Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Corgan Sow · 07-22-2002, 08:03 PM

Well, I am a newcomer here and would like some advice from all of you here. A Christian came and told me if majority votes for a government that enforces religious intervention onto state, then there should not be any attempt to remove public Christian activities like prayer in schools, because the majority says so. While it is selfish in my opinion, what do you think personally?

oriecat · 07-22-2002, 08:42 PM

Ask them how they'd feel about President Bush getting kicked out then, since the majority didn't vote for him.

Toto · 07-22-2002, 08:46 PM

In the US and most of the modern world, there are limits on the power of the majority. One of those limits is freedom of conscience. The majority cannot force an individual to swear to something he or she does not believe, or participate in a religious ritual that violates his or her own beliefs.

Corgan Sow · 07-22-2002, 09:05 PM

Actually, I am very much a Malaysian. Ironically, it is not about church-state issue, rather, Islam-state issue. I mailed a post expressing my disastisfaction on Hudud laws imposed by a radical Muslim party, and a Christian poster came in, replied; "If the democratic principle is in operation that the people have the freedom to choose what government they want, what is going "wrong" here?"

Great post, Toto, thanks for your advice.

Buffman · 07-22-2002, 11:53 PM

Corgan Sow

Welcome.

Kuala Lumpur is a beautiful and high energy city.

<a href="http://www.geographia.com/malaysia/kualalumpur.html" target="_blank">http://www.geographia.com/malaysia/kualalumpur.html</a>

I had some personal difficulty harmonizing my world views with those found at Art. #3, 8(2) and 9...and several others.

<a href="http://www.eur.nl/frg/iacl/armenia/constitu/constit/malaysia/malays-e.htm" target="_blank">http://www.eur.nl/frg/iacl/armenia/constitu/constit/malaysia/malays-e.htm</a>

Then I read this and got further confused.

<a href="http://sg.news.yahoo.com/reuters/asia-107903.html" target="_blank">http://sg.news.yahoo.com/reuters/asia-107903.html</a>

I suspect you are attempting to understand how a minority can be protected from the majority, especially involving the individual expression of religious conscience. Based on the U.S. Constitution, it starts here:

<a href="http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/art6.htm" target="_blank">http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/art6.htm</a>

(Extract)
3. The senators and representatives before-mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
(End extract)

"...but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

That is further amplified in the Bill of Rights, Amendment 1.

<a href="http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/rights1.htm#1" target="_blank">http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/rights1.htm#1</a>

And then enforced nation wide by use of Amendment 14

<a href="http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/amend1.htm#14" target="_blank">http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/amend1.htm#14</a>

With only a very cursory review of your Constitution, I do not find those same protections against a single Religious majority invoking their interpretations of "hudud" on everyone as a matter of criminality. (Please correct my errors of interpretation.)

I fear that whenever any religious fundamentalist group gains support of the state(government) there are going to be terrible upevils. The Taliban is a perfect example of an Islamic fundamentalist, Church-State (Religion-Government), run amuck. The Framers of the U.S. Constitution recognized that historical fact and crafted a government that would remain neutral in the affairs of individual, religious or non-religious, conscience. That is why you are hearing so much about the uneasiness going on with some of the religious majority actions currently being backed by the government in my country. I would wager that most of those you will find in these forums are convinced that these actions by our government are going against the the true intent of the constitutional Framers.

Corgan Sow · 07-23-2002, 12:17 AM

LOL! I got this bloody response!!!

<i>If democracy is what you want, don't take away the candy when all the kids decide to take it and eat it as they please. You want the will of the people, and that is what you have.</i>

Tell me how do I reply to this guy.

It's like the will of majority can vote for a 16-year old gay kid to death by stoning. Nice. But I need better words than this.

Corgan Sow · 07-23-2002, 12:25 AM

1) Every person has the right to profess and practice his religion and, subject to Clause (4), to propagate it.

Found it in my country's constitution.

07-23-2002, 12:48 AM

Islam has certain problems with respect to people's rights to full religious freedom. In particular, it doesn't accept any right to change one's religion if one is already considered to be a muslim. It is very happy, however, to allow non-muslims to adopt islam. There is therefore an assymetry with regards to the the rights of believers and unbelievers which can result in the loss of normally accepted human rights in countries with an islamic constitution.

