As a non-Christian, this is terrifying to me. Hence my remark about rule of the majority. I've known plenty of non-Christians living in Alabama, and the last thing the Supreme Justice of the state should be saying is "this nation was founded upon the laws of God." They have enough to worry about without having their recourse to the law threatened.
Money, sex, and power attract the unscrupulous (well, they attract the scrupulous, too, but that's not the category where the most dangerous individuals fall); they always have, and they always will, and religion in the modern era has two of the three. The fact of human nature that attracts some pedophiles to the priesthood is also the fact of human nature which attracts some politicians to go centrist against their own principles (Rob Lowe, anyone? ;-), and which prompts others to torture and intimidate their own people under the banner of Islam. One needs to watch out for these types everywhere, and not just in the easily identifiable groups of people who are different from us.
Along these lines, if you'd have said that the suspension of this particular justice as a "victory for the US constitution" (which it was), I'd have probably not said anything contrarian. I honestly think we as a society are better at picking off the problematic outliers of our society if we handle them on a case by case basis instead of making generalizations and falling into an "us vs. them" mentality. At the very least, we are not giving their committed but unthinking minions ammunition for their own "us vs. them" hobbyhorses. Rest assured, there will be more, and they will be Democrats, Republicans, Unitarians, Vegetarians, Rastifarians, and any number of other visible or invisible minorities.
Anyway, disagree with any of the above at your leisure.
PS: Sorry about the formatting on the previous post
Okay. Let's see. Your point about "Christianity as prescribed" not discriminating against the unbelievers is valid up to a point. It's been established (and probably this is a theory/practice distinction) that having two classes of citizens, regardless of how sincerely the government may wish to treat them equally, creates a disparity in rights between the two classes. Certainly I would have no fear of being mistreated for my beliefs if I lived in the kingdom preached by Jesus in the Gospels. (heh. I might have to go into that sometime.)
The other point about not falling into an "us vs. them" trap is also well taken, though it's a bit much to read a full-blown mentality out of a 16-word post. And I don't have anything against the rights of Christians, I am just pleased when those in authority recognize that the equal application of those rights involves not applying favoritism. And I don't have a good response yet to the question of why we'd keep the Lincoln Memorial even if a Cult of Lincoln were to spring up.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cnoocy
Re: A contrarian opinion (part 1, 'cuz I'm over the length limit again.)
Date: 2003-08-25 07:11 pm (UTC)Money, sex, and power attract the unscrupulous (well, they attract the scrupulous, too, but that's not the category where the most dangerous individuals fall); they always have, and they always will, and religion in the modern era has two of the three. The fact of human nature that attracts some pedophiles to the priesthood is also the fact of human nature which attracts some politicians to go centrist against their own principles (Rob Lowe, anyone? ;-), and which prompts others to torture and intimidate their own people under the banner of Islam. One needs to watch out for these types everywhere, and not just in the easily identifiable groups of people who are different from us.
Along these lines, if you'd have said that the suspension of this particular justice as a "victory for the US constitution" (which it was), I'd have probably not said anything contrarian. I honestly think we as a society are better at picking off the problematic outliers of our society if we handle them on a case by case basis instead of making generalizations and falling into an "us vs. them" mentality. At the very least, we are not giving their committed but unthinking minions ammunition for their own "us vs. them" hobbyhorses. Rest assured, there will be more, and they will be Democrats, Republicans, Unitarians, Vegetarians, Rastifarians, and any number of other visible or invisible minorities.
Anyway, disagree with any of the above at your leisure.
PS: Sorry about the formatting on the previous post
Re: A contrarian opinion (part 1, 'cuz I'm over the length limit again.)
Date: 2003-08-26 09:01 am (UTC)Your point about "Christianity as prescribed" not discriminating against the unbelievers is valid up to a point. It's been established (and probably this is a theory/practice distinction) that having two classes of citizens, regardless of how sincerely the government may wish to treat them equally, creates a disparity in rights between the two classes. Certainly I would have no fear of being mistreated for my beliefs if I lived in the kingdom preached by Jesus in the Gospels. (heh. I might have to go into that sometime.)
The other point about not falling into an "us vs. them" trap is also well taken, though it's a bit much to read a full-blown mentality out of a 16-word post. And I don't have anything against the rights of Christians, I am just pleased when those in authority recognize that the equal application of those rights involves not applying favoritism. And I don't have a good response yet to the question of why we'd keep the Lincoln Memorial even if a Cult of Lincoln were to spring up.