's self-evident.
See above.
This is the third time now I will tell you that was not the argument.
>:| I suppose with a bit of sophistry you can argue
>:|against it, or anything for that matter. Mathematical theorists can show that
>:|2+2 really equals 5.
>:|
You have no idea what the argument was about and you go on and on with
something that the argument was not about.
>:|People of common sense don't care a whole lot about manipulative sophistical arguments.
You sure have done your share of what you are claiming for me.
>:|
>:|I'll continue to discuss tenable positions with people of common sense.
LOL
My my I really do seem to have upset you a great deal since early March.
Ahhhh, well.
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>:|>
>:|> mi...@x.aimetering.com.nospam (Mike Curtis) wrote:
>:|>
>:|> >:|jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>:|> >:|
>:|> >:|>
>:|> >:|>His logic is valid, your attempts to dance around it or deflect it is sad.
>:|> >:|>
>:|> >:|
>:|> >:|I guess my point is getting across to someone.
>:|> >:|
>:|>
>:|> It is, and far more effective then Gardiner wants to admit, which is
>:|> probably why he works so hard to try and discredit it.
>:|
>:|Let's review the logic which is so "valid" and so easy to get across. These
>:|comments were precipitated by the suggestion that the absence of Christian
>:|jargon in the constitution leads to the conclusion that the framers were an
>:|anti-religious bunch.
>:|
That is your argument, not mine.
You will be hard pressed to find anywhere any argument of mine that stated
the founders were a anti-religious bunch.
That actually is frequently an argument advanced by those on the religious
right, i.e. to favor separation of church and state is to be
anti-religious.
I believe I saw, just today, where you stated I was anti-Christian.
No evidence offered, just you saying it.
Gardiner
> probably his informed opinion based on research he has done. That's kewl,
> too.
>
> I doubt if his work is the final word on the matter.
>
> I would be worthwhile reading and studying, but so would others who
> probably disagree with him.
As would be all the alleged "scholars" you continually say support your
assertions. You pretend that your guys are authoritative, but everyone else
offers only their opinion, but not both sides of the issue.
You continuously attempt to use a double standard, and it is very blatant.
Mike Curtis
>>:|Perhaps someone else in this group will
>>:|find it amusing. As Mr. Curtis said so correctly yesterday, newsgroups are
>>:|supposed to be used for a personal exchange, not for the impersonal and
>>:|effortless posting of texts which he said are "boring."
>>:|
>
>Actually, IIRC, Mike enjoyed the material on the religious test ban which
>included some of the Godless Constitution material.
I found it all useful. I've seen it before but not in one spot. But
again, because God is not mentioned in the constitution does not mean
the authors were godless.
>You know, as one who is suppose to be interested in history, you should be
>willing to take a look at any historical data that anyone provides.
Bingo!
>We aren't talking opinions here, we are talking about documented historical
>data.
>
>It is interesting that you don't seem to want to consider all such
>material.
<smile>
Mike Curtis
Please visit:
http://www.holocaust-history.org/
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
http://www.nizkor.org
http://www.abebooks.com
http://www.bibliofind.com
Abrose Bierce wrote: HERS, pron. His.
Mike Curtis
>>:|
>>:|I repeat the question for Alison to answer, "was Christianity part of the
>>:|common law"?
>>:|
>>:|(you can expect him to post an answer such as "who cares" and then post
>>:|sixteen pages of a journal article which shows that the Common Law has been
>>:|abrogated in some respects in 1999)
>
>
>You do seem to be stuck in a 1999 rut concerning me, and I bet you cannot
>produce a single comment by me that has anything to do with 1999. But I
>have run across several comments of yours where you bring up your invention
>regarding my alleged use of or importance placed on 1999.
>
>I will say what I have said before. England had a union between church and
>state. In essence they were one and the same. Any combining of Christianity
>and the so called common law (and Mike has taken you to task on the whole
>subject of "common law") is not so unusual, now is it?
It seems to have been dropped since I posted that URL about Roman Law.
> What exactly did that mean in this country once the various states began
>to write their own constitutions?
I'll be simplistic. Each state tended to establish one or more
churches and tax the people to support the established church.
>What exactly did that mean to this country once this nation ratified its
>own national constitution?
Not much. Many states kept their establishments. What's important is
that the 1787 constitution did not establish a church or religion. the
1791 amendments made it unconstitutional for the Federal Government to
establish a church or religion. States eventually added the same to
their constitutions. I think MA was the last.
It's a real complex history.
>What exactly did that mean to this country once the BOR's was ratified and
>became part of the constitution?
Darn, I answered that above. Darn.
>N.Y. nullified any common law connections if, those laws conflicted with
>the new NY constitution.
>
>I provided you with a court decision of one of the states, Ohio I believe
>that flatly said the common law was not part of that state's laws.
>
>I provided you with historical evidence where one of the reasons the
>country was in such an uproar with the new Federal Judiciary was because
>the Supreme Court and other Federal courts (which since the justices of the
>Supreme court rode circuits, would have been manned by said justices) were
>applying common law without Congress ever passing laws incorporating said
>common laws as part and parcel of the laws of this nation.
A bit out of my area. What was going on with that Judge they tried to
impeach during the Jeffersonian Era? Was that over the Sedition laws?
>All the above must have been some of the material that you decided to
>overlook, huh?
>
>>:|To be fair, you have occasionally risen above Mr. Alison's narrow interest in
>>:|church/state, "the only thing that matters is the constitution," and "if it's
>>:|not the law presently, then its a so what," or more importantly his statement
>>:|"let's face it, you're not going to influence me, and I'm not going to
>>:|influence you."
