| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Fester" |
| Date: |
16 Mar 2006 06:39:49 AM |
| Object: |
Democracy does *not* mean equality of outcomes |
Repeatedly I've been reading complaints about atheists being 2nd class
citizens because our national gov lacks atheist representation. The
idea behind democracy (and the US is a constitutional, representative
democracy) is that the majority decides who make the laws. As atheists
we are citizens who participate fully in the process. That is what is
meant by full citizenship. That participation does *not* imply that we
are entitled to any outcome, including having an atheist Congressman.
The dissatisfaction with our process is not limited to atheists. We
see pols attempt to redistrict or gerrymander constituencies into safe
districts for this or that minority. This is a corruption of our system
and should not be tolerated by atheists or any other American. Imagine,
for the sake of discussion, a congressional district that transcended
state boundaries and included only those residences that were occupied
atheists. We would then be able to have our atheist representative, but
democracy would not be served. Representation in this country is
designed to be based upon geographic lines, not ideology or special
interests. We are entitled to run, participate and to speak, but we are
not entitled to win any elections. To do that, since we are a small
minority, we must convince others of the correctness of our causes.
That, and the same protections provided to all Americans by our
Constitution, is our entitlement.
.
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Democracy does *not* mean equality of outcomes |
16 Mar 2006 01:16:44 PM |
|
|
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:p0dSf.72452$no3.61722@tornado.southeast.rr.com...
Repeatedly I've been reading complaints about atheists being 2nd class
citizens because our national gov lacks atheist representation. The idea
behind democracy (and the US is a constitutional, representative
democracy) is that the majority decides who make the laws. As atheists we
are citizens who participate fully in the process.
Odd how other citizens actually get to be politicians, and we don't.
Seems we DON'T get to fully participate.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: Democracy does *not* mean equality of outcomes |
16 Mar 2006 04:42:02 PM |
|
|
Denis Loubet wrote:
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:p0dSf.72452$no3.61722@tornado.southeast.rr.com...
Repeatedly I've been reading complaints about atheists being 2nd class
citizens because our national gov lacks atheist representation. The idea
behind democracy (and the US is a constitutional, representative
democracy) is that the majority decides who make the laws. As atheists we
are citizens who participate fully in the process.
Odd how other citizens actually get to be politicians, and we don't.
Seems we DON'T get to fully participate.
Of we course we get to participate fully. I have never been required to
sit a a segregated lunch counter, or had my ***** violated, or been
denied employment or housing or any other thing because I'm an atheist.
My vote counts the same as everyone else, and I am free to run for
office just like anyone else.
But let's follow your ridiculous logic a little further. Do
Scientologists deserve to have representation reserved just for them?
We don't want them to be 2nd class citizens, do wee? How about school
teachers or 18 to 30 year-olds? Why don't we rewrite our system of
government and designate that every demographic have their very own
representative? We'll slice the pie a million ways, because if
Rottweiller owners or cotton-pickers don't each have their own
representative they are doomed to be 2nd class citizens.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Democracy does *not* mean equality of outcomes |
16 Mar 2006 07:24:09 PM |
|
|
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:_QlSf.72493$no3.26663@tornado.southeast.rr.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:p0dSf.72452$no3.61722@tornado.southeast.rr.com...
Repeatedly I've been reading complaints about atheists being 2nd class
citizens because our national gov lacks atheist representation. The
idea behind democracy (and the US is a constitutional, representative
democracy) is that the majority decides who make the laws. As atheists
we are citizens who participate fully in the process.
Odd how other citizens actually get to be politicians, and we don't.
Seems we DON'T get to fully participate.
Of we course we get to participate fully. I have never been required to
sit a a segregated lunch counter, or had my ***** violated, or been denied
employment or housing or any other thing because I'm an atheist.
Are you certain it's not because you can hide your lack of god belief better
than an african american can hide his skin or a woman can hide her gender?
My vote counts the same as everyone else, and I am free to run for office
just like anyone else.
But you'll never be elected as an avowed atheist. You would fail the
de-facto religious test for holding office.
But let's follow your ridiculous logic a little further. Do
Scientologists deserve to have representation reserved just for them?
Depends, does a Scientiologist stand a chance if he runs for office? Sure,
don't see why not.
We don't want them to be 2nd class citizens, do wee? How about school
teachers or 18 to 30 year-olds?
I imagine there ARE 30 year olds and school teachers holding office. What
has this got to do with anything?
Why don't we rewrite our system of government and designate that every
demographic have their very own representative? We'll slice the pie a
million ways, because if Rottweiller owners or cotton-pickers don't each
have their own representative they are doomed to be 2nd class citizens.
Guess what, I imagine that they wouldn't have any problems getting elected
and participating fully in our government.
Your analogies are all invalid because the groups you mention would have no
problem getting elected. The reason they wouldn't have any problem getting
elected is that they have not been the target of deliberate and coordinated
religious slander for the last 2000 years.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: Democracy does *not* mean equality of outcomes |
17 Mar 2006 04:23:54 AM |
|
|
Denis Loubet wrote:
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:_QlSf.72493$no3.26663@tornado.southeast.rr.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:p0dSf.72452$no3.61722@tornado.southeast.rr.com...
Repeatedly I've been reading complaints about atheists being 2nd class
citizens because our national gov lacks atheist representation. The
idea behind democracy (and the US is a constitutional, representative
democracy) is that the majority decides who make the laws. As atheists
we are citizens who participate fully in the process.
Odd how other citizens actually get to be politicians, and we don't.
Seems we DON'T get to fully participate.
Of we course we get to participate fully. I have never been required to
sit a a segregated lunch counter, or had my ***** violated, or been denied
employment or housing or any other thing because I'm an atheist.
Are you certain it's not because you can hide your lack of god belief better
than an african american can hide his skin or a woman can hide her gender?
Yes I'm certain, because the laws says so!
My vote counts the same as everyone else, and I am free to run for office
just like anyone else.
But you'll never be elected as an avowed atheist. You would fail the
de-facto religious test for holding office.
That's democracy in action. I am no less a citizen just because I'm not
popular. You are unable to distinguish between the bias of our
citizenry and the the law. As a citizen, I am protected from people's
bias in employment, hiring, etc. I am not entitled to have people like me.
But let's follow your ridiculous logic a little further. Do
Scientologists deserve to have representation reserved just for them?
Depends, does a Scientiologist stand a chance if he runs for office? Sure,
don't see why not.
We don't want them to be 2nd class citizens, do wee? How about school
teachers or 18 to 30 year-olds?
I imagine there ARE 30 year olds and school teachers holding office. What
has this got to do with anything?
Why don't we rewrite our system of government and designate that every
demographic have their very own representative? We'll slice the pie a
million ways, because if Rottweiller owners or cotton-pickers don't each
have their own representative they are doomed to be 2nd class citizens.
Guess what, I imagine that they wouldn't have any problems getting elected
and participating fully in our government.
Your analogies are all invalid because the groups you mention would have no
problem getting elected. The reason they wouldn't have any problem getting
elected is that they have not been the target of deliberate and coordinated
religious slander for the last 2000 years.
Your ability to miss the simplest of points is quite impressive. I
don't mention this because they couldn't get elected, but according to
you a certain number of each of these groups *must* get elected or
they're all less than citizens. That is nonsense. Nothing about
citizenship requires that we be liked. If I wore some identifying
symbol 24/7 showing that I was an atheist it would be no different. The
law would require that I receive equal treatment. Equal treatment means
that I can run for office, not that I get elected. And, BTW, part of
the reason why atheists are unpopular is because so many, like you, are
both anti-religious and insistent on antagonizing the majority of people
who are by making a big ***** out of trivial issues like the pledge, etc.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Democracy does *not* mean equality of outcomes |
17 Mar 2006 01:53:39 PM |
|
|
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:_6wSf.66361$%84.41815@tornado.southeast.rr.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:_QlSf.72493$no3.26663@tornado.southeast.rr.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:p0dSf.72452$no3.61722@tornado.southeast.rr.com...
