Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Steph S. on March 14, 2012 at 10:32am

I wanted to highlight this one because it addresses the moral decencies.

"We believe in the common moral decencies: altruism, integrity, honesty, truthfulness, responsibility. Humanist ethics is amenable to critical, rational guidance. There are normative standards that we discover together. Moral principles are tested by their consequences."

Permalink Reply by Joan Denoo on March 14, 2012 at 1:25pm

I have trouble with democracy as well; it is vulnerable to "repressive majority" but the repression can come from elements other than economic repression. We experience that now as we see our Executive, Legislative, Judicial branches of government heavily influenced by theocracy, but the repression can come from organized crime, or wealthy and greedy entrepreneurs, or ones with the most physical or mental strength; Just now the war against women has a loud following and whether it is a large following, I don't know. I know they surely are on the wrong track with that one. 

The problem with "representative constitutional republic" is who decides who is to be  represented? Will people of color? atheists? homosexuals? children? handicapped? anarchists? gender? be represented?

As to people striving to reach their full potential, if it is internally motivated, seems good to me. Each one of us has such a tiny flash of time on this earth and with all kinds of influences imposing on him/her it can be difficult to develop individual qualities. Some are naturally quiet, others naturally loud. Neither should be required to adjust to others' expectations, unless they impose on others, but find the qualities within oneself to be developed. 

Permalink Reply by Richard ∑wald on March 14, 2012 at 10:35pm

"Democracy by definition is rule by the people so the majority will set the rule of law.  This means that the "repressive majority" will oppress the minority.  True Democracy is a disaster for the minority."

You're describing Ochlocracy not Democracy in the context implied here.

Permalink Reply by Richard ∑wald on March 15, 2012 at 7:31pm

"I think a little clarity is in order…"

You are ignoring context, this may help:

We believe in an open and pluralistic society and that democracy is the best guarantee of protecting human rights from authoritarian elites and repressive majorities.

"... here is the definition of "Pure Democracy"  which was what I refernced in my post"

No, you referenced "true democracy" and a description (your context):

"This means that the "repressive majority" will oppress the minority.  True Democracy is a disaster for the minority."

Compare with:

"Ochlocracy ("rule of the general populace") is democracy ("rule of the people") spoiled bydemagoguery, "tyranny of the majority" and the rule of passion over reason..."

Also see: original context, now contrast and compare your "true" with "liberal", …see which one matches the context in the OP..

"The way the above post is written it implies that a democracy protects minorities... and this is hardly guaranteed."

For further context also note any other entries related to society and it's individuals:

• the principle of the separation of church and state
• negotiation and compromise as a means of resolving differences
• securing justice and fairness in society and with eliminating discrimination and intolerance.
• supporting the disadvantaged and the handicapped
• transcend divisive parochial loyalties based on race, religion, gender, nationality, creed, class, sexual orientation, or ethnicity
• the common good
• the right to privacy
• reproductive freedom
• comprehensive and informed health-care
• etc.

Now, look at the Wiki entry for just plain old "democracy", and note:

"The term "democracy" is often used as shorthand for liberal democracy, which may include elements such as political pluralism; equality before the law; the right to petition elected officials for redress of grievances; due process; civil liberties; human rights; and elements of civil society outside the government."

…context.

 

Permalink Reply by Richard ∑wald on March 15, 2012 at 7:48pm

Ha ha… that'd be funny if I was actually a humanist. No, what I'm passionate about is intellectual honesty.

Permalink Reply by Richard ∑wald on March 15, 2012 at 7:59pm

No need to assume anything, just read-comprehend what is written.

That simple, really.

