“One man one vote.”
Excuse me? The truth is not subject to vote.
“His opinion only carries more weight than anyone elses if it is good and eloquent enough to persuade more people”
No, his opinion carries more weight if it is more credible, whether he is eloquent or not, and most especially if it is correct. His opinion is more credible because he is closer to the event in question, and therefore had direct access that we don’t, and because he has demonstrated intelligence and wisdom over the long term. As for persuasion, it is a fact of the human condition that it is easier to persuade most people of a plausible falsehood than an implausible or unpalatable truth.
“Still, doesn’t persuade me”
Well then, you need to add to your store of information and reconsider.
“Besides, being from that era he is neccesarily rooted in that era.”
Doesn’t matter. The Constitution is also of and rooted in that era.
“He didn’t have much idea as to how the US would grow and develop - theres a whole raft of social issues he couldn’t possibly have forseen, starting with mass immigration from non-English speaking nations.”
Again, irrelevant. The Constitution says what it says. It doesn’t suddenly start meaning something else just because the left makes the argument you just made. It is morally bankrupt to “reinterpret” the Constitution to suit the whims of the moment, rather than using the procedures for amendment set forth in that document.
“I agree...but who decides what is a “legitimate religion”
I do.
But seriously, folks, that was already decided when the Constitutional Convention met.
“Is it purely on the basis of numbers?”
You really need to get in touch with the principle that the truth is not subject to popular vote.
“There have been times when Christianity was regarded as a “whacko cult”
The fact that people can be wrong serves to demonstrate only that people can be wrong.
“There have been more recent times when “Baptist” was regarded as a “whacko cult”
Not in the same way that wicca is. It was never regarded as other than Christian. More of a fundamentalist sect than a whacko cult.
“I also think proscribing (mohammedism and wicca) is a dangerous step.”
Not even remotely as dangerous as failing to proscribe them.
“Atheism is a bona fide belief system (or unbelief system) shared by a very large number of people world wide.”
That must be some new use of the term “bona fide” that I haven’t run across before. Yes, it is true that Satan has deceived “a very large number of people world wide,” but in what way does that make his lies “bona fide?”
“but I’m certainly not so scared of them I want to ban them.”
WRT mohammedism and wicca, you should be that scared. WRT atheism, it would be sufficient to refrain from according it the intellectual credibility that inheres in a legitimate religious belief.
“Both Catholicism and Anglicanism are hierarchical in nature and both, by neccesity, endorse the idea of “state” relgion, a concept he would certainly be opposed to introducing into the US”
At the time that the Constitution was ratified, several of the original states had official state religions, and there was nothing in the Constitution that required them to be abolished. This was not a concept that needed “introducing” into America.
“In particular, there was a lot of anti-catholic opinion in the US at the time.”
It would be more accurate to say that some people held anti-Catholic opinion, while others did not. I know of nothing to show that Justice Story was bigoted against Catholicism.
“The truth is not subject to vote.”
No it isnt, but discerning truth is much more difficult.
“No, his opinion carries more weight if it is more credible, whether he is eloquent or not, and most especially if it is correct.”
Umm...that’s what I said...
“His opinion is more credible because he is closer to the event in question, and therefore had direct access that we don’t, and because he has demonstrated intelligence and wisdom over the long term. As for persuasion, it is a fact of the human condition that it is easier to persuade most people of a plausible falsehood than an implausible or unpalatable truth.”
So by your argument, if an election votes in the “right” candidate, then democracy is vindicated, but if it results in the “wrong” candidate, then the majority have been persuaded because falsehood is more plausible. Sounds like a no-lose situation for your personal prejudices.
“Well then, you need to add to your store of information and reconsider.”
I see. So when we disagree, I need to learn and reconsider, but you dont have to? Why don’t you just come flat out
“The Constitution says what it says. It doesn’t suddenly start meaning something else just because the left makes the argument you just made. It is morally bankrupt to “reinterpret” the Constitution to suit the whims of the moment, rather than using the procedures for amendment set forth in that document.”
The constitution is interpreted and reinterpreted all the time. The Bible is interpreted and reinterpreted all the time. There’s nothing unusual or wrong in that. The truth is strong enough to stand on its own. It doesnt need help from self-appointed guardians.
“Is it purely on the basis of numbers?”
You really need to get in touch with the principle that the truth is not subject to popular vote.”
Thanks for twisting my argument round to mean exactly the opposite. The comment “Is it purely on the basis of numbers?” is what is known as a “rhetorical question”. Obviously truth is not dependent on numbers, and therefore, the fact that wicca, islam, atheism, reformed toadstool worship (or whatever) cannot be discounted purely on the basis that they are rare. There are plenty of reasons why none of those are “legitimate” reasons, but the fact that they have relatively few adherents in a particular society is NOT one of them.
The point I am trying to make is that I think proscribing various religious groups sets a dangerous precedent. If Islam is proscribed now, what happens in the future? I dont want the State to decide what I can, and cannot think or believe.
And on a more practical point, when religions are proscribed they tend to thrive. Christianity did (and does) and so did the Baptists. And incidentally being a Baptist was regarded as being a member of a whacko cult at one stage. A lot of Baptists were executed, for being Baptists.
“At the time that the Constitution was ratified, several of the original states had official state religions, and there was nothing in the Constitution that required them to be abolished.”
But there is now. Separation of Church and State and all that.
“It would be more accurate to say that some people held anti-Catholic opinion, while others did not.”
OK, I modify my statement. The majority of people in the US at the time held very strong anti-Catholic opinions. It wasn’t just some.
“I know of nothing to show that Justice Story was bigoted against Catholicism”
Its not a question of bigotry. Its a question of belief.