I agree with you here, I think the difference between my view of democracy differs from that of MM. I do not believe in democracy at every price, I don't think the tyranny of the majority over the/a minority should occur. But where to put the line? This is one of the problems I have with democracy.

__________________
To fill a world with ... religions of the Abrahamic kind, is like littering the streets with loaded guns. Do not be surprised if they are used. - Richard Dawkins

Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned

MY CAPSLOCK KEY IS BROKEN LOL - Will be stumbled upon several times on the web.

Clash

Perhaps I'm missing something obvious, but what alternatives would you suggest in this senario?

You've painted a picture in which the majority (or super-majority, as would be required in many places) of the populace feels so strongly that this "Law of Sinning" should be enacted, and has felt that way for so long, that they have replaced the legislature with their own extremists, secured the executive seat of power, eliminated any of the checks imposed on their authority through the ammendending and ratification of the constitution.

Throughout all that, I would hope any sane person would be campaigning against these changes, voting in opposition to them, and helping the people to see reason.
But once the people, in such a large majority, become so obcessed with their objective, the only possible way to stop them would be by militant force, and since the government is the one put in place by the people, this militant force would have to come from outside the elected government, replace it by force, and then rule a resistent majority of the population by threat of force.

THAT is about as purely tyranical as one can get.

The simple truth is that, in any system, either the many will rule over the few or the few will rule over the many: there is no "in-between" option.
Freedoms, declarations of rights, constitutions...ect can slow down the ruling power (whether it is a majority or a minority), but in the end even they must inevitably be subject to it and can be swept away.

Regarding the original question, I would "accept" such a decision by the majority the same way I'd accept the decision to ban religion: by doing everything in my power to get myself and everyone I loved out of the country before these laws were enacted; and I would dream of the day when my homeland returned to sanity.

The problem here is that democracy is fragile. It has already been shown that it carries the seeds of its own destruction with it. The scenario put forward can happen because it already has happened. Extremists can and do hijack it to execute totalitarian schemes. The most fundamental lesson from the Holocaust is exactly that: it can happen, anytime and anywhere.

What allows it to happen is not the hijacking ideology, that is the parasite upon the host, but a property of democracy itself. Viz. the presence of a hierarchical structure in which personal, individual responsability can be dissipated to such a low level it is non-existent. That is exactly what happened in the 3rd Reich. The hierarchical structure allowed for hundreds of thousands to rationalize their small part in a genocide to a small thing.

The obvious answer is to acknowledge human nature and not to have this hierarchical structure at all. To replace it with a system where each individual is solely responsible for his/her own actions and to have only horizontally stratified, purely voluntary organization. It doesn't matter then what extremists are lurking around as they have no tools to execute their psychotic shemes.

Of course, this implies a level of real individual commitment from all which is now unneccessary as most people choose to delegate their own fate to the hierarchical structure in question.

__________________
"Say not, 'When I have free time I shall study'; for you may perhaps never have any free time"
Hillel the Elder

I suppose I don't see how this would work in a nation of hundreds of millions.

And it seems, the elimination of a hierarchical structure to which the people delegated some of the duties of running things would be, basically, the end of politics.
That would, I suppose, answer the question of what role religion should play in politics...

Absolutely, I would accept it - and work like hell to prevent it or overturn it - legally and constitutionally.

Indeed, I don't think democracy itself could survive such a proclaimation.

No. The seeds of destruction are not inherent in democracy. That is Platonic propaganda.

Yes, it can happen, and theoretically, it can happen anywhere, but I think the Nazi example is quite unique - the inherent weakness of German democracy at that time was by far the largest contributing factor to the Nazi achievement. Also the historical factors affecting Germany at that time were also quite unique.

I don't think so. The heirarchical structure of the Nazi's had nothing to do with democracy. All pretences towards democracy were dropped in 1933.

Democracy is not predicated upon a heirarchical structure and heirarchy is an element foreign to democracy.

The rise of the Nazis was not essentially a failure of democracy. Democracy wasn't actually or fully established in Germany prior to the arrival of the Nazis - Germany was 'half-democratic' at best - a ten year old experiment.

Democracy doesn't require heirarchical structures. Indeed, hierarchy is an abomination of true democracy.

Ergo, your critique misses your announced target, though I generally agree with the critique.

Btw, is a "sheme" a female "meme"?

You above suggested that human nature abhorrs heirarchy, and here you state that a majority has chosen to delegate to heirarchy.

Which is it?

Nations are artificial constructs that are part of hierarchical structure. Neither are they voluntary associations. As such, they do not exist in the proposed society.

Not at all. It would be the end of institutionalized politics. But politics itself would be confined to the realm where it belongs, i.e. that of the individual.

That would entirely be up to the discretion of the individual and/or the voluntary associations to which she suscribes. In a non-authoritarian, non-hierarchical society there are no tools that would prohibit you from having religious beliefs, rituals and associations. What you wouldn't have are tools to impose these upon the rest of the populace.

