On the Threshold of Bigotry

You will probably receive as many variations of answers to these questions as there are respondents.The question isn't who's version of right or wrong on these matters is correct but, in a civil and democratic society, which groups position should have the final say?In the US, the final arbiter of right or wrong on these matters are the courts, elected representatives, and various government agencies like the FDA. This is one of the purposes of any representative form of Democracy and really the only civil and practical way to resolve such disputes.Everyone should have a say and this is accomplished in a number of ways -- electing representatives who will voice the views of the consistency that voted them in, state amendments voted on by state and local citizens etc.I remember a while back when the abortion pill issue came up and some pharmacists stated they could not do something that violated their conscience on this matter. I believe the resolution was that the employers would not force the pharmacist to fill the prescription and it would be handed off to another pharmacist on duty. The FDA also ruled it must be made available to the public. At least that's how I remember it, I could be wrong.On the topic of homosexual marriage, the issue is obviously playing itself out in the courts and on the state levels as we speak.Regarding the term Bigot, this is a rather strong characterization to place upon individuals who are making decisions based on a perceived sense of morals and ethics etc. I think this label should be reserved for those individuals who are not motivated by morality or ethics but instead possess a malicious intent or are motivated by hatred or bare prejudice against individuals or groups. Otherwise, anyone can be arbitrarily labeled a bigot for one reason or another, simply because they take a public stand on an issue that one does not agree with and that runs contrary to ones own views.Regarding the cases you presented, neither party is a bigot IMO.

Hi,Actually, the US Government is not a pure Democracy and was never intended to be one -- Neither is the UK. The US is a Federal Democratic Republic of States operating on principles taken from various democratic philosophies. As Thomas Jefferson stated, "A true Democracy is to be feared and is the enemy of personal freedom." Essentially, in a pure and true Democracy, the 51% hold a tyranny over the 49% by way of a popular vote. Justice then becomes a popularity contest.Statesmen and Congressmen intentionally put articles into the Constitution that would make it as difficult as possible for one group to hold tyranny over the minority. Obviously, they realized a pure Democracy is essentially an oppressive dictatorship, with the ruling party being the simply majority that is able to rule over the 49% who are in opposition. After running from a monarchy, why create another one with the majority as King and ruler?This is the reason for the 2/3 vote, the veto power of the Presidency, the Electoral College, and the Congressional and Senatorial makeup. The intent is that in most cases, no single group, state, or interest should hold such power by way of numbers. Passing Constitutional amendments was also intentionally made to be difficult. It not only requires approval of Congress, but also each individual state -- all parties concerned have a say. Also, there is the rights of the States to pass their own legislation and form their own Constitution on the state and local levels.Obviously, resolving disputes and passing certain legislation by a simply majority vote is inevitable in many circumstances, but it is not the guiding principle of national politics and government. Nor should it be, IMHO. These simple majority votes are typically on state and city level initiatives where such a national process is impractical(or impossible).Is the system perfectly fair? Of course not. There never has been and never will be perfect governments. In pursuit of justice, Man has always sought ways to bring about a perfectly just society and a government that does not fall into error. Man has also discovered that such a perfect society and government will never exist and is a pipe dream. Many have written about such societies(Platos' Republic for example) but everyone will realize that such a perfect world is nothing but an abstract vision.The US Government has often been called a 'Great experiment in Democracy', a self-auditing process where the system can learn from it's mistakes and press forward by modifying existing laws and charters. It is a system that at times can lead to scenarios that need to be addressed, but it is still a relatively young system and is always changing.I do believe in this system, and without risking sounding like a blind nationalist or shallow flag-waver(I am neither), I take pride in our political system and am proud to be an American. As with any nation, there are often injustices, and I do recognize them; however, it is up to us, the citizens, to address the issues and correct them.The biggest fault I see with our system is the most glaring -- too many citizens seem to take the system for granted and expect the government to fix any and every issue, as if it is constantly on auto pilot. Ultimately, it is up to society to determine where we want to head.The process of change does not happen in a vacuum, and unfortunately, too many citizens opt-out of the process but will always complain when things are not to their liking. For the system to be as fair as possible, for the system to work as intended, it is essential that people participate in the political process the best way they can. Your opinion does matter. If all citizens were minimally involved at the local, state, and national affairs, things WOULD be much quicker to change.Also, If everyone voted, politicians would soil their pants