Repeatedly I've been reading complaints about atheists being 2nd class
citizens because our national gov lacks atheist representation. The
idea behind democracy (and the US is a constitutional, representative
democracy) is that the majority decides who make the laws. As atheists
we are citizens who participate fully in the process.
Odd how other citizens actually get to be politicians, and we don't.
Seems we DON'T get to fully participate.
Of we course we get to participate fully. I have never been required to
sit a a segregated lunch counter, or had my ***** violated, or been denied
employment or housing or any other thing because I'm an atheist.
Are you certain it's not because you can hide your lack of god belief
better than an african american can hide his skin or a woman can hide her
gender?
Yes I'm certain, because the laws says so!
Tell that to the african americans, they'll be so relieved.
My vote counts the same as everyone else, and I am free to run for
office just like anyone else.
But you'll never be elected as an avowed atheist. You would fail the
de-facto religious test for holding office.
That's democracy in action. I am no less a citizen just because I'm not
popular. You are unable to distinguish between the bias of our citizenry
and the the law. As a citizen, I am protected from people's bias in
employment, hiring, etc. I am not entitled to have people like me.
Tell that to the african americans, they'll be so relieved.
But let's follow your ridiculous logic a little further. Do
Scientologists deserve to have representation reserved just for them?
Depends, does a Scientiologist stand a chance if he runs for office?
Sure, don't see why not.
We don't want them to be 2nd class citizens, do wee? How about school
teachers or 18 to 30 year-olds?
I imagine there ARE 30 year olds and school teachers holding office. What
has this got to do with anything?
Why don't we rewrite our system of government and designate that every
demographic have their very own representative? We'll slice the pie a
million ways, because if Rottweiller owners or cotton-pickers don't each
have their own representative they are doomed to be 2nd class citizens.
Guess what, I imagine that they wouldn't have any problems getting
elected and participating fully in our government.
Your analogies are all invalid because the groups you mention would have
no problem getting elected. The reason they wouldn't have any problem
getting elected is that they have not been the target of deliberate and
coordinated religious slander for the last 2000 years.
Your ability to miss the simplest of points is quite impressive. I don't
mention this because they couldn't get elected, but according to you a
certain number of each of these groups *must* get elected or they're all
less than citizens. That is nonsense. Nothing about citizenship requires
that we be liked. If I wore some identifying symbol 24/7 showing that I
was an atheist it would be no different. The law would require that I
receive equal treatment. Equal treatment means that I can run for office,
not that I get elected. And, BTW, part of the reason why atheists are
unpopular is because so many, like you, are both anti-religious and
insistent on antagonizing the majority of people who are by making a big
***** out of trivial issues like the pledge, etc.
Well! Now that equal rights laws are in place, there's no discrimination any
more!
Nice fantasy land you live in.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: Democracy does *not* mean equality of outcomes |
17 Mar 2006 03:57:26 PM |
|
|
Denis Loubet wrote:
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:_6wSf.66361$%84.41815@tornado.southeast.rr.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:_QlSf.72493$no3.26663@tornado.southeast.rr.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:p0dSf.72452$no3.61722@tornado.southeast.rr.com...
Repeatedly I've been reading complaints about atheists being 2nd class
citizens because our national gov lacks atheist representation. The
idea behind democracy (and the US is a constitutional, representative
democracy) is that the majority decides who make the laws. As atheists
we are citizens who participate fully in the process.
Odd how other citizens actually get to be politicians, and we don't.
Seems we DON'T get to fully participate.
Of we course we get to participate fully. I have never been required to
sit a a segregated lunch counter, or had my ***** violated, or been denied
employment or housing or any other thing because I'm an atheist.
Are you certain it's not because you can hide your lack of god belief
better than an african american can hide his skin or a woman can hide her
gender?
Yes I'm certain, because the laws says so!
Tell that to the african americans, they'll be so relieved.
My vote counts the same as everyone else, and I am free to run for
office just like anyone else.
But you'll never be elected as an avowed atheist. You would fail the
de-facto religious test for holding office.
That's democracy in action. I am no less a citizen just because I'm not
popular. You are unable to distinguish between the bias of our citizenry
and the the law. As a citizen, I am protected from people's bias in
employment, hiring, etc. I am not entitled to have people like me.
Tell that to the african americans, they'll be so relieved.
Which African Americans are you referring to? The institutional
atrocities of our historical past have been remedied.
But let's follow your ridiculous logic a little further. Do
Scientologists deserve to have representation reserved just for them?
Depends, does a Scientiologist stand a chance if he runs for office?
Sure, don't see why not.
We don't want them to be 2nd class citizens, do wee? How about school
teachers or 18 to 30 year-olds?
I imagine there ARE 30 year olds and school teachers holding office. What
has this got to do with anything?
Why don't we rewrite our system of government and designate that every
demographic have their very own representative? We'll slice the pie a
million ways, because if Rottweiller owners or cotton-pickers don't each
have their own representative they are doomed to be 2nd class citizens.
Guess what, I imagine that they wouldn't have any problems getting
elected and participating fully in our government.
Your analogies are all invalid because the groups you mention would have
no problem getting elected. The reason they wouldn't have any problem
getting elected is that they have not been the target of deliberate and
coordinated religious slander for the last 2000 years.
Your ability to miss the simplest of points is quite impressive. I don't
mention this because they couldn't get elected, but according to you a
certain number of each of these groups *must* get elected or they're all
less than citizens. That is nonsense. Nothing about citizenship requires
that we be liked. If I wore some identifying symbol 24/7 showing that I
was an atheist it would be no different. The law would require that I
receive equal treatment. Equal treatment means that I can run for office,
not that I get elected. And, BTW, part of the reason why atheists are
unpopular is because so many, like you, are both anti-religious and
insistent on antagonizing the majority of people who are by making a big
***** out of trivial issues like the pledge, etc.
Well! Now that equal rights laws are in place, there's no discrimination any
more!
Nice fantasy land you live in.
No, that's your hyperbolic assumption. But it isn't the government's
job to cure the country of racism or bigotry or hatred or other forms of
stupidity. It is the government's job only to ensure that all Americans
have equal access to employment, housing, voting and our other
entitlements. Ignorant people will always ostracize or criticize or
abusively speak out against others for the basest of reasons. Too bad.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Democracy does *not* mean equality of outcomes |
17 Mar 2006 06:01:24 PM |
|
|
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:ahGSf.69798$%84.52374@tornado.southeast.rr.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:_6wSf.66361$%84.41815@tornado.southeast.rr.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:_QlSf.72493$no3.26663@tornado.southeast.rr.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:p0dSf.72452$no3.61722@tornado.southeast.rr.com...
Repeatedly I've been reading complaints about atheists being 2nd
class citizens because our national gov lacks atheist representation.
The idea behind democracy (and the US is a constitutional,
representative democracy) is that the majority decides who make the
laws. As atheists we are citizens who participate fully in the
process.
Odd how other citizens actually get to be politicians, and we don't.
Seems we DON'T get to fully participate.
Of we course we get to participate fully. I have never been required
to sit a a segregated lunch counter, or had my ***** violated, or been
denied employment or housing or any other thing because I'm an atheist.
