Protecting minorities

[kia75]

So... the Senate has just gone Nuclear, getting rid of the filibuster, a way of keeping the majority from running roughshod against the minority.

I don't want to talk about the senate or the filibuster here exactly, that's what Politics and News is for. I want to talk about what rights and protections the minority should have. Should the majority be able to do whatever they want? Or are there certain protections the minority should have regardless of the circumstances?


If everyone is a Satanist and I'm the only Christian, should I have the right to not listen to a Satanist prayer? Should I be able to make everyone listen to my prayer? If I like the mansion down the street should I be able to get 99 other people and vote for us to divide the mansion as we see fit? If I oppose a law that 99 of my fellow lawmakers support, should I be able to keep that law from being passed?

What powers and protections should the minority have?

 

[ThinClient]

I'm an atheist yet I am forced to live under christian-based laws like the ban on stem cell research which could have saved the life of a family member of mine.

Nowhere in the world exists a place where everyone is happy.

The way to respect a minority is to treat them like the majority in every way you can within reason.

If you want to divide the mansion into 99 other pieces, you'd have to buy it. Once you buy it, you can do whatever you want with it. That's not really an intelligent analogy.

 

[Mursilis]

I'm an atheist yet I am forced to live under christian-based laws like the ban on stem cell research which could have saved the life of a family member of mine.

It's funny how you call it a "christian-based" law just because you don't like it. Your atheist anger blinds you.

 

[ThinClient]

It's funny how you call it a "christian-based" law just because you don't like it. Your atheist anger blinds you.

The original argument is that stem cells only come from aborted babies and abortion is eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil. Now that the law is in place thanks to Bush, it will take moving heaven and earth to get it changed. This is one example.

Gay marriage, equal rights, blah blah. The list is huge.

 

[Mursilis]

The original argument is that stem cells only come from aborted babies and abortion is eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil. Now that the law is in place thanks to Bush, it will take moving heaven and earth to get it changed. This is one example.

Gay marriage, equal rights, blah blah. The list is huge.

Like murder, rape, and a bunch of other criminal offenses, the fact that abortion is recognized as wrong under a Christian ethical standard does not preclude it from being recognized as wrong under a secular one. Solid (IMHO) secular ethics arguments have been made against abortion. For someone claiming intelligence, you don't seem to know much.

 

[SMOGZINN]

What powers and protections should the minority have?

The thing to remember is that everyone is a minorty if you only draw the lines right.
So, ask yourself, what rights are you willing to give up for the rights of the majority?

 

[ThinClient]

Like murder, rape, and a bunch of other criminal offenses, the fact that abortion is recognized as wrong under a Christian ethical standard does not preclude it from being recognized as wrong under a secular one. Solid (IMHO) secular ethics arguments have been made against abortion. For someone claiming intelligence, you don't seem to know much.

Why do we allow someone to kill babies if they're the pregnant one but we charge criminals for TWO murders if he mows down a pregnant woman? Double standards, anyone?

(BTW, I'm on the side that thinks that abortion is OK, not the side that murders abortion doctors like what happened in February and many times before in the past)

Denying that the vast majority of those against abortion are the religious right is intellectually dishonest.

 

[Mursilis]

Denying that the vast majority of those against abortion are the religious right is intellectually dishonest.

So's pretending I said something I did not.

Quakers were one of the first groups in America to protest against slavery. Does that make any prohibition against slavery a religion-based law, or merely a law supported by lots of religious people?

 

[ThinClient]

So's pretending I said something I did not.

Quakers were one of the first groups in America to protest against slavery. Does that make any prohibition against slavery a religion-based law, or merely a law supported by lots of religious people?

Quakers would be among the many who do not follow the teachings of their own book, which supports and regulates the owning of slaves (in the old testament) which Christ also supported and condoned (to bring the new testament in line, too).

Even the most religious and dedicated of us can see through the nonsense in their book and choose not to adhere to it. Why they don't just dump the rest is certainly vexing.

Anti-slavery legislation is in direct opposition of the teachings of the main religion that gripped most of the public who helped forge this nation.

