EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 186
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18828 Posts
| ||
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
Japan and the US have agreed on plans for returning to Japan land near Kadena Air Base on the southern island of Okinawa that is now used by US troops, in an effort to balance local concerns with support for the countries' military alliance. A statement issued by both sides characterised the plan as a realignment and consolidation of US forces in Okinawa. "Recognising the strong desires of Okinawa residents, this consolidation plan is to be implemented as soon as possible while ensuring operational capability, including training capability, throughout the process," it said. Okinawa was invaded by US forces in World War II and has had an American military presence ever since. Tensions over land use, crimes committed by military personnel and disruptions by military flights on the heavily populated, semi-tropical island have been building over the years. Shinzo Abe, Japanese prime minister, and John Roos, US ambassador to Japan, announced the agreement on Friday. "This is a very important event for reducing the impact of our bases in Okinawa, but at the same time maintaining the long-term sustainability of our bases and our ability to achieve peace and security in the region and the defense of Japan," Roos said. Long-term base transfer The plans call for eventually returning more than 570 hectares of land near Kadena. The various facilities and land are being returned to Japan as replacement locations become available and troops are transferred out of Japan. It also includes separate timetables and arrangements for relocating the US Marine Corps' Futenma Air Station in the Okinawan city of Ginowan beginning in fiscal 2022. The original plan for relocating Futenma to another location, Nago, by 2014 was put off due to local opposition. Abe said the agreement demonstrated that both sides recognised the need to reduce the burden imposed on Okinawa by the Japan-US alliance. "We will follow this plan intending to do our best to realize the return [of Okinawan land] as soon as possible," he said. Chuck Hagel, US defence secretary, said the agreement marked an important step in America's efforts to maintain an "effective US force presence in the region while reducing our footprint on the island of Okinawa." "Now more than ever it is essential that the United States maintain a geographically distributed and sustainable force throughout Asia that can provide for the protection of Japan and our other allies, and US interests," Hagel said in a statement. An earlier agreement called for setting detailed plans by late 2012 for returning facilities and land to Okinawa. But progress was slowed by funding cuts that delayed relocating troops and facilities to Guam and families of US service members to South Korea. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia-pacific/2013/04/201345182432413856.html | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
On April 05 2013 12:42 Stratos_speAr wrote: State government is still government. Just because the state is the one oppressing you instead of the federal government, doesn't mean you're suddenly free or that it's better. In fact, that's one of the best things about the federal government; it can protect the poor, minorities, and disenfranchised from idiotic old white men that want to force their "Christian" values on everyone under the guise of "state government = freedom". Small government is all about giving more power to the states, because the fact is that states are more directly controlled by the people than the federal government. Local governments even more so. And I happen to be one of those who thinks that forcing a school/state courthouse/etc. to take down a picture of Jesus, or the Ten Commandments, or to take down a memorial with a cross on it, is a disgusting abuse of power and the definition of discriminatory oppression. If someone were to put a picture of Thomas Jefferson up in a school, there would be no argument. If someone were to put a statue of Ghandi up on state-owned land, there would be no argument. But on the pure fact that it is a religious figure, it suddenly becomes a problem, and according to the courts, it becomes illegal. It doesn't matter that Jesus is, historically, at least as influential and important, or more so, than Thomas Jefferson. It doesn't matter that the vast majority of the developed world recognizes the morals Jesus taught as being at least as influential in promoting humanitarianism, if not more influential, than Ghandi. That argument isn't even had, because the pure fact that some people say he is God automatically disqualifies his picture or any symbol of him from being put up or maintained by federal/state/local governments. That is the definition of discrimination, and to prevent a town or state from allowing it is the definition of oppression. So enlighten us. Tell us why it is theoretically o.k. for NC to say F*** you to the Supreme Court and federal laws/precedent, and also explain why it is a) advantageous and b) morally acceptable to set up a state religion, because I'm not buying it. Even from the constitutional point of view, yes the Supreme Court wasn't given the power of judicial review in the constitution itself, but hundreds of years of precedent sets the standard. The problem is that those hundreds of years of precedent come directly from a Supreme Court decision. They decided that they had the power, gave it to themselves, and for God knows what reason, that power was enforced. Bad precedent is still precedent; and why is it bad? Because it gives the unelected Supreme Court the power to legislate, and it takes away the power of the states/people to