Political discussion thread

Syzygy wrote: StyLaZyn wrote: Syzygy wrote: Off on a slight but I think relevant tangent...   A few weeks ago me and Mrs Syzygy watched part of London's Gay Pride procession. Among the first few groups taking part were the Metropolitan Police, the army, the navy, the RAF and 'here, queer and don't drink beer' London's gay muslims.   There are times when I'm proud to be British, and that was one of them.   Question: Does the British Government allow for the influence of religion into its laws?     It depends on what you mean.   There have been instances where compromises have been made to take religious practices into account. For example, male Sikhs (wha are required to wear a turban) do not have to wear crash helmets on motorcycles, unlike the rest of us, and Sikh police officers wear a special uniform turban.   Blasphemy laws still exist on the statute books, but there has been no successful prosecution in many years - about 25 years ago there were high profile cases where Christian groups tried to prosecute Monty Python for The Life of Brian, which got precisely nowhere.   When Jerry Springer the Opera was televised by the BBC, a group of evangelical Christians simply burned their TV licences outside Broadcasting House, but as they'd already paid for them it was a bit of a futile gesture .

StyLaZyn wrote:     My understanding is that the European culture, generally speaking, creates laws based on human rights and not so much the teachings of a given religion.  As a friend put it to me after visiting your country and some other European countries, "they matured out of any semblance of Theocracy."

Unfortunately, this is not 100% true of Italy. Having the seat of the Catholic Church inside our nation's territory doesn't really allow us to be independent from the influence of religion on our political and social life. If you want a very recent example, all hell broke loose when the current government tried to pass a new law on common-law unions, modeled on the French PACS (Pacts of Social Solidarity).

Since the Church and the centre-right coalition thought the law 'threatened' the traditional notion of family by allowing unmarried people (and especially gay couples) to have some rights, they started issuing threats, ultimatums and such, which lead to the original draft of the law being more or less scrapped and replaced by something similar, but probably less effective. And this is just an example of the pressure the Catholic Church can put on the Italian State.

Wow, I missed a lot while I was at class. Let me just say that:

1. I agree with Equality 100% on hate crime legislation. To judge a crime differently because of the skin color of the people involved is as racist as committing the crime in the first place.

2. I believe gays should be allowed to serve openly in the military. If someone exhibits disruptive behavior, they should be dealt with on an individual basis.

3. I believe that private charity is a much better system than welfare. Will it make every poor person rich and prosperous? No. But neither will it steal money from hard working people and give it to drug addicts and alcoholics as welfare does. I for one would be a lot more charitable if I knew that the homeless people I see on the street weren't collecting checks every month from the government.

4. I would prefer not to draw religion into this and let's just say that a lot of good and a lot of bad has come from religion over the years and leave it at that.

I'm done.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Ghost Rider wrote: StyLaZyn wrote:     My understanding is that the European culture, generally speaking, creates laws based on human rights and not so much the teachings of a given religion.  As a friend put it to me after visiting your country and some other European countries, "they matured out of any semblance of Theocracy."     Unfortunately, this is not 100% true of Italy. Having the seat of the Catholic Church inside our nation's territory doesn't really allow us to be independent from the influence of religion on our political and social life. If you want a very recent example, all hell broke loose when the current government tried to pass a new law on common-law unions, modeled on the French PACS (Pacts of Social Solidarity). Since the Church and the centre-right coalition thought the law 'threatened' the traditional notion of family by allowing unmarried people (and especially gay couples) to have some rights, they started issuing threats, ultimatums and such, which lead to the original draft of the law being more or less scrapped and replaced by something similar, but probably less effective. And this is just an example of the pressure the Catholic Church can put on the Italian State.   I have a question. If  a majority of the people in a democracy are Catholic and want to legislate "their morality" then why should they not be able to. Isn't that the idea of self-rule. Laws like this shouldn't be determined by legal councils and unelected judges; it's a matter of the people. Even in democracies we can't seem to govern ourselves anymore.

^^ State-sponsored religion.  I don't think anyone has a problem with state-sponsored government.  

Equality 7-2521 wrote: That's not messing religion with government. All a law is is a codified morality. Regardless, the first amendment forbids state sponsored government, not government ever coming contact with religion.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: The law changes when the majority feels its time for the law to change. People's ideas of right and wrong change. How can we say we have a democracy when anytime the majority want something they're attacked for legislating their morality or just plain have their laws struck down. America has become a rule by the minority. I don't mean rule by "minorities", but what a select group of interest groups or ring of judges think is right is what is legislated and allowed to stay on the books.

Edited by StyLaZyn - August 08 2007 at 11:47

Equality 7-2521 wrote: I think you typo'd

Equality 7-2521 wrote: StyLaZyn wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: The law changes when the majority feels its time for the law to change. People's ideas of right and wrong change. How can we say we have a democracy when anytime the majority want something they're attacked for legislating their morality or just plain have their laws struck down. America has become a rule by the minority. I don't mean rule by "minorities", but what a select group of interest groups or ring of judges think is right is what is legislated and allowed to stay on the books.   ediited: Do you mean the government telling the public what their morality should be?       No, I mean that the principle of democracy is being underminded because the legislative process, the process of the people, and become dominated and subordinate to the judicial.   The government can't tell the public what their morality should be; we don't have though police yet.

The Doctor wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: StyLaZyn wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: The law changes when the majority feels its time for the law to change. People's ideas of right and wrong change. How can we say we have a democracy when anytime the majority want something they're attacked for legislating their morality or just plain have their laws struck down. America has become a rule by the minority. I don't mean rule by "minorities", but what a select group of interest groups or ring of judges think is right is what is legislated and allowed to stay on the books.   ediited: Do you mean the government telling the public what their morality should be?       No, I mean that the principle of democracy is being underminded because the legislative process, the process of the people, and become dominated and subordinate to the judicial.   The government can't tell the public what their morality should be; we don't have though police yet.   The problem with absolute rule by the majority is that majorities can be wrong too.  There has to be a check against tyranny by the majority.  The rights of those who do not belong to the majority must be protected as well.  If you do not protect the rights of those who do not belong to the majority, the minority will rebel against oppression from the majority, and you have chaos in the streets.  I do understand where you are coming from, and I do not agree with bench legislation running rampant in our country (which by the way is not just done from the liberal side; conservatives often legislate from the bench as well) or it does defeat the intent of democracy.  However, sometimes it is absolutely necessary to protect those whom the majority would oppress.

I agree with this. A Democracy needs some checks and balances so that the majority cannot vote to enslave the minority or other such practices. That's why we have the constitution, to protect certain fundamental rights that cannot be changed by a majority vote. Personally, I am Libertarian and don't believe in legislating morality, so long as it doesn't violate anyone else's rights.