| Topic: |
Sociology > Education |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
29 Nov 2004 04:44:48 AM |
| Object: |
Our email Nov 29, 04 |
In our email this morning:
From : Jan [delete]
Sent : Monday, November 29, 2004 1:29 AM
To : [us]
Subject : We agree to disagree
I support virtually everything you say. I also agree that no Federal
official should be "forced" to take an oath on the Bible or swear to God,
etc. I say this becasue I do want separation and I do not want any church
having sway over the government which in turn could restrict my particular
religion.
What I disagree on is that "separation of church and state," includes
separation of God and state since the two are different. I know people who
belong to no church and still believe in God and of course there are
religions that don't believe in God, or at least not God in the sense most
Americans do.
I will say that I believe it is hard to find one law created in the first
100 years, which pushes the chance that any founding fathers were still
alive, that could be said to not have a tie to the 10 commandments. That
may be becasue the 10 commandments were so general as to morality and
ethical behavior, one could say "how could a law not be based on the Ten
Commandments."
Most, sensible, God believing people don't have a problem with separation
so much as "tolerance" being a "one way street." People who believe in God
and who are in the majority, believe that while they should allow all
religions, or no religion to practice their beliefs, the majority also has
the right to do the same and not be restricted just becasue they chose a
profession that puts them in the public eye. In other words, why is it ok
for an athiest to tell his students that he doens't believe in God but a
believer in God can't say they believe in God to those same students. I
don't support teachers leading prayers, but do believe a prayer said by a
student is his right, even at a sports event (he risks alienation of his
peer group if the behavior is out of line) and that those who believe
otherwise should be "tolerant" of that student's right to worship or his
right to free speech. We allow minorities in some areas to wear crosses,
have religious garments like Latter Day Saints wear, allow some to carry a
Koran or some other religious book, but some get upset if it is
Judeo-Christian in nature. Why is ok for Sen. Lieberman to say he is a
Jew, and Sen. Kerry say he is a Catholic and even voice their religious
beliefs and at the same time say they won't impose thier religious beliefs
on how they vote but not ok for someone else to say and do the same who
isn't a politician?
Where is it different for a teacher to say what they are, or to have a
cross, or Star of David, or some other religious symbol, as long as they
don't "demand" belief or inact laws that restrict religious freedom. Why
must they sacrifice their religious freedom when athiests don't have to
(the absence of a religion is a religion unto itself). Even in business,
as long as it is a private business, they should be allowed to create their
business "image" as they see fit. This means hiring of employees is
sometimes limited to all women, say for a dress shop that fits women. At
the same time another shop for women's dresses might decide to hire all
men. Or a Christian book store might want to hire only Christians who can
communicate Christain principles, answer Christian based questions, etc.
By the same token an athiest could have a book store that ban's Christian
or God based books and hire only athiests. To have the Government say what
those private businesses can or can't do would violate their rights. By
the same token, if a business has no such "image" to guard, it would be
wrong from them to limit hiring to a certain religious or not-religious
base. But, having said that, if there is no "image" to guard it is also
wrong to prohibit a person from having a symbol of their faith displayed
anymore than to let a person dispay pictures of a certain type of
automobile, or other trademarked item that would "discourage" customers who
believe the product being displayed is inferior to what they like. The
chance of a customer, unless those preferences are "forced" on them, making
a purchasing decision because someone has a cross displayed is about as
likely as a person who has a Ford emblem displayed. Now if a business says
it is against their companies rules, and people have a choice of another
source of employment that allows the display of their religion, than they
should be tolerant. I would be surprised though if any business that found
that restriction lost them highly skilled and talented personnel to another
competitor would soon decide the rule could be done away with. The market
place is a better "rule" maker than the government in these "religious"
matters.
