Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ns-mx!iowasp.physics.uiowa.edu!maverick.ksu.ksu.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!cs.utexas.edu!bcm! dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal Lillywhite) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Church and State Message-ID: Date: 27 Sep 90 07:32:42 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Tektronx Inc., Beaverton, Or. Lines: 110 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article lionti@ecs.umass.edu writes: (The moderator comments on a previous posting) >[There has been some discussion about whether it is appropriate for >Christians to pass laws based on Christian principles. It was said >at some point that democracy is simply majority rule, and if we >are in the majority, compromise and consensus are not needed. I >responded that even where there is a clear majority, democracy >includes protecting the rights of minorities. That's why limits >such as the Bill of Rights exist. --clh] To which Eric replies: >I think that this whole argument hinges on this statement!!! >The US system of Government is set up as a democracy (loosely) *WITH >CHECKS TO PROTECT THE MINORITY BUILT IN !!!* This is true, but I believe these are just that, checks. I believe the first line of defense should be a reluctance on the part of the voters and legislative branch to trample the rights of the minorities. If we indeed love our neighbor as ourselves we will act accordingly in our actions relating to government as well as when we meet him face to face. Then the court system can act as a check on how well we do instead of getting in the way of a bunch of thieves trying to beat the system. > Therefore, everyone's right, >in fact duty, is to agitate, vote, etc. for what they believe will make >this the best country for the people, I would agree with this if you include consideration for minorities in what is best for the people. > AND LET THE STRUCTURE OF THE >GOVERNMENT ASSURE THAT THE RIGHTS OF THE MINORITY DON'T GET TRAMPLED. Think about how the structure of our government protects the rights of the minority. It takes a court challenge to the law which not only clogs up our court system but costs that minority a *lot* of money. If the trampled minority is unwilling or unable to fight this through the courts the unjust law will stand. It may stand even if they fight it, the courts are not perfect. Should we really impose this burden on our brothers and sisters? >When it is found that the Government is not adequately protecting those >rights, the Government should be changed! The people shouldn't meekly >go around not doing, voting, etc. as they see is right just for fear of >trampling others rights, the Government is supposed to protect those >rights! Maybe government is supposed to protect those rights but that doesn't mean they will. After all, who is the government? Isn't it us? >People always seem to argue (both here and elsewhere) that "we shouldn't >do this or that, or vote for this or that, because that would go against >such and such Amendment, etc." It's not the people who are voting's job >to decide that, it is already covered within the structure of the Govt. >So if you want or don't want abortion rights, if you want or don't want >homosexual rights, if you want or don't want prayer in the schools, then >you have a right AND A DUTY to push as hard as you feel necessary to get >those things instituted! If this offends someone with the opposite opinion, >then they can do the same. If the majority would be trampling on the rights >of the minority, then the minority can seek redress from the Govt. through >appeals to the constitution via the courts. I think we all should support the constitution if we really believe in its protection of minority rights. If we believe a law is needed but not constitutional maybe we should work to modify the constitution. I think it is every citizen's job to defend the constitution and while the supreme court has taken the power to declare laws unconstitutional I would prefer that they be regarded as a secondary defense. Voters and their representatives should try to do what is right because it is right, not because the court will overrule them if they don't. >SO PUSH FOR WHAT *YOU* BELIEVE IN, and let the chips fall (and be sorted >by the Government). I find a great deal of merit in what Eric says and I'm not sure how far he means to push this idea. Certainly we should try to get our government to do what is right. I am concerned however that this could be taken as, "Vote for what you want regardless of the effect on others." (No, I'm not accusing Eric of saying this.) Such an attitude would be wrong, akin to the idea that we can do what we want regardless of its effect on others. Let's assume our fair share of the burden, not leave it all up to the supreme court. There is and will be disagreement on which laws are bad. This is normal. However as Christians we should be honest and try to look at which laws are good and bad apart from whether those laws benefit us or not. I think Jesus would even have us vote against our own self-interest if that self-interest would infringe the rights of others, just as he would have us refrain from taking what belongs to someone else even if we have the opportunity. Since I am on my soapbox I will mention that I think the mob mentality can operate all too easily in government. Things we would not do individually we find easy to justify as part of a large group, (eg. mob, corporation or government). There seems to be an added temptation when we do something as part of a government since we can make it legal and we seem to think that what is legal is right. This gives our actions an aura of respectibility even though those actions may be wrong. Conversely things we would not do to an individual we often do to a large group. Yet the government or insurance company we cheat is nothing but a collection of individuals. What we really do is cheat each of those individuals. Such cheating is not only inappropriate for Christians but puts a tremendous burden on our economy.