| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
23 Aug 2005 12:54:32 PM |
| Object: |
Free speech doesn't require 51 percent |
Freedom of speech doesn't require 51 percent
http://www.post-gazette.com/columnists/20030129sam0129p1.asp
Samantha Bennett
Wednesday, January 29, 2003
[excerpts]
In the star-spangled tsunami of patriotism washing over the nation since
the terrorist attack, one of the currents has been the "Freedom through
quashing dissent" movement.
Here's an example. This e-mail was forwarded to me:
"One of the programs that I was watching tonight said that 86% of Americans
believe in God. Therefore I have a very hard time understanding why there
is such a mess about having 'In God We Trust' on our money and having God
in the pledge of Allegiance. Could it be that we just don't take action and
tell the 14% to shut up and sit down????
"... Dear 14%, shut up and sit down!!!!"
Since there were many names in the recipient field and the version I got
had been forwarded and re-forwarded several times, I could only conclude
that this attitude is becoming popular. And here I am referring to the
"shut up and sit down" sentiment, not the merits of invoking the Almighty
in our national slogans and rituals.
The Pledge of Allegiance debate interests me far less than the belief that
what makes this a great nation is the freedom to make people who don't go
along with the majority sit down and shut up.
[snip]
Dear Majority Ruler,
As I'm sure you know, our esteemed Founding Fathers were, many of them,
pious men. They were also very wise -- so wise, in fact, they conceived our
government to be based on the rule of law, not on what Alexis de
Tocqueville called "the tyranny of the majority." This is why we have an
infuriatingly slow, fractious, pompous bicameral legislature checked and
balanced with executive and judicial branches. Federal power is spread and
diffused so effectively that barely anything ever gets done. Those Founding
Fathers were real comedians.
Let's hear it in their own words. Thomas Jefferson said, "The minority
possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate
would be oppression."
And James Madison, who became a famous president and whose wife became a
famous snack food, wrote this: "It is of great importance in a republic not
only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers but to guard
one part of the society against the injustice of the other part." He knew
that there's a fine line between majority rule and mob rule.
So what we have here in America is not a true democracy, you see, but a
republic.
[snip]
And let's not forget that the Electoral College is one of our republic's
bulwarks against pure democracy. If the majority ruled, George Bush would
not be president.
.
|
|
| User: "Dr. Zarkov" |
|
| Title: Re: Free speech doesn't require 51 percent |
23 Aug 2005 02:24:41 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Freedom of speech doesn't require 51 percent
http://www.post-gazette.com/columnists/20030129sam0129p1.asp
Samantha Bennett
Wednesday, January 29, 2003
[excerpts]
In the star-spangled tsunami of patriotism washing over the nation since
the terrorist attack, one of the currents has been the "Freedom through
quashing dissent" movement.
Here's an example. This e-mail was forwarded to me:
"One of the programs that I was watching tonight said that 86% of Americans
believe in God. Therefore I have a very hard time understanding why there
is such a mess about having 'In God We Trust' on our money and having God
in the pledge of Allegiance. Could it be that we just don't take action and
tell the 14% to shut up and sit down????
"... Dear 14%, shut up and sit down!!!!"
Since there were many names in the recipient field and the version I got
had been forwarded and re-forwarded several times, I could only conclude
that this attitude is becoming popular. And here I am referring to the
"shut up and sit down" sentiment, not the merits of invoking the Almighty
in our national slogans and rituals.
The Pledge of Allegiance debate interests me far less than the belief that
what makes this a great nation is the freedom to make people who don't go
along with the majority sit down and shut up.
[snip]
Dear Majority Ruler,
As I'm sure you know, our esteemed Founding Fathers were, many of them,
pious men. They were also very wise -- so wise, in fact, they conceived our
government to be based on the rule of law, not on what Alexis de
Tocqueville called "the tyranny of the majority." This is why we have an
infuriatingly slow, fractious, pompous bicameral legislature checked and
balanced with executive and judicial branches. Federal power is spread and
diffused so effectively that barely anything ever gets done. Those Founding
Fathers were real comedians.