Are you certain it's not because you can hide your lack of god belief
better than an african american can hide his skin or a woman can hide
her gender?
Yes I'm certain, because the laws says so!
Tell that to the african americans, they'll be so relieved.
My vote counts the same as everyone else, and I am free to run for
office just like anyone else.
But you'll never be elected as an avowed atheist. You would fail the
de-facto religious test for holding office.
That's democracy in action. I am no less a citizen just because I'm not
popular. You are unable to distinguish between the bias of our citizenry
and the the law. As a citizen, I am protected from people's bias in
employment, hiring, etc. I am not entitled to have people like me.
Tell that to the african americans, they'll be so relieved.
Which African Americans are you referring to? The institutional
atrocities of our historical past have been remedied.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
I stand aghast at your arrogance and abject ignorance. You actually think
that passing a law solves the problem.
But let's follow your ridiculous logic a little further. Do
Scientologists deserve to have representation reserved just for them?
Depends, does a Scientiologist stand a chance if he runs for office?
Sure, don't see why not.
We don't want them to be 2nd class citizens, do wee? How about school
teachers or 18 to 30 year-olds?
I imagine there ARE 30 year olds and school teachers holding office.
What has this got to do with anything?
Why don't we rewrite our system of government and designate that every
demographic have their very own representative? We'll slice the pie a
million ways, because if Rottweiller owners or cotton-pickers don't
each have their own representative they are doomed to be 2nd class
citizens.
Guess what, I imagine that they wouldn't have any problems getting
elected and participating fully in our government.
Your analogies are all invalid because the groups you mention would have
no problem getting elected. The reason they wouldn't have any problem
getting elected is that they have not been the target of deliberate and
coordinated religious slander for the last 2000 years.
Your ability to miss the simplest of points is quite impressive. I don't
mention this because they couldn't get elected, but according to you a
certain number of each of these groups *must* get elected or they're all
less than citizens. That is nonsense. Nothing about citizenship
requires that we be liked. If I wore some identifying symbol 24/7
showing that I was an atheist it would be no different. The law would
require that I receive equal treatment. Equal treatment means that I can
run for office, not that I get elected. And, BTW, part of the reason why
atheists are unpopular is because so many, like you, are both
anti-religious and insistent on antagonizing the majority of people who
are by making a big ***** out of trivial issues like the pledge, etc.
Well! Now that equal rights laws are in place, there's no discrimination
any more!
Nice fantasy land you live in.
No, that's your hyperbolic assumption. But it isn't the government's job
to cure the country of racism or bigotry or hatred or other forms of
stupidity. It is the government's job only to ensure that all Americans
have equal access to employment, housing, voting and our other
entitlements.
And you see no contradiction in what you just wrote? How the hell do you
ensure equal access without dealing with racism?
Clue: You can't.
Ignorant people will always ostracize or criticize or abusively speak out
against others for the basest of reasons. Too bad.
And hence access is NOT equal.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: Democracy does *not* mean equality of outcomes |
17 Mar 2006 07:11:46 PM |
|
|
Denis Loubet wrote:
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:ahGSf.69798$%84.52374@tornado.southeast.rr.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:_6wSf.66361$%84.41815@tornado.southeast.rr.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:_QlSf.72493$no3.26663@tornado.southeast.rr.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:p0dSf.72452$no3.61722@tornado.southeast.rr.com...
Repeatedly I've been reading complaints about atheists being 2nd
class citizens because our national gov lacks atheist representation.
The idea behind democracy (and the US is a constitutional,
representative democracy) is that the majority decides who make the
laws. As atheists we are citizens who participate fully in the
process.
Odd how other citizens actually get to be politicians, and we don't.
Seems we DON'T get to fully participate.
Of we course we get to participate fully. I have never been required
to sit a a segregated lunch counter, or had my ***** violated, or been
denied employment or housing or any other thing because I'm an atheist.
Are you certain it's not because you can hide your lack of god belief
better than an african american can hide his skin or a woman can hide
her gender?
Yes I'm certain, because the laws says so!
Tell that to the african americans, they'll be so relieved.
My vote counts the same as everyone else, and I am free to run for
office just like anyone else.
But you'll never be elected as an avowed atheist. You would fail the
de-facto religious test for holding office.
That's democracy in action. I am no less a citizen just because I'm not
popular. You are unable to distinguish between the bias of our citizenry
and the the law. As a citizen, I am protected from people's bias in
employment, hiring, etc. I am not entitled to have people like me.
Tell that to the african americans, they'll be so relieved.
Which African Americans are you referring to? The institutional
atrocities of our historical past have been remedied.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
I stand aghast at your arrogance and abject ignorance. You actually think
that passing a law solves the problem.
That depends on what problem you're talking about. Passing a law cannot
enlighten the ignorant. But it can protect them from their actions WRT
to education, employment, housing, voting etc. Sorry, but that's all
the gov can do.
But let's follow your ridiculous logic a little further. Do
Scientologists deserve to have representation reserved just for them?
Depends, does a Scientiologist stand a chance if he runs for office?
Sure, don't see why not.
We don't want them to be 2nd class citizens, do wee? How about school
teachers or 18 to 30 year-olds?
I imagine there ARE 30 year olds and school teachers holding office.
What has this got to do with anything?
Why don't we rewrite our system of government and designate that every
demographic have their very own representative? We'll slice the pie a
million ways, because if Rottweiller owners or cotton-pickers don't
each have their own representative they are doomed to be 2nd class
citizens.
Guess what, I imagine that they wouldn't have any problems getting
elected and participating fully in our government.
Your analogies are all invalid because the groups you mention would have
no problem getting elected. The reason they wouldn't have any problem
getting elected is that they have not been the target of deliberate and
coordinated religious slander for the last 2000 years.
Your ability to miss the simplest of points is quite impressive. I don't
mention this because they couldn't get elected, but according to you a
certain number of each of these groups *must* get elected or they're all
less than citizens. That is nonsense. Nothing about citizenship
requires that we be liked. If I wore some identifying symbol 24/7
showing that I was an atheist it would be no different. The law would
require that I receive equal treatment. Equal treatment means that I can
run for office, not that I get elected. And, BTW, part of the reason why
atheists are unpopular is because so many, like you, are both
anti-religious and insistent on antagonizing the majority of people who
are by making a big ***** out of trivial issues like the pledge, etc.
Well! Now that equal rights laws are in place, there's no discrimination
any more!
Nice fantasy land you live in.
No, that's your hyperbolic assumption. But it isn't the government's job
to cure the country of racism or bigotry or hatred or other forms of
stupidity. It is the government's job only to ensure that all Americans
have equal access to employment, housing, voting and our other
entitlements.
And you see no contradiction in what you just wrote? How the hell do you
ensure equal access without dealing with racism?
Clue: You can't.
By punishing those who act on their racism to deny people their rights.
No contradiction.
Ignorant people will always ostracize or criticize or abusively speak out
against others for the basest of reasons. Too bad.
And hence access is NOT equal.
Of course it is. If I rent my house and I were a bigot, I cannot refuse
a minority the right to live there.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Democracy does *not* mean equality of outcomes |
18 Mar 2006 12:12:13 AM |
|
|
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:m7JSf.39831$915.26758@southeast.rr.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:ahGSf.69798$%84.52374@tornado.southeast.rr.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:_6wSf.66361$%84.41815@tornado.southeast.rr.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:_QlSf.72493$no3.26663@tornado.southeast.rr.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:p0dSf.72452$no3.61722@tornado.southeast.rr.com...
