Indexes
February 8th, 2010
February 6th, 2010
February 5th, 2010
February 4th, 2010
February 3rd, 2010
February 2nd, 2010
February 1st, 2010
The following stories have received the most reader comments during the last 7 days.
- Will terrorists be given Miranda warnings? (69)
- President Obama's first year (67)
- Lodi Unified School District president issues warning to speakers over cuts (64)
- Local business leaders say tourism, Costco, Home Depot may play roles in city's future (59)
- Islamic symbol in mosaic — what is all the fuss? (49)
- Writer comments on Neely column (42)
- The Home Depot hopes to join Costco at Reynolds Ranch (40)
- Police: Train victim was a Lodi teen (32)
- We need to conduct respectful conversations (30)
- Tasered suspect claims he is Yosemite Sam (25)
ADVERTISEMENT
Majority cannot deprive the minority
Saturday, November 7, 2009 7:20 AM PST
In regard to the prayer issue at City Council meetings, I am appalled at the lack of knowledge of civil rights by the council members and those Christians who want to force their beliefs on everyone as one council member stated, "whether they like it or not."
Those who have taken a class in civics in high school know that the majority can't deprive the minority of their civil rights — in other words, 99 percent of the people can't vote to deprive 1 percent of the people of their civil rights.
The civil right in question is freedom from religion. Those who claim that freedom of religion doesn't include freedom from religion overlook the fact that if dissent is not allowed, freedom doesn't exist. Thus, if one person at council meetings doesn't approve of prayers at a public meeting, then their civil rights have been violated by the majority.
Not only is Lodi a diverse city, but diversity exists within the Christian community as some Christians, including clergy, are opposed to prayers at public meetings.
So, I suggest the City Council save the city a lot of money in legal fees and protect the civil rights of all citizens by dropping this divisive issue altogether.
Ralph Matthews
Galt
Search for Ads 
Today’s Print Ads 
RSS Feeds
Reader Feedback
Brian wrote on Nov 13, 2009 7:36 AM:
Brian wrote on Nov 13, 2009 7:32 AM:
Brian wrote on Nov 13, 2009 7:29 AM:
wouldn't condone to some of her
crazy ramblings. "
Billy Rubin wrote on Nov 13, 2009 7:23 AM:
Probably not about the time he didn't stop not noticing that he no longer couldn't stop not making them anymore. "
Brian wrote on Nov 13, 2009 7:18 AM:
When did you start denying that you hava an inability to make rational statements? "
LodiFreeThinker wrote on Nov 11, 2009 8:59 AM:
Or in our coastal states either. So we built internment camps. That worked out great.
Since we are currently at war with radical Islamists, lets just round up all the Muslims and put 'em in camps.
But wait, if we think about that for too long we might look in the mirror and realize our nation is full of radical fundamentalists. Aren't they just as dangerous? Lets just put them all in camps too.
You know those Mormons have been pretty active lately what with running a candidate for president and funding prop 8. I think that kind of power coming from a church could be dangerous... so they're going in the camps too.
The Jews already had their turn, and they are kind of important to our political, legal and financial landscape... we'll leave them alone this time. Looks like all we'll have left are the moderate Christians and the Atheists.... like early America. Sigh... what a beautiful world it would be. "
Brian wrote on Nov 11, 2009 7:42 AM:
Diversity is good. Maybe not as good as the ability to shoot straight, though in the modern, politically correct Army, you never can tell. George Washington, Robert E. Lee, U.S. Grant, John J. Pershing, George S. Patton and even Dwight D. Eisenhower -- pretty good soldiers all -- never acted as if diversity is more important than the ability to kill bad guys and break things that ought to be broken. So far as we know, those worthies in the wars of yesteryear never tried to make allowances for troublemakers in uniform. A Nazi or a follower of Shinto in the ranks would have been booted out at once. "
Lodian wrote on Nov 10, 2009 11:50 AM:
---------------
I wonder what "many things" Jerry finds personally offensive. "
Godfather wrote on Nov 9, 2009 8:27 AM:
Lodian wrote on Nov 8, 2009 10:17 PM:
veritas wrote on Nov 8, 2009 8:07 PM:
sam wrote on Nov 8, 2009 7:29 PM:
Lodian says" Nov 7, 2009 2:39 PM:
" Ralph Matthews wrote "...if dissent is not allowed, freedom doesn't exist." Great words, Mr. Matthews. "
.. and then...on Nov 7, 2009 2:56 PM:
" I wonder... If most of Lodi were Muslims and Muslims would be the majority praying at the cc meetings would those Christians that fought so hard for prayer at the city meetings still fight as hard for Muslim prayer. "
and THEN YOU complain that you feel Lodian is stating Lodian is " so much more educated, elightened, and scholarly than I ?? "
Quit your whining and grow some balls, Chica. That is a pathetic response. Are you kidding me? "
veritas wrote on Nov 8, 2009 2:47 PM:
alf wrote on Nov 8, 2009 1:50 PM:
wtf wrote on Nov 8, 2009 12:20 PM:
Lodian you already know the answer to that. Remember how hard the fundies fought for their "right" to prayer before the council meeting....and remember these same fundies reaction when the Muslim parents wanted to safeguard what their children ate at school?