Let's hear it in their own words. Thomas Jefferson said, "The minority
possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate
would be oppression."
And James Madison, who became a famous president and whose wife became a
famous snack food, wrote this: "It is of great importance in a republic not
only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers but to guard
one part of the society against the injustice of the other part." He knew
that there's a fine line between majority rule and mob rule.
So what we have here in America is not a true democracy, you see, but a
republic.
[snip]
And let's not forget that the Electoral College is one of our republic's
bulwarks against pure democracy. If the majority ruled, George Bush would
not be president.
It's almost amusing how often the "argumentum ad numerum" (appeal to
popularity) fallacy is used. It's hard to believe that so many people
are really that dumb that they don't see that majority opinion has no
logical connection to what is right--factually, logically, ethically, or
whatever. A more logical question would be: "Why should the majority
have the right to impose their will on everyone else?"
.
|
|
|
| User: "chris.holt" |
|
| Title: Re: Free speech doesn't require 51 percent |
23 Aug 2005 02:43:59 PM |
|
|
Dr. Zarkov wrote:
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
And let's not forget that the Electoral College is one of our republic's
bulwarks against pure democracy. If the majority ruled, George Bush would
not be president.
It's almost amusing how often the "argumentum ad numerum" (appeal to
popularity) fallacy is used.
One of the complications is that it's not always wrong. It
often is (e.g. people believe that the death penalty
reduces the murder rate), but sometimes it's the best
we've got to go on. If you've got to decide whether
to drive on the left or the right, if you've got to
figure out the best compromise between speed limits
and fuel efficiency, then what the public will accept
is an important (and often deciding) criterion.
It's hard to believe that so many people
are really that dumb that they don't see that majority opinion has no
logical connection to what is right--factually, logically, ethically, or
whatever.
Sometimes true; but who gets to decide what is right? This
is especially a problem when dealing with social structures.
A more logical question would be: "Why should the majority
have the right to impose their will on everyone else?"
As opposed to some minority? Just because they think
they're right? Some things can be argued, negotiated,
compromised over. It helps when facts are available
to contest various opinions. Other things it seems
cannot.
It would be nice to step down from the might (popular
opinion) makes right, and go on to the truth makes
right. Sometimes we can do this, and we push for it
whenever possible. But it doesn't always work, if
only because there isn't a truth to be found. Not
great, but what's the alternative?
--
chris.holt@ncl.ac.uk http://homepages.cs.ncl.ac.uk/chris.holt
.
|
|
|
| User: "Herman Rubin" |
|
| Title: Re: Free speech doesn't require 51 percent |
25 Aug 2005 03:13:00 PM |
|
|
In article <defua0$vsr$1@ucsnew1.ncl.ac.uk>,
chris.holt <chris.holt@ncl.ac.uk> wrote:
Dr. Zarkov wrote:
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
And let's not forget that the Electoral College is one of our republic's
bulwarks against pure democracy. If the majority ruled, George Bush would
not be president.
It's almost amusing how often the "argumentum ad numerum" (appeal to
popularity) fallacy is used.
One of the complications is that it's not always wrong. It
often is (e.g. people believe that the death penalty
reduces the murder rate), but sometimes it's the best
we've got to go on. If you've got to decide whether
to drive on the left or the right, if you've got to
figure out the best compromise between speed limits
and fuel efficiency, then what the public will accept
is an important (and often deciding) criterion.
It's hard to believe that so many people
are really that dumb that they don't see that majority opinion has no
logical connection to what is right--factually, logically, ethically, or
whatever.
Sometimes true; but who gets to decide what is right? This
is especially a problem when dealing with social structures.
Which is why no government should even attempt to decide
this unless it becomes absolutely necessary.
Education, which is the group I am using, is now in a
situation where the best way of getting out from the
current procedure well designed to keep those who can learn
from doing so may well be total chaos. The government and
the schools of education have made our situation very bad,
and both are to blame. We almost have to start over, letting
those with subject matter understanding completely revise
how things are being done.
A more logical question would be: "Why should the majority
have the right to impose their will on everyone else?"