Repeatedly I've been reading complaints about atheists being 2nd
class citizens because our national gov lacks atheist
representation. The idea behind democracy (and the US is a
constitutional, representative democracy) is that the majority
decides who make the laws. As atheists we are citizens who
participate fully in the process.
Odd how other citizens actually get to be politicians, and we don't.
Seems we DON'T get to fully participate.
Of we course we get to participate fully. I have never been required
to sit a a segregated lunch counter, or had my ***** violated, or been
denied employment or housing or any other thing because I'm an
atheist.
Are you certain it's not because you can hide your lack of god belief
better than an african american can hide his skin or a woman can hide
her gender?
Yes I'm certain, because the laws says so!
Tell that to the african americans, they'll be so relieved.
My vote counts the same as everyone else, and I am free to run for
office just like anyone else.
But you'll never be elected as an avowed atheist. You would fail the
de-facto religious test for holding office.
That's democracy in action. I am no less a citizen just because I'm
not popular. You are unable to distinguish between the bias of our
citizenry and the the law. As a citizen, I am protected from people's
bias in employment, hiring, etc. I am not entitled to have people like
me.
Tell that to the african americans, they'll be so relieved.
Which African Americans are you referring to? The institutional
atrocities of our historical past have been remedied.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
I stand aghast at your arrogance and abject ignorance. You actually think
that passing a law solves the problem.
That depends on what problem you're talking about. Passing a law cannot
enlighten the ignorant. But it can protect them from their actions WRT to
education, employment, housing, voting etc. Sorry, but that's all the gov
can do.
So the problem of discrimination is not solved by a bunch of laws. Hence,
atheists remain second class citizens despite the efforts of the law.
For instance, despite the laws against a religious test to hold office,
atheists are disbarred from holding office by a de-facto religious test.
You can tell your atheist children that "Anyone can grow up to be the
president. Except you."
But let's follow your ridiculous logic a little further. Do
Scientologists deserve to have representation reserved just for them?
Depends, does a Scientiologist stand a chance if he runs for office?
Sure, don't see why not.
We don't want them to be 2nd class citizens, do wee? How about
school teachers or 18 to 30 year-olds?
I imagine there ARE 30 year olds and school teachers holding office.
What has this got to do with anything?
Why don't we rewrite our system of government and designate that
every demographic have their very own representative? We'll slice
the pie a million ways, because if Rottweiller owners or
cotton-pickers don't each have their own representative they are
doomed to be 2nd class citizens.
Guess what, I imagine that they wouldn't have any problems getting
elected and participating fully in our government.
Your analogies are all invalid because the groups you mention would
have no problem getting elected. The reason they wouldn't have any
problem getting elected is that they have not been the target of
deliberate and coordinated religious slander for the last 2000 years.
Your ability to miss the simplest of points is quite impressive. I
don't mention this because they couldn't get elected, but according to
you a certain number of each of these groups *must* get elected or
they're all less than citizens. That is nonsense. Nothing about
citizenship requires that we be liked. If I wore some identifying
symbol 24/7 showing that I was an atheist it would be no different.
The law would require that I receive equal treatment. Equal treatment
means that I can run for office, not that I get elected. And, BTW,
part of the reason why atheists are unpopular is because so many, like
you, are both anti-religious and insistent on antagonizing the majority
of people who are by making a big ***** out of trivial issues like the
pledge, etc.
Well! Now that equal rights laws are in place, there's no discrimination
any more!
Nice fantasy land you live in.
No, that's your hyperbolic assumption. But it isn't the government's job
to cure the country of racism or bigotry or hatred or other forms of
stupidity. It is the government's job only to ensure that all Americans
have equal access to employment, housing, voting and our other
entitlements.
And you see no contradiction in what you just wrote? How the hell do you
ensure equal access without dealing with racism?
Clue: You can't.
By punishing those who act on their racism to deny people their rights. No
contradiction.
And I suppose that since we have laws that punish murderers and thieves,
there are no more murders and theft?
Passing laws does not solve the problem. You have to be a total idiot to
think it does.
Which would explain your position.
Ignorant people will always ostracize or criticize or abusively speak out
against others for the basest of reasons. Too bad.
And hence access is NOT equal.
Of course it is. If I rent my house and I were a bigot, I cannot refuse a
minority the right to live there.
Sure you can. There's ways to do it cleverly. It's done all the time.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: Democracy does *not* mean equality of outcomes |
18 Mar 2006 06:50:13 AM |
|
|
<snip>
That depends on what problem you're talking about. Passing a law cannot
enlighten the ignorant. But it can protect them from their actions WRT to
education, employment, housing, voting etc. Sorry, but that's all the gov
can do.
So the problem of discrimination is not solved by a bunch of laws. Hence,
atheists remain second class citizens despite the efforts of the law.
For instance, despite the laws against a religious test to hold office,
atheists are disbarred from holding office by a de-facto religious test.
You can tell your atheist children that "Anyone can grow up to be the
president. Except you."
Amazing how you manage to dodge the simplest of truths. A citizen is
one who enjoys all of the rights, privileges and immunities of US law.
Nobody, atheists included, are "disbarred from holding office." An
atheist certainly can grow up to be President. And they would stand a
better chance if you and others didn't stick your thumb in the eye of
nearly everyone you meet because they're theists.
<snip>
And you see no contradiction in what you just wrote? How the hell do you
ensure equal access without dealing with racism?
Clue: You can't.
By punishing those who act on their racism to deny people their rights. No
contradiction.
And I suppose that since we have laws that punish murderers and thieves,
there are no more murders and theft?
You can suppose any kind of nonsense you want, just don't attribute it
to me.
Passing laws does not solve the problem. You have to be a total idiot to
think it does.
Which would explain your position.
Only an idiot would have accused me of making such a claim. You keep
trying to move the goal posts from citizenship to having all your
problems solved. Well I hate to tell you, but a million shrinks
dedicated entirely to your issues, working 24/7/365 couldn't begin to
solve your problems.
Ignorant people will always ostracize or criticize or abusively speak out
against others for the basest of reasons. Too bad.
And hence access is NOT equal.
Of course it is. If I rent my house and I were a bigot, I cannot refuse a
minority the right to live there.
Sure you can. There's ways to do it cleverly. It's done all the time.
And there are ways to buy a joint too, but it is not legal, and there
are consequences to being caught.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Democracy does *not* mean equality of outcomes |
18 Mar 2006 12:30:03 PM |
|
|
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:9mTSf.70377$%84.30228@tornado.southeast.rr.com...
<snip>
That depends on what problem you're talking about. Passing a law cannot
enlighten the ignorant. But it can protect them from their actions WRT
to education, employment, housing, voting etc. Sorry, but that's all the
gov can do.
So the problem of discrimination is not solved by a bunch of laws. Hence,
atheists remain second class citizens despite the efforts of the law.
For instance, despite the laws against a religious test to hold office,
atheists are disbarred from holding office by a de-facto religious test.
You can tell your atheist children that "Anyone can grow up to be the
president. Except you."
Amazing how you manage to dodge the simplest of truths. A citizen is one
who enjoys all of the rights, privileges and immunities of US law. Nobody,
atheists included, are "disbarred from holding office."
Atheists are, by a de-facto religious test. Laws to the contrary are
irrelevant to the fact that atheists don't have equal access to the same
rights, priviliges, and immunities, due to 2000 years of religious slander.
An atheist certainly can grow up to be President.
Ah, so now you're saying there's actually no discrimination against
atheists. That the observation that there are none in the government is
merely a coincidence.
