Ed Huntress wrote:

"Gus" wrote in message
roups.com...


Ed Huntress wrote:


The hard-boiled born-again are not a vast majority. Those who believe in


God


are a vast majority, but they have always been. And we have shown no


real


tendency to become a theocracy despite that fact.


Absolutely.



The issue now is that certain evangelicals are getting a little frisky


and


are trying to intrude their religion into government and into the


schools.


They are being resisted. They are not likely to succeed, nor are they


likely


to become a "vast majority."



It seems to me that the anti-religion forces have been trying to remove
any mention of god from public places for about 40 years or so.



Yeah, well, that corresponds roughly to the span of time over which the
theocrats have been trying to stick them in. Notice that the big issues, the
Ten Commandments in the courthouse and so on, are of pretty recent vintage.
Likewise, introducing religion into biology classes.



They
appear to want to change our society to fit their views. Now some
people have had enough and are resisting. Their goal seems to be to
keep things the same, not change anything.



It's a little like racial discrimination, as I see it. We've had a law
against discrimination for a very long time, but it's still a task to get
some people to live up to the law. Likewise, living up to the Constitution,
which says we won't establish religion, is a never-ending battle.

FWIW, I happen to believe that the fundamental constitutional principle is
that the government will not encourage or promote any religion, or any group
of religions. But I don't think it was intended for the government to
prevent citizens from expressing their religion in public settings. There
was a Supreme Court ruling that drew a fine line between the two, and I
think it was a fine decision.

In other words, at Christmastime, if the people of a town want a manger and
a Christmas display in the town square, I'm all for it. But they'd better
also allow any other religious display, at the appropriate religious
holidays.


I tend to agree..however, people would also have to understand that
should a small group wish to install a pentagram and have a note saying
"glory to Satan", that would be acceptible under the same provisions.
Clearly, though, the debate about the "war on christmas" and similar
religious displays on public property is about imposing one religion
that may have a majority in the USA over minority religions.

There's a simple test of this....IF the pledge of allegience had the
words "one nation, under Satan", would these same people be battling to
have that removed? Would they refuse to participate in the reciting of
this line? Clearly, if the reference were to a religion that didn't fit
their viewpoint, the same that are now fighting to keep their God
references would be fighting to remove the references to anyone else's god.

The Constitution is written to protect a minority from the impositions
of a majority on certain and very specific issues like religion and
speech. Accept that the best role for the government is to stay out of
anything that imposes any notion of religion or risk having your money
say "I'm a Buddha Buddy" should the population of Asians (and others who
practice the same) ever increase to become a majority....or Virgin Mary
statues and confessionals in government buildings should the population
of hispanic catholics ever increase to a majority. Neither tradition
nor majority percentages make it right for a goverment to act in the
role of promoting one religious viewpoint over another....even in minor
ways like "God" references in pledges and on money.

Koz

--
Ed Huntress