One of the common retorts I get when I argue politics is the old democracy is 9 people voting to hang the 10th person. To which I usually reply that’s why we have a republic here, not a democracy.
A thought has been rolling around in my head recently. The 9 against the 10th does hold a lesson we can learn from. Against 9 people, the 10th person truly doesn’t have a chance. But what about 4 against 1 or even 2 against one. The odds of him escaping a possibly unjust punishment increase pretty dramatically. It helps even more if one of those 2 people are from the same area and understand the culture and ideas of the tenth person.
Let’s take that to a much larger arena. Let’s look at an example in which 10 states vote on an issue. Nine states want a piece of legislation that completely goes against anything the tenth state wants, or even stands for. However, in this example, the tenth state is completely and absolutely screwed. Forget the fact that the new law they have to enforce goes against anything they stand for. It’s federal law after all.
Not exactly fair is it?
It’s rather like today’s model of government. The federal government has become so large, and gathered so much power, that it can, and often does, completely enforce a policy that not only offends the sensibilities of the residents, but isn’t appropriate for the states.
Take, for example, the movement to restrict religion in the classroom. Let’s forget that Christianity has been a bedrock of American culture for over 200 years. We’re just looking, objectively of course, at the idea of allowing any form of religion in any aspect of school.
There is a vast diversity of social and religious opinions in America. They differ from state to state, which is probably something that I’m being redundant on. The point is that schools in Utah generally have a different view than schools in New York. Utes may want a certain amount of religion in schools, where New Yorkers don’t.
Why then should Utah be forced to adopt the practices and, by definition, the views of New York? That form of enforced atheism may be something that sickens them. Where’s the justice in that?
Let’s imagine this. Suppose you didn’t have so much power in the federal government. Let’s say the power to make those decisions lay at the state level and not the federal level. Now that pool of opposition that Utah has has been reduced. They no longer have to battle against 49 other states to keep their own identity. Isn’t that what we were created as? Separate entities united for common defense? United States in America? Odd how clear cut a name can be.
This national identity is a relatively new phenomenon, if you can call the Civil War “new”. Prior to that, you weren’t American, you were a Virginian, a New Yorker, etc…
Many people I talk to are sick of politics. When I ask then, it’s not a question of expressing opinion, it’s a question of effectiveness. Why voice your thoughts, when they don’t make a difference. After all, aren’t I just one voice among 300,000,000?
So, ask yourself, how about evening the odds a little? What if you are one out of 3,000,000? Yes, still small, but infinitely more influential than you were before. Cut it even more, maybe to the city or town level and you are now one voice among a thousand or two. Your odds are getting even better.
I won’t promise you that you can change the future of your nations by yourself, but with better odd, you will have a better chance.
God Bless.
The reason we have separation of church and state, and indeed the reason we DON’T have school prayer, is precisely because of that tenth person you’re talking about.
What we’re talking about is the one Jewish child who attends a public school in a town where the population is 99% Christian. He would be the one who would be forced to attend what amounts to a Christian worship service every morning just because his religious beliefs happen to put him in a numerical minority. Just because he happens to live in Utah?
Comment by Bill Smith — August 25, 2011 @ 01:15 |
Consider this. Is the enforcement of no religion basically the enforcement of atheism?
The short answer is that government should have no say whatsoever in the establishment of religion, the fact that it almost has to enforce it in schools they fund is simply an indication that they have become entirely too big.
I feel for the Jewish kid having to listen to the horrors of Christian prayer every morning for the rest of his young school career, after all, it’s not like he’s worshiping the same God. Oh wait, he is.
This is where PC is taken to the extreme level. We have one, or a small minority, of a group who disagrees. Instead of following a natural inclination to “suck it up kid”, we bend over backwards to accommodate them, which happens to hamstring the majority.
It’s actually a pretty mental situation if you think about it. As Americans, the majority votes every election to get screwed.
I do find it telling that there is a sensitivity when it comes to Muslim call to prayers which is lacking when it comes to ringing the church bell of the Christian faith.
Comment by michaeljlockwood — August 25, 2011 @ 02:14 |
“Consider this. Is the enforcement of no religion basically the enforcement of atheism?”