And they would stand a better chance if you and others didn't stick your
thumb in the eye of nearly everyone you meet because they're theists.
Our very existence sticks a thumb in their eye.
<snip>
And you see no contradiction in what you just wrote? How the hell do you
ensure equal access without dealing with racism?
Clue: You can't.
By punishing those who act on their racism to deny people their rights.
No contradiction.
And I suppose that since we have laws that punish murderers and thieves,
there are no more murders and theft?
You can suppose any kind of nonsense you want, just don't attribute it to
me.
Ah, so passing laws to grant equal access doesn't mean there's equal access?
Thank you for agreeing with me.
Passing laws does not solve the problem. You have to be a total idiot to
think it does.
Which would explain your position.
Only an idiot would have accused me of making such a claim. You keep
trying to move the goal posts from citizenship to having all your problems
solved. Well I hate to tell you, but a million shrinks dedicated entirely
to your issues, working 24/7/365 couldn't begin to solve your problems.
Well, you seemed to be saying that passing laws to grant equal access solves
the problem of equal access, and thus everyone enjoys equal access.
Then just above, you seem to be saying that claiming that a problem is
solved by passing a law is a "kind of nonsense", which contradicts what you
seemed to be saying before.
Are you now saying that passing laws that grant equal access do NOT
necessarily solve the problem, and result in equal access?
Ignorant people will always ostracize or criticize or abusively speak
out against others for the basest of reasons. Too bad.
And hence access is NOT equal.
Of course it is. If I rent my house and I were a bigot, I cannot refuse
a minority the right to live there.
Sure you can. There's ways to do it cleverly. It's done all the time.
And there are ways to buy a joint too, but it is not legal, and there are
consequences to being caught.
So, you CAN refuse the minority the right to live there.
Just don't get caught.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: Democracy does *not* mean equality of outcomes |
18 Mar 2006 02:04:07 PM |
|
|
Denis Loubet wrote:
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:9mTSf.70377$%84.30228@tornado.southeast.rr.com...
<snip>
That depends on what problem you're talking about. Passing a law cannot
enlighten the ignorant. But it can protect them from their actions WRT
to education, employment, housing, voting etc. Sorry, but that's all the
gov can do.
So the problem of discrimination is not solved by a bunch of laws. Hence,
atheists remain second class citizens despite the efforts of the law.
For instance, despite the laws against a religious test to hold office,
atheists are disbarred from holding office by a de-facto religious test.
You can tell your atheist children that "Anyone can grow up to be the
president. Except you."
Amazing how you manage to dodge the simplest of truths. A citizen is one
who enjoys all of the rights, privileges and immunities of US law. Nobody,
atheists included, are "disbarred from holding office."
Atheists are, by a de-facto religious test. Laws to the contrary are
irrelevant to the fact that atheists don't have equal access to the same
rights, priviliges, and immunities, due to 2000 years of religious slander.
An atheist certainly can grow up to be President.
Ah, so now you're saying there's actually no discrimination against
atheists. That the observation that there are none in the government is
merely a coincidence.
And they would stand a better chance if you and others didn't stick your
thumb in the eye of nearly everyone you meet because they're theists.
Our very existence sticks a thumb in their eye.
<snip>
And you see no contradiction in what you just wrote? How the hell do you
ensure equal access without dealing with racism?
Clue: You can't.
By punishing those who act on their racism to deny people their rights.
No contradiction.
And I suppose that since we have laws that punish murderers and thieves,
there are no more murders and theft?
You can suppose any kind of nonsense you want, just don't attribute it to
me.
Ah, so passing laws to grant equal access doesn't mean there's equal access?
Thank you for agreeing with me.
Nothing like a hollow self-serving declaration of victory to make
yourself feel better, is there? We the legal right to the same access
as all other citizens. As I said, the blather that you tried to put in
my mouth is not at all what I said or think.
Passing laws does not solve the problem. You have to be a total idiot to
think it does.
Which would explain your position.
Only an idiot would have accused me of making such a claim. You keep
trying to move the goal posts from citizenship to having all your problems
solved. Well I hate to tell you, but a million shrinks dedicated entirely
to your issues, working 24/7/365 couldn't begin to solve your problems.
Well, you seemed to be saying that passing laws to grant equal access solves
the problem of equal access, and thus everyone enjoys equal access.
Then just above, you seem to be saying that claiming that a problem is
solved by passing a law is a "kind of nonsense", which contradicts what you
seemed to be saying before.
Are you now saying that passing laws that grant equal access do NOT
necessarily solve the problem, and result in equal access?
You keep shifting your ground back and forth as it suits you. Passing
laws that protect our rights makes us full citizens. It does not solve
all of our problems (especially not yours, but that's as nothing to do
with atheism).
Ignorant people will always ostracize or criticize or abusively speak
out against others for the basest of reasons. Too bad.
And hence access is NOT equal.
Of course it is. If I rent my house and I were a bigot, I cannot refuse
a minority the right to live there.
Sure you can. There's ways to do it cleverly. It's done all the time.
And there are ways to buy a joint too, but it is not legal, and there are
consequences to being caught.
So, you CAN refuse the minority the right to live there.
Just don't get caught.
And you can kill a man, just don't get caught. Anyone who is vulnerable
to being murdered is a 2nd class citizen too.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Democracy does *not* mean equality of outcomes |
19 Mar 2006 01:54:39 AM |
|
|
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:XIZSf.70411$%84.56153@tornado.southeast.rr.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:9mTSf.70377$%84.30228@tornado.southeast.rr.com...
<snip>
That depends on what problem you're talking about. Passing a law
cannot enlighten the ignorant. But it can protect them from their
actions WRT to education, employment, housing, voting etc. Sorry, but
that's all the gov can do.
So the problem of discrimination is not solved by a bunch of laws.
Hence, atheists remain second class citizens despite the efforts of the
law.
For instance, despite the laws against a religious test to hold office,
atheists are disbarred from holding office by a de-facto religious test.
You can tell your atheist children that "Anyone can grow up to be the
president. Except you."
Amazing how you manage to dodge the simplest of truths. A citizen is one
who enjoys all of the rights, privileges and immunities of US law.
Nobody, atheists included, are "disbarred from holding office."
Atheists are, by a de-facto religious test. Laws to the contrary are
irrelevant to the fact that atheists don't have equal access to the same
rights, priviliges, and immunities, due to 2000 years of religious
slander.
An atheist certainly can grow up to be President.
Ah, so now you're saying there's actually no discrimination against
atheists. That the observation that there are none in the government is
merely a coincidence.
And they would stand a better chance if you and others didn't stick your
thumb in the eye of nearly everyone you meet because they're theists.
Our very existence sticks a thumb in their eye.
<snip>
And you see no contradiction in what you just wrote? How the hell do
you ensure equal access without dealing with racism?
Clue: You can't.
By punishing those who act on their racism to deny people their rights.
No contradiction.
And I suppose that since we have laws that punish murderers and thieves,
there are no more murders and theft?
You can suppose any kind of nonsense you want, just don't attribute it to
me.
Ah, so passing laws to grant equal access doesn't mean there's equal
access?
Thank you for agreeing with me.
Nothing like a hollow self-serving declaration of victory to make yourself
feel better, is there?
What is factually incorrect about my question?
We the legal right to the same access as all other citizens.
Legally sure, but that does not guarantee that we have the same access, does
it?
As I said, the blather that you tried to put in my mouth is not at all
what I said or think.
Do you think that the legal right to the same access equates to having the
same access? Yes or no?
Passing laws does not solve the problem. You have to be a total idiot to
think it does.
