Calvin and Obediance
Gardiner
jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>
> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>
> >:|> >> >No big happy Protestant family, I agree. But no big "secular" or "deist" happy
> >:|> >> >family as Alison or his buddies at Americans United for SOCS would have you
> >:|> >> >believe either. That's my point.
> >:|> >>
> >:|> >> I don't think this is his claim. I don't read it that way. This does
> >:|> >> appear another attempt by you to make an argument for someone else.
> >:|> >
> >:|> >Here is a quote from a website recommended to me by one of these fellows:
> >:|> >"Without exception, the faith of our Founding Fathers was deist, not theist."
> >:|> >(see http://www.postfun.com/pfp/worbois.html)
> >:|>
> >:|> Note who they are! They aren't even the establishment. It's also an
> >:|> example of the quote game.
> >:|>
> >:|> >Without Exception, they say!!!
> >:|> >
> >:|> >That is what you can call simplistic and tunnel history... without any distinctions...
> >:|> >
> >:|> >Bad, very bad.
> >:|>
> >:|> So what? They are an extreme. They aren't even historians. They have
> >:|> no qualifications. There are unwashed armpits throughout the internet.
> >:|> Take yourself to a library.
> >:|
> >:|All I know is that they are the ones recommended to me by the likes of
> >:|Alison--whom you are so eager to compliment for his clear thinking.
>
> Likes of this fellow you call Alison, LOL
>
> Likes of, but not me was it?
>
> You got caught again. Inventing things.
>
> **********************************************
> 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
>:|The king of cut-and-paste and multiple posting has returned.
This was his response to two replies of mine that caught him, once more,
inventing things.
To counter the inventor of comments whom he then attributes to others.
To counter the king of speculation, Mr. unethical poster.
To counter the king of the switch and bait (switch the focus from his lack
of any real and effective counter, and try bait the other into going to a
more safe area for him.
LOL
He doesn't bother to mention that the majority of what he calls cut and
paste is supplying documented historical evidence that counters his claims.
He doesn't mention that he usually does not respond to such, because, hey,
what can he say?
He doesn't mention he is the king of check out this site and this site and
this site and so on.
Ahhhh, it does take all kinds to make the world go around.
>:|
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>:|>
>:|> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|>
>:|> >:|No big happy Protestant family, I agree. But no big "secular" or "deist" happy
>:|> >:|family as Alison or his buddies at Americans United for SOCS would have you
>:|> >:|believe either. That's my point.
>:|>
>:|> Can you produce anything of mine saying the above?
>:|>
>:|> Or is this another one of your internal discussions with yourself, i. e.
>:|> one of your invented discussions?
>:|>
>:|> BTW, could you name any buddies I have at Americans United?
>:|> I didn't know I had any there.
>:|
>:|Perhaps it is not true that you have/had a border who is an attorney and a
>:|member of Americans United.
Have/had a border who is an attorney and a member of Americans United?
LOL.
Let's see, I believe I have actually been introduced to two people who are
on the staff of Americans United. That was in 1996, I believe
We shook hands and said hello.
I was introduced to a member of the Board of directors of Americans United
in 1996, again we shook hands and said hello.
I know of the names of, I think two, maybe three additional staff members
of Americans United. Know the names of and know what their function/job is.
I have never met either of the three, never had any contact with two of the
three, and only one or two email exchanges concerning a potential Madison
quote that turned out to be bogus. That was in Nov of 97.
There was a local chapter in Va Beach in 1996 that lasted about a year and
half, but does not exist currently that I know of.
Doesn't seem like much of a buddy system to me.
I am not a member of Americans United, am actually not a member of any
organization.
>:|Well, it's what you said. I suppose you are saying
>:|we shouldn't trust what you say about yourself. That's good, we don't.
What did I say, and who am I suppose to have said this to?
>:|
>:|You know, Jim, you really are a manipulative fellow. Either write about
>:|history or don't expect to hear much from me.
Listen to your own words. The post I have replied to since the move have
been posts about me, not to me, about me.
Is that writing about history?
I see Mike telling you to write about history all the time. Seems like you
are projecting again.
>:|If you don't like my friends,
>:|fine.
You are really pissed about this Amos thing aren't you?
Well, that is the baggage. He is your co-author
It is your book that you are forever plugging here in these debates.
>:|You don't have to hide who your friends are either. It's really
>:|disingenuous.
Nice word, I know someone else who uses that word a lot, LOL
Well hate to burst your bubble but I have no contact with anyone who is a
member of Americans United.
Not that it matters, but we have another one of your inventions.
>:|
>:|Cut the abrasive and contentious attitude and I'll listen.
Takes two to tango I give what you give me.
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>:|>
>:|> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|>
>:|> >:|> So what? They are an extreme. They aren't even historians. They have
>:|> >:|> no qualifications. There are unwashed armpits throughout the internet.
>:|> >:|> Take yourself to a library.
>:|> >:|
>:|> >:|All I know is that they are the ones recommended to me by the likes of
>:|> >:|Alison--whom you are so eager to compliment for his clear thinking.
>:|>
>:|> Likes of this fellow you call Alison, LOL
>:|>
>:|> Likes of, but not me was it?
>:|>
>:|> You got caught again. Inventing things.
>:|
>:|Did I say it was you?? Do you think you are the only person in the world that
>:|matters? What an ego.
My ears perk up when my names gets taken in vain LOL
You did say
>:|> >:|All I know is that they are the ones recommended to me by the likes of
>:|> >:|Alison--whom you are so eager to compliment for his clear thinking.
>:|
>:|At one point there were about a dozen different people posting deist,
>:|unitarian, and atheist responses to my claims. Now you think that unless you,
>:|Jim Alison, posted it, then I have no right to comment upon it.
>:|
Comment all you want. It was my incorrect name you used, not anyone else
Therefore I commented too.
>:|Newsflash: the world doesn't revolve around you.
>:|
>:|Why did I say "the likes of Alison" then? Because of all the anti-Christianity
>:|posters, and there have been a multitude, your name is the one that sticks out
>:|and you are the loudest representative.
Anti-Christian posters?
Is that what you claim I am?
There you go, inventing again.
A real habit with you. huh?
Mike Curtis
>Well hate to burst your bubble but I have no contact with anyone who is a
>member of Americans United.
>
>Not that it matters, but we have another one of your inventions.
I hate to sound silly, but I'be never heard of Americans United. Why
are they an evil group to some?
Mike Curtis
Ambrose Bierce wrote:
BASTINADO, n. The act of walking on wood without exertion.
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>:|
>:|
>:|>Well hate to burst your bubble but I have no contact with anyone who is a
>:|>member of Americans United.
>:|>
>:|>Not that it matters, but we have another one of your inventions.
>:|
>:|I hate to sound silly, but I'be never heard of Americans United. Why
>:|are they an evil group to some?
>:|
>:|
Because they work against the Religious right.
Check it out yourself.
A great many people on the religious right side place them, the ACLU and a
few other such groups as being the tools of satan, or something like that.
Very nasty very bad, LOL
Mike Curtis
>mi...@x.aimetering.com.nospam (Mike Curtis) wrote:
>
>>:|jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>>:|
>>:|
>>:|>Well hate to burst your bubble but I have no contact with anyone who is a
>>:|>member of Americans United.
>>:|>
>>:|>Not that it matters, but we have another one of your inventions.
>>:|
>>:|I hate to sound silly, but I'be never heard of Americans United. Why
>>:|are they an evil group to some?
>>:|
>>:|
>
>Because they work against the Religious right.
>
>Check it out yourself.
>
>http://www.au.org/
>
>A great many people on the religious right side place them, the ACLU and a
>few other such groups as being the tools of satan, or something like that.
>Very nasty very bad, LOL
>
http://www.au.org/cs4994.htm
http://www.au.org/cs4993.htm are about one of the reviewers of Mr.
Gardiner's history textbook.
Interesting.
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.
William Barwell
Mike Curtis <mi...@x.aimetering.com.nospam> wrote:
>jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>
>
>>Well hate to burst your bubble but I have no contact with anyone who is a
>>member of Americans United.
>>
>>Not that it matters, but we have another one of your inventions.
>
>I hate to sound silly, but I'be never heard of Americans United. Why
>are they an evil group to some?
>
Because, along with the ACLU, they are one of the few organized groups
who manage to start lawsuits and win.
They have been instrumental in getting the IRS to pull tax exemptions of
churches that overstep the bounds of political advocacy for example,
and help keep the Christian Coalition honest.
American United for Seperation of Church and State have been around for
quite some while, and despite small support, has managed to help keep the
fundies, creationists, Christian Coalition, Pat Roberston and RCC on
teh straight and narrow more often they they would have with nobody
willing to file official complaints, gather dirt and hire lawyers.
Anybody who wants to help with this effort is urged to send $25
or more to AUSCS at 1816 Jefferson Place N.W., Washington DC, 20036.
You'll be helping a worthy cause that needs your help more than ever.
You will alos recieve their monthly little magazine Church and State
alerting you to the latest news in this arena.
I joined after the rather nasty George Bush declared Atheists
could not be good American citizens.
This organization is one of the few that has the guts and courage to fight
that sort of religous bigotry and make it stick from time to time.
It's $25 worth of trouble you can make for the religous right if you
want to help keep them from doing whatever they please unopposed.
The RR hates them for their efforts.
Latest things they are watching for, Philadelphia's RCC Cardinal
Bellacqua has announced the RCC will start issuing voter's guides.
The AUSCS will see to it they do so within the law or will challenge
their tax exemption.
AU protested Lousiana schools attempts to have assemblies in school
presented by a fundy evangelical group "Mighty Men". The schools
cancelled. The Au is challenging a sweetheart deal in Colorado for
selling land to the Catholic church at cost way below value of the land in
Colorado City. Such activities are presented in their monthly magazine.
Well worth $25.00 a year.
Pope Charles
SubGenius Pope of Houston
Slack!
Gardiner
>
> They have been instrumental in getting the IRS to pull tax exemptions of
> churches that overstep the bounds of political advocacy for example,
> and help keep the Christian Coalition honest.
> American United for Seperation of Church and State have been around for
> quite some while, and despite small support, has managed to help keep the
> fundies, creationists, Christian Coalition, Pat Roberston and RCC on
> teh straight and narrow more often they they would have with nobody
> willing to file official complaints, gather dirt and hire lawyers.
Perhaps they should hire Ken Starr.
> Anybody who wants to help with this effort is urged to send $25
> or more to AUSCS at 1816 Jefferson Place N.W., Washington DC, 20036.
> You'll be helping a worthy cause that needs your help more than ever.
> You will alos recieve their monthly little magazine Church and State
> alerting you to the latest news in this arena.
>
> I joined after the rather nasty George Bush declared Atheists
> could not be good American citizens.
John Adams was even nastier:
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly
inadequate for the government of any other."
Even nastier, Blackstone said that Atheists could not be trusted:
"The belief in a future state of rewards and punishments, the entertaining
just ideas of the attributes of the Supreme Being, and a firm persuasion that
He superintends and will finally compensate every action in human life, are
the grand foundation of judicial oaths, which call God to witness the truth of
those facts, which perhaps may only be known to him and the party attesting.
All moral evidence, all confidence in human veracity [are] weakened by
apostasy, and overthrown by total infidelity."
Many state constitutions included this "nasty" idea which was part and parcel
of the common law for centuries.
> This organization is one of the few that has the guts and courage to fight
> that sort of religous bigotry and make it stick from time to time.
> It's $25 worth of trouble you can make for the religous right if you
> want to help keep them from doing whatever they please unopposed.
I think I'd rather use the money for an oil change. As Locke, Milton,
Jefferson, and Madison insisted, let religion and atheism battle it out in the
arena of the free market. If a particular religious view is stupid it will
fall on it's own weight; these things can only be decided by reason and
conscience, you can't legislate religion or anti-religion. Your $25 isn't
going to stop anyone from believing their religion.
> The RR hates them for their efforts.
I dislike anyone who wishes to prohibit my free excercise of conscience; I
dislike them because "I have sworn upon the Altar of God Eternal Hostility
Against every form of Tyranny over the mind of man."
> Latest things they are watching for, Philadelphia's RCC Cardinal
> Bellacqua has announced the RCC will start issuing voter's guides.
This reminds me of the British strategy to subdue the American colonists in
rebellion in the 1770s. They alleged that the revolution was fomented by
preachers and the thing to do was to close down the seminaries because if the
main political firebrands (the clergy) could not give political guidance, then
the colonists might continue in submission to tyranny.
> The AUSCS will see to it they do so within the law or will challenge
> their tax exemption.
Please. With as many societal ills among us can't we find a slightly more
pernicious foe than the Catholic church?
> AU protested Lousiana schools attempts to have assemblies in school
> presented by a fundy evangelical group "Mighty Men". The schools
> cancelled.
Now there's a way to be sure that there be no marketplace of ideas. Remind me
again of Locke's views on tolerance? Wasn't there something about letting all
voices be heard and let the people determine which voice they will listen to?
I forgot. You can't trust the people to believe the right things. We're all
idiots. We need the government to legislate our beliefs for us. I think they
had a word for that in the 17th century: Absolutism. The colonists just called
it TYRANNY.
> The Au is challenging a sweetheart deal in Colorado for
> selling land to the Catholic church at cost way below value of the land in
> Colorado City.
It sure makes me sleep better knowing that there is a group out there ready to
protect me from those evil parishes. Get those darn nuns...who do they think
they are...feeding homeless people and whatnot.
> Such activities are presented in their monthly magazine.
>
> Well worth $25.00 a year.
You've just convinced me to send $25 to the Roman Catholic Church so that they
can buy cheap land in Colorado, publish voters guides, and initiate a "mighty
men" rally in the local public school.
And I'm not a fan of Roman Catholicism. I am a fan of having a country where
any religion may flourish if it be the will of the masses.
In nomine patri, et filii, et spiritu sancti,
R.Gardiner
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|William Barwell wrote:
>:|>
>:|> They have been instrumental in getting the IRS to pull tax exemptions of
>:|> churches that overstep the bounds of political advocacy for example,
>:|> and help keep the Christian Coalition honest.
>:|> American United for Seperation of Church and State have been around for
>:|> quite some while, and despite small support, has managed to help keep the
>:|> fundies, creationists, Christian Coalition, Pat Roberston and RCC on
>:|> teh straight and narrow more often they they would have with nobody
>:|> willing to file official complaints, gather dirt and hire lawyers.
>:|
>:|Perhaps they should hire Ken Starr.
>:|
>:|> Anybody who wants to help with this effort is urged to send $25
>:|> or more to AUSCS at 1816 Jefferson Place N.W., Washington DC, 20036.
>:|> You'll be helping a worthy cause that needs your help more than ever.
>:|> You will alos recieve their monthly little magazine Church and State
>:|> alerting you to the latest news in this arena.
>:|>
>:|> I joined after the rather nasty George Bush declared Atheists
>:|> could not be good American citizens.
>:|
>:|John Adams was even nastier:
>:|
>:|"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly
>:|inadequate for the government of any other."
>:|
Do you have a cite for the above quote?
>:|Even nastier, Blackstone said that Atheists could not be trusted:
>:|
Irrelevant to this discussion.
>:|"The belief in a future state of rewards and punishments, the entertaining
>:|just ideas of the attributes of the Supreme Being, and a firm persuasion that
>:|He superintends and will finally compensate every action in human life, are
>:|the grand foundation of judicial oaths, which call God to witness the truth of
>:|those facts, which perhaps may only be known to him and the party attesting.
>:|All moral evidence, all confidence in human veracity [are] weakened by
>:|apostasy, and overthrown by total infidelity."
>:|
>:|Many state constitutions included this "nasty" idea which was part and parcel
>:|of the common law for centuries.
Irrelevant to this discussion. Tis ancient history. However history is full
of examples of stupidity.
Note how many good God fearing Christians argued that slavery was God's
will.
>:|
>:|> This organization is one of the few that has the guts and courage to fight
>:|> that sort of religous bigotry and make it stick from time to time.
>:|> It's $25 worth of trouble you can make for the religous right if you
>:|> want to help keep them from doing whatever they please unopposed.
>:|
>:|I think I'd rather use the money for an oil change.
Yes, you probably would.
>:|As Locke, Milton,
>:|Jefferson, and Madison insisted, let religion and atheism battle it out in the
>:|arena of the free market. If a particular religious view is stupid it will
>:|fall on it's own weight; these things can only be decided by reason and
>:|conscience, you can't legislate religion or anti-religion. Your $25 isn't
>:|going to stop anyone from believing their religion.
>:|
I see that your politics are coming forth again.
I also see you appear to have little understanding of what Americans United
is about.
>:|> The RR hates them for their efforts.
>:|
>:|I dislike anyone who wishes to prohibit my free excercise of conscience;
They aren't.
>:| I
>:|dislike them because "I have sworn upon the Altar of God Eternal Hostility
>:|Against every form of Tyranny over the mind of man."
LOL, you are funny at times.
Tyranny? Care to give examples of this tyranny that you think Americans
United has placed upon you or subjected you to?
>:|
>:|> Latest things they are watching for, Philadelphia's RCC Cardinal
>:|> Bellacqua has announced the RCC will start issuing voter's guides.
>:|
>:|This reminds me of the British strategy to subdue the American colonists in
>:|rebellion in the 1770s. They alleged that the revolution was fomented by
>:|preachers and the thing to do was to close down the seminaries because if the
>:|main political firebrands (the clergy) could not give political guidance, then
>:|the colonists might continue in submission to tyranny.
I fail to get the connection> care to elaborate?
>:|
>:|> The AUSCS will see to it they do so within the law or will challenge
>:|> their tax exemption.
>:|
>:|Please. With as many societal ills among us can't we find a slightly more
>:|pernicious foe than the Catholic church?
Hmmmmm, obeying the law is unimportant to you?
>:|
>:|> AU protested Lousiana schools attempts to have assemblies in school
>:|> presented by a fundy evangelical group "Mighty Men". The schools
>:|> cancelled.
>:|
>:|Now there's a way to be sure that there be no marketplace of ideas. Remind me
>:|again of Locke's views on tolerance? Wasn't there something about letting all
>:|voices be heard and let the people determine which voice they will listen to?
How about time and place?
>:|
>:|I forgot. You can't trust the people to believe the right things. We're all
>:|idiots. We need the government to legislate our beliefs for us. I think they
>:|had a word for that in the 17th century: Absolutism. The colonists just called
>:|it TYRANNY.
>:|
Its called obeying the law. if enough people don't like the law they can
change the law. Until that happens it does remain valid law.
(The constitutional principle of separation of church and state)
Wasn't it you that was touting rule of law?
>:|> The Au is challenging a sweetheart deal in Colorado for
>:|> selling land to the Catholic church at cost way below value of the land in
>:|> Colorado City.
>:|
>:|It sure makes me sleep better knowing that there is a group out there ready to
>:|protect me from those evil parishes. Get those darn nuns...who do they think
>:|they are...feeding homeless people and whatnot.
>:|
>:|> Such activities are presented in their monthly magazine.
>:|>
>:|> Well worth $25.00 a year.
>:|
>:|You've just convinced me to send $25 to the Roman Catholic Church so that they
>:|can buy cheap land in Colorado, publish voters guides, and initiate a "mighty
>:|men" rally in the local public school.
>:|
>:|And I'm not a fan of Roman Catholicism. I am a fan of having a country where
>:|any religion may flourish if it be the will of the masses.
>
It does flourish thanks to law.
Yours and the next guys or gals does as well.
This country probably has more religious diversity then any other nation on
earth, and this country probably has more people practicing some form of
their religious beliefs freely and willingly then any other nation on earth
as well.
Why, because of its concept of separation of church and state and because
of groups such as Americans United that do work to ensure that all such
rights are protected, not just the rights of some denominations or
religions, etc.
The fact overlooked when such groups are attacked is this simple item.
The membership of a groups such as Americans United is made up of people
from across the political spectrum, from the right to the left. of all
political parties, and the vast majority of its members are religious
people, people who practice their religion on a regular basis. The vast
majority are members of some Christian sect or denomination, while others
are members of other religions. Many try and paint such groups as Godless
groups and that just isn't true. Sorry about that, but just not true.
Gardiner
> >:|> I joined after the rather nasty George Bush declared Atheists
> >:|> could not be good American citizens.