>>:|
>
>Narrow interest, huh?
>Does that bother you?
>
>Actually you know little about my interests, but that's ok.
>
>Where and when did I say that the only thing that matters is the
>constitution? I suspect this is another of your inventions, or you took it
>out of a complete sentence that is put back together would have a more
>involved meaning then you are trying to give it.
It's quite annoying how many of our arguments become re-written.
>Do you always misrepresent others so much?
>Can you produce your other invented quote that you are trying to pass off
>as mine?
>>:|"let's face it, you're not going to influence me, and I'm not going to
>>:|influence you."
>
>Having been on here since feb 1995, I can say with some degree of accuracy
>that most people who feel strongly enough to take a stand on here, takes
>the time and effort to post material beyond an occasional comment ( like
>half a dozen times a year or so, etc) usually has some pretty strong
>feelings about the matter they are posting and replying about.
>
>When they engage in prolonged 'discussions" with others they usually will
>defend their position.
>It is very rare when they change that position as a result of the
>discussions that took place.
It does happen. But what annoys me is that when trying to present a
position of my case for Mr. Gardiner it gets all warped out of shape.
Since I can agree with some of what he says, while disagreeing with
some of what he says, I get pushed down the same road of those who
totally disagree with him. the same is happening to you. That's the
problem with people and their extremes. People with extreme positions
have to have all or nothing. Those trying to accurate explain
differences must be placed in some extreme to make the other
comfortable. I see Gardiner as an extreme based on his Web site and
those who review his book. I also place him there based on his
performance in this news group. You, I see, as a student of the
church/state issue and you take a legal and historical approach to the
subject. It also means you are not free of passion. I'm not free of
passion when it comes to accurate history.
>It usually does become a pro/con discussion.
Sadly.
>The audience really does become the lurkers or readers that read such
>threads in the news groups.
>This is not something that is not understood by most who post and or reply
>in these news groups.
>
>I frequently find people who I argued with in 1995 or 1996 still arguing
>the same positions they argued back then today.
A great book called Why Do People Believe in Weird Things by Michael
Shermer is a must read. He presents the creation debate in a
fascinating way. These people will get up on stage and despite being
proven logically and scientifically wrong they will appear at the next
city and repeat the same flawed points and distortions. Holocaust
Deniers do the same thing. So we tend to save material on our hard
drives and cut & paste responses. They are after all the same exact
faulty conclusions and questions. Examples of repeat stuff:
1. Hoess was tortured so none of his testimony is valid.
2. 6 million Jews were gassed to death.
3. 4 million Jews were gassed at Auschwitz.
4. There is no evidence for gas chambers at Auschwitz.
5. Hitler didn't know what was going on.
All the above statements are not true. So we keep our standard replies
as you must on Church/state issues.
>That is quite common. I am truly surprised that you seem to think this is
>odd or strange.
>BTW this is another one of those examples where you have taken one sentence
>from a whole discourse and like to focus on it. As mike recently said in
>quoting another, *its right but not accurate.*
A little truth among distortions can go a long way. See number 1
above.
The British upon capturing Rudolf Hoess (commandant of Auschwitz) was
subjected to sleep deprivation and other stresses to get him to admit
that he was Rudolf Hoess. After that it was simply a question and
answer period. He signed an affidavit. Then he was sent to Nuremberg
at the request of Kaltenbrunner's defense to answer questions before
the Tribunal. He was deposed over a two day period by the prosecution.
He thought that his time at Nuremberg was like a "health spa." Hoess'
story never changed. He signed 4 0r 5 affidavits and they all said the
same thing all the way up until his execution.
A little truth with a lie is propaganda when it is constantly
repeated.
2. About 6 million Jews were murdered during the holocaust. They were
not all gassed. 12 million total innocents were murdered during the
holocaust of which about half were Jews.
3. 1.13 million were murdered at Auschwitz. About 900,000 were Jewish.
Hoess made this claim in 1946. It's been independently validated
today.
4. there are blue prints for the gas chambers.
I don't have the time to address the fifth point. but gee, do I have
to?
>>:|You have also risen slightly above his extremely cantankerous and belittling style.
>Have you ever bothered to read back over some of your posts? To me, to
>others?
>
>Mike has pointed out to you on more then one occasion how rude and crude
>you are many times.
>You have no room to talk about anyone else. LOL
I think it is simply his way. He knows not what he does.
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>:|
>:|
>:|>>:|Perhaps someone else in this group will
>:|>>:|find it amusing. As Mr. Curtis said so correctly yesterday, newsgroups are
>:|>>:|supposed to be used for a personal exchange, not for the impersonal and
>:|>>:|effortless posting of texts which he said are "boring."
>:|>>:|
>:|>
>:|>Actually, IIRC, Mike enjoyed the material on the religious test ban which
>:|>included some of the Godless Constitution material.
>:|
>:|I found it all useful. I've seen it before but not in one spot. But
>:|again, because God is not mentioned in the constitution does not mean
>:|the authors were godless.
>:|
I don't understand the above comment.
Gardiner has made it as well. It is a common tactic of the religious right
to claim anyone interested in separation of church and state is
anti-religious
I have never said the founders were Godless. I imagine in their own ways
each was quite religious. Jefferson in his own private way was. The private
religious practices and beliefs of Madison seem to be the lest known of
most of that time period.
At any rate, my position is not they were Godless. Some called them Godless
when they read the religious test ban clause.
>:|>You know, as one who is suppose to be interested in history, you should be
>:|>willing to take a look at any historical data that anyone provides.
>:|
>:|Bingo!