Toto · 07-23-2002, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Corgan Sow:
<strong>1) Every person has the right to profess and practice his religion and, subject to Clause (4), to propagate it.

Found it in my country's constitution.</strong>

Quote:

Article number: 11

(1) Every person has the right to profess and practice his religion and, subject to Clause (4), to propagate it.

(2) No person shall be compelled to pay any tax the proceeds of which are specially allocated in whole or in part for the purposes of a religion other than his own.

(3) Every religious group has the right -

(a) to manage its own religious affairs;

(b) to establish and maintain institutions for religious or charitable purposes; and

(c) to acquire and own property and hold and administer it in accordance with law.

(4) State law and in respect of the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur and Lubuan, federal law may control or restrict the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the religion of Islam.

So you actually have some rights (unless the Islamicist fundamentalists win the next election.)

You are looking for a snappy comeback to your friend's line:

If democracy is what you want, don't take away the candy when all the kids decide to take it and eat it as they please. You want the will of the people, and that is what you have.

This raises some philosophical questions about the interplay between democracy and individual rights, which have not been fully worked out even in the US. If there are no individual rights, you have, not democracy, but "mob rule," and the mob can choose to take your candy and redistribute it to the majority. If there are only individual rights, you have extreme Libertarianism, or anarchy. You could go to the Political Discussion forum and probably find a thread on this, or start one.

American history shows a continuing struggle between individual rights and collective rights, with an emphasis on individuality. But one thing that the founding fathers put into the Bill of Rights, that has saved this country a lot of grief, is freedom of conscience, including freedom from religious coercion.

That is why most secularists support both clauses of the First Amendment (Free Exercise and No Establishment), even though in some cases it leads to a preference for religion.

Malaysia is a long way from the American model. You started with the British, who had an established church. Then it appears that you have adopted some American ideas (no taxation to support another religion), but not the full guarantee of religious freedom. Islamicist politics are inherently opposed to religious freedom, because that involves the freedom to choose the "wrong" religion.

There are many problems with America, but one thing we got right is freedom of religion. Even Lynn Cheney, the Vice President's wife, recognized that it is freedom of religious thought that has made this country free and strong. It allowed scientists to pursue truth even when that disagreed with Holy Scripture. It allows people to live their lives without fear of being charged with blasphemy and thrown into jail because their neighbor has a grudge against them. The backwardness of many Islamic countries, in spite of their wealth of natural resources, has to relate to the stultifying influence of fundamentalist religion.

So I don't have a quick comeback to your friend. Any society that is worth living in needs a balance between individual rights and collective rights in the economic sphere, but individual conscience is another matter completely.

Keith Russell · 07-23-2002, 12:52 PM

Greetings:

The United States was not founded as a Democracy, but as a Constitutionally Limited Republic.

Our leaders are chosen democratically, but our laws are (supposed to be, at least) based on sound legal and ethical principles, derived from Greco-Roman legal philosophy.

Democracy--majority rule--is not what was intended, and should not be what anyone wants.

No majority should ever be able to legally vote away the rights of any minority--including the smallest minority: the individual.

The only thing that should be put to a vote is who will enforce the laws, not which laws the country should adopt.

Keith.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-22-2002, 08:03 PM	#1
Corgan Sow Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Posts: 1,537	Does will of the majority counts? Well, I am a newcomer here and would like some advice from all of you here. A Christian came and told me if majority votes for a government that enforces religious intervention onto state, then there should not be any attempt to remove public Christian activities like prayer in schools, because the majority says so. While it is selfish in my opinion, what do you think personally?

07-22-2002, 08:42 PM	#2
oriecat Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Portland OR USA Posts: 1,098	Ask them how they'd feel about President Bush getting kicked out then, since the majority didn't vote for him.

07-22-2002, 08:46 PM	#3
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	In the US and most of the modern world, there are limits on the power of the majority. One of those limits is freedom of conscience. The majority cannot force an individual to swear to something he or she does not believe, or participate in a religious ritual that violates his or her own beliefs.