Regarding, communities allowing religious scenes on public property, as
long as any religion is allowed the same right or any athiest group is
allowed to display an anit-religion scene or sign, the separation remains
intact. However, I would say that the government doesn't separate God and
State but rather just church and state because this is a nation that claims
to "trust in God," and designates days of the year to Thank God, and to
recognize God through multiple recogonition of Jewish and Christian
Holidays in December, yet supports no particular religion. I believe the
nation has endorsed God but not religion's view of exactly what God is or
how a person is to relate to God.
I could even say that since some say God is life, one could say life is
God. Since we know that life exists, then anyone who places the value of
life at a high priority could be said that life is their God. Life itself
is only visible because of some of the higher "life forms" that it uses to
propigate itself. Yet, we know that life exists at levels we normailly
can't see. Does that mean there can't also be life at a sub-atomic level
that even with the most powerful electron microsopes we can't see? We
actually find that even in religion, the "faithful" say God is beyond
understanding. A nation under God, could be nothing more than a nation
dedicated to "life" and the establishment of laws that seem to best serve
"life." If all the religions in the U.S. said God is "life," and "life" is
what we worship, could we deny that right? Even if they said "life" has
the ability to somehow communicate even in trees and other plants and
somehow coordinate activity to stay alive and propigate, could we say they
are wrong just becasue we can't find a "brain" in a tree. Isn't DNA the
primary souce of how something develops and propigates and not whether or
not it has a brain. Couldn't we say that "life" developed man simply to
serve a purpose in the overall scheme of "life?"
Then when we take the Ten Commandments and say this is what "life" requires
in order for the segment of "life" we call humans to function better, serve
life better, build trusting relationships that make it easier for humans to
accomplish more for "life," isn't that just as acceptable as saying there
is "No God?" Shouldn't we have the right to call "life" God? Shouldn't we
have the right to worship "life?" And shouldn't we have the right to join
like-minded people in "churches" and call them environmentalists,
vegetarians, carnivors, fishermen, cattlemen, welders, etc and whatever
they do that furthers "life?"
When you say you separate State and God, you go much further than
separating Church and State. We should be just separating Church and State
and allowing God or "life" to be a part of people's lives and their form of
Government?
I want separation of Church and State. But, I also beleive the line has to
be drawn by the majority as to where we separate God and State since the
two are so different. Virtually every major religion joins God and "life"
together but vary greatly in how much intelligence they believe "life" has,
how powerful "life" is, etc. but still agree "life" exists. The "divine"
revelations of the Ten Commandments may be nothing more than "common sense"
about how humans should live and work together to best serve "life" or
socieity or man-kind, or whatever relationship you want to choose. We know
that sexual infedelity has a negative affect on most marriages. We know
that sexual promiscuity leads to higher risks for the spread of disease.
We know that theft and murder and other crimes destroy societiy's ability
to function at its highest level. So, we could also have a law, a common
law, that says "life" must be held in the highest regard and nothing higher
than that shall be held higher. We could even say the people who commit
offenses that endanger the ability of the majority of life or socieity can
even be put to death or isolated from general society since they not only
don't serve society or life's ability to reach its full potential, but
jeprodize it. Substitute "life" for God and you could have the very same
laws, foundation for a society, or code of behavior that would be called
"moral" and ethical and never use the word God or need to use the word God.
God is not church. Church is not God, but just how we view "life" or God.
Thus, even athiests have a religion and a view of how "life" is to be
conducted. Even pagan societies have had things like marriage contracts to
control propegation. They even have probably passed laws that are
beneficial to propegation. They may even limit lifestyles they felt
treatened to spread disease including sexual activity if they thought it
was a means to spread disease.
In short, I want what is best for "life" here on earth and that requires
discipline, agreement of how we should behave toward one another and
provide a foundation for laws that can be administered justly even though
no set of laws can be "fair." There is no such thing as a "fair" trial as
you mentioned nor was there any intent for a "fair" trial, but rather a
just trial by your peers. I personally think it is "fair" for an abused
wite to kill her husband, but it wouldn't be just. I think it is okay for
a person who has been taken advantage of in a business deal to, through a
business deal, do the same thing back, but if he gets caught and the other
doesn't, his subsiquent punishment isn't "fair" but it is just since we say
we can only punish the ones who are caught or proved guilty. During my
years in law enforcement I saw lots of "justice" that wasn't "fair."
