On 15 Nov 2004 22:37:16 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

IF the majority of a particular
town or community are of a certain religion, that they be allowed to
celebrate their religious traditions IN PUBLIC, without having to deal
with a few minorities who can't seem to exercise the same principle of
tolerance, that they want applied to them.

We absolutely agree on this item. When a religious group wants to preach or
proselytize, they should be allowed to have a reasonable number of props on
display during the time they are actively preaching or proselytizing. Take Xmas
Decs, for example. This is always a contentious issue. I believe that Christian
groups who want to preach about a Virgin birth, etc etc, are absolutely
entitled to do so- and in public. While preaching, handing out tracts,
conducting a public prayer session, or what not in a public place such as a
city park, it could be appropriate to have plywood cutouts of angels, camels,
shepherds, etc on hand to "set the stage".
It is not appropriate to store these religious artifacts in public space or at
public expense between prayer sessions or speeches.

Why not? It's part of the traditional decorations of the season.

It is not appropriate for
the city to condone a passive display of these items outside the active
exercise of free speech. It is not appropriate for the common purse of the
entire community to pay for religious icons for one particular sect or faith,
regardless of the number of adherents that faith might claim in the community.


Once again, if that's what the majority of the people want, they
should be allowed to do it.


I'm not a bible scholar. Trying to "interpret" what Christ was
"actually" saying is akin to trying to figure out which side of an
issue John Kerry was on at any given time. I'll leave that circular
and endless debate to those who have nothing else to accomplish.


Does your minister know that you consider Jesus as much a flip-flopper as John
Kerry? :-)

I don't have a "minister".


That was the wind-up, and here's the pitch:

If the teachings of Jesus are open to interpretation rather than absolute, how
can *any* nation, even one you fantasize to be a "Christian" nation, hope to
use those teachings as a foundation for secular law? Shouldn't the law exist
independently from any specific religious teaching, (Christian, Jewish, Muslim,
Hindu, Pagan, Wiccan, etc) and leave the spiritual aspects of life up to
individual conscience and interpretation?

Our laws are loosely based on the laws of God as stated in the 10
commandments. Laws in general are based on a consensus of the majority
of a given society as to what is considered "moral" and "just".


How can we create laws and social structures based on Christian teachings, even
in a "Christian nation", when Christians have been killing one another almost
unceasingly for the last 2000 years over disagreements about what the teachings
of Jesus actually meant?

I know of no recent systemic cases of this


Even if 70, 80, 90, or even 99% of the people agree on a specific religious
interpratation, there's no reason to write that interpretation into the law.

I'd say that an overwhelming vote of agreement would be a mandate to
do exactly that.


Society will observe that premise, (whether it is that each student should
begin the school day by reciting the Lord's Prayer, or that no woman should
seek abortion for any reason, or that same sex persons should not couple), in
*exactly* the same proportion as percentage of people who hold that view.
Mission accomplished.

That's the beauty and simplicity of majority rule. It's logical to
satisfy the needs of the majority, over that of the minority. A
compassionate society will try to accommodate the minority as much as
it can within the limits of not universally overturning the desires of
the majority. But it makes no logical sense that the minority should
be able to override the wishes of the majority.

Dave

Our laws are loosely based on the laws of God as stated in the 10
commandments.

Pop!

(Sound of bubble bursting)

Do a google search on Hammurabi. Note the date of the first codified laws.


I know of no recent systemic cases of this


Google up Belfast.


But it makes no logical sense that the minority should
be able to override the wishes of the majority.

Dave

Or that the majority can disregard the Constitution or deprive even the tiniest
minority of individual rights guaranteed therein.