Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Is our faith the only thing that is not protected

2»

Comments

  • #32
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,920 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Yellow_Fern wrote: »
    The problem is sooner or later a theocratic or secular society arrives at a consensus that jars with your own brand of secular values.

    Absolutely. Part of living in a democratic society made with a diverse range of beliefs and core values is dealing with compromise.
    The solution is not to keep religion out of gov, it is to morality out of gov full stop. This isnt a hypothetical. There are all sorts of examples.

    Never going to work as justice is largely based on morality. So for example we consider stealing to be criminal as it is morally wrong to take something that is not yours. The difference between theocracy and democracy is that theocracy bases it laws on religious derived morality where democracy does so on the basis of the will of the majority, where the two can come into conflict. Recent referendums would be a good example of this.


  • #33
    Dick_Swiveller
    Closed Accounts Posts: 83 ✭✭Dick_Swiveller


    smacl wrote: »
    Absolutely. Part of living in a democratic society made with a diverse range of beliefs and core values is dealing with compromise.



    Never going to work as justice is largely based on morality. So for example we consider stealing to be criminal as it is morally wrong to take something that is not yours. The difference between theocracy and democracy is that theocracy bases it laws on religious derived morality where democracy does so on the basis of the will of the majority, where the two can come into conflict. Recent referendums would be a good example of this.

    That's not necessarily true. There are many safeguards in place in democracies to ensure that there isn't a tyranny of the majority. If the majority of the population decided tomorrow to sanction capital punishment for Gingers, the law would step in and ensure that doesn't happen.


  • #34
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,920 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Dick_Swiveller wrote: »
    That's not necessarily true. There are many safeguards in place in democracies to ensure that there isn't a tyranny of the majority. If the majority of the population decided tomorrow to sanction capital punishment for Gingers, the law would step in and ensure that doesn't happen.

    Which law though? In terms of protecting minorities, this tends to come from the international human rights treaties we've signed up rather than our local government. Given that homosexuality was only decriminalised in Ireland in 1993, the tyranny of the majority has been demonstrably enforced until quite recently.


  • #35
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    smacl wrote: »
    Which law though? In terms of protecting minorities, this tends to come from the international human rights treaties we've signed up rather than our local government. Given that homosexuality was only decriminalised in Ireland in 1993, the tyranny of the majority has been demonstrably enforced until quite recently.

    And if the local government unsigned themselves from those treaties? I don't see how 'rather' works.

    A bit like self (local government) submitting to a higher authority because it decides to do so. Rendering local government the higher authority


  • #36
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Dick_Swiveller wrote: »
    That's not necessarily true. There are many safeguards in place in democracies to ensure that there isn't a tyranny of the majority. If the majority of the population decided tomorrow to sanction capital punishment for Gingers, the law would step in and ensure that doesn't happen.

    If the majority decided so, they would vote in politicians to do their bidding. And since the judiciary are politically nominated and appointed. Take the US where the judiciary can be rendered blue or red.

    It would take time to wash through, but ultimately democracy would establish whatever it wanted to. Including what some might consider a tyranny.

    There are no exterior protections


  • Advertisement
Advertisement