RUGGLES
WAS DISTRIBUTING LITERATURE SAYING JESUS WAS A BASTARD AND HIS MOTHER WAS A WHORE
THIS WAS IN 1811
HE WAS CHARGED WITH AN ATTACK ON THE NATION
THE REASONING BEING IS THAT AN ATTACK ON JESUS WAS AN ATTACK ON CHRISTIANITY
AN ATTACK ON CHRISTIANITY IS AN ATTACK ON A CHRISTIAN NATION
AND SINCE WE WERE A CHRISTIAN NATION
IT WAS AN ATTACK ON US
HE WAS FINED 300 DOLLARS AND GIVEN 5 MONTH IN JAIL
[8:55:11
AM] RUGGLES
WAS DISTRIBUTING LITERATURE SAYING JESUS WAS A BASTARD AND HIS MOTHER WAS A WHORE
[8:55:20 AM] THIS WAS IN 1811
[8:55:30 AM] HE WAS CHARGED WITH AN ATTACK ON THE NATION
[8:55:53 AM] THE REASONING BEING IS THAT AN ATTACK ON JESUS WAS AN ATTACK ON CHRISTIANITY
[8:56:05 AM] AN ATTACK ON CHRISTIANITY IS AN ATTACK ON A CHRISTIAN NATION
[8:56:15 AM] AND SINCE WE WERE A CHRISTIAN NATION
[8:56:21 AM] IT WAS AN ATTACK ON US
[8:57:00 AM] HE WAS FINED 300 DOLLARS AND GIVEN 5 MONTH IN JAIL
1811 NY The People v. Ruggles, 8 Johns 545 (Sup Ct N.Y. 1811) a Blasphemy case is cited 12 times in The Myth of Separation |
|
Major claims by Barton in his publications:
From The Myth of Separation, page 55-58, Barton writes:
This case was not only cited in the previous case, it was also the second case cited in Holy Trinity. The offense and surrounding facts are described from the case:
The attorney for the prisoner presented his defense:
The prosecuting attorney countered:
The Chief Justice of the New York Supreme Court during this case was Chancellor James Kent, author of Commentaries on American Law. There were few purely American legal precedents or writings in the young nation on which to rely in its early years; consequently, lawyers and judges studied and applied the writings of Sir William Blackstone, an English judge and author of Blackstone's Commentaries on the Law. However, as time progressed and experience accumulated in the young nation, American writings and standards were developed. These were due, in large part, to the four-volume work written by James Kent: Commentaries on American Law. Kent's writings, while heavily dependent upon Blackstone, eventually replaced Blackstone's as the standard in America. In addition to producing his Commentaries. Kent also originated the practice of written decisions in New York. After his years in that state's supreme court, he went on to a nine-year term as the head of the Court of Chancery--a specialized court dealing with complicated and intricate situations that regular courts were unable to handle. James Kent was much more than an average judge in a northeastern state--he was one of the premier individuals in the development of legal practice in the United States. His words on law carry significant weight and importance. Notice his decision in this case:
These are powerful words, written by one of the fathers of American legal practice! His specific statement concerning Christianity and the Constitution bears repeating: To construe it [the Constitutional as breaking down the common law barriers against licentious, wanton, and impious attacks upon Christianity itself, would be an enormous perversion of its meaning. |
In Addition:
On page 248 of his The Myth of Separation, David Barton provides us with a highly edited quotation from The People v. Ruggles, an 1811 decision by the Supreme Court of the State of New York. The case involved a man arrested for publicly criticizing the Christian religion. Barton quotes the decision (written by Chief Justice James Kent) as follows:
Offenses against religion and morality...strike at the root of moral obligation, and weaken the security of the social ties.... This [First Amendment] declaration...never meant to withdraw religion...and with it the best sanctions of moral and social obligation from all consideration and notice of the law.
For more information on this case, please see: Did the Supreme Court of New York, in an 1811 decision, ever say that the First Amendment was "never meant to withdraw religion...from all consideration and notice of the law?"
Legal analysis and writing by Susan Batte, Esq.
Christianity is a part of the common law of England, but, under the provisions of our constitution, neither Christianity nor any other system of religion is a part of the law of this state. (Bloom v Cornelius; December Term, 1853; Ohio Supreme Court)This also tends to show that there were other motives at stake when Kent wrote his opinion, especially in light of the fact that there appeared to be a recognizable Jewish community in New York.