Which would explain your position.
Only an idiot would have accused me of making such a claim. You keep
trying to move the goal posts from citizenship to having all your
problems solved. Well I hate to tell you, but a million shrinks
dedicated entirely to your issues, working 24/7/365 couldn't begin to
solve your problems.
Well, you seemed to be saying that passing laws to grant equal access
solves the problem of equal access, and thus everyone enjoys equal
access.
Then just above, you seem to be saying that claiming that a problem is
solved by passing a law is a "kind of nonsense", which contradicts what
you seemed to be saying before.
Are you now saying that passing laws that grant equal access do NOT
necessarily solve the problem, and result in equal access?
You keep shifting your ground back and forth as it suits you. Passing
laws that protect our rights makes us full citizens.
But the laws do not actually protect our rights, they do not actually grant
us equal access.
It does not solve all of our problems (especially not yours, but that's as
nothing to do with atheism).
Do you agree that access is not equal IN PRACTICE?
The equal access the laws promise are irrelevant if the access is not equal
in practice.
What does it matter if the law says I can be president, if in fact I can't
be.
Ignorant people will always ostracize or criticize or abusively speak
out against others for the basest of reasons. Too bad.
And hence access is NOT equal.
Of course it is. If I rent my house and I were a bigot, I cannot
refuse a minority the right to live there.
Sure you can. There's ways to do it cleverly. It's done all the time.
And there are ways to buy a joint too, but it is not legal, and there are
consequences to being caught.
So, you CAN refuse the minority the right to live there.
Just don't get caught.
And you can kill a man, just don't get caught. Anyone who is vulnerable
to being murdered is a 2nd class citizen too.
Since everyone is vulnerable to being murdered, it's not an issue. Everyone
is equal on that score.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Democracy does *not* mean equality of outcomes |
18 Mar 2006 02:12:53 PM |
|
|
Fester wrote:
<snip>
That depends on what problem you're talking about. Passing a law
cannot enlighten the ignorant. But it can protect them from their
actions WRT to education, employment, housing, voting etc. Sorry,
but that's all the gov can do.
So the problem of discrimination is not solved by a bunch of laws.
Hence, atheists remain second class citizens despite the efforts of
the law.
For instance, despite the laws against a religious test to hold
office, atheists are disbarred from holding office by a de-facto
religious test.
You can tell your atheist children that "Anyone can grow up to be the
president. Except you."
Amazing how you manage to dodge the simplest of truths. A citizen is
one who enjoys all of the rights, privileges and immunities of US law.
Nobody, atheists included, are "disbarred from holding office." An
atheist certainly can grow up to be President. And they would stand a
better chance if you and others didn't stick your thumb in the eye of
nearly everyone you meet because they're theists.
I'd like to see that, actually. "My name is James Smith and I want to
be your President. I seek the presidency in order to provide nationwide
healthcare, national security at our ports, and bringing accountability
back to the White House."
At the inauguration: "Place your right hand on the Bible."
"I'm sorry, but I'm an atheist and do not wish to put my hand on the Bible."
The next day, Fox News: "President Smith is an atheist! He has no
moral values and wants everyone to worship Satan. Where else do you
hear this kind of evil, except from the far-far left?"
6 months later: "The case for impeachment of President Smith heats up."
<snip>
And you see no contradiction in what you just wrote? How the hell do
you ensure equal access without dealing with racism?
Clue: You can't.
By punishing those who act on their racism to deny people their
rights. No contradiction.
And I suppose that since we have laws that punish murderers and
thieves, there are no more murders and theft?
You can suppose any kind of nonsense you want, just don't attribute it
to me.
Passing laws does not solve the problem. You have to be a total idiot
to think it does.
Which would explain your position.
Only an idiot would have accused me of making such a claim. You keep
trying to move the goal posts from citizenship to having all your
problems solved. Well I hate to tell you, but a million shrinks
dedicated entirely to your issues, working 24/7/365 couldn't begin to
solve your problems.
Ignorant people will always ostracize or criticize or abusively
speak out against others for the basest of reasons. Too bad.
And hence access is NOT equal.
Of course it is. If I rent my house and I were a bigot, I cannot
refuse a minority the right to live there.
Sure you can. There's ways to do it cleverly. It's done all the time.
And there are ways to buy a joint too, but it is not legal, and there
are consequences to being caught.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "Torture has never been a reliable means of *
* extracting information.... One wonders why it *
* is still practiced." --Jean-Luc Picard *
****************************************************
--
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Democracy does *not* mean equality of outcomes |
17 Mar 2006 01:01:44 AM |
|
|
Fester schreef:
Repeatedly I've been reading complaints about atheists being 2nd class
citizens because our national gov lacks atheist representation. The
idea behind democracy (and the US is a constitutional, representative
democracy) is that the majority decides who make the laws. As atheists
we are citizens who participate fully in the process. That is what is
meant by full citizenship. That participation does *not* imply that we
are entitled to any outcome, including having an atheist Congressman.
The dissatisfaction with our process is not limited to atheists. We
see pols attempt to redistrict or gerrymander constituencies into safe
districts for this or that minority. This is a corruption of our system
and should not be tolerated by atheists or any other American. Imagine,
for the sake of discussion, a congressional district that transcended
state boundaries and included only those residences that were occupied
atheists. We would then be able to have our atheist representative, but
democracy would not be served. Representation in this country is
designed to be based upon geographic lines, not ideology or special
interests. We are entitled to run, participate and to speak, but we are
not entitled to win any elections. To do that, since we are a small
minority, we must convince others of the correctness of our causes.
That, and the same protections provided to all Americans by our
Constitution, is our entitlement.
Although I can find no fault with your reasoning as it is,
there is a general flaw in the American election system that keeps
minorities
from being represented in congress, and more so in the senate.
The discrict system does that.
Even if your "minority" eccompasses 49% of the electorate in any
constituancy.
That would mean another poarty getting 515 could shut you out entirely.
The only advicde I can give to any (and all) minorities is this:
Don't be active for your own minority but get together.
and become active for one thing only
proporional representation.
we have it in Holland ever since one can remember,
and it means one only needs 0,67 % of the votes to have a member of
parliament.
Ok the idea would probably ruin the ruling two parties,
but who cares?
Get proportional!
Peter van Velzen
March 2006
currently in Thung Song
Thailand.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "chibiabos" |
|
| Title: Re: Democracy does *not* mean equality of outcomes |
16 Mar 2006 08:34:26 AM |
|
|
In article <p0dSf.72452$no3.61722@tornado.southeast.rr.com>, Fester
<not@home.com> wrote:
Repeatedly I've been reading complaints about atheists being 2nd class
citizens because our national gov lacks atheist representation. The
idea behind democracy (and the US is a constitutional, representative
democracy) is that the majority decides who make the laws. As atheists
we are citizens who participate fully in the process. That is what is
meant by full citizenship. That participation does *not* imply that we
are entitled to any outcome,
Other than the ones guaranteed by the Constitution to which you alluded.
including having an atheist Congressman.
The dissatisfaction with our process is not limited to atheists. We
see pols attempt to redistrict or gerrymander constituencies into safe
districts for this or that minority. This is a corruption of our system
and should not be tolerated by atheists or any other American. Imagine,
for the sake of discussion, a congressional district that transcended
state boundaries and included only those residences that were occupied
atheists. We would then be able to have our atheist representative, but
democracy would not be served. Representation in this country is
designed to be based upon geographic lines, not ideology or special
interests. We are entitled to run, participate and to speak, but we are
not entitled to win any elections. To do that, since we are a small
minority, we must convince others of the correctness of our causes.