>:|
>:|>We aren't talking opinions here, we are talking about documented historical
>:|>data.
>:|>
>:|>It is interesting that you don't seem to want to consider all such
>:|>material.
>:|
>:|<smile>
Wonder if he will pay attention?
Mike Curtis
>mi...@x.aimetering.com.nospam (Mike Curtis) wrote:
>
>>:|jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>>:|
>>:|
>>:|>>:|Perhaps someone else in this group will
>>:|>>:|find it amusing. As Mr. Curtis said so correctly yesterday, newsgroups are
>>:|>>:|supposed to be used for a personal exchange, not for the impersonal and
>>:|>>:|effortless posting of texts which he said are "boring."
>>:|>>:|
>>:|>
>>:|>Actually, IIRC, Mike enjoyed the material on the religious test ban which
>>:|>included some of the Godless Constitution material.
>>:|
>>:|I found it all useful. I've seen it before but not in one spot. But
>>:|again, because God is not mentioned in the constitution does not mean
>>:|the authors were godless.
>>:|
>
>
>I don't understand the above comment.
>Gardiner has made it as well. It is a common tactic of the religious right
>to claim anyone interested in separation of church and state is
>anti-religious
I agree. I was commenting on the title of the book and not so much any
individual. If these folks claim anyone interested in separation of
church and state is anti-religious then they must look to the Puritans
of Massachusetts Bay who did make early laws separating church and
state. So folks who make that claim about people calling for
separation are ignorant of American history.
>I have never said the founders were Godless.
I never said that you did.
> I imagine in their own ways
>each was quite religious. Jefferson in his own private way was. The private
>religious practices and beliefs of Madison seem to be the lest known of
>most of that time period.
>At any rate, my position is not they were Godless. Some called them Godless
>when they read the religious test ban clause.
>>:|>You know, as one who is suppose to be interested in history, you should be
>>:|>willing to take a look at any historical data that anyone provides.
>>:|
>>:|Bingo!
>>:|
>>:|>We aren't talking opinions here, we are talking about documented historical
>>:|>data.
>>:|>
>>:|>It is interesting that you don't seem to want to consider all such
>>:|>material.
>>:|
>>:|<smile>
>Wonder if he will pay attention?
Hasn't yet.
Gardiner
>
> jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>
> >>:|Perhaps someone else in this group will
> >>:|find it amusing. As Mr. Curtis said so correctly yesterday, newsgroups are
> >>:|supposed to be used for a personal exchange, not for the impersonal and
> >>:|effortless posting of texts which he said are "boring."
> >>:|
> >
> >Actually, IIRC, Mike enjoyed the material on the religious test ban which
> >included some of the Godless Constitution material.
>
> I found it all useful. I've seen it before but not in one spot. But
> again, because God is not mentioned in the constitution does not mean
> the authors were godless.
>
> >willing to take a look at any historical data that anyone provides.
>
> Bingo!
That Bingo Comes from one who once scolded Alison for posting so much stuff.
Oh well, consistency is too much to expect, I guess.
RG
Gardiner
> >produce a single comment by me that has anything to do with 1999. But I
> >have run across several comments of yours where you bring up your invention
> >regarding my alleged use of or importance placed on 1999.
> >
> >I will say what I have said before. England had a union between church and
> >state. In essence they were one and the same. Any combining of Christianity
> >and the so called common law (and Mike has taken you to task on the whole
> >subject of "common law") is not so unusual, now is it?
Taken me to task?? In what way? By saying that the Plymouth settlers only
embraced a "tiny" portion of the common law when his source said otherwise?
That was the bulk of about a week's posting on this subject.
> It seems to have been dropped since I posted that URL about Roman Law.
No No No No NO. You dropped it. I have wanted to stay on this topic all along.
We were working through the common law in regard to Plymouth and we were about
to move to Mass Bay, when, for whatever reason, someone decided that all that
didn't matter and we should really be discussing 1787, the time when
everything was supposedly created from scratch.
Please please please return to the topic of common law. That's where we go
beyond the shallow 8th grade history and begin to find out the complex genesis
of the founder's political and legal thinking.
> > What exactly did that mean in this country once the various states began
> >to write their own constitutions?
>
> I'll be simplistic. Each state tended to establish one or more
> churches and tax the people to support the established church.
>
> >What exactly did that mean to this country once this nation ratified its
> >own national constitution?
>
> Not much. Many states kept their establishments. What's important is
> that the 1787 constitution did not establish a church or religion. the
> 1791 amendments made it unconstitutional for the Federal Government to
> establish a church or religion. States eventually added the same to
> their constitutions. I think MA was the last.
>
> It's a real complex history.
Sounds to me like you got it right.
> >>:|You have also risen slightly above his extremely cantankerous and belittling style.
>
> >Have you ever bothered to read back over some of your posts? To me, to
> >others?
> >
> >Mike has pointed out to you on more then one occasion how rude and crude
> >you are many times.
>
> >You have no room to talk about anyone else. LOL
>
> I think it is simply his way. He knows not what he does.
Is that an allusion to the gospel, I hear? Sounds good to me. Do you know the
context of that allusion? If so, you understand grace,
Rick Gardiner
http://www.universitylake.org/primarysources.html
Mike Curtis
>Mike Curtis wrote:
>>
>> jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>>
>> >You do seem to be stuck in a 1999 rut concerning me, and I bet you cannot
>> >produce a single comment by me that has anything to do with 1999. But I
>> >have run across several comments of yours where you bring up your invention
>> >regarding my alleged use of or importance placed on 1999.
