A World gone mad
12-29-2013 | 12:37 PM
#61
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 44,870
Likes: 668
From: Engines Turn or People Swim
12-29-2013 | 01:49 PM
#62
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
What scenario are we talking about?
What if its school prayer and 99% want it and 1% doesn't, does the majority vote overrule the Constitution?
What if 97% of the guys in a UPT class want to have a stripper in the morning brief for Rhino's birthday (i miss the 80's) but the one guy objects for religious reasons; does the majority rule (and no, he can't be excused from the brief, it's the first week on the flight line for chrissakes).
What if the minority Festivus citizenry want to put up an aluminum pole next to the unconstitutional-but-unchallenged baby Jesus crèche on the town hall lawn ---- but the majority don't want the pole there. Does the majority deny the minority their religious expression? If so, haven't we Established a defacto official religion at that point?
What if you live in Dearborn, Michigan (which I believe is majority Muslim) and the majority wants to shut the whole town 5 times a day for prayer, does the Christian minority just have to "deal with it"?
What if 99% of the country doesn't think a 38 year old should get a lifetime retirement benefit for his 20 years of military service? Looks like you're about to get your way on that one.....
What if its school prayer and 99% want it and 1% doesn't, does the majority vote overrule the Constitution?
What if 97% of the guys in a UPT class want to have a stripper in the morning brief for Rhino's birthday (i miss the 80's) but the one guy objects for religious reasons; does the majority rule (and no, he can't be excused from the brief, it's the first week on the flight line for chrissakes).
What if the minority Festivus citizenry want to put up an aluminum pole next to the unconstitutional-but-unchallenged baby Jesus crèche on the town hall lawn ---- but the majority don't want the pole there. Does the majority deny the minority their religious expression? If so, haven't we Established a defacto official religion at that point?
What if you live in Dearborn, Michigan (which I believe is majority Muslim) and the majority wants to shut the whole town 5 times a day for prayer, does the Christian minority just have to "deal with it"?
What if 99% of the country doesn't think a 38 year old should get a lifetime retirement benefit for his 20 years of military service? Looks like you're about to get your way on that one.....
12-29-2013 | 02:32 PM
#63
Moderate Moderator
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 5,681
Likes: 0
From: Curator at Static Display
E Pluribus Unum
Rog:
You are talking about a micro-view of majority rule.
Rick and USMC are talking about the Macro view. The view where the formalized, legal-rules of conduct for the nation (Laws) are indeed created by the majority. In a Representative Democracy such as ours, then the views and/or beliefs of the majority are supposed to be reflected by the votes of our representatives.
What Rick and USMC are saying---and I agree--is that too often in the last 20 years, votes have been cast by those representatives that do not represent the intent of the constituents. Rather, they often reflect a (noisy) numerical minority that has a majority of political power and influence. Usually, that political power is due to money (ie, campaign contributions; promise of lucrative contracts in their district, follow-on jobs), or troublesome groups that will employ highly-paid lawyers. Political Action Committees, Special-Interest Groups, you name it. The Squeaky-wheels keep getting the grease.
The lawyers can often get the courts to agree with their petition from a purely Constituional perspective, but if examined from a "Did the Founding Fathers really intend this when they created the Constitution?" perspective, the answer would be a resounding "no."
The Constitution is a surprisingly well-written document and has palpable modern-day connectivity and relevance, even nearly 250 years after it was written. But it is not air-tight; it has some loopholes.
And they are exploited.
In theory, the majority should be able to add to the Constitution through Amendments.
So yes...majority should rule. But right now, I think we are ruled by the 1%.
You are talking about a micro-view of majority rule.
Rick and USMC are talking about the Macro view. The view where the formalized, legal-rules of conduct for the nation (Laws) are indeed created by the majority. In a Representative Democracy such as ours, then the views and/or beliefs of the majority are supposed to be reflected by the votes of our representatives.