legislate. All decisions and legislation are beholden to the will of nine unelected men/women. There should never be any "final arbiter" who holds all the power, including the power to give themselves more power. How is it morally acceptable to set up a state religion? Because there is nothing morally unacceptable about it. It does not oppress someone to establish a state religion, as long as that religion is not forced upon non-believers. It is just a statement that the government (representing the will and majority of it's citizens) supports and recognizes one religion above all others as being the true religion. If the citizens don't want it, than they can and will vote it out, or vote to stop it. If the vocal minority does not like it, they should give some kind of reason beyond the slippery slope argument on why it should not be allowed. How is it advantageous? At this point it comes down to a difference of moral opinion. It is my firm belief (shared by so many of our Founders) that any nation which does not recognize the Christian religion and hold to it with firmness cannot remain free. I believe that a strong foundation in the belief of an almighty and benevolent Creator, from whom all rights and powers flow forth, is the only basis for an unflinching and unchanging recognition of said rights and powers. And it is my belief that any people who loses their moral foundation, or attempts to weaken it by replacing it with more transitory and humanist reasons, will necessarily begin giving away their rights and powers. It is much easier to justify taking away a right that's only basis is efficacy than it is to justify taking away one that's basis is the declaration of God. Of course abuse can still occur in a nation that believes and supports these notions. But that, in my opinion (once again shared by so many of our Founders) is irrelevant to the fact that the best and most effective way to ensure the stability and well-being of a populace is a firm conviction in the divine nature of their rights. Also, at this point in time, almost any exercise by the states to push away the expansion of the federal government and the subjugation of the states is good in of itself. | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On April 06 2013 08:41 sc2superfan101 wrote: Small government is all about giving more power to the states, because the fact is that states are more directly controlled by the people than the federal government. Local governments even more so. And I happen to be one of those who thinks that forcing a school/state courthouse/etc. to take down a picture of Jesus, or the Ten Commandments, or to take down a memorial with a cross on it, is a disgusting abuse of power and the definition of discriminatory oppression. If someone were to put a picture of Thomas Jefferson up in a school, there would be no argument. If someone were to put a statue of Ghandi up on state-owned land, there would be no argument. But on the pure fact that it is a religious figure, it suddenly becomes a problem, and according to the courts, it becomes illegal. It doesn't matter that Jesus is, historically, at least as influential and important, or more so, than Thomas Jefferson. It doesn't matter that the vast majority of the developed world recognizes the morals Jesus taught as being at least as influential in promoting humanitarianism, if not more influential, than Ghandi. That argument isn't even had, because the pure fact that some people say he is God automatically disqualifies his picture or any symbol of him from being put up or maintained by federal/state/local governments. That is the definition of discrimination, and to prevent a town or state from allowing it is the definition of oppression. Has the oppression of others ever been carried out in the name of Thomas Jefferson or Ghandi? Nope. By contrast, people have been oppressed in the name of Jesus and the Ten Commandments. Religious wars have been fought in their name. Therefore, there is a substantial difference between the two. | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
On April 06 2013 09:27 sunprince wrote: Has the oppression of others ever been carried out in the name of Thomas Jefferson or Ghandi? Nope. By contrast, people have been oppressed in the name of Jesus and the Ten Commandments. Religious wars have been fought in their name. Therefore, there is a substantial difference between the two. So, by that logic, if I were to start the Church of Ghandi, and begin oppressing people using it as justification; you would instantly add Ghandi to that list of unacceptables? | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On April 06 2013 08:41 sc2superfan101 wrote: Small government is all about giving more power to the states, because the fact is that states are more directly controlled by the people than the federal government. Local governments even more so. And I happen to be one of those who thinks that forcing a school/state courthouse/etc. to take down a picture of Jesus, or the Ten Commandments, or to take down a memorial with a cross on it, is a disgusting abuse of power and the definition of discriminatory oppression. If someone were to put a picture of Thomas Jefferson up in a school, there would be no argument. If someone were to put a statue of Ghandi up on state-owned land, there would be no argument. But on the pure fact that it is a religious figure, it suddenly becomes a problem, and according to the courts, it becomes illegal. It doesn't matter that Jesus is, historically, at least as influential and important, or more so, than Thomas Jefferson. It doesn't matter that the vast majority of the developed world recognizes the morals Jesus taught as being at least as influential in promoting humanitarianism, if not more influential, than Ghandi. That argument