Among other things, Charles C saw fit to write:

> The emediete question is what should the government do if a majority votes
> to impose religion-based morals and teachings? And the question behind
> this
> question is what has precidence, the "will-of-the-people," or "liberty."  
> I think this is where countries need to decide that the principle stated
> in
> sentence (A) should apply to the voting population:  you can't vote to
> restrict rights without showing that rights conflict with other rights
> somehow. (Land use/planning is a good example of how rights can conflict
> in a way that I think is vote-able.) Anyhow, majority religion under this
> principle, cannot be a reason to change laws etc.

In my country (Spain) I believe it's possible to promote a law change by
popular demand, except in "foreign affairs" and economics.

I wholeheartedly agree with you about tolerance, personal freedom and
tyranny of majority. I recently heard that democracy is not about doing

the minorities.

However there, is something that worries me. Take this discussion about
science/religion in the school. I am strongly convinced that science is
"the good way", that people should know what science has to say, that the
world would be a better place if everyone had a firm scientific education,
that our children should be taught to think critically... But I have to
accept there are people who think the opposite, that (their particular
flavour of) religion is the only acceptable way, that people should act
according to religious teachings, that the world would be a better place if
everyone lead a pious life, that our children should be taught to interpret
the scriptures... Who am I to say that my view is better than theirs? It's
certainly better for me, but why has the society have to be as I want it
and not as they want it? It's not only about personal freedom, it's also
about the way we want our societies to go.

The same can be said about many other subjects like taxes, public health,
research, etc. Sometimes you have conflicting views, both (or all) of them
equally valid for their supporters, who also believe they're the best
choice for everyone's wellbeing. A decision by the "brute force" of voting
may not be the fairest one, but an agreement might be next to impossible
(and the "most tolerant" of the views is likely to be the one to give up
earlier). Sometimes one would wish there was a "benevolent dictator"
somewhere...

-- 
light_source{9+9*x,1}camera{orthographic look_at(1-y)/4angle 30location
9/4-z*4}light_source{-9*z,1}union{box{.9-z.1+x clipped_by{plane{2+y-4*x
0}}}box{z-y-.1.1+z}box{-.1.1+x}box{.1z-.1}pigment{rgb<.8.2,1>}}//Jellby

Post a reply to this message