Law
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
It is the parent's responsibility, not the state's, to present children with the option of seeing religion as a source of moral authority.
It is not the state's responsibility to teach children anything other than what the parents prefer be taught. But clearly the state has taken upon itself the responsibility of promoting a secular moral agenda. If that doesn't bother you than you don't have the slightest clue what separation of church and state was intended to achieve.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
When those principles are secular, they don't compete with any religion.
They do when they are intentionally crafted to. "You have no concept of the depth and complexity of my beliefs." Jim A. Johnson
Stan Shannon wrote:
It is not the state's responsibility to teach children anything other than what the parents prefer be taught. But clearly the state has taken upon itself the responsibility of promoting a secular moral agenda. If that doesn't bother you than you don't have the slightest clue what separation of church and state was intended to achieve.
They aren't teaching the children religion, any religion. There is no such thing as this "secular religion" you keep yammering about. It doesn't exist. Secular religion is an oxymoron. There is also no "secular agenda". Secularism is barely an "-ism" at all, and certainly doesn't merit an agenda, unless you count keeping your religion out of my kids' classroom, and mine out of yours. If you believe that it is okay for the religion of the majority to be taught in public schools to everyone, it is most certainly you who hasn't the slightest clue about separation of church and state.
Stan Shannon wrote:
They do when they are intentionally crafted to.
I'm sure that, somewhere in Idaho, there exists a compound of like-minded people who would welcome you. You should seek them out.
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
How about my right to come together with my neighbors and decide that we don't like that pesky "free speech" stuff? That people of other religions should be driven from our community? That thou shalt not suffer a witch to live? The difference is quantitative, not qualitative.
What about it? You don't seem to understand at all that those same problems are not remedied by simply giving more and more power to centralized federal authorities. That somehow magicially if you just get enough power in the hands of the right set of people there can no longer be any possibility of witch burning. The truth is quite the contrary. As the founders well knew, witches are far safer with power distributed among the people than concentrated in the hands of a few. Our entire form of government was predicated upon a trust in people and a distrust in government. The modern, Marxist, left stands those principles on their head and calls it Jeffersonian in order to obfuscate their ugly little truth. "You have no concept of the depth and complexity of my beliefs." Jim A. Johnson -- modified at 20:05 Tuesday 18th July, 2006
Stan Shannon wrote:
What about it? You don't seem to understand at all that those same problems are not remedied by simply giving more and more power to centralized federal authorities. That somehow magicially if you just get enough power in the hands of the right set of people there can no longer be any possibility of witch burning. The truth is quite the contrary. As the founders well knew, witches are far safer with power distributed among the people than concentrated in the hands of a few.
Explain to me how, in this bizzare anarcho-fascist utopia of yours, power would not remain in the hands of the few. The only difference I see is that their power would not extend to the whole country, but they would be free to turn "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" into statute in their state, fiefdom, city, or walled fortress.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
What about it? You don't seem to understand at all that those same problems are not remedied by simply giving more and more power to centralized federal authorities. That somehow magicially if you just get enough power in the hands of the right set of people there can no longer be any possibility of witch burning. The truth is quite the contrary. As the founders well knew, witches are far safer with power distributed among the people than concentrated in the hands of a few.
Explain to me how, in this bizzare anarcho-fascist utopia of yours, power would not remain in the hands of the few. The only difference I see is that their power would not extend to the whole country, but they would be free to turn "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" into statute in their state, fiefdom, city, or walled fortress.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
this bizzare anarcho-fascist utopia of yours,
Actually, that should read " this Jeffersonian Democracy which the US enjoyed for the better part of 150 years or so" of mine...