>> >
>> >I will say what I have said before. England had a union between church and
>> >state. In essence they were one and the same. Any combining of Christianity
>> >and the so called common law (and Mike has taken you to task on the whole
>> >subject of "common law") is not so unusual, now is it?
>
>Taken me to task?? In what way? By saying that the Plymouth settlers only
>embraced a "tiny" portion of the common law when his source said otherwise?
>That was the bulk of about a week's posting on this subject.
Actually, that was only a part of it. You dropped the whole darn
argument when I dropped the laws of Justinian on you.
>> It seems to have been dropped since I posted that URL about Roman Law.
>
>No No No No NO. You dropped it.
Yes, yes, yes.
> I have wanted to stay on this topic all along.
Yeah, sure that's why after the Justian part you simply never
responded again other than this: "I never said that Roman law wasn't a
part of the common law."
How long did it take me to find that piece myself. I'm merely an
uncultured baffoon. I'm an average reader searching the web for stuff
I learned many years ago about common law.
Actually, Gardiner, common law studies are very complex. there are
about 7 schools of thought on the common law. I'm not a lawyer.
>We were working through the common law in regard to Plymouth and we were about
>to move to Mass Bay, when, for whatever reason, someone decided that all that
>didn't matter and we should really be discussing 1787, the time when
>everything was supposedly created from scratch.
I got that paragraph from your book ad and wanted you to play weasel
games with the word conception. you did that. After that little weasel
game of yours I was very disappointed and decided it was worth it. If
someone else in our vast audience wants to I can start a thread on
Mass. Bay. What might be more interesting is if there is someone real
familiar with VA offering the laws of that colony.
I also explained to you why I stopped in another post. It had to do
with fighting with you every damn inch of the way. I felt like I was
carrying on a class. I shouldn't have to do that with one who has
written this history textbook. Or did Amos write it?
>Please please please return to the topic of common law. That's where we go
>beyond the shallow 8th grade history and begin to find out the complex genesis
>of the founder's political and legal thinking.
The founders? Which ones? They all thought alike? Do you really
believe that?
>> > What exactly did that mean in this country once the various states began
>> >to write their own constitutions?
>>
>> I'll be simplistic. Each state tended to establish one or more
>> churches and tax the people to support the established church.
>>
>> >What exactly did that mean to this country once this nation ratified its
>> >own national constitution?
>>
>> Not much. Many states kept their establishments. What's important is
>> that the 1787 constitution did not establish a church or religion. the
>> 1791 amendments made it unconstitutional for the Federal Government to
>> establish a church or religion. States eventually added the same to
>> their constitutions. I think MA was the last.
>>
>> It's a real complex history.
>
>Sounds to me like you got it right.
This average reading moron gets it right now and again.
>> >>:|You have also risen slightly above his extremely cantankerous and belittling style.
>>
>> >Have you ever bothered to read back over some of your posts? To me, to
>> >others?
>> >
>> >Mike has pointed out to you on more then one occasion how rude and crude
>> >you are many times.
>>
>> >You have no room to talk about anyone else. LOL
>>
>> I think it is simply his way. He knows not what he does.
>
>Is that an allusion to the gospel, I hear? Sounds good to me. Do you know the
>context of that allusion? If so, you understand grace,
Yes and yes. You know not what you do, Gardiner. As I said, I USED to
be a Christian. That is no longer the case.
I know a lot more than I could possibly have time to type in this
group. I know a lot more than you are ready to admit about me. So stop
playing the righteous games you play in this group.
>Rick Gardiner
>http://www.universitylake.org/primarysources.html
Mike Curtis
>Mike Curtis wrote:
>>
>> jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>>
The bingo was said because I agree with the last that Allison said.
Clear enough?
Hope so. Thought so.
You stop being a smart ass, Gardiner and I'll stop being snide with
you. Wanna play?
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>:|
>:|
>:|>I provided you with historical evidence where one of the reasons the
>:|>country was in such an uproar with the new Federal Judiciary was because
>:|>the Supreme Court and other Federal courts (which since the justices of the
>:|>Supreme court rode circuits, would have been manned by said justices) were
>:|>applying common law without Congress ever passing laws incorporating said
>:|>common laws as part and parcel of the laws of this nation.
>:|
>:|A bit out of my area. What was going on with that Judge they tried to
>:|impeach during the Jeffersonian Era? Was that over the Sedition laws?
>:|
Samuel Chase. In part it was the sedition laws coupled with a host of other
factors, including to some degree, religion.
Seems this fella was sort of obnoxious, and I think I read somewhere that
he had a large liking for the spirits, the kind you drink that is.
I think Chase was "guilty" of several, if not all, of the following, in the
eyes of some.
I have some additional info here on him somewhere if you are interested.
_________________________________________________________________________
1. Clergy in the courtroom; prayer in the courtroom.
Eidsmoe's first affidavit characterizes the practice of prayer in the
courtroom as commonplace at or around the time of the drafting and
ratification of the Constitution. He cites as examples a number of
New England federal circuit court cases which entreated clergy to "address
the throne of Grace" as evidence that such practices were accepted. John
Jay's stellar reputation excepted, the following quote from a 1919 work on
John Marshall notes a slightly different interpretation of clergy-courtroom
politics. From Vol. III. The Life of John Marshall (Boston: Houghton
Mifflin Company, 1916-19, Beveridge, Albert J.):
"But if the National judges had caused alarm by treating the common law as
though it were a statute of the United States without waiting for an act of
Congress to make it so, their manners and methods in the enforcement of the
Sedition Act aroused against them an ever increasing hostility.