That, and the same protections provided to all Americans by our
Constitution, is our entitlement.
Part of the deal of having a representative democracy is that
representatives should actually represent their constituents. That
means, if I have an issue with government intrusion into religion (for
instance -- it could be anything else), and I present the issue to my
representative, and the issue turns out to have some validity, he or
she is obligated to represent my interest as if it were his or her own.
-chib
--
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rob Duncan" |
|
| Title: Re: Democracy does *not* mean equality of outcomes |
16 Mar 2006 02:11:03 PM |
|
|
"chibiabos" <chib@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:160320060634266339%chib@nospam.com...
In article <p0dSf.72452$no3.61722@tornado.southeast.rr.com>, Fester
<not@home.com> wrote:
Repeatedly I've been reading complaints about atheists being 2nd class
citizens because our national gov lacks atheist representation. The
idea behind democracy (and the US is a constitutional, representative
democracy) is that the majority decides who make the laws. As atheists
we are citizens who participate fully in the process. That is what is
meant by full citizenship. That participation does *not* imply that we
are entitled to any outcome,
Other than the ones guaranteed by the Constitution to which you alluded.
including having an atheist Congressman.
The dissatisfaction with our process is not limited to atheists. We
see pols attempt to redistrict or gerrymander constituencies into safe
districts for this or that minority. This is a corruption of our system
and should not be tolerated by atheists or any other American. Imagine,
for the sake of discussion, a congressional district that transcended
state boundaries and included only those residences that were occupied
atheists. We would then be able to have our atheist representative, but
democracy would not be served. Representation in this country is
designed to be based upon geographic lines, not ideology or special
interests. We are entitled to run, participate and to speak, but we are
not entitled to win any elections. To do that, since we are a small
minority, we must convince others of the correctness of our causes.
That, and the same protections provided to all Americans by our
Constitution, is our entitlement.
Part of the deal of having a representative democracy is that
representatives should actually represent their constituents. That
means, if I have an issue with government intrusion into religion (for
instance -- it could be anything else), and I present the issue to my
representative, and the issue turns out to have some validity, he or
she is obligated to represent my interest as if it were his or her own.
-chib
Whered you come up with such a stupid idea? We dont elect them to represent
our views, we elect them because we like the views they represent. They
arent beholden to the electorate in anyway other than during election time.
People elect those who best represent their views. Thats how a
representative republic works.
Rob
.
|
|
|
| User: "chibiabos" |
|
| Title: Re: Democracy does *not* mean equality of outcomes |
16 Mar 2006 08:30:25 PM |
|
|
In article <vDjSf.110$6m6.72776@news.sisna.com>, Rob Duncan
<robtakethisoutduncan@gobigwest.com> wrote:
"chibiabos" <chib@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:160320060634266339%chib@nospam.com...
In article <p0dSf.72452$no3.61722@tornado.southeast.rr.com>, Fester
<not@home.com> wrote:
Repeatedly I've been reading complaints about atheists being 2nd class
citizens because our national gov lacks atheist representation. The
idea behind democracy (and the US is a constitutional, representative
democracy) is that the majority decides who make the laws. As atheists
we are citizens who participate fully in the process. That is what is
meant by full citizenship. That participation does *not* imply that we
are entitled to any outcome,
Other than the ones guaranteed by the Constitution to which you alluded.
including having an atheist Congressman.
The dissatisfaction with our process is not limited to atheists. We
see pols attempt to redistrict or gerrymander constituencies into safe
districts for this or that minority. This is a corruption of our system
and should not be tolerated by atheists or any other American. Imagine,
for the sake of discussion, a congressional district that transcended
state boundaries and included only those residences that were occupied
atheists. We would then be able to have our atheist representative, but
democracy would not be served. Representation in this country is
designed to be based upon geographic lines, not ideology or special
interests. We are entitled to run, participate and to speak, but we are
not entitled to win any elections. To do that, since we are a small
minority, we must convince others of the correctness of our causes.
That, and the same protections provided to all Americans by our
Constitution, is our entitlement.
Part of the deal of having a representative democracy is that
representatives should actually represent their constituents. That
means, if I have an issue with government intrusion into religion (for
instance -- it could be anything else), and I present the issue to my
representative, and the issue turns out to have some validity, he or
she is obligated to represent my interest as if it were his or her own.
-chib
Whered you come up with such a stupid idea?
Seventh grade civics, which (apparently) you haven't got to, yet.
Although I agree that most of what I learned there has been trashed by
the current administration.
-chib
--
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: Democracy does *not* mean equality of outcomes |
16 Mar 2006 04:35:54 PM |
|
|
chibiabos wrote:
In article <p0dSf.72452$no3.61722@tornado.southeast.rr.com>, Fester
<not@home.com> wrote:
Repeatedly I've been reading complaints about atheists being 2nd class
citizens because our national gov lacks atheist representation. The
idea behind democracy (and the US is a constitutional, representative
democracy) is that the majority decides who make the laws. As atheists
we are citizens who participate fully in the process. That is what is
meant by full citizenship. That participation does *not* imply that we
are entitled to any outcome,
Other than the ones guaranteed by the Constitution to which you alluded.
including having an atheist Congressman.
The dissatisfaction with our process is not limited to atheists. We
see pols attempt to redistrict or gerrymander constituencies into safe
districts for this or that minority. This is a corruption of our system
and should not be tolerated by atheists or any other American. Imagine,
for the sake of discussion, a congressional district that transcended
state boundaries and included only those residences that were occupied
atheists. We would then be able to have our atheist representative, but
democracy would not be served. Representation in this country is
designed to be based upon geographic lines, not ideology or special
interests. We are entitled to run, participate and to speak, but we are
not entitled to win any elections. To do that, since we are a small
minority, we must convince others of the correctness of our causes.
That, and the same protections provided to all Americans by our
Constitution, is our entitlement.
Part of the deal of having a representative democracy is that
representatives should actually represent their constituents. That
means, if I have an issue with government intrusion into religion (for
instance -- it could be anything else), and I present the issue to my
representative, and the issue turns out to have some validity, he or
she is obligated to represent my interest as if it were his or her own.
I agree, but only in part. Their job is to represent the best interests
of all their constituents. Yes, if you have a valid beef, it is their
job to help you to correct it. OTOH, if the intrusion is one that is
lawful (Constitutional, etc) and the majority wants it that way, then
your representative probably shouldn't take up your case. I say
probably, because are representatives must use their own judgment and
not just be reflection of the majority's will.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Democracy does *not* mean equality of outcomes |
16 Mar 2006 04:36:15 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 12:39:49 GMT, Fester <not@home.com> wrote:
Repeatedly I've been reading complaints about atheists being 2nd class
citizens because our national gov lacks atheist representation. The
idea behind democracy (and the US is a constitutional, representative
democracy) is that the majority decides who make the laws. As atheists
we are citizens who participate fully in the process. That is what is
meant by full citizenship. That participation does *not* imply that we
are entitled to any outcome, including having an atheist Congressman.
The dissatisfaction with our process is not limited to atheists. We
see pols attempt to redistrict or gerrymander constituencies into safe
districts for this or that minority. This is a corruption of our system
and should not be tolerated by atheists or any other American. Imagine,
for the sake of discussion, a congressional district that transcended
state boundaries and included only those residences that were occupied
atheists. We would then be able to have our atheist representative, but
democracy would not be served. Representation in this country is
designed to be based upon geographic lines, not ideology or special
interests. We are entitled to run, participate and to speak, but we are
not entitled to win any elections. To do that, since we are a small
minority, we must convince others of the correctness of our causes.
