Imposing government morality on the citizens

[S.A.M.]

One of the points which discussions here has brought home is how much conflict comes about because the government ignores what people in a country want.

e.g. related to the minaret ban which was put to popular vote and passed, I think this would probably have happened in any EU country, no matter which one was given the luxury of popular mandate. [one could easily use any other argument, like the EU formation if they like]

Since the EU is supposedly filled with enlightened peoples, it may have been better if the situations which led to this vote, like immigration post WWII and especially, immigration from non-European, non-white, non-Judeo-Christian countries would have been put to the vote as well.

Is it really fair to assume that such things are "moral" duties which should not be put to popular vote? Should people be forced to live with those kinds of people they do not want in their neighborhoods?

Wouldn't it be better if people had a choice about it? If some people prefer to live in color, ethnicity or religion defined communities, why shouldn't they be permitted to?

 

[Cowboy]

Well, technically, imposing "morality" on the citizens is what a government is supposed to do. There's just a lot of debate over whose "morality" to use.

 

[Doreen]

Is it really fair to assume that such things are "moral" duties which should not be put to popular vote? Should people be forced to live with those kinds of people they do not want in their neighborhoods?

Wouldn't it be better if people had a choice about it? If some people prefer to live in color, ethnicity or religion defined communities, why shouldn't they be permitted to?

Very tricky issue. On the one hand forcing morality tends to create hidden racism/religionism - in this case - and backlashes and long standing resentment. On the other hand governments have the task of legalislating morality, so that one can have consistency, at least on core issues and laws within that nation.

I think a first step is NOT assuming that legislating something has remotely solved a problem and to try to come up with ways to improve the situation, including making it very safe to voice what might be considered hateful views. But this is all hypothesizing from the sky.

As an individual one can simply take on another role and see if there are ways to do this on the ground.

 

[Orleander]

One of the points which discussions here has brought home is how much conflict comes about because the government ignores what people in a country want...

but isn't that what voting and laws are about? The majority rules. It why polygamy is illegal here in the US.

It takes a lot of years and open discussion to get morality issued laws changed. Its why I hope to see gay marriage come about.

 

[quadraphonics]

Since the EU is supposedly filled with enlightened peoples

Supposed by who?

Also, Switzerland is not part of the EU.

 

[CutsieMarie89]

but isn't that what voting and laws are about? The majority rules. It why polygamy is illegal here in the US.

It takes a lot of years and open discussion to get morality issued laws changed. Its why I hope to see gay marriage come about.

But not always, sometimes the court just decides stuff. Like I'm sure inter-racial marriage would have not have easily passed back when it was a major issue, the courts just forced it upon everyone. And people just grew to accept it. I believe integration was in the same boat.

 

[Raithere]

Is it really fair to assume that such things are "moral" duties which should not be put to popular vote? Should people be forced to live with those kinds of people they do not want in their neighborhoods?

Alas, even the republic is not defense enough against the tyranny of the majority.

"Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority."

It will be found, indeed, on a candid review of our situation, that some of the distresses under which we labor have been erroneously charged on the operation of our governments; but it will be found, at the same time, that other causes will not alone account for many of our heaviest misfortunes; and, particularly, for that prevailing and increasing distrust of public engagements, and alarm for private rights, which are echoed from one end of the continent to the other. These must be chiefly, if not wholly, effects of the unsteadiness and injustice with which a factious spirit has tainted our public administrations."

- James Madison

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed10.asp

~Raithere

 

[Raithere]

Wouldn't it be better if people had a choice about it? If some people prefer to live in color, ethnicity or religion defined communities, why shouldn't they be permitted to?

The problem doesn't lay in permitting people to live in the communities they wish but in prohibiting people to do so. The problem isn't that 5 white families want to live near each other, it occurs when they prevent the black family from moving in next door.

~Raithere

 

[Orleander]

But not always, sometimes the court just decides stuff. Like I'm sure inter-racial marriage would have not have easily passed back when it was a major issue, the courts just forced it upon everyone. And people just grew to accept it. I believe integration was in the same boat.

