Wyz_sub10

Not true. A democracy *without* a bill of rights may be a tyranny as you describe.

But the whole purpose of having a bill of rights is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority by trying to ensure fnudamental rights irrespective of popular opinion. That's where freedom of speech, etc. comes from - whether your speech/religion/sexual preference is popular or not, certain aspects are still guranteed and protected from the majority.

This is what, IMHO, many people fail to understand, and it is why so many arguments re: god and government ensue in the US. There is some feeling that "majority rules" in a democracy. But in a constitutional democracy there are certains rights assured that cannot be simply sunjected to the will of the majority.

rdalin

Well, of course it could be that I'm just too dumb to understand you. OTOH, it's more likely that what you said actually doesn't make any sense.

Do you really feel that not understanding what you say should be the litmus test to decide whether someone should be allowed to vote, not to mention your claim that lack of understanding causes war? You're pretty full of yourself, aren't you?

Amos

Well of course you are and therefore you will know them by their fruits. Unconditional love is the only evidence of truth because it is the continuity of life. Do you perhaps mean to say that "speach is given to man to hide his secret thoughts?" Infallible means to be in charge of our destiny and infallible statements reinforce this destiny. I should add here that a religion should be a means to the end and no more. Infallible statements can be culturally and also ethically relative because all they do is outline the arena in which the melodrama of salvation takes place. They must be infallible because a living church moves through the ages to render the "historic Jesus" part of history and the "living Christ" the undisclosed object of our pursuit with Mary (represented by the church) as the secret agent that pulls the strings form behind the scene. Hence the mystery of Catholic religion. This now also means that a church that is not infallible is dead, stale and doomed to become part of history. It also foreshadows that just as the church is infallible so can its believers become infallible when they reach the end of religion (have victory over the concept sin).

Even the Catholic "flat world" concept has nothing to do with the physical shape of the planet earth but it makes reference to the flatness of human perception as opposed to the roundness of divine concepts to which humans can aspire and elevate. They are infallible statements because on page one of the bible heaven was juxtaposed with earth to separate these two kinds of perception within our mythology.

Here is an infallible ultimate truth: Love is the continuity of Life. In our mythology we call God "Love" and Lord God "Life." Check this out and you will never see God equated with Life and Lord God with Love (except maybe where these two become one and the same).

Genesis one, two and three are crammed with evolution and actually show the mechanics and metaphysics of evolution in that in Gen.3 our ego identity--wherein we are called Adam and Eve--becomes the effective cause needed to change the image of Lord God with the cooperation of God with whom we are co-creator.

So that means that "creation" is the effective cause of evolution and not just "chance" (or mutations). If it appears like chaos it indicates that we as observers have not yet found order in our own life--or there could not be peace in heaven in which case chaos cannot be conceived to exist.

Amos

Sorry that was an undesreved slam but was made to present a point of view. In any event, it would explain why political campains become the primary examples and models for corruption in a democracy.

Yes, it is always lack of understanding that causes war and religion is probably the least likely to be understood. After all, they all preach peace on earth.

Amos

Could be, yes, but the fact remains that the future must still teach us if some of the freedoms we enjoy are good for society as a whole. You may admid that radical changes have taken place and with these changes adjustments had to be made in which oppression seemed like a tyrant wherefore these changes were made. Freedom of religion seems like a tyrant today.

rdalin

Well, the democratic process in the United States is corrupted by the incredible amount of money that flows in from various interested parties (IMHO, anyway). This is not the case in many other democracies. Blaming this on political campaigns doesn't seem accurate.

I'm also not sure that it's 'always lack of understanding that causes war.' From my limited knowledge of history, there are lots of reasons.

Finally, the phrase 'lack of understanding' is so vague as to be essentially meaningless. If you wish to defend your position, you're going to have to come up with specific examples.

edited for clarity

Wyz_sub10

True. Not all freedoms will have a positive impact on society. But that does not mean the guarantee of certain freedoms is in any way tyrannical.

Oppression is tyrannical and, therefore, requires change. Is this what you are saying? I have no problem with that, but this does not relate to a democratic society with a bill of rights. Rather, this is a consequence of any society with any rules, codes, morals, etc. Those in opposition to prevailing norms will always see those norms as tyrannical.

I'm not sure, however, how "freedom of religion" seems like a tyrant. Are you suggesting that religious people consider a society tyrannical when its operation involves values and direction taken from sources outside of the religious dogma specific to the aforementioned people?

Amos

Except that a bill of rights is in place and people can lean on them to force their agenda and so become an oppressive regime. We have just seen how homosexuality completely changed society of which we do not know the long term effect just yet. I for one am not in favor of it and have some major concerns about it. More like the other way around. Religious parties can force their perspective on the people and also the political parties. It is not uncommon for religions to be just opposite to each other and this is trouble at the best of times and can lead to unwarranted wars in the end. On top of this are all religions man made and should never be divided within.

Having said this I am not suggesting to do away with the Bill of Rights but maybe take a good look at these basic human rights.

Proxima Centauri

Thank you, Amos. You have shown us how little you as a Roman Catholic trust democracy.
I'm a secularist and a democrat. I believe democracy is the best form of government. Most Europeans and North Americans agree me, not with Amos. In heirarchical systems the rulers are far more easily corrupted by power than in democracies.
None of can have overlooked the worldwide torrent of child abuse scandals in the Roman Catholic Church. Those Churchmen who covered up the abuse instead of protecting the children were corrupted by power.

rdalin

Which amendments in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. constitution do you feel have been or may be leaned on to create an oppressive regime? I gather you're against equal rights for homosexuals; does this mean that you feel you're oppressed by such rights?

Quote:

Having said this I am not suggesting to do away with the Bill of Rights but maybe take a good look at these basic human rights.

Which amendments are you in favor of abolishing or modifying?

Richard