> >:|
> >:|John Adams was even nastier:
> >:|
>
> >:|"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly
> >:|inadequate for the government of any other."
> >:|
>
> Do you have a cite for the above quote?
John Adams, Oct. 11, 1798 Address to the military
> >:|Even nastier, Blackstone said that Atheists could not be trusted:
>
> Irrelevant to this discussion.
Why? Because you don't like it? Blackstone has no relevance to the development
of legal principles, does he? Keep wishing, Jim. It really looks very foolish.
> >:|"The belief in a future state of rewards and punishments, the entertaining
> >:|just ideas of the attributes of the Supreme Being, and a firm persuasion that
> >:|He superintends and will finally compensate every action in human life, are
> >:|the grand foundation of judicial oaths, which call God to witness the truth of
> >:|those facts, which perhaps may only be known to him and the party attesting.
> >:|All moral evidence, all confidence in human veracity [are] weakened by
> >:|apostasy, and overthrown by total infidelity."
Do you want the quotes of the founders who repeated these words?
> >:|Many state constitutions included this "nasty" idea which was part and parcel
> >:|of the common law for centuries.
>
> Irrelevant to this discussion. Tis ancient history. However history is full
> of examples of stupidity.
>
> Note how many good God fearing Christians argued that slavery was God's
> will.
According to you, that was a minor and insignificant part of the system.
Changing it wasn't really a change.
> >:|> This organization is one of the few that has the guts and courage to fight
> >:|> that sort of religous bigotry and make it stick from time to time.
> >:|> It's $25 worth of trouble you can make for the religous right if you
> >:|> want to help keep them from doing whatever they please unopposed.
> >:|
> >:|I think I'd rather use the money for an oil change.
>
> Yes, you probably would.
>
> >:|As Locke, Milton,
> >:|Jefferson, and Madison insisted, let religion and atheism battle it out in the
> >:|arena of the free market. If a particular religious view is stupid it will
> >:|fall on it's own weight; these things can only be decided by reason and
> >:|conscience, you can't legislate religion or anti-religion. Your $25 isn't
> >:|going to stop anyone from believing their religion.
> >:|
>
> I see that your politics are coming forth again.
As are yours. With a vengeance.
> I also see you appear to have little understanding of what Americans United
> is about.
>
> >:|> The RR hates them for their efforts.
> >:|
> >:|I dislike anyone who wishes to prohibit my free excercise of conscience;
>
> They aren't.
Below they want to harass a Catholic church for expressing an opinion about
their favorite candidates. I don't want them telling me that I can't talk
about my politics when I'm in church or because I am an ordained minister.
That's tyranny. That's binding conscience. That's what the struggle for
separation of church and state was fought to prevent.
> >:| I
> >:|dislike them because "I have sworn upon the Altar of God Eternal Hostility
> >:|Against every form of Tyranny over the mind of man."
>
> LOL, you are funny at times.
>
> Tyranny? Care to give examples of this tyranny that you think Americans
> United has placed upon you or subjected you to?
Barwell gives two or three examples below.
> >:|> Latest things they are watching for, Philadelphia's RCC Cardinal
> >:|> Bellacqua has announced the RCC will start issuing voter's guides.
> >:|
> >:|This reminds me of the British strategy to subdue the American colonists in
> >:|rebellion in the 1770s. They alleged that the revolution was fomented by
> >:|preachers and the thing to do was to close down the seminaries because if the
> >:|main political firebrands (the clergy) could not give political guidance, then
> >:|the colonists might continue in submission to tyranny.
>
> I fail to get the connection> care to elaborate?
So, you failed again. Take a look at Mayhew's or Howard's sermons on my
primary sources website. They came out and condemned certain political leaders
from the pulpit. The King's men wanted to silence them by sending a bishop to
the colonies so that the churches would only promote the "official line" of
the government. That's what these guys want.
> >:|> The AUSCS will see to it they do so within the law or will challenge
> >:|> their tax exemption.
> >:|
> >:|Please. With as many societal ills among us can't we find a slightly more
> >:|pernicious foe than the Catholic church?
>
> Hmmmmm, obeying the law is unimportant to you?
The law of nature and nature's God is important to me; and whenever any form
of government ceases to secure the right of liberty, it is the right and duty
of the people to alter or abolish that government. This revival of the SPG is
just as much worth fighting today as it was in 1766.
> >:|> AU protested Lousiana schools attempts to have assemblies in school
> >:|> presented by a fundy evangelical group "Mighty Men". The schools
> >:|> cancelled.
> >:|
> >:|Now there's a way to be sure that there be no marketplace of ideas. Remind me
> >:|again of Locke's views on tolerance? Wasn't there something about letting all
> >:|voices be heard and let the people determine which voice they will listen to?
>
> How about time and place?
Yes, Locke said that these ideas should not be relegated to a closet or a
corner, but should be promoted in the public square so that the jury of the
free market could accept or reject the ideas based upon their own merit, not
based upon the government's censorship of ideas.
I'll bet that the time and place is really not the bottom line here. I'll bet
that Barwell will go after the Roman Catholics even if they pass out their
voter guides only in the Church on Sunday morning. Face it, AU wants to tell a
parish priest what he can and can't say from his own pulpit. It is tyranny.
> >:|I forgot. You can't trust the people to believe the right things. We're all
> >:|idiots. We need the government to legislate our beliefs for us. I think they
> >:|had a word for that in the 17th century: Absolutism. The colonists just called
> >:|it TYRANNY.
> >:|
>
> Its called obeying the law. if enough people don't like the law they can
> change the law. Until that happens it does remain valid law.
> (The constitutional principle of separation of church and state)
I see you would have made an excellent Tory.
> Wasn't it you that was touting rule of law?
You want to take it further than that don't you. You don't even want to allow
me to sign off with "Blessings" in this public arena. If this law prevents me
from saying God Bless You when a kid sneezes in my classroom (as some have
alleged), I'll obey a higher law.
> The membership of a groups such as Americans United is made up of people
> from across the political spectrum, from the right to the left. of all
> political parties, and the vast majority of its members are religious
> people, people who practice their religion on a regular basis.
The majority of the torturers of the inquisition were also religious people,
who practiced their religion on a regular basis, and they too told people what
they could and couldn't say in public. Thank God for Luther and Madison.
> The vast
> majority are members of some Christian sect or denomination, while others
> are members of other religions. Many try and paint such groups as Godless
> groups and that just isn't true. Sorry about that, but just not true.
Barwell became attached to this group because Bush believed the same thing
Franklin, Adams, and Jefferson believed: atheism tends to moral degeneracy.
Sounds to me like his point is the protection of atheism, not of religion. I
suspect that his view is not a wierd one among these tyrants.
Thank God for the common sense of the masses who doesn't punish the government
official for saying it's Thursday (day of the God Thor). Religion is part of
our socio-cultural fiber, and it is senseless to attempt to purge it from our
public experience. They've tried that in the Soviet Union. Now theyre
regretting it.
I will grant you this, AU does indirectly help religion: as a result of these
tyrannical posts, I have been motivated to send $50 to my local parish. I urge
all others to do the same.
God Bless You,
Rick
http://www.universitylake.org/primarysources.html
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>:|>
>:|> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|>
>:|> >:|William Barwell wrote:
>:|
>:|> >:|> I joined after the rather nasty George Bush declared Atheists
>:|> >:|> could not be good American citizens.
>:|> >:|
>:|> >:|John Adams was even nastier:
>:|> >:|
>:|>
>:|> >:|"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly
>:|> >:|inadequate for the government of any other."
>:|> >:|
>:|>
>:|> Do you have a cite for the above quote?
>:|
>:|John Adams, Oct. 11, 1798 Address to the military
Kewl, now do you want to give the complete cite, or is that asking for too
much?
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>:|>
>:|> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|>
>:|> >:|William Barwell wrote:
>:|
>:|> >:|> I joined after the rather nasty George Bush declared Atheists
>:|> >:|> could not be good American citizens.
>:|> >:|
>:|> >:|John Adams was even nastier:
>:|> >:|
>:|>
>:|> >:|"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly
>:|> >:|inadequate for the government of any other."
>:|> >:|
>:|>
>:|> Do you have a cite for the above quote?
>:|
>:|John Adams, Oct. 11, 1798 Address to the military
>:|
Again, I will ask for the complete cite.
That would include the publication it is and page numbers.
>:|> >:|Even nastier, Blackstone said that Atheists could not be trusted:
>:|>
>:|> Irrelevant to this discussion.
>:|
>:|Why? Because you don't like it?
Nope, because it does not have any bearing on the discussion.
For it to have some bearing you would have to show how it effected or
influenced things in this country, how it led to laws etc.
You want to do that, then it might not be irrelevant.
But until you make that connection, it is irrelevant.
>Blackstone has no relevance to the development
>:|of legal principles, does he? Keep wishing, Jim. It really looks very foolish.
What exactly did the comment of his develop in this country?
You have to show that to make the comment relevant.
Even very smart men can be fools sometimes. because he said something does
not mean a great deal unless that which he said is connected to something.
>:|> >:|"The belief in a future state of rewards and punishments, the entertaining
>:|> >:|just ideas of the attributes of the Supreme Being, and a firm persuasion that
>:|> >:|He superintends and will finally compensate every action in human life, are
>:|> >:|the grand foundation of judicial oaths, which call God to witness the truth of
>:|> >:|those facts, which perhaps may only be known to him and the party attesting.
>:|> >:|All moral evidence, all confidence in human veracity [are] weakened by
>:|> >:|apostasy, and overthrown by total infidelity."
>:|
>:|Do you want the quotes of the founders who repeated these words?
>:|
So? Words like that even formed parts of various charters and original
Constitutions. So what? They don't anymore. That is called progress.
Bad ideas eventually die out.
>:|> >:|Many state constitutions included this "nasty" idea which was part and parcel
>:|> >:|of the common law for centuries.
But not anymore. LOL
>:|>
>:|> Irrelevant to this discussion. Tis ancient history. However history is full
>:|> of examples of stupidity.
>:|>
>:|> Note how many good God fearing Christians argued that slavery was God's
>:|> will.
>:|
>:|According to you, that was a minor and insignificant part of the system.
>:|Changing it wasn't really a change.
Wrong discussion, nice attempt though.
>:|> I also see you appear to have little understanding of what Americans United
The above is really great, now why don't you tell the rest of the story?
Why is it that you forgot a very important part.
Any church can get as political as it wants to get, but in doing so they
will lose their tax exempt status.
The government doesn't tell them they can't be political, they can be, if
they are willing to pay their taxes as all else are expected to do.
You are trying to compare this to a time when men were deprived of their
life, liberty, property, rights, etc if they spoke out. That is not the
case today, AND YOU KNOW THAT, yet you paint your little bull crappy
picture.
Like it or not, we have a constitutional principle known as separation of
church and state or religion and government.
A church wants to speak out, as a church, be political as a religious
organization, fine, they can, just pay the taxes.
The following still does apply:
RULES OF LAW IN REGARDS TO THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE
"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at
least this:
(1) Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church.
(2) Neither can pass laws which aid one religion aid all religions, or
prefer one religion over another.
(3) Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away
from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief
in any religion.
(4) No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious
beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance.
(5) No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any
religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or
whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice
religion.
(6) Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly,
participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and
vice versa.
In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by
law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and State.'
Everson v Bd Of Ed)
Gardiner
>
> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>
> >:|jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
> >:|>
> >:|> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
> >:|>
> >:|> >:|William Barwell wrote:
> >:|
> >:|> >:|> I joined after the rather nasty George Bush declared Atheists
> >:|> >:|> could not be good American citizens.
> >:|> >:|
> >:|> >:|John Adams was even nastier:
> >:|>
> >:|> >:|"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly
> >:|> >:|inadequate for the government of any other."
> >:|>
> >:|> Do you have a cite for the above quote?
> >:|
> >:|John Adams, Oct. 11, 1798 Address to the military
> >:|
> Again, I will ask for the complete cite.
> That would include the publication it is and page numbers.
Not going to take the extra effort and time to go to the Library to satisfy
you. Last time I took an hour to look up some primary source at your behest, I
was told, after I had provided it, that I still hadn't provided it. And then
when I proved that I had provided it, I was told, "well, I must have
overlooked it, these posts are too long to remember everything." So, no, I'm
not going to work hard for no reason. You don't appreciate it, and I don't
work for nothing.
> >:|> >:|Even nastier, Blackstone said that Atheists could not be trusted:
> >:|>
> >:|> Irrelevant to this discussion.
> >:|
> >:|Why? Because you don't like it?
>
> Nope, because it does not have any bearing on the discussion.
>
> For it to have some bearing you would have to show how it effected or
> influenced things in this country, how it led to laws etc.
>
> You want to do that, then it might not be irrelevant.
>
> But until you make that connection, it is irrelevant.
>
> >Blackstone has no relevance to the development
> >:|of legal principles, does he? Keep wishing, Jim. It really looks very foolish.
>
> What exactly did the comment of his develop in this country?
>
> You have to show that to make the comment relevant.
You have lowered me to your approach now:
******************************
Blackstone In America
Lectures by An English Lawyer
Become The Blueprint for a
New Nation's Laws and Leaders
by Greg Bailey (Early American Review, Spring 1997)
In October 25, 1758 as William Blackstone approached the podium in the
Oxford lecture hall he knew he was a failure. The thirty year old lawyer,
nearsighted, already portly, chronically ill, now ready to read his notes in
his grating voice, had spent the last seven years before the Bar in London
with, a sympathetic biographer wrote, "little notice or practice."
Now addressing the students assembled before him to hear the first of
his lectures on English law, Blackstone began with an apology. Speaking in the
third person Blackstone worried aloud that if his plan was "crude or
injudicious, or the execution of it lame or superficial" he would set back the
study of law. "And this he must more especially dred, when he feels by
experience how unequal his abilities are to complete, in the manner he could
wish, so extensive and arduous a task; since he freely confesses, that his
former more private attempts have fallen very short of his own ideas of
perfection."
Little could Blackstone know that the lectures he began so tentatively
that day would be published as Commentaries on the Laws of England, a work
that would dominate the common law legal system for more than a century. Nor
could he foresee that his words would shape the Declaration of Independence,
Constitution and primal laws of a land he considered no more than conquered
territory of the British crown. He could not forsee another failure in life
studying his Commentaries in the frontier village of New Salem, Illinois,
teaching himself law. And little could he imagine that two hundred years later
gangsters would call their lawyers by his name.
Blackstone spoke and wrote in the times of Oliver Goldsmith and Samuel
Johnson, Edward Gibbon and Adam Smith, David Hume and Benjamin Franklin.
Cultural institutions such as the British Museum, that today seem ancient,
were in their infancy. The law then, as now, was rooted in everyday life but
removed by lawyers and courts from most people's lives. Blackstone's task, and
his ultimate accomplishment, was to open the law to many for whom it had been
closed.
Despite his initial misgivings, the lectures were an immediate success,
breathing life into a dry and poorly taught subject. Blackstone's lectures
were published as the Commentaries in England between 1765 and 1769. An
American edition published in Philadelphia between 1771-72 sold out its first
printing of 1,400 and a second edition soon appeared. The Commentaries were
translated into French, German and Russian. During his lifetime the work
earned an estimated 14,000 pounds, an enormous amount of money at the time.
His work would also earn him belated success as a lawyer, politician, judge
and scholar. Blackstone, however, more than paid for his success; he and his
book became the targets of some of the most vitriolic attacks ever mounted
upon a man or his ideas.
In trying to comprehend the whole of British law and present it
logically Blackstone divided the law into four volumes and themes. Book I
covered the "Rights of Persons," a sweeping examination of British government,
the clergy, the royal family, marriage, children, corporations and the
"absolute rights of individuals." Book II, on the "Rights of Things," should
more properly have been called the Rights that people have in Things. It
begins with the observation that "There is nothing which so generally strikes
the imagination and engages the affections of mankind, as the right of
property." In hundreds of pages of arcane analysis he then disproves the
point. Book III covers "Private Wrongs," today known as torts. Book IV covers
"Public Wrongs," crimes and punishment, including offenses against God and
religion. Blackstone had no illusions that he had covered every important
aspect of the law adequately; his lectures and the books were designed as an
introduction to the whole of the law.
Human laws, Blackstone believed, were like scientific laws. They were
creations of God waiting to be discovered just as Issac Newton had discovered
the laws of gravity a century before. "Thus we say, the laws of motion, of
gravitation, of optics, or mechanics, as well as the laws of nature and of
nations." Law flowed from the superior to the inferior, be it God, monarch or
nation, and the inferior was compelled to obey. He acknowledged humans as "the
nobelest of all sublunary beings, a creature endowed with both reason and
freewill" but decreed that there were "certain immutable laws of human nature,
whereby freewill is in some degree regulated and restrained" and that God gave
"the faculty of reason to discover the purport of those laws."
In Blackstone's more worldly scheme a King could do no wrong. "The
king," he wrote, "is not only incapable of doing wrong, but even of thinking
wrong: in him there is no folly or weakness." A law could, however, could be
illogical and therefore irrational and open to criticism. "Thus the statute of
king Edward IV, which forbad the fine gentlemen of those times (under the
degree of a lord) to wear pikes upon their shoes or boots of more than two
inches in length, was a law that savored of oppression; because, however
ridiculous the fashion then in use might appear, the restraining it by
pecuniary penalties could serve no purpose of common utility."
Blackstone was not a pure monarchist. In his perfect world, which he
believed the United Kingdom of his day closely resembled, Parliament played a
central role as the source of legislation, and within Parliament the House of
Commons and the House of Lords balanced each other. Blackstone did not invent
the concept of separation of powers but he made the idea concrete and
accessible for others to use.
Blackstone, who according to James Boswell in his Life of Johnson "had
a bottle of port before him" during the composition of the Commentaries
finding his mind "invigorated and supported in the fatigue of his great work,"
often lead his readers through a maze of conflicting absolutes. In Book I he
wrote: "To bereave a man of life, or by violence to confiscate his estate,
without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of
despotism, as must once convey the alarm of tyranny thoroughout the whole
kingdom. But confinement of the person, by secretly hurrying him to goal,
where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten, is a less public, a less
striking, and therefore a more dangerous engine of arbitrary government." But
in the same paragraph he contends that such actions may be necessary and
proper.
Blackstone may be said to have loved humanity and disliked people. He
saw nothing wrong with restricting the vote to property owners because he
thought those without property would have too little interest in public
affairs and would be easily mislead. He abhorred the very idea of slavery in
England ("indeed it is repugnant to reason, and to the principles of natural
law,") declaring that anyone brought in slavery to England was immediately
freed, but was indifferent to its practice in America. He flatly declared that
"Christianity is part of the laws of England" but stated that the law of
England "gives liberty, rightly understood, that is, protection to a jew,
turk, or a heathen, as well as to those who profess the true religion of
Christ."
Blackstone may have proved his best and worst critic when he wrote: "It
is well if the mass of mankind will obey the laws when made, without
scrutinizing too nicely into the reasons of making them."
William Blackstone, however, had no shortage of critics, then or now.
Lord Ellenborough said of Blackstone "it might be said of him, at the time he
was composing the book, that it was not so much his learning that made the
book, as it was the book that made him learned."
A contemporary British writer known only by the pseudonym "Junius"
wrote "For the defense of truth, of law and reason the Doctor's book may be
safely consulted: but whoever wishes to cheat a neightbour of his estate, or
to rob a country of its rights, need make no scruple of consulting the Doctor himself."
Philosopher Jeremy Bentham attended Blackstone's lectures as a student.
Blackstone, he wrote, was a "formal, precise and affected lecturer - just what
you would expect from the character of his writings: cold, reserved and wary."
Blackstone's comments on the King, Bentham said "stuck in my stomach." Bentham
went on to be Blackstone's harshest enemy, denouncing his work as "ignorance
on stilts."
Another prominent critic was Joseph Priestley, best known to history
eries. Some passages in the Commentaries on religious dissenters prompted
Priestley to write a pamphlet attacking Blackstone, starting a series of
published replies, counter charges and letters. Blackstone seemed confused why
the scientist should attack him "I must first of all correct a mistake, which
Dr. Priestly seems to have fallen into, by fancying that the offensive
passages in my book were personally leveled at him."
