![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
missroseroseGrandma,
This is an interesting email, and certainly one of the more reasonable-sounding ones I've seen on the subject. I wonder if you've thought its logic through, though.
But first, the Snopes links that I'm sure you expect from me by now:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/dollarcoin.asp
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/lincolncent.asp
Interestingly, they don't seem to have a page directly addressing the apparently-widespread belief that the government plans to take "In God We Trust" off of U.S. currency. I have yet to see a single substantiated news report saying that this is the case, and as you can see from the above links, every time the issue comes up in a specific instance, it ends up not being true.
But, factual inaccuracies aside, let's address the basic rationale of this email. I assume that its thesis rests in this statement towards the end:
If this idea gets to enough people, maybe our elected officials will stop giving in to the minority opinions and begin, once again, to represent the 'majority' of ALL of the American people.
While the opinion of the majority is certainly an important factor in governing a country, it can't be the only issue given consideration. A country governed entirely by majority opinion would be a pure democracy. Now, I realize that we're generally told through the media that "democracy" is a good thing, that America is a democracy, and that we should spread democracy to less enlightened countries. There are certainly elements of truth to each of those statements, but despite widespread belief in them, none are entirely factual.
Pure democracy is, in essence, mob mentality. In a "democracy", such as many folk would have you believe America should be, there is nothing standing between majority opinion and law. All well and good, until you think about some of the effects of deindividuation and groupthink that so often happen in large groups of people (lynch mobs and the Ku Klux Klan both come to mind). In a democracy, if the majority wants to infringe on the rights of the minority, there is nothing stopping them from doing so.
Of equal concern in a democracy are issues where there are more choices than a simple yes/no dichotomy - in such situations, "majority rule" can actually end in a result that the majority of group members are unhappy with! I'm reminded especially of an incident that took place in my sixth grade class. We had recently acquired a class hamster, and the teachers decided that the best way to determine her name would be by majority vote. We were all given a day to write suggestions on the board, and we then got to vote for the name we wanted. It was truly democratic - one person got one vote. The problem arose because of the sheer number of choices available; most options got two or three votes, but six boys in the back of the class voted for "H. Girly Girl", which the rest of the class thought was, frankly, stupid. However, since the rest of the votes were so spread out, their name won, and our hamster was dubbed "H. Girly Girl".
This is why America is not a true democracy, but in fact a republic. We are allowed democratic participation by our ability to vote for those we wish to represent us, but it is those elected representatives who hold the power, and not the mob members. And as a secondary buffer against mob mentality among our elected representatives, no one group has total control. In theory, and often in practice, this protects minority groups from being excluded through majority rule. And while some might question the importance of said minority groups, America was founded as a nation of refuge for exactly those groups whose rights were oppressed and violated in their home countries.
Which brings us to the question of religion. Every schoolchild knows the First Amendment to the Constitution, which guarantees separation of Church and State. This has little to do with "political correctness"; it does, however, have everything to do with the protection of those same minority groups, in this case those who are participants in minority religions, or who belong to no religion at all. (Admittedly, it doesn't always work - I'm sure you recall the persecution of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in the early days of their establishment as a religion! - but it's by far better than having no protections at all.) The majority of people living in the U.S.A. do belong to a form of Judeo-Christian religion, and the vast majority hold some sort of belief in God. However, events in our government that many interpret as a denial of God or an invasion of political correctness are often, in fact, simply recognizing that not everyone in this country holds those beliefs. And since the federal government is supposed to be there for and accessible by any American citizen, regardless of religious background, symbols of a single religion being prominently displayed on government property are often deemed inappropriate. This does not mean, as some folk seem to believe, that individual people are not allowed to express their beliefs or wear religious symbols on federal property; simply that the government as an entity should refrain from an appearance of favoritism.
I find myself wondering what those who decry the lack of religion in our government would say were a courthouse to publicly display the Five Pillars of Islam instead of the Ten Commandments...
This is an interesting email, and certainly one of the more reasonable-sounding ones I've seen on the subject. I wonder if you've thought its logic through, though.
But first, the Snopes links that I'm sure you expect from me by now:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/dollarcoin.asp
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/lincolncent.asp
Interestingly, they don't seem to have a page directly addressing the apparently-widespread belief that the government plans to take "In God We Trust" off of U.S. currency. I have yet to see a single substantiated news report saying that this is the case, and as you can see from the above links, every time the issue comes up in a specific instance, it ends up not being true.
But, factual inaccuracies aside, let's address the basic rationale of this email. I assume that its thesis rests in this statement towards the end:
If this idea gets to enough people, maybe our elected officials will stop giving in to the minority opinions and begin, once again, to represent the 'majority' of ALL of the American people.