What Rick and USMC are saying---and I agree--is that too often in the last 20 years, votes have been cast by those representatives that do not represent the intent of the constituents. Rather, they often reflect a (noisy) numerical minority that has a majority of political power and influence. Usually, that political power is due to money (ie, campaign contributions; promise of lucrative contracts in their district, follow-on jobs), or troublesome groups that will employ highly-paid lawyers. Political Action Committees, Special-Interest Groups, you name it. The Squeaky-wheels keep getting the grease.
The lawyers can often get the courts to agree with their petition from a purely Constituional perspective, but if examined from a "Did the Founding Fathers really intend this when they created the Constitution?" perspective, the answer would be a resounding "no."
The Constitution is a surprisingly well-written document and has palpable modern-day connectivity and relevance, even nearly 250 years after it was written. But it is not air-tight; it has some loopholes.
And they are exploited.
In theory, the majority should be able to add to the Constitution through Amendments.
So yes...majority should rule. But right now, I think we are ruled by the 1%.
12-29-2013 | 02:56 PM
#64
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Way to generalize (wrongly I might add). Google "William Wilberforce" (1759-1833) and you will find someone who understood the idea of absolute right/wrong and hated slavery because it is inherently wrong. Google "Northern abolition" and you will find out that half the US got this and between 1810-1840 practically all African Americans in the North were freed. The Declaration of Independence states "all men are created equal" and contains references to "God" and "Creator"--is this document unconstitutional? Your generalization would be more accurate if you turned it around and said "the minority of the population wants to own slaves, why don't the majority of us just mind our own business and not say anything about it. We wouldn't want to infringe on their supposed rights." Guess what, the right to own slaves doesn't exist, just like your supposed right to be free from hearing/seeing religious expression.
[B]The Declaration of Independence pre-dated the Constitution, so technically it couldn't be Un-Constitutional
. In my opinion, TJ probably used wording "God, Creator" for affect, I don't think he actually believed in God.
I think it's more telling that after the winning the war, and sitting down to write up the Constitution, they left those words out of the carefully crafted document.
"No Right to Freedom From Religion" argument. I'll admit I haven't thought this one through as much. I know Hannity likes to throw it out whenever he's losing the debate with an Atheist, but I need to hear others explain their take. If you walk into a Starbucks and it's plaster in "Merry Christmas", you can be "offended" but I don't see a Constitutional violation. Same if you go to a tattoo parlor and see Satanic images. But if you go to the Public Library and see a Islamic/Christian/Hindu/etc shrine, I think you've got a Constitutional violation on your hands (with a good "offended" feel to boot).[B
I couldn't find an instance where caroling was banned in a restaurant--not that it matters. You really don't grasp what the Constitution is saying--what about Congress singing "God Bless America" on the steps of the Capitol (multiple times)? Is that unconstitutional? You can sing Christmas carols or songs that reference God anywhere you want, the government just can't establish a RELIGION. Think about it this way: some people don't like to hear others curse, but you don't see them trying to make cursing outside of your own home/"backyard" illegal. If that doesn't make sense, think about the freedoms of religion and speech. People don't check who they are at the doors of a "government" building because it is a "religion-free" zone. That's absurd. Our freedoms guarantee our right to say what we want to (even if it offends someone else), when we want to. How can you not understand that?
[B]The Declaration of Independence pre-dated the Constitution, so technically it couldn't be Un-Constitutional
. In my opinion, TJ probably used wording "God, Creator" for affect, I don't think he actually believed in God.I think it's more telling that after the winning the war, and sitting down to write up the Constitution, they left those words out of the carefully crafted document.
"No Right to Freedom From Religion" argument. I'll admit I haven't thought this one through as much. I know Hannity likes to throw it out whenever he's losing the debate with an Atheist, but I need to hear others explain their take. If you walk into a Starbucks and it's plaster in "Merry Christmas", you can be "offended" but I don't see a Constitutional violation. Same if you go to a tattoo parlor and see Satanic images. But if you go to the Public Library and see a Islamic/Christian/Hindu/etc shrine, I think you've got a Constitutional violation on your hands (with a good "offended" feel to boot).[B
I couldn't find an instance where caroling was banned in a restaurant--not that it matters. You really don't grasp what the Constitution is saying--what about Congress singing "God Bless America" on the steps of the Capitol (multiple times)? Is that unconstitutional? You can sing Christmas carols or songs that reference God anywhere you want, the government just can't establish a RELIGION. Think about it this way: some people don't like to hear others curse, but you don't see them trying to make cursing outside of your own home/"backyard" illegal. If that doesn't make sense, think about the freedoms of religion and speech. People don't check who they are at the doors of a "government" building because it is a "religion-free" zone. That's absurd. Our freedoms guarantee our right to say what we want to (even if it offends someone else), when we want to. How can you not understand that?