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
would not remain in the hands of the few. The only difference I see is that their power would not extend to the whole country, but they would be free to turn
Federalist 51: If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions. This policy of supplying, by opposite and rival interests, the defect of better motives, might be traced through the whole system of human affairs, private as well as public. We see it particularly displayed in all the subordinate distributions of power, where the constant aim is to divide and arrange the several offices in such a manner as that each may be a check on the other that the private interest of every individual may be a sentinel over the public rights. . . . There are, moreover, two considerations particularly applicable to the federal system of America, which place that system in a very interesting point of view. First. In a single [centralized] republic, all the power surrendered by the people is submitted to the administration of a single government; and the usurpations are guarded against by a division of the government into distinct and separate departments. In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments [state and federal], and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself. Second. It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests
-
How about we just keep government -- all government, top to bottom, president to dog catcher -- from instituting religious rules, period. Keep the rules limited to those which prevent people from harming each other or depriving each other of property, and the minimum administrative regulation necessary to keep society and government functioning. How's that sound? If your religion says don't drink on Sunday, then you, yourself, and other believers don't drink on Sunday. No images of your prophet? Don't f**king draw any. Don't like sex on TV? Don't get Cinemax. Keep either organized prayer or government out of the schools. You can have one or the other, but not both. Remove "under God" from the pledge. Remove "In God We Trust" from currency. Remove the commandments from every government building. If a judge wants a ten commandments bumper sticker next to the NRA sticker on his Hummer, or wants to wear ten commandments boxer briefs under his robes, fine; just don't indicate to me that coveting my neighbor's ass will influence the outcome of a court case. This, I truly believe, was the founders' intent, and is the desire of the quiet majority of people in this country; a secular government, filled with people of any and all religions -- or no religion at all -- making decisions for the good of the country from a firm moral and ethical grounding.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
How about we just keep government...
Fine, the vast majority of Americans want that, but the argument is how best to maintain those kind of freedoms. Your fear of this mythical beast of the "religious right" compels you to put more and more of your faith in the federal government to protect you from it. Most of your neighbors are undoubtedly as worred about this boogey man as you are. Get together with them and kick the religious right's ass in your local community - the way Jefferson, et al, intended. But don't go running behind the skirts of the federal courts for protection like so many goddamned European peasants flocking to their lord and master in time of trouble. "You have no concept of the depth and complexity of my beliefs." Jim A. Johnson
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
It is not the state's responsibility to teach children anything other than what the parents prefer be taught. But clearly the state has taken upon itself the responsibility of promoting a secular moral agenda. If that doesn't bother you than you don't have the slightest clue what separation of church and state was intended to achieve.
They aren't teaching the children religion, any religion. There is no such thing as this "secular religion" you keep yammering about. It doesn't exist. Secular religion is an oxymoron. There is also no "secular agenda". Secularism is barely an "-ism" at all, and certainly doesn't merit an agenda, unless you count keeping your religion out of my kids' classroom, and mine out of yours. If you believe that it is okay for the religion of the majority to be taught in public schools to everyone, it is most certainly you who hasn't the slightest clue about separation of church and state.
Stan Shannon wrote:
They do when they are intentionally crafted to.
I'm sure that, somewhere in Idaho, there exists a compound of like-minded people who would welcome you. You should seek them out.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
They aren't teaching the children religion, any religion. There is no such thing as this "secular religion" you keep yammering about. It doesn't exist. Secular religion is an oxymoron...
And that is the fundamental basis of our disagreement. I maintain that modern secularism is a component of the Marxist dialectic..[^] And represents in every way a theological foundation for a "god-less" religion, or at least a religion where government serves in the role of God. It is altogether obvious that Marxist thought and theory is the driving philosophical principle behind the left in the west and the US democratic party. Secularism has been allowed to evolve into a tremendous threat in our society, it is dangerous, and it needs to be opposed in the same way and for the same reasons that our founders opposed the establishement of state sanctioned religion. "You have no concept of the depth and complexity of my beliefs." Jim A. Johnson
-
espeir wrote:
No...You specifically stated that Democracy cannot be trusted. In a previous example, you tried to claim that a slim majority would send the minority to gas chambers. Claiming that you have certain positions on certain issues is one thing. Claiming that the our constitutional rights to self government should be stripped is quite another.