William Blackstone was born on July 10, 1723, four months after his
father died. After his mother died when he was 12, his uncle provided for him,
securing through some influence admission to a good school. Blackstone entered
Oxford at 15, studying the classics as well as mathematics and logic. He
developed a talent as a minor poet. At 18 he entered the Middle Temple Inn of
Court, one of the training grounds for English lawyers in London. Upon leaving
Oxford for his law training he wrote a long poem called "The Lawyer's Farewell
to His Muse" which reads in part:
Then welcome business, welcome strife
Welcome the cares and thorns of life,
The visage wan, the pore-blind sight,
The toil by day, the lamp by night,
The tedious forms, the solemn prate,
The pert dispute, the dull debate,
The drowsy bench, the babbling hall,
For thee fair Justice, welcome all.
Blackstone completed his legal studies and was called, or admitted, to
the Bar in 1746. James Clitherow, his biographer and brother-in-law, blamed
his failure in the law on "not having any powerful friends or connections to
recommend him." The truth lies closer to his indifferent abilities in court.
"My temper, constitution, inclinations and a thing called principle, have long
quarrelled with active life," he wrote in July 1753, "and have assured me that
I am not made to rise in it." During his time in London Blackstone was drawn
back to Oxford, actively participating in the university's activities. He
applied for a position but lost it for political reasons, having backed the
wrong candidate for Parliament, a mistake he would not repeat again. When he
began the lectures on English law the "intervening cloud" of his life
disappeared and his "great genius...broke forth, with so much splendor"
according to his admiring brother-in-law.
In 1761 Blackstone married Sarah Clitherow, with whom he had nine
children. In that same year he was appointed a King's Counselor and elected to
the House of Commons. Blackstone was a loyal if undistinguished Tory, voting,
for example, against the repeal of the Stamp Act directed against the American
colonies. Some of his colleagues called him a "toady" for his willingness to
curry favor with the establishment that once rejected him. In one debate the
opposition turned the words of the Commentaries against Blackstone's argument.
In the next edition Blackstone rewrote the passage.
In 1770 Blackstone was knighted and accepted an appointment as a
Justice of the Court of Common Pleas. Blackstone was often in poor health, and
was irritable and impatient on the bench. As a judge his record was no more
distinguished than his time at the Bar. He died of dropsy on Feb 14, 1780 at
the age of 57, four years after the American Revolution he unintentionally
inspired.
In his 1941 book The Mysterious Science of the Law Daniel Boorstin
wrote that no other book except the Bible played a greater role in the history
of American institutions. The Founders of the country found their philosophy
in John Locke and their passion in Thomas Paine, but they found the blueprint
for a new nation in Blackstone. To be sure, they did not construct the
government as Blackstone would have designed it; they added and subtracted
from it as they went along but the foundation was built on Blackstone.
The philosophy of the Declaration of Independence asserting the
"self-evident" "unalienable Rights" of people granted by "the Laws of Nature
and of Nature's God" could have come, and probably did, from Blackstone's
description of the rights of Englishmen under the British Constitution. The
indictment against the Crown, the bulk of the Declaration, recites many of the
absolute rights of individuals covered by Blackstone including the prohibition
of taxation without consent.
Thomas Jefferson, the chief drafter of the Declaration, was certainly
familiar with Blackstone. Jefferson had a love-hate relationship with the
Commentaries. In 1812 he wrote that it was the "most elegant and best digested
of our law catalogue," but in the same letter complained that it had been
"perverted" and responsible for "the degeneracy of legal science."
Jefferson said that Blackstone and David Hume's History of England
"have done more towards the suppression of the liberties of man, than all the
millions of men in arms of Bonaparte," because both books glorified the
systems Jefferson had devoted his life to fighting. Yet on two occasions
Jefferson listed the Commentaries as required reading for law students.
Tefferson's animosity toward Blackstone grew in part out of his disdain
for the superficial treatment of the law. Jefferson learned law by reading
Coke upon Littleton, a tedious book that lead Jefferson to write to a friend,
" I do wish the Devil has old Cooke, (sic) for I am sure I never was so tired
of an old dull scoundrel in my life."
Coke, a heroic figure who as a judge defied the king in a face to face
confrontation and supported Parliament over royalty, improved with age in
Jefferson's eyes. Coke was "uncouth but cunning learning" but more
comprehensive than Blackstone. "A student finds there" Jefferson wrote of
Blackstone. "a smattering of everything, and his indolence easily persuades
him that if he understands that book, he is master of the whole body of law.
The distinction between these, and those who have drawn their stores from the
rich and deep mines of Coke on Littleton, (sic) seems well understood even by
the unlettered common people, who apply the appelation of Blackstone lawyer to
these emphemeral insects of the law."
Jefferson's core disagreement with Blackstone, however, was Jefferson's
opposition to adopting English common law in America. He was not alone in this
view. Many advocated adopting a civil code along ancient Roman and
contemporary European lines, and saw it as a final break away from England. In
the early 1800s New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Kentucky passed
'noncitation'statutes barring the adoption of English common law.
However, both common law and Blackstone were too pervasive to be
suppressed, and the centuries of precedents embodied in the Commentaries still
influence American law today. A typical example is the Illinois statute
adopting common law "prior to the fourth year of James the First," or 1607,
with certain exceptions from the reigns of Elizabeth I and Henry VIII. Common
law precedents can at times create problems in modern law that states have to
correct by statute. The leading example is the widespread abolition by statute
of the Rule in Shelley's Case, an obscenely obscure point of law on the
transfer of property originating in the 1300's. "It is revolting," wrote
Oliver Wendel Holmes in 1897 of ancient precedents in general "to have no
better reason for a rule of law than that so it was laid down in the time of
Henry IV." Revolting or not this feature remains a central part of the law and
Blackstone is still the guide.
Jefferson gave up the practice of law to the Blackstone lawyers and
despaired of the profession in words as true today as they were in 1810.
Writing to a friend who asked his advice on his son's career, Jefferson said
"Law is quite overdone. It is fallen to the ground, and a man must have great
powers to raise himself in it to either honor or profit. The mob of the
profession get as little money and less respect, than they would by digging
the earth."
Another Blackstone critic James Wilson, a signer of both the
Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and later a Supreme Court
Justice. Wilson published several tracts and lectures on Blackstone praising
him for his "uncommon merit" as a writer but damning him for his philosophy.
Wilson's opinion on Blackstone found a practical expression in the case
Chisholm v.Georgia, decided in the Supreme Court in 1793. A British citizen
employed two South Carolinians to recover property confiscated by the state of
Georgia. The case was brought to the Supreme Court. Georgia refused to answer,
denying the jurisdiction of the Court to hear the case. The Court ruled that
the creation of the United States created a greater sovereignty in the "more
perfect Union" and that states had surrendered a part of their sovereignty as
the price of adopting the Constitution. In his opinion Wilson attacked
Blackstone as the author of the view that the state is sovereign and immune
from suit. "The sovereign," Wilson wrote, "when traced to the source, must be
found in the man." The nub of Wilson's opposition to Blackstone was expressed
"Man, fearfully and wonderfully made, is the workmanship of his all perfect
CREATOR: A State, useful and valuable as the contrivance is, is the inferior
contrivance of man; and from his native dignity derives all its acquired
importance."
The Georgia legislature immediately reacted by passing a law
prohibiting the execution of the decision. Legislators from other states, also
facing claims from British creditors, protested. The reaction to the decision
lead to the passage and eventual ratification of the Eleventh Amendment, a
curious part of the Constitution now little noticed or understood. The
Amendment's restriction against the federal courts to hear "any suit in law or
equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens
of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State" is a
codification of Blackstone's teachings and indeed may be considered his
fingerprint on the Constitution.
Blackstone played an more obscure but important part in the most
important case of the Supreme Court. Unlike Wilson, Chief Justice John
Marshall, whose father had subscribed to the first American edition of the
Commentaries, found much to like in Blackstone, especially when it supported
his opinions. Blackstone's definition of a writ of mandamus, an order
directing the state to perform at act, was a linchpin in Marbury v. Madison,
the 1803 case first establishing judicial review by the Supreme Court. William
Marbury, a last minute appointee of the outgoing Adams administration, sued
Secretary of State James Madison seeking a writ to compel the government to
carry out the appointment. Marshall, himself appointed Chief Justice in the
last three weeks of Adams' term, blasted Jefferson for denying the commission
and ruled that Marbury had an unquestioned right to the appointment. Marshall
then performed an act of judicial judo, ruling that Congress had no right to
grant the Supreme Court the power to issue a writ of mandamus, as defined by
Blackstone. Marshall ruled the act unconstitutional because it granted the
Court too much power, at the same time securing the far greater power of
judicial review. Marbury lost his battle, but Jefferson lost the war against
Marshall.
Writing in 1807 on the evidence in the treason trial of former
vice-president Aaron Burr, Marshall cited the works of Blackstone and others
as "not to lightly be rejected." "These books," he wrote, "are in the hands of
every student. Legal opinions are formed upon them, and those opinions are
afterwards carried to the bar, the bench, and the legislature."
Blackstone played an influential part in the drafting and ratification
of the Constitution. In his 1985 book Novus Ordo Seclorum Forrest McDonald
called Blackstone's contributions "pervasive." The Commentaries were cited if
not by name than by inference many times during the constitutional convention.
The most direct and lasting force of his ideas concerned ex post facto laws,
rules of laws designed to retrospectively regulate conduct. During the debates
James Madison questioned whether the provision banning ex post facto laws in
the draft of the Constitution would apply to civil cases. The next day
delegate John Dickinson announced that he had consulted his Blackstone and
found that the illegitimacy of ex post facto laws applied only in criminal
cases. The matter was dropped, and Blackstone's edict remains in force today.
In the ratification debate Blackstone was used by both sides. Alexander
Hamilton, following his early devotion to Blackstone in the cause of the
Revolution, cited the Commentaries in Federalists No. 69 and 84 to bolster the
case for the Constitution. Patrick Henry, as passionately opposed to the
Constitution as he had been to the George III, argued against adoption in the
Virginia Convention because the Constitution failed to provide for jury trials
in civil cases as advocated by Blackstone.
American lawyers in the early republic relied on Blackstone as the
primary and often only source of the common law. American commentaries on the
Commentaries appeared, such as 1814's Law Miscellanies by Hugh Brackenridge,
called the Pennsylvania Blackstone. The Americanized versions never supplanted
the original. One Commentaries trained lawyer James Kent, later a Chancellor
in New York, between 1826-1830 wrote his Commentaries on American Law critical
of Blackstone and substituting much Roman law and civil code in place of the
traditional common law. Edward Story, who also learned law through reading
Blackstone, became the youngest Supreme Court Justice and author of many
influential law books. Blackstone was the unseen teacher for uncounted numbers
of American lawyers, first among them Abraham Lincoln.
A typical Lincoln legend has it that a lawyer migrating west stopped in
New Salem, Illinois, and sold a barrel full of law books, including
Blackstone, to the rough-hewn storekeeper and surveyor in order to make room
in the covered wagon. From this fateful accident, Lincoln is said to have
thrown himself day and night into studying law.
The truth, however, is, as Lincoln later wrote, he first thought of
becoming a blacksmith, rejecting the idea of studying law because of his poor
education and slim prospect of success. In 1834 Lincoln, running for state
representative, meet fellow candidate and lawyer John Staurt, who encouraged
him to take up the profession. Lincoln borrowed Staurt's books, read the first
forty pages of Blackstone on the walk home and "went at it in good earnest."
When Lincoln was running for President in 1860 he replied to an inquiry on
"the best mode of obtaining a thorough knowledge of the law." "The mode is
very simple," Lincoln wrote, "though laborious and tedious. It is only to get
the books, and read, and study them carefully. Begin with Blackstone's
Commentaries, and after reading it carefully through, say twice, take up
Chitty's Pleading, Greenleaf's Evidence, & Story's Equity &c in succession.
Work, work, work, is the main thing."
Despite another set of myths, Lincoln was not a well read man. William
Herndon, his law partner and flawed biographer, wrote that Lincoln was not
interested in reading his copies of Charles Darwin or other writers. Lincoln's
main intellectual influences were Blackstone, Euclid and Shakespeare. With the
distance of time it is impossible to know exactly how anyone influenced him
but in two unpublished fragments on government and slavery written by Lincoln
in 1854 there is a trace of Blackstone's approach. "If A. can prove, however
conclusively, that he may, of right, enslave B -- why may not B. snatch the
same argument, and prove equally, that he may enslave A?--" By a number of
such exercises Lincoln plotted out his views on slavery and government.
After Lincoln's time Blackstone's influence began to fade. American
lawyers found his long passages on the royalty irrelevant and his work gave
way to more modern writers. At the end of the nineteenth century legal
education became more structured and the case study method, still in use
today, replaced the text study of early America and England. Today a law
student may be barely familiar with the name, reading only a few fragments in
case books placed there for historical perspective.
William Blackstone was by any standard often a failure and the
Commentaries were flawed. And yet this failed, flawed man contributed,
sometimes in spite of himself, greatly to the Constitution, laws and leaders
of the United States. For that, if nothing else, he was a success after all.
*************************************
Blackstone's View of Natural Law
and Its Influence on the Formation of American Declaration of
Independence and the Constitution
By Kent Schmidt
Oak Brook College of Law
One of the greatest ironies of American history is the influence of Sir
William Blackstone on the American War for Independence.Blackstone, though
most famous for his Commentaries on the Laws of England, also enjoyed a
distinguished career as a prominent member of Parliament, faithfully
supporting the Crown and stingingly criticizing the Colonies for their
insurrection and disloyalty to their mother country.1 Contemporaneous with his
tenure in Parliament (1761–1770), Blackstone put the finishing touches on the
Commentaries, which ironically served to defeat the cause of British
sovereignty for which he so loyally fought. Little did Blackstone realize that
his project to systemize the English common law2 would fuel the American
flames of desire for independence from the Crown.
It is interesting to speculate how Blackstone would have refined his writings
had he known that they would be devoured so heartily by the Colonists3 and
utilized to encourage their rebellion against the Crown to which his loyalties
belonged. The Commentaries were so well received by the Colonists that Edmund
Burke noted in 1775 that nearly as many of Blackstone's Commentaries had been
sold in America as in England.4 At least one thousand copies of the English
edition had been sold in the United States by 1771, prompting printer Robert
Bell of Philadelphia to propose a domestic edition. Fifteen hundred of these
sets were ordered by lawyers, judges, public officers, and interested laymen
throughout the Colonies.
While much has been written regarding the influence of Blackstone on the
formation and development of various aspects of early American law from legal
education to the common law, this thesis probes specifically into the
contribution which Blackstone made in the areas of natural law which became
the foundation of America's two primary founding documents: the Declaration of
Independence and the Constitution.
I. the influence of blackstone on the declaration of independence
A. The Source of Law
While Blackstone was certainly not the first to set forth a concept termed
“natural law,” his philosophy was distinguishable from others by his
identification of the source of natural law. Cicero and Grotius, for instance,
believed that the law of nature, which is binding upon all humans just as
surely as gravity affects all of nature, is nothing more than the voice of
reason.5 In sharp contrast to this humanistic view of natural law, Blackstone
believed that the law of nature is not only binding on all men, but that it is
dictated by God Himself.6
These precepts [in the Bible] when revealed, are found upon comparison to be
really a part of the original law of nature. . . . But we are not from thence
to conclude that the knowledge of these truths was attainable by reason, in
its present corrupted state since we find that, until they were revealed, they
were hid from the wisdom of the ages.7
Thomas Jefferson reflected Black-stone's view when he used the phrase “law of
nature and of nature's God” in the Declaration. This phrase indicates that
Jefferson understood the difference between Blackstone's theory and that of
Grotius and Cicero. The law of nature refers to the will of God observable in
creation while the law of nature's God refers to the divine law which is
revealed through the Scriptures. While Jefferson affirmed Blackstone's view of
natural law, he abhorred the influence of Blackstone in the adoption of the
English common law in the Colonies. Because of Jefferson's significant role in
the founding of America, it is necessary to discern precisely where he agreed
with Blackstone as well as where he disagreed.
B. The Origin and Nature of Rights
The philosophy of the Declaration states that man is endowed by his Creator
with the independence to which he is entitled by the law of nature. It also
states that certain rights are unalienable because they are founded in the
human nature, having their source in the Creator of the human race, and that
governments are originated to secure these rights among men.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that
they are endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among
these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.8
The concept of Creator-endowed rights, which accords with Blackstone,9 is best
understood by contrasting it with the beliefs of the Greeks and Romans who
believe in state-created rights. As one scholar has noted:The Greeks could not
conceive of “rights” which were God-given.The Greeks believed that “rights”
were a product of society and state. Only free men had rights, because free
men were able to participate in the government of polis, the “city.” Slaves,
women, and children did not share those rights because they had no political
voice. What rights men had were created by the state and could be ended by the
state. Rights were politically given and were subject to the political
process, rather than God-given.10
C. The Morality of Insurrection
It is important to note that the Colonists were a very conscientious people.
As the Declaration was disseminated to the common patriots of New England, it
solidified their commitment to the principles of independence and resolved
whatever doubts they had regarding the morality of a war for independence.
More specifically, as American writers, including Thomas Paine,11 began to
speak of the duty of self-preservation—the idea of a law that was higher and
superior to the law of England—the spirit of the revolution began to spread.
This law of nature, being co-eval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is
of course superior to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all
countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to
this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their
authority, mediately or immediately, from this original.12 (Emphasis added.)
History demonstrates that the Colonists, unlike their counterparts in France,
were not anarchists desiring to shed every shackle of legitimate government,
but were rather conscientious and methodical in coming to the decision that
they must separate from Britain. In essence, the Colonists believed that, in
spite of what Blackstone stated in Parliament,13 what he wrote in reference to
the effect which laws contrary to the law of nature have on their subjects
justified their cause.
D. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness
It is axiomatic that the right to life is foundational to all other rights. On
this subject, Blackstone stated:The right of personal security consists in a
person's legal and uninterrupted enjoyment of his life, his limbs, his body,
his health, and his reputation. Life is an immediate gift from God, a right
inherent by nature in every individual. . . .14
Jefferson's use of the term “pursuit of happiness” has been distorted to
justify a philosophy which borders on anarchy. The Founding Fathers'
understanding of the concept of happiness was much closer to that of
Blackstone, who stated that the Creator has so intimately connected, so
inseparably interwoven the laws of eternal justice with the happiness of each
individual that the latter cannot be attained but by observing the former; and
if the former be punctually obeyed, it cannot but induce the latter. In
consequence of which mutual connection of justice and human felicity, he has
not perplexed the law of nature with a multitude of abstract rules and
precepts, referring merely to the fitness or unfitness of things . . . but has
graciously reduced the rule of obedience to this one paternal precept, “that
man should pursue his own true and substantial happiness.”15
It is not at all surprising that Thomas Jefferson used the phrase “life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” to describe unalienable rights.
II. the influence of blackstone on the constitutionA. No Taxation
Without Representation
In a sense, the Declaration was a document listing grievances against a
government which the Signers believed had failed to operate in accordance with
the laws of nature. Chief among the grievances listed in the Declaration was
the fact that King George violated the “laws of nature and of nature's God” by
“imposing taxes on us without our consent.” Colonies were taxed but denied
representation in Parliament.In contrast, the Constitution documents how the
Founding Fathers believed that an ideal government, in submission to the law
of nature, should operate. Accordingly, the Constitution sought to remedy the
taxation problem by requiring in Article I, Section 7, that bills for revenue
originate in the House of Representatives, the body of government closest to
the American people.16
B. The Unalienable Right to Property
An understanding of Blackstone's beliefs on property rights is impossible
apart from an understanding of his beliefs on happiness, for he believed that
the latter depended on the former. Blackstone stated that a right to property
“tends to man's real happiness, and therefore justly concluding that . . . it
is a part of the law of nature.”17 Likewise, according to Blackstone, the
converse is true—denial of property rights is “destructive of man's real
happiness, and therefore the law of nature forbids it.”18
Richard A. Huenefeld has noted the following concerning Blackstone's influence
on the Founding Fathers' view of property rights:
The influential Blackstone said that the right of private property “consists
in the free use, enjoyment, and disposal of all [personal] acquisitions.”
