Am Wed, 02 Dec 2009 18:28:27 -0500 schrieb Warp:

> Florian Pesth <fpe### [at] gmxde> wrote:

>> It's not democracy which is bad, but the people who want to get rid of
>> it by abusing it.
> 
>   Democracy doesn't mean "every minority must have its way". It means
>   that
> the majority decides what happens to them. It's that simple.

The votes of the majority are constrained by the constitutional rights of 
everyone. Everyone includes minorities. That the constitution can not be 
changed by a simple majority vote in most countries is the thing that 
distinguishes it from a "normal" law.

> 
>   If minorities get precedence of the majority, that's not democracy
>  anymore.
> The current trend is that minorities *should* have precedence, and hence
> democracy as a concept is a bad thing.

No, but minorities should have the same constitutional rights as everyone 
else.

> 
>   The reason why democracy has always been a good thing is that it
>   creates
> unity. When minorities get precedence over the majority, that only
> causes discord and resentment, especially the more the minority groups
> there are getting special privileges. You end up dividing the society,
> and such a society cannot last.

Diversity is not per se threatening if you are comfortable about your own 
standpoint and the other one is not threatening you.

> 
>   The same trend also abhors freedom of speech for very similar reasons:
> It allows people to express the "wrong", majority opinions, which some
> minorities might find offensive (or, rather often, what
> multiculturalists themselves find offensive on behalf of the minorities
> even though those minorities themselves don't).
> 
>   I'm sorry if upholding democracy and freedom of speech offends
>   someone.
> Personally I value them more than some minarets.

How is erecting minarets restricting anyones freedom of speech? Nobody 
forbade them before to say, that they want to forbid minarets. We are 
talking about them actually forbidding them.

Post a reply to this message