isn't even had, because the pure fact that some people say he is God automatically disqualifies his picture or any symbol of him from being put up or maintained by federal/state/local governments. That is the definition of discrimination, and to prevent a town or state from allowing it is the definition of oppression. The problem is that those hundreds of years of precedent come directly from a Supreme Court decision. They decided that they had the power, gave it to themselves, and for God knows what reason, that power was enforced. Bad precedent is still precedent; and why is it bad? Because it gives the unelected Supreme Court the power to legislate, and it takes away the power of the states/people to legislate. All decisions and legislation are beholden to the will of nine unelected men/women. There should never be any "final arbiter" who holds all the power, including the power to give themselves more power. How is it morally acceptable to set up a state religion? Because there is nothing morally unacceptable about it. It does not oppress someone to establish a state religion, as long as that religion is not forced upon non-believers. It is just a statement that the government (representing the will and majority of it's citizens) supports and recognizes one religion above all others as being the true religion. If the citizens don't want it, than they can and will vote it out, or vote to stop it. If the vocal minority does not like it, they should give some kind of reason beyond the slippery slope argument on why it should not be allowed. How is it advantageous? At this point it comes down to a difference of moral opinion. It is my firm belief (shared by so many of our Founders) that any nation which does not recognize the Christian religion and hold to it with firmness cannot remain free. I believe that a strong foundation in the belief of an almighty and benevolent Creator, from whom all rights and powers flow forth, is the only basis for an unflinching and unchanging recognition of said rights and powers. And it is my belief that any people who loses their moral foundation, or attempts to weaken it by replacing it with more transitory and humanist reasons, will necessarily begin giving away their rights and powers. It is much easier to justify taking away a right that's only basis is efficacy than it is to justify taking away one that's basis is the declaration of God. Of course abuse can still occur in a nation that believes and supports these notions. But that, in my opinion (once again shared by so many of our Founders) is irrelevant to the fact that the best and most effective way to ensure the stability and well-being of a populace is a firm conviction in the divine nature of their rights. Also, at this point in time, almost any exercise by the states to push away the expansion of the federal government and the subjugation of the states is good in of itself. First, you bring up (several times) that the Founders believed in this idea of a Christian-inspired morality. So what? The founders were a bunch of culturally backwards (by today's standards) slave owners. The U.S. has this weird fetish with its constitution and the Founders for some reason. Yes, they are important, but improvements can be made. The constitution isn't divine law. Second, you claim that a belief in a divine creator and rights endowed upon us by him and a Christian-based nation are the surest ways to freedom and sound cultural morality. However, we have countless examples of Christian institutions and nations being the very definition of corrupt, immoral, or evil. It's ridiculous to argue that a specific religion is necessary for freedom or morality. Third, yes, the very establishment of a state religion discriminates. Why? Take the following example. The U.S. adopts Christianity as the endorsed religion of the nation, saying (as you said yourself) that it believes this religion is the true religion. Society itself is literally telling you that, if you aren't Christian, you're wrong and that your religion sucks. Forbidding the government to establish a state religion is incredibly important because our society isn't a fairytale one where Christians say, "Oh, you're wrong and going to hell, but I'm totally ok with you being a different religion!" No. Christians still routinely discriminate and hate on other religions because they aren't Christian, as they have throughout history. Finally, go tell black people throughout history or homosexuals today that state governments are "run by the people" and therefore everything that they do is ok. On a completely different note, does anyone have a video of Obama saying that the attorney general of California is good looking? I find this entire argument indicative of how sad the state of U.S. politics is. Unless I can see the video and I'm totally wrong, my impression is that he made the comment at the end of a long paragraph as a complete joke. If we aren't ok with jokes like this anymore, then it's a pretty fucking sad day in this country (and we've had a lot of them lately). | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On April 06 2013 09:34 sc2superfan101 wrote: So, by that logic, if I were to start the Church of Ghandi, and begin oppressing people using it as justification; you would instantly add Ghandi to that list of unacceptables? A picture of Gandhi that represented him as a religious figure would certainly be unacceptable. Do you think any of those Christians who are lobbying to make Christianity the state religion whether they would be okay with any sort of non-Christian religious picture such as that? The argument that you're hinting at has no relevance here. Schools and courthouses don't put up pictures of Jesus or the Ten Commandments as expressions of their humanitarian influence, they put them up due to their religious significance. | ||
