Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: 1st amendment (was: religious courses in a secular school) Message-ID: Date: 25 Apr 91 03:12:05 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: University of California, San Diego Lines: 59 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) writes: +I think what people seem to have forgotten is that in a democracy it is +not the government on one side and the people on the other. The +government is supposed to represent the people. If *the people* in an +area wish prayers at their graduation services, then it is the buisiness Here is the 'problem' with the current level of 'democracy'. In the past presidential election less than 50% of the elgible voters turned out, some 53% of those voted for Bush(I ignore the electorial collage, since I trying to indicate what the 'people' want). Hence less than 25% of the 'voter' population actually expressed support for Bush. I don't have a recent local election tally for the San Diego area but what I recall of last November's election was not significantly different, i.e 50% voter turnout. We all know that not all the population is elgible to vote so the net effect is that less than 25%, say 15-20% of the population actually effects the 'democratic' discisions. To give a perspective, in ancient Athens, some 50000 citizens were elgible to vote on issues before the Assembly. But on any particular day or issue only some 6000(even then a rare event) would turn out to vote. Or about 10 percent of the citizen population. So things seem not to change much. (It would be interresting to see such numbers from other countries). At this point you may say 'what's the point', well the point is that a vocal group expressing 'evil threatens our young' will in fact be able to direct the course of the school board or library system independent of the factual basis of the assertion. Even more should anyone argue aganist such a group, the critic is attack as being 'one of the evil ones'. A term, Groupthink, is used to express the development of a mind set among a group which incourages conformity and discourages criticism. Many of the people who state 'evil is taking over' practice this form of group control. However I would like to ask these same people, "If the Christian's God was able to 'protect' Christianity during the first 4 centuries, why does He need your laws and policing now?' In those 4 centuries, Christian's would allow themselves to be killed rather than become part of the state. Yet now many Christians seem to have the thought that 'they would rather kill than be killed'. If your recall all the rhetoric of 'We have to protect our selves from 'God-less Communism'. Well, Why? If the 'God-less' ones had 'conquered' the 'Christian' West how much sooner would the 'God-less' ones come in contact with the 'way and light'. But to sacrifice oneself and those near and dear would be to much for the Heavenly kingdom, the choice was for earthly safety. >of the government (in it's role of representative) to see that it >happens. If "the people" oppose Invocations at graduation, then the >government should see that such a practice is discontinued. ... >A school board too is a representational democracy. ... >I can understand the desire not to have imposed morning prayers at >public school. I myself would not want to see a state-approved morning >prayer recited in unison by the students. However, an Invocation or a >Blessing at a graduation? It's not unisonal, and those who disagree are >quite free to (quietly) ignore the speaker. ... >Despite all of this however, I still don't see what any of it has to do >with the Constitution of the United States. *No law has been passed* >for or against prayers at graduations. ... John Clark jclark@ucsd.edu