As opposed to some minority?
As opposed to nobody! There are cases where there must
be regulation, but "morality" is not one of them. You
might look at the libertarian philosophy; the US almost
started out that way, but has become too regulated.
Just because they think
they're right? Some things can be argued, negotiated,
compromised over. It helps when facts are available
to contest various opinions. Other things it seems
cannot.
Most of these times, it should be live and let live.
It would be nice to step down from the might (popular
opinion) makes right, and go on to the truth makes
right. Sometimes we can do this, and we push for it
whenever possible. But it doesn't always work, if
only because there isn't a truth to be found. Not
great, but what's the alternative?
See the above.
"The greatest immorality of all is
to impose one's morality on another."
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jenny6833A" |
|
| Title: Re: Free speech doesn't require 51 percent |
23 Aug 2005 03:06:17 PM |
|
|
chris.holt wrote:
It would be nice to step down from the might (popular
opinion) makes right, and go on to the truth makes
right. Sometimes we can do this, and we push for it
whenever possible. But it doesn't always work, if
only because there isn't a truth to be found. Not
great, but what's the alternative?
The alternative is to recongize that, in most situations, there is no
right and no truth. It's all just personal preference, cultural
tradition, taboos that can't be discussed because discussion would show
how stupid they are, etc.
We don't all have to be the same or act the same. We just need to
avoid doing each other real, tangible, lasting harm.
We just need to tolerate others as we would have others tolerate us.
:-)
Jenny
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Free speech doesn't require 51 percent |
28 Aug 2005 02:28:56 PM |
|
|
On 23 Aug 2005 13:06:17 -0700, "Jenny6833A" <Jenny6833A@aol.com>
wrote:
chris.holt wrote:
It would be nice to step down from the might (popular
opinion) makes right, and go on to the truth makes
right. Sometimes we can do this, and we push for it
whenever possible. But it doesn't always work, if
only because there isn't a truth to be found. Not
great, but what's the alternative?
The alternative is to recongize that, in most situations, there is no
right and no truth. It's all just personal preference, cultural
tradition, taboos that can't be discussed because discussion would show
how stupid they are, etc.
We don't all have to be the same or act the same. We just need to
avoid doing each other real, tangible, lasting harm.
We just need to tolerate others as we would have others tolerate us.
'Tolerate?' Disagree. Acceptance would be much less stressful.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Free speech doesn't require 51 percent |
28 Aug 2005 02:27:19 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 13:54:32 -0400, wrote:
Freedom of speech doesn't require 51 percent
http://www.post-gazette.com/columnists/20030129sam0129p1.asp
Samantha Bennett
Wednesday, January 29, 2003
Freedom of speech doesn't require 51 percent
Wednesday, January 29, 2003
In the star-spangled tsunami of patriotism washing over the nation
since the terrorist attack, one of the currents has been the "Freedom
through quashing dissent" movement.
Here's an example. This e-mail was forwarded to me:
"One of the programs that I was watching tonight said that 86% of
Americans believe in God. Therefore I have a very hard time
understanding why there is such a mess about having 'In God We Trust'
on our money and having God in the pledge of Allegiance. Could it be
that we just don't take action and tell the 14% to shut up and sit
down????
"... Dear 14%, shut up and sit down!!!!"
Since there were many names in the recipient field and the version I
got had been forwarded and re-forwarded several times, I could only
conclude that this attitude is becoming popular. And here I am
referring to the "shut up and sit down" sentiment, not the merits of
invoking the Almighty in our national slogans and rituals.
The Pledge of Allegiance debate interests me far less than the belief
that what makes this a great nation is the freedom to make people who
don't go along with the majority sit down and shut up.
Just as those fearful of immigration have to be reminded of their own
parentage, those who think dissent is un-American need to be reminded
that this country was founded by people considered to be fringe wackos
in their own countries.
So I'd like to take a moment to respond to the promulgators of this
and similar e-mails, letters to the editor and ugly tavern rhetoric.
