Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: jdd@db.toronto.edu (John DiMarco) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Church and State Message-ID: Date: 20 Sep 90 07:44:24 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto Lines: 66 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu coatta@cs.ubc.ca (Terry Coatta) writes: >Your conception of democracy seems to be nothing more that ``majority rule''. >This is not sufficient. Democracy is an empty form of government without >adherence to basic human rights and freedoms. The essence of democracy >is not majority rule, but compromise and consensus. That's not true. The essence of democracy *is* majority rule. Compromise and consensus only come into play when a majority is desired, but has not been attained. > The difficulty with >introducing religious ideals or justifications into the political arena >is that compromise and consensus are no longer possible. That's not true either. Religious ideals and justifications have been present in the political arena since the beginning of time, and compromise and consensus have not been absent. Admittedly, people hold onto their religious beliefs often more strongly than onto other beliefs, so it may be more difficult to convince them to temporize. Hence compromise and consensus may be more difficult to achieve. > How does one argue >with a justification like: ``God says we should act in the following >manner, and so we need laws to enforce this behaviour.'' How can a >non-believer view this as anything but enforced religion? This is >disenfrachisement. This is *not* disenfranchisement. This is simply an instance of a group of people in a democracy taking a particular position (i.e. that we need a law to enforce/prohibit behaviour X) for a particular reason (i.e. that God told them to). How is that in any way inferior to another group of people taking another position (i.e. that we need a law to enforce/ prohibit behaviour Y) for other reasons (i.e. because their parents taught them to, because it'll give them more money, because some politician told them to, or because their whim at the time suggested it)? Look, in a democracy, anybody can have any reason he/she wishes for the positions he or she takes. The fact that some person's reasons are religious is no reason to prevent that person from taking his/her position. Anything to the contrary is patently undemocratic. I'm getting a little frustrated with this discussion. Why don't you just spell out exactly how you propose prohibiting Christians from taking any democratic positions motivated by their religious beliefs, and we can investigate how "democratic" this is. John -- John DiMarco jdd@db.toronto.edu or jdd@db.utoronto.ca University of Toronto, CSRI BITNET: jdd%db.toronto.edu@relay.cs.net (416) 978-8609 UUCP: uunet!utai!db!jdd [At least in the U.S., there has been an attempt to avoid the "tyranny of the majority". That is, our concept of democracy is not pure majority rule. It is majority rule combined with a respect for the minority, which I believe includes a commitment not to impose the majority's will on dissenters except in cases where there really does need to be a single policy. This is the reason we have things like the Bill of Rights. It's also the reason that Christians do not simply prohibit all other religions. This considerably complicates discussions on public policy, because it means we have to consider in any given case whether -- even if we are the majority -- it is necessary and appopriate for us to impose our will on everyone else. --clh]