Bible-beater pilots

But...if that's the bias of the majority of the Members, where's the harm?

The harm is that the whole point of the constitution is to protect the minority
against the tyranny of the majority. Lest this statement ignite a flame war,
consider that although decisions are made by majority (or enhanced majority),
the structure for making those decisions is designed to empower the minorities.

The president is not elected by majority vote. It is a several step process
(like the world series) which in effect elects the president based on the
majority of viewpoints.

Congress is not a majority entity either. The senate has equal (by state)
representation, and the house has equal (by population) representation, and
both have to concur.

Speech is not regulated by the majority. Freedom of speech means that a
minority of one can get his voice heard (though nobody is forced to listen)

The majority does not need protection. They can take care of themselves. It
is the minority which needs protection, and that's the function of laws.

The majority of people are afraid of little airplanes, and would be quite happy
with a total ban. We are in a tiny minority who fly these contraptions all
over kingdom come without so much as a flight plan or a radio, let alone
official permission and clearance to engage in such obviously wreckless acts as
aviation. Be careful in your thinking. Majority rule is fine as long as you
are in the majority.

Change "In God we Trust" to the equally pious "Allah Be Praised" and see how
people take it. Or pick a phrase from any religion you don't like, including
athiesm if that's your target. It doesn't belong on pilot certificates, it
doesn't belong in Congress, and it doesn't belong on money.

That said, I'll spend money no matter what is printed on it. So send me some
if you don't like what it says.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

"Teacherjh" wrote in message


But...if that's the bias of the majority of the Members, where's
the harm?

The harm is that the whole point of the constitution is to protect
the minority against the tyranny of the majority.

My statement was specifically regarding the prayer offered at the opening of
sessions of Congress. Nothing more. Such a prayer can hardly be considered
"tyranny of the majority."

That said, I'll spend money no matter what is printed on it. So send
me some if you don't like what it says.

Completely agreed!

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/tknoFlyer
__________

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 09:39:54 -0500, John Harlow wrote:

of the letter of the constitution. I do not want to see ANY religious
references on government issued documents; their presence is quite
presumptions and offensive.

This reminds me of the people who buy a house next to an airport and then
cry about the planes.

The same solution exists in both cases.

On the contrary, the "spirit" was to avoid state-forced religions and
persecution. There is a big difference. Just because you don't like any
reference to god or God does not mean that it is inconsistent with the
authors' intentions.


"John Harlow" wrote in message
...
Where does it say that the Treasury cannot use "In God we trust" on its
money? Where does it say that Congress shall not acknowledge God (with
the
prayer before each session, for instance)?

It is an obvious bias to a specific theology; which goes against the
spirit
of the letter of the constitution. I do not want to see ANY religious
references on government issued documents; their presence is quite
presumptions and offensive.

John T wrote:

"H. Adam Stevens" wrote in message


" Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
"

Seems to me "no" means "no" as in "none", "not any", "zero".

The quote wasn't intended to be verbatim, but thanks for posting the text
as
it illustrates my point quite clearly. Read the text carefully:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establisment of religion or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Where does it say that the Treasury cannot use "In God we trust" on its
money? Where does it say that Congress shall not acknowledge God (with
the
prayer before each session, for instance)? What law has been passed that
establishes a religion? What law infringes the people's free exercise
thereof?

snip

It doesn't say the Treasury can't use it. The problem comes when someone
wants to put "In Bhudda we trust" on it too. If the government can't (or
won't) do both then it seems to me they are promoting one religion over
another. For this reason it's best to leave it off completely.


--
Frank....H

"H. Adam Stevens" wrote:

Seems to me "no" means "no" as in "none", "not any", "zero".

Correct. Now. Who's claiming that Congress has made such a law and what law is
it that they made?

George Patterson
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something that can be learned
no other way.

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


"H. Adam Stevens" wrote:

Seems to me "no" means "no" as in "none", "not any", "zero".

Correct. Now. Who's claiming that Congress has made such a law and what
law is
it that they made?

Placing "Under God" in the pledge of alliegance.


George Patterson
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something that can be
learned
no other way.

"H. Adam Stevens" wrote:

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message

Correct. Now. Who's claiming that Congress has made such a law and what
law is
it that they made?

Placing "Under God" in the pledge of alliegance.

They passed a *law* to do that?

George Patterson
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something that can be learned
no other way.

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message ...


Placing "Under God" in the pledge of alliegance.

They passed a *law* to do that?

Of course they did. How do you think it go there?

The pledge was written in 1892, but adopted officially by act of congress in 1942.
The first Supreme Court challenge to it came in 1943 . Another congressional act,
signed by President Eisenhower, in 1954 added "under God."

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


"H. Adam Stevens" wrote:

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message

Correct. Now. Who's claiming that Congress has made such a law and
what
law is
it that they made?

Placing "Under God" in the pledge of alliegance.

They passed a *law* to do that?

Yes...in 1954, I believe.