|
comet1
United States24 Posts
| ||
|
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On April 06 2013 09:43 Stratos_speAr wrote: On a completely different note, does anyone have a video of Obama saying that the attorney general of California is good looking? I find this entire argument indicative of how sad the state of U.S. politics is. Unless I can see the video and I'm totally wrong, my impression is that he made the comment at the end of a long paragraph as a complete joke. If we aren't ok with jokes like this anymore, then it's a pretty fucking sad day in this country (and we've had a lot of them lately). The real question is, is there an attorney general that actually looks better than her? ;o | ||
|
renoB
United States170 Posts
Small government is all about giving more power to the states, because the fact is that states are more directly controlled by the people than the federal government. Local governments even more so. And I happen to be one of those who thinks that forcing a school/state courthouse/etc. to take down a picture of Jesus, or the Ten Commandments, or to take down a memorial with a cross on it, is a disgusting abuse of power and the definition of discriminatory oppression. If someone were to put a picture of Thomas Jefferson up in a school, there would be no argument. If someone were to put a statue of Ghandi up on state-owned land, there would be no argument. But on the pure fact that it is a religious figure, it suddenly becomes a problem, and according to the courts, it becomes illegal. It doesn't matter that Jesus is, historically, at least as influential and important, or more so, than Thomas Jefferson. It doesn't matter that the vast majority of the developed world recognizes the morals Jesus taught as being at least as influential in promoting humanitarianism, if not more influential, than Ghandi. That argument isn't even had, because the pure fact that some people say he is God automatically disqualifies his picture or any symbol of him from being put up or maintained by federal/state/local governments. That is the definition of discrimination, and to prevent a town or state from allowing it is the definition of oppression. You're arguing for majority tyranny at the state level. Whether its at the state level or federal level, our entire republic is setup to avoid majority tyranny. Read Federalist Paper #10 if you don't believe me. + Show Spoiler + The problem is that those hundreds of years of precedent come directly from a Supreme Court decision. They decided that they had the power, gave it to themselves, and for God knows what reason, that power was enforced. Bad precedent is still precedent; and why is it bad? Because it gives the unelected Supreme Court the power to legislate, and it takes away the power of the states/people to legislate. All decisions and legislation are beholden to the will of nine unelected men/women. There should never be any "final arbiter" who holds all the power, including the power to give themselves more power. "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" I agree that the supreme court has overstepped their outlined power, but what does that have to do with the separation of church and state? It's literally the first line in the bill of rights that you're arguing against. Last time I checked the bill of rights was applicable to all government. If we follow your logic on blatantly ignoring the first amendment, then it would also be okay for government (at the state or local level) to enact legislation that bans certain forms of speech. + Show Spoiler + How is it morally acceptable to set up a state religion? Because there is nothing morally unacceptable about it. It does not oppress someone to establish a state religion, as long as that religion is not forced upon non-believers. It is just a statement that the government (representing the will and majority of it's citizens) supports and recognizes one religion above all others as being the true religion. If the citizens don't want it, than they can and will vote it out, or vote to stop it. If the vocal minority does not like it, they should give some kind of reason beyond the slippery slope argument on why it should not be allowed . It does oppress people to establish a state religion. It is majority tyranny. By saying it represents the majority of its citizens, you're suggesting government should only represent a portion of society. Government represents all its citizens, not just those in the majority. It doesn't matter how big or little groups or individuals are, everyone is represented in our government. Embracing one religion is telling every minority religion or other that they're wrong and that's why they aren't represented. + Show Spoiler + How is it advantageous? At this point it comes down to a difference of moral opinion. It is my firm belief (shared by so many of our Founders) that any nation which does not recognize the Christian religion and hold to it with firmness cannot remain free. I believe that a strong foundation in the belief of an almighty and benevolent Creator, from whom all rights and powers flow forth, is the only basis for an unflinching and unchanging recognition of said rights and powers. And it is my belief that any people who loses their moral foundation, or attempts to weaken it by replacing it with more transitory and humanist reasons, will necessarily begin giving away their rights and powers. It is much easier to justify taking away a right that's only basis is efficacy than it is to justify taking away one that's basis is the declaration of God. It is exactly that, a difference of moral opinion. I think your moral opinion is wrong. You think mine is wrong. So you get to impose yours on me because more people agree with you? Lets