I never claimed any such thing. If that's the way you interpret what I say, you are an idiot.
espeir wrote:
And yet you say that the citizens of a state do not have the right to pass a law disallowing the sale of alcohol on Sunday, even though there is no religious practice forced upon or denied from the people.
Sure there is. The practice of abstaining from alcohol on that religion's Sabbath. How about no meat on Friday? Or banning the sale of pork altogether? Or alcohol? Or birth control? None of those are intrinsically religious practices, yet all stem directly from tenets of religion that other religions do not share. How about we limit the rules to prohibiting doing physical or mental harm to others, denying them property, and the other rules that have developed across cultures because they are what society needs to function, and leave the religious rules up to the individual to follow or not, depending on their faith? How's that sound? Not restrictive enough for you? Then move to the Middle East and enjoy life with the rest of the people who value the rules of a state religion over personal freedom. Enjoy.
espeir wrote:
I already did. You said in this post and the last that you oppose the constitutionally granted democratic right to self-government whenver it conflicts with your own anti-religious wishes.
You have yet to supply a direct quote, instead offering only your twisted interpretations of what I say. You can't understand the simple fact that people can want to keep a single religion -- even their own religion -- from dominating and controlling their government, while not being "anti-religion". Secularism is not against religion, it is without consideration of religion. You can't comprehend that. You are terminally clue-challenged.
espeir wrote:
Apparently you're just incapable of basic logic. Here's a picture for you:...
Notice how you label me an extremist. Recall your observation that extremists c
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
I never claimed any such thing. If that's the way you interpret what I say, you are an idiot.
You have claimed in every single post in this thread (and numerous times elsewhere) that the people should not have the right to govern...That they don't have the right to pass a law that "restricts rights" (which, according to your definition of "rights", includes all laws). I don't expect you to outright admit that you hate Democracy, but saying that the people should not have the right to pass laws is the exact same thing.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Sure there is. The practice of abstaining from alcohol on that religion's Sabbath. How about no meat on Friday? Or banning the sale of pork altogether? Or alcohol? Or birth control? None of those are intrinsically religious practices, yet all stem directly from tenets of religion that other religions do not share. How about we limit the rules to prohibiting doing physical or mental harm to others, denying them property, and the other rules that have developed across cultures because they are what society needs to function, and leave the religious rules up to the individual to follow or not, depending on their faith? How's that sound? Not restrictive enough for you? Then move to the Middle East and enjoy life with the rest of the people who value the rules of a state religion over personal freedom. Enjoy.
Again, you're attacking the principles of Democracy. You're assuming that Americans are as radical as you and militant Islam and pass unreasonable laws. If a community wants to restrict the sale of meat on Friday they have that right. Few communities in America would want that, however. I'm sure it's hard for you to understand more moderate people, but Catholics actually respect other peoples' religions unlike you and militant Islam.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
You have yet to supply a direct quote, instead offering only your twisted interpretations of what I say. You can't understand the simple fact that people can want to keep a single religion -- even their own religion -- from dominating and controlling their government, while not being "anti-religion". Secularism is not against religion, it is without consideration of religion. You can't comprehend that. You are terminally clue-challenged.
