It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by americandingbat
Originally posted by ollncasino
That's actually quite sensible for you. An acknowledgement (by implication) that the majority's rights need protected also.
How are the majority's rights being threatened by this project?
Originally posted by ollncasino
Turkey has a big problem with that. The army has had to stage a coup 4 times since WWII to stop Muslim extremists taking over the country by democratic means.
Originally posted by reevesdomain
I don't call it a first amendment issue because it is legally being challenged or because this particular religious group is being denied practice or infringed upon by the goverment. In fact they are not. I think of it as a first amendment issue because, from what I see is that the first amendment is being upheld and yet the American public seems to be painfully aggrieved by it. The debate I believe is whether or not that grievance is justifiable. Not in emotions, but rather in fact and rational. I personally do not see it as so. The first amendment is working here and doing what it is meant to do.
I'am trying to see both sides and empathise with the other viewpoint, but I'am not hearing any rational reasons on why this community center should not be built at it's current location. Muslims did not orchestrate 911. So what is the rationale?
Originally posted by maybereal11
Democracy without equal protections for the minority is tyranny...Dictatorship.
Here...I will use language you might understand.
The "Majority" voted to give Democrats a Majority in Congress and put a Democrat in the white house.
If after that election the "Minority" GOP was deprived of thier rights to assemble, protest, free speech etc...by the "Majority" Democrats, then all the mechanisms that allow them to regain a majority have been nullified. Result? Tyranny.
Majority rule absent equal Minority rights equals dictatorship...not democracy.
Originally posted by maybereal11
What this poster is doing is fear mongering and suggesting we need to start editing our constitution to reel in civil liberties...lest sharia law be instituted...just the most idiotic, hateful, trash in my opinion.
The Cordoba house and Cordoba initiative is a direct reference to the Cordoba mezquita
Originally posted by nenothtu
The rights I already have supercede "Civil Liberties", and I have no desire for any sort of a downgrade.
Originally posted by nenothtu
"Democracy" means "Rule of the People". By definition, that means majority rule.
Unless, of course, you mean to imply that the majority is something other than people?
Guarding against tyranny is precisely why we were delivered a Republic, rather than a Democracy, because you are correct in your assessment that majority rule leads to eventual tyranny.
That's why we don't HAVE a Democracy.
Originally posted by ollncasino
Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
This is further proof of the violent, militarization of the extreme right at work and in clear and in living colour.
The Neo Nazi Movement's American wing clearly displayed for all to see.
I do not feel comfortable living in America while these "people" live here too.
Indeed
[edit on 24-8-2010 by ollncasino]
Originally posted by maybereal11
Originally posted by nenothtu
"Democracy" means "Rule of the People". By definition, that means majority rule.
Unless, of course, you mean to imply that the majority is something other than people?
Guarding against tyranny is precisely why we were delivered a Republic, rather than a Democracy, because you are correct in your assessment that majority rule leads to eventual tyranny.
That's why we don't HAVE a Democracy.
Confusing bit there.
I don't get the whole "Democracy leads to Tyranny" thing???
The USA is a "Representitive Democracy"...which is a form of "Republic" often referred to as a "Democratic Republic"
Ochlocracy (Greek: οχλοκρατία or okhlokratía; Latin: ochlocratia) or mob rule is government by mob or a mass of people, or the intimidation of constitutional 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. en.wikipedia.org...
(em)
The phrase tyranny of the majority (also: tyranny of the masses), used in discussing systems of democracy and majority rule, is a criticism of the scenario in which decisions made by a majority under that system would place that majority's interests so far above a dissenting individual's interest that the individual would be actively oppressed, just like the oppression by tyrants and despots en.wikipedia.org...
Originally posted by nenothtu
I love the way you swung to the right at the end there, though. "My country, see it my way or GTFO. Go to Cuba or something".
Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
I don't see why any tolerant person would be against this mosque.
[edit on 23-8-2010 by Sherlock Holmes]
Originally posted by nenothtu
[
The USA is a "Representitive Democracy"...which is a form of "Republic" often referred to as a "Democratic Republic"
So was East Germany, North Korea, North Vietnam (and later ALL of Vietnam), etc., etc.
I don't think that's something I'd want to own up to, much less brag about.