While the opinion of the majority is certainly an important factor in governing a country, it can't be the only issue given consideration. A country governed entirely by majority opinion would be a pure democracy. Now, I realize that we're generally told through the media that "democracy" is a good thing, that America is a democracy, and that we should spread democracy to less enlightened countries. There are certainly elements of truth to each of those statements, but despite widespread belief in them, none are entirely factual.
Pure democracy is, in essence, mob mentality. In a "democracy", such as many folk would have you believe America should be, there is nothing standing between majority opinion and law. All well and good, until you think about some of the effects of deindividuation and groupthink that so often happen in large groups of people (lynch mobs and the Ku Klux Klan both come to mind). In a democracy, if the majority wants to infringe on the rights of the minority, there is nothing stopping them from doing so.
Of equal concern in a democracy are issues where there are more choices than a simple yes/no dichotomy - in such situations, "majority rule" can actually end in a result that the majority of group members are unhappy with! I'm reminded especially of an incident that took place in my sixth grade class. We had recently acquired a class hamster, and the teachers decided that the best way to determine her name would be by majority vote. We were all given a day to write suggestions on the board, and we then got to vote for the name we wanted. It was truly democratic - one person got one vote. The problem arose because of the sheer number of choices available; most options got two or three votes, but six boys in the back of the class voted for "H. Girly Girl", which the rest of the class thought was, frankly, stupid. However, since the rest of the votes were so spread out, their name won, and our hamster was dubbed "H. Girly Girl".
This is why America is not a true democracy, but in fact a republic. We are allowed democratic participation by our ability to vote for those we wish to represent us, but it is those elected representatives who hold the power, and not the mob members. And as a secondary buffer against mob mentality among our elected representatives, no one group has total control. In theory, and often in practice, this protects minority groups from being excluded through majority rule. And while some might question the importance of said minority groups, America was founded as a nation of refuge for exactly those groups whose rights were oppressed and violated in their home countries.
Which brings us to the question of religion. Every schoolchild knows the First Amendment to the Constitution, which guarantees separation of Church and State. This has little to do with "political correctness"; it does, however, have everything to do with the protection of those same minority groups, in this case those who are participants in minority religions, or who belong to no religion at all. (Admittedly, it doesn't always work - I'm sure you recall the persecution of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in the early days of their establishment as a religion! - but it's by far better than having no protections at all.) The majority of people living in the U.S.A. do belong to a form of Judeo-Christian religion, and the vast majority hold some sort of belief in God. However, events in our government that many interpret as a denial of God or an invasion of political correctness are often, in fact, simply recognizing that not everyone in this country holds those beliefs. And since the federal government is supposed to be there for and accessible by any American citizen, regardless of religious background, symbols of a single religion being prominently displayed on government property are often deemed inappropriate. This does not mean, as some folk seem to believe, that individual people are not allowed to express their beliefs or wear religious symbols on federal property; simply that the government as an entity should refrain from an appearance of favoritism.
I find myself wondering what those who decry the lack of religion in our government would say were a courthouse to publicly display the Five Pillars of Islam instead of the Ten Commandments...
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-11-29 07:51 pm (UTC)I can never decide whether to make points like these to my relatives on the opposite side of the religious and political spectrum, or just let it go... They're never going to agree with me, and they're as turned off by my attempting to educate them as I am by their preaching. But on the other hand it's so hard to let ignorant or offensive statements go by unchecked.
L.
no subject
Date: 2007-11-29 08:14 pm (UTC)My grandmother's sort of interesting. On the outside, she's a fairly typical family-oriented Mormon; she lives in Colorado near my aunt and cousins (again, all Mormon), attends church and various church functions, etc., etc. But she has a distinctly Irish (from my great-grandfather) rebellious streak in her that you don't see in my aunt (who is, quite honestly, the living incarnation of Snow White, including the falsetto voice). I guess I shouldn't be too surprised - my mother had to get it from somewhere.
Anyway, she actually does read this blog sometimes, and she knows my views from previous emails I've sent her, so I somehow doubt it surprises her to get my responses. And while we don't correspond much, I do get the feeling that she reads my replies and thinks about them, which is why I bother (as opposed to the ones I get from my aunt, where I usually just send her a link and let Snopes do the talking - in large part because of her nonconfrontational personality. I don't want her to feel like I'm constantly challenging her, so having a third party deliver the information helps). So I halfway wonder if my grandmother sends me these things because she likes my responses to them, since the represent a viewpoint rather different from the one she's used to. On the other hand, it might just be that I'm on her contact list, so when she hits "send to all" it goes to me automatically. But I've not yet had her complain when I respond, so...*shrug* I figure it can't hurt, and if nothing else it helps me get my arguments in line for when I'm being challenged by non-family members. =)
no subject
Date: 2007-11-29 11:48 pm (UTC)The agnostics are a problem. Perhaps incorporating a GPS receiver will help them to find their way.