COLLEGE ROCKS!

I'm just over 1/2 way through my first semester back in college and I must say that for the most part, I'm having a blast. Everything is going well, but after much contemplation, I've decided to switch my major from education to psychology. There's many reasons for this that I won't bore you with, but if you're really interested, we can discuss it via email.

Recently, there was a discussion thread created by a fellow student in my on-line course about "under God" being removed from the pledge. I quickly found out that I am the only dissenting voice supporting the removal. Many of the posts that appeared in support of the phrase boiled down to the "what is this world coming to?" chicken-little squeals.

Within other discussion threads I showed myself to be a drum-pounder for seperation of church and state, and my posts elicited many posts of disagreement. Finally, one post gave me an opening to write in much more detail. My reply was rather long, but I'm quite proud of it and thought it is blog worthy.

There's a history of debate between myself and another student (hereafter referred to as Student B). Long story short: Student A stated that the minority is trying to force their beliefs on the majority by demanding the removal of the "under God" phrase from the pledge. I posted asking "With all due respect, how is that any worse than the majority imposing their beliefs?" Student B then posted a statement that twisted the original wording of Student A's post to make it look like I misunderstood the point. My reply to Student B directly quoted from Student A's post, supported my question and made his rebuttal look off the mark and unnecessary (which it was). This is what Student B then posted:

Are you sure you want ot be a teacher. You sound more like an attorney and would probably make a great litigator!

My post stands, including your quoted quote - "a majority of Americans...a small minority of Americans."

You will note that the majority is not forcing their beliefs, which vary on to the minority, whcih, by the way, is what happens in a representative democracy such as ours - the one that allows a dissenting opinion an equal voice.

I would like to drive at 100 mph on Route 66 and the majority of speeders don't - are my rights being impinged?

If I am ever in trouble, I'm calling you for the defense.

So here's what I replied.

I wasn't going to reply to Student B's post from Thursday, but I'm bored and am looking for a reason not to do my laundry, read yet another chapter, or watch TV. It's off topic a bit, but consideration of the constitutional issues does provide some points to ponder on the current topic.

I’ll also add that the environment of an on-line discussion, at times, doesn’t allow the personality or disposition of the involved parties to come through clearly, so I’ll state up front: I have the deepest respect for anyone who stands firm on their opinion(s) and are willing to back up their statements. I never intend to come across as mean or judgmental, as that is not my nature. I am a warm, accepting person, and a proponent of diversity. I take civil liberties very seriously and have done a lot of research, reading and contemplation. I am also a fascinated by the political process and how it’s evolved.

So in the spirit of friendly debate…

Student B wrote:
"You will note that the majority is not forcing their beliefs, which vary on to the minority, whcih, by the way, is what happens in a representative democracy such as ours - the one that allows a dissenting opinion an equal voice."

My rebuttal:
But the religious majority is forcing their beliefs with the continuing inclusion of references to God and their attempts in the legislature to define policy according to their religion’s practices, which I will note (I know, I know... ad nauseum) was against the intent of the founding fathers. Consider how many references to God and religious beliefs have been very publicly discussed by everyone from the political pundits on Sunday morning TV up to the President himself when referring to the Iraq War, same sex marriage, and most recently the nomination of Harriet Miers.

What makes the protection of the rights of the minority provided in the Constitution even more important is that the "representative democracy" currently in play is not truly representative.

First consider the power of lobbying groups, which in essence negate an equal voice to a dissenting opinion. These lobbying groups can coerce the elected officials, mostly through slippery campaign contributions and threats of voting blocks on upcoming elections. One possible end result is that the elected official may vote against the wishes of the majority of his/her constituency.

Second, you must keep in mind that a large percentage of the potential voting population doesn't vote. This is the major inherent flaw in a representative democracy. According to a US Census report, in the 1996 presidential election only 58% of the citizens who could possibly vote actually did. In 2000, it was 59%. When you further break down the percentages to each candidate, it becomes clear that roughly 30% of the population elects the leader of the nation. In local elections, which routinely get even less voter turnout, the true percentages are much lower. Is that really representative? That these non-voters are not well enough motivated and in many cases not well enough educated, shouldn’t impinge their rights as provided by the Constitution.

Third, look at the reasons people vote for a particular politician. In other words...the continuing effects of negative campaigning have made a representative government almost impossible. A significant percentage of voters will vote based on emotions evoked by TV & newspaper ads and the deluge of mailings received instead of a candidate’s stance on a position.

(I could add a few more, but I'm afraid I've already bored at least some of my potential audience.)

I've really enjoyed these discussion threads and the debates that have ensued, but as a potential English/composition instructor, I feel that I would be doing you a disservice in not addressing the following statement.

Student B wrote:
"I would like to drive at 100 mph on Route 66 and the majority of speeders don't - are my rights being impinged?"

While I understand why you typed this, in the disciplines of rhetoric and debate, your statement would be considered a false analogy. Unlike separation of church and state, speeding is illegal and not guaranteed in the Constitution or Bill of Rights.

In closing, the Constitution and it's amendments in many instances were specifically intended to protect the minority from the wishes of the majority: slavery, civil rights, free speech in general, etc.. Very few will oppose those examples. Separation of church and state is simply another instance of the Constitution’s aim to protect the rights of a minority. It’s not an attack on religion, an opposition to it, or support of the non-religious. Unfortunately, the strength of the majority’s personal religious beliefs interferes with the backing of separation of church and state.

The only problem is that the discussion has basically stopped. Student B has not responded other than to say, "While I typically don't shy away from debates, here I was just sharing another view, nothing more."

Might I add... "chicken"

Damn! I was hoping that the debate would continue.