"Stories of their performances on the bench in such cases -- their
tones when speaking to counsel, to accused persons, and even to witnesses,
their immoderate language, their sympathy with one of the European nations
then at war and their animosity toward the other, their partisanship in
cases on trial before them -- tales made up from such material flew from
mouth to mouth until finally the very name and sight of National judges
became obnoxious to most Americans. In short, the assaults upon the
National Judiciary were made possible chiefly by the conduct of the
National judges themselves." (l)
Footnote (1) says:
(1) The National judges, in their charges to grand juries, lectured and
preached on religion, on morality, on partisan politics. "On Monday last
the Circuit Court of the United States was opened in this town. The Hen.
Judge Patterson .. delivered a most elegant and appropriate charge. "The
Law was laid down in a masterly manner: Politics were set in their true
light by holding up the Jacobins [Republicans] as the disorganizers of our
happy country, and the only instruments of introducing discontent and
dissatisfaction among the well meaning part of the community. Religion. &
Morality were pleasingly inculcated and enforced as being necessary to good
government, good order, and good laws; for 'when the righteous
[Federalists] are in authority, the people rejoice.' . .
"After the charge was delivered the Rev. Mr. Alden addressed the
Throne of Grace in an excellent and well adapted prayer." (United
States Oracle of the Day, May 24, 1800, as quoted by Hackett, in
Green Bao. 11. 264)
(SOURCE OF ABOVE MATERIAL: THE LIFE OF JOHN MARSHALL, By Albert J.
Beveridge
Volume III Conflict and construction, 1800-1815, Houghton Mifflin Company
(1918) page 29-30. Additional background material included covering pages
26 -33, all under the title of EXHIBIT A)
[The footnote contains the same passage used by Eidsmoe on page X of his
first Affidavit. The Rev. Mr. Alden addressing the Throne of Grace in
prayer. The meaning given the whole process differs from the conclusion
Eidsmoe comes away from it with.]
_____________________________________________________________________________
>:|>Where and when did I say that the only thing that matters is the
>:|>constitution? I suspect this is another of your inventions, or you took it
>:|>out of a complete sentence that is put back together would have a more
>:|>involved meaning then you are trying to give it.
>:|
>:|It's quite annoying how many of our arguments become re-written.
>:|
Yes, it does seem to happen a lot.
>:|
>:|>>:|"let's face it, you're not going to influence me, and I'm not going to
>:|>>:|influence you."
>:|>
>:|>Having been on here since feb 1995, I can say with some degree of accuracy
>:|>that most people who feel strongly enough to take a stand on here, takes
>:|>the time and effort to post material beyond an occasional comment ( like
>:|>half a dozen times a year or so, etc) usually has some pretty strong
>:|>feelings about the matter they are posting and replying about.
>:|>
>:|>When they engage in prolonged 'discussions" with others they usually will
>:|>defend their position.
>:|
>:|>It is very rare when they change that position as a result of the
>:|>discussions that took place.
>:|
>:|It does happen.
Yes, on rare occasions, it does. Not often.
>:|But what annoys me is that when trying to present a
>:|position of my case for Mr. Gardiner it gets all warped out of shape.
>:|Since I can agree with some of what he says, while disagreeing with
>:|some of what he says, I get pushed down the same road of those who
>:|totally disagree with him. the same is happening to you. That's the
>:|problem with people and their extremes. People with extreme positions
>:|have to have all or nothing. Those trying to accurate explain
>:|differences must be placed in some extreme to make the other
>:|comfortable. I see Gardiner as an extreme based on his Web site and
>:|those who review his book. I also place him there based on his
>:|performance in this news group. You, I see, as a student of the
>:|church/state issue and you take a legal and historical approach to the
>:|subject. It also means you are not free of passion.
I'm not, I have a passion or two. :-)
Cleveland Browns are a big passion with me. A Passion that has been on hold
for four years now but due to bloom again
Ohio State Buckeyes are a passion
Sex is a passion
Chruch/state is somewhat of a passion, but not nearly as much as some
others are.
Besides, the other side seem,s to have peaked, so the threat while still
there has decreased a bit,.
>:|I'm not free of
>:|passion when it comes to accurate history.
>:|
>:|>It usually does become a pro/con discussion.
>:|
>:|Sadly.
>:|
>:|>The audience really does become the lurkers or readers that read such
>:|>threads in the news groups.
>:|
>:|>This is not something that is not understood by most who post and or reply
>:|>in these news groups.
>:|>
>:|>I frequently find people who I argued with in 1995 or 1996 still arguing
>:|>the same positions they argued back then today.
>:|
>:|A great book called Why Do People Believe in Weird Things by Michael
>:|Shermer is a must read. He presents the creation debate in a
>:|fascinating way. These people will get up on stage and despite being
>:|proven logically and scientifically wrong they will appear at the next
>:|city and repeat the same flawed points and distortions. Holocaust
>:|Deniers do the same thing.
So does the religious right.
>:|So we tend to save material on our hard
>:|drives and cut & paste responses. They are after all the same exact
>:|faulty conclusions and questions. Examples of repeat stuff:
Yep, part of what seems to upset some people.
It is easy for me to so called cut and paste because of the other project I
am working on. It consists totally of primary material, so it very easy for
me to produce it.
>:|
>:|1. Hoess was tortured so none of his testimony is valid.
Nope
>:|
>:|>>:|You have also risen slightly above his extremely cantankerous and belittling style.
>:|
>:|>Have you ever bothered to read back over some of your posts? To me, to
>:|>others?
>:|>
>:|>Mike has pointed out to you on more then one occasion how rude and crude
>:|>you are many times.
