This is a clear cut case of the majority repressing the minority. This is why places like America have adopted a constitutional republic. A representative republic governed by rule of law and a constitution act to disconnect real sovereign power from the people. It is NOT a good idea to allow people to directly govern themselves (as in a true democracy) because it leads to the majority repressing the minority. The end result of this is a powerful oligarchy. Democracies tend to always degenerate into an oligarchy, this is called the iron law of oligarchy, and there are some examples of this happening in history.
The Swiss movement to ban minarets is backed by the ultra-conservative Swiss People's Party (SVP). Who used an ad campaign based on fear.
These sorts of campaigns are undeniably effective, and it is the reason why people should not be allowed to rule directly over themselves. They are simply not qualified, and they are too easily manipulated.
As far as tolerance for religion goes... In an ideal world we would have zero tolerance for religion. As we should all individually practice a zero tolerance policy towards delusion as much as possible for the good of humanity and ourselves.
We all live in a non-ideal world however, and despite what idealists believe, no amount of ideal thinking or action with ideal intentions are going to make this world any more ideal. This is equivalent to making policy decisions based on ideology rather then physical evidence, and then having faith that it will all work out in the end.
That being said, I agree that policy that attacks religious freedom are extremely dangerous for the people living in non-ideal settings (i.e. everybody). Motivating people with fear, be it God-fear, or xenophobia, will in the end only serve to repress rather then to protect.
No comments:
Post a Comment