From:
Jon Moseley [mailto:ruthercap@earthlink.net]
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 10:24 AM
To: Jacob Israel; 'Virginia F. Raines'; 'x-915552'
Cc: 'Jon Moseley'; 'Kannan Devan'; 'EVE DEMIAN'; 'Peter Marshall'; 'Henri the
Celt'; 'Visharad Sharma'; 'Gavin Oughton'; 'Angel'; 'German Vilella Coll';
beddome@commspeed.net; borg23us@yahoo.com; 'Foppe Dykstra'; 'Hugh Caddess'; 'Holland
Holland'; 'Kid Kid'; 'rodger davis'; Alihasan222@aol.com; FRANFirKKJV@aol.com; 'abidhusein
hemraj'; ahvenkitesh@gmail.com; alexjamesnews2@gmail.com; 'Ardeshir Mehta';
jk@christianparty.net; jk@jacobisrael.us; 'Asif Iqbal'; 'YAYA'; Mnaquvi@yahoo.com; 'Dick
Eastman'; pk4318@yahoo.com; 'Richard Niemela'; 'Rishi Dwivedi'; shaikh_hyder@yahoo.com;
'Shariq Mirza'
Subject: Re: see People vs Ruggle, Hansen DID lie again: TALMUD does NOT SAY THAT
Yes
it is OVER-RULED by New York Times vs. Sullivan.
It is obsolete. Any such statute CANNOT be enforced today.
I
have personally seen a judge refuse to enforce a law restricting speech, saying that the
law on the books is unconstitutional.
DENYING
THE HOLOCAUST WOULD BE A CRIME IN THE UNITED STATES, EXCEPT THAT NEW YORK TIMES V.
SULLIVAN MAKES IT UNCONSTITUTIONAL TO RESTRICT FREEDOM OF SPEECH.
If
it were possible to prosecute blasphemy IT WOULD ALSO BE A CRIME TO DENY THE
HOLOCAUST IN THE UNITED STATES.
THE
ONLY REASON IT IS NOT A CRIME TO DENY THE HOLOCAUST IN THE USA, IS THAT THE CONSTITUTION
DOES NOT ALLOW RESTRICTIONS ON FREE SPEECH.
ALL
OF YOU CLOWNS would be in jail if it were possible to restrict free speech.
However,
People v. Ruggles HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TALMUD.
THIS
IS MORE EVIDENCE OF THE SLOPPY THINKING OF ANTI-SEMITES.
As this reply is so far over the line, this author will no longer communicate with the kike calling itself jon Moseley, so this reply is written in the third person.
First of all this evil scumbag slut must get its slurs straight. According to Scripture, AND jew writings, WE ARE Semites and jews are NOT. How can a Semite be an anti-Semite? He cant be.
Second of all, NO JUDGE can over-rule GODS LAW, nor the US Constitutions FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION for the 93% of Americans who CLAIM to be Christians.
Third of all, there is NOTHING in Gods Law that says we must honor the 1.9% of the population who are evil scumbag edomite kikes who brutally murdered Jesus with a law that says that denying the holocaust is blasphemy but, calling Jesus the illegitimate offspring of the Roman soldier Pandira who raped Mary who was hanged on a stake for blasphemy, thrown on a dung heap, and is now boiling in hot excrement, is NOT blasphemy.
Fourth of all, by considering this EVIL form of blasphemy of Our LORD and Savior Jesus Christ to be even CLOSE in severity to denying the holocaust, this kike has elevated JEWS to a position higher than GOD, a blasphemy of the NAME of the LORD for which He will and MUST punish it SEVERELY:
And
he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and
all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born
in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of
the
LORD,
shall be put to death.
Leviticus
24:16
Lastly, the ONLY reason a kike would do what Ruggles did is because of the TALMUD. Theres NO OTHER WAY for a human being [and I use that term loosely in reference to these kikes] to have deduced such a SICK AND HATEFUL campaign against Jesus [and thus AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA] without it.
Its almost incomprehensible to this author that this kike would even TRY to put holocaust denial on the same level as blasphemy of the NAME of the LORD, and blasphemy of Our LORD and Savior Jesus Christ. Almost-- but not quite.
http://www.biblebb.com/files/HERITAGE.HTM
SUPREME
COURT - 1811 - PEOPLE VS RUGGLES
There
was a man who made attacks on Jesus in such a blasphemous way that it made it to the
Supreme Court and the court ruled: "Whatever strikes at the root of Christianity
tends manifestly to the dissolution of civil government." They reasoned that if you
attack Jesus, you have attacked Christianity, & if you have attacked Christianity, you
have attacked the foundation of the U.S., therefore an attack on Jesus or Christianity was
equivalent to an attack on the foundation of the U.S.