 

[Pulsar]

So's pretending I said something I did not.

Quakers were one of the first groups in America to protest against slavery. Does that make any prohibition against slavery a religion-based law, or merely a law supported by lots of religious people?

You continue to be intellectually dishonest. There is no question that the largest group of supporters of the anti-stem cell movement are doing so because of their religion.

You can state that there are secular arguments against it, but the reality of why it became law was religious, not secular.

Once upon a time, when Charles was mod here, he refused to allow this kind of intellectual dishonesty in debate. Once you reach the point of partial or half-truths to support your argument, it's pointless to continue and simply drags the entire argument down. Hell, I'd volunteer to mod this forum if it could return to intelligent discussion.

His statement that the law was Christian based, i.e. based in religion, was clearly truthful.

George Bush, one of the driving forces that maintained the stem cell ban, did so for religious reasons:

"... I made it very clear to the Congress that the use of federal money, taxpayers' money, to promote science which destroys life in order to save life is -- I'm against that. And therefore, if the bill does that, I will veto it," he said.

Bush's policy allows federal money to only finance research on 64 existing stem cell lines worldwide "where the life and death decision has already been made." The announcement on Aug. 9, 2001, was his first televised public address as president.

Kia75, I'd say that the BEST way you can protect the minority is to become 100% secular in government. The stem cell argument is a perfect example of where religion and not rational thought drove a decision, and as a result medical research in this country was set back substantially.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

Christian based = written in the Bible.

The law was not Christian based in that it doesn't rely solely on the Bible for its premise.

Laws are written and passed by people with various beliefs. That's the nature of government.

It's easy defense for liars to call others "intellectually dishonest" when caught in their lies. Muddle up the waters so that their lies are concealed.

The best defense is a good offense.

 

[JTsyo]

The topic seemed to have gone a bit off topic. Getting back to the original question, the Constitution protects the rights of everyone, majority and minority. The majority can't make laws that would infringe on the rights of the minority. They can use federal money for stem cell research but they can't make you renouce your faith and worship a gold statue.

 

[disappoint]

The original argument is that stem cells only come from aborted babies and abortion is eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil. Now that the law is in place thanks to Bush, it will take moving heaven and earth to get it changed. This is one example.

Gay marriage, equal rights, blah blah. The list is huge.

So what you're saying is you believe in heaven? After all you can't move something that doesn't exist.

 

[disappoint]

Christian based = written in the Bible.

The law was not Christian based in that it doesn't rely solely on the Bible for its premise.

Laws are written and passed by people with various beliefs. That's the nature of government.

It's easy defense for liars to call others "intellectually dishonest" when caught in their lies. Muddle up the waters so that their lies are concealed.

The best defense is a good offense.

I'm not sure you understand what is meant by intellectual dishonesty. It doesn't necessarily mean you are intentionally lying to others. In the interest of bringing everyone up to speed on what the term means I will refer you to the wikipedia definition:

Intellectual honesty is an applied method of problem solving in academia, characterized by an unbiased, honest attitude, which can be demonstrated in a number of different ways, including but not limited to:

• One's personal beliefs do not interfere with the pursuit of truth;
• Relevant facts and information are not purposefully omitted even when such things may contradict one's hypothesis;
• Facts are presented in an unbiased manner, and not twisted to give misleading impressions or to support one view over another;
• References, or earlier work, are acknowledged where possible, and plagiarism is avoided.

Harvard ethicist Louis M. Guenin describes the "kernel" of intellectual honesty to be "a virtuous disposition to eschew deception when given an incentive for deception."[1]
Intentionally committed fallacies in debates and reasoning are sometimes called intellectual dishonesty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_honesty

 

[lopri]

While it may be unavoidable to make value judgments and compromises in competing beliefs, a good starting point I would propose is the golden rule: That one should [not] treat others as one would [not] like others to treat oneself.

 

[pete6032]

I'm an atheist yet I am forced to live under christian-based laws like the ban on stem cell research which could have saved the life of a family member of mine.

