America’s Founders intended that the people be religious. They knew that the US government would succeed only if the people were virtuous. They also knew that religion is necessary for virtue. And they knew that when government was tied to religion, both government and religion were the worse for the attachment.
The American people understand this intuitively. Rasmussen did a poll recently that showed that the overwhelming majority of adults believe that it’s OK to put religious displays on public property and to hold religious celebrations in schools. An overwhelming majority, 76%, believe this.
The Founders would approve of Christmas trees. They understood that the US form of government is meant not only to ensure freedom of religion, but to encourage religious faith. Introducing religious elements into society encourages virtue, as long as government doesn’t advocate or repress specific religions.
I’m disappointed at those folks who try to keep the federal and state governments from supporting religion.
Stumble it!
2 users commented in " Americans support religious displays and celebrations on public property "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackI am left confused by a *seeming* contradiction in your post…
"they knew that when government was tied to religion, both government and religion were the worse for the attachment"
…
"I’m disappointed at those folks who try to keep the federal and state governments from supporting religion"
——————
Perhaps I'm missing something… but I don't see how we can claim that our gov't doesn't support religion when it uses public funding for religious displays on public property.
I am not Christian, and yet I have no problem with seeing Christmas scenes or being told "Merry Christmas!" (and always reciprocate) — on *private* property.
But I do take offense when my tax dollars are used to promote one person's views over my own.
———–
Is it just my misunderstanding — or am I correct in perceiving (from this and previous posts) that you support the notion that the "majority" has some right to forcibly take money from the pockets of the "minority" and then create laws and customs using the minority-money which goes against what the minority wants?
I hope this doesn't come across too harshly — but I am having a hard time understanding how a fellow Deist can support the idea that the majority can use the minorities money to further the causes of the majority.
Maybe I misunderstand?
I wasn't clear.
When government is attached to a specific church, such as the Anglican church and the English government in 1776, the church and the government were both the worse for it. The church becomes an instrument of the government. And the government becomes tyrannical.
–
Well, in a democracy the majority certainly has the ability to impose its will on the minority. How can that be prevented? With laws? Over time the majority will overpower the minority and come to dominate, whether a law says otherwise or not.
Democracy cannot function over a long period of time without virtue. Virtue has to teach compassion, and rationality, and the recognition of the needs of the minority. And what else…?
The right of the majority to dominate in a democracy is a social agreement. That is the very definition of a democracy. That is how we choose to live. We choose to not live in a monarchy or a socialist dictatorship. We choose to live by majority rule. The right of the majority to rob the minority is a legal right, not a natural right.
In theory, if you don't like a majority rule government, you are free to leave the country. Your natural right is the right to choose whether or not to be a part of that society.
If a nation prevents you from leaving and forces you to live according to a rule of law, democracy, socialist, or whatever, the nation is a tyranny, and you are a slave. If the majority in a tyranny has the ability to force the minority to turn over their money, and also has the ability to prevent the minority from leaving the nation, that is a bad thing. That is evil.
As long as the minority have the ability to leave the nation, the minority are free.
Pelosi and company are trying to pass a law that taxes all investment trades. They have a problem. If they tax all trades in the US, the traders will take their business outside the US. So Pelosi and company want to make it a global tax. They want all nations to have the identical tax on foreign investment trades. Pelosi and company are idiots. Well, some countries would find some advantages in having a lower tax, so they will not match the US tax. So the Pelosi scheme will fall apart because the traders are free to take their business elsewhere.
The ability of the US investors to trade investments outside the US makes them free and minimizes taxes.
If the government imposes too many taxes on the minority, the minority will leave and the government will lose its tax base.
As long as we can vote with our feet, the minority will remain free.
At least, that's the theory. Reality is a little messier. Groups use the leverage of our needs and attachments to manipulate us. It isn't always to leave our families or our homeland, or give up our American health care system because we know it is the best in the world.
At this point game theory comes into play and has a lot to say about how free we are.
Leave A Reply