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
Go on to: Movements with a Similar Agenda
Return to: Articles
