News, sports, politics, blogs and forums for Hutchinson, Minnnesota • (320) 587-5000

Motorbuys • Real Estate • myMarketplace.mn • Coupons

Advertising

Advertising

News » Opinion

LETTER: Greatest threat is to assert religion governs our nation

Submitted by webmaster on July 7, 2009 - 6:10am.
» Read similar stories filed under:

From James Leonard
Darwin
This is a reply to the recent opinion letter: “Obama is a threat to U.S. Constitution,” written by Sandy Juffer and published in the June 30 Leader.

During the past 50 years, the one thing that has changed in America more than anything else is the attitudes and convictions of the people. This includes religious convictions. America has seen an explosion in religious and cultural diversity, and the government needs to adapt to those changes.

The argument of whether or not America was founded upon the ideals of Christianity is a debate for another day. The fact of the matter is that now more than ever, we face all the challenges of a rapidly diversifying country. The constitutionally responsible thing for President Obama to do is reflect his electorate and uphold the ideals of the people that elected him.

Any country unwilling to embrace its people’s sundry beliefs is a country that is sure to crumble in the grasps of tyranny and corruption. A government that will not listen and act based on the people is not a government I want to have any part of, and it certainly isn’t the American government.

Sandy, if you’re trying to convince people of things by quotes of the founding fathers, you picked the wrong topic to debate. John Adams stated in a letter to Thomas Jefferson, “I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved — the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!” He doesn’t seem too fond on Christian rule there, does he?


123next ›last »
Advertisement. Article continues below.

Mr. Leonard, I humbly...

Back to page top

Mr. Leonard,

I humbly disagree with some of your statements in this letter.

Since I have taken on the debate of "whether or not America was founded upon the ideals of Christianity" under a different letter on this website, I feel it necessary to voice skepticism about your view of our government.

You state "The constitutionally responsible thing for President Obama to do is reflect his electorate and uphold the ideals of the people that elected him." I ask why you think that. I have only limited understanding of the government but I am confident the president is to uphold the Constitution not the whims and fancies of a confused society.

You also state "Any country unwilling to embrace its people’s sundry beliefs is a country that is sure to crumble in the grasps of tyranny and corruption." This statement causes my most concern because I beleive that many "Americans" agree with it. It sounds great and wonderful on the surface but examining the implementation of such a statement leads to chaos.

Analyzing this statement leads me to the following conclusions: no matter how the beliefs of the people change, that is what the government must believe and if those beliefs are not followed the only possible conclusion is tyranny and corruption. Maybe my biggest objection comes from the word "embrace". The government that embraces the various beliefs of its people and uses them as a rudder to plot the course of its existence, will run aground on the island of anarchy and confusion.

Since I enjoy limiting myself to reseach on dictionary.com I found the definition of anarchy as:

1. a state of society without government or law.
2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy.
3. a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.
4. confusion; chaos; disorder: Intellectual and moral anarchy followed his loss of faith.

Your statement, sir, sounds much like this definition. John Locke said, "Where there is no law there is no freedom." I would add that law is not something moldable by the beliefs of the people, but is something that must be molded to. This said I am not condoning tyranny or corruption. However, steering oneself so far away from the ditch of tyranny only leads one straight to the opposite ditch of anarchy.

James Wilson, a signer of the Declaration of Independence said, "Liberty and happiness have a powerful enemy on each hand; on the one hand tyranny, on the other licentiousness [anarchy]. To guard against the latter, it is necessary to give the proper powers to government; and to guard against the former, it is necessary that those powers should be properly distributed."


Submitted by Charlie Maricle on July 9, 2009 - 3:35pm.

First, I don't think you are...

Back to page top

First, I don't think you are stating anything "humbly"; you are asserting that the statements in the letter are wrong and dangerous. Maybe "humbly disagree" is just a trite expression. Secondly, it seems you are discounting the idea that the power of the government flows from the citizens. I have always viewed government in the US, on the local, state, and national level as "of, by, and for the people" and I don't think we have to accept a little tyranny in order to avoid anarchy. Of course we have institutions like the judiciary and the US Senate that are deliberative and elite to protect against too much rapid change in policy, but ultimately democracy serves the people...so keep the people informed and engaged!


Submitted by darwinball on July 10, 2009 - 5:54am.

Again I will defer to...

Back to page top

Again I will defer to dictionary.com to define my statements on humility,

1. not proud or arrogant; modest: to be humble although successful.
2. having a feeling of insignificance, inferiority, subservience,
etc.: In the presence of so many world-famous writers I felt very
humble.
3. low in rank, importance, status, quality, etc.; lowly: of humble
origin; a humble home.
4. courteously respectful: In my humble opinion you are wrong.
5. low in height, level, etc.; small in size: a humble member of the
galaxy.