Can he erect a shrine to Zeus and slaughter sacrificial goats at the Staff meeting? That is his religious Right, right? No, I think he has to "check that at the door".....
12-29-2013 | 03:29 PM
#65
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Rog:
You are talking about a micro-view of majority rule.
Rick and USMC are talking about the Macro view. The view where the formalized, legal-rules of conduct for the nation (Laws) are indeed created by the majority. In a Representative Democracy such as ours, then the views and/or beliefs of the majority are supposed to be reflected by the votes of our representatives.
What Rick and USMC are saying---and I agree--is that too often in the last 20 years, votes have been cast by those representatives that do not represent the intent of the constituents. Rather, they often reflect a (noisy) numerical minority that has a majority of political power and influence. Usually, that political power is due to money (ie, campaign contributions; promise of lucrative contracts in their district, follow-on jobs), or troublesome groups that will employ highly-paid lawyers. Political Action Committees, Special-Interest Groups, you name it. The Squeaky-wheels keep getting the grease.
The lawyers can often get the courts to agree with their petition from a purely Constituional perspective, but if examined from a "Did the Founding Fathers really intend this when they created the Constitution?" perspective, the answer would be a resounding "no."
The Constitution is a surprisingly well-written document and has palpable modern-day connectivity and relevance, even nearly 250 years after it was written. But it is not air-tight; it has some loopholes.
And they are exploited.
In theory, the majority should be able to add to the Constitution through Amendments.
So yes...majority should rule. But right now, I think we are ruled by the 1%.
You are talking about a micro-view of majority rule.
Rick and USMC are talking about the Macro view. The view where the formalized, legal-rules of conduct for the nation (Laws) are indeed created by the majority. In a Representative Democracy such as ours, then the views and/or beliefs of the majority are supposed to be reflected by the votes of our representatives.
What Rick and USMC are saying---and I agree--is that too often in the last 20 years, votes have been cast by those representatives that do not represent the intent of the constituents. Rather, they often reflect a (noisy) numerical minority that has a majority of political power and influence. Usually, that political power is due to money (ie, campaign contributions; promise of lucrative contracts in their district, follow-on jobs), or troublesome groups that will employ highly-paid lawyers. Political Action Committees, Special-Interest Groups, you name it. The Squeaky-wheels keep getting the grease.
The lawyers can often get the courts to agree with their petition from a purely Constituional perspective, but if examined from a "Did the Founding Fathers really intend this when they created the Constitution?" perspective, the answer would be a resounding "no."
The Constitution is a surprisingly well-written document and has palpable modern-day connectivity and relevance, even nearly 250 years after it was written. But it is not air-tight; it has some loopholes.
And they are exploited.
In theory, the majority should be able to add to the Constitution through Amendments.
So yes...majority should rule. But right now, I think we are ruled by the 1%.
All good points. I focused on the micro level because that's where most of the interest is. "All politics is local"- Tip O'neill. Some of my examples have no impact at the macro level, but they matter a lot to the locals that are dealing with them, i.e. how the local citizenry interprets their Rights, and also stepping back and asking, "How would the Founding Fathers have settled this local issue". All good debate stuff.
