Democracy is best served by strict separation of...

spiffy writes

Quote:

a democracy represents and excecutes the people's wishes, yes? alright, so if the people wish a national religion, then they should get it.

No, no no. The founders were absolutely certain a national religion would violate the rights of those who did not adhere to that religion, and therefore incorporated into the Bill of Rights a provision that one of our inalienable rights was the right to be religious however we chose to be or not be religious at all if that is our choice. The majority is not permitted to override any inalienable right.

But so long as we have complete choice and freedom to believe or not believe as we choose--that meaning there is no consequence imposed by government for what we believe or do not believe--then everything else is a matter of preference. And the public custom and practice is largely a matter of preference and the only way to decide what that should be is via majority rule.

0 Replies

Spiffy

Apparently Foxfyre doesn't understand that the United States is not the ONLY democracy in the world...and that it is perfectly possible for a "democracy" to elect to have a state religion.

We have decided not to have one. And we also have built lots of safeguards into our constitution to protect the minority from the willfullness of the majority. NOT from the will of the majority...but from the willfulness.

And Fox is making a big show of supporting that decision.

But she does not understand the underpinnings of the decision...so she feels very comfortable telling those of us who do not want our government intruding relgion into its role in public life....to go screw themselves.

If the agnostics and atheists of this country are not protected from the intrusions of governement into public life...nobody really is. It is a very short step from telling the agnostics and atheists that they have to accept "the majority" decision to include a phrase like "one nation under god" in our pledge...to telling the non-Christians that they have to accept a phrase like "one nation under Jesus Christ"...or telling the non-whites that they have to accept a phrase like "one nation primarily white."

The kind; of indiffernce Fox exhibits in this matter...the simplistic rationalizations she brings to the discussion of it...should offend every thinking human being involved here. I find them beyond deplorable...and I have absolutely no respect whatever for Fox or her unAmerican nonsense.

In any case...the problems with the issue that you raised are valid...and interesting.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

hyper426 wrote:
Frank, I am sorry, but I am only on pg.17, and I still find you a DA

What is a DA?

This is just a guess, but I imagine "DA" = "Dumbass." At least that's what I thought was meant.

I suppose it could mean "Disenfranchised Agnostic," but I think that's a stretch.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
hyper426 wrote:
Frank, I am sorry, but I am only on pg.17, and I still find you a DA

What is a DA?

This is just a guess, but I imagine "DA" = "Dumbass." At least that's what I thought was meant.

I suppose it could mean "Disenfranchised Agnostic," but I think that's a stretch.

Jeez, Ti...I never even considered Dumb Ass. You might right...in fact, probably are right, now that I think about it.

If so...I wonder why Hyper didn't just use "dumb ass?"

0 Replies

Alright, I freely admit that politics in general is difficult for me to understand and hold interest in, so bear with me.

In a democracy, the people are held as equally contributional to the government, weilding the vote. However, not all democracies are direct - representatives are elected to then elect someone else, or to decide on issues. In these elections, the majority wins. But minorities are protected "not from the will but from the willfullness," as Frank put it, of the majority.

Could someone help me out and post some of these examples?

0 Replies

bump - duplicate post

0 Replies

Spiffy, the way I see it, in a republic form of government, the minority is protected from the dictates of the majority when it comes to matters of inalienable rights. In matters of preference, when no rights are infringed however an issue is decided, the majority preference prevails. There is simply no other sensible way to decide such matters no matter how simplistic Frank thinks that is or however insulting he may be.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
hyper426 wrote:
Frank, I am sorry, but I am only on pg.17, and I still find you a DA

What is a DA?

This is just a guess, but I imagine "DA" = "Dumbass." At least that's what I thought was meant.

I suppose it could mean "Disenfranchised Agnostic," but I think that's a stretch.

Jeez, Ti...I never even considered Dumb Ass. You might right...in fact, probably are right, now that I think about it.

If so...I wonder why Hyper didn't just use "dumb ass?"

Prolly trying to protect your delicate sensibilites. :wink:

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Prolly trying to protect your delicate sensibilites. :wink:

Ahhh, of course. :wink:

I didn't think of that either.

Getting to be a habit!

0 Replies

spiffysquirrel wrote:

Alright, I freely admit that politics in general is difficult for me to understand and hold interest in, so bear with me.

In a democracy, the people are held as equally contributional to the government, weilding the vote. However, not all democracies are direct - representatives are elected to then elect someone else, or to decide on issues. In these elections, the majority wins. But minorities are protected "not from the will but from the willfullness," as Frank put it, of the majority.

Could someone help me out and post some of these examples?

Well...to go back to your original post...

...it is entirely possible for a democratic election to end up with the will of the majority prevailing....and if "the will of the majority" is to have a particular religion enjoy special privileges...that is what will prevail.

I don't, for instance, think we will ever see a democracy in Iraq...but if they ever do have a democratic election...a state religion is not only a possibilitity...it is a more than likely proposition.

I'm going to reply to Fox's latest attempt at rationalization...so stay tuned.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Spiffy, the way I see it, in a republic form of government, the minority is protected from the dictates of the majority when it comes to matters of inalienable rights.

And of course, Spiffy, Fox wants to be able to determine what is and what is not an "inalienable right."

Fact is...a case can easily be made that there is no such thing as an "inalienable right." You name a right...I'll give an instance where it has been alienated from people.

Quote:

In matters of preference, when no rights are infringed however an issue is decided, the majority preference prevails.

And of course, Spiffy, Fox wants to be able to determine what is and what is not infringing upon a right.

In this instance, because it suits here myopic purposes...she has determined that the government is not infringing on my rights by including a phrase that denotes our nation as a nation "...under a god"...in the official pledge of allegience.

