Post #190,261
1/14/05 10:28:05 PM
|
Okay, let's simplify.
In Jesusland, we've got N groups. Group 1 to Group N-1 wants everyone to be treated equally. Wants freedom of speech, thought, expression. Group 1 to Group N-1 believes in civil liberties, the right to assemble, the freedom to believe in whichever religion they chose (or none at all), the right to petition, 1 man 1 vote and that science and medical research should be unencumbered by any religious doctrine. Group N believes in none of those principles. Moreover, Group N believes that unless you are a member of Group N, you are a heathen whom God hates and will one day destroy.
Now, the pickle. Jesusland has enough nukes to kill everyone in Jesusland and all the rest of the lands on the planet and Group N comprises 50.5% of the voting populace.
Does democracy in Jesusland make sense? Does it serve humanity well? Does it serve idealized American democracy well, or anything else for that matter?
I can't help but think that you don't like the question because you don't like the obvious answer.
bcnu, Mikem
Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer. (Just trying to be accepted in the New America)
|
Post #190,265
1/14/05 10:42:52 PM
1/14/05 10:52:24 PM
|
Because your 'obvious answer' is wrong.
Think it through.
What happens when a majority of a group is treated as second-class citizens. What eventually happens to the minority that is treating them that way? What happens when that minority starts treating them with contempt (as has invariably happened throughout history)?
Your way is the way that ends in tyranny and opression. Bloodshed and death. 6000 years of history illustrates this. The republican democracy must devolve to the form of government you ADVOCATE before this happens. Or at least that's the way it's worked through history.
You will not learn, will you. You want to repeat. What was it you said? "Only atheists should be allowed to hold government positions"? Only your clique should rule? Oh - for the good of all. Nobody's heard THAT old saw before, have they?
You are horribly, enthusiastically and virulently wrong.
[link|http://forfree.sytes.net|
] Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning, As hopeless as it seems in the middle, Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
Edited by imric
Jan. 14, 2005, 10:52:24 PM EST
|
Post #190,392
1/16/05 3:05:42 PM
|
ROFL
My argument stands. It doesn't matter if you are an atheist or not; you are still advocating that classes be legislated into society, based on 'correct' thoughts.
And if you can't see what's wrong with that logically, morally, and historically, there is no use continuing this discussion - you are squeezing your eyes shut as tightly as any neocon.
[link|http://forfree.sytes.net|
] Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning, As hopeless as it seems in the middle, Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #190,268
1/14/05 10:56:39 PM
|
Sounds to me like you've got 2 groups.
Group N and Not Group N. Real life isn't like that. Instead, people form different alliances (people attending different churches or not, neighbors supporting or opposing a road through the neighborhood, people at work being in a union or not, people voting for A or B, people boycotting store C or D) depending on the circumstances. People supporting one issue may oppose another. Similarly, people in Jesusland aren't homogeneous either (as some here have tried to point out). Does democracy in Jesusland make sense? Does it serve humanity well? Does it serve idealized American democracy well, or anything else for that matter?A pure democracy necessarily results in tyranny of the majority. That's one of the reasons why we're not a democracy. We're a federal republic. [link|http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed51.htm|Federalist 51]: [...]
There are, moreover, two considerations particularly applicable to the federal system of America, which place that system in a very interesting point of view. First. In a single republic, all the power surrendered by the people is submitted to the administration of a single government; and the usurpations are guarded against by a division of the government into distinct and separate departments. In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself. Second. It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure.
There are but two methods of providing against this evil: the one by creating a will in the community independent of the majority that is, of the society itself; the other, by comprehending in the society so many separate descriptions of citizens as will render an unjust combination of a majority of the whole very improbable, if not impracticable. The first method prevails in all governments possessing an hereditary or self-appointed authority. This, at best, is but a precarious security; because a power independent of the society may as well espouse the unjust views of the major, as the rightful interests of the minor party, and may possibly be turned against both parties. The second method will be exemplified in the federal republic of the United States. Whilst all authority in it will be derived from and dependent on the society, the society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests, and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority.
In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights. It consists in the one case in the multiplicity of interests, and in the other in the multiplicity of sects. The degree of security in both cases will depend on the number of interests and sects; and this may be presumed to depend on the extent of country and number of people comprehended under the same government. This view of the subject must particularly recommend a proper federal system to all the sincere and considerate friends of republican government, since it shows that in exact proportion as the territory of the Union may be formed into more circumscribed Confederacies, or States oppressive combinations of a majority will be facilitated: the best security, under the republican forms, for the rights of every class of citizens, will be diminished: and consequently the stability and independence of some member of the government, the only other security, must be proportionately increased. Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger; and as, in the latter state, even the stronger individuals are prompted, by the uncertainty of their condition, to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves; so, in the former state, will the more powerful factions or parties be gradnally induced, by a like motive, to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful.
It can be little doubted that if the State of Rhode Island was separated from the Confederacy and left to itself, the insecurity of rights under the popular form of government within such narrow limits would be displayed by such reiterated oppressions of factious majorities that some power altogether independent of the people would soon be called for by the voice of the very factions whose misrule had proved the necessity of it. In the extended republic of the United States, and among the great variety of interests, parties, and sects which it embraces, a coalition of a majority of the whole society could seldom take place on any other principles than those of justice and the general good; whilst there being thus less danger to a minor from the will of a major party, there must be less pretext, also, to provide for the security of the former, by introducing into the government a will not dependent on the latter, or, in other words, a will independent of the society itself. It is no less certain than it is important, notwithstanding the contrary opinions which have been entertained, that the larger the society, provided it lie within a practical sphere, the more duly capable it will be of self-government. And happily for the REPUBLICAN CAUSE, the practicable sphere may be carried to a very great extent, by a judicious modification and mixture of the FEDERAL PRINCIPLE.
PUBLIUS. If Jesusland were a federal republic and 50.5% believed as you suggest, what would that mean? I dunno. How would it translate into concrete political actions and results? For example, I don't think the US has ever had a proposition on the ballot on whether we should go to war or not. How would you phrase this plebiscite? How would it be binding? Could you flesh this part out a little more? Cheers, Scott.
|