12-29-2013 | 04:23 PM
#66
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
I do so love this discussion! I think that both sides have excellent points--Rog--nice job concisely explaining that side of the argument--I slightly disagree with your conclusion (but not by much) . The issue isn't about Freedom of Religion or Expression in our country--everyone on all sides of the argument completely agrees in principle with these sentiments--the actual fuzzyness of where the lines are will be endlessly debated for all times--as long as we are able to have the debate--that is a good thing!! My opinion is that from the initial colonists (English and Dutch Protestant separatists) to the founding Fathers (60+% Christian, 30+% Deist to a God that looks like the God of Jesus), to the modern times--Christianity has always had a special place in the traditions of our country. What is being challenged these days is not the freedom of Religion (Particularly Christian Religion) or the exercise thereof--but the notion that Christianity should have that special place in our country. Other belief systems--largely due to the expansion of multiculturalism and in the quest for diversity have allowed other beliefs to ask for the same rights and privileges that Christian have had for 200 years. To me this is the essence of the debate--should this expansion be accepted and celebrated (and the resulting loss of special status for Christianity) or should it not? What I specifically have not mentioned, and will now just to further stoke the fire--Is is that special relationship one of the main things that have made our country great? Will the changing of that relationship diminish our status in some way due to different moral codes and alternate guiding principles...And my favorite--has the recent (40 yrs)expansion of Islamic Nationalism resulted in a similar expansion of Christian Nationalism--that is making this debate more wedge like that it ever has been...
I think you are spot on with your analysis.
I'd be interested to hear your answers to the questions you posted.
12-29-2013 | 04:49 PM
#67
Line Holder
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 454
Likes: 1
From: B717 CA
Are you saying the Squadron Commander, in his official capacity, has the Right to lead the squadron in Prayer? What about an Islamic Prayer? Satanic?
Can he erect a shrine to Zeus and slaughter sacrificial goats at the Staff meeting? That is his religious Right, right? No, I think he has to "check that at the door".....
Can he erect a shrine to Zeus and slaughter sacrificial goats at the Staff meeting? That is his religious Right, right? No, I think he has to "check that at the door".....
12-29-2013 | 05:08 PM
#68
Line Holder
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 535
Likes: 22
From: 756 left...
Disagreeing with another's expression do not impinge on their freedom. People disagree with one another all the time. What this is and has always been about is the first party expressing themselves and then not wanting to be held accountable for the consequences of said expression.
I'm guessing from your avatar that you are current or former USAF. Consider the following: if you chose to make some sort of speech considered repugnant or hateful while still serving, do you not think that your superiors would censure you for doing so? You were free to express yourself but not free to avoid the consequence. (All hypothetical, of course...I'm sure you're a person of good character; I was just making an example.) It is important to remember that with freedom comes responsibility.
I'm guessing from your avatar that you are current or former USAF. Consider the following: if you chose to make some sort of speech considered repugnant or hateful while still serving, do you not think that your superiors would censure you for doing so? You were free to express yourself but not free to avoid the consequence. (All hypothetical, of course...I'm sure you're a person of good character; I was just making an example.) It is important to remember that with freedom comes responsibility.
Who determines what is repugnant or hateful regarding speech? All I hear is tolerance for the minority view, but when it comes to majority view it's labeled as either racist or hate speech, it's getting quite old! I see a change in momentum in this country back toward rational thought.
12-30-2013 | 05:38 AM
#69
Line Holder
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
From: A320 Right Seat
Who determines what is repugnant or hateful regarding speech? All I hear is tolerance for the minority view, but when it comes to majority view it's labeled as either racist or hate speech, it's getting quite old! I see a change in momentum in this country back toward rational thought.
12-30-2013 | 07:01 AM
#70
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 880
Likes: 0
From: Airbus 319/320 Captain
I don't want to turn this thread into a debate about the Bible, so we can either start a new thread, PM, or drop it because no one is going to change someone else's mind about this subject. Suffice it to say that my opinion is that the Bible is a historical document that recorded what happened historically without necessarily "condoning" it (polygamy, slavery, adultery, etc.). If you read the Bible in context you will find that the "slave" is our brother, an equal in the eyes of God, and whoever sins by mistreating the slave, orphan, widow, foreigner, etc. will face God's judgment. God allows us to make our own choices without "condoning" the sins we choose. That's all I have to say about that.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
