bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron C. Howes) (01/01/70)
In article <680@bu-cs.UUCP> sam@bu-cs.UUCP (Shelli Meyers) writes: >But the government of this country *cannot* ignore that the *majority* of >people in this country are Christian. *That* is the key....Christians are >the majority, and therefore the government must cater to their needs... This sort of thinking leads to some very dangerous conclusions... The majority of people in this country are caucasian. Do you believe that the government of this country must cater to the needs of white people? Some people forget that the Bill of Rights was designed to protect the rights of minorities, not enforce the belief of the majority. The United States is a republic rather than a true democracy and should stay that way. -- Byron C. Howes ...!{decvax,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bch
berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) (09/10/85)
> This subject may not belong here, and it may stur up a hornets nest, but so > does secular humanism so here goes. > Has it ever occured to any of us that this country really IS a religious/ > christian country and should be coined as such to the extent that Iran is > considered a Muslim country, or Russia is considered an atheist country (no > offense intented to the people of Russia who are religious, but this is the > official teaching line of the communist party). > > If one looks at the founding fathers, they would find many instances of the > them refering to not only the constitution but also to God for wisdom in > guiding the country. When the president takes the oath of office he says: > "So help me God." Each day congress begins it's session with the Lord's > prayer. Behind the Supreme court bench is a huge plaque with the Lord's > prayer on it. Lincoln's Gettysburg Address mentions God. Christmas is > very much a national holiday. On all our currency is 'In God We Trust.' > > Would it be religious tyranny for the federal government to take a stand on > religious issues? Has religious tyranny existed in this country? The seper- > ation of church and state I believe originally meant that people would have > the freedom to worship as they pleased without government oppression. I > don't believe it meant the exclusion of government in declaring itself to be > of a religious faith if it thought itself as much. Some people would make the > claim that if our government took a stand on religion that those who believed > differently would be singled out or somehow alienated. I don't think so. The > Constitution and the Bill of Rights protects all the people the same as it > protects members of the Nazis or Communist party even though these people in > principle don't agree with and in some cases would like to abolish our form > of government. In order not to have words put in my mouth by Rosen I hereby > state that I do not equate Nazis or Communists with any other group of people. > One final thought, if the Government declared this country to be founded on > the beliefs that upset some people, would those people have a legitimate right > to claim that this declaration was unconstitutional because of a violation of > their rights? There is a difference between being tolerated and having different rights. As I understand you, you claim that the Constitution professes the belief in God, and so an atheist does not follow the letter and spirit of the Constitution. There is much more at stake than "upsetting some people". If you want to construe that the Constitution implies belief in God, then uphelding the Constitution implies believing in God. Shall all the atheist who sworn to upheld the Constitution be fired from their jobs? If I understand correctly the words this country really IS a religious/christian country [as] Iran is (...) a Muslim country, or Russia is (...) an atheist country ... then the answer is yes. Is it what you want? Or a school prayer uttered by atheist children? Hopefully, more sane reading of the Constitution will prevail. If Founding Fathers would want the country to be religious/Christian, they would not leave such an important principle implicit. As far as the God in public schools is concerned, this principle is at stake: shall the Government imply to children that a patriot must believe in God? And, by corollary, that atheists are not? Piotr Berman
sam@bu-cs.UUCP (Shelli Meyers) (09/25/85)
>> Has it ever occured to any of us that this country really IS a religious/ >> christian country and should be coined as such... >> Would it be religious tyranny for the federal government to take a stand on >> religious issues? Has religious tyranny existed in this country? The seper- >> ation of church and state I believe originally meant that people would have >> the freedom to worship as they pleased without government oppression. I >> don't believe it meant the exclusion of government in declaring itself to be >> of a religious faith if it thought itself as much. >There is a difference between being tolerated and having different rights. >There is much more at stake than "upsetting some people". Of course our "freedom of religion" ammendment is of paramount importance. Having "freedom of religion" should and does mean that you can be any religion you darn well please and nobody can take away any