07-22-2002, 09:05 PM	#4
Corgan Sow Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Posts: 1,537	Actually, I am very much a Malaysian. Ironically, it is not about church-state issue, rather, Islam-state issue. I mailed a post expressing my disastisfaction on Hudud laws imposed by a radical Muslim party, and a Christian poster came in, replied; "If the democratic principle is in operation that the people have the freedom to choose what government they want, what is going "wrong" here?" Great post, Toto, thanks for your advice.

07-22-2002, 11:53 PM	#5
Buffman Beloved Deceased Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: central Florida Posts: 3,546	Corgan Sow Welcome. Kuala Lumpur is a beautiful and high energy city. <a href="http://www.geographia.com/malaysia/kualalumpur.html" target="_blank">http://www.geographia.com/malaysia/kualalumpur.html</a> I had some personal difficulty harmonizing my world views with those found at Art. #3, 8(2) and 9...and several others. <a href="http://www.eur.nl/frg/iacl/armenia/constitu/constit/malaysia/malays-e.htm" target="_blank">http://www.eur.nl/frg/iacl/armenia/constitu/constit/malaysia/malays-e.htm</a> Then I read this and got further confused. <a href="http://sg.news.yahoo.com/reuters/asia-107903.html" target="_blank">http://sg.news.yahoo.com/reuters/asia-107903.html</a> I suspect you are attempting to understand how a minority can be protected from the majority, especially involving the individual expression of religious conscience. Based on the U.S. Constitution, it starts here: <a href="http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/art6.htm" target="_blank">http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/art6.htm</a> (Extract) 3. The senators and representatives before-mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. (End extract) "...but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." That is further amplified in the Bill of Rights, Amendment 1. <a href="http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/rights1.htm#1" target="_blank">http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/rights1.htm#1</a> And then enforced nation wide by use of Amendment 14 <a href="http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/amend1.htm#14" target="_blank">http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/amend1.htm#14</a> With only a very cursory review of your Constitution, I do not find those same protections against a single Religious majority invoking their interpretations of "hudud" on everyone as a matter of criminality. (Please correct my errors of interpretation.) I fear that whenever any religious fundamentalist group gains support of the state(government) there are going to be terrible upevils. The Taliban is a perfect example of an Islamic fundamentalist, Church-State (Religion-Government), run amuck. The Framers of the U.S. Constitution recognized that historical fact and crafted a government that would remain neutral in the affairs of individual, religious or non-religious, conscience. That is why you are hearing so much about the uneasiness going on with some of the religious majority actions currently being backed by the government in my country. I would wager that most of those you will find in these forums are convinced that these actions by our government are going against the the true intent of the constitutional Framers.

07-23-2002, 12:17 AM	#6
Corgan Sow Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Posts: 1,537	LOL! I got this bloody response!!! <i>If democracy is what you want, don't take away the candy when all the kids decide to take it and eat it as they please. You want the will of the people, and that is what you have.</i> Tell me how do I reply to this guy. It's like the will of majority can vote for a 16-year old gay kid to death by stoning. Nice. But I need better words than this.

07-23-2002, 12:25 AM	#7
Corgan Sow Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Posts: 1,537	1) Every person has the right to profess and practice his religion and, subject to Clause (4), to propagate it. Found it in my country's constitution.

07-23-2002, 12:48 AM	#8
DMB Guest Posts: n/a	Islam has certain problems with respect to people's rights to full religious freedom. In particular, it doesn't accept any right to change one's religion if one is already considered to be a muslim. It is very happy, however, to allow non-muslims to adopt islam. There is therefore an assymetry with regards to the the rights of believers and unbelievers which can result in the loss of normally accepted human rights in countries with an islamic constitution.

07-23-2002, 12:52 PM	#10
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	Greetings: The United States was not founded as a Democracy, but as a Constitutionally Limited Republic. Our leaders are chosen democratically, but our laws are (supposed to be, at least) based on sound legal and ethical principles, derived from Greco-Roman legal philosophy. Democracy--majority rule--is not what was intended, and should not be what anyone wants. No majority should ever be able to legally vote away the rights of any minority--including the smallest minority: the individual. The only thing that should be put to a vote is who will enforce the laws, not which laws the country should adopt. Keith.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.