Propaganda, cont.
Part-II The Militia Clause of the 2nd Amendment
In addition to its still tax-exempt lobbying efforts, the Presbyterian Church also interprets portions of the Bill of Rights in a way which can only be described as distorted. In its Policy Statement, the Presbyterian Church pronounces that it has determined that: "the second amendment applies only to the right of states to maintain a well-organized militia." This interpretation of the term "militia" is entirely repugnant to the U.S. Constitution, to many state constitutions and to federal and state statutes.
The sole interpretation of the Second Amendment which the Church relies upon - that the Second Amendment applies only to the right of states to maintain a well-organized militia - is from an article written by Warren E. Burger, and which was published in the Keene Sentinel, Nov. 26, 1991. Former Chief Justice Burger, who had been known to answer a knock at his door by appearing with a gun in his hand, also said that, "If I were writing the Bill of Rights now there wouldn't be any such thing as the Second Amendment. (From MacNeil/Lehrer News Hour, Dec. 16, 1991 available in LEXIS, Nexis Library, Arcnws File; Guns and the Law, Phoenix Gazette, Feb. 22, 1990, at A10.)
Presbyterian Church leaders are also apparently satisfied that the "people" referred to in the First Amendment - the "people" whose rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion are protected by the First Amendment - are somehow not the same as the "people" referred to in the Second Amendment.
The same Church leaders appear unable to understand either the function or the limitations of a subordinate clause ("A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State…) in proper English usage. Many English and linguistics experts have determined that the primary statement of the Second Amendment is: "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed," and that this statement is neither mitigated nor diminished by the subordinate clause preceding it. Apparently, the dumbing down of the American citizenry is causing more and more people to not understand simple English construction, and to thus not understand their rights. One might compare the construction of the Second Amendment to the construction of a similar sentence: George M. Horn, Department of Linguistics, University of Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia, supplies this explanation and analogy:
If we look at the grammatical construction of the amendment, it becomes clear that whatever the interpretation given to the first clause, the stated right to bear arms in the second clause is absolute. The first clause merely specifies a context or reason, for the granting of the right in the first place. It does not constitute any condition on this right.
To see this more clearly, consider the following declaration, which is structurally analogous to the statement of the amendment: 'John being a true friend, the right of his family members to make unlimited withdrawals from my bank account shall not be infringed.'
Suppose I were to sign such a statement, have it notarized and send it to my bank. If at some later time John proves not to be such a true friend, but his family members nevertheless decide to exercise their right to empty my bank account, I cannot argue that they no longer have that right, since the right as conferred, does not depend on John's friendship, but was simply given to them because of that friendship. My only recourse is to rescind the right at the time that our friendship ends, before they have a chance to profit from it.
Further, the Second Amendment does not specify any regulations for the militia whatsoever. This is not surprising, since Article I of the Constitution sets forth a complete statement allocating responsibility for regulating the militia. The significance attributed to the term "Militia" in the Second Amendment appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These writings clearly and repeatedly confirm that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense, and that ordinarily, when called for service, these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time. The Church leaders, in their propaganda puff piece which insists that private citizens are excluded from the militia, also choose to utterly ignore Title 10, USC § 101 (which provides that the definition of "militia" is different from the definition of the National Guard) and § 311 (which provides that all able-bodied men between the ages of 18 and 45 constitute the militia.)
Here in Arizona, the Presbyterian Church Leaders must also ignore the definition of unorganized militia in Article 16 section 1 of the Arizona Constitution, which provides that all able bodied men between the ages of 18 and 45 constitute the unorganized militia. Article 16 section 2 of the Arizona Constitution provides that the Arizona National Guard constitutes the organized militia. Thus, the kindest thing that may be said about the Presbyterian Church Criminal Justice Program is that it is extremely conservative with the truth when it comes to promoting its anti-Bill of Rights agenda.
A modern-day interpretation of the above could be consistent with the way in which Adolph Hitler utilized Presbyterianesque anti-gun propaganda, the ultimate result being the disarming and subsequent torture and murder of millions of people. What is apparent here is that the Church Leadership, through and by its deceit surrounding the truthful meaning of the Second Amendment, is compelling the people to break their yokes of wood, the ultimate result being replacement with yokes of iron, as is described in Jeremiah 28.
The Presbyterian Church should also brush up on American and British history, since, if the British had succeeded in their efforts at gun control of the colonists before the American Revolution, the Presbyterians would today most likely be either attending the Church of England with the Queen as its leader, or else be members of a non-official church of lesser stature in the eyes of the state, a.k.a. the Crown. The selective Calvinist bible interpretations by the Presbyterian leadership also clearly overlook the embarrassing instructions from Jesus in Luke.22: "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." What do you suppose was the purpose of the sword, and why were the disciples compelled by Jesus to purchase one?
The Presbyterian Church must also turn a blind eye to states like Louisiana, which passed legislation which permits one to use deadly force when confronted with car-jacking, the result of which is that car-jacking in Louisiana is almost nonexistent. And it's hardly fair for Presbyterian church members to rely for their safety on their fact that criminals don't know who is and who is not armed, and who is willing or unwilling to defend their persons and property. The Presbyterian church, while exhorting its flock to disarm themselves, seems strangely unwilling to equally exhort them to publicize their defenseless status.
The Church leadership also seems unwilling to examine the truth of what really happens when people disarm themselves, and subject themselves unarmed to the fist of the state. The Church leadership would also do well to examine every "fact" upon which they rely in their anti-Bill of Rights agenda, and examine every written word of their anti-gun propaganda, and replace the lies therein with the truth.
Proverbs 14[5] A faithful witness will not lie: but a false witness will utter lies.
Proverbs 29 [12] If a ruler hearken to lies, all his servants are wicked.
Proverbs 6 [16] These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: [17] A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,[18] An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, [19] A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.
Psalms 101 [7] He that worketh deceit shall not dwell within my house: he that telleth lies shall not tarry in my sight. [8] I will early destroy all the wicked of the land; that I may cut off all wicked doers from the city of the LORD.
Finally, until all Presbyterian Church members install signs and wear buttons declaring publicly that they are unarmed and defenseless, and that they will not protect their property with guns, how can anyone take them or their Church seriously? After all, we would ridicule someone who vociferously promoted vegetarianism while wolfing down a steak at Sizzler's Steak House.
(c) Mark & Tina Terry 1998. mtterry@goodnet.com