>:|
>:|>You have no room to talk about anyone else. LOL
>:|
>:|I think it is simply his way. He knows not what he does.
That might be.
Something about seeing the speck in the eye of another while ignoring the
timber in ones own eye. (paraphrased of course )
Mike Curtis
>mi...@x.aimetering.com.nospam (Mike Curtis) wrote:
>
>>:|jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>>:|
>>:|
>>:|>I provided you with historical evidence where one of the reasons the
>>:|>country was in such an uproar with the new Federal Judiciary was because
>>:|>the Supreme Court and other Federal courts (which since the justices of the
>>:|>Supreme court rode circuits, would have been manned by said justices) were
>>:|>applying common law without Congress ever passing laws incorporating said
>>:|>common laws as part and parcel of the laws of this nation.
>>:|
>>:|A bit out of my area. What was going on with that Judge they tried to
>>:|impeach during the Jeffersonian Era? Was that over the Sedition laws?
>>:|
>
>
>Samuel Chase. In part it was the sedition laws coupled with a host of other
>factors, including to some degree, religion.
>Seems this fella was sort of obnoxious, and I think I read somewhere that
>he had a large liking for the spirits, the kind you drink that is.
>
>
>I think Chase was "guilty" of several, if not all, of the following, in the
>eyes of some.
>
>I have some additional info here on him somewhere if you are interested.
[snipped for brevity] Thanks. I'm looking for the two volume work on
the Chase impeachment for myself. I've seen them often enough and they
were always expensive enough to pass on. :-) You know the feeling.
[snip]
>>:|But what annoys me is that when trying to present a
>>:|position of my case for Mr. Gardiner it gets all warped out of shape.
>>:|Since I can agree with some of what he says, while disagreeing with
>>:|some of what he says, I get pushed down the same road of those who
>>:|totally disagree with him. the same is happening to you. That's the
>>:|problem with people and their extremes. People with extreme positions
>>:|have to have all or nothing. Those trying to accurate explain
>>:|differences must be placed in some extreme to make the other
>>:|comfortable. I see Gardiner as an extreme based on his Web site and
>>:|those who review his book. I also place him there based on his
>>:|performance in this news group. You, I see, as a student of the
>>:|church/state issue and you take a legal and historical approach to the
>>:|subject. It also means you are not free of passion.
>
>
>I'm not, I have a passion or two. :-)
>
>Cleveland Browns are a big passion with me. A Passion that has been on hold
>for four years now but due to bloom again
Mine was the Boston Red sox and the Celtics. I give up.
>Ohio State Buckeyes are a passion
We have the University of Texas. I watch them play. I went their. They
aren't much of a "passion."
>Sex is a passion
Naturally.
[snip]
>>:|>It usually does become a pro/con discussion.
>>:|
>>:|Sadly.
>>:|
>>:|>The audience really does become the lurkers or readers that read such
>>:|>threads in the news groups.
>>:|
>>:|>This is not something that is not understood by most who post and or reply
>>:|>in these news groups.
>>:|>
>>:|>I frequently find people who I argued with in 1995 or 1996 still arguing
>>:|>the same positions they argued back then today.
>>:|
>>:|A great book called Why Do People Believe in Weird Things by Michael
>>:|Shermer is a must read. He presents the creation debate in a
>>:|fascinating way. These people will get up on stage and despite being
>>:|proven logically and scientifically wrong they will appear at the next
>>:|city and repeat the same flawed points and distortions. Holocaust
>>:|Deniers do the same thing.
>So does the religious right.
It's called propaganda methodology. Actually some of these folks
really do believe and seem to shut out what disagrees with their
world. The real dangerous ones are the ones who _know_ and _admit_
they are being deceptive.
>>:|So we tend to save material on our hard
>>:|drives and cut & paste responses. They are after all the same exact
>>:|faulty conclusions and questions. Examples of repeat stuff:
>Yep, part of what seems to upset some people.
>It is easy for me to so called cut and paste because of the other project I
>am working on. It consists totally of primary material, so it very easy for
>me to produce it.
We have discussed our individual methods. :-) And we agree and
disagree. Shocking isn't it. But Mr. Gardiner thinks you and I are in
lock-step. LOL
[snipped for brevity. I noted also that Gardiner cut all this which
went to show what I meant by true but not accurate]
>>:|>>:|You have also risen slightly above his extremely cantankerous and belittling style.
>>:|
>>:|>Have you ever bothered to read back over some of your posts? To me, to
>>:|>others?
>>:|>
>>:|>Mike has pointed out to you on more then one occasion how rude and crude
>>:|>you are many times.
>>:|
>>:|>You have no room to talk about anyone else. LOL
>>:|
>>:|I think it is simply his way. He knows not what he does.
>
>
>That might be.
>
>Something about seeing the speck in the eye of another while ignoring the
>timber in ones own eye. (paraphrased of course )
Close. Not bad.
Gardiner
>
> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>
> >Mike Curtis wrote:
> >>
> >> jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
> >>
> >> >You do seem to be stuck in a 1999 rut concerning me, and I bet you cannot
> >> >produce a single comment by me that has anything to do with 1999. But I
> >> >have run across several comments of yours where you bring up your invention
> >> >regarding my alleged use of or importance placed on 1999.
> >> >
> >> >I will say what I have said before. England had a union between church and
> >> >state. In essence they were one and the same. Any combining of Christianity
> >> >and the so called common law (and Mike has taken you to task on the whole
> >> >subject of "common law") is not so unusual, now is it?
> >
> >Taken me to task?? In what way? By saying that the Plymouth settlers only
> >embraced a "tiny" portion of the common law when his source said otherwise?