No, it isn’t.
I’ll put it this way: I have a secretary who happens to be a Fundimentalist Protestant (i. e. a Christian). She is very religious. She regularly wears a cross to work, I have seen her carry around a pocket-sized bible with her, and I know she attends church regularly. Her religous beliefs and practices do not interfere in her work and she does not prostelatize on the job.
At my office, my policy concerning the religion of my employees is simple: I don’t care. All I care about is someone’s work. Of course, I do not try and lead my staff in prayer every morning.
Does the fact that I don’t lead my staff in prayer every morning mean that I “enforce athism”? Of course not. It simply means that I consider my employees’ religon to be their business and not mine.
Similarly, the fact that a school doesn’t lead all the students (including the tenth one) in prayer every morning doesn’t mean they’re “enforcing athism.” It simply means they’re staying out of it.
“I feel for the Jewish kid having to listen to the horrors of Christian prayer every morning for the rest of his young school career, after all, it’s not like he’s worshiping the same God. Oh wait, he is.”
The Jewish kid does not worship “the father, the son, and the holy spirit,” because to him that’s polytheism. So too with the Muslim kid. But you’re getting pedantic: it could just as easily be a Buddhist kid. Or, more problematically, a Christian kid who actually takes Matthew 6:5-6 seriously. Now we have both an establishment problem and a free exercise problem.
“This is where PC is taken to the extreme level. We have one, or a small minority, of a group who disagrees. Instead of following a natural inclination to “suck it up kid”, we bend over backwards to accommodate them, which happens to hamstring the majority.”
How about telling the school district to “suck it up” and comply with the establishment clause. I mean, isn’t your entire blog entry about how horrible it is when the majority imposes its will on the minority? Isn’t it about how we’re not a pure “democracy,” but, instead, a Constitutional republic? Isn’t it about how a majority, no matter how large, shouldn’t be able to violate fundimental constitutional rights?
Comment by Bill Smith — August 25, 2011 @ 03:12 |
There is a large difference between you, as a private company, and the schools, which are nominally government run. Which is a different issue all together.
Let’s put it this way, Atheism itself is a religion. It’s a deeply held belief that there is no God. I disagree with it, but it is what it is. The paradox is that, in order to satisfy one religion, they have to enforce another.
Which makes the idea of state run schools such a bad idea.
But we’re getting off topic here. This is simply an example of why putting such a sensitive issue at the national level is a bad idea.
Comment by michaeljlockwood — August 25, 2011 @ 14:43 |
“There is a large difference between you, as a private company, and the schools, which are nominally government run.”
Yes there is. The difference is that the government has to comply with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and I don’t (although there are certain state employment discrimination statutes that might apply). But my point is that there is an important difference between my choice not to lead my staff in prayer every morning, and me requiring everybody to be atheists.
“Let’s put it this way, Atheism itself is a religion. It’s a deeply held belief that there is no God. I disagree with it, but it is what it is. The paradox is that, in order to satisfy one religion, they have to enforce another.”
Actually “Athiesm” usually refers to a much broader category of beliefs than “a deeply held belief that there is no God,” but that’s not particularly important to this discussion. Suffice it to say that whether Athiesm can properly be categorized as a religion depends on which specific flavor of Athism you’re talking about.
If schools were requiring students to engage in a ritual every morning in which they are required to express “a deeply held belief that there is no God,” then you would have a legitimate point. But what the establishment clause of the First Amendment requires of schools, instead, is that they leave it to each individual student to practice their religion on their own initiative (provided it doesn’t interfere with classes). Just like I do with my employees.
“This is simply an example of why putting such a sensitive issue at the national level is a bad idea.”
It’s also an example of why putting such a sensitive issue at the STATE level is a bad idea. And it’s an example of why putting such a sensitive issue at the LOCAL level is a bad idea. The issue should be put at the INDIVIDUAL level (i.e. it should be up to each student to practice, or not practice, their own religion on their own initiative). That is what the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment requires. The alternative, not to put too fine a point on it, is Iran.
Comment by Bill Smith — August 25, 2011 @ 22:13 |