I'm pretty sure people didn't want interracial marriage.

red states didn't make it legal til June 1967 due to a Supreme Court decision. So yeah, I guess in that case the Court did force their morality on them

 

[Raithere]

I'm pretty sure people didn't want interracial marriage.
red states didn't make it legal til June 1967 due to a Supreme Court decision. So yeah, I guess in that case the Court did force their morality on them

How do you come up with that conclusion? No one was forced to have an interracial marriage against their will. People against interracial marriage were simply prevented from forcing their morality on others by denying them the right to marry.

~Raithere

 

[Orleander]

How do you come up with that conclusion? No one was forced to have an interracial marriage against their will. People against interracial marriage were simply prevented from forcing their morality on others by denying them the right to marry.

~Raithere

people against the marriage were forced to accept it.

 

[Raithere]

people against the marriage were forced to accept it.

How were they forced to accept it? They still have every right to disagree.

~Raithere

 

[iceaura]

Since the EU is supposedly filled with enlightened peoples, it may have been better if the situations which led to this vote, like immigration post WWII and especially, immigration from non-European, non-white, non-Judeo-Christian countries would have been put to the vote as well.

The question of whether to put minarets on mosques should have been backed up and made a question of whether to have mosques or mosque goers? Do you distinguish the two questions?

Or, since most of the Muslims in Switzerland are from European, white countries, the vote you are looking for would seem to be about the acceptance of refugees from ethnic cleansing efforts. You seem to be advocating a more careful screening of such refugees by Western countries, and rejection of those with inconvenient architectural preferences they may wish to import years later. Is that your intent?

 

[Asguard]

but isn't that what voting and laws are about? The majority rules. It why polygamy is illegal here in the US.

It takes a lot of years and open discussion to get morality issued laws changed. Its why I hope to see gay marriage come about.

not compleatly. For instance there are somethings a goverment wont do (ours anyway). it wouldnt recind the racial discrimination act for instance no matter how much surport there was for it. For starters it would violate international treaties but thats not the only reason.

 

[Raithere]

For instance there are somethings a goverment wont do (ours anyway).

I find that an extraordinary statement.

Looking back through history what makes you come to the conclusion that there is anything a government would never do (except possibly abdicate its power voluntarily)?

~Raithere

 

[S.A.M.]

The question of whether to put minarets on mosques should have been backed up and made a question of whether to have mosques or mosque goers? Do you distinguish the two questions?

Or, since most of the Muslims in Switzerland are from European, white countries, the vote you are looking for would seem to be about the acceptance of refugees from ethnic cleansing efforts. You seem to be advocating a more careful screening of such refugees by Western countries, and rejection of those with inconvenient architectural preferences they may wish to import years later. Is that your intent?

That would possibly also come into account. For example, many Muslims in Switzerland are Bosnian Serbs, refugees who escaped the horrors of Srebrenica where Muslims were massacred en masse for being Muslims. Now, if the Swiss do not want Muslims in their country, is it fair to either of them, those who do not want Muslims and those who have just escaped being massacred for being Muslims, to live together?

Isn't that just asking for more trouble?

 

[James R]

Since the EU is supposedly filled with enlightened peoples...

According to whom?

it may have been better if the situations which led to this vote, like immigration post WWII and especially, immigration from non-European, non-white, non-Judeo-Christian countries would have been put to the vote as well.

s it really fair to assume that such things are "moral" duties which should not be put to popular vote?

They are put to the vote. In democracies, people elect their government, and the government makes laws of their behalf. If the people disagree with the government, they can vote in a new one to make different laws.

Should people be forced to live with those kinds of people they do not want in their neighborhoods?

Nobody is forced. People who don't like other people in their neighbourhoods are free to move out any time.

Wouldn't it be better if people had a choice about it?

But they do!

If some people prefer to live in color, ethnicity or religion defined communities, why shouldn't they be permitted to?

Sure. And they do.

 

[S.A.M.]

Still I wonder what the Swiss people would say if the referendum had been whether there should be Muslims in Switzerland

And I am pretty sure there must be Bosnian Serbs there wondering the same thing

 

[(Q)]

Still I wonder what the Swiss people would say if the referendum had been whether there should be Muslims in Switzerland

And I am pretty sure there must be Bosnian Serbs there wondering the same thing

Which would you prefer, Sam, a government imposing its morals or a theocracy imposing its morals?

 

[S.A.M.]

Which would you prefer, Sam, a government imposing its morals or a theocracy imposing its morals?

Why should we have to limit our choices like that? This thread is about democracies asking their citizens what they want.