Society in and by its nature isn't "fair" but, it can be just. Society by
it nature puts the good of society above some individual rights so that the
greater good can be done for the greater number. As soon as rule by
minority takes over, chaos sets in and society begins to deteriorate in its
ability to serve the majority. God in government sets the standards we
need whether you call it God or "life." There has to be some set of
standards accepted by the majority with tolerance for the minority in order
for that society to reach its full potential. However, you have to keep in
mind, no society can reach utopia, or that perfect level of potential,
because there will always be groups of people trying to change the terms of
agreement. Sometimes they will be right and sometimes wrong. Sometimes it
will be fair and sometimes it will be unfair. But, as long as it is just,
it is the best opportunity for progress because everyone is operating under
the same set of laws or rules for interaction between the members of that
society in the majority of things they do together.
Confusing God and Church is just as big a mistake as confusing "fairness"
with "justice." God, or the Ten Commandments was just a foundation that
seemed to be a set of basic guidelines that the overwhelming majority of
this society could agree on to develop the laws a society needs. That is
not to say we can't change the foundation for our laws, but it doesn't mean
we should deny that foundation. At the time this basic set of laws was
being developed for our society the Ten Commandments was probably
acceptable by so many people that it avoided the problem of "man" or a man
saying what everyone would have to do. The people didn't want a "king" or
a "ruler" setting laws up that everyone would have to follow, but they
could all agree to accept this common denominator of their diverse
"faiths," the Ten Commandments as a foundation and then argue whether or
not future laws complied with or went against the "foundation." Whether
intended or not, God played a key role in the founding of this country and
led to statements like "in God we Trust." Man didn't establish this
governement, or rather, didn't establish the foundation for the laws.
Instead mutual agreement on a source "above" man established the
foundation.
When founding fathers and early congressmen "prayed" for wisdom in making
decisons they were actaully simply checking with themselves for common
sense as to whether or not their decision would comply with the foundation
of our laws. I would imagine many didn't "pray" to God, but rather
meditated on how their decison would affect the abiltiy of this nation to
progress and work together in view of all the different cultures,
religions, trades, views or what government should or shouldn't do, etc.
As long as they could claim they stayed inside the bounds of "Gods"
commandments, they could at least survive even if not always agreed with as
to their decision. But, let them make a decision based on their "religion"
or "church" and they would be in trouble anytime their constituency was
comprised of more than their own "congregation."
Today we see a litte of what may have occurred back then as far as "church"
goes. Today we see some states that will elect only Democrats or only
Repbulicans for Federal office and even some states that will support
Socialists, or libertarians and all these are political religions founded
on a set of beliefs. Fair to all? Not hardly since no state is comprised
of all of any of those groups. Just? Yes, since the rules are followed
for how the people are elected. God? Yes, their "god" is forced on
others. Church? No their chuch is not forced on everyone since how any of
the internal groups serve that "god" is varied. Some reject some or most
of that "god's" fundamentals, but still "vote" for it and go about trying
to get their own "churches" view pushed up the list of fundamentals or
acceptable actions. And, of course the ones who didn't vote for that "god"
still have follow the rules until they are changed, if ever. We saw this
in the 2004 election where the Communist Party actively encouraged their
members to vote for Kerry on their CPUSA website since Kerry was so much
closer than President Bush to their goals. Sen. Kerry wasn't a Communist,
but his "god" was closer to the Communist "god" than the President's.