You JUST SAID that people should be restricted from being able to pass any restri
-
How about we just keep government -- all government, top to bottom, president to dog catcher -- from instituting religious rules, period. Keep the rules limited to those which prevent people from harming each other or depriving each other of property, and the minimum administrative regulation necessary to keep society and government functioning. How's that sound? If your religion says don't drink on Sunday, then you, yourself, and other believers don't drink on Sunday. No images of your prophet? Don't f**king draw any. Don't like sex on TV? Don't get Cinemax. Keep either organized prayer or government out of the schools. You can have one or the other, but not both. Remove "under God" from the pledge. Remove "In God We Trust" from currency. Remove the commandments from every government building. If a judge wants a ten commandments bumper sticker next to the NRA sticker on his Hummer, or wants to wear ten commandments boxer briefs under his robes, fine; just don't indicate to me that coveting my neighbor's ass will influence the outcome of a court case. This, I truly believe, was the founders' intent, and is the desire of the quiet majority of people in this country; a secular government, filled with people of any and all religions -- or no religion at all -- making decisions for the good of the country from a firm moral and ethical grounding.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
This, I truly believe, was the founders' intent
You really need to do much more research. And again, everything you listed here is intended to eliminate any democratically preference of the majority. The only thing in your list that is in conflict with the constitution (and therefore the founding fathers' wishes) is the part about no images of the "prophet" because it restricts the practice of religion. Everything else is fair game. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes secularism and democracy in this country. You apparently think that it means the establishment of an atheist religion.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
It is not the state's responsibility to teach children anything other than what the parents prefer be taught. But clearly the state has taken upon itself the responsibility of promoting a secular moral agenda. If that doesn't bother you than you don't have the slightest clue what separation of church and state was intended to achieve.
They aren't teaching the children religion, any religion. There is no such thing as this "secular religion" you keep yammering about. It doesn't exist. Secular religion is an oxymoron. There is also no "secular agenda". Secularism is barely an "-ism" at all, and certainly doesn't merit an agenda, unless you count keeping your religion out of my kids' classroom, and mine out of yours. If you believe that it is okay for the religion of the majority to be taught in public schools to everyone, it is most certainly you who hasn't the slightest clue about separation of church and state.
Stan Shannon wrote:
They do when they are intentionally crafted to.
I'm sure that, somewhere in Idaho, there exists a compound of like-minded people who would welcome you. You should seek them out.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
They aren't teaching the children religion, any religion. There is no such thing as this "secular religion" you keep yammering about. It doesn't exist. Secular religion is an oxymoron. There is also no "secular agenda". Secularism is barely an "-ism" at all, and certainly doesn't merit an agenda, unless you count keeping your religion out of my kids' classroom, and mine out of yours. If you believe that it is okay for the religion of the majority to be taught in public schools to everyone, it is most certainly you who hasn't the slightest clue about separation of church and state.
The concept of "separation of church and state" is a modern one crafted by judges who were not nearly as wise as Thomas Jefferson. Secularism in the United States has always merely meant government neutrality when it comes to religion. In other words, religion can neither be outlawed nor established. It does not and has never (until recent atheist extremists began inundating the courts) meant that democratically legislated laws and statutes must originate from purely secular means. Doing so undermines the government, the constitution and the people as it strips them of their 10th amendment right to self-government and, if taken as far as you want it to be taken, of their religious rights as well. Your entire argument stems from a personal and unfounded fear of religion and assumes that religious Americans as a whole are as extreme as yourself. As a result, you want to subvert America's ability to legislate anything contradictory to your personal anti-religious views which, of course, is directly contradictory to democracy. Fortunately, our Founding Fathers were very astute people and gave us appropriate protections from people like you.
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
They aren't teaching the children religion, any religion. There is no such thing as this "secular religion" you keep yammering about. It doesn't exist. Secular religion is an oxymoron...
And that is the fundamental basis of our disagreement. I maintain that modern secularism is a component of the Marxist dialectic..[^] And represents in every way a theological foundation for a "god-less" religion, or at least a religion where government serves in the role of God. It is altogether obvious that Marxist thought and theory is the driving philosophical principle behind the left in the west and the US democratic party. Secularism has been allowed to evolve into a tremendous threat in our society, it is dangerous, and it needs to be opposed in the same way and for the same reasons that our founders opposed the establishement of state sanctioned religion. "You have no concept of the depth and complexity of my beliefs." Jim A. Johnson
Stan Shannon wrote:
And that is the fundamental basis of our disagreement. I maintain that modern secularism is a component of the Marxist dialectic..[^] And represents in every way a theological foundation for a "god-less" religion, or at least a religion where government serves in the role of God.