I think that is horseshyt.

Fox would put it to a vote...and if the majority, in its willfulness, decided that my rights are not infringed...her position would prevail.

Without further explanation...you can see the danger in that way of thinking. It is philosophical pollution.

Quote:

There is simply no other sensible way to decide such matters no matter how simplistic Frank thinks that is or however insulting he may be.

If Fox is right on this...then the majority wins in EVERY CASE. That would mean in our country...whites could dictate what people of color are allowed to do...people under 65 could dictate what people over 65 are allowed to do...Christians could dictate what non-Christians are allowed to do.

Apparently Fox is unable to comprehend just how vacuous her position is on this issue. That is understandable. She has her mind tightly shut in the closed position.

0 Replies

hyper426 wrote:

And think about this....the people who believe in a god need that belief, athiests don't. Can't you see that because of this, the athiests should have the strength to ignore that phrase, because the religious people don't have the strength to be without it?

I haven't really participated much in this thread, primarily because I've seen all the arguments before. Running across a new argument in the church-state debate is about as likely as running across a yeti ordering lottery tickets at the local convenience store.

So it was with a mix of both surprise and excitement that I read the argument above. If I understand it correctly, hyper is arguing for some kind of religious affirmative action: just as handicapped persons, for instance, need the government to step in and mandate special parking spaces and ramps, so too do the religiously afflicted need the government to step in and permit them, feeble as they are, to rely upon the crutch of faith in public places. A monument to the Ten Commandments in a courthouse, then, would be little different from a wheelchair-accessible bathroom: in both cases it would be an accomodation for handicapped.

Atheists, under this theory, would be comparable to the able-bodied general public. Not requiring special accomodations themselves, they have no right to complain about those who, crippled by their own religiosity, are unable to make their way in the world without government assistance. In other words, that creche in front of city hall isn't a public endorsement of any particular creed or religion, it's the government's attempt to reach out and help those special-needs constituents whose fragile faith amounts to nothing less than a disabling condition.

Congratulations, hyper, I think you've correctly diagnosed the situation: religion isn't the cure, it's the disease.

0 Replies

Quote:

THEY ARE NOT ASKING YOU TO KISS ANY GOD'S ASS!!!!!!!

I did not say they were asking me to do it. I merely said they were doing it!

ummmmm......that doesn't make much sense.

oh, and by the way, DA stands for dumb ass

0 Replies

frank writes

Quote:

Apparently Fox is unable to comprehend just how vacuous her position is on this issue. That is understandable. She has her mind tightly shut in the closed position.

Apparently Frank is incapable of differentiating between a right and a preference.

0 Replies

hyper426 wrote:

Quote:
THEY ARE NOT ASKING YOU TO KISS ANY GOD'S ASS!!!!!!!

I did not say they were asking me to do it. I merely said they were doing it!

ummmmm......that doesn't make much sense.

Not sure why you suppose it doesn't make sense...but it doesn't matter enough for me to explain it again.

Fact is...although I actually did not say there were asking me to kiss any god's ass...by insisting that the phrase "...one nation, under god..." be retained...they are asking all of us to kiss their gods ass.

Not really all that important.

In any case, I am saying that the inclusion of the phrase in the official pledge of loyalty to my country...is a de facto infringment on my rights...our rights...not to have the govenment take a position on religion...whether between competing religions...or by deciding there is a god that has to be recognized.

That is not a function of government.

Some of us guess there is a God; some of us guess there are no gods; some of us acknowledge that we do not know either way...and that we do not have enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess.

We are all citizens...not just the ones guessing there is a God.

Just as the various religions rightfully do not want the government taking a position on which is the "correct" "right" or "acceptable" religion among the relgions...those of us who are not part of the group that guesses there is a god do not want the government taking a position that there is.

I don't see what is so difficult to understand about that. I do not understand why Fox cannot understand and appreciate that....except that she is brickheaded....and I do not understand why you have trouble with it either.

Whether you or Fox can or cannot understand that my rights are being infringed by this is not all that important...because my rights are being infringed no matter what.

Quote:

oh, and by the way, DA stands for dumb ass

Okay...so you find me to be a dumb ass.

You certainly are not the only one to come up with that.

I'll tell you what I tell them:

Don't read what I write.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

In any case, I am saying that the inclusion of the phrase in the official pledge of loyalty to my country...is a de facto infringment on my rights...our rights...not to have the govenment take a position on religion...whether between competing religions...or by deciding there is a god that has to be recognized.

That is not a function of government.

If I could isolate one valid point, it would be this one.

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

In any case, I am saying that the inclusion of the phrase in the official pledge of loyalty to my country...is a de facto infringment on my rights...our rights...not to have the govenment take a position on religion...whether between competing religions...or by deciding there is a god that has to be recognized.

That is not a function of government.

If I could isolate one valid point, it would be this one.

Thank you, Wandel...I appreciate you mentioning it.

0 Replies

Quote:

Jeez, Ti...I never even considered Dumb Ass. You might right...in fact, probably are right, now that I think about it.

If so...I wonder why Hyper didn't just use "dumb ass?"

I was trying to be polite.

0 Replies

hyper426 wrote:

Quote:
Jeez, Ti...I never even considered Dumb Ass. You might right...in fact, probably are right, now that I think about it.

If so...I wonder why Hyper didn't just use "dumb ass?"

I was trying to be polite.

Not very successfully!

0 Replies

Okay, thanks for cleaning up your language Frank, and anyway, a new idea for all of you to eschew: Should any politician use his or her religion as a crutch to make decisions for the public? Or are problems in the Middle East and Africa stemming from no separation of church and state? Hey Fox, do these ideas trip your trigger? Laughing

0 Replies

Democracy is best served by strict separation of...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know