Democracy is best served by strict separation of...

I ___ was ____ asking ____ you ____ a _____ question.

I ___ was ____ asking ____ you ____ if _____ majority ____ rules ____ is ____ your ____ position.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I would like to ask Frank how use of any phrase is an 'establishment of religion' which infers a state mandated or sanctioned religion?

Because that is the way it works with laws...and articles from the constitution.

In fact...and I hope this does not come as a big surprise...the Supreme Court is often asked to decide if various activities violate the "estblishment of religion" clause.

You see, Fox, it is not so clear cut.

Sometimes, violations of the intent of the framers, is subtle.

In my opinion, putting the words "...under god..."...or as it is usually written "...under God..."...IS ESTABLISHING A RELIGION.

The "religion" may be general...but it is a religion in any case.

From the dictionary: Religion: The service and worship of God or the supernatural...commitment or devotion to faith or observance.

Yep...by proclaiming that we are a nation "under God"...the government IS establishing a religion. Not much of one...but I gotta be honest with ya, Fox. None of 'em are!

0 Replies

ehBeth wrote:

I ___ was ____ asking ____ you ____ a _____ question.

I ___ was ____ asking ____ you ____ if _____ majority ____ rules ____ is ____ your ____ position.

Be careful, Fox...or you are gonna be defending the rights of states where the majority approves of slavery...to keep slaves.

0 Replies

This topic has turned into a very interesting one to watch. Whatever happened to "hyper", the member who started this topic?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Because most Americans want it there?

Irrelevant. The very nature of our Bill of Rights is designed to protect the rights of the minority against the will of the majority.

Foxfyre wrote:

Because it reflects our cultural constitutional roots via the Declaration of Independence and the Federalist papers?

I'm not sure it does, but even if it does, so what?

Foxfyre wrote:

Because it doesn't hurt anybody for it to be there?

Of course it hurts people. It hurts everyone who believes in the intent of the first amendment, which is to prevent religion from being associated with, or controlled by our government.

Foxfyre wrote:

Why is it so important to you that it not be there?

Because the intent of the first amendment is VERY important.

Why is it so important to you that it is[/b] there?

0 Replies

I see your point Frank, but I just don't buy into the theory that an expression of religion by government is the same thing as an establishment of religion. I think the framers of the Constitution always expected the government leaders would e religious people and that religion would be a part of government. Their intention was that the government not require anyone to espouse a particular religious faith or any religious faith nor could anyone be punished in any way because of the religious faith or lack thereof they professed. The inclusion of "under God" in the pledge in no way requires anyone to profess anything or believe anything religious or otherwise especially when they are not required to say it if they don't want to.

As for the majority, I believe in a democracy such as ours the prevailing rule is that no individual's inalienable right shall be infringed, and otherwise the majority rules.

So again my question is:

a) Should the majority gets its way on this issue, or
b) Should a relatively small minority be able to deny the majority just because they don't believe in God or dislike the phrase?

0 Replies

And Wande, I think Hyper finished his school assignment and has moved on. Smile

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

In my opinion, putting the words "...under god..."...or as it is usually written "...under God..."...IS ESTABLISHING A RELIGION.

The "religion" may be general...but it is a religion in any case.

Frank is correct (in my opinion of course), and in addition if you look at the reasons that the phrase was added, it becomes even more clear that the phrase is in direct violation of our constitution.

The only way the phrase can be defended it to claim that the pledge itself is not a government sanctioned activity, and yet it is a pledge, and it is promoted in public schools under the authority of the teacher and made a social requirement for very young children who are not capable of opting out without risking their own social stima at a stage of their lives which social acceptance is extremely valuable to them.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I see your point Frank, but I just don't buy into the theory that an expression of religion by government is the same thing as an establishment of religion.

Well, I'm not sure why...unless you are just being stubborn.

As newbie, Forever Young pointed out:

Quote:

And even you pointed out in your comments on what Eisenhower said:

Quote:

"In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war."

Well...that is a religion as per the definitons I just gave....and it is being established by the government

Quote:

So again my question is:

a) Should the majority gets its way on this issue, or

Aboltuely not!

Quote:

Should a relatively small minority be able to deny the majority just because they don't believe in God or dislike the phrase?

That is not what is being done at all. This is a straw man pure and simply.

Nobody is taking away the right of the majority to "believe" in whatever they want to "believe" in. But they should not make that belief part of official government policy or procedures.

0 Replies

I didn't suggest anybody's belief (or non belief) was being taken away. I was saying that if the phrase is removed from the pledge, a minority will be denying the majority something that is meaningful and important to them and which harms the minority in no way at all.

