Democracy is best served by strict separation of...

I will refer you to my immediately preceding post Cyracuz. In our society we have to live with people. The American definition of democracy is that the people get to decide on all matters of importance even though in our Republic form of government we hand over the decision making to the people we elect.

Those most strongly protesting majority rule on the matter of the pledge very much advocate majority rule on who should be elected to make the decisions. I see a paradox that they then want the minority to prevail when the minority supports their personal preferences when the majority of those elected to make the decisions and the majority of those who elected those making the decisions prefer something different.

In all matters that do not involve my rights or the rights of others I will yield to the wishes of the majority every time no matter how distasteful it might be to me. It is the ONLY logical way for a democratic society to conduct itself.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Then Biblio, if group A consisting of 10 people wants the carpet to be blue and group B wants the carpet to be red, and group A is offended by red, how do you decide the matter?

Fox...

...you are being selectively blind.

Even you would acknowledge that we would not put the phrase..."...one nation, under Jesus Christ..." in the pledge of allegience.

It not only would be illegal...but it would be grossly insulting to all the non-Christians in the country.

That, in fact, is why it is illegal.

But theists seem to think that the only people they have to respect in that regard...are fellow theists.

It would be wrong to insult fellow theists by including "...one nation, under Jesus Christ."

Well...whether you can see it or not...it is just as wrong to insult non-theists with this unnecessary statement that we are a nation "under god."

Why can you not see that?

Really...why can you not see that how unfair that is...and why that trumps this notion of majority rule?

Why would you trivialize it to the point of "which carpet should be chosen?"

0 Replies

I will NEVER yield to the wishes of the majority. I will however gladly yield to the wishes of the individual so long as it does not limit any other individuals' oportunity to do as they wish.
The majority is inhuman. It is action without thought. A good speaker can enflame masses of people using rethorics only, and as a mass they act without the mind that makes us human. Majority rules is just another kind of oppression.

0 Replies

Quote:

if group A consisting of 10 people wants the carpet to be blue and group B wants the carpet to be red, and group A is offended by red, how do you decide the matter?

How many people in group B? Laughing

Just kidding.

Actually, Foxfire, we're not talking about red and blue colors. We're talking something much more important. We're talking about individual belief systems. Religion or lack of it should be private, IMO. But further, public places should be religion neutral because if publicly supported religious statements are allowed, it implies a state preference to one (majority) religion. This seems so logical, I can't imagine anyone arguing against it. Everyone is equal in this respect.

Why is it so important to have "in God we trust" on our currency anyway? Can't people trust God if they want to without it being printed on every single U.S. dollar bill that passes from one hand to another? Your argument can go both ways. Why don't you just ignore that there is no statement about trust in God on the U.S. dollar? If you trust in God, go ahead. That's fine for you. But don't suppose that because you do, everyone should or does.

What's the big fear for Chrisitans? If the phrase were removed from the dollar, you could just say it to everyone you handle money with. "In God I trust." Wouldn't that be a better statement of your faith anyway? No one says you shouldn't talk about your religion (except unless you make a nuisance of yourself). The problem is that public endorsements of one expression of religion or another or of religion at all is in fact an endorsement of that religion.

You're arguing for state endorsement of your religion over other's. It's just not fair. Come on, admit it.

0 Replies

Democracy relies on these principles in order to function:

It must be secular

All desicions must be made on empirical grounds. Subjective input has no place when dealing with more than one subject. We must rely on facts, not opinions.

You decide your own level of involvement. If you don't participate you forfeit your vote.

Matters of preference should be left up to the idividual. Society as a whole should only deal with the welfare of it's citicens based on what they need to survive, not what they want.

This is my take, no more. But I think this would work a little better than what is today. How's that for pride? Smile

0 Replies

Lola wrote:

Quote:
public places should be religion neutral because if publicly supported religious statements are allowed, it implies a state preference to one (majority) religion.

Excellent point! In my opinion, Lola's statement neatly expresses the meaning of the "establishment clause".

0 Replies

If you agree it would be wrong to have "In Jesus Christ We Trust" on our money....and that it would be wrong to have "...one nation, under Jesus Christ..." in the pledge...

...you SHOULD AGREE THAT IT IS WRONG TO HAVE "In god we trust" on our money and "...one nation, under God" in the pledge.

0 Replies

Lola writes

Quote:

How many people in group B? Just kidding

Good observation actually. I meant to put 100 people in group B. You are quite right that we are not talking about blue and red carpeting, but that does illustrate a principle that everybody seems not to wish to address.

If no inalienable or legal rights are involved, and Group A (10 people) want something to be one way and Group B (100 people) want something to be another way, which group should prevail? How is the matter most practically decided?

I do not agree that democracy only works if it is secular; democracy works in anything in matters of preference when no rights are infringed. I will never agree that any phrase people are not required to read, say, believe, or agree to in any way infringes on anybody's rights.

0 Replies

You don't have to agree to make it so, Fox. There are civil rights issues involved. Mine.

0 Replies

No I don't believe there are Lola. If you are required to recite the Pledge, I would agree. You aren't. If you are required to believe a phrase on your quarter, I would agree. You aren't. That the phrases appear in a Pledge or on a coin in no way requires you to believe, say, profess, read, do, or give up anything. Therefore, these things are a matter of public preference, not rights.

0 Replies

I repeat:

If you agree it would be wrong to have "In Jesus Christ We Trust" on our money....and that it would be wrong to have "...one nation, under Jesus Christ..." in the pledge...

...you SHOULD AGREE THAT IT IS WRONG TO HAVE "In god we trust" on our money and "...one nation, under God" in the pledge.

