José;564287 said:
Shogun
During these online debates dozens of subtopics pop up all the time and people often start them debating one thing and end up debating another, so letÂ’s try to keep focused on the main issue here:
A democratic state has a number of features that contitute its core (meaning, without them it it isnÂ’t a democracy any longer): the democratic process itself, the secular nature of the state, racial and gender equality etc.
I think the core values of a democratic state should be protected from the results of the electoral process by “stone clauses” which forbids the three branches of government from altering them while you believe they must be subjected to the will of the majority like any other ideal/law of the state.
This seems to be the fundamental difference between us.
Shogun, we are in fact discussing one of the oldest issues in political science:
Can the democratic process be used to overthrow democracy itself?
Can the majority of the population use the electoral process to chip away at the secular nature of the state that protects the non-religious and religious minorities against the interferences and humiliations of a confessional state (like school prayer)?
The importance and relevance of this issue is dramatic and I refuse to sit on the fence.
I take the side of the protection of the core values of democracy against the will of the majority and their pressure groups.
I can’t conceive the dilapidation of the basic principles of a secular democracy as being “a right of the electorate”.
Some people equate democracy with this “right” but they can’t even imagine how tragically mistaken they are.
This is the total corruption of all the ideals the modern democratic state stands for.
The very nature of the democratic system carries in itself the danger of its own destruction.
So I think the key elements that make up a secular democratic state should be protected not only from pressure groups like the one led by Falwell but should be protected also from the electoral process itself.
“Stone clauses” basically mean:
No matter how powerful your lobby is and no matter the size of your majority, the key elements of the democratic state simply cannot be compromised.
you give me opinons.. which is fine.. as long as you realize that yours is not the only opinion on the matter and, im betting, will fluxuate according to the issue at hand and the position in which you find yourself argueing.
for example,
the US was still a democracy before womens suffrage and civil rights. religion was venerated in school for at least 75% of our American history. indeed, slavery too. You have an opinon based on your understanding of those issues THIS SIDE of their historic relevance that is the direct product of the historic result of each issue. Sure sure.. civil rights are a positive product OF the democratic process but it simply isnt true to insist that they are mutually exclusive while considering the reality of our nations history. NOW, once these types of social variables are seperated from what you suggest is a "core value of a democratic state" we can see that, as with current unequal rights for gays, democracy is not at all reliant upon "core values" in order to function to the need of its current society. Again, ill remind you that civil rights and womens suffrage were VOTED ON and LEGISLATED into being. UNLIKE, as some will argue, The SCOTUS declaring a ban on gay marriage unconstitutional based on subjective opinions of 9 people.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
says nothing about "core values" that cannot be ammended in accordance to the will of the people who vote and elect representatives.
indeed, I would suggest that your idea of CORE VALUES will greatly differ than that of your fellow Americans.. Thus, we vote to include (race, gender) or exclude (weight, beauty, sexual preferance) that which qualifies for protection from the will of the majority. the FACT remains that some values are protected and some are not. the FACT remains that those that are protected are the product of a vote by the majority.
Hell, according to your logic of "core values" then we would have stagnated long ago by people who would have been busy argueing THEIR opinon of valid "core values" while blacks were still second class citizens..
Iit is the very fluidity of values to be voted on by the majority in a democracy that produced the very civil rights we are so proud of and seem to believe cannot be seperated from the concept of democrocy...
interesing discussion though.. better than usual on ths board.