Society says, however, "Thou shalt have no other Gods, before me." Which
could also be said, that as long as the foundation the laws of this country
were based on remains intact, then laws that violate that foundation will
be struck down. Of course, one of the "laws," if we substitute "life" for
God would be that if we find a better foundation that serves "life" better,
we should use it. I say this, because "life" is best served when the best
foundation is in use and the majority agree to it. However, the concept,
"minority rules," has never served life the best. Socialism, is a
foundation that has never worked in the long run to provide the tax
revenues to pay for as many social programs as capitalism usually can in
the long run. The same can be said for Communisim, most dictatorships,
absolute monarchs, or other absolute rulers. In each of those cases
minority influence comes into play. That influence is, of course, obvious
in absolute rule. It is more subtle in Socialism and Communism.
In Communism and Socialism, "fairness" replaces "justice as the foundation.
(Remember God never said he was fair, but a jealous God and a "just" God
that imposed his commandments on all equally.) However, even in these
"majority" rule societies we found that it was a vocal minority that
usually "won" the support for the change and then after the change, lost
the majority and used force predominately, at least in the case of
Communism to keep the minority in power. Socialism is as close as we have
come to a majority staying faithfull to the "cause." Some, like India have
swung back and forth from capitalism to socialism. However, currently we
see most socialist countries in Europe undergoing change again. As "new"
Europe comes on board with capitalism, we are seeing business leaving
socialism based countries for capitalistic countries. France has been
filing complaints about the "unfairness" of Ireland using tax cuts to lure
business away from France. 25% of all U.S. money for a recent year,
invested in Europe, went to Ireland, while the other 75% was spread over
the rest of Europe. Ireland has reduced their Unemployement from 15% to
4.3% while France stays near 10%. The "majority" will leave the minority
in this case over the course of time or the current minority will convince
the current majority that socialism doesn't work and their "god" will
change. However, there will allways be membership in the "churches" that
worship socialism, they will just be in the minority.
One could even say that the Ten Commandments are nothing more that the god
"capitalism's" list of rules that allow capitalism to have an agreed upon
set of rules to determine what is ethical and moral. Capitalism,
socialism, communism are all "gods" that people worship and form churches
with people of like-minded perceptions. Some are "left" some are "right"
and some are "moderate." However, as soon as the "god" changes from say
capitalism to socialism, the foundation changes and life becomes more
"fair" for some and more "unfair" for others.
Because of man's inherent nature to be varied in his perceptions of
"fairness," the world is better off with several "gods" for man to worship.
Some can form a government in one country based on Socialsim and another
country can form a "god" called Communism if they choose. Another may form
a "god" on some variation of those two or capitalism. Capitalism can have
"God" as the foundation or as is the case in some other countries using
capitalism as an economic base, some other foundation for their laws, like
Buda, or secularism can be used.
What we fail to do in virtually everyone of these "god" ruled nations is
teach the options different countries have, encourage people to move to the
"god" of their choice, and leave the "god" of their previous country in
place for the majority in that country that have chosen that "god." Not,
in America, however. Here, we tell the minority that if they don't like
"God." they should rebel, commit acts of civil disobedience, demand rights
for minorties over majorities and claim that it is allowed becasue we
separated State from Church even though we never separated State from
"god," or God. Any nation's majority should have the right to serve the
"god" of their choice or the God of their choice. However, the minority
should be provided tolerance and freedom of speech to change the majority's
mind while at the same time being tolerant of the majority's right to serve
"god" or God until their mind is changed. To do less leads to chaos and
doesn't serve "life" to the fullest potential for the provision of the
majority. Societies were formed not for individuals but for the basic
needs of individuals. Otherwise the "fairest" world would be one in which
each individual does only what they want to without sacrificing any rights
to receive defense, shelter, food, and companionship in return. It is
interesting that is usually only in societies that are meeting those common
needs that serving "god" or God begins to take on enough importance to
cause assertion of individual "rights." But, then isn't that another piece
of evidence that God is "life," since that is what is held so dear?
.
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