Hi Straggler, always nice discussing.If, by objective, you mean setting out a set of principles or rules by which everything is judged, then this is exactly the aim of a Constitutional Democracy. Unfortunately, you can never lay out in completely unambiguous terms everything that will take into account all possible future disputes. At a future time, it is always possible some issue will present itself that will test the system and will therefore force one to interpret the aim and intent of such a blueprint.These are pretty complex issues. I have never studied Constitutional law so this is way beyond my scope. My own personal understanding of the Constitution tells me that it really is not about what individuals specifically can and cannot do - that is what local, state, and federal laws are for. The Constitution outlines, often in abstract terms, the specific rights and privileges afforded to various parties such as individuals and States. It is a blueprint.In the US, the Supreme Court is the final arbiter when it comes to determining whether or not an individual has had their rights infringed or if a law or charter has violated the intent of the Constitution. The problem here is obviously one of interpreting intent. Interpretation will always be subjective and, as we see, there will always be justices with differing opinions -- this cannot be escaped.In this thread, and many others, there are always a lot of folks arguing back and forth about bigotry, rights, and privileges, but nobody is really addressing the larger questions at the heart of these issues -- What is a fundamental human right? What are these rights? What is the source of these rights -- Reason, emotion, God?Everyone will have a different answer depending on their world view. How are these rights derived? Whose answers to these questions should be accepted as objective truth and why? Also, is not claiming that these rights are objective the same thing as stating that they must exist independently of human beings?Before these questions are addressed, I don't see how anyone can claim that their opinions are anything but subjective and personal -- I just see people throwing around words like 'Bigot.' Philosophers have been grappling with these questions for centuries and there never has been common agreement. That is why there have been, and continue to be, so many political and social justice systems.In Communist nations, the needs of the whole is objectively viewed as more important than individual rights. In Western Democracies, Individual rights are paramount and take precedence. This is all intertwined with our ideas of morality, ethics, and social justice.Now, if someone can show they have solved this problem that man has grappled with since his existence, and they can state they have objectively derived these absolute truths, there is a prestigious faculty position somewhere at Harvard or Cambridge awaiting you.

Hi,Yes, and that is why it is possible to amend the articles of the Constitution to keep up with times. There are no complete systems and there is always a need for change. But are not all rational arguments for human rights based on a subjective ideology, and are not all conclusions based on the use of reason once these axioms have been established?Rational arguments must include the use of axioms to form a conclusion. You must start with some premise or assertion in order to get from A to B. Any result of reason must rely on some set of axiomatic principles that are accepted a-priori and used as the basis to objectively form the conclusions -- in this case, conclusions about human rights and how a society should be governed. The larger question I was asking is, whose a-priori axioms should be used to objectively derive these rights in a rational way?Our capacity to experience emotions such as empathy, sadness, joy etc is the foundation for all of our notions of rights. Reason is the tool used to judge and weigh options that will achieve a desired result, but the desire itself has nothing whatsoever to do with reason..............................................Take the following two positions:A) "I believe all individuals should possess the same rights and privileges."B) "I believe all individuals should not necessarily possess the same rights and privileges."Neither of these positions are rational in that a conclusion follows from a premise. How could one possibly rationally derive these statements in an objective fashion using reason alone without appealing to the subjective and ideological side of human existence and experience? These are axiomatic assertions that have been born from personal experiences, not reason.There will be people who subscribe to view A and those who subscribe to the view B. How can one rationally conclude that A should be accepted over B without also relying on a deeper fundamental axiom that is itself of the same axiomatic and ideological nature?This is not a cynical view on my part, nor is it a challenge to any particular view. I am just pointing out that at times we can have a misplaced view of reason when it comes to human affairs. We are not creatures of reason, we never have been and never will be. We are creatures of instinct, emotion, and impulse who have the capacity to use reason as a tool to achieve a desired result. Before we can use reason as a tool, we must first have a result in mind, and in many cases, this result is not born from reason.If your view is A then you can rationally arrive at laws and regulations concerning human rights, but one cannot ever rationally derive A or B without relying on some subjective set of ideals.Ultimately, our views will always be based on a subjective foundation that includes an ideological view of human experience. It is this fundamental ideological level that is the arena on which the public debate plays out, with each camp claiming the moral high ground. Edited by Grizz, : No reason given.