If you require more clarity on my statement, I am open for the dialogue.

Also, in rereading what was written, I did not see any statement about accepting tyranny so anarchy would not occur. I actually agree that tyranny should not be tolerated. However, neither should a little anarchy be tolerated. One wrong does not justify another so as not to repeat the original wrong. Interestingly, English philosopher, Jeremy Bentham said, “Tyranny and anarchy are never far apart” while the philosopher Sophocles said, “There is no greater evil than anarchy”. However, I admit this resembles the “chicken and the egg” conundrum and probably could be debated ad nauseam.

Your statement that “ultimately democracy serves the people” needs some clarification. How does it serve all people? What mechanism does democracy allow for the minority?

Even the greatest political minds in history understood that democracy in itself is not the answer. Thomas Jefferson stated, “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine” and Winston Churchill said, “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” So, democracy may serve most people but it does not serve all the people.


Submitted by Charlie Maricle on July 10, 2009 - 11:37am.

If you meant "courteously...

Back to page top

If you meant "courteously respectful," then I apologize for taking your humble disagreement to task. I was not aware of that usage, and have always thought of humility as a state of modesty, a realistic view of one's place in the world without pridefulness nor self-flagellation.

Anyway, I find the Bentham and Sophocles quotations lacking for insight. How is tyranny close to anarchy? I can think of many greater evils than anarchy.

Of course, I was using "democracy" as a short-hand for our system of constitutional representative democracy, where Jefferson's fear of mob rule is mitigated and Churchill's misanthropic whine can be dulled through public discourse, a robust free press and a strong public education system.

I think our system has done a fair job of creating consensus while respecting the rights of minorities. We don't systematically persecute our fringe elements, nor do we allow them to set the agenda.


Submitted by darwinball on July 10, 2009 - 8:40pm.

Your apology is accepted...

Back to page top

Your apology is accepted while your thinly veiled attack upon my view of my place in the world and my character is also noted. And don’t use such big words, for a second there I thought you were insinuating that I fart on myself.

Naturally, we would have to ask Mr. Bentham what he truly meant by his statements but in the spirit of self-flagellation, I am going to propose that both he and Sophocles knew a bit more about politics and governmental creation then I do. But, for your sake and the undying need inside myself to deny that realistic view of my place in this world, I will attempt a quick assessment of what they could have meant. Perhaps Mr. Bentham’s thoughts were that tyranny is the ability of a group of anarchists to become the holders of power and one alpha personality being able to exert dominance. Perhaps he saw each as unrestrained attempts to control a society or country. Perhaps Sophocles believed that anarchy was the absence of any standard or purpose. Perhaps he thought that without standard nothing can be relied upon, chaos and self-indulgence rule, meaning each is out for his own at the expense of everyone else. Perhaps he knew that mankind needs both standard and purpose to avoid evil.

I agree that our current system mitigates Jefferson’s mob rule theory but I think that the 2000 presidential election and even the 2008 Minnesota senatorial election are recent examples of Churchill’s “whine”. With that said, I would then assert that our current system is not strictly a democracy but a hybrid of democracy and republicanism. So there is no confusion the definition of republicanism I used was;

1. a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.
2. any body of persons viewed as a commonwealth.
3. a state in which the head of government is not a monarch or other hereditary head of state.

While our system does do “a fair job of creating consensus while respecting the rights of minorities” I do not think a true democracy would. However, I would say there are times that our system does allow the fringe elements to guide agenda; a current example would be gay marriage. There is only a small portion, or fringe element, that is gay and would use gay marriage but the current political landscape seems to be allowing this element to control this policy. Now if you asked a homosexual, they would probably say that since there is no legislation that unwaveringly supports their agenda that we do “systematically persecute” them. But overall, I believe we agree that our current system is better than anrachy or tyranny.


Submitted by Charlie Maricle on July 11, 2009 - 4:27pm.

Do you really think same-sex...

Back to page top

Do you really think same-sex marriage is only an issue for gay people? Didn't changes in our history like the abolition of slavery, the extension of suffrage to women, the integration of housing and schools, and the Americans with Disabilities Act make our nation greater? I would never marry a man, because I was born heterosexual, but I want to live in a country that extends civil rights to all citizens. I'm confident that in 30 years, the banning of gay marriage will seem as backward to most Americans as the erection of drinking fountains segregated by race.


Submitted by darwinball on July 14, 2009 - 9:06pm.

Yes, the changes in our...