Hypocrisy....alive and well in liveable, loveable. "
voter wrote on Nov 8, 2009 8:39 AM:
voter wrote on Nov 8, 2009 8:38 AM:
Brian wrote on Nov 8, 2009 8:15 AM:
" I wonder... If most of Lodi were Muslims and Muslims would be the majority praying at the cc meetings would those Christians that fought so hard for prayer at the city meetings still fight as hard for Muslim prayer. "
-And if this was the case Lodian, mark my words that some type of Sharia courts would be established here and Christians would have no choice but to here a Sharia mandated call to prayer
along with any other prayer or invocations. Democracy has always had a limited power power to mandate. and this limited power is within reason, of course. Once we start down the road of an unlimited unreasonable power to mandate that's when this government is no longer a Democracy or Republic. Hey, isn't the last sentence a reasonable description of the Obama Administration? "
sparky595 wrote on Nov 8, 2009 5:45 AM:
" Ralph Matthews wrote "...if dissent is not allowed, freedom doesn't exist."
Great words, Mr. Matthews. "
Those are great words, Lodian. Maybe you can call your buddies obama, pelosi, and reid and remind them of this. As we all are very aware by now, Chicago style politics do not appreciate dissenters. "
veritas wrote on Nov 7, 2009 6:33 PM:
veritas wrote on Nov 7, 2009 6:31 PM:
Lodian wrote on Nov 7, 2009 2:56 PM:
Lodian wrote on Nov 7, 2009 2:39 PM:
Great words, Mr. Matthews. "
dogs4you wrote on Nov 7, 2009 1:36 PM:
dogs4you wrote on Nov 7, 2009 1:31 PM:
t jefferson wrote on Nov 7, 2009 11:16 AM:
But also being a realist, I should have said undue intervention.
The problem is that progressive see no transgression as undue when it meet their needs, whereas I see most as undue. So I guess you could call it a sense of degrees. I like freedom and personal responsibility, progressives like power and feel the need to "take care" of others. Dependency is a great thing when your goal is ultimate power. "
voter wrote on Nov 7, 2009 10:38 AM:
t jefferson wrote on Nov 7, 2009 10:20 AM:
How about these:
Right to be free of government intervention in my life.
Right to raise my children without government intervention.
Right to keep the money I earn.
Right to bear arms.
Right to petition government and have those petitions redressed.
Right to be represented by a politician.
Right to be secure from government seizure of personal property.
All of these are spelled out in the constitution---you know that document you have never read and change on a whim, based on some progressives judge drug addled vision that day. "
voter wrote on Nov 7, 2009 9:18 AM:
" Our basic rights have been eroding for years now; it's beyond the point where we do nothing, because soon we won't have any rights at all. "
Make a list. Exactly which "rights" have you lost? "
Jerome R. Kinderman wrote on Nov 7, 2009 8:36 AM:
Pray or don't pray - that's a personal choice that we each get to make. I would never insist that anyone bow their head and close their eyes in reverence to anything I might be praying about. Conversely, don't think for one moment that I will stand idly by while you attempt to take that right away from me simply because you find it distasteful.
Abortion is offensive and it isn't even enumerated in the Constitution as a "right." Yet here we are in a nation that has no compunction against destroying human life before it has a chance to enjoy its own rights, but God forbid one of us chooses to pray in public and oh no!! That's too much to take!
Our basic rights have been eroding for years now; it's beyond the point where we do nothing, because soon we won't have any rights at all. "
Jerome R. Kinderman wrote on Nov 7, 2009 8:25 AM:
Congress (government) is prohibited from forming a religion of its own. Equally as important is that Congress (again, the government) is prohibited from standing in the way of any citizen's desire to worship as he/she so chooses.
Talk about topsy-turvy! In a nation where the majority does get its way (kind of like the way we vote), Mr. Matthews (and so many others) believe not only is that no longer applicable, but restrictions should be placed upon those who desire to enjoy the civil right afforded by the very First Amendment to the Constitution.
There's no violation of the rights of those who choose not to believe or practice no form of religion. No one's forcing their beliefs on anyone else; they're simply demanding that they (we) be permitted to exercise that which the Founder's believed to be a fundamental right. "
Rhodie wrote on Nov 7, 2009 8:03 AM:
Sorry Ralph, your real intentions are revelled here. No one has a civil right to freedom FROM religion. Religion is all around you. As you drive down the street you see churches, people wear religion motivated shirts, have religion motivated bumperstickers and religion is mentioned in song even on non-religion radio.
Your statement, echoing others, that you want to be free FROM religion means that you want to take away the rights of people to practise their religion. That you want Churches to be plain buildings with no religious indications seen from public areas, that any referance, personal or coorporate, to God is outlawed so you can have your freedom FROM religion.
And let me guess Ralph you still celibrate Christmas, don't you? "
Comments on this story are now closed.