http://www.historians.org/info/AHA_History/jjay.htm
"The State of New York," Dr. Schaff reminds us, "had virtually dis-established the Episcopal Church in 1777, one year after the declaration of independence, by repealing in its constitution all statutes and acts which 'might be construed to establish or maintain any particular denomination of Christians and their ministers'; and it ordained that 'the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship without discrimination or preference shall forever hereafter be allowed within this State to all mankind.'" In the leading case in New York, of The People vs. Ruggles, quoted by Dr. Schaff--when Chancellor Kent delivered the opinion of the court, with the approval of a full bench, including the eminent names of Smith Thompson, Ambrose Spencer, William Van Ness, and Joseph C. Yates--the court held that by the common law now in force here as in England, and wholly irrespective of any question of church establishment, contemptuous words uttered maliciously against Christ or the Holy Scriptures are an offence affecting the essential interests of civil society, where Christianity is recognized as a part of the law and the religion of the people.
http://www.worthynews.com/america.html
SUPREME
COURT - 1811 - PEOPLE VS RUGGLES
There
was a man who made attacks on Jesus in such a blasphemous way that it made it to the
Supreme Court and the court ruled: "Whatever strikes at the root of Christianity
tends manifestly to the dissolution of civil government." They reasoned that if you
attack Jesus, you have attacked Christianity, & if you have attacked Christianity, you
have attacked the foundation of the U.S., therefore an attack on Jesus or Christianity was
equivalent to an attack on the foundation of the U.S.
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/thompson/050914
In
1811 a case (People vs. Ruggles) came to the Court which dealt with a man who had
gone into a fit of profanity. It was not a moment of anger or temporary loss of control,
for he had taken the time to write it out and distribute it. It maliciously and
capriciously attacked Jesus Christ in the vilest of terms. The Court explained the
problems with his writings: an attack on Jesus Christ was an attack on Christianity; and
an attack on Christianity was an attack on the foundation of the country; therefore, an
attack on Jesus Christ was an equivalent to an attack on the country! The man was
sentenced to 3 months in prison and a fine of $500.00 (a princely sum in those days) for
attacking the country by attacking Jesus Christ.
The question begs then, did the Supreme Court recognize the United States as a Christian
nation? Well, in 1892 the US Supreme Court made this ruling in a case. (Church of The Holy
Trinity vs. The United States.) "No purpose of action against religion can be imputed
to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people. This is a Christian
nation."
What are We the People to do?
It's no big secret. True patriots need to unite and start brushfires of freedom wherever
we live, throughout the country.
We need to attend our city council and county board meetings and speak out.
We need to car and bus pool to our state capitols to put great pressure on our state
legislators.
We need to call, write, email and visit our U.S. representatives and senators and demand
that they impeach and throw out any and all judges who dare undermine the principles of
the Constitution.
If we make such efforts often and consistently our elected officials and the elites of our
society will eventually get the message that they need to take very seriously their oath
to uphold, at all levels of government, the Constitution of the United Sates of America.
http://userpages.aug.com/bbarnes/Lessons/AGHeritage1.htm
People vs. Ruggles, 1811: "Whatever strikes at the root of Christianity tends manifestly to the dissolution of civil government."
What did "free speech" used to mean?
What does the First Amendment say?
http://www.three-peaks.net/annette/Godly.htm
1811 People vs. Ruggles: Whatever strikes at the root of Christianity tends manifestly to the dissolution of civil government. In this case a man became profane about Jesus Christ and the bible both written and spoken. The courts said it was blasphemy and the man was fined $500.00 and jailed for 3 months. The court said if youve attacked Jesus Christ you have attacked Christianity. If you attack Christianity, you have attacked the foundation of the US. Therefore, it is an attack on the US.
http://www.lawandliberty.org/founders.htm
It is more than just interesting to note that whenever the founding fathers wrote about "religion", they almost always were referring to "Christianity". Nearly a hundred years later, in the U.S. Supreme Court case of Church of the Holy Trinity vs. U.S.(1892) cited 87 historical precedents in its conclusion that, "Our laws and institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise. In this sense and to this extent, our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian." (italics mine) Although we hear much today about "the separation of church and state" , you will not find that phrase or that intent in the U.S. constitution. In fact, in an 1811 U.S. Supreme Court case (People vs.Ruggles) the court declared against a man for profaning Jesus Christ and the Bible, ruling that "whatever strikes at the root of Christianity tends manifestly to the dissolution of civil government."
http://incolor.inebraska.com/stuart/court.htm
There
was a man who made attacks on Jesus in such a blasphemous way that it made it to the
Supreme Court and the court ruled:
Whatever
strikes at the root of Christianity tends manifestly to the dissolution of civil
government.