Marxism contains secularism as a component; this no more indicates that everything secular is Marxist, than the fact that religious extremism contains religion means that all religion is extreme. In any case, I think by now we've well established what you think of secularism. I, on the other hand, think it is the only rational way to govern a diverse and pluralistic body of people. It's all about finding commonality, and instuting that as the rule of law. The only way to govern people of every religion is to insure that government does not regard religion when doing its job. Elected officials should have a firm moral and ethical foundation; which, in most cases is the result of religious teaching and good parenting. That should -- actually, must -- be the limit of religion's involvement in government. And government should stay completely, entirely, 100% out of religion.
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
They aren't teaching the children religion, any religion. There is no such thing as this "secular religion" you keep yammering about. It doesn't exist. Secular religion is an oxymoron. There is also no "secular agenda". Secularism is barely an "-ism" at all, and certainly doesn't merit an agenda, unless you count keeping your religion out of my kids' classroom, and mine out of yours. If you believe that it is okay for the religion of the majority to be taught in public schools to everyone, it is most certainly you who hasn't the slightest clue about separation of church and state.
The concept of "separation of church and state" is a modern one crafted by judges who were not nearly as wise as Thomas Jefferson. Secularism in the United States has always merely meant government neutrality when it comes to religion. In other words, religion can neither be outlawed nor established. It does not and has never (until recent atheist extremists began inundating the courts) meant that democratically legislated laws and statutes must originate from purely secular means. Doing so undermines the government, the constitution and the people as it strips them of their 10th amendment right to self-government and, if taken as far as you want it to be taken, of their religious rights as well. Your entire argument stems from a personal and unfounded fear of religion and assumes that religious Americans as a whole are as extreme as yourself. As a result, you want to subvert America's ability to legislate anything contradictory to your personal anti-religious views which, of course, is directly contradictory to democracy. Fortunately, our Founding Fathers were very astute people and gave us appropriate protections from people like you.
There aren't enough "atheist extremists" in this country to fill a courtroom, must less to "inundate the courts". What you are seeing is predominantly Christian men and women who believe in secular government, who believe that government should stay out of religion, and religion should stay out of government. The fact that you see Christians who believe in religiously impartial secular government as "atheist extremists" makes you seem fairly...what's the word I'm looking for...extreme. Fortunately, our Founding Fathers were very astute people and gave us appropriate protections from people like you. Recurse at will.
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
this bizzare anarcho-fascist utopia of yours,
Actually, that should read " this Jeffersonian Democracy which the US enjoyed for the better part of 150 years or so" of mine...
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
would not remain in the hands of the few. The only difference I see is that their power would not extend to the whole country, but they would be free to turn
Federalist 51: If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions. This policy of supplying, by opposite and rival interests, the defect of better motives, might be traced through the whole system of human affairs, private as well as public. We see it particularly displayed in all the subordinate distributions of power, where the constant aim is to divide and arrange the several offices in such a manner as that each may be a check on the other that the private interest of every individual may be a sentinel over the public rights. . . . There are, moreover, two considerations particularly applicable to the federal system of America, which place that system in a very interesting point of view. First. In a single [centralized] republic, all the power surrendered by the people is submitted to the administration of a single government; and the usurpations are guarded against by a division of the government into distinct and separate departments. In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments [state and federal], and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself. Second. It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests
Stan Shannon wrote:
there simply are not sufficient numbers of extremists of any given stripe to foist their will upon all the others
Stan Shannon wrote:
a foundation which the left has virtually destroyed over the course of my lifetime
Don't you see these two statements as contradictory? If the government has changed over the course of your lifetime, why is that not the will of the people? Also, I have to say that, contrary to what you and espeir think, I have no wish to subvert the democratic process. I think Bush is an incompetent boob, and those who voted him in did so for all the wrong reasons, but I trust in our system to correct this mistake. If it doesn't, then it wasn't a mistake after all, was it? Just a swing of the political pendulum.
