? for Americans: Civil Equality

[Meow Mix]

I'm not trying to exclude non-Americans as if they don't value civil liberties and equality, it's just that I'm most familiar with what I've come to perceive as the American dream -- that's why I posed this question to Americans, but anyone is really welcome to answer the question.

It seems to me that one of the largest aspects of the American dream is civil equality: a democratic republic where the majority rules, but never at the expense of the minority. In other words, a system that avoids the problem with pure democracies where they become "two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner."

I think there's nothing scarier than a system that's completely mob rule, where the majority just gets to vote away the minority's rights. I think it should be scary for the majority too, because you never really know which way the winds are going to change. It seems like it's in everybody's best interest to have a system where the majority gets their way without being able to walk on the minority's back.

So, what do you think? What is the best type of democratic republic:

1) Majority rules, majority can vote away rights of the minority

2) Majority rules, minority is protected

Which of these is best?

The reason I ask is because voting against gay marriage seems to endorse (1), but I doubt that very many people would actually explicitely endorse (1) as a good model of government.

For anyone who does agree with voting against gay marriage, do you agree that doing so is more in line with (1) than with (2)? If not, how can it possibly be consistent with (2)? Would you feel that your government was fair if you lived under a system like (1) but you were the minority, and the majority believed that something important to you was subjectively wrong and they were voting to ban you from doing it -- even if you aren't hurting anyone?

Christians: what's more important, imposing your brand of Christianity on others or respecting minority rights?

[Meow Mix]

Addendum: Christians, would you support the right of people to go out and vote against some rights that specifically Christians enjoy?

This is mostly a question for those who vote against gay marriage. I just notice that some defend their right to "vote based on their religious principles," i.e., to vote away others' rights based on Christianity -- but how many of the same people would think it's fair to put their own rights on the voting block for other people to try to vote away based on their principles?

For instance, if you think it's fair to be able to vote away my right to marry my lover, is it fair for me to be able to vote away your right to indoctrinate your kids?

(Note: I would never vote away your rights even if I do feel that religious instruction at early ages is harmful because I actually do respect civil liberties, this is just hypothetical)

[micatala]

I'm not trying to exclude non-Americans as if they don't value civil liberties and equality, it's just that I'm most familiar with what I've come to perceive as the American dream -- that's why I posed this question to Americans, but anyone is really welcome to answer the question.

It seems to me that one of the largest aspects of the American dream is civil equality: a democratic republic where the majority rules, but never at the expense of the minority. In other words, a system that avoids the problem with pure democracies where they become "two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner."

I certainly agree so far.

I think there's nothing scarier than a system that's completely mob rule, where the majority just gets to vote away the minority's rights. I think it should be scary for the majority too, because you never really know which way the winds are going to change. It seems like it's in everybody's best interest to have a system where the majority gets their way without being able to walk on the minority's back.

So, what do you think? What is the best type of democratic republic:

1) Majority rules, majority can vote away rights of the minority

2) Majority rules, minority is protected

Which of these is best?

Well, 2 is the obvious answer at least to me.

The reason I ask is because voting against gay marriage seems to endorse (1), but I doubt that very many people would actually explicitely endorse (1) as a good model of government.

And this, of course, also justified Jim Crow laws, disenfranchisement of women, and in some locations, the banning of the teaching of evolution. Currently abortion laws vary greatly from state to state based on what the majorities in those states want. Whether those laws are infringing on the rights of minorities is a matter of debate, but I am rambling now.

For anyone who does agree with voting against gay marriage, do you agree that doing so is more in line with (1) than with (2)? If not, how can it possibly be consistent with (2)? Would you feel that your government was fair if you lived under a system like (1) but you were the minority, and the majority believed that something important to you was subjectively wrong and they were voting to ban you from doing it -- even if you aren't hurting anyone?

I support legalizing gay marriage, so I will forego answering this or speculating for others, at least at this point.

Christians: what's more important, imposing your brand of Christianity on others or respecting minority rights?

I am a Christian, but have no desire to impose my religious views on others.

It is worth considering that if you divide finely enough, almost anyone, including Christians, are part of a minority. Christians as a whole, of course, are I think over 80% of the U.S. population.

Methodists, on the other hand, would be a pretty small minority. Lucky for them, the first amendment guarantees their rights to practice in accord with the tenets of Methodism.

Thus, Christians should be very interested in protecting minority rights. The trick is not falling into the trap of only wanting your particular minority to be protected.

[SomePunk]

So, what do you think? What is the best type of democratic republic:

1) Majority rules, majority can vote away rights of the minority

This is just part of politics and that is how it usually works. A lot of people don't vote and depending on how seriously or liberal you take polls, more people vote for American Idol than they do for Presidential Elections. But just because Majorities rule doesn't mean the majority is always right! Some people are so use to living by the general standard they may not be capable of thinking any differently. - LOL -

2) Majority rules, minority is protected

Minorities are protected how or by what? Apologies if I seem to be playing devil advocate here.

The reason I ask is because voting against gay marriage seems to endorse (1), but I doubt that very many people would actually explicitely endorse (1) as a good model of government.

Actually one isn't a good model for government because it can cause a lot of problems, but based on the American government, that is the only way anything gets done. Supreme Courts usually overturn laws as being unconstitutional as you may already know. IMO there is no reason why a majority should limit or take away the rights of other people, especially that of other citizens, that pay taxes, and contribute to society among other things.