Permalink Reply by Joan Denoo on March 15, 2012 at 7:38pm

Oh dear, my eyes are about worn out and I get to learn a new word: "Ochlocracy (Greek: οχλοκρατία or okhlokratía; Latin: ochlocratia) or mob rule is government by mob or a mass of people, or the intimidation of legitimate authorities. As a pejorative for majoritarianism, it is akin to the Latin phrase mobile vulgus meaning "the fickle crowd", from which the English term "mob" was originally derived in the 1680s.^[1]

ochlo-, ochl- + (Greek: mob [people])

cratia (from Late Latin -cratia, from Greek -kratia, from kratosstrength, power)

How does one distinguish ochiocray from democracy when huge numbers, even a majority, believe something that is not true? Where does the Tea Party fit in this? 

Permalink Reply by Richard ∑wald on March 15, 2012 at 7:53pm

"How does one distinguish ochiocray from democracy when huge numbers, even a majority, believe something that is not true?"

A good start would be enforcing that church/state separation thing...

"Where does the Tea Party fit in this?"

They're of the spittle-flecked batshit crazy Ayn Rand right-wing anarcho-capitalist libertarian democracy, but mostly without the objectivist-bullshit atheism.

Permalink Reply by mojo5501 on March 14, 2012 at 1:14pm

Thank you for listing those 'affirmations', Steph.  I actually wrote them all down so I can go back to them whenever I feel the need to.  What this really helps me with personally is taking the opportunity to define myself to those people who have a 'knee jerk' response to the very idea of atheism and secular humanism.  There is a lot of education that needs to take place, unfortunately.

I found the article by Andy Norman titled "Framing Humanism" very useful also and I recommend it as a reminder that we sometimes need to take the opportunity to 'self-identify' ourselves.  This encourages dialogue and can promote (or at the very least, defend) our cause, if we want to call it a cause!  But either way, it allows us to define ourselves instead of allowing 'them' to define us and to vilify us.

Here are just a few modifications I would make to a few of the principles:

--We deplore efforts.....to look for salvation outside ourselves and outside the natural world.  (As in, we can be our own salvation...rather than looking externally for a 'savior'.)

--open and pluralistic society with democratic principles protecting human rights, representative government bodies to ensure human liberty in the face of authoritarian elites and repressive majority rule.  (Just to address the 'downside' of mob rule and how important it is that minority group rights aren't trampled in the process).  I think we need to remember that secular government rests on the principle that power comes not from god or some supernaturally inspired book but from the consent of the governed.

--Include the term "affordable" to the health care access statement.  When only the wealthy can afford to lead healthy, meaningful, and productive lives, there lies the problem!

--Deeply concerned...extending learning to the ordinary citizen and opening up the opportunity of education to all, not just the few who can afford it and not just children.  Blind ignorance is as harmful as blind faith!  (Our nation is the perfect example of how disparities in education are often regional.  Our founding fathers proclaimed that the health of a democracy depends on an educated citizenry.  Our current high school drop-out rates tell the sad story.)  

Permalink Reply by Joan Denoo on March 14, 2012 at 1:36pm

I can agree to these principles ... if there is a process whereby all elements of society have a voice. For example, Spokane had a big drive to get prostitutes off E. Sprague Ave. I was on the team and wanted police officers and prostitutes included. There was a very loud outcry against the prostitutes, although police were included. So, I went out and interviewed prostitutes, police, and judges and found some very interesting information. For example, 85% of the prostitutes had been incested (I know, there is no such word) during their childhood and I mean fathers, brothers, uncles. I discovered which police and judges were using prostitutes. I also discovered the women were being charged for a crime and their customers were not. The names of the prostitutes were regularly reported in the newspapers, the Johns were not. When I inquired why this was so, the newspapers and the judges responded they didn't want to harm the families of the Johns. My response, the families had already been harmed by the lies and threats to their families' health. I reported on these bits of information and my report was included in the final document. 

Long story short, the prostitutes moved from E. Sprague Ave. to N. Division St.  

Permalink Reply by Steph S. on March 14, 2012 at 10:19pm

Thanks for all your wonderful comments. I enjoyed reading them.

Permalink Reply by Steph S. on March 15, 2012 at 4:46pm

Thanks for sharing my discussion on Facebook. Appreciate it!

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page