-
There aren't enough "atheist extremists" in this country to fill a courtroom, must less to "inundate the courts". What you are seeing is predominantly Christian men and women who believe in secular government, who believe that government should stay out of religion, and religion should stay out of government. The fact that you see Christians who believe in religiously impartial secular government as "atheist extremists" makes you seem fairly...what's the word I'm looking for...extreme. Fortunately, our Founding Fathers were very astute people and gave us appropriate protections from people like you. Recurse at will.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
There aren't enough "atheist extremists" in this country to fill a courtroom, must less to "inundate the courts". What you are seeing is predominantly Christian men and women who believe in secular government, who believe that government should stay out of religion, and religion should stay out of government. The fact that you see Christians who believe in religiously impartial secular government as "atheist extremists" makes you seem fairly...what's the word I'm looking for...extreme.
You're an atheist extremist (you even lied and claimed to be a Christian). There are far more of you than would fill a courtroom, but not enough that you could wield any power outside of the court system. That's why I'm not worried. While you and your ilk can infiltrate the courts, Thomas Jefferson ensured that this power could be overruled by the majority (much to your chagrin, I'm sure). So we're safe so long as your ideology is appropriately intellectually contained (which isn't that hard to do) and the majority of people are not compelled to think in such tyrannical terms.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Fortunately, our Founding Fathers were very astute people and gave us appropriate protections from people like you.
Lame. Our Founding Fathers created a government of the people, for the people and by the people. Being that I endorse democratic legislation and you endorse the subjugation of those in the majority, they would agree with me and be happy that their safeguards have protected this country so well from extremists like you. -- modified at 12:51 Wednesday 19th July, 2006
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
This, I truly believe, was the founders' intent
You really need to do much more research. And again, everything you listed here is intended to eliminate any democratically preference of the majority. The only thing in your list that is in conflict with the constitution (and therefore the founding fathers' wishes) is the part about no images of the "prophet" because it restricts the practice of religion. Everything else is fair game. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes secularism and democracy in this country. You apparently think that it means the establishment of an atheist religion.
You really need to do much more research. Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes secularism and democracy in this country. You apparently think that it means the establishment of state religion is fine, as long as that state is an actual state.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
And that is the fundamental basis of our disagreement. I maintain that modern secularism is a component of the Marxist dialectic..[^] And represents in every way a theological foundation for a "god-less" religion, or at least a religion where government serves in the role of God.
Marxism contains secularism as a component; this no more indicates that everything secular is Marxist, than the fact that religious extremism contains religion means that all religion is extreme. In any case, I think by now we've well established what you think of secularism. I, on the other hand, think it is the only rational way to govern a diverse and pluralistic body of people. It's all about finding commonality, and instuting that as the rule of law. The only way to govern people of every religion is to insure that government does not regard religion when doing its job. Elected officials should have a firm moral and ethical foundation; which, in most cases is the result of religious teaching and good parenting. That should -- actually, must -- be the limit of religion's involvement in government. And government should stay completely, entirely, 100% out of religion.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
In any case, I think by now we've well established what you think of secularism. I, on the other hand, think it is the only rational way to govern a diverse and pluralistic body of people. It's all about finding commonality, and instuting that as the rule of law. The only way to govern people of every religion is to insure that government does not regard religion when doing its job. Elected officials should have a firm moral and ethical foundation; which, in most cases is the result of religious teaching and good parenting. That should -- actually, must -- be the limit of religion's involvement in government. And government should stay completely, entirely, 100% out of religion.
This is fine when the democratic majority agrees. However, you specifically want to enforce this notion by stripping the body politic from its fundamental right to self government. This is evident by your use of the term "must" over "should". In other words...the people have no choice. Only you do.
-
You really need to do much more research. Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes secularism and democracy in this country. You apparently think that it means the establishment of state religion is fine, as long as that state is an actual state.