0 Replies

Jesus Christ is a figure in a particular religion. God is not. And whatever those who inserted the phrase in the pledge believed about God, they did not presume to dictate to you what you must believe.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Jesus Christ is a figure in a particular religion. God is not. And whatever those who inserted the phrase in the pledge believed about God, they did not presume to dictate to you what you must believe.

My comment stands...

...If you agree it would be wrong to have "In Jesus Christ We Trust" on our money....and that it would be wrong to have "...one nation, under Jesus Christ..." in the pledge...

...you SHOULD AGREE THAT IT IS WRONG TO HAVE "In god we trust" on our money and "...one nation, under God" in the pledge.

But apparently, although you realize it would be an insult to non-Christians to include the "Jesus Christ" phrase...you are unable...or unwilling...to see the insult to non-theists in the inclusion of the "god" phrase.

That is very close minded of you, Fox.

And you are being naive if you think the "god" in those phrases is not a figure in a particular religion. Fact is, it is a figure in several, but not all, religions.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

No I don't believe there are Lola. If you are required to recite the Pledge, I would agree. You aren't. If you are required to believe a phrase on your quarter, I would agree. You aren't. That the phrases appear in a Pledge or on a coin in no way requires you to believe, say, profess, read, do, or give up anything. Therefore, these things are a matter of public preference, not rights.

If you think a religious phrase in the National pledge of allegiance or on the currency of my country does not imply, if not declare, a state religious preference, then I don't know what to say to convince you. Frank keeps asking you a question. I'd like to hear the answer to it. Would it be ok with you for the phrase to be In Jesus Christ We Trust?

But also, you didn't answer my question about why it's so important. Can't you believe the way you want, the way the majority wants, without it being plastered on our currency and repeated daily by our children in school? I don't see the problem with this phrase simply not being there.

There is a problem with it being included, for me. Especially in the Pledge which public school children are often required to recite daily. I would like my kids (grand kids now) to be able to get a state sponsored education without being subjected to constant references to a God that they may or may not decide to believe in. I don't want them feeling inadequate or doubting the safety of their parents just because you would like the pledge to say, "one nation under God."

Many children from Christian homes have not been taught to respect the religious or non religious beliefs of others. So my kids often worried about the suggestion that I would be burning in Hell because I didn't take them to church. This sense of inadequacy or fear for our safety was obviously not the result of the phrase in the pledge, although if it is allowed, it does support such behavior.

Actually, I never told them I wasn't a believer. I was concerned that they might be ostrasized or otherwise traumatized by this difference in their parents and the parents of the majority of other students. If they asked me, I told them my beliefs, but I was always careful to make it clear to them that their religious preference or non-preference was their decision, not mine. This fear came from the fact that I didn't take them to church. So I took them to church......the most liberal church I could find and continued to take them until they said they didn't want to go anymore. It didn't take long. A few months. I wanted them to know about the Christian faith, and others as well so they could make their own decisions.

Being free or responsible to make our own decisions about matters that strongly affect our lives is an unalienable right. And it's violated by state supported declarations of faith.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Then Biblio, if group A consisting of 10 people wants the carpet to be blue and group B wants the carpet to be red, and group A is offended by red, how do you decide the matter?

Stick White in the middle, as a sign of peace, and there you have Red, White and Blue!

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I think the pledge is no more coercive that is anything children are exposed to in school. The child may have been taught strict "God created the world in six days" Creationism for instance, but is required to be exposed to the theory of evotion however much it might bother the child. The child may prefer the version of history that the pioneers were brave visionaries who forged a nation out of the wilderness and is bothered if such are presented as exploiters of the land and cruel racists where it came to the Indians. A child who's father makes his living as a logger might be uncomfortable when told that logging should be suspended in favor of an endangered species. A child who believes that some principles of Marxism are commendable might be disturbed by a teacher denouncing all Marxism as posing a danger to freedoms. The child is likely, however, to be required to write or recite those things that make him/her uncomfortable. S/he is not required to recite the pledge.

It's all relative and must be considered practically. To single out an innocuous phrase as somehow of major importance and ignore everything else that might bother children or make them uncomfortable just seems excessively anal to me.

All of those examples you gave may be true Fox, but there is one thing which singles out this particular phrase in comparison to all the other things you listed: the first amendment. Marxism and Logging and Indian History are not part of our constitutional law, but a phrase of "under God" clearly is.

0 Replies

Quote:

And whatever those who inserted the phrase in the pledge believed about God, they did not presume to dictate to you what you must believe.

Yes they did. Please reference the article I posted a few pages back this morning. Anyway, you're contradicting your own point. The founding fathers did presume we would all be believers in some form of Christian religion. And they were wrong to do so.

0 Replies

Does anyone here pledge allegiance to the rules of this A2K forum? Choices have consequences. The consequences are decided by the majority or the founders.

0 Replies

a2k is not a religious institution nor is religion mentioned in the TOS.

that analogy doesn't hold at all, Bib. Come on.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

If no inalienable or legal rights are involved, and Group A (10 people) want something to be one way and Group B (100 people) want something to be another way, which group should prevail? How is the matter most practically decided?

By following the Law.

We seem to have two debating points going on here. One is on whether a majority should rule when all else is equal. I believe the law should rule when all else it equal.

The other debate is over the interpretation of "establishment" in the first amendment. I feel that putting a statement of "under God" in a Pledge of Allegienc to our country, and then asking young children in public schools to stand up every day, put their hands over their hearts and recite that pledge amounts to an establishment.

0 Replies

Democracy is best served by strict separation of...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know