Ben, No, that's not what I was saying.
My point was that we do live in a majority-rules situation, not that we should vote on those matters. I am not a resident of the State of California and cannot speak for their rules of environmental legislation. My point is that it has been bothering me lately that the smallest percentages get the most voice and attention, but then again, it always is the squeaky wheel that gets the grease. I've also been doing some reading on the legal concepts behind the seperation of Church and State and the best two things I have found are: - The First Ammendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The first reference of "Seperation of Church and State" appears in a letter from President Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association in a reply to a letter from them "because they were not part of the Congretationalist establishment in that state." The text of both letters can be found at http://w3.trib.com/FACT/1st.jeffers.2.html. Anyways, I'm too tired to continue tonight and this thread seems to be winding down anyways. Hatton > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 5:07 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: CNN Breaking News > > > Hatton- > > I would like to respectfully disagree with something you > said, if I interpreted it correctly. > > I think you said that as a representative democracy we > should vote on such matters as "under God" in the pledge. > > If I'm correct on that, then this is exactly the kind of > thinking the establishment clause was meant to protect > us from. > > The 4/5 majority would always be able to out-vote the > 1/5 minority, even if the diverse minority groups all > voted together. What you get then is a Christian > nation. That was *not* the intent of our founders. > > Makes me think of California - LA has the majority of > the state's population, so they voted themselves the > majority of Northern California's water. Democracy in > action, right? We don't like it - tough! > > -Ben > > > Let me start this by saying that I am in no means trying to attack Beth > > or anyone else on the list that is non-Christian... I don't have time > > nor do I think this is the right forum to go into religous standings or > > histories. > > > > The thing that bothers me is twofold. On the one hand there is the > > strong case for the removal of religous references from national pleges > > and other things. Not everyone practtices the same religion... and in > > some cases the same religoun is practiced and interpreted in a wide > > veiretly of mindsets. > > > > For that side of the argument, there is the fact that making statements > > of "Under God" violates their right to practice the religon of their > > choice or even not to practice one. Most are content to "opt out" of > > joining in with the recitation, some find even being exposed to it an > > offense. > > > > However, there is the other side of this argument that we do live in a > > representative democracy. The concept that "majority rules" does and > > has been the rule of force since the inception of our nation. > > > > The point of this side of the argument can be made in the fact (source: > > http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html , Top Twenty Religions in the > > United States, 2001 (self-identification, ARIS)) that as of 2000, 76.5% > > of the population of the Unites States identified themselves as > > Christians. How much of that population is represented by this ruling > > and by the trend that we have been on in the last 30 years? > > > > The other thing to note is that these changes and dissenting opinions > > have been around for a very long time, but it is only now in an age > > where effort is being made to let everyone be happy that it is starting > > to become very obvious that not everyone is going to win. The scenario > > of a straight religous vote, assuming that the numbers cited from a > > graduate level research project are accurate, are rather > telling of that. > > > > What is alarming isn't the ruling that was made, it's the apathy that > > most of the American public will view it with. That's the part of this > > that really bothers me. We can debate it until everone is pissed at > > everyone else and we've degraded to personal attacks, but we're a very, > > very small percentage of the population. > > > > The apathy in what the system is doing to us will tear this > nation apart > > long before the actions being taken do. > > > > Hatton ______________________________________________________________________ Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