While he spoke of the “sacred and inviolable rights of private property,” he
equivocated concerning the origin and nature of property rights. He indicated
that the “origin of private property is probably found in nature,” but that
much of this natural liberty was sacrificed in order to enjoy society's
protection of it. Apparently he was uncertain whether to adopt a law of nature
position or a social compact theory. Blackstone turned to the revealed law of
God for “the only true and solid foundation of man's dominion over external
things.” He referred to Genesis chapter one wherein the Creator gave man
“dominion over all the earth.” From this, Blackstone considered this common
ownership sufficient for only a short time as the growth of population led to
conflicts over the subject of dominion. He adopted a social compact theory,
asserting that “[n]ecessity begat property,” meaning that civil laws
recognizing the institution of property were needed for beneficial resolution
of conflicts. He modified his social compact theory by holding that “bodily
labour, bestowed upon any subject which before lay in common to all men, is
universally allowed to give the fairest and most reasonable title to an
exclusive property therein.”19
When the Framers engrafted the right to property into the Constitution—with
all of its complexities and exceptions—the theories of Blackstone were,
without a doubt, of paramount influence.
C. The Unalienable Right of Self-Defense
Blackstone's view of the right to bear arms is stated in the following quote:
The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present
mention, is that of having arms for their defense . . . which is also declared
by the same statute 1 W. & M. st. 2, C. 2, and it is indeed, a public
allowance under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and
self-preservation.20
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that a “well
regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right
of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”21 The question
of the source of this principle is difficult because of the extensive history
of debate in England and virtually every other society which has attempted to
maintain a balance between anarchy and oppressive government. However, it is
safe to say that the American belief in the right to bear arms has its roots
in “civil jurists of the period who had specifically dealt with the question
of self-defense as a natural right.”22 It has been noted that their doctrine
stemmed essentially from the traditional view of suicide as a sin and perhaps
as the ultimate sin. To them a failure to defend yourself against an unlawful
aggression amounted to suicide by inaction. If a person's life is a gift of
the Creator and he cannot destroy it by action, he cannot destroy it by
inaction or negligence. If life is not the private property of the person
living, then it is not his to destroy or allow to be destroyed: you may
voluntarily acquiesce to robbery; you may not voluntarily acquiesce to
murder.23
III. conclusion
It is not coincidental that the ideas in the Declaration of Independence and
Constitution were espoused less than a decade after Blackstone's Commentaries
first appeared in print in England. The correlation between the philosophy of
America's founding documents and the Commentaries is worthy of careful
exploration.
Endnotes
1. One scholar has gone so far as to say that “Blackstone was very extreme in
his anti-American bias, and he appeared among the most vociferous advocates of
a harsh and uncompromising attitude. . . . It was this narrow and
uncompromising outlook which led to the break with the American colonies.”
Chroust, Blackstone Revisited, 17 U. Kan. City L. Rev. 24, 28–29 (1948).
2. Blackstone's purpose in writing the Commentaries was much narrower in scope
than the influence which they actually had. See I.G. Doolittle, Sir William
Blackstone and His Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765–9): A
Biographical Approach, 3 Oxford J. Legal Stud. 99, 108 (1983), citing
Holdsworth, History of English Law xii, 745–6. “[T]he `Proposals' advertising
his first course of lectures in 1753 spoke of his attempt `to lay down a
general and comprehensive plan of the laws of England, to deduce their
history, to enforce and illustrate their leading rules and fundamental
principles, and to compare them with the laws of nature and of other nations,
without entering into practical niceties, or the minute distinctions of
particular cases.'”
3. Dennis R. Nolan, Sir William Blackstone and the New American Republic: A
Study of Intellectual Impact, 51 N.Y. Univ. L. Rev. 731, 737 (1976), citing F.
Hicks, Men and Books Famous in the Law 126 (1921) and P. Hamlin, Legal
Education in Colonial New York 64–65 (1939).
4. Address by Edmund Burke, Speech on Moving His Resolutions for Conciliation
with the Colonies, Mar. 22, 1775, in 2 The Works of the Right Honorable Edmund
Burke 101, 125 (6th ed. 1880).
5. Tom N. McInnis, Natural Law in the American Revolutionary Struggle, 16
Legal Studies Forum 41, 44 (1992).
6. 1 William Blackstone, Commentaries 41.
7. Id.
8. The Declaration of Independence para. 2 (U.S. 1776).
9. Blackstone, supra note 6 at 129.
10. Gary T. Amos, Defending the Declaration, 112 (1989).
11. McInnis, supra note 5 at 41.
12. Blackstone, supra note 6.
13. See note 1 and corresponding text.
14. Blackstone, supra note 6 at 129.
15. Blackstone, supra note 6 at 40–41.
16. U.S. Const. art. I, § 7, “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in
the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with
Amendments on other Bills.”
17. Blackstone, supra note 6.
18. Id.
19. Richard A. Huenefeld, The Unalienable Right of Property: Its Foundation,
Erosion and Restoration, 8 J. Christian Jurisprudence 147, 167–168 (1990),
citing 1 William Blackstone, Commentaries at 138, 140, 2 William Blackstone,
Commentaries at 3, 8.
20. Blackstone, supra note 6 at 144.
21. U.S. Const. amend. II.
22. David T. Hardy, The Unalienable Right to Self-Defense and the Second
Amendment, 8 J. Christian Jurisprudence 87, 97 (1990).
23. Id.
***************
The American founding fathers were heavily influenced by the model of common
law set forth by William Blackstone in the 1700s. James Wilson was among those
who embraced the common law model in constructing early American founding
documents and in enumerating the powers of government. A member of the Second
Continental Congress, signer of the Constitution, and one of the first five
U.S. Supreme Court Justices, Wilson looked to common law principles to form
his decisions in Congress and the Court. [1]
Born in Scotland and educated at the University of St. Andrews, Wilson
emigrated to the American colonies in 1765 in search of new opportunities,
fame and fortune. Within a few years of opening his private law practice in
Reading, Pennsylvania, his practice stretched over seven counties in the
colony. His reputation as a good common law lawyer thus led him to service as
a delegate to the First Continental Congress, and later, the Constitutional
Convention.
In the Constitutional Convention, Wilson was a strong advocate of popular
sovereignty and a strong national government. Such a stance is evidence of his
belief in the principle of self-government: "The Articles of Confederation did
not provide a national government strong enough to govern effectively. Yet
they were hesitant to create a governmental monstrosity that might wipe out
self-government at the state and local levels. The new Constitution of 1787
resolved these concerns. The safeguard for local self-government was the
federal system."[2]
Of the Constitution Wilson says, "When I reflect how widely men differ in
their opinions, and that every man (and observation applies likewise to every
state) has an equal pretension to assert his own, I am satisfied thatanything
nearer to perfection could not have been accomplished."[3]
Blackstone’s Common Law Theory
William Blackstone, an 18th century British jurist and contemporary of James
Wilson’s, set forth a common law model with two main categories--the law of
nature and the law of revelation. In his Commentaries on the Laws of England,
Blackstone explains that the law of nature establishes a rule of moral conduct
based on God’s law, which recognizes man as created in the image of God. This
rule of moral conduct imposes a rule of action upon man that includes duties
to God, self, and neighbor. "And it is that rule of action, which is
prescribed by some superior, and which the inferior is bound to obey." [4]
Blackstone defines the law of nature as "the eternal, immutable laws of good
and evil, to which the Creator himself in all his dispensations conforms; and
which he has enabled human reason to discover, so far as they are necessary
for the conduct of human actions." [5] The law of nature, therefore, sets up
an objective standard of morality and right and wrong actions as dictated by
God. This standard is based on the understanding that man is created in the
image of God, and that he (man) has God-given intuitive knowledge by which he
knows the objective standard, and is thus responsible for adhering to it.
Understanding the principle of the law of nature leads to the logical
conclusion that man has no subjective right to do something that has been
established as objectively wrong. Any act that violates the image of God in
oneself or in other men is considered malum in se, or bad in and of itself. An
action that is malum in se, therefore, violates not only one’s duty to God (to
live life for His glory), but also violates duty to self in that it could
potentially compromise one’s health and well-being. Therefore, the law of
nature is the first standard by which an
individual’s actions should be gauged.
A second standard by which an individual’s actions should be gauged is the
standard of malum prohibitum, or bad because prohibited. This standard is
established based on certain revealed laws seen in the law of nature and
nature’s God. Government has the authority to pass laws that set forth a rule
of civil conduct only, and such laws must be in accordance with the law of
nature. Such laws would make certain actions malum prohibitum. Blackstone
states, "For the end and intent of [municipal] laws being only to regulate the
behavior of mankind, as they are members of society . . . they have
consequently no business or concern with any but social or relative
duties." [6]
Blackstone saw that the role of government is not to enumerate rights, but to
protect those rights already imparted to every individual by God. His common
law model establishes that the duty of government is to command what is right
and prohibit what is wrong. He states, "The principal aim of society is to
protect individuals in the enjoyment of those absolute rights which were
vested in them by the immutable laws of nature." [7] The early American
founders, including James Wilson, thus constructed a framing document that
reinforced the truth of certain unalienable rights while defining and limiting
the powers of government.
Common Law and the Founders
In the Declaration of Independence, the founding fathers refer to "certain
unalienable rights . . . among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness." [8] This statement is not an endowing of rights by the government,
but merely an enumeration of God-given rights. Blackstone asserted that man
has a duty to "pursue his own true and substantial happiness." [9] Man’s
pursuit of happiness, as understood by both Blackstone and the founders, is
dependent upon his adherence to the laws of eternal justice and God’s moral
law. It is impossible for man to be happy without keeping these laws. "[The
Creator] has so intimately connected, so inseparably woven, the laws of
eternal justice with the happiness of each individual, that the latter cannot
be attained but by observing the former; and if the former be punctually
obeyed, it can not but induce the latter." [10]
In addition, Wilson believed, concurring with Blackstone, that government is
duty-bound to regulate actions which are inconsistent with the law of nature.
For example, the Judiciary Act of 1789 gave federal circuit courts
jurisdiction "over offenses cognizable under the authority of the U.S." [11]
But neither "crime" nor "authority" were defined for purposes of that act.
Wilson, then Supreme Court Justice, took the view that the federal common law
incorporates the law of nations because both are a part of natural law. That
is, Wilson saw all laws made by man as falling under the scope of the law of
nature and nature’s God, and therefore necessarily consistent with that
supreme law.
In establishing the role and scope of government, the early American founders
were influenced by Blackstone’s definition of law in his Commentaries on the
Laws of England: "A rule of civil conduct prescribed by the Supreme power in a
state, commanding what is right, and prohibiting what is wrong." [12] Wilson
clearly understood that "it is the nature of man to pursue his own interest,
in preference to the public good." [13] He thus knew that a governmental
system was necessary that encouraged the proper self-government of the people
while effectively restraining the inherent vices of human nature. Wilson was
confident that such had been achieved through the architecture of the
Constitution of the United States, saying, "I am bold to assert, that it is
the best form of government which has been offered to the world." [14]
Wilson on the Judiciary
Under Chief Justice John Jay, and appointed by George Washington, Wilson was
one of the first five Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court. As mentioned, Wilson
accepted Blackstone’s common law model that set forth legal and behavioral
standards based on the law of nature and nature’s God. With a full
understanding of Blackstone’s view of the role of judges and the courts, we
can see that Wilson rejected judicial activism as readily as did Blackstone.
Blackstone differentiates the role of the legislator versus the role of judges
and the courts in Section III of Commentaries on the Laws of England: "How
are these customs and maxims [i.e. laws] to be known, and by whom is their
validity determined? The answer is, by the judges in the several courts of
justice. They are the depositories of the laws; the living oracles, who must
decide in all cases of doubt, and who are bound by an oath to decide according
to the law of the land . . . not delegated to pronounce a new law, but to
maintain and expound the old one. . . . And indeed, these judicial decisions
are the principal and most authoritative evidence that can be given of the
existence of such a custom as shall form a part of the common law [emphasis
added]." [15] In his 1791 lectures, Wilson, too, emphasized that the duty of a
judge "is, not to make the law, but to interpret and apply it." [16]
James Wilson would vehemently reject the judicial activism prevalent in
America's federal courts. Contemporary secular natural law jurisprudence
removes the objective standard of the law of nature and establishes moral
relativism. This false ‘standard’ sets the stage for the judicial activism
that the Framers cast off as being deleterious to the security of individual
inalienable rights. On the heels of the Constitutional Convention, Wilson
stated, "The first and governing maxim in the interpretation of a statute is,
to discover the meaning of those who made it." [17]
Wilson on Slavery
Wilson’s antislavery sentiments were based on the common law principle of
equality. Blackstone’s common law view of equality is composed of two parts:
1) equality is prescribed by the law of nature, and 2) in civil terms, there
are no special privileges afforded to anyone. Any privilege or benefit that an
individual receives should be as a result of a right that was given up,
otherwise, the principle of equality is violated. The converse is also true,
that if any privilege or benefit due an individual by virtue of the
inalienable rights of mankind is withheld, the principle of equality is also
violated.
Wilson concurred with Blackstone’s assertion of the principle of equality as
protected in the common law. He specifically applied this principle to the
issue of slavery, a practice he strongly opposed. Wilson states, "Slavery, or
an absolute and unlimited power in the master over life and fortune of the
slave, is unauthorized by the common law . . . The reasons which we sometimes
see assigned for the origin and the continuance of slavery appear, when
examined to the bottom, to be built upon a false foundation. In the enjoyment
of their persons and their property, the common law protects all." [18]
Conclusion
James Wilson was heavily influenced by the model of common law set forth by
William Blackstone in the 1700s, as were many of the founding fathers. By
embracing the common law model in constructing early American founding
documents, Wilson and the Framers attempted to ensure a governmental system
that would truly be by the people, and for the people.
Current judicial activism and an overly extended federal government fly in the
face of the structure established by the founding fathers. Wilson predicted
this opposition shortly after the Constitutional Convention, saying, "It is
the interest of a very numerous, powerful, and respectable body to counteract
and destroy the excellent work produced by the late Convention." [19] A return
to the common law model of Blackstone, a model that recognizes the inalienable
rights inherent in the law of nature and nature’s God, a model that was fully
embraced by Wilson and the founders, is a necessary and urgent step on the
road to restoring the greatness of America’s federal repubic.
*********************
In the eighteenth century another star had risen in England among legal
scholars. His name was Sir William Blackstone. He taught law at Oxford, and in
1765 published a four-volume commentary on the laws of England. Blackstone
quickly gained the reputation of being the greatest living expert on the
British Common Law.
Blackstone’s Commentaries won instant acclaim in England. In the colonies
they were not only a sensation, they became a weapon.154 The founders of the
United States cited Blackstone twice as often as they cited Locke.155 His
Commentaries contained the very same account of the history of British rights
and liberties that the colonists were already making. Throughout the colonies
people began citing Blackstone as an authority on law and rights. In the ten
years before the revolution, more copies of Blackstone’s Commentaries were
sold in the colonies than in England itself. Following in the Puritan stream
which understood government’s purpose to be the protection of the people,
Blackstone had echoed Locke’s view of the foundation of government:
For the principal aim of society is to protect individuals in the enjoyment of
those absolute rights, which were vested in them by the immutable laws of
nature… Hence it follows, that the first and primary end of human laws is to
maintain and regulate these absolute rights of individuals.156
Every element of the Founders’ understanding of legal rights had already been
stated in Blackstone’s Commentaries. Blackstone explained how the English
Common Law affirmed the principle of inalienable rights as grounded in
religious presuppositions. Blackstone called them natural rights and absolute
rights. But they were identical to what Jefferson would call inalienable
rights. According to Blackstone:
Those rights, then, which God and nature have established, and are therefore
called natural rights, such as are life and liberty, need not the aid of human
laws to be more effectually invested in every man than they are; neither do
they receive any additional strength when declared by the municipal laws to be
inviolable. On the contrary, no human legislature has power to abridge or
destroy them, unless the owner shall himself commit some act that amounts to a forfeiture…157
Rights are… first, those which concern and are annexed to the persons of men,
and are then called jus personarum or the rights of persons … Natural persons
are such as the God of nature formed us…158
By the absolute rights of individuals we mean those which are so in their
primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a
state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy whether out of
society or in it.159
natural liberty ... [is] a right inherent in us by birth, and one of the gifts
of God to man at his creation...160
Several key points stand out in Blackstone's comments about rights. First, the
most important rights are God-given. They are not government created.
Government's laws cannot make those rights any stronger or any weaker. Second,
they can only be lost if a person forfeits them by committing evil deeds. The
rights are permanent as long as a person lives honestly and justly. But they
can be taken away as punishment for crime or for some other violation of the
laws of nature. Third, they are part of human nature itself because God
attaches them to humanity––they are “annexed” to personhood. Fourth, these
rights are “absolute,” not in the sense of being unlimited or boundless––their
limits are set by the laws of nature. Rather, they are “absolute” in the sense
that they are not created by society or government. They are what they are,
and will never change.
The key difference between Britain and America was not how the rights were
defined. It was in whether those rights could really be protected. The British
system of government was not well-suited for protecting them. It gave the King
and Parliament many broad powers based on customs and traditions. These powers
were called prerogatives, meaning that they were outside the restrictions of
ordinary laws.
The king's power was called the royal prerogative. It was similar to
emergency power. The king, because he was king, he could exercise
extraordinary powers even if it meant denying people’s absolute rights.
The Parliament’s power was called parliamentary supremacy. It meant that for
some purposes there were no effective limits on the legislature’s power. Since
England did not have a written constitution to limit its power, Parliament
could pass any law it wished. There was no separate supreme court in England.
The highest court was controlled by the Parliament and lacked the power to
declare laws unconstitutional. Therefore, where lawmaking was concerned,
Parliament was supreme. If Parliament’s laws denied people’s absolute rights,
there was no way to stop it.
In the British system, the king and the parliament were free to treat all
rights as alienable. Even though the British Common Law said that people
possessed inalienable rights, the British government functioned as if they did
not exist.
The American founders decided to take Blackstone seriously. If some rights
are truly inalienable, they reasoned, then these rights could be defended—even
against the king and Parliament. Furthermore, if inalienable rights were the
basis of government, it was wrong for the king and parliament to nullify these
rights with arbitrary power. The form of government would have to be changed.
It could no longer be based on royal prerogative and parliamentary supremacy.
The new government would be based on inalienable rights. Any powers contrary
to those rights would be abolished.
*********************************
I trust you will read carefully and respond thoroughly to these scholars.
That's what you expect out of me each time your cut-and-paste machine is
turned on.
> >:|> >:|"The belief in a future state of rewards and punishments, the entertaining
> >:|> >:|just ideas of the attributes of the Supreme Being, and a firm persuasion that
> >:|> >:|He superintends and will finally compensate every action in human life, are
> >:|> >:|the grand foundation of judicial oaths, which call God to witness the truth of
> >:|> >:|those facts, which perhaps may only be known to him and the party attesting.
> >:|> >:|All moral evidence, all confidence in human veracity [are] weakened by
> >:|> >:|apostasy, and overthrown by total infidelity."
>
> >:|Do you want the quotes of the founders who repeated these words?
>
> So? Words like that even formed parts of various charters and original
> Constitutions. So what? They don't anymore. That is called progress.
There's the old "it aint worth talkin about if it don't apply in 1999"
response. You never implied that did you Jim?
> >:|> >:|Many state constitutions included this "nasty" idea which was part and parcel
> >:|> >:|of the common law for centuries.
>
> But not anymore. LOL
>
> Any church can get as political as it wants to get, but in doing so they
> will lose their tax exempt status.
>
> The government doesn't tell them they can't be political, they can be, if
> they are willing to pay their taxes as all else are expected to do.
Is your view then that no charitable organization, with a tax-exempt status,
can ever make a political statement. Mother Theresa should have never said,
"help the poor people in Calcutta" because that might affect our political
international relations with India; the salvation army cannot ask for old
clothes, because that may be making a statement about the government's
politics concerning welfare. If a priest were to give a confessor penance for
having an abortion, that would blatantly be political, right?
You are different from the framers in one fundamental way: they felt that it
was important to foster voluntary charitable and religious endeavors for the
good of society. You want to hinder these efforts.
> You are trying to compare this to a time when men were deprived of their
> life, liberty, property, rights, etc if they spoke out. That is not the
> case today, AND YOU KNOW THAT, yet you paint your little bull crappy
> picture.
No Jim, what I know is that there are many in jail today for speaking out
about abortion, raising their children in their religious tradition, etc.