__________________
"Say not, 'When I have free time I shall study'; for you may perhaps never have any free time"
Hillel the Elder

You would be dead, MM After all the non-believers are burned at the stake, who's left to overturn it ?

Which constitutes 'carrying the seed of destruction with itself', does it not ?

__________________
"Say not, 'When I have free time I shall study'; for you may perhaps never have any free time"
Hillel the Elder

See previous post.

That was but one example. Franco, Mussolini, Chavez,.. come to mind.
In fact, I could extend it to all cases. Once power is institutionalized, the institutions become the power.

Precisely. They were dropped exactly when there was the most democratic system yet in Germany. And some of the structures that predated the Nazi takeover and were taken over by them are : the Wehrmacht (which was 'Prussian' aristocratic militarist but not fascist but nevertheless didn't hesitate to execute the instructions by the new powers) and the whole structure of the civil service (minus the individuals that didn't survive the Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

This I don't get. Once the laws are democratically established, what else but a hierarchical structure could possibly enforce these laws ? Courts, the police force, the civil service, the military are all hierarchical structures that are necessary to enforce the laws upon the minorities that were not in agreement with the laws.

It's Belgian English for 'scheme'. Really.

By 'acknowledging human nature', assuming that's what you are referring to, I mean realizing the existence of a contingent of people that simply can't resist imposing their views on all. It's these people that are drawn to positions of power and are the culprits for the failures of democratic systems. By denying them the tools by which they achieve this corruption one prevents the unavoidable rise to power of extremists which democracy cannot preclude.

__________________
"Say not, 'When I have free time I shall study'; for you may perhaps never have any free time"
Hillel the Elder

Not necessarily.

1. I don't believe that it is reasonable or probable to fear a religious theocratic inquisition being popularly elected by legal democratic processes in any of the western nations. I think the proposition is extremely remote, bordering on absurd. I would base my argument upon an reasonable and rational assessement of western historical trends.

2. If in the theoretical, or hypothetical case, that such a theocratic regime were to be democratically adopted, then I'd say that if history is any guide, clever pseudo-intellectuals like myself would just go about and dutifully 'nod to the priests' and spin our words with delicate care - or alternatively, and perhaps in my own case, become a Jesuit.

No. It may be logically sufficient cause, but it is not a logically necessary cause.

See previous reposte.

1930's Spain, 1920's Italy and 2000's Venezuela all show exactly the same lack of democratic tradition, custom or institutions to form the backbone of a democratic system that were lacking in 1920's Germany. Without functional democratic traditions, semi-democratic (or newly democratic) systems are weak and susceptible to charismatic demogogues.

This is not an inherent failure of democracy in principle. It is a particular danger in the process of implementation. It is purely reactionary.

1920's Wiemar Republic was not a successful or functioning democracy. It was (essentially) feeble and unstable and forced upon Germany by foreign decree.

Certainly the Bismark-inspired bureaucratic system, the Prussian Junker class, the Ruhr valley industrialists and even the Bavarian Catholic Church were all inherently reactionary, conservative and authoritarian - and willing (or silent) allies of Adolf's 'democratic' coup. That just supports my point. There was no strong democratic interest in Germany in the 1920's - or rather, it was only a minority position.

The process of enforcement and adjudication of the laws is certainly 'hierarchical' in structural form for purely functional efficiency.

However, the law itself is NOT hierarchical at all - it is flat. All laws apply to all people all the time. It is a fundamental premise of the rule of law that the law can never be arbitrary. If the rule of law is violated, then civil disobedience may be warranted and/or justified.

Looks like you want to wipe out the system in order to prevent the occasional (and inevitable) rogue from getting involved in the system. Looks like overkill to me.

Okay...

"It ain't pretty": so, the constitution and strenghtening of communities is a bad thing. How can you claim that it is moral to use and, in the process, strenghten these communities, if you admit that it ain't pretty?

Who talks about "forcing"?

I challenge you to find one occurence in this thread of me asking for any restriction of the freedom of speech. If you are unable to do so, please cease these constant attacks regarding liberalism or democracy.
As for "things that which doesn't kill you makes you stronger": If you love your disease, it's not a disease anymore. Perhaps you love the hatred that you feel towards it. That's something completely different.

Are you saying that 1920's Germany and Italy would have turned fascist without fascist politicians?

__________________
Client: In six days, do you hear me, six days, God made the world. And you are not bloody well capable of making me a pair of trousers in three months!
Tailor: But my dear Sir, my dear Sir, look at the world, and look at my trousers.
(Beckett)

As both atheism and secular humanism are also religions ( and I believe have been declared so several times in the courts), aren't you proposing that only YOUR religious views should be in the public arena?

__________________
Member in good standing: Rednecks for Jesus.

"Not talking about God(s)" is not the same as "talking about God's inexistence".
Rotten was advocating implementing the first solution in public places, not the second.

__________________
Client: In six days, do you hear me, six days, God made the world. And you are not bloody well capable of making me a pair of trousers in three months!
Tailor: But my dear Sir, my dear Sir, look at the world, and look at my trousers.
(Beckett)