The Democracy Lie and he problem with the First Amendment
Quoting Neapolitan:
One of the most cherished parts of the United States Constitution, and one that is under near constant attack by those who fear a free press; by those who think protesters should have no rights; by those who'd like to see opinions different from their own silenced; by those who want the stark lines separating government and religion blurred or obliterated. All dangerous stuff, so defensive vigilance every bit as constant as those attacks must be maintained.
The first amendment also says that the government isn't supposed to prohibit the free exercise of religion either.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I highly, HIGHLY doubt the signers of the Declaration of the Independence, all save two having Christian theology degrees and the other two being Deists, would have accepted the modern interpretation of the first amendment.
Further, they even ban students or individual faculty or government employees from praying in public, again contrary to TWO parts of the amendment, because they are prohibiting free speech AND they are prohibiting free exercise.
The first problem is the "democracy lie": The belief that the majority is "right" or "good" just because they are in the majority.
Consider this hypothetical:
Lunatics who want to practice human sacrifice might well one day become a 75% majority, and as such make a constitutional amendment allowing it and abolishing whatever other laws or amendments necessary to accomplish it. Would that make human sacrifice "good" just because a hypothetical majority, even a very large hypothetical majority, says it is so?
I'd hope most people would say, "No, that does't make it good or right."
that's the democracy lie. It's one of the biggest problems in the modern world, and it's why the U.S. fails in the middle east, because we don't promote morality, we promote the "democracy lie". Give a hundred evil people the right to vote and they will vote for evil things.
The second problem is with the amendment, or else with the interpretation anyway, because it makes all religions and non-religions equal. Readers must ask themselves if the amendment is even just. The answer is actually "No".
The two statements about religion are in conflict with one another, and they are both in conflict with freedom of speech and press.
Is atheism the same as theism?
No.
Is polytheism the same thing as monotheism?
Obviously not, by definition of the terms.
Are religions which promote human sacrifice the same as those which do not?
Obviously not.
Is satan worship the same as Christianity?
No.
So if none of these things are equal why are they treated equal by the law?
Think how insane that is. The interpretation of the law says satan worship is equal to any other religion or non-religion, including Biblical religions which have satan as pretty much the embodiment of evil.
That's where the problem is.
Religions shouldn't be treated equally at all, because they are obviously not equal things.
Religion and non-religion are obviously not equal things either.
Treating them equally is not only stupid, it's illogical, and I'd even go a step farther and say it's evil.
Yet the interpretation of the amendment requires a public school system's history metrics to treat some pagan so-called civilization which practiced human sacrifice as equal to those who did not.
You wonder why our country is divided so much?
put 100 people in a room:
One is an atheist
One worships satan
One worships a rock
one worships his ancestor's ghost
one is a wiccan.
One worships the sun
10 are Jews
10 are Muslims and want Jews and Christians dead
10 claim to be Christians
60 more claim to be Christians but can't answer basic tenets of the faith correctly.
the other 4 are something else.
Yet we're supposed to treat them all equally, because you know, some 200 year old piece of paper wasn't written with any sane foresight. Actually that's not the case, it's that the appliation of the term "religion" has changed that much since the document was written, but most people don't know enough about how the English language has changed in the past few hundred years to realize this.
Anyway, the proposal that all of these people are equal and that all of these beliefs equal is an insane self-contradiction.
It's just as insane as believing something like "true equals false" or "one equals two".
Reader Comments
Page: 1 — Blog Index
I am not an American, so I have no emotional attachment to the USA's constitution or its subsequent amendments. I do have some knowledge of the documents. One could hardly escape it and be considered educated.
I also know something about the English language and its development, though I am no expert. This sentence I found quite bewildering:
Actually that's not the case, it's that the appliation of the term "religion" has changed that much since the document was written, but most people don't know enough about how the English language has changed in the past few hundred years to realize this.
Could you point out a source for (a) a former definition and (b) if not self evident, the way in which it has changed? I know of nothing in support, but am prepared to be informed.
Viewing: 1 - 2
Page: 1 — Blog Index