Perhaps you didn't know that.
> Like it or not, we have a constitutional principle known as separation of
> church and state or religion and government.
Fortunately there are some common sensical minds on the Supreme Court who
don't see this principle the same way you do.
and i can still say
Blessings,
Rick
http://www.universitylake.org/primarysources.html
Mike Curtis
And there is nothing in this relating to the quotes above. I did a
search on Adams to find it and there was nothing. Saved me a lot of
time. So what is the source for the above Adams quotes?
[snipped, yawn]
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
Ambrose Bierce wrote:
COMFORT, n. A state of mind produced by contemplation of a neighbor's
uneasiness.
CONVERSATION, n. A fair to the display of the minor mental
commodities, each exhibitor being too intent upon the arrangement of
his own wares to observe those of his neighbor.
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|
>:|>jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>:|>>
>:|>> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|>>
>:|>> >:|jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>:|>> >:|>
>:|>> >:|> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|>> >:|>
>:|>> >:|> >:|John Adams was even nastier:
>:|>> >:|>
>:|>> >:|> >:|"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly
>:|>> >:|> >:|inadequate for the government of any other."
>:|>> >:|>
>:|>> >:|> Do you have a cite for the above quote?
>:|>> >:|
>:|>> >:|John Adams, Oct. 11, 1798 Address to the military
>:|>> >:|
>:|>> Again, I will ask for the complete cite.
>:|>> That would include the publication it is and page numbers.
>:|>
>:|>You have lowered me to your approach now:
>:|
>:|And there is nothing in this relating to the quotes above. I did a
>:|search on Adams to find it and there was nothing. Saved me a lot of
>:|time. So what is the source for the above Adams quotes?
>:|
You mean he posted a 1000 and some odd lines and never identified the full
cite of the post that was asked about?
I haven't had time to read it yet so I didn't know what it was about.
Mike Curtis
>mi...@x.aimetering.com.nospam (Mike Curtis) wrote:
>
>>:|Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>>:|
>>:|>jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>>:|>>
>>:|>> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>>:|>>
>>:|>> >:|jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>>:|>> >:|>
>>:|>> >:|> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>>:|>> >:|>
>
>
>>:|>> >:|> >:|John Adams was even nastier:
>>:|>> >:|>
>>:|>> >:|> >:|"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly
>>:|>> >:|> >:|inadequate for the government of any other."
>>:|>> >:|>
>>:|>> >:|> Do you have a cite for the above quote?
>>:|>> >:|
>>:|>> >:|John Adams, Oct. 11, 1798 Address to the military
>>:|>> >:|
>>:|>> Again, I will ask for the complete cite.
>>:|>> That would include the publication it is and page numbers.
>>:|>
>
>
>>:|>You have lowered me to your approach now:
>>:|
>>:|And there is nothing in this relating to the quotes above. I did a
>>:|search on Adams to find it and there was nothing. Saved me a lot of
>>:|time. So what is the source for the above Adams quotes?
>>:|
>
>
>You mean he posted a 1000 and some odd lines and never identified the full
>cite of the post that was asked about?
>I haven't had time to read it yet so I didn't know what it was about.
He has done it two times so far. It's about blackstone. He's posted it
before and I think you've addressed it before. It's now a tantrum over
your "cutting & pasting." <smile>
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>:|>
>:|> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|>
>:|> >:|jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>:|> >:|>
>:|> >:|> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|> >:|>
>:|> >:|> >:|William Barwell wrote:
>:|> >:|
>:|> >:|> >:|> I joined after the rather nasty George Bush declared Atheists
>:|> >:|> >:|> could not be good American citizens.
>:|> >:|> >:|
>:|> >:|> >:|John Adams was even nastier:
>:|> >:|>
>:|> >:|> >:|"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly
>:|> >:|> >:|inadequate for the government of any other."
>:|> >:|>
>:|> >:|> Do you have a cite for the above quote?
>:|> >:|
>:|> >:|John Adams, Oct. 11, 1798 Address to the military
>:|> >:|
>:|> Again, I will ask for the complete cite.
>:|> That would include the publication it is and page numbers.
>:|
>:|Not going to take the extra effort and time to go to the Library to satisfy
>:|you.
Don't you dare try and pull this stunt with me.
I have already caught you posting a bogus Adams quote. J Q Adams. Remember?
Secondly, anytime you have asked me for a cite I either provided you with
that cite, the full cite or I posted the material along with the cite.
>Last time I took an hour to look up some primary source at your behest, I
>:|was told, after I had provided it, that I still hadn't provided it. And then
>:|when I proved that I had provided it, I was told, "well, I must have
>:|overlooked it, these posts are too long to remember everything." So, no, I'm
>:|not going to work hard for no reason. You don't appreciate it, and I don't
>:|work for nothing.
>:|
I sense you have no official cite that you can provide. I do know that
there is a few bogus John Adams quotes floating around that something about
the one above sure seems like it might fit that area.
BTW, I think your crying above has to do with something you got all bent
out of shape about that Mike was suppose to have done, not me.
Oh no, you mean, oh yes, you got the quote from someplace but it didn't
give a full cite, so fact is, I bet you don't know if its valid or not, LOL
Fact still remains, you ignore my documented evidence all the time, I spend
time gathering that as well.
Fact is, I have supplied you with cites, I seldom post such things without
full cites.
So get off your high horse and provide the cite or acknowledge you don't
have it, and don't know if the quote is valid or not.
Gardiner
The quotes above assert Blackstone's relevance to the development of legal
principles in America. All of the articles I posted directly go to that issue.
And all you do is--
> [snipped, yawn]
That's what you'll get from me from now on if I don't think your posts are relevant.
RG
Gardiner
>
> mi...@x.aimetering.com.nospam (Mike Curtis) wrote:
>
> >:|Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
> >:|
> >:|>jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
> >:|>>
> >:|>> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
> >:|>>
> >:|>> >:|>
> >:|>> >:|> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>
> >:|>> >:|> >:|John Adams was even nastier:
> >:|>> >:|>
> >:|>> >:|> >:|"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly
> >:|>> >:|> >:|inadequate for the government of any other."
> >:|>> >:|>
> >:|>> >:|> Do you have a cite for the above quote?
> >:|>> >:|
> >:|>> >:|John Adams, Oct. 11, 1798 Address to the military
> >:|>> >:|
> >:|>> Again, I will ask for the complete cite.
> >:|>> That would include the publication it is and page numbers.
>
> >:|>You have lowered me to your approach now:
> >:|
> >:|And there is nothing in this relating to the quotes above. I did a
> >:|search on Adams to find it and there was nothing. Saved me a lot of
> >:|time. So what is the source for the above Adams quotes?
> >:|
>
> You mean he posted a 1000 and some odd lines and never identified the full
> cite of the post that was asked about?
> I haven't had time to read it yet so I didn't know what it was about.
You asked me to give you evidence for Blackstone's influence. I gave you 1000
some odd lines. You avoid it. When you do the same thing you claim to "bury"
me in the evidence. Well you have both been buried. Curtis snips and you avoid.
It is now abundantly apparent that neither you nor Curtis are interested in a
discussion. From now on I do not intend to read or respond to any of your
posts which are not brief and to the point. 25K max.
Gardiner
>
> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>
> >:|jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
> >:|>
> >:|> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
> >:|>
> >:|> >:|>
> >:|> >:|> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
> >:|> >:|>
> >:|> >:|> >:|William Barwell wrote:
> >:|> >:|
> >:|> >:|> >:|> I joined after the rather nasty George Bush declared Atheists
> >:|> >:|> >:|> could not be good American citizens.
> >:|> >:|> >:|
> >:|> >:|> >:|John Adams was even nastier:
> >:|> >:|>
> >:|> >:|> >:|"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly
> >:|> >:|> >:|inadequate for the government of any other."
> >:|> >:|>
> >:|> >:|> Do you have a cite for the above quote?
> >:|> >:|
> >:|> >:|John Adams, Oct. 11, 1798 Address to the military
> >:|> >:|
> >:|> Again, I will ask for the complete cite.
> >:|> That would include the publication it is and page numbers.
> >:|
> >:|Not going to take the extra effort and time to go to the Library to satisfy
> >:|you.
>
[snip. chasing the wind]
Gardiner
>
> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
> >:|> >:|> >:|"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly
> >:|> >:|> >:|inadequate for the government of any other."
> >:|> >:|>
> >:|> >:|> Do you have a cite for the above quote?
> >:|> >:|
> >:|> >:|John Adams, Oct. 11, 1798 Address to the military
> >:|> >:|
> >:|> Again, I will ask for the complete cite.
> >:|> That would include the publication it is and page numbers.
> >:|
> >:|Not going to take the extra effort and time to go to the Library to satisfy
> >:|you.
>
>
Not so.
> Secondly, anytime you have asked me for a cite I either provided you with
> that cite, the full cite or I posted the material along with the cite.
>
> I sense you have no official cite that you can provide. I do know that
> there is a few bogus John Adams quotes floating around that something about
> the one above sure seems like it might fit that area.
>
> BTW, I think your crying above has to do with something you got all bent
> out of shape about that Mike was suppose to have done, not me.
>
> Oh no, you mean, oh yes, you got the quote from someplace but it didn't
> give a full cite, so fact is, I bet you don't know if its valid or not, LOL
>
> Fact still remains, you ignore my documented evidence all the time, I spend
> time gathering that as well.
> Fact is, I have supplied you with cites, I seldom post such things without
> full cites.
>
> So get off your high horse and provide the cite or acknowledge you don't
> have it, and don't know if the quote is valid or not.
You know, you really could care less if there is an official citation or not.
Once I give it to you, all you'll do is say, "oh." You probably won't even do
that. You'll probably just overlook it. You'll probably not say another word
about it. Why? Because you could care less if Adams said this or not.
Once you get the source, and it is proven that Adams said it, you'll say, "so
what, who cares?" That's why you don't deserve me tracking down the source for
you. All this is about is your games and your attempt to disparage everything
I say and do. You seem to have made that your mission. I guess that has
something to do with your bitterness about the fact that I have a published
book and you don't. I see this a lot in my middle school classes. When one kid
succeeds the others have to pick on him/her to make themselves feel better.
It's really a sad psychosis. Did you parents neglect you, Jim? Poor ego strength?
Did I take the time to track down the "no establishment in New York and PA"
quote? Yes. What did you and Curtis do with that? Hint: you discarded it. You
both said I didn't provide it, then Curtis changed his mind and said I
provided it but he didn't take notice of it. You backed him up with your
"easily overlooked" defense. Then he said that I provided it but that it was
not relevant to the issue at hand (after, of course, he was the one who asked
for it). Finally, I am told that I provided it, but Jefferson was wrong, and I
shouldn't "single source."
What's the use in going down to the library and pulling these things out for
you two. What will it accomplish? It will take away time and effort from my
day and life, and all you'll do is turn your head to it. That's why I'm not
going to keep playing this game. You challenge me to support my assertion
regarding Blackstone's influence. When I do, I find out you passed it over,
and Curtis snipped it as irrelevant. From this post on, I do no research at
your behest, whatsoever. You just aint worth it. You're not interested in a
good-will exchange.
Nonetheless, just to demonstrate how much of a game player you are:
************
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly
inadequate for the government of any other."
--John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States,
Charles Francis Adams, ed., Little, Brown, Boston, 1854, Vol IX, p. 229.
*************
Will we hear an apology for all the attacks and false accusations you have
made about me above? Of course not. Will it matter to you that Adams said
this? Of course not. Will this entire post be ignored and discarded. Of course
it will. That's your way. And that's why I will not be doing any extra
research legwork to defend myself against your shallow attacks.
with no anticipation of an appropriate response,
Rick Gardiner
http://www.universitylake.org/primarysources.html
Gardiner
>
> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>
> >jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
> >>
> >> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >:|jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
> >> >:|>
> >> >:|> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
> >> >:|>
> >> >:|> >:|William Barwell wrote:
> >> >:|
> >> >:|> >:|> I joined after the rather nasty George Bush declared Atheists
> >> >:|> >:|> could not be good American citizens.
> >> >:|> >:|
> >> >:|> >:|John Adams was even nastier:
> >> >:|>
> >> >:|> >:|"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly
> >> >:|> >:|inadequate for the government of any other."
> >> >:|>
> >> >:|> Do you have a cite for the above quote?
> >> >:|
> >> >:|John Adams, Oct. 11, 1798 Address to the military
> >> >:|
> >> Again, I will ask for the complete cite.
> >> That would include the publication it is and page numbers.
> >
> >Not going to take the extra effort and time to go to the Library to satisfy
> >you. Last time I took an hour to look up some primary source at your behest, I
> >was told, after I had provided it, that I still hadn't provided it. And then
> >when I proved that I had provided it, I was told, "well, I must have
> >overlooked it, these posts are too long to remember everything." So, no, I'm
> >not going to work hard for no reason. You don't appreciate it, and I don't
> >work for nothing.
>
> search on Adams to find it and there was nothing. Saved me a lot of
> time. So what is the source for the above Adams quotes?
>
>
> Mike Curtis
You know, you really could care less if there is an official citation or not.
Once I give it to you, all you'll do is say, "oh." You probably won't even do
that. You'll probably just overlook it. You'll probably not say another word
about it. Why? Because you could care less if Adams said this or not.
Once you get the source, and it is proven that Adams said it, you'll say, "so
what, who cares?" That's why you don't deserve me tracking down the source for
you. All this is about is your games and your attempt to disparage everything
I say and do. You seem to have made that your mission. I guess that has
something to do with your bitterness about the fact that I have a published
book and you don't. I see this a lot in my middle school classes. When one kid
succeeds the others have to pick on him/her to make themselves feel better.
It's really a sad psychosis. Did you parents neglect you, Mike? Poor ego strength?
Did I take the time to track down the "no establishment in New York and PA"
quote? Yes. What did you and Allison do with that? Hint: you discarded it. You
both said I didn't provide it, then you changed your mind and said I provided
it but you didn't take notice of it. Allison backed you up with his "easily
overlooked" defense. Then you said that I provided it but that it was not
relevant to the issue at hand (after, of course, you were the one who asked
for it). Finally, I am told that I provided it, but Jefferson was wrong, and I
shouldn't "single source."
What's the use in going down to the library and pulling these things out for
you two. What will it accomplish? It will take away time and effort from my
day and life, and all you'll do is turn your head to it. That's why I'm not
going to keep playing this game. I was challenged to support my assertion
regarding Blackstone's influence. When I did, you snipped it as irrelevant.
From this post on, I do no research at your behest, whatsoever. You just aint
worth it. You're not interested in a good-will exchange.
Nonetheless, just to demonstrate how much of game players you two are:
************
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly
inadequate for the government of any other."
--John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States,
Charles Francis Adams, ed., Little, Brown, Boston, 1854, Vol IX, p. 229.
*************
Will we hear an apology for all the attacks and false accusations that have
Gardiner
>
> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>
> >jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
> >>
> >> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
> >> >:|> >:|> >:|"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly
> >> >:|> >:|> >:|inadequate for the government of any other."
> >> >:|> >:|>
> >> >:|> >:|> Do you have a cite for the above quote?
> >> >:|> >:|
> >> >:|> >:|John Adams, Oct. 11, 1798 Address to the military
> >> >:|> >:|
> >> >:|> Again, I will ask for the complete cite.
> >> >:|> That would include the publication it is and page numbers.
> >> >:|
> >> >:|Not going to take the extra effort and time to go to the Library to satisfy
> >> >:|you.
> >>
> >>
>
> >
> >Once I give it to you, all you'll do is say, "oh." You probably won't even do
> >that. You'll probably just overlook it. You'll probably not say another word
> >about it. Why? Because you could care less if Adams said this or not.
> >
>
> No. It wasn't the argument *I* was making and I told to that about 28
> (?) times.
The fact remains that you demanded the citation, and then said it was irrelevant:
Let's look at what you said in context?
GARDINER: "I think you are fully aware that the nation was conceived in places
like Jamestown, Plymouth, New Amsterdam, Boston, Baltimore, Charleston, and Williamsburg."
CURTIS: "The nation in 1787? Not hardly. New Amsterdam! Not hardly."
GARDINER: "Why did Madison constantly refer to the wonderful diversity of
opinion which arose in the colonial history of New York?"
CURTIS: "When was this?"
GARDINER: "He pointed to New York and Pennsylvania as examples that should be
followed by the federal government."
CURTIS: "When was this?"
(the post is available at http://x29.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=476177877&search=thread&CONTEXT=927046880.1070792734&HIT_CONTEXT=927046880.1070792734&HIT_NUM=19&hitnum=37)
Then Allison also asked for the citation, saying that you had already asked
for it:
5/13/99--
"We have both asked him to supply the exact quotes (in context), or cites to
these quotes he is making in Madison's name. Now I wonder if he will actually bother."
Then I supplied the citation, the quote, and the context.
At that point, you demonstrated your total lack of integrity, when, in the
face of the citation you wrote:
"It is far easier to assert than to substantiate. Substantiation, now that's hard."
Then you wiggled and wriggled around the fact that the citation was given, but
you ignored it.
NOW, you're saying, "It wasn't my argument." That's irrelevant, it was your
REQUEST; the fact remains: You and Allison hounded me for the citation (for
whatever reason), I gave it to you, and you first pretended I didn't provide
it, and then you overlooked it.
Face it, Mike, you won't be able to get around this one by simply saying "it
wasn't my argument." IT WAS YOUR REQUEST.
> So it's 29 times now. The NY part was incorrect. we told
> you that also.
Fine. Take that up with Jefferson. It doesn't matter if he was right on that
point. The citation was provided simply to show that the founders saw New York
as a model for going without an establishment. They may have been wrong about
it not having an establishment, but that doesn't take away from the fact that
Jefferson pointed to it as a model.
> >You
> >both said I didn't provide it, then Curtis changed his mind and said I
> >provided it but he didn't take notice of it.
>
> I'd forgotten about it is what *I* told you because I as thinking of
> my *original* argument. I explained this to you in another thread and
> asked you to accept it. You snipped it without comment.
Fine, you forgot about it. Since your memory retention is less than a day at a
time, I'm not going to provide any more quotes or citations for you to
"forget" about in the same day that I post them. Not worth the effort.
> >You backed him up with your
> >"easily overlooked" defense. Then he said that I provided it but that it was
> >not relevant to the issue at hand (after, of course, he was the one who asked
> >for it). Finally, I am told that I provided it, but Jefferson was wrong, and I
> >shouldn't "single source."
>
> I think you are mixing up all the arguments. I suspect yo are
> suffering from data overload caused by your own reworking of various
> arguments.
Make it worth my while with a little cash, and I'll go back and find every
post which will prove that these are the lame excuses you gave for not
acknowledging the citation:
1) "It's easy to overlook"
2) "It's not my argument"
3) "Jefferson was wrong"
4) "You shouldn't single source"
> >What's the use in going down to the library and pulling these things out for
> >you two. What will it accomplish? It will take away time and effort from my
> >day and life, and all you'll do is turn your head to it. That's why I'm not
> >going to keep playing this game. You challenge me to support my assertion
> >regarding Blackstone's influence. When I do, I find out you passed it over,
> >and Curtis snipped it as irrelevant.
>
> It wasn't my argument. I thought you were speaking to allison about
> it.
It was *YOU* who asked for the citation!
(http://x29.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=476177877&search=thread&CONTEXT=927046880.1070792734&HIT_CONTEXT=927046880.1070792734&HIT_NUM=19&hitnum=37)
> You see, on Usenet, I make argument s that I make and I read your
> "comments" and proofs against *my* arguments. I don't always read your
> arguments with Allison.
It was *YOU* who asked for the citation!
(http://x29.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=476177877&search=thread&CONTEXT=927046880.1070792734&HIT_CONTEXT=927046880.1070792734&HIT_NUM=19&hitnum=37)
> Usually they are mere personal attacks and I
> get enough of those in your responses to me. So, if you are making
> comments about moi in your posts to Allison, I'll sometimes see them.
> But I let Allison make his own arguments. If I want to say something,
> I will.
It was *YOU* who asked for the citation!