"Tyranny of the majority" is an interesting term for "democracy". As has been demonstrated, the majority is reasonable and moderate whereas the "tyranny of the minority" has created nothing but strife. Perhaps you should go to Africa and start a government. They like that sort of thing.
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
There aren't enough "atheist extremists" in this country to fill a courtroom, must less to "inundate the courts". What you are seeing is predominantly Christian men and women who believe in secular government, who believe that government should stay out of religion, and religion should stay out of government. The fact that you see Christians who believe in religiously impartial secular government as "atheist extremists" makes you seem fairly...what's the word I'm looking for...extreme.
You're an atheist extremist (you even lied and claimed to be a Christian). There are far more of you than would fill a courtroom, but not enough that you could wield any power outside of the court system. That's why I'm not worried. While you and your ilk can infiltrate the courts, Thomas Jefferson ensured that this power could be overruled by the majority (much to your chagrin, I'm sure). So we're safe so long as your ideology is appropriately intellectually contained (which isn't that hard to do) and the majority of people are not compelled to think in such tyrannical terms.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Fortunately, our Founding Fathers were very astute people and gave us appropriate protections from people like you.
Lame. Our Founding Fathers created a government of the people, for the people and by the people. Being that I endorse democratic legislation and you endorse the subjugation of those in the majority, they would agree with me and be happy that their safeguards have protected this country so well from extremists like you. -- modified at 12:51 Wednesday 19th July, 2006
espeir wrote:
You're an atheist extremist (you even lied and claimed to be a Christian).
You blow donkeys. Now I suppose you're going to lie and say that you don't blow donkeys at all, but everything you have said in this forum indicates that you do, in fact, blow donkeys. Listen, troll, I am not an atheist, and believe that true atheism is as intellectually dishonest as fundamentalist religion. I am a Christian. You can say I'm lying all you want, but that changes nothing.
espeir wrote:
There are far more of you than would fill a courtroom, but not enough that you could wield any power outside of the court system.
If you mean "atheist extremists", then you are wrong, there are not enough to fill a courtroom. If you mean Christians who believe in secular government, then you are also wrong, there are definitely enough to wield power outside of the court system.
espeir wrote:
Lame. Our Founding Fathers created a government of the people, for the people and by the people. Being that I endorse democratic legislation and you endorse the subjugation of those in the majority, they would agree with me and be happy that their safeguards have protected this country so well from extremists like you.
Being that I endorse government of the people, by the people, and for the people, and you endorse the subjugation of those in the minority, they would agree with me and be happy that their safeguards have protected this country so well from extremists like you.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
there simply are not sufficient numbers of extremists of any given stripe to foist their will upon all the others
Stan Shannon wrote:
a foundation which the left has virtually destroyed over the course of my lifetime
Don't you see these two statements as contradictory? If the government has changed over the course of your lifetime, why is that not the will of the people? Also, I have to say that, contrary to what you and espeir think, I have no wish to subvert the democratic process. I think Bush is an incompetent boob, and those who voted him in did so for all the wrong reasons, but I trust in our system to correct this mistake. If it doesn't, then it wasn't a mistake after all, was it? Just a swing of the political pendulum.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Don't you see these two statements as contradictory? If the government has changed over the course of your lifetime, why is that not the will of the people?
Because the will of the people comes from legislation. For example, abortion was illegal in all 50 states prior to Roe vs. Wade. However a supreme court packed with left-wing judges who had no respect for either the constitution or lesser laws arbitrarily decided that abortion should be legal. That obviously did not represent the will of the people. There are numerous examples of this. Fortunately Republicans have caught on and we're packing the courts with people who actually interpret the law rather than rewrite it.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Also, I have to say that, contrary to what you and espeir think, I have no wish to subvert the democratic process.
You make that statement, then use terms like "the tyranny of the majority" and state that citizens "must not" have the democratic authority to pass certain laws that you and you ilk disagree with. Your true position and your description of it are incompatible. You are therefore either really stupid or a flat out liar.
