Vasu Murti

Articles
The Writings of Vasu Murti

Human Rights - Social Justice - Animal Rights - Peace - Love - Compassion - Kindness - Gentleness - Religion - Soul - Spirit - Knowledge - Wisdom - Politics - Science - Environment - Vegan - Vegetarian - God - Humans - Animals

| Home | Books | Publications | Articles | Email |

Mob Rule

Christine O'Donnell's "I'm not a witch" campaign ad was necessary because Republicans discriminate on the basis of religious identity, whereas Democrats don't care (look at Representative Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii, a Hare Krishna devotee).
 
Republicans hate Hare Krishnas, too! 

I side with the American Left, because the left is open to animal rights, and because the left is laissez-faire toward all belief AND disbelief, whereas the right treats non-Christians like second-class citizens.

The United States Constitution is a completely secular political document. It begins “We the people,” and contains no mention of “God,” “Jesus,” or “Christianity.” 

The only references to religion in the Constitution are exclusionary, such as the “no religious test” clause (Article VI), and “Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” (First Amendment)

The presidential oath of office, the only oath detailed in the Constitution, does not contain the phrase “so help me God” or any requirement to swear on a Bible (Article II, Section 1). 

The words “under God” did not appear in the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954, when Congress, under McCarthyism, inserted them. 

Similarly, “In God we Trust” was absent from paper currency before 1956, though it did appear on some coins beginning in 1864. 

The original U.S. motto, written by John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson, is “E Pluribus Unum” (“Of Many, One”) celebrating plurality and diversity.

In 1797, America made a treaty with Tripoli, declaring that “the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” This reassurance to Islam was written under Washington’s presidency and approved by the Senate under John Adams.

We are not governed by the Declaration of Independence. Its purpose was to “dissolve the political bonds,” not to set up a religious nation. 

Its authority was based upon the idea that “governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,” which is contrary to the biblical concept of rule by divine authority. 

The Declaration deals with laws, taxation, representation, war, immigration, etc., and doesn’t discuss religion at all. 

The references to “Nature’s God,” “Creator,” and “Divine Providence” in the Declaration do not endorse Christianity. Its author, Thomas Jefferson, was a Deist, opposed to Christianity and the supernatural.

It was Thomas Jefferson who established the principle of separation of church and state. Jefferson was deeply suspicious of religion and of clergy wielding political power.

Jefferson helped create the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom in 1786, incurring the wrath of Christians by his fervent defense of toleration of atheists: 

“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts as are only injurious to others. But it does no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” 

****

According to journalist Rob Boston of Americans United for Separation of Church and State: “We have a vibrant, multifaith religious society that, with the exception of a few fundamentalist Muslim states, is admired all over the globe.

"We have a degree of interfaith harmony unmatched in the world. Our government is legally secular, but our culture accommodates and welcomes a variety of religious voices. New faiths take root here without fear...

“Americans remain greatly interested in religion and things spiritual—unlike their counterparts in Western Europe, where religion is often state subsidized but of little interest to most people....

"Children are no longer forced to pray in school or read from religious texts against their will, yet they are free to engage in truly voluntary religious worship whenever they feel the need. 

"The important task of imparting religious and philosophical training to youngsters is left where it always belonged—with each child’s parents or guardians...

"Some European nations have passed so-called anticult laws aimed at curbing the rights of unpopular new religions. Such laws would not be acceptable in the United States or permitted under the First Amendment.
 
In 1982 or 1983, Vaishnavaite Hindu and political activist Pariksit dasa (Don Vitcenzos), clearly a theological conservative, argued: 
 
since the vast majority (the "Moral Majority"?) of Americans believe in God, why should the government be secular, or laissez-faire towards all belief AND disbelief?
 
Why can't the government be religious?
 
Why should a small minority prevent a religious government? 
 
Why should a small minority ruin it for everyone else?
 
I dunno. Maybe you have to be a member of a religious minority to know what it feels like to be treated like a second-class citizen in your own country.
 
My friend Jesse Horner agreed with me, saying that the insistence of Krishna devotees that those in the minority (e.g., atheists, agnostics, etc.), who don't like the government favoring the majority faith (e.g., theism) over everyone else are free to live elsewhere:
 
"...That's what they said about the Jews!"
Why should a small minority ruin it for everyone else?
 
Pariksit, having studied music and philosophy at UC San Diego, and having said Platonic theology is practically Vedic (Hindu), must be aware that 
Plato (like A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada) opposed democracy, saying it would degenerate into mob rule.
 
Whether or not democracy is the ideal form of government is not the issue here, but when those in the majority faith trample on the rights of or treat minorities like second-class citizens in their own country, or when the government merely favors the majority faith over the minorities...
 
...Isn't that "mob rule"?! 
 
****

John Morrow, a pro-life Christian taking a stand against abortion on secular human rights grounds, converted me to the pro-life cause, when debating pro-choice liberals (dominating the discussion!) on USENET, from 1986 - 1988. 

1. John Morrow said he disagreed with the Republicans for failing to provide enough social support for children once they're born. 

In 1992, pro-life Democrat Robert Casey said he would strongly support Lynn Yeakel who was then running against pro-choice Republican Senator Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania.  

Yeakel favored abortion-rights, too, but, Casey said, “we agree on all the other issues.” 

Casey stated further that he would not leave the Democratic Party.  The anti-abortion Republicans, he insisted, “drop the children at birth and do nothing for them after that.”

Barney Frank similarly commented that for Republicans, "Life begins at conception and ends at birth."

2. John Morrow said his opposition to capital punishment led him to oppose abortion. 

3. John Morrow compared discrimination against the unborn to homophobia and xenophobia to win over liberals. 

4. John Morrow said he supported sex education. 

5. John Morrow said he supported contraception. 

6. John Morrow said when Roe v. Wade came down, a different set of morals was in place: even mainstream secular American society would not accept single mothers (like Chaitanya-what's-her-name), there were "shotgun weddings," homes for unwed mothers, etc. 

7. And John Morrow said health care in the U.S. should be "federalized" i.e., "socialized, like it is in the UK." 

We Democrats have been pushing for health care reform since Harry Truman.
Democrats For Life of America, 601 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, South Building, Suite 900, Washington, DC 20004 (202) - 220 - 3066

Return to: Articles

© 1998-2013 Vasu Murti