(http://x29.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=476177877&search=thread&CONTEXT=927046880.1070792734&HIT_CONTEXT=927046880.1070792734&HIT_NUM=19&hitnum=37)
> Usenet should be seen as a room of people. They are all standing
> around with drinks in their hands and discussion the rose things
> possible. The three worse things and we know what those are. :-) Other
> folks stand by and enjoy the discussions. I'll address my stuff,
> Allison addresses his and you address yours. When you speak we both
> hear but only one needs to respond in most cases. The other not
> addressed might have a comment or something interesting to add.
Don't ask for a citation if you don't really care about getting one.
> >Nonetheless, just to demonstrate how much of a game player you are:
> >************
> >"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly
> >inadequate for the government of any other."
> >
> >--John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States,
> >Charles Francis Adams, ed., Little, Brown, Boston, 1854, Vol IX, p. 229.
> >*************
>
> That's al you had to do. It shouldn't be like pulling teeth to get it.
> Finally. Was that so awful. It would be nice to know who the letter
> was to and the date of this letter. I don't own the 10 volumes of
> Adams Works. Plus they cost upwards of $300. So this might be a
> generally known letter. Can you supply information beyond that or is
> this all the web page you found this one on says?
You really are extremely dense and you really do overlook everything I post
don't you?!
A week ago, Curtis, I identified the document which contained the quote from Adams--
*********
>>>>"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is
wholly inadequate for the government
>>>>of any other."
>>>
>>>Do you have a cite for the above quote?
>>
>>John Adams, Oct. 11, 1798 Address to the military
>
> Again, I will ask for the complete cite.
> That would include the publication it is and page numbers.
***********
Now that I've given the publication information, you now want to go back and
insist that I give the name and date of the document!!
What's next? You want me to give the publication information again? Maybe you
want me to tell you what color the book is? Maybe you want me to tell you who
John Adams was.
> >Will we hear an apology for all the attacks and false accusations you have
> >made about me above?
>
> Why? Because he had to drag it out of you?
Because you were both caught with your pants down again.
> > Of course not.
>
> You bet not.
I sure did bet not. You guys are very predictable.
> > Will it matter to you that Adams said
> >this? Of course not.
>
> It might if we can find it and put this all in context.
Have fun. I'm sure not doing your work for you any more.
[snip...yawn]
Mike Curtis
Search for history being discussed -->
>Mike Curtis wrote:
>>
>> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>>
>> >jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>> >> >:|> >:|> >:|"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly
>> >> >:|> >:|> >:|inadequate for the government of any other."
>> >> >:|> >:|>
>> >> >:|> >:|> Do you have a cite for the above quote?
>> >> >:|> >:|
>> >> >:|> >:|John Adams, Oct. 11, 1798 Address to the military
>> >> >:|> >:|
>> >> >:|> Again, I will ask for the complete cite.
>> >> >:|> That would include the publication it is and page numbers.
>> >> >:|
>> >> >:|Not going to take the extra effort and time to go to the Library to satisfy
>> >> >:|you.
>> >>
>> >> Don't you dare try and pull this stunt with me.
>> >You know, you really could care less if there is an official citation or not.
>> >
>> >Once I give it to you, all you'll do is say, "oh." You probably won't even do
>> >that. You'll probably just overlook it. You'll probably not say another word
>> >about it. Why? Because you could care less if Adams said this or not.
>> >
>> >Did I take the time to track down the "no establishment in New York and PA"
>> >quote? Yes. What did you and Curtis do with that? Hint: you discarded it.
>>
>> No. It wasn't the argument *I* was making and I told to that about 28
>> (?) times.
>
>The fact remains that you demanded the citation, and then said it was irrelevant:
>
this might be something other than a whine:
>Fine. Take that up with Jefferson. It doesn't matter if he was right on that
>point. The citation was provided simply to show that the founders saw New York
>as a model for going without an establishment. They may have been wrong about
>it not having an establishment, but that doesn't take away from the fact that
>Jefferson pointed to it as a model.
Nope, just bad history which seems to be Gardiner's trade-mark. stamp
it with a G inside a circle with an X over it.
[snip- more whining]
>> >You backed him up with your
>> >"easily overlooked" defense. Then he said that I provided it but that it was
>> >not relevant to the issue at hand (after, of course, he was the one who asked
>> >for it). Finally, I am told that I provided it, but Jefferson was wrong, and I
>> >shouldn't "single source."
>>
>> I think you are mixing up all the arguments. I suspect yo are
>> suffering from data overload caused by your own reworking of various
>> arguments.
>
>Make it worth my while with a little cash, and I'll go back and find every
>post which will prove that these are the lame excuses you gave for not
>acknowledging the citation:
>
>1) "It's easy to overlook"
>2) "It's not my argument"
>3) "Jefferson was wrong"
>4) "You shouldn't single source"
How about this one. My argument was in another place. you were not
addressing my argument or may meaning. You manufactured the argument.
Allison has told you this. I've told you this. If you were not so
thick you would understand that. but that is not the game you are
playing. Frankly, you DO, seriously, look quite obtuse here. You are
doing this to yourself and not us. My final word has now been said.
Let's look for some history to discuss.
[snip]
>> Usenet should be seen as a room of people. They are all standing
>> around with drinks in their hands and discussion the rose things
>> possible. The three worse things and we know what those are. :-) Other
>> folks stand by and enjoy the discussions. I'll address my stuff,
>> Allison addresses his and you address yours. When you speak we both
>> hear but only one needs to respond in most cases. The other not
>> addressed might have a comment or something interesting to add.
>
>Don't ask for a citation if you don't really care about getting one.
That's not what it was and by now you ought to know it. I admit I
asked for a citation. I then saw the cite and it had nothing to do
with what I was arguing. thanks for the citation but it did not go to
the point I was making but rather a point you had manufactured. I was
(for the 30th time) thinking internationally when I said the
Constitution was UNIQUE. Three other people besides you agreed and
understood me. this makes you look a little stupid doesn't it. For the
31st time I was thinking internationally. Thanks again for the second
time for the citation. thanks! (That's three) It didn't address my
point because you were thinking locally and *I* was not. (that's the
3rd time I've written this to you). So I forgot about your citation.
Excuse me. (that's four.)
[snip - no history discussed]
>>>>>"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is
>wholly inadequate for the government
>>>>>of any other."
>>>>
>>>>Do you have a cite for the above quote?
>>>
>>>John Adams, Oct. 11, 1798 Address to the military
>>
>> Again, I will ask for the complete cite.
>> That would include the publication it is and page numbers.
>***********
>Now that I've given the publication information, you now want to go back and
>insist that I give the name and date of the document!!
Look at it this way. I'm trying cross-reference it to something I
might have available. Get it? There was a Quasi War with France going
on at the time and I'm trying to put the reference in context. Excuse
me for acting like the historian you are not.
[snip just insults]
>Have fun. I'm sure not doing your work for you any more.
>
Gardiner, one thing you haven't done is work. I was a real fool going
out of my way mailing you pages of information for your personal use.
I spent a good couple hours searching stuff for you to use on your web
page BECAUSE YOU ASKED. Now you did some research on my family tree
without me asking. I'm grateful for that. thanks. I suggest you decide
if you want to discuss history in this history news group or just spit
at everyone like an 8th grader.
Think?
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>:|
>:|>mi...@x.aimetering.com.nospam (Mike Curtis) wrote:
>:|>
>:|>>:|Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|>>:|
>:|>>:|>jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>:|>>:|>>
>:|>>:|>> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|>>:|>>
>:|>>:|>> >:|jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>:|>>:|>> >:|>
>:|>>:|>> >:|> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|>>:|>> >:|>
>:|>
>:|>
>:|>>:|>> >:|> >:|John Adams was even nastier:
>:|>>:|>> >:|>
>:|>>:|>> >:|> >:|"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly
>:|>>:|>> >:|> >:|inadequate for the government of any other."
>:|>>:|>> >:|>
>:|>>:|>> >:|> Do you have a cite for the above quote?
>:|>>:|>> >:|
>:|>>:|>> >:|John Adams, Oct. 11, 1798 Address to the military
>:|>>:|>> >:|
>:|>>:|>> Again, I will ask for the complete cite.
>:|>>:|>> That would include the publication it is and page numbers.
>:|>>:|>
>:|>
>:|>
>:|>>:|>You have lowered me to your approach now:
>:|>>:|
>:|>>:|And there is nothing in this relating to the quotes above. I did a
>:|>>:|search on Adams to find it and there was nothing. Saved me a lot of
>:|>>:|time. So what is the source for the above Adams quotes?
>:|>>:|
>:|>
>:|>
>:|>You mean he posted a 1000 and some odd lines and never identified the full
>:|>cite of the post that was asked about?
>:|>I haven't had time to read it yet so I didn't know what it was about.
>:|
>:|He has done it two times so far. It's about blackstone.
Blackstone? Oh!
Oh well, hell, if he wants to play games over Blackstone, I have IIRC 16
posts that I can post regarding Blackstone.
I mean anyone can play that game, and he has never seen my Blackstone posts
before so it would be interesting to see if he would try to respond to any
of them. LOL
>:|He's posted it
>:|before and I think you've addressed it before.
Probably.
>:|It's now a tantrum over
>:|your "cutting & pasting." <smile>
Yep, childish games..
he has been caught posting a bogus John Q Adams post in the past.
Now, I don't know for certain that the current John Adams quote is bogus,
it does sort of have that ring to it, but if he continues to refuse to
provide a valid cite for it I will have some serious doubts that it is
valid.
There are some John Adams quotes that have surfaced from time to time in
some religious right and ultra right wing publications that are not valid.
jal...@pilot.infi.net
> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>
> >jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
> >>
> >> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
> >>
>The quotes above assert Blackstone's relevance to the development of legal
principles in America. All of the articles I posted directly go to that
issue.
>And all you do is--
> [snipped, yawn]
>That's what you'll get from me from now on if I don't think your posts are relevant.
Sounds to me your are setting up your exist or your excuse not to deal with
the historical data I present you with.
The above was not what I asked for. This is another of your games and
reframes
Here is what I asked for:
***********************************************************************************
[you]
>:John Adams was even nastier:
>:|"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly
>:|inadequate for the government of any other."
[me]
Do you have a cite for the above quote?
[you]
>:|John Adams, Oct. 11, 1798 Address to the military
[me]
Kewl, now do you want to give the complete cite, or is that asking for too
much?
AND
Again, I will ask for the complete cite.
That would include the publication it is in along with volume number and
page numbers.
THAT WAS THE FIRST THING I ASKED FOR.
NEXT WAS THE SECOND
[you]
>:|Even nastier, Blackstone said that Atheists could not be trusted:
[me]
Irrelevant to this discussion.
[you]
>:|Why? Because you don't like it?
[me]
Nope, because it does not have any bearing on the discussion.
For it to have some bearing you would have to show how it effected or
influenced things in this country, how it led to laws etc.
You want to do that, then it might not be irrelevant.
But until you make that connection, it is irrelevant.
[you]
>:|Blackstone has no relevance to the development
>:|of legal principles, does he? Keep wishing, Jim. It really looks very foolish.
[me---kindly note I did not bite at your bait to play your game, i rejected
that and went back to what I was asking for if you wanted to provide
anything at all]
What exactly did the comment of his develop in this country?
You have to show that to make the comment relevant.
[you]
>:|> >You have lowered me to your approach now:
[Mike in his response to me]
>:|> And there is nothing in this relating to the quotes above.
[you]
>:|The quotes above assert Blackstone's relevance to the development of legal
>:|principles in America. All of the articles I posted directly go to that issue.
>:|
Now, as the evidence above clearly shows, I asked for a complete and valid
cite for the John Adams quote. That was ignored.
I stated that for your comment [Even nastier, Blackstone said that Atheists
could not be trusted] to be relevant to this discussion you would have to
provide foundation, show how or what effect that one cok=mment had on this
nation or those in this nation.
What effect Blackstone might have had or not had on the development of
legal principles in this country has nothing to do with making your claim
that he said atheists couldn't be trusted relevant to this discussion.
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>:|>
>:|> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|>
>:|> >:|jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>:|> >:|>
>:|> >:|> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|> >:|>
>:|> >:|> >:|jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>:|> >:|> >:|>
>:|> >:|> >:|> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|> >:|> >:|>
>:|> >:|> >:|> >:|William Barwell wrote:
>:|> >:|> >:|
>:|> >:|> >:|> >:|> I joined after the rather nasty George Bush declared Atheists
>:|> >:|> >:|> >:|> could not be good American citizens.
>:|> >:|> >:|> >:|
>:|> >:|> >:|> >:|John Adams was even nastier:
>:|> >:|> >:|>
>:|> >:|> >:|> >:|"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly
>:|> >:|> >:|> >:|inadequate for the government of any other."
>:|> >:|> >:|>
>:|> >:|> >:|> Do you have a cite for the above quote?
>:|> >:|> >:|
>:|> >:|> >:|John Adams, Oct. 11, 1798 Address to the military
>:|> >:|> >:|
>:|> >:|> Again, I will ask for the complete cite.
>:|> >:|> That would include the publication it is and page numbers.
>:|> >:|
>:|> >:|Not going to take the extra effort and time to go to the Library to satisfy
>:|> >:|you.
>:|>
>:|> Don't you dare try and pull this stunt with me.
>:|
>:|[snip. chasing the wind]
Yes truth is chasing the wind isn't it..
You seem to forget real fast back in March all the various times you were
asking me for cites. Remember, the whole Thomas Jefferson
Chrisitantiy/common law thing you were TOTALLY unaware of till I told you
about it, told you about it and posted (FULLY CITED) all the relevant
material, including all of Jefferson's four letters, all of Story's letters
etc on the matter, etc.
There were other things you asked me for cites to as well, and they were
provided.
Chasing the wind is right. Being one way is accurate as well.
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>:|>
>:|> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|> >:|> >:|> >:|"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly
>:|> >:|> >:|> >:|inadequate for the government of any other."
>:|> >:|> >:|>
>:|> >:|> >:|> Do you have a cite for the above quote?
>:|> >:|> >:|
>:|> >:|> >:|John Adams, Oct. 11, 1798 Address to the military
>:|> >:|> >:|
>:|> >:|> Again, I will ask for the complete cite.
>:|> >:|> That would include the publication it is and page numbers.
>:|> >:|
>:|> >:|Not going to take the extra effort and time to go to the Library to satisfy
>:|> >:|you.
>:|>
>:|> Don't you dare try and pull this stunt with me.
>:|>
>:|> I have already caught you posting a bogus Adams quote. J Q Adams. Remember?
>:|
>:|Not so.
>:|
Yes, so.
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>:|>
>:|> mi...@x.aimetering.com.nospam (Mike Curtis) wrote:
>:|>
>:|> >:|Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|> >:|
>:|> >:|>jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>:|> >:|>>
>:|> >:|>> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|> >:|>>
>:|> >:|>> >:|jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>:|> >:|>> >:|>
>:|> >:|>> >:|> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|> >:|>> >:|>
>:|>
>:|> >:|>> >:|> >:|John Adams was even nastier:
>:|> >:|>> >:|>
>:|> >:|>> >:|> >:|"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly
>:|> >:|>> >:|> >:|inadequate for the government of any other."
>:|> >:|>> >:|>
>:|> >:|>> >:|> Do you have a cite for the above quote?
>:|> >:|>> >:|
>:|> >:|>> >:|John Adams, Oct. 11, 1798 Address to the military
>:|> >:|>> >:|
>:|> >:|>> Again, I will ask for the complete cite.
>:|> >:|>> That would include the publication it is and page numbers.
>:|> >:|>
>:|>
>:|> >:|>You have lowered me to your approach now:
>:|> >:|
>:|> >:|And there is nothing in this relating to the quotes above. I did a
>:|> >:|search on Adams to find it and there was nothing. Saved me a lot of
>:|> >:|time. So what is the source for the above Adams quotes?
>:|> >:|
>:|>
>:|> You mean he posted a 1000 and some odd lines and never identified the full
>:|> cite of the post that was asked about?
>:|> I haven't had time to read it yet so I didn't know what it was about.
>:|
>:|You asked me to give you evidence for Blackstone's influence. I gave you 1000
>:|some odd lines. You avoid it. When you do the same thing you claim to "bury"
>:|me in the evidence. Well you have both been buried. Curtis snips and you avoid.
>:|
>:|It is now abundantly apparent that neither you nor Curtis are interested in a
>:|discussion. From now on I do not intend to read or respond to any of your
>:|posts which are not brief and to the point. 25K max.
Who cares what you respond to and don't respond to.
Where is the full Adams cite, that was the first thing I asked for.
Now, as to Blackstone, it involved only one simple little comment of yours
***********************************************************************************
>:|> >:|Even nastier, Blackstone said that Atheists could not be trusted:
>:|>
**********************************************************************************
That simple comment above. Now the rest of that discussion wennt like this:
>:|> Irrelevant to this discussion.
>:|
>:|Why? Because you don't like it?
Nope, because it does not have any bearing on the discussion.
For it to have some bearing you would have to show how it effected or
influenced things in this country, how it led to laws etc.
You want to do that, then it might not be irrelevant.
But until you make that connection, it is irrelevant.
>Blackstone has no relevance to the development
>:|of legal principles, does he? Keep wishing, Jim. It really looks very foolish.
What exactly did the comment of his develop in this country?
You have to show that to make the comment relevant.
Even very smart men can be fools sometimes. because he said something does
not mean a great deal unless that which he said is connected to something.
Did your 1000 plus line post address that simple calim above?
Did your 1000 plus line post give a full cite for the Adams quote?
That was all I asked for.
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|Mike Curtis wrote:
>:|>
>:|> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|>
>:|> >jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>:|> >>
>:|> I did a
>:|> search on Adams to find it and there was nothing. Saved me a lot of
>:|> time. So what is the source for the above Adams quotes?
>:|>
>:|> [snipped, yawn]
>:|>
>:|> Mike Curtis
>:|
>:|You know, you really could care less if there is an official citation or not.
>:|Once I give it to you, all you'll do is say, "oh." You probably won't even do
>:|that. You'll probably just overlook it. You'll probably not say another word
>:|about it. Why? Because you could care less if Adams said this or not.
You are looking really bad here, spending so much time and effort blowing
smoke, trying to deflect attention, crying, yet failing to do a simple
little thing. Provide a valid standard acceptable cite to a quote that you
supplied. The burden is on you to do so. You know it, I know it,, anyone
who has any knowledge of how such things work knows it.
Instead all this static, and this wiggling, all this trying to avoid your
responsibility by trying to blame others for your failure to provide such a
cite is really far too much
You protest and dance too much, you are casting even more doubt on the
validity of that quote
And what is really funny is, whenever I was asked I do and did provide you
with cites, even provide them when not asked.
Now who is acting scholarly?
The burden to provide the standard accepted documentation to quotes, etc
you post is on you. It doesn't matter one iota what I or Mike or anyone
else does with the cite. What we may or may not do with it does not relieve
you of your burden.
I usually do check cites that I have been given.
I don't feel comfortable posting something unless I can provide a primary
source cite for it (or a secondary cite that I know contains the primary
source) and that I have not personally checked out.
>:|
>:|Once you get the source, and it is proven that Adams said it, you'll say, "so
>:|what, who cares?" That's why you don't deserve me tracking down the source for
>:|you. All this is about is your games and your attempt to disparage everything
>:|I say and do. You seem to have made that your mission. I guess that has
>:|something to do with your bitterness about the fact that I have a published
>:|book and you don't. I see this a lot in my middle school classes. When one kid
>:|succeeds the others have to pick on him/her to make themselves feel better.
>:|It's really a sad psychosis. Did you parents neglect you, Mike? Poor ego strength?
>:|
The above is pure horse shit and coming from someone with your education
etc is really saying something about you.
Rant rave all you want, you have a burden to supply the documentation if
you are going to post a quote.
>:|Did I take the time to track down the "no establishment in New York and PA"
>:|quote? Yes.
Bravo, that was your burden when you made the claim someone said something.
[it turned out the person you said had said it was not the person who said
it at all]
What did you and Allison do with that? Hint: you discarded it.
discarded it?
Better check your facts again.. I followed up to it by asking you what, in
your mind, that was suppose to prove. I then posted several posts off of
that information that you had posted. Several posts that added to the info
you had provided, the parts either you didn't know about or had left out.
In other words Gardiner, it opened a new door in a new direction, state
constitutions etc.
>:|You
>:|both said I didn't provide it, then you changed your mind and said I provided
>:|it but you didn't take notice of it. Allison backed you up with his "easily
>:|overlooked" defense. Then you said that I provided it but that it was not
>:|relevant to the issue at hand (after, of course, you were the one who asked
>:|for it).