say my group says the world is flat, and your group argues that its round. My group has more people, therefore the earth is flat. Do you see the break in logic there? Once again majority tyranny. + Show Spoiler + Of course abuse can still occur in a nation that believes and supports these notions. But that, in my opinion (once again shared by so many of our Founders) is irrelevant to the fact that the best and most effective way to ensure the stability and well-being of a populace is a firm conviction in the divine nature of their rights . Clearly our founders believed it on a personal level and didn't force it upon everyone else, or else they would have done so at the conception of the constitution. Our forefathers so vehemently detested the idea of majority tyranny that they argued to HAVE a federal government (which you are so opposed to). The federal government's very essence is to contest the power at the state level to prevent majority tyranny. This is the problem with so many republicans and democrats, they're completely okay with using government power for their favor but completely against someone else doing it. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Leporello
United States2845 Posts
On April 06 2013 09:34 sc2superfan101 wrote: So, by that logic, if I were to start the Church of Ghandi, and begin oppressing people using it as justification; you would instantly add Ghandi to that list of unacceptables? Yeah, because that's really going to happen. But since it hasn't yet, Gandhi is not a religious icon. He's an icon for his country's freedom from imperialism. That's a little different. Christianity doesn't get to selectively choose how it should be recognized by others. Millions have died from the pursuits of Christian institutions. Actions speak louder than words, in that regard. And people of other religions (or no religion) have no reason, at all, whatsoever, to be subjected to Christian imagery in public buildings. I would be disgusted to find my child attends a public school where he has to look at Christian idolatry everyday. Luckily, that will never happen. It's a government building. It's a school. You don't need a picture of Jesus. It isn't tyrannical to ask you to keep your religion to yourself. It's common sense and mutual respect. Rather than talk about Gandhi, how about comparing it to a picture of Mohammed or Buddha? Should we not recognize Mohammed for his Judeo-Christian teachings, and not the acts of his followers? Does it even matter? edit: I have to say reading sc2superfan's post makes me think of Bioshock Infinite's Columbia, with its evangelical depictions of American historical icons. I think he'd feel right at home there. | ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
edit: but it must also be said that simply equating Christianity with oppression is so boneheaded and inane and reflects nothing but an incredibly tiresome reactionary response that is ignorant of history and the history of ideas, and even just ideas as a whole. It's good for nothing other than meaningless polemic, but I suppose that it can't be helped given the cultural climate of modern day NA. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
edit: oh boy, I just realized I've been using the word "state religion" instead of "civil religion" a lot. My mistake. | ||
|
Leporello
United States2845 Posts
On April 06 2013 13:33 koreasilver wrote: No, of course, and that's why sc2superfan is just being a complete idiot. I'm just trying to say that there is an inextricable presence of a civil religion built into the structure of America, and that it is so ingrained and taken for granted that there simply was no reason for this unnamed and churchless religion to ever be enforced or imposed or established in any sense. If anything, if such a stupid move is made this civil religion would be destroyed. Even the popular atheism that has been growing within America falls squarely within the boundaries of this civil religion and there literally is no real threat rising against it. If anything, the ones that seem to fervently uphold this civil religion the most are the liberals. Kind of like the Church of England, only more nameless? I get what you're saying, but our country is such an ongoing influx of other people and other cultures, that I'm not sure it's as intrinsic as you're saying. There certainly has been a religious undertone to our culture, but I'd hate to define it. The liberal, humanitarian secularism you're alluding to is absolutely abhorred by the more evangelical Americans -- who would argue that their evangelism is more traditionally American. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18828 Posts
| ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
Of course the humanistic secularism is abhorred, particularly by the evangelical Protestants of today, but historically secularism is a Protestant invention and one can trace it back all the way to Luther. Fundamentalism is a misnomer, because it attempts to set up the pretense that its form of Christianity is a hearkening back to some originary "fundamental" Christianity, but if one reads the Patristic authors you immediately realize that fundamentalism and modern evangelicism is a very young and recent invention. Historically, they were and still are the reactionaries. But of course they wouldn't want to hear that. | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