-
espeir wrote:
You're an atheist extremist (you even lied and claimed to be a Christian).
You blow donkeys. Now I suppose you're going to lie and say that you don't blow donkeys at all, but everything you have said in this forum indicates that you do, in fact, blow donkeys. Listen, troll, I am not an atheist, and believe that true atheism is as intellectually dishonest as fundamentalist religion. I am a Christian. You can say I'm lying all you want, but that changes nothing.
espeir wrote:
There are far more of you than would fill a courtroom, but not enough that you could wield any power outside of the court system.
If you mean "atheist extremists", then you are wrong, there are not enough to fill a courtroom. If you mean Christians who believe in secular government, then you are also wrong, there are definitely enough to wield power outside of the court system.
espeir wrote:
Lame. Our Founding Fathers created a government of the people, for the people and by the people. Being that I endorse democratic legislation and you endorse the subjugation of those in the majority, they would agree with me and be happy that their safeguards have protected this country so well from extremists like you.
Being that I endorse government of the people, by the people, and for the people, and you endorse the subjugation of those in the minority, they would agree with me and be happy that their safeguards have protected this country so well from extremists like you.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
You blow donkeys. Now I suppose you're going to lie and say that you don't blow donkeys at all, but everything you have said in this forum indicates that you do, in fact, blow donkeys. Listen, troll, I am not an atheist, and believe that true atheism is as intellectually dishonest as fundamentalist religion. I am a Christian. You can say I'm lying all you want, but that changes nothing.
Great argument. :rolleyes: You had previously said that you agree with some tenants of the Christian religion but do not actually believe in God. That makes you an atheist. And a liar. However, there is no evidence that I actually blow donkeys. Of course, your system of government encourages such behavior.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
If you mean "atheist extremists", then you are wrong, there are not enough to fill a courtroom. If you mean Christians who believe in secular government, then you are also wrong, there are definitely enough to wield power outside of the court system.
Most Christians (including myself) believe in a secular democracy. However, those who have adopted the incorrect interpretation of secularism (like yourself) that officially endorses atheism as a state religion are "atheist extremists". There are more than a courtroom full, but fewer than necessary to bring down our government.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Being that I endorse government of the people, by the people, and for the people, and you endorse the subjugation of those in the minority, they would agree with me and be happy that their safeguards have protected this country so well from extremists like you.
What are you? 12? Everything you said so far has endorsed the subjugation of democracy and the democratic majority. Saying the reverse of my spoken truth just shines more light on your fallacious arguments.
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
In any case, I think by now we've well established what you think of secularism. I, on the other hand, think it is the only rational way to govern a diverse and pluralistic body of people. It's all about finding commonality, and instuting that as the rule of law. The only way to govern people of every religion is to insure that government does not regard religion when doing its job. Elected officials should have a firm moral and ethical foundation; which, in most cases is the result of religious teaching and good parenting. That should -- actually, must -- be the limit of religion's involvement in government. And government should stay completely, entirely, 100% out of religion.
This is fine when the democratic majority agrees. However, you specifically want to enforce this notion by stripping the body politic from its fundamental right to self government. This is evident by your use of the term "must" over "should". In other words...the people have no choice. Only you do.
And you see no limits for the involvement of religion in government, in ignorance of this country's principles, and regardless of the consequences. As long as the majority wants religious rule, the majority should be entitled, and people of minority religions can leave if they don't like it. I'd rather be a secularist than a theocrat.
-
"Tyranny of the majority" is an interesting term for "democracy". As has been demonstrated, the majority is reasonable and moderate whereas the "tyranny of the minority" has created nothing but strife. Perhaps you should go to Africa and start a government. They like that sort of thing.
I find it telling that you would think "tyranny of the majority" to be a term for democracy. For explanation of the phrase, I suggest that you read John Stuart Mill, specifically "On Liberty". His fundamental premise, with which I unreservedly agree, is, "over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign." You have indicated that you believe this to be true only so far as the majority allows.