LOL Issue at hand was separation of church and state no state
establishments. You seem to be getting some of your own arguments mixed up
now. LOL
>:| Finally, I am told that I provided it, but Jefferson was wrong, and I
>:|shouldn't "single source."
Jefferson was incorrect in that there had been some local (four counties
basically) that had had establishments in N Y.
That is fact.
>:|
>:|What's the use in going down to the library and pulling these things out for
>:|you two. What will it accomplish?
WHERE DID YOU GET THE QUOTE? DIDN'T THE SOURCE WHERE YOU GOT THE QUOTE GIVE
ANY CITES? IS THIS LIKE THE J.Q. ADAMS QUOTE? A SECONDARY SOURCE THAT
DOESN'T GIVE CITES OR PRIMARY CITES?
It will accomplish you being ethical and honest enough to fulfill your
burden of providing standard accepted citations for the quotes, etc you
use.
>:|It will take away time and effort from my
>:|day and life, and all you'll do is turn your head to it.
That sounds like a personal problem. the solution to this is to not use
quotes you don't have cites for, or to state right up front that you cannot
vouch for the validity of such and such quote. That you don't remember
where you found it, and you don't have a primary source for it.
>:|That's why I'm not
>:|going to keep playing this game.
Its not a game, it is your responsible to provide dicumentation for quotes,
etc that you post.
>:|I was challenged to support my assertion
>:|regarding Blackstone's influence.
Incorrect, you were challenged to provide foundation showing the
relevance--to the ongoing discussion-- of one comment you said Blackstone
had uttered.
>:| When I did, you snipped it as irrelevant.
What you provided, unless it met the narrow request that was given would
have been irrelevant
>:|From this post on, I do no research at your behest, whatsoever. You just aint
>:|worth it. You're not interested in a good-will exchange.
My my, such a tantrum, all because you were asked to document a quote
>:|
>:|Nonetheless, just to demonstrate how much of game players you two are:
>:|************
>:|"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly
>:|inadequate for the government of any other."
>:|
>:|--John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States,
>:|Charles Francis Adams, ed., Little, Brown, Boston, 1854, Vol IX, p. 229.
>:|*************
>:|Will we hear an apology for all the attacks and false accusations that have
>:|made about me above? Of course not. Will it matter to you that Adams said
>:|this? Of course not. Will this entire post be ignored and discarded. Of course
>:|it will. That's your way. And that's why I will not be doing any extra
>:|research legwork to defend myself against your shallow attacks.
>:|
Well good, it is nice to see that you have finally lived up to your
obligation and burden.
As to the rest, I actually will look it up next time I am at ODU
YOu see, I make lists of things to look up when I am there, and it will go
on the list.
I don't go there everyday. It is about a 24 mile round trip, not that that
is that terrible, but ODU is basically a commuter school. Hard to find
parking spots, even more so since I drive a BIG 1979 Caddy. Also bad
traffic patterns and I have to be careful, I only have one eye. I try to
avoid heavy traffic whenever I can..
I truly do give new meaning to the phrase "BLIND SPOT" lol
I have already looked up other cites that were given me in these threads.
Even commented to you on one I looked up. The W&M Q that other fella cited.
Did you forget that?
But you can rest assured, I will look up the quote, including its context,
etc.
Gardiner
No, that wasn't *MY* argument. You are not hearing what I've said. I've said
it now 32 times. you keep reframing what *I'm* saying.
[snip...snore]
> How about this one. My argument was in another place.
My argument was in another place, you missed what *I* argued. Let me argue my
case for myself. Stop reframing what I have said. Let me make my own argument.
[snip]
[double snip]
You really are a smart ass.
[snip...sounds like paranoia]
> Look at it this way. I'm trying cross-reference it to something I
> might have available. Get it? There was a Quasi War with France going
> on at the time and I'm trying to put the reference in context.
That's not *MY* argument. Why are you talking about a Quasi War when it
doesn't go to *MY* argument. I was arguing something else. Stop reframing my argument.
[snip just insults]
Do you know how foolish you look. A man of your education. You come in here
fabricating and manufacturing all sorts of stuff. What is in this for you?
[snip...whining]
Gardiner
>
> mi...@x.aimetering.com.nospam (Mike Curtis) wrote:
>
> >:|jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
> >:|
> >:|>
> >:|>>:|Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
> >:|>>:|
> >:|>>:|>jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
> >:|>>:|>>
> >:|>>:|>> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
> >:|>>:|>>
> >:|>>:|>> >:|>
> >:|>>:|>> >:|> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
> >:|>
> >:|>
> >:|>>:|>> >:|> >:|John Adams was even nastier:
> >:|>>:|>> >:|>
> >:|>>:|>> >:|> >:|"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly
> >:|>>:|>> >:|> >:|inadequate for the government of any other."
> >:|>>:|>> >:|>
> >:|>>:|>> >:|> Do you have a cite for the above quote?
> >:|>>:|>> >:|
> >:|>>:|>> >:|John Adams, Oct. 11, 1798 Address to the military
> >:|>>:|>> >:|
> >:|>>:|>> Again, I will ask for the complete cite.
> >:|>>:|>> That would include the publication it is and page numbers.
> >:|>
> >:|>
> >:|>>:|>You have lowered me to your approach now:
> >:|>>:|
> >:|>>:|search on Adams to find it and there was nothing. Saved me a lot of
> >:|>>:|time. So what is the source for the above Adams quotes?
> >:|>>:|
> >:|>
> >:|>You mean he posted a 1000 and some odd lines and never identified the full
> >:|>cite of the post that was asked about?
> >:|>I haven't had time to read it yet so I didn't know what it was about.
> >:|
>
> Blackstone? Oh!
[snipped swearing, cursing, insults] Guess Allison has some "issues" he has
not dealt with in therapy yet.
Gardiner
>
> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>
> >:|jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
> >:|>
> >:|>
> >:|> >:|Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
> >:|> >:|
> >:|> >:|>jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
> >:|> >:|>>
> >:|> >:|>> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
> >:|> >:|>>
> >:|> >:|>> >:|>
> >:|> >:|>> >:|> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
> >:|>
> >:|> >:|>> >:|> >:|John Adams was even nastier:
> >:|> >:|>> >:|>
> >:|> >:|>> >:|> >:|"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly
> >:|> >:|>> >:|> >:|inadequate for the government of any other."
> >:|> >:|>> >:|>
> >:|> >:|>> >:|> Do you have a cite for the above quote?
> >:|> >:|>> >:|
> >:|> >:|>> >:|John Adams, Oct. 11, 1798 Address to the military
> >:|> >:|>> >:|
> >:|> >:|>> Again, I will ask for the complete cite.
> >:|> >:|>> That would include the publication it is and page numbers.
> >:|>
> >:|> >:|>You have lowered me to your approach now:
> >:|> >:|
> >:|> >:|And there is nothing in this relating to the quotes above. I did a
> >:|> >:|search on Adams to find it and there was nothing. Saved me a lot of
> >:|> >:|time. So what is the source for the above Adams quotes?
> >:|> >:|
> >:|>
> >:|> You mean he posted a 1000 and some odd lines and never identified the full
> >:|> cite of the post that was asked about?
> >:|> I haven't had time to read it yet so I didn't know what it was about.
> >:|
> >:|some odd lines. You avoid it. When you do the same thing you claim to "bury"
> >:|me in the evidence. Well you have both been buried. Curtis snips and you avoid.
> >:|
> >:|It is now abundantly apparent that neither you nor Curtis are interested in a
> >:|discussion. From now on I do not intend to read or respond to any of your
> >:|posts which are not brief and to the point. 25K max.
>
> Who cares what you respond to and don't respond to.
>
> Where is the full Adams cite, that was the first thing I asked for.
>
> Now, as to Blackstone, it involved only one simple little comment of yours
>
> ***********************************************************************************
> >:|>
>
> That simple comment above. Now the rest of that discussion wennt like this:
>
> >:|
> >:|Why? Because you don't like it?
>
> Nope, because it does not have any bearing on the discussion.
>
> For it to have some bearing you would have to show how it effected or
> influenced things in this country, how it led to laws etc.
>
> You want to do that, then it might not be irrelevant.
>
> But until you make that connection, it is irrelevant.
>
> >Blackstone has no relevance to the development
> >:|of legal principles, does he? Keep wishing, Jim. It really looks very foolish.
>
> What exactly did the comment of his develop in this country?
>
> You have to show that to make the comment relevant.
>
> not mean a great deal unless that which he said is connected to something.
>
> Did your 1000 plus line post give a full cite for the Adams quote?
>
> That was all I asked for.
Yep. You got it. What do you want now, the manufacturing company of the ink
used to print it. You're so pitiful.
Did you read the 1000 plus lines? Nope. You're a propagandist. An ACLU stooge
who can't get a publisher so you call yourself "published" because you posted
a webpage. ROTFLMAO.
You're bitter about something. I think your parents may have neglected you or
something. But when I offered to have a decent conversation, you chose middle
school abrasiveness. You lie, deceive, manipulate, and ignore; you're not
open-minded to anything--you've admitted it.
So, this is what you'll get from me. You're really just ignorant. I can't seem
to help you.
Mercy,
RG
Gardiner
>
> > Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
> >
> > >jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
> > >>
>
> >The quotes above assert Blackstone's relevance to the development of legal
> principles in America. All of the articles I posted directly go to that
> issue.
>
> >And all you do is--
>
> > [snipped, yawn]
>
> >That's what you'll get from me from now on if I don't think your posts are relevant.
>
> Sounds to me your are setting up your exist or your excuse not to deal with
> the historical data I present you with.
Sounds like what you did with my 1000 lines of historical data about
Blackstone.
Like you, I'm not going to read another source you post. I haven't the time,
and you're not intellectually stimulating enough. You have a really bad
attitude. Really sounds like emotional problems.
> The above was not what I asked for. This is another of your games and
> reframes
>
> Here is what I asked for:
>
> [you]
> >:John Adams was even nastier:
> >:|"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly
> >:|inadequate for the government of any other."
>
> [me]
> Do you have a cite for the above quote?
>
> [you]
> >:|John Adams, Oct. 11, 1798 Address to the military
>
> [me]
> Kewl, now do you want to give the complete cite, or is that asking for too
> much?
>
> AND
> Again, I will ask for the complete cite.
> That would include the publication it is in along with volume number and
> page numbers.
>
> THAT WAS THE FIRST THING I ASKED FOR.
> NEXT WAS THE SECOND
Funny. Funny. Funny. You got the complete site. Doesn't matter to you, you're
still as ignorant as you were before you got it.
> [you]
>
> >:|Even nastier, Blackstone said that Atheists could not be trusted:
>
> [me]
> Irrelevant to this discussion.
>
> [you]
> >:|Why? Because you don't like it?
>
> [me]
> Nope, because it does not have any bearing on the discussion.
>
> For it to have some bearing you would have to show how it effected or
> influenced things in this country, how it led to laws etc.
>
> You want to do that, then it might not be irrelevant.
> But until you make that connection, it is irrelevant.
>
> [you]
> >:|Blackstone has no relevance to the development
> >:|of legal principles, does he? Keep wishing, Jim. It really looks very foolish.
>
> [me---kindly note I did not bite at your bait to play your game, i rejected
> that and went back to what I was asking for if you wanted to provide
> anything at all]
>
> What exactly did the comment of his develop in this country?
>
> You have to show that to make the comment relevant.
I gave you 1000 lines showing "that"; in your typical way, you brushed it
aside and buried your head in the sand.
> [you]
> >:|> >You have lowered me to your approach now:
>
> [Mike in his response to me]
> >:|> And there is nothing in this relating to the quotes above.
>
> [you]
> >:|The quotes above assert Blackstone's relevance to the development of legal
> >:|principles in America. All of the articles I posted directly go to that issue.
> >:|
>
> Now, as the evidence above clearly shows, I asked for a complete and valid
> cite for the John Adams quote. That was ignored.
My Lord you are blind!!
[snip, bogus, nonsense]
Gardiner
>
> >:|Once you get the source, and it is proven that Adams said it, you'll say, "so
> >:|what, who cares?" That's why you don't deserve me tracking down the source for
> >:|you. All this is about is your games and your attempt to disparage everything
> >:|I say and do. You seem to have made that your mission. I guess that has
> >:|something to do with your bitterness about the fact that I have a published
> >:|book and you don't. I see this a lot in my middle school classes. When one kid
> >:|succeeds the others have to pick on him/her to make themselves feel better.
> >:|It's really a sad psychosis. Did you parents neglect you, Mike? Poor ego strength?
>
> The above is pure horse shit and coming from someone with your education
> etc is really saying something about you.
The above is what? You sure better be glad that you didn't take me up on the
"foul" language challenge. That really says something about who you are.
> Rant rave all you want, you have a burden to supply the documentation if
> you are going to post a quote.
Burden Scmurden. I aint crackin another book for your sorry soul.
> LOL Issue at hand was separation of church and state no state
> establishments. You seem to be getting some of your own arguments mixed up
> now. LOL
Hilarious. Separation of Church and state was never uttered during the
exchange. You really do know how to manufacture, deceive, distort, and blow
smoke. You aint worth a response.
> >:| Finally, I am told that I provided it, but Jefferson was wrong, and I
> >:|shouldn't "single source."
>
> Jefferson was incorrect in that there had been some local (four counties
> basically) that had had establishments in N Y.
>
> That is fact.
Who gives a hoot? What does that have to do with anything? You just love
tangents. You just love meaningless nonsense. Go look at dates in footnotes
with Curtis while I study important things.
>
> WHERE DID YOU GET THE QUOTE? DIDN'T THE SOURCE WHERE YOU GOT THE QUOTE GIVE
> ANY CITES? IS THIS LIKE THE J.Q. ADAMS QUOTE? A SECONDARY SOURCE THAT
> DOESN'T GIVE CITES OR PRIMARY CITES?
>
> It will accomplish you being ethical and honest
Ha!! Yes. And I'm full of horse what? You are a joke, my man.
> That sounds like a personal problem. the solution to this is to not use
> quotes you don't have cites for, or to state right up front that you cannot
> vouch for the validity of such and such quote. That you don't remember
> where you found it, and you don't have a primary source for it.
Duh. Look at me. I'm Jim Alison, I know how to insult people real good. You're
quote is bogus...ooops, stupid me, caught with my pants down again; well I
guess its not bogus, but you're full of ----- anyway.
> >:|That's why I'm not
> >:|going to keep playing this game.
>
> Its not a game, it is your responsible to provide dicumentation for quotes,
> etc that you post.
You've got my *dicumentation*
[snip...lies]
> My my, such a tantrum, all because you were asked to document a quote
Just one quote huh? Liar.
> Well good, it is nice to see that you have finally lived up to your
> obligation and burden.
Oh.....
And now you have an obligation and a burden to get counseling for your
anti-social attitude. Will you live up to that burden?
Mike Curtis
>jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>>
>> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>> >:|> >:|> >:|"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly
>> >:|> >:|> >:|inadequate for the government of any other."
>> >:|> >:|>
>> >:|> >:|> Do you have a cite for the above quote?
>> >:|> >:|
>> >:|> >:|John Adams, Oct. 11, 1798 Address to the military
>> >:|> >:|
>> >:|> Again, I will ask for the complete cite.
>> >:|> That would include the publication it is and page numbers.
>> >:|
>> >:|Not going to take the extra effort and time to go to the Library to satisfy
>> >:|you.
>>
>> Don't you dare try and pull this stunt with me.
>>
>> I have already caught you posting a bogus Adams quote. J Q Adams. Remember?
>
>Not so.
>
>> Secondly, anytime you have asked me for a cite I either provided you with
>> that cite, the full cite or I posted the material along with the cite.
>>
>> I sense you have no official cite that you can provide. I do know that
>> there is a few bogus John Adams quotes floating around that something about
>> the one above sure seems like it might fit that area.
>>
>> BTW, I think your crying above has to do with something you got all bent
>> out of shape about that Mike was suppose to have done, not me.
>>
>> Oh no, you mean, oh yes, you got the quote from someplace but it didn't
>> give a full cite, so fact is, I bet you don't know if its valid or not, LOL
>>
>> Fact still remains, you ignore my documented evidence all the time, I spend
>> time gathering that as well.
>> Fact is, I have supplied you with cites, I seldom post such things without
>> full cites.
>>
>> So get off your high horse and provide the cite or acknowledge you don't
>> have it, and don't know if the quote is valid or not.
>
>You know, you really could care less if there is an official citation or not.
Actually, you are totally wrong. historians care about proper
citations. An example is a book by Arno Mayer called _Why the Heavens
Did not Darken_. It was on the controversial subject of the Holocaust
and has a lot to do with the functional historical argument and the
intentionalist historical argument along with a bit of denial. Arno
Mayer wrote this large book without footnotes. In the bibliography all
he did was list a stream of books on the holocaust. This history he
wrote was full of novel ideas and claims coming from somewhere. Other
historians wrote reviews of his book and trashing his methods, They
told him he should know better than to do this especially when the
subject is so controversial as the holocaust. His response was to say
that he was a big boy and didn't have to prove his claims. He paid his
dues. He was told that his views are worthless to historians because
they can't check his claims. Substantiation shows that a historian is
doing his work and not making things up. It saves others historians
time when they can simply go to the library or to the original
documents to verify his assertions. So this book by Mayer was a great
book for Holocaust deniers. No Mayer has disassociated himself from
this book and won't discuss it. It's a prime example of how not to
write history about any subject, but especially a controversial one.
>Once I give it to you, all you'll do is say, "oh." You probably won't even do
>that. You'll probably just overlook it. You'll probably not say another word
>about it. Why? Because you could care less if Adams said this or not.
This isn't true for the very reasons given above. It enables us in
this group to see the statement in its context. Otherwise yo may as
well have made it up. I hope you did not do this. So providing the
readers in this news group with a citation saves us from reading
through the massive correspondence and papers of the Adams family.
The rest appears to be some kind of pleading for mercy. Horrible.
[snip. It simply looks bad]
>Did I take the time to track down the "no establishment in New York and PA"
>quote? Yes. What did you and Curtis do with that? Hint: you discarded it.
No. It wasn't the argument *I* was making and I told to that about 28
(?) times. So it's 29 times now. The NY part was incorrect. we told
you that also.
>You
>both said I didn't provide it, then Curtis changed his mind and said I
>provided it but he didn't take notice of it.
I'd forgotten about it is what *I* told you because I as thinking of
my *original* argument. I explained this to you in another thread and
asked you to accept it. You snipped it without comment.
>You backed him up with your
>"easily overlooked" defense. Then he said that I provided it but that it was
>not relevant to the issue at hand (after, of course, he was the one who asked
>for it). Finally, I am told that I provided it, but Jefferson was wrong, and I
>shouldn't "single source."
I think you are mixing up all the arguments. I suspect yo are
suffering from data overload caused by your own reworking of various
arguments.
>What's the use in going down to the library and pulling these things out for
>you two. What will it accomplish? It will take away time and effort from my
>day and life, and all you'll do is turn your head to it. That's why I'm not
>going to keep playing this game. You challenge me to support my assertion
>regarding Blackstone's influence. When I do, I find out you passed it over,
>and Curtis snipped it as irrelevant.
It wasn't my argument. I thought you were speaking to allison about
it. You see, on Usenet, I make argument s that I make and I read your
"comments" and proofs against *my* arguments. I don't always read your
arguments with Allison. Usually they are mere personal attacks and I
get enough of those in your responses to me. So, if you are making
comments about moi in your posts to Allison, I'll sometimes see them.
But I let Allison make his own arguments. If I want to say something,
I will.
Usenet should be seen as a room of people. They are all standing
around with drinks in their hands and discussion the rose things
possible. The three worse things and we know what those are. :-) Other
folks stand by and enjoy the discussions. I'll address my stuff,
Allison addresses his and you address yours. When you speak we both
hear but only one needs to respond in most cases. The other not
addressed might have a comment or something interesting to add.
>From this post on, I do no research at
>your behest, whatsoever. You just aint worth it. You're not interested in a
>good-will exchange.
Well, you haven't historically done much in this group to begin with.
And that is at anyone's behest.
>Nonetheless, just to demonstrate how much of a game player you are:
>************
>"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly
>inadequate for the government of any other."