That, and the same protections provided to all Americans by our
Constitution, is our entitlement.
Ok, if I read correctly, the fact that religion is so popular means,
rightly, that our government is comprised of people of faith. Mark the
fact that I include deists as well as theists. Blacks, women,
Hispanics and other minorities hold office, too. We should find a few
atheists too, but I bet they would be afraid to admit it (or to reject
a faith-based giveaway) A'hemmm...
I thought that no matter what their religion, sex or nationality is
they are obliged to uphold the constitution and there's nothing in
there saying they (the government) should promote or sponsor a
religion. In fact it states that no religious test be required for an
oath of office.
To wit:
(The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of
the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial
Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall
be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no
religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office
or public Trust under the United States.)
http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html
Religion is obvious by it's absence from the constitution. You don't
think they *forgot, did you? Maybe that's why Madison had to get it
in there in the first, by prohibiting government involvement. If such
cross-influence existed in the past, it was wrong then, and if it
hasn't stopped, it's wrong now. If it's getting better, good, we
thrive on progress and it shouldn't stop now.
Maybe more people are getting aware, I don't know. Many my age have
had bad times in church based things, and ran from religion when of
age to do so. I got a special bitterness re religion from going
through that. I may venture a guess that I have many peers in this
regard. So when we see the godbot pattern in our rulers, after
escaping the religion of our childhood, we get very concerned. We
remember summer camps run almost like a German prison. And we begin to
see the biblical influence in the law.
That's my observation, the only cite I can provide is myself. But I
know the people I escaped from. They are nasty and have domination in
mind, they've planned out our lives for us and they're going to
implement the plan. You have to take my word for that. Trust me. Or
just think about it, of consider it. Por Favor. I would have said
please, but due to a bizarre sequences of tabs, spaces, characters and
backspaces, I somehow ended up with three over-quota. I even got an
extra s or a in there. <-Psssst...That period is one of the best in my
collection.
I can't word this properly but more voters must think for themselves
and make their own opinion, despite whether it agrees with others or
not. And they must get the courage to act, even though it means
gaining and losing friends. (that's what happened to me when I quit
drugs)
Alas, they won't, it's still too comfortable avoiding making a choice
between a religious set of crooks or just crooks. I'd rather have just
crooks. (Gaaa theres an oxymoronic pun there. Ouch, groan, writhe.)
Huh?
Sunyata
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rob Duncan" |
|
| Title: Re: Democracy does *not* mean equality of outcomes |
16 Mar 2006 05:52:04 PM |
|
|
<Sunyata@wastherain.net> wrote in message
news:9nlj129t850ldr58udf9utqlnpina974qi@4ax.com...
On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 12:39:49 GMT, Fester <not@home.com> wrote:
Repeatedly I've been reading complaints about atheists being 2nd class
citizens because our national gov lacks atheist representation. The
idea behind democracy (and the US is a constitutional, representative
democracy) is that the majority decides who make the laws. As atheists
we are citizens who participate fully in the process. That is what is
meant by full citizenship. That participation does *not* imply that we
are entitled to any outcome, including having an atheist Congressman.
The dissatisfaction with our process is not limited to atheists. We
see pols attempt to redistrict or gerrymander constituencies into safe
districts for this or that minority. This is a corruption of our system
and should not be tolerated by atheists or any other American. Imagine,
for the sake of discussion, a congressional district that transcended
state boundaries and included only those residences that were occupied
atheists. We would then be able to have our atheist representative, but
democracy would not be served. Representation in this country is
designed to be based upon geographic lines, not ideology or special
interests. We are entitled to run, participate and to speak, but we are
not entitled to win any elections. To do that, since we are a small
minority, we must convince others of the correctness of our causes.
That, and the same protections provided to all Americans by our
Constitution, is our entitlement.
Ok, if I read correctly, the fact that religion is so popular means,
rightly, that our government is comprised of people of faith. Mark the
fact that I include deists as well as theists. Blacks, women,
Hispanics and other minorities hold office, too. We should find a few
atheists too, but I bet they would be afraid to admit it (or to reject
a faith-based giveaway) A'hemmm...
I thought that no matter what their religion, sex or nationality is
they are obliged to uphold the constitution and there's nothing in
there saying they (the government) should promote or sponsor a
religion. In fact it states that no religious test be required for an
oath of office.
To wit:
(The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of
the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial
Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall
be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no
religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office
or public Trust under the United States.)
http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html
Religion is obvious by it's absence from the constitution. You don't
think they *forgot, did you? Maybe that's why Madison had to get it
in there in the first, by prohibiting government involvement. If such
cross-influence existed in the past, it was wrong then, and if it
hasn't stopped, it's wrong now. If it's getting better, good, we
thrive on progress and it shouldn't stop now.
Maybe more people are getting aware, I don't know. Many my age have
had bad times in church based things, and ran from religion when of
age to do so. I got a special bitterness re religion from going
through that. I may venture a guess that I have many peers in this
regard. So when we see the godbot pattern in our rulers, after
escaping the religion of our childhood, we get very concerned. We
remember summer camps run almost like a German prison. And we begin to
see the biblical influence in the law.
That's my observation, the only cite I can provide is myself. But I
know the people I escaped from. They are nasty and have domination in
mind, they've planned out our lives for us and they're going to
implement the plan. You have to take my word for that. Trust me. Or
just think about it, of consider it. Por Favor. I would have said
please, but due to a bizarre sequences of tabs, spaces, characters and
backspaces, I somehow ended up with three over-quota. I even got an
extra s or a in there. <-Psssst...That period is one of the best in my
collection.
I can't word this properly but more voters must think for themselves
and make their own opinion, despite whether it agrees with others or
not. And they must get the courage to act, even though it means
gaining and losing friends. (that's what happened to me when I quit
drugs)
Alas, they won't, it's still too comfortable avoiding making a choice
between a religious set of crooks or just crooks. I'd rather have just
crooks. (Gaaa theres an oxymoronic pun there. Ouch, groan, writhe.)
Huh?
Sunyata
The problem, though well written, with your theory is this... People do
think, and contemplate, who theyll vote for, and why... Its only the
arrogant know-it-alls who claim they dont, as if it is above them to put on
their thinking-cap. Give people the benefit of the doubt. There are far
fewer sheep than you think...
Rob
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Democracy does *not* mean equality of outcomes |
17 Mar 2006 04:55:55 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 15:52:04 -0800, "Rob Duncan"
<robtakethisoutduncan@gobigwest.com> wrote:
<Sunyata@wastherain.net> wrote in message
news:9nlj129t850ldr58udf9utqlnpina974qi@4ax.com...
On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 12:39:49 GMT, Fester <not@home.com> wrote:
Repeatedly I've been reading complaints about atheists being 2nd class
citizens because our national gov lacks atheist representation. The
idea behind democracy (and the US is a constitutional, representative
democracy) is that the majority decides who make the laws. As atheists
we are citizens who participate fully in the process. That is what is
meant by full citizenship. That participation does *not* imply that we
are entitled to any outcome, including having an atheist Congressman.
The dissatisfaction with our process is not limited to atheists. We
see pols attempt to redistrict or gerrymander constituencies into safe
districts for this or that minority. This is a corruption of our system
and should not be tolerated by atheists or any other American. Imagine,
for the sake of discussion, a congressional district that transcended
state boundaries and included only those residences that were occupied
atheists. We would then be able to have our atheist representative, but
democracy would not be served. Representation in this country is
designed to be based upon geographic lines, not ideology or special
interes | | | |