People vs Ruggles, 1811
A
Philadelphia school wanted to teach morals without using the Bible. The Court said :
Why
may not the Bible, and especially the New Testament, be read and taught as a divine
revelation in the schools? Where can the purest principals of morality be learned so
clearly or perfectly as from the N.T.
Vidal vs Girard, 1844
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1175441/posts
1811
People vs. Ruggles
The
Supreme Court Stated:
Whatever
strikes at the root of Christianity tends to manifestly to the dissolution of civil
government.
In
this particular case, the person responsible for the suit in a written statement had
committed blasphemy against Jesus Christ. In the eyes of the Court, they interpreted the
blasphemy as an attack on the United States and thus rewarded the person a $500.00 fine
plus 3 months in prison.
http://www.missiontoisrael.org/gods-covenant-people/chapter8.php
For
stating: "Jesus Christ was a bastard and his mother was a whore," the Jewish
defendant was convicted of the common-law crime of blasphemy in the 18 11 New York case People
vs. Ruggles. The following is part of Chancellor James Kent's opinion:
The
people of this State [New York] in common with the people of this country, profess
the general doctrines of Christianity ... to scandalize the author [Yhshua the Christ]
of these doctrines is not only in a religious point of view, extremely impious, but
even in respect of the obligations due to society, in gross violation of decency and good
order....
The
free, equal and undisturbed enjoyment of religious opinion, whatever it may be, and free
and decent discussion on any religious subject, is granted and secured; but to revile
with malicious and blasphemous contempt the [Christian] religion professed by
almost the whole community, is an abuse of that right. Nor are we bound, by any
expressions in the constitution, as some have strangely supposed, either not to punish at
all, or to punish indiscriminately the like attacks upon the religion of Mahomet or of the
Grand Lama, and for this plain reason, that the case assumes that we [Americans] are
a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply ingrafted upon Christianity
and not upon the doctrines or worship of those [Jewish, Muslim and other] imposters.72
In
a nearly identical case regarding blasphemy, the 1837 decision handed down by Chief
Justice John Middleton Clayton in The State [of Delaware] vs. Thomas Jefferson
Chandler declared:
The
christian religion is and has ever been the prevailing religion among the people of this
state [Delaware],
and the malicious blasphemy of the popular religion [Christianity] or its
founder [Yhshua], has a direct tendency to produce breaches of the peace."
73
The
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in Updegraph vs. The Commonwealth (11 Serg. & Rawle,
400-1) ... have declared that, "from the time of [Henry del Bracton,
christianity was part of the common law of England. 74
In
England christianity ... has been the prevailing religion of its [Celto-Saxon]
people for a time beyond that of legal memory.... 75
...
since the settlement of Delaware of the Swedes and Fins, which was one of the
earliest settlements on this continent, down to the present day, christianity has been
that religion which the people as a body have constantly professed and preferred. The
Swedes who were ever zealous christians, were succeeded by the Dutch, who equally
professed and practised the same religious faith; and the English, who afterwards took possession
of the province, also professed the same belief in Jesus Christ .... 76
...
by this [Pennsylvania] charter, liberty of conscience was thus far secured to all who
professed to believe in a God, none but those who professed to believe in Jesus Christ ...
could serve the government under this charter of William Penn, in any official
capacity whatever.
Seventy-five
years after the date of this charter, on the 11th September, 1776, the "declaration
of rights and fundamental rules of the Delaware State, (1 De. Laws. App. 79) was
adopted, the second and third sections of which are in these words: ... See. 3. That all
persons professing the christian religion ought forever to enjoy equal rights and
privileges in this state ...... "
Thus
we see that at the breaking out of that struggle for civil and religious liberty ...
equality of religious rights and privileges was still expressly restricted to persons
professing the christian religion.
On
the 20th September, 1776, the first constitution of the Delaware State was adopted, the
22d article of which provided, that "every person who shall be chosen a member of
either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust, before taking his seat or
entering upon the execution of his office, shall take the following oath ... to wit: I
... do profess of faith in God, the father, and Jesus Christ his only son, and in the Holy
Ghost, on God blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the old
and new testaments to be given by divine inspiration. 77
...
in the year 1824, by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania also, in the case of
Updegraph vs. The Commonwealth.... Judge [Thomas] Duncan, delivering the opinion of the
court in that case said, "even if christianity was no part of the [civil] law
of the land, it is the popular religion of the country [America and her Celto-Saxon
people] . "78