>
>--John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States,
>Charles Francis Adams, ed., Little, Brown, Boston, 1854, Vol IX, p. 229.
>*************
That's al you had to do. It shouldn't be like pulling teeth to get it.
Finally. Was that so awful. It would be nice to know who the letter
was to and the date of this letter. I don't own the 10 volumes of
Adams Works. Plus they cost upwards of $300. So this might be a
generally known letter. Can you supply information beyond that or is
this all the web page you found this one on says?
>Will we hear an apology for all the attacks and false accusations you have
>made about me above?
Why? Because he had to drag it out of you?
> Of course not.
You bet not.
> Will it matter to you that Adams said
>this? Of course not.
It might if we can find it and put this all in context.
> Will this entire post be ignored and discarded. Of course
>it will.
What a whine. But it is a very very good whine.
> That's your way. And that's why I will not be doing any extra
>research legwork to defend myself against your shallow attacks.
Awwwwww. <pout>
>with no anticipation of an appropriate response,
Was this good enough. Will you understand the story about Arno Mayer?
Mike Curtis
>Mike Curtis wrote:
>>
>> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>>
>> >jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >:|jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>> >> >:|>
>> >> >:|> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>> >> >:|>
>> >> >:|> >:|William Barwell wrote:
>> >> >:|
>> >> >:|> >:|> I joined after the rather nasty George Bush declared Atheists
>> >> >:|> >:|> could not be good American citizens.
>> >> >:|> >:|
>> >> >:|> >:|John Adams was even nastier:
>> >> >:|>
>> >> >:|> >:|"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly
>> >> >:|> >:|inadequate for the government of any other."
>> >> >:|>
>> >> >:|> Do you have a cite for the above quote?
>> >> >:|
>> >> >:|John Adams, Oct. 11, 1798 Address to the military
>> >> >:|
>> >> Again, I will ask for the complete cite.
>> >> That would include the publication it is and page numbers.
>> >
>> >Not going to take the extra effort and time to go to the Library to satisfy
>> >you. Last time I took an hour to look up some primary source at your behest, I
>> >was told, after I had provided it, that I still hadn't provided it. And then
>> >when I proved that I had provided it, I was told, "well, I must have
>> >overlooked it, these posts are too long to remember everything." So, no, I'm
>> >not going to work hard for no reason. You don't appreciate it, and I don't
>> >work for nothing.
>>
>> I did a
>> search on Adams to find it and there was nothing. Saved me a lot of
>> time. So what is the source for the above Adams quotes?
>>
>> [snipped, yawn]
>>
>> Mike Curtis
>
>You know, you really could care less if there is an official citation or not.
I addressed this in another post. You'll find it and ignore it.
[snip duplication of the same whine made to Allison.
>What's the use in going down to the library and pulling these things out for
>you two. What will it accomplish?
It might help substantiate your case?
[snip]
See the other post.
Papa Budge
<jal...@pilot.infi.net> wrote:
> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>
> >:|jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
> >:|>
> >:|> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
> >:|>
> >:|> >:|jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
> >:|> >:|>
> >:|> >:|> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
> >:|> >:|>
> >:|> >:|> >:|William Barwell wrote:
> >:|> >:|
> >:|> >:|> >:|> I joined after the rather nasty George Bush declared Atheists
> >:|> >:|> >:|> could not be good American citizens.
> >:|> >:|> >:|
> >:|> >:|> >:|John Adams was even nastier:
> >:|> >:|>
> >:|> >:|> >:|"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious
> >people. It is wholly
> >:|> >:|> >:|inadequate for the government of any other."
> >:|> >:|>
> >:|> >:|> Do you have a cite for the above quote?
> >:|> >:|
> >:|> >:|John Adams, Oct. 11, 1798 Address to the military
> >:|> >:|
> >:|> Again, I will ask for the complete cite.
> >:|> That would include the publication it is and page numbers.
> >:|
> >:|Not going to take the extra effort and time to go to the Library to satisfy
> >:|you.
>
>
> Don't you dare try and pull this stunt with me.
>
> I have already caught you posting a bogus Adams quote. J Q Adams. Remember?
> ...So get off your high horse and provide the cite or acknowledge you don't
> have it, and don't know if the quote is valid or not.
Just as a point of order, though I have no idea whether the author
accurately quotes Adams (my memory doesn't go back quite that far),
you'll find that quote on the net at these sites, among many others:
http://www.liberty1.org/roots.htm
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Troy/5534/quote20.html
http://www.linda.net/quotes.html
At the first site the quote is contained in a sort of essay called THE
ROOTS OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTY, by J. David Gowdy. The copyright
is The Institute for American Liberty.
Of course all these places could merely be repeating the same bogus
quote. Happens all the time in journalism.
But I don't see why this would be out of character for John Adams. He
is also reputed to have said "Religion and virtue are the only
foundations, not only of republicanism and of all free government, but
of social felicity under all governments and in all the combinations of
human society."
Good luck, sweetheart.
--papa budge
"Ring the bells that still can ring.
Forget your perfect offering.
There is a crack in everything:
That's how the light gets in."
--lc
"I am a liar who always tells the truth."
--jc
Mike Curtis
The accuracy of the quote is one issue. The other issue is its context
and the conversation within which it was made. The game of quotes can
go on without much meaning forever, so what is wanted is the root
source. The last URL puts this quote in 1798. What the quote is from
(not just the page in a set of books) but to whom it was made and the
context is important. This is what is usually left out in these quote
games.
>(my memory doesn't go back quite that far),
>you'll find that quote on the net at these sites, among many others:
>
>http://www.liberty1.org/roots.htm
>
>http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Troy/5534/quote20.html
>
>http://www.linda.net/quotes.html
>
>At the first site the quote is contained in a sort of essay called THE
>ROOTS OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTY, by J. David Gowdy. The copyright
>is The Institute for American Liberty.
>
>Of course all these places could merely be repeating the same bogus
>quote. Happens all the time in journalism.
Yes.
>But I don't see why this would be out of character for John Adams. He
>is also reputed to have said "Religion and virtue are the only
>foundations, not only of republicanism and of all free government, but
>of social felicity under all governments and in all the combinations of
>human society."
No one is saying anything about the character of John Adams. this is a
contextual concern.
It could simply be Adams opinion buried within a larger context. Adams
wasn't at the Convention. Adams was in England. So when we are
discussing the Constitutional convention and someone quotes Adams in
1798 (it appears) we have a quote by someone who wasn't there and by
someone who wa president at the time. In 1798 there was a "Quasi War"
with France. Adams wrote a lot of political letters against those who
did not support his war. Many of those were Jeffersonians. So the
context is important in this light.
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>:|>
>:|> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|> Did your 1000 plus line post address that simple calim above?
>:|> Did your 1000 plus line post give a full cite for the Adams quote?
>:|>
>:|> That was all I asked for.
>:|
>:|Yep. You got it.
I have yet to find anything that addresses the following from you:
Now, as to Blackstone, it involved only one simple little comment of yours
***********************************************************************************
>:|> >:|Even nastier, Blackstone said that Atheists could not be trusted:
>:|>
**********************************************************************************
That simple comment above. Now the rest of that discussion went like this:
>:|> Irrelevant to this discussion.
>:|
>:|Why? Because you don't like it?
Nope, because it does not have any bearing on the discussion.
For it to have some bearing you would have to show how it effected or
influenced things in this country, how it led to laws etc.
You want to do that, then it might not be irrelevant.
But until you make that connection, it is irrelevant.
>Blackstone has no relevance to the development
>:|of legal principles, does he? Keep wishing, Jim. It really looks very foolish.
What exactly did the comment of his develop in this country?
You have to show that to make the comment relevant.
Even very smart men can be fools sometimes. because he said something does
not mean a great deal unless that which he said is connected to something.
Did your 1000 plus line post address that simple claim above?
That was all I asked for.
>:|What do you want now, the manufacturing company of the ink
>:|used to print it. You're so pitiful.
>:|
>:|Did you read the 1000 plus lines? Nope.
Actually, I did.
>:| You're a propagandist. An ACLU stooge
>:|who can't get a publisher so you call yourself "published" because you posted
>:|a webpage. ROTFLMAO.
LOL, I didn't say any of the above.. Sorry, try again.
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|Fine. Take that up with Jefferson. It doesn't matter if he was right on that
>:|point. The citation was provided simply to show that the founders saw New York
>:|as a model for going without an establishment.
One founder made that comment.
Another founder made the following comment:
In the Colonial State of the Country, there were four examples,
R.I, N. J., Penna, and Delaware, & the greater part of N. Y. where there
were no religious Establishments; the support of Religion being left to the
voluntary associations & contributions of individuals; and certainly the
religious condition of those Colonies, will well bear a comparison with
that where establishments existed.
>:| They may have been wrong about
>:|it not having an establishment, but that doesn't take away from the fact that
>:|Jefferson pointed to it as a model.
There were several potential models. Some scholars point to the New Jersey
Constitution as being the model for the Establishment clause.
New Jersey was one of the four states that did not have an establishment of
religion, and in fact banned such with its first constitution. New York did
as well, but had had an establishment in some portions of the state.
(1) what does this mean?
(2) what does that prove?
(3) What did N Y have. It did not have complete religious freedom, close,
but not total.
(4) N Y also specifically stated that the Common Law of England did not
apply to the laws of that state in any case where said common law was in
conflict with the Constitution of that state or the U. S.
*********************************************************************************
NEW YORK
NEW YORK CONSTITUTIONS
1777; 1822; 1846; 1869; 1897; 1967
NEW YORK CONSTITUTION OF 1777
ARTICLE VIII. That every elector, before he is admitted to vote,
shall, if required by the returning-officer or either of the inspectors,
take an oath, or, if of the people called Quakers, an affirmation, of
allegiance to the state.
ARTICLE XXXV. And this convention doth further, in the name and by
the authority of the good people of this state, ordain, determine, and
declare that such parts of the common law of England, and of the statute
law of England and Great Britian, and of the acts of the legislature of the
colony of New York, as together did form the law of the said colony on the
19th day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and
seventy-five, shall be and continue the law of this state, subject to such
alterations and provisions as the legislature of this state, shall, from
time to time make concerning the same. That such of the said acts, as are
temporary, shall expire at the times limited for their duration
respectively.
That all such parts of the said common law, and all such of the said
statutes and acts aforesaid, or parts thereof, as may be construed to
establish or maintain any particular denomination of Christians or their
ministers, or concern the allegiance heretofore yielded to, and the
supremacy, sovereignty, government, or prerogatives claimed or exercised
by, the King of Great Britain and his predecessors, over the colony of New
York and its inhabitants, or are repugant to this constitution, be, and
they hereby are, abrogated and rejected. And this convention doth further
ordain, that the resolves or resolutions of the congresses of the colony of
New York, and of the convention of the state of New York, now in force, and
not repugnant to the government established by this constitution, shall be
considered as making part of the laws of this state; subject, nevertheless,
to such alterations and provisions as the legislature of this state, may
from time to time, make concerning the same.
ARTICLE XXXVIII. And whereas we are required, by the benevolent
principles of the rational liberty, not only to expel civil tyranny, but
also to guard against that spiritual oppression and intolerance wherewith
the bigotry and ambition of weak and wicked priests and princes have
scourged mankind, this convention doth further, in the name and by the
authority of the good people of this state, ordain, determine, and desire,
that the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship,
without discrimination or preference, shall be forever hereafter be
allowed, within this state, to all mankind: PROVIDED That the liberty of
conscience, hereby granted, shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of
licentiousness, or justify practices inconsistent with the peace or safety
of this state.
ARTICLE XXXIX. And whereas the ministers of the gospel are, by their
profession, dedicated to the service of God and the care of souls, and
ought not to be diverted from the great duties of their function,
therefore, no minister of the gospel, or priest of any denomination
whatsoever, shall, at any time hereafter, under and preference or
description whatever, be eligible to, or capable of holding, any civil or
military office or place within this state.
ARTICLE XL. . . . That all such of the inhabitants of this state
being of the people called Quakers as, from scruples of conscience, may be
adverse to the bearing of arms, be therefrom excused by the legislature;
and do pay to the State such sums of money, in lieu of their personal
service, as the same may, in the judgment of the legislature be worth . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fact of the matter is, New York had one of the better of the original
Constitutions, but it did have the flaw of forbidding members of the clergy
from being a member of the civil government.
You run into two schools of thought. One says that by the time of the
ratification of the BOR's, New York and Virginia granted the most complete
religious freedom, while the other school of thought names Rhode Island and
Virginia as granting the most complete religious freedom by that time
period.
*************************************************************************
In New York, where a multiple establishment had been maintained in New
York City and three adjoining counties, the long history of insistence by
the Church of England that it was rightfully the only established church
influenced the writing of the clause against establishments in the
constitution of 1777. The system of multiple establishments of religion
was ended by the following words, reflecting the stubborn determination of
non-Episcopalians never to admit, even by implication, that there had ever
been an exclusive or preferential establishment of the Church of England:
'That all such parts of the said common law, and all such of the said
statutes and acts aforesaid, or parts thereof, as may be construed to
establish or maintain any particular denomination of Christians or their
ministers . . . be, and they hereby are, abrogated and rejected."(5)
(5). Francis Newton Thorpe, ed., The Federal and State Constitutions,
Colonial Charters, and Other Organic Laws, 7 vols. (Washington, 1309),
5:2636
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: The Establishment Clause, Religion and the First
Amendment, Leonard W. Levy, The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel
Hill, (1994) p 28)
Mike Curtis
>Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>
>>:|Fine. Take that up with Jefferson. It doesn't matter if he was right on that
>>:|point. The citation was provided simply to show that the founders saw New York
>>:|as a model for going without an establishment.
>
>
>One founder made that comment.
>
>Another founder made the following comment:
>
>
> In the Colonial State of the Country, there were four examples,
>R.I, N. J., Penna, and Delaware, & the greater part of N. Y. where there
>were no religious Establishments; the support of Religion being left to the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>voluntary associations & contributions of individuals; and certainly the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>religious condition of those Colonies, will well bear a comparison with
>that where establishments existed.
And the part I find interesting I put carrots under. It would be fair
to assume you know this but this made it okay, after a sense, to have
local establishments. We still do to this day in America. Certain
communities are very much made up of one sect of a certain religion.
If you move into that community you will find that you are out
numbered. So local areas can and do skirt the lines when it comes to
religion and politics.
>>:| They may have been wrong about
>>:|it not having an establishment, but that doesn't take away from the fact that
>>:|Jefferson pointed to it as a model.
>There were several potential models. Some scholars point to the New Jersey
>Constitution as being the model for the Establishment clause.
>
>New Jersey was one of the four states that did not have an establishment of
>religion, and in fact banned such with its first constitution. New York did
>as well, but had had an establishment in some portions of the state.
I'll have to read up on New Jersey some day. I used to live there in
1967. All I remember about that state is concrete. <g>
>(1) what does this mean?
I'll attempt to answer. I think it shows that the colonies were quite
different from the mother country when it came to toleration and the
separation of church and state. If one uses the colonies as an example
one can see one of reasons for revolution and further the tangent our
common law took from that of Britain. One can also see why the
experiment of the framers was so novel and brought so many visitors to
our country with the prime project to write about our new society.
>(2) what does that prove?
I think it proves that some colonies, and not the majority were more
tolerant than others. I'm sure that the reasons for these
colonies/states coming around to these actions are varied.
>(3) What did N Y have. It did not have complete religious freedom, close,
>but not total.
>(4) N Y also specifically stated that the Common Law of England did not
>apply to the laws of that state in any case where said common law was in
>conflict with the Constitution of that state or the U. S.
Yes, and one must understand what the differences were in England vs.
the new nation. England had an established church and still does to
this day.
[snipped for brevity]
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>The fact of the matter is, New York had one of the better of the original
>Constitutions, but it did have the flaw of forbidding members of the clergy
>from being a member of the civil government.
MA had the same heritage. I don't know if it was legally stated by
statute.
[snip]
>*************************************************************************
> In New York, where a multiple establishment had been maintained in New
>York City and three adjoining counties, the long history of insistence by
>the Church of England that it was rightfully the only established church
>influenced the writing of the clause against establishments in the
>constitution of 1777. The system of multiple establishments of religion
>was ended by the following words, reflecting the stubborn determination of
>non-Episcopalians never to admit, even by implication, that there had ever
>been an exclusive or preferential establishment of the Church of England:
>'That all such parts of the said common law, and all such of the said
>statutes and acts aforesaid, or parts thereof, as may be construed to
>establish or maintain any particular denomination of Christians or their
>ministers . . . be, and they hereby are, abrogated and rejected."(5)
> (5). Francis Newton Thorpe, ed., The Federal and State Constitutions,
>Colonial Charters, and Other Organic Laws, 7 vols. (Washington, 1309),
>5:2636
>(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: The Establishment Clause, Religion and the First
>Amendment, Leonard W. Levy, The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel
>Hill, (1994) p 28)
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|
>:|>:|jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>:|>:|>
>:|>:|> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|>:|> >:|> >:|> >:|"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly
>:|>:|> >:|> >:|> >:|inadequate for the government of any other."
>:|>:|> >:|> >:|>
>:|>:|> >:|> >:|> Do you have a cite for the above quote?
>:|>:|> >:|> >:|
>:|>:|> >:|> >:|John Adams, Oct. 11, 1798 Address to the military
>:|>:|> >:|> >:|
>:|>:|> >:|> Again, I will ask for the complete cite.
>:|>:|> >:|> That would include the publication it is and page numbers.
>:|>:|> >:|
>:|>:|> >:|Not going to take the extra effort and time to go to the Library to satisfy
>:|>:|> >:|you.
>:|>:|>
>:|>:|> Don't you dare try and pull this stunt with me.
>:|>:|>
>:|>:|> I have already caught you posting a bogus Adams quote. J Q Adams. Remember?
>:|>:|
>:|>:|Not so.
>:|>:|
>:|
>:|
>:|Yes, so.
>:|
You posted a quote that John Quincy Adams is suppose to have said, a quote
that cannot be verfied by an original source. That is called a bogus quote.
Ted Kegebein
little group get off?
William Barwell wrote:
>
> In article <373031f5....@news.sig.net>,
> Mike Curtis <mi...@x.aimetering.com.nospam> wrote:
> >jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Well hate to burst your bubble but I have no contact with anyone who is a
> >>member of Americans United.
> >>
> >>Not that it matters, but we have another one of your inventions.
> >
> >I hate to sound silly, but I'be never heard of Americans United. Why
> >are they an evil group to some?
> >
>
> Because, along with the ACLU, they are one of the few organized groups
> who manage to start lawsuits and win.
>
> They have been instrumental in getting the IRS to pull tax exemptions of
> churches that overstep the bounds of political advocacy for example,
> and help keep the Christian Coalition honest.
> American United for Seperation of Church and State have been around for
> quite some while, and despite small support, has managed to help keep the
> fundies, creationists, Christian Coalition, Pat Roberston and RCC on
> teh straight and narrow more often they they would have with nobody
> willing to file official complaints, gather dirt and hire lawyers.
>
> Anybody who wants to help with this effort is urged to send $25
> or more to AUSCS at 1816 Jefferson Place N.W., Washington DC, 20036.
> You'll be helping a worthy cause that needs your help more than ever.
> You will alos recieve their monthly little magazine Church and State
> alerting you to the latest news in this arena.
>
> I joined after the rather nasty George Bush declared Atheists
> could not be good American citizens.
>
> This organization is one of the few that has the guts and courage to fight
> that sort of religous bigotry and make it stick from time to time.
> It's $25 worth of trouble you can make for the religous right if you
> want to help keep them from doing whatever they please unopposed.
>
> The RR hates them for their efforts.
> Latest things they are watching for, Philadelphia's RCC Cardinal
> Bellacqua has announced the RCC will start issuing voter's guides.
> The AUSCS will see to it they do so within the law or will challenge
> their tax exemption.
> AU protested Lousiana schools attempts to have assemblies in school
> presented by a fundy evangelical group "Mighty Men". The schools
> cancelled. The Au is challenging a sweetheart deal in Colorado for
> selling land to the Catholic church at cost way below value of the land in
> Colorado City. Such activities are presented in their monthly magazine.
>
> Well worth $25.00 a year.
>
> Pope Charles
> SubGenius Pope of Houston
> Slack!