Dear Majority Ruler,
As I'm sure you know, our esteemed Founding Fathers were, many of
them, pious men. They were also very wise -- so wise, in fact, they
conceived our government to be based on the rule of law, not on what
Alexis de Tocqueville called "the tyranny of the majority." This is
why we have an infuriatingly slow, fractious, pompous bicameral
legislature checked and balanced with executive and judicial branches.
Federal power is spread and diffused so effectively that barely
anything ever gets done. Those Founding Fathers were real comedians.
Let's hear it in their own words. Thomas Jefferson said, "The minority
possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to
violate would be oppression."
And James Madison, who became a famous president and whose wife became
a famous snack food, wrote this: "It is of great importance in a
republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its
rulers but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of
the other part." He knew that there's a fine line between majority
rule and mob rule.
So what we have here in America is not a true democracy, you see, but
a republic. Oddly, the people who have been most fond of pointing that
out over the past year or so are the very people who seem least
interested in protecting the rights of the minority.
But if you would prefer those with a minority view to shut up and sit
down, consider this potpourri of poll results:
Fifty-seven percent believe abortion should be legal in all or most
cases (ABC News poll). Minority, shut up and sit down.
Fifty-three percent believe the Roe v. Wade decision was a "good
thing" for the country (Gallup). Minority, shut up and sit down.
Only 46 percent favor military action in Iraq if inspectors find that
Saddam has the ability to make weapons (Pew Research). Shut up and sit
down.
Eighty-four percent believe you can be a good American without
religious faith (Pew). Minority, shut up and sit down.
Sixty-six percent favor government help for the needy, even if it
means forgoing tax cuts (Pew). Minority, shut up and sit down.
Sixty-nine percent believe it should be illegal to use a hand-held
cell phone while driving (ABC News). Minority, just shut up.
And let's not forget that the Electoral College is one of our
republic's bulwarks against pure democracy. If the majority ruled,
George Bush would not be president.
Food for thought, yes? I think so. But if you really want to live in a
country where everyone is on the same page or else, with none of this
whining or second-guessing or criticizing, I can recommend one. It's
called Iraq.
Samantha Bennett can be reached at or
412-263-3572.
In the star-spangled tsunami of patriotism washing over the nation since
the terrorist attack, one of the currents has been the "Freedom through
quashing dissent" movement.
Here's an example. This e-mail was forwarded to me:
"One of the programs that I was watching tonight said that 86% of Americans
believe in God. Therefore I have a very hard time understanding why there
is such a mess about having 'In God We Trust' on our money and having God
in the pledge of Allegiance. Could it be that we just don't take action and
tell the 14% to shut up and sit down????
"... Dear 14%, shut up and sit down!!!!"
Since there were many names in the recipient field and the version I got
had been forwarded and re-forwarded several times, I could only conclude
that this attitude is becoming popular. And here I am referring to the
"shut up and sit down" sentiment, not the merits of invoking the Almighty
in our national slogans and rituals.
The Pledge of Allegiance debate interests me far less than the belief that
what makes this a great nation is the freedom to make people who don't go
along with the majority sit down and shut up.
[snip]
Dear Majority Ruler,
As I'm sure you know, our esteemed Founding Fathers were, many of them,
pious men. They were also very wise -- so wise, in fact, they conceived our
government to be based on the rule of law, not on what Alexis de
Tocqueville called "the tyranny of the majority." This is why we have an
infuriatingly slow, fractious, pompous bicameral legislature checked and
balanced with executive and judicial branches. Federal power is spread and
diffused so effectively that barely anything ever gets done. Those Founding
Fathers were real comedians.
Let's hear it in their own words. Thomas Jefferson said, "The minority
possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate
would be oppression."
And James Madison, who became a famous president and whose wife became a
famous snack food, wrote this: "It is of great importance in a republic not
only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers but to guard
one part of the society against the injustice of the other part." He knew
that there's a fine line between majority rule and mob rule.
So what we have here in America is not a true democracy, you see, but a
republic.
[snip]
And let's not forget that the Electoral College is one of our republic's
bulwarks against pure democracy. If the majority ruled, George Bush would
not be president.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
