Bible-beater pilots

"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
__________

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."


Rethink that. Instead of a Christian prayer, Congress faces Mecca and prays to
Allah. Most congressmen are Muslim. Nothing more.

You don't think there would be a subtle "tyranny of the majority" present here,
when every day the highest ruling body of the nation acknwledges its
subservience to Allah? It's the same as having our pilot certificate be
printed with Buddah on the background.

Jose


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

"Teacherjh" wrote in message


Rethink that. Instead of a Christian prayer, Congress faces Mecca
and prays to Allah. Most congressmen are Muslim. Nothing more.

If this were a predominantly Muslim nation, I'd expect that to be normal.
Look, don't misconstrue my argument here. My *only* point was that the
phrase "In God we trust" is not a violation of the anti-establishment clause
of the First Amendment.

You don't think there would be a subtle "tyranny of the majority"
present here, when every day the highest ruling body of the nation
acknwledges its subservience to Allah?

Again, my understanding of the rationality of prayer is not the issue. That
was brought up as an example of violation of the anti-establishment clause -
and it's not.

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

John T wrote:

"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."

We were taught the principle as 'the will of the people with protection of
the rights of the minority". So it need not be 'tyranny' to be harmful.

But what happens all too often is that non-participation is used against
those of different faiths.

Any members that feel the need to pray before going to work can do so
anytime and with anyone outside the chamber. If they were sensitive to the
role they play in government and their agenda is not to promote religion
then they would have got their praying done before hand and have no need of
risking offending anyone.


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!

Amen!
--
Frank....H

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!

Amen!

Some of us are figuring out how to boycott the $10s when they start to
appear with Reagan's mug on them (how many days after he dies, I wonder).
But I must admit it is the turn of the other side of the aisle; the most
recent new Presidential faces on currency begin JFK and FDR.

-- David Brooks

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.