On April 06 2013 12:48 renoB wrote: You're arguing for majority tyranny at the state level. Whether its at the state level or federal level, our entire republic is setup to avoid majority tyranny. Read Federalist Paper #10 if you don't believe me. Preventing a tyranny of the majority is not the same as preventing the majority from ever exercising it's will upon society as a whole. This is why we have a democratic Republic. The majority, in most cases, should be allowed to express and exercise it's will. Without any clear case or argument of oppression, I don't see why preventing the majority the right to make a decision about their society is wrong. "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" I agree that the supreme court has overstepped their outlined power, but what does that have to do with the separation of church and state? It's literally the first line in the bill of rights that you're arguing against. Last time I checked the bill of rights was applicable to all government. If we follow your logic on blatantly ignoring the first amendment, then it would also be okay for government (at the state or local level) to enact legislation that bans certain forms of speech. First, there are a few problems with your assertion: 1) The amendment specifically says "Congress". It says nothing of a state or local legislature. 2) Even if we follow the (flawed) argument that it should apply to all levels of governance, there is no basis for thinking that this prevents any expression of religion on the part of a federal/state/local government. Nor does it even say that the states cannot establish state religions. In fact, many of the states, at the time of ratification, did have established, state religions. The original intent of the amendment was never seen as enforcing a complete and total separation of church and state. And in response to the other point: of course it would be okay for a local or even state government to ban certain forms of speech. There is plenty of justification and precedent for such an action. It does oppress people to establish a state religion. It is majority tyranny. By saying it represents the majority of its citizens, you're suggesting government should only represent a portion of society. Government represents all its citizens, not just those in the majority. It doesn't matter how big or little groups or individuals are, everyone is represented in our government. Embracing one religion is telling every minority religion or other that they're wrong and that's why they aren't represented. You didn't show me why it is majority tyranny, you just made the assertion that it is. You're only argument is that the government would be telling other religions that they are wrong.... which in no way oppresses them. And in no way blocks their political or religious representation. They could still be allowed to elect leaders who hold the same beliefs as them, they would still be allowed to attend their own churches, and they would still be allowed to speak whatever beliefs they hold in the public sphere. You're suggesting some kind of sociological argument that basically boils down to: "it would make me feel bad." But since when does the government have to have any care in the world for how it's policies make you feel, beyond your ability to vote for or against them? It is exactly that, a difference of moral opinion. I think your moral opinion is wrong. You think mine is wrong. So you get to impose yours on me because more people agree with you? Lets say my group says the world is flat, and your group argues that its round. My group has more people, therefore the earth is flat. Do you see the break in logic there? Once again majority tyranny. So you get to impose yours, purely on the basis that yours is the minority opinion? I say that we should allow state religions, public displays of Christianity (or any other religion), and prayer in school. You say that we shouldn't, and that opinion should be, according to you, enforced upon me and the majority, on every level, regardless of how great that majority may be. And in no way would I suggest that a majority exercising a religion suddenly makes that religion true. In fact, I guarantee you that the religion any state in this union would establish would be a Protestant one. I am not Protestant, I am Catholic. I would feel no pressure or oppression from living in a state with an established Protestant religion is there was no actual pressure or oppression being applied to me. Clearly our founders believed it on a personal level and didn't force it upon everyone else, or else they would have done so at the conception of the constitution. Our forefathers so vehemently detested the idea of majority tyranny that they argued to HAVE a federal government (which you are so opposed to). The federal government's very essence is to contest the power at the state level to prevent majority tyranny. They saw nothing wrong with constantly appealing to their divine rights. They saw nothing wrong with established state religions. George Washington saw nothing wrong with saying in his farewell address: Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens? The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation deserts the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. (emphasis my own) They saw nothing wrong with the House passing authorizing an official day of Thanksgiving; a resolution calling for: "a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God." The establishment of the federal government was primarily for unity as one nation. Only one side of the debate (the Federalists) saw it as combating a threat against state power, and even the most ardent of them would be having fits of apoplexy if they looked upon the state of affairs (pun intended) of the country today. And finally, I am in no way opposed to a powerful federal government. I consider myself to be more on the side of the Federalists than not, and fully support and understand Lincoln's notions of unity. However, this does not mean that I also believe that the states cannot, in any way, exercise power of their own except that which is first approved of by the Supreme Court. | ||
| ||