of your civil rights because of it. But the government of this country *cannot* ignore that the *majority* of people in this country are Christian. *That* is the key....Christians are the majority, and therefore the government must cater to their needs... Some of the separation of church and state fanatics that I know insist that separation means that the government must ignore the existance of and operate without acknowledging religion. However, think what it would be like if Christmas was NOT a national holiday! We'd have a big problem, because a lot of people would be pretty pissed. And for those atheists who get pissed at the word God being on our money, in our pledge of allegiance, etc, REAL atheists don't even care about God or the lack thereof and therefore should just laugh at it (?). AND...yes, unfortunately various and assorted Jews, Buddhists, Moslems, and Hindus may not appreciate Christmas being a national holiday...but in ISRAEL you can bet Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur are national holidays... I've heard it argued: "But Israel is a Jewish state." But if it wasn't, and the majority of people there were still Jews, R.H. and Y.K. would STILL be national holidays. You have to try to please MOST of the people MOST of the time. -- "A rose...is a rose...is a rose." ******************************************* Shelli Meyers UUCP: ...!harvard!bu-cs!sam ARPA: sam%bu-cs.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa *******************************************
nyssa@abnji.UUCP (nyssa of traken) (09/28/85)
>But the government of this country *cannot* ignore that the *majority* of >people in this country are Christian. *That* is the key....Christians are >the majority, and therefore the government must cater to their needs... Could you explain this? I could easily say that since the majority of people in this country are white, government should cater to their needs. I would really prefer that the government protect the minorities in this country from the excesses of the majorities, be they white, Christian, or whatever. >Some of the separation of church and state fanatics that I know insist >that separation means that the government must ignore the existance of >and operate without acknowledging religion. However, think what it would >be like if Christmas was NOT a national holiday! I, for one, would much rather have a an extra day's holiday to take when I damn well please rather than be forced to take off a (usually) bleak day in December to satisfy some peoples' primitive superstitions. If Christmas were not a national holiday, that could be the case. >We'd have a big problem, >because a lot of people would be pretty pissed. I'm sure a lot of people are pissed at Affirmative Action laws (or taxes!), does that make them wrong? >And for those atheists who get pissed at the word God being on our money, >in our pledge of allegiance, etc, REAL atheists don't even care about God >or the lack thereof and therefore should just laugh at it (?). As I understand it, an atheist is one who denies the existance of a god or gods. (From a-theist, etc. Look up your Latin! :-) >AND...yes, unfortunately various and assorted Jews, Buddhists, Moslems, >and Hindus may not appreciate Christmas being a national holiday... But tough on them because they're in a minority, is that what you're trying to say? >but >in ISRAEL you can bet Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur are national holidays... >I've heard it argued: "But Israel is a Jewish state." And they were founded on that principle. The United States was founded on the principle of allowing anybody to worship as they please without a state religion. >But if it wasn't, and the majority of people there were still Jews, R.H. >and Y.K. would STILL be national holidays. And it would be as wrong for them to do that as it is wrong for us. >You have to try to please MOST of the people MOST of the time. Governments *should not* be in the business of trying to please most of the people. They should be in the business of seeing that our society continues to function in a rational, civilised fashion. That means, among other things, protecting the rights of the minorities, not imposing the will of the majorities. -- James C. Armstrong, Jnr. {ihnp4,cbosgd,akgua}!abnji!nyssa I'll keep an eye on the old man, he seems to have a knack for getting himself into trouble! -who said it, what story?
long@oliveb.UUCP (Dave Long) (09/30/85)
In article <680@bu-cs.UUCP> sam@bu-cs.UUCP (Shelli Meyers) writes: > You have to try to please MOST of the people MOST of the time. Read Chapter 1 of "American Political Tradition" by Richard Hofstadter. The reason that we have a *Republic* and not a Democracy in the US is because the Founding Fathers did not wish to have the government please MOST of the people MOST of the time. In fact, they were fearful of what James Madison, the writer of the Constitution, called "the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority". George Washington himself told the delegates to the Constitutional Convention that they should not produce a document which would merely "please the people". I would also say that believing that "MOST of the people" take your viewpoint may be another mistake. Dave Long -- {hplabs,fortune,idi,ihnp4,tolerant,allegra,tymix}!oliveb!long