> >That was the bulk of about a week's posting on this subject.
>
> Actually, that was only a part of it. You dropped the whole darn
> argument when I dropped the laws of Justinian on you.
ooooo...Laws of Justinian...wow... what do the laws of Justinian prove? That
the common law was not exclusively CHristian? Has any body argued that the
common law was exclusively Christian. You say such bold things about your
"victories" over me which really make no sense at all. How about this:
Curtis used to think he knew what he was talking about, until I dropped the
whole Brady Bunch thing on him; then he backed off.
Whatever.
> >> It seems to have been dropped since I posted that URL about Roman Law.
> >
> >No No No No NO. You dropped it.
>
> Yes, yes, yes.
Posting URL's is quite easy. But if that is what you consider a victory,
here's a few counter-URL's:
http://www.uark.edu/depts/comminfo/oxford/blackstone.html
http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/spring97/blackstone.html
http://www.neopolitique.org/articles/jan98-wilson.html
So if you don't respond to these arguments, should I consider you dropping the
whole thing in embarrassment?
RG
Mike Curtis
>Mike Curtis wrote:
>>
>> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Mike Curtis wrote:
>> >>
>> >> jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >You do seem to be stuck in a 1999 rut concerning me, and I bet you cannot
>> >> >produce a single comment by me that has anything to do with 1999. But I
>> >> >have run across several comments of yours where you bring up your invention
>> >> >regarding my alleged use of or importance placed on 1999.
>> >> >
>> >> >I will say what I have said before. England had a union between church and
>> >> >state. In essence they were one and the same. Any combining of Christianity
>> >> >and the so called common law (and Mike has taken you to task on the whole
>> >> >subject of "common law") is not so unusual, now is it?
>> >
>> >Taken me to task?? In what way? By saying that the Plymouth settlers only
>> >embraced a "tiny" portion of the common law when his source said otherwise?
>> >That was the bulk of about a week's posting on this subject.
>>
>> Actually, that was only a part of it. You dropped the whole darn
>> argument when I dropped the laws of Justinian on you.
>
>ooooo...Laws of Justinian...wow... what do the laws of Justinian prove? That
>the common law was not exclusively CHristian?
Yes. you. You argue by exclusion. You do not bring up other matters
until pressed.
> Has any body argued that the
>common law was exclusively Christian.
"exclusively" you have not. But you use words like permeated which we
discussed when you brought up the bucket of water and the cyanide. You
never did respond to my last on that one. You like to use words like
"permeated" or "part of" because you can weasel around with them.
There is no sense of degree. Once you are pushed then you start
playing with the degrees. You are like nailing jello to the wall.
> You say such bold things about your
>"victories" over me which really make no sense at all. How about this:
I'm not looking for victories, Gardiner. that is what you don't
understand. You are reaping what you have sown. Maybe you are being
punished. Maybe it is providence.
[snip lists]
>So if you don't respond to these arguments, should I consider you dropping the
>whole thing in embarrassment?
I'm hardly embarrassed, Gardiner. I have nothing to be embarrassed
about. I suspect you are projecting again.
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|
>:|>Mike Curtis wrote:
>:|>>
>:|>> jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>:|>>
>:|>> >>:|Perhaps someone else in this group will
>:|>> >>:|find it amusing. As Mr. Curtis said so correctly yesterday, newsgroups are
>:|>> >>:|supposed to be used for a personal exchange, not for the impersonal and
>:|>> >>:|effortless posting of texts which he said are "boring."
>:|>> >>:|
>:|>> >
>:|>> >Actually, IIRC, Mike enjoyed the material on the religious test ban which
>:|>> >included some of the Godless Constitution material.
>:|>>
>:|>> I found it all useful. I've seen it before but not in one spot. But
>:|>> again, because God is not mentioned in the constitution does not mean
>:|>> the authors were godless.
>:|>>
>:|>> >You know, as one who is suppose to be interested in history, you should be
>:|>> >willing to take a look at any historical data that anyone provides.
>:|>>
>:|>> Bingo!
>:|>
>:|>That Bingo Comes from one who once scolded Alison for posting so much stuff.
>:|>
>:|>Oh well, consistency is too much to expect, I guess.
>:|>
>:|
>:|The bingo was said because I agree with the last that Allison said.
>:|Clear enough?
>:|
>:|Hope so. Thought so.
>:|
>:|You stop being a smart ass, Gardiner and I'll stop being snide with
>:|you. Wanna play?
>:|
>:|
Yet, not a word about the validity of the comment that someone who is
writing historical material should want to examine all pertinent historical
data, even that which disagrees with your theory.
In almost every aspect of history (hell of life for that matter) one can
find evidence and facts which will support their theories, facts and
evidence that will disagree with their theories and facts and evidence
which is wholly neutral in regards to their theories.
But unless one examines as much of all three as they can, they are not
going to have the whole story.
oooohhhhh well
So interesting, why does someone even bother to comment at all if they are
going to ignore the issue and just make silly comments?
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|> Lutz has written a book and that is kewl. In it he is given his opinion.
>:|> probably his informed opinion based on research he has done. That's kewl,
>:|> too.
>:|>
>:|> I doubt if his work is the final word on the matter.
>:|>
>:|> It would be worthwhile reading and studying, but so would others who
>:|> probably disagree with him.
>:|
>:|As would be all the alleged "scholars" you continually say support your
>:|assertions. You pretend that your guys are authoritative, but everyone else
>:|offers only their opinion, but not both sides of the issue.
>:|
Another invention, I see.
