Real democracy and not crushing the will/freedom of a minority, conflict resolution.

[GoldenKingGaze]

Presidents and PMs can be like managers or visionaries... managers practice conflict resolution. The US president seems to be attempting to be visionary and usher in a new secular idealism. I think he'd be better off using managerial conflict resolution.

In situations where the will of the majority is contrary to the will of a significant minority, you'd think it democratic to crush the minority, but at this time the president dreams of a secular silencing of the majority and re-educating them condescendingly. The military for example can't turn the other cheek. As if the Bible is that simple and simply wrong and even to be disposed of...

A problem here is that Christians want to sit back, and be represented in parliament, to have their way, sometimes even to the point of wanting theocracy and government enforced repentance. And the other lobbies and the secular government they have, wants to silence the Christians and enforce a problem vision. Where there is a silencing of free speech there is somewhere behind it, a dictator. The government can be popular with one or the other. Or the government can mend and resolve the conflict, in so can be unpopular with both parties, but make a working "two way street". St Paul said we live with sinners all around, and can work with them, eat with them, but not with ones calling themselves brothers who are immoral.

I wish politicians would solve differences with resolves instead of trying to crush elements in society. I want true democracy.

Visionary versus manager. Visionary versus reactionary. Waiting until there is a complaint such as from a wedding cake baker, before reacting, then only superficially.

 

[imind]

In situations where the will of the majority is contrary to the will of a significant minority, you'd think it democratic to crush the minority, but at this time the president dreams of a secular silencing of the majority and re-educating them condescendingly.

its been stated many times before but we don't live in a strict democracy precisely for the reason you mention above...the will of majority should never be able to infringe on the rights of a minority, significant or otherwise. we have a constitutional republic in place, among other things, to protect minorities from majority rule.

i don't see at all how obama is using a "secular silencing of the majority and re-educating them condescendingly"...could you elaborate?

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

imind, I agree with you, the majority in true democracy does not crush the will of the minority, and the minority in the case of equal rights, is trying to crush the will of the majority, Christians, and the vision is equal rights as some put it. I may be wrong for in Australia, I think 65 to 35 want so called equal rights, but it infringes on Christians in foresight.

I think what Obama wants is a vision of his popular idea of equal rights, leading to a famous case of a baker being sued. And this means that people who speak up, can be sued, or silenced, freedom of religion and speech is under threat. In schools, this could be taught... The Bible may be banned because it calls some sins just that and advocates self control in place of pleasure loving.

Moses' law looks strict! But it came with an oral tradition and mercy was shown to King David for one. To say it is too violent and should be swept up into proclamation in church only is condescending. Obama may say that but I watched him saying the Gospel cannot be applied to parliament because Jesus taught us to turn the other cheek. Yes he is the authority over the US army. Then he becomes condescending if he tries to fob off religious speakers who address politics.

 

[Arcangl86]

I think what Obama wants is a vision of his popular idea of equal rights, leading to a famous case of a baker being sued. And this means that people who speak up, can be sued, or silenced, freedom of religion and speech is under threat. In schools, this could be taught... The Bible may be banned because it calls some sins just that and advocates self control in place of pleasure loving.

Except that case has nothing to do with President Obama. It was the result of a violation of state law, which of course the President has no say or stake in. In addition that law was passed before President Obama was even elected.

Moses' law looks strict! But it came with an oral tradition and mercy was shown to King David for one. To say it is too violent and should be swept up into proclamation in church only is condescending. Obama may say that but I watched him saying the Gospel cannot be applied to parliament because Jesus taught us to turn the other cheek. Yes he is the authority over the US army. Then he becomes condescending if he tries to fob off religious speakers who address politics.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.

 

[SepiaAndDust]

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.

Agreed. I also don't know what he means by true democracy. Is that maybe another term for pure democracy?

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

True democracy under which the rights and freedoms of say the JWs is respected despite their small number and that other groups disagree with them, who may be more numerous.

 

[SepiaAndDust]

True democracy under which the rights and freedoms of say the JWs is respected despite their small number and that other groups disagree with them, who may be more numerous.

JWs? Jehovah's Witnesses?

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

yes, Jehovah's Witnesses

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.

Obama dissents from practicing the Bible, and says things against the word of God. He seems to want to silence Christians according to his own understanding. He is condescending because of this. Even were he to have a genius IQ, it would be condescending. It helps that there are Christians with genius IQs.

 

[SepiaAndDust]

Obama dissents from practicing the Bible, and says things against the word of God. He seems to want to silence Christians according to his own understanding. He is condescending because of this. Even were he to have a genius IQ, it would be condescending. It helps that there are Christians with genius IQs.

So what? The Bible is not the founding document of the US. Whatever the Bible might or might not say doesn't matter to US law or policy.

Nobody knows what you mean by real democracy.

 

[Arcangl86]

So what? The Bible is not the founding document of the US. Whatever the Bible might or might not say doesn't matter to US law or policy.

Nobody knows what you mean by real democracy.

I think I do, but the simple fact is that the US is not a pure democracy and never has been one. This is actually a very good thing, but I find that the people who call for a pure democracy the most are those who are in the majority and as such will benefit.

 

[SepiaAndDust]

I think I do, but the simple fact is that the US is not a pure democracy and never has been one. This is actually a very good thing, but I find that the people who call for a pure democracy the most are those who are in the majority and as such will benefit.

I dunno. Minorities usually have more reflective representation in a pure democracy than in a representative democracy, since voters to representatives is 1:1. Pure democracies, though, are always in danger of tyranny of the majority.

Which is (as the saying goes) like two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for supper.

 

[Arcangl86]

I dunno. Minorities usually have more reflective representation in a pure democracy than in a representative democracy, since voters to representatives is 1:1. Pure democracies, though, are always in danger of tyranny of the majority.

Which is (as the saying goes) like two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for supper.

Well yeah. I was referring to the fact that we have a constitution that limits the power of the government.

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

So what? The Bible is not the founding document of the US. Whatever the Bible might or might not say doesn't matter to US law or policy.

Nobody knows what you mean by real democracy.

What the Bible says if it is banned and the practice of it or parts of it are banned or to begin with are limited to churches, it is a weighty matter. We must not allow the loss of our freedoms or human rights. It defeats the purpose of the role of a democratic governor. He should manage, "two way traffic" to use a figure of speech. And maintain freedom, despising dictation.

 

[SepiaAndDust]

What the Bible says if it is banned and the practice of it or parts of it are banned or to begin with are limited to churches, it is a weighty matter. We must not allow the loss of our freedoms or human rights. It defeats the purpose of the role of a democratic governor. He should manage, "two way traffic" to use a figure of speech. And maintain freedom, despising dictation.

OK, I'm outta here. Peace.

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

Conflict resolution, in this regard, one would think someone with a degree in political science would solve disputes without taking sides, but not so in practice.