Back to page top

Yes, the changes in our history like "the abolition of slavery, the extension of suffrage to women, the integration of housing and schools, and the Americans with Disabilities Act" did make our nation greater than other nations. But the point I was making was not even related to the gay marriage. My issue is not about banning or allowing of gay marriage, that was only an example of my overall point that in recent times the "fringe elements" have begun to set policy more often then most would like to admit. I am, however, challenging your assertion that a little anarchy serves this country well and that your statement, "A government that will not listen and act based on the people is not a government I want to have any part of, and it certainly isn’t the American government" is an eloquent anarchist statement.


Submitted by Charlie Maricle on July 14, 2009 - 10:16pm.

Homosexuals are not a fringe...

Back to page top

Homosexuals are not a fringe element, neither are those who think equal rights and responsibilities are for everyone. I didn't mean that these changes have made us greater than other nations necessarily (US is absolutely my #1 though), just better than we were before.

I didn't write the original letter (my son did) but I think it is fair to posit that the government should be responsive to the citizens. I think the quote is much more reflective of republicanism than anarchism.

btw, I'm sure there are many areas where you and I would agree. One is probably that intellectual discourse like this is fun and challenging.


Submitted by darwinball on July 15, 2009 - 5:47am.

I apologize for the...

Back to page top

I apologize for the assumption that you were the author of the letter. I should have phrased that better.

Again, I used homosexuals as an example. For the purposes of the example, as I stated, homosexuals make up a very small portion of society. Therefore, only a small portion of society would be using the agendas and policies that are currently being pressed upon the rest of society.

If the definition for republicanism I inserted above is used, I do not see any resemblance between that definition and the original statement in the letter. A republic is a form of government where representatives are elected and they make decisions based upon what they think is best for the people. The people willingly accept the result and if they disapprove simply vote differently during the next election. Anarchy denotes a rebellion to the current condition of a country. It leads people to believe that their ideas are best and that those in authority to jump to each whim and fancy that they have. If the authority does not jump to each whim and fancy, their first reaction is to rebel against law and order instead of seeing the result as a product of their erratic whims and responding rationally.

Our representatives should not change pace upon the “people’s sundry beliefs” because not only does it cause confusion as to who the representatives really are but it leads to the creation of professional politicians who make promises they are unable to keep just to get elected. I believe the majority of people detest this sort of behavior. It is currently bearing itself out with the unrest that our current president is facing. He made promises during the campaign and there are groups that are claiming he is not fulfilling those promises.

Would these same groups be upset if during the campaign, the president had not made the promises? If he had not felt the need to pander to the “people’s sundry beliefs” to get elected, would he have made those promises? If people did not have a belief that their representatives should change course upon their “sundry beliefs” instead of leading this country as best they see fit, would we have the scandals and issues that professional politicians bring to the government?


Submitted by Charlie Maricle on July 15, 2009 - 11:13pm.

Perhaps modern American...

Back to page top

Perhaps modern American republican democracy is a new hybrid, where the voters select representatives based upon ridiculous assertions that may be irrelevant to the office sought (McCain is a bad husband, Obama isn't really a Christian, Franken is a pornographer, Kerry isn't the hero some say he was). After they are elected, office holders try to please their supporters, but are ruled by one supreme authority: opinion polls.


Submitted by darwinball on July 16, 2009 - 5:44am.

I think your assessment of...

Back to page top

I think your assessment of current American politics is accurate. However, I also think it is not the system the founding fathers envisioned and I think it is an indictment upon the state of society as a whole, that ridiculous assertions hold more weight with the voter than character and integrity. With the resources available today, there is no reason a voter should not be able to explain, in detail, why they voted for a particular individual. I am not saying that each voter should have a reason based upon each stance a politician takes, i.e. global warming, economics, Middle East crisis, etc. I am saying that a voter must be able to base their reasons, not upon some campaign rhetoric but upon factual actions of that candidate so the voter knows that it is more than “ridiculous assertions”. I will say then, and only then, will the “supreme authority” become truth and integrity as I believe it once was. Because only when the voters require truth and integrity will the government become what the founding fathers meant for it to become.


Submitted by Charlie Maricle on July 20, 2009 - 5:12pm.

There is always two sides...

Back to page top

There is always two sides but the most important correction Charlie Maricle asserted is that EVERYONE in the USA's government is sworn to uphold the Constitution, NOT the whims of a confused, uneducated,ungodly, over indulged,electorate. Thank goodness for that.


Submitted by arcy on July 10, 2009 - 10:39am.

Advertising

Advertising

Recent comments

Advertising

Advertising

Who's new

  • Laura Bennett
  • Watson
  • akdeal
  • Mike Lokken
  • mbinder

Who's online

There are currently 2 users and 448 guests online.

Online users

  • Jorge Sosa
  • Terry Davis

Today's Poll

Submitted by Cindy Novak Ardolf on March 17, 2010 - 8:58am.
» Read similar stories filed under:

Advertising