Care to document your claims or would you prefer to continue making claims
with nothing backing them up.
Care to name these "alleged"scholars? or are you just making noise again?
>:|You continuously attempt to use a double standard, and it is very blatant.
Do I? Do tell.
Guess what? I don't do anything you don't do, so what are you saying about
yourself?
Guess what. If you look at the selected reading lists of most books and
most footnoted material you will find that most of the cited material and
publications on the selected reading list tend to be works that would tend
to support the point the author is making.
Not that many people are going to go to the trouble of making arguments
then cite material that disagrees with them.
Is this some sort of surprising revelation to you? Shouldn't be. I have not
noted in anything you have cited the names of people would be presenting
countering arguments or theories.
You sure pick some of the strangest things to comment on.
Why do you think there are so many books written offering so many different
opinions on most subjects?
There are very few final word type books written on any subject.
There are very few studies done that have not produced counter studies and
counter opinions.
Why is that? Because life is a bit complex and one can find the usual three
types of info. (1) that which support them (2) that which disagrees with
them (3) that which is neutral to what they want to establish.
Sheesh wake and enter the real world.
***********************************************************************************
Now how about addressing some of the other things you elected to bypass
>:|> > Although
>:|> >Christianity was not always on the lips and pens of the founders, I believe it
>:|> >ran through their veins.
You believe it ran through their veins, but because it wasn't in their
writings etc you can't prove it?
Ahhh, I see. So what we are really dealing with is your opinion.
(The observed is influenced by the observer)
>:|> nothing. At least Allison addresses your points with the writings of
>:|That is a nice way of saying that Alison just cuts-and-pastes because he is
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|
>:|I don't have time for much today, Suffice it say that the lengthy
>:|chapter in Wills book says much more about matters Gardiner and his
>:|evangelistic friend have brought up.
>:|
>:|>> We find in his footnote to this that the faculty member discussed in
>:|>> Gary T. Amos the author of the above book Mr. Gardiner mentions. Gary
>:|>> Wills points out that the book was endorsed by the National Review in
>:|>> its April 30, 1990 issue. the review writes: "Happily for us, as Mr.
>:|>> Amos proves in his small book, all the embarrassing old [religious]
>:|>> junk that liberals are furiously stuffing into the historical trunks
>:|>> was coveted and used by Jefferson himself." Mr Wills then writes: "The
>:|>> extent of Jefferson's religious writings does not protect him from
>:|>> distortion even after their publication in scholarly editions--which
>:|>> Amos does not consult."
>:|>
>:|>First, Wills is factually wrong about what Gary consulted. Gary went through
>:|>every one of Jefferson's letters concerning religion, and did so before
>:|>writing Defending the Declaration. Strike Two.
>:|
>:|I suspect that Wills looked in the bibliography of Amos' book. You'll
>:|have to ask Wills.
>:|
>:|>> Wills points out that Jefferson took great care to keep his religious
>:|>> views private and only available to his most trusted friends. A letter
>:|>> to Benjamin Rush when Jefferson sent his 'Syllabus' on Jesus to him
>:|>> makes that desire for privacy quite clear. In the footnote after that
>:|>> letter to Benjamin Rush is quoted Wills footnotes: "Gary Amos, in the
>:|>> book cited above, weirdly claims (on p. 195) that Jefferson published
>:|>> his version of the Gospels in 1816. That compendium was not published
>:|>> till 1902.
>:|>
>:|>Patently wrong. Jefferson's Gospels was first published in London in 1816
>:|>anonymously in a Unitarian Journal. Wills just didn't do his homework. Strike
>:|>three, Wills is out.
>:|
>:|"Wills points out that Jefferson took great care to keep his religious
>:|views private and only available to his most trusted friends. A letter
>:|to Benjamin Rush when Jefferson sent his 'Syllabus' on Jesus to him
>:|makes that desire for privacy quite clear. In the footnote after that
>:|letter to Benjamin Rush is quoted Wills footnotes: "Gary Amos, in the
>:|book cited above, weirdly claims (on p. 195) that Jefferson published
>:|his version of the Gospels in 1816. That compendium was not published
>:|till 1902. Cf. _Jefferson's Extracts from the Gospels_, edited by
>:|Dickinson W. Adams (Princeton, 1983), pp 125-26. The 'Syllabus' was
>:|published anonymously (not by Jefferson) in 1816 and received no
>:|public notice."
>:|
>:|Notice where Mr. Gardiner chopped off the paragraph? The "Syllabus"
>:|and the Gospels are two _different_ pieces. So how honest do you think
>:|the rest of Mr. Gardiner's post is id these are his tactics. The
>:|tactics of one who changes his web page to removed the names of two
>:|religious evangelicals who think his book is good stuff. When I get
>:|time, I'll focus on the other matters. Unfortunately I don't know Mr.
>:|Wills so I might not be able to get his comments.
>:|
>:|However, when folks obvious edit out the primary argument in another's
>:|point and then says WRONG! We do have a matter of honesty to consider.
>:|
There is a person with a theory. Feels so strong about it he has written a
book on the subject.
He is going to defend that theory against any and all. One of the best ways
to defend a theory is to make self right and all others wrong.
Gary Amos had a theory and wrote a book ten years ago offering his theory.
It is doubtful he has changed his thoughts any so he is obligated to defend
what he believes to be true. He will probably say all who disagree with his
book is wrong.
However, in the case of the latter, his theory has been out there in the
market place of ideas for ten years, and apparently has not gained much of
a following.
Time will tell how much of a following the first person's book will gather.
Will it alter how things are perceived historically or will it just be
another book that comes and goes without any real impact?