And a religious symbol, statement, phrase, comment, prayer, or you name it is NOT an establishment of religion when nobody is required to participate or sign onto it.

0 Replies

[quote="Foxfyre" I was saying that if the phrase is removed from the pledge, a minority will be denying the majority something that is meaningful and important to them and which harms the minority in no way at all.
[/quote]

Are you suggesting that denying the majority what they want is a bad thing?

(the argument on 'harms the minority in no way' is separate)

0 Replies

In this case I believe it is a bad thing. An angry few want their own way on an issue that harms them not in the least, and attempts to deny the majority something that is important to the majority. Would you say that when all things are equal and no one is harmed one way or the other by the decision, the majority should not prevail ehBeth?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I didn't suggest anybody's belief (or non belief) was being taken away. I was saying that if the phrase is removed from the pledge, a minority will be denying the majority something that is meaningful and important to them and which harms the minority in no way at all.

Open up your mind, Fox.

You keep saying that it doesn't harm the minority...but you keep touting how meaningful and important it is to the majority.

How about how meaningful and important it is to the minority...especially since the phrase IS NOT NEEDED in the pledge.

It is a religious affirmation that has absolutely no place in the pledge.

0 Replies

When I was in 1st grade, I was taught the pledge without the phrase "under god" The next year Congress put the phrase in and I remember our teacher, Miss Robinson, having to explain to us that the pledge had been changed. I also remember how uncomfortable she looked. I have always found that phrase disconcerting and when called upon to recite the pledge, do so without repeating the additional phrase.

0 Replies

And therefore does it harm you Acquiunk. I too remember when the phrase was added and how hard it was to remember to say it when we recited the pledge. It didn't bother me to say it, but those who didn't were not punished or even noticed.

Frank keeps saying the phrase isn't needed and that I am not opening MY mind. But in this case apparently neither side would be harmed whichever way the decision goes, but he thinks the feelings of the minority or more important than the feelings of the majority. Now how open minded is that? Or is that pure ideology? And does this kind of sentiment prevail when it is a conservative minority requesting something? Always before in that case, it has been thrown in our face that the majority has spoken so deal with it.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

In this case I believe it is a bad thing. An angry few want their own way on an issue that harms them not in the least, and attempts to deny the majority something that is important to the majority. Would you say that when all things are equal and no one is harmed one way or the other by the decision, the majority should not prevail ehBeth?

As I pointed out, the issue of harm was separate.

It is clearly your opinion that it is an issue that 'harms them not in the least'. However, the people in the minority appear to disagree with you. In which case, why should the majority prevail?

If the minority feel they would be harmed one way, and the majority would not be harmed the other way, why should the majority prevail?

0 Replies

Good comment, ehBeth...but I suspect Fox is much too close-minded on this issue to understand.

He seems to think that because it matters so much to the majority...even though it is totally unnecessary...and a slap in the face to the minority...it ought to stand.

Is there no end to conservative silliness?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

So again my question is:

a) Should the majority gets its way on this issue

No. The rule of law as intended by the first amendment should prevail.

Foxfyre wrote:

b) Should a relatively small minority be able to deny the majority just because they don't believe in God or dislike the phrase?

The Bill of Rights was written to protect the minority from encroachment by the majority. The intent of the law should be followed, it doesn't matter if the majority likes or dislikes the phrase.

0 Replies

If neither side is harmed, who should prevail. The minority? Or the majority?

If both sides believe they are harmed/offended/disadvantaged or whatever if their side doesn't prevail, and it is determined that both sides would be harmed/offended/disadvantaged equally, who should prevail, the majority or the minority?

If harm is no issue at all, who should prevail: the majority or the minority.

I would bet a weeks pay we wouldn't even be having this discussion if it was an issue you guys wanted and there was equal harm or no harm and you were the majority.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

If neither side is harmed, who should prevail. The minority? Or the majority?

In this particular case...the minority. The words are not appropriate to the use. The purpose of the oath is to pledge loyalty to one's country. The ass kissing is something you people can do on your own.

Quote:

If both sides believe they are harmed/offended/disadvantaged or whatever if their side doesn't prevail, and it is determined that both sides would be harmed/offended/disadvantaged equally, who should prevail, the majority or the minority?

Same answer.

Quote:

If harm is no issue at all, who should prevail: the majority or the minority.

Same answer.

Quote:

I would bet a weeks pay we wouldn't even be having this discussion if it was an issue you guys wanted and there was equal harm or no harm and you were the majority.

Really.

Ah...so you are also a quack fortune teller as well as a quack philosopher.

Wow!

0 Replies

Democracy is best served by strict separation of...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know