Nowhere in the world exists a place where everyone is happy.

The way to respect a minority is to treat them like the majority in every way you can within reason.

If you want to divide the mansion into 99 other pieces, you'd have to buy it. Once you buy it, you can do whatever you want with it. That's not really an intelligent analogy.

That's a terrible argument. I hope you see the flaws in that logic.

 

[Agent11]

Quakers would be among the many who do not follow the teachings of their own book, which supports and regulates the owning of slaves (in the old testament) which Christ also supported and condoned (to bring the new testament in line, too).

Even the most religious and dedicated of us can see through the nonsense in their book and choose not to adhere to it. Why they don't just dump the rest is certainly vexing.

Anti-slavery legislation is in direct opposition of the teachings of the main religion that gripped most of the public who helped forge this nation.

When Jesus talked about slavery he was speaking figuratively. Also slavery is mentioned quite extensively in the bible because at that time it was practiced everywhere. Man power was industry and conquest was the means of exerting political influence.

 

[JEDIYoda]

I'm not sure you understand what is meant by intellectual dishonesty. It doesn't necessarily mean you are intentionally lying to others. In the interest of bringing everyone up to speed on what the term means I will refer you to the wikipedia definition:

oh p-lease donot do this to yourself....
Go back and read what he was saying -- Thin Client is being intellectually DISHONEST.....or did you read that??

It's easy defense for liars to call others "intellectually dishonest" when caught in their lies. Muddle up the waters so that their lies are concealed.

 

[piasabird]

Lots of things are written in the Bible. A lot of the Bible was written by Jews last I checked. Anyway lest say we take the idea of murder being wrong. That is one of the ten commandments. That doesnt mean all laws are bad if they are Christian Based or biblical in origin.

We usually dont stone people to death much anymore. We also dont have refuge cities for people who commit accidental homicide. Our culture is much different.

I dont drink for a couple of reasons. One reason is Mormons dont drink alcoholic beverages. Another reason is that I chose to quit drinking. I dont go around killing people that drink or anything stupid like that. I know drinking a lot of alcoholic drinks is bad for you. I dont need God or Religion to tell me that. Things are called vices because they are bad things that we dont need and people do it anyway.

People call it freedom when they do things that are bad for them. However, it is legal. That does not make it right to Smoke.

You can do things that are bad if you want but I dont have to accept them. It may be legal but that does not make it right.

 

[ThinClient]

When Jesus talked about slavery he was speaking figuratively. Also slavery is mentioned quite extensively in the bible because at that time it was practiced everywhere. Man power was industry and conquest was the means of exerting political influence.

Why didn't he denounce slavery like he denounced other evils?

Methinks it's because he supported it and not because of some bullshit "interpretation" nonsense.

 

[ThinClient]

Lots of things are written in the Bible. A lot of the Bible was written by Jews last I checked. Anyway lest say we take the idea of murder being wrong. That is one of the ten commandments. That doesnt mean all laws are bad if they are Christian Based or biblical in origin.

We usually dont stone people to death much anymore. We also dont have refuge cities for people who commit accidental homicide. Our culture is much different.

I dont drink for a couple of reasons. One reason is Mormons dont drink alcoholic beverages. Another reason is that I chose to quit drinking. I dont go around killing people that drink or anything stupid like that. I know drinking a lot of alcoholic drinks is bad for you. I dont need God or Religion to tell me that. Things are called vices because they are bad things that we dont need and people do it anyway.

People call it freedom when they do things that are bad for them. However, it is legal. That does not make it right to Smoke.

You can do things that are bad if you want but I dont have to accept them. It may be legal but that does not make it right.

Right and wrong are completely subjective. You saying that smoking is wrong is a logical fallacy.

Legal or not, you have no right to judge what's right or wrong for others unless that action immediately infringes on your own rights and freedoms.

 

[JEDIYoda]

An intelligent person understands there is a Heaven! But also understands that there is value in good deeds, solidarity, or respectable morals and ethics.

 

[manimal]

I thought the filibuster was only changed on judicial appointments? What else was changed?