Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The only TRULY FAIR way to determine "how things should be"...is to poll all the citizens, and enforce the majority view. True Democracy.
Ah! I see the problem! You don't know that the United States of America has NEVER been a Democracy. It is, and always has been, a Federal Constitutional Republic, where the rule of law always prevails.
If we were truly governed by majority rule, the will of the majority would probably have decreed that women, African-Americans and Native Americans would STILL not be able to vote, and that the National Religion would be some version of Christianity. Therefore, Judiasm, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Shintoism, (and yes, Islam) could probably not be practiced openly. It is quite possible that all but one specific demonination of Christianity (e.g. Assemblies of God) would be repressed as well.
Now, if you wish to try to change our form of government FROM a republic TO a democracy, go right ahead. Our current form of government gives you that right, whereas the majority rule of a true democracy might not.
That's not a chance I'm willing to take. Minorities have been oppressed too many times in our history to believe that it would never happen again because "This is America."
In support of your position, Mensaguy, may I point out something called "Manifest Destiny," and how that concept resulted in such niceties as the Trail of Tears, the Sand Creek Massacre, and others?
May I also point out that, in the same general time period, the persecution of Mormons by Protestants in Missouri resulted in large-scale murder, and spurred the Mormon emmigration westward to settle in what is now Utah?
Both of these are prime examples of how "majority rule" can easily result in the oppression, persecution and murder of minority groups.
As with other issues, I'm convinced anyone that self-identifies as an atheist is so hard-headed they are simply incapable of admitting they are wrong.
Ah-HAAAAH!
I follow the teachings of Christ, and I'm clearly on the opposite side of this debate. You just fell victim to types of bias variously called "Sweeping Generalities", or "Stereotypes", or even "Bigotry".
One more thing: Christ said ""Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's." Does that not clearly sanction the separation of Church and State? There are many Bible scholars who maintain that it does.
I follow the teachings of Christ, and I'm clearly on the opposite side of this debate. You just fell victim to types of bias called "Sweeping Generalitis", or "Stereotypes", or even "Bigotry".
One more thing: Christ said ""Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's." Does that not clearly sanction the separation of Church and State? There are many Bible scholars who maintain that it does.
In our case, Caesar (our gov't) has allowed for public practice of religion. Ironically, it's the "separation" crowd that is going against what has been already decreed.
At this point, I'm growing tired of this argument. As with other issues, I'm convinced anyone that self-identifies as an atheist is so hard-headed they are simply incapable of admitting they are wrong.
Oooh, I can play that game! Let's see how this works:
Anyone who self-identifies as religious is so hard-headed they are simply incapable of admitting they are wrong.
Wow, that works really well! And it's absolutely true! You are so smart to have figured that out! ಠ_ಠ
In our case, Caesar (our gov't) has allowed for public practice of religion. Ironically, it's the "separation" crowd that is going against what has been already decreed.
True, but only partially. The public practice of religion IS allowed as long as it is not on government-owned or publicly-owned property, and it is not a part of any government-sponsored event. To do otherwise would violate the second part of that particular First Amendment clause, which states "... or prohibit the free exercise thereof."
Of course, there are certain exceptions that apply to the rental of a publicly-owned facility for the purpose of religious practice. One purely academic example might be Billy Graham's rental of the Rose Bowl to conduct another of his Crusades revivals. (Might be, I said. Its just one possible example, okay?)
To be quite clear this is not my interpretation, nor is it the interpretation of any "separation crowd". This is the law of the land as derived from the SCOTUS' rulings over the past 60 years or so regarding the meaning and application of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America.
Here's wishing you and yours all the peace, joy and happiness the Season may bring, regardless of how (or if) you celebrate it.
-- Nighteyes
Last edited by Nighteyes; 12-16-2011 at 12:45 PM..
In our case, Caesar (our gov't) has allowed for public practice of religion. Ironically, it's the "separation" crowd that is going against what has been already decreed.
Lie.
Unless you don't live in the USA, in which case I must retract my claim.
Ah! I see the problem! You don't know that the United States of America has NEVER been a Democracy. It is, and always has been, a Federal Constitutional Republic, where the rule of law always prevails.
If we were truly governed by majority rule, the will of the majority would probably have decreed that women, African-Americans and Native Americans would STILL not be able to vote, and that the National Religion would be some version of Christianity. Therefore, Judiasm, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Shintoism, (and yes, Islam) could probably not be practiced openly. It is quite possible that all but one specific demonination of Christianity (e.g. Assemblies of God) would be repressed as well.
Now, if you wish to try to change our form of government FROM a republic TO a democracy, go right ahead. Our current form of government gives you that right, whereas the majority rule of a true democracy might not.
-- Nighteyes
Nighteyes...I know what it IS. But that doesn't change what I think would be better.
I'm not the first person on the planet that thinks the governmental system they live under could be improved. MOF, that would probably include most people, anywhere, ever.
.
Like the "Party" system with Dems and Repubs...I think that is TERRIBLE. It's a recipe for "oneupsmanship" and getting nothing done. If you are gonna have a "rep system"...just have State/district reps that cast votes and let the majority rule...don't give them an arbitrary reason not to agree, like "partisanship".
The system we have is so corrupt it's sickening!...it's like one giant scam!
You can't trust a couple thousand people to get together to make the rules for over 300 million...their personal agendas, and self-serving deals, are going to muck it up for everyone. And it DOES!
For some reason...it seems that people equate "not agreeing", with "not understanding".
They say, "Read The Constitution"..."That's not the way the Founding Fathers set it up"..."The SCOTUS ruled this or that way, so that's how it should be"...etc...etc...etc.
I understand all that...but I can't understand why those arguments are always trotted out when I just got through saying I don't agree.
What part of "I believe Pure Democracy to be superior to the system we have"...isn't understood?
Then they say the same things over again..."Read the Constitution", etc.
It's funny...the argument against me is always that we would have all these terrible things with a Pure Democracy.
Then the "laundry list" comes out...it's always the same: slavery, single gender voting rights, etc.
But they fail to notice that most of those "terrible things" they speculate the country would be plagued with under a Pure Democracy System...we ACTUALLY DID GET with the system we have!
So, what kind of argument is THAT!
The Founding Fathers set it up the only way they could...you HAD to have representatives...you couldn't get everyone's vote then.
But now you can, with current communications technology. If 100 million votes can go in over phones and computers every week for the American Idol contestants...you can give the citizens a 10 day window to vote their S.S.# on laws.
Have a few C-SPAN type channels presenting the pros and cons of proposed legislation...say, 30 days of presentation for each proposal...then let The People vote.
I'm hip to how it IS...I have my own opinion as to what I believe would be better. Others can think otherwise.
BTW...Hope you and yours are having a great Holiday Season Nighteyes.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
