Doc B

Right now I'm thinking about the spoiler effect, whereby an unpopular candidate can defeat several popular candidates. IMO, this effect dominated the Republican primary and could affect the general election as well (but in which direction, I can't say).

If you like video, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo

If you prefer reading, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_...

I see injustice when the rules of a religion are applied to people who do not follow that religion. Can you provide an opinion, or a reference for further reading?

Just so you know what I'm talking about, here's what I have so far. (Sorry for the length of it.)

Actions have consequences, which we can call "accessible" if it is possible to learn about them from first-hand experience. For example, getting stung is an accessible consequence of kicking a wasp nest: you could do it and find out, or you could watch someone else do it and then inspect their welts; either way, you could see the consequence and use this to make wiser choices in the future.

Getting into heaven is not an accessible consequence of anything, because we can't temporarily visit. We can't empirically verify its existence, to say nothing of making more detailed observations, such as "I like how heaven smells" or "in heaven, my grandpa has a jumbo chess set". Some people claim to know a lot about heaven, but not me; what's worse, I know of no tool through which I could learn about heaven. I don't count hearsay. I'm not claiming that nobody gets into heaven; I simply claim that getting into heaven is an inaccessible consequence in the sense that I've described above.

We might also talk about consequences as being "natural" (beyond human control), or "artificial" (subject to human control - and I use "artificial" to avoid the biased term "logical" in the linked article). For example, high-speed car crashes naturally result in a lot of damage. Humans don't get a vote on that; we can't just agree to suspend the laws of physics when we don't like the consequences. What we *can* do is create artificial consequences, like speeding tickets, to encourage people to drive wisely. This doesn't make high-speed car crashes any safer, it just makes them less common.

In my opinion, a democratic society should not (cannot?) use artificial consequences to modulate inaccessible ones. If your faith prohibits you from, say, eating corn, and promises to reward you with strawberries in the hereafter, then you should be free to choose a corn-free diet, and look forward to the berries. However, since you can't show us the strawberries, it is not for you to decide whether we should abstain from corn as well. Laws built on references to inaccessible consequences are little more than expressions of power - mob rule, if you will.

The following article is about parenting teens, but I think the parallels to religion are clear:

http://parentingteens.about.com/cs/disciplin1/a/co...

Thanks for taking the time to consider what I'm asking, and your response.

Usually when I read a question about how Evolutionists can believe in evolution, I see somebody answer that "Evolutionist" isn't a word. Somebody else will answer that you can't "believe" in evolution; you either "accept" it or you don't.

This looks to me like the splitting of hairs that don't really need to be split. For instance, I believe that the sun will rise in the morning. Should I not? Must I accept it, instead?

As for "evolutionists", surely anyone who believes--er, accepts--evolution would understand that languages change too. The word seems to have found common use--it doesn't even offend my spell check.

So...what am I missing?

I'm thinking about such issues as abortion, prayer in schools, gay marriage, the euthanasia option for terminally ill people, medicinal marijuana, teaching about evolution, and so on.

What I believe about each of these topics...doesn't matter. I'm aiming for an underlying principle.

What I'm trying to ask is: how can we achieve majority rule with minority rights? When a majority of people share a particular belief, how can they know whether that belief impinges on the rights of a minority? Can the majority be trusted to consider minority rights before making a law?

For a little background, visit:

http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/principles/m...

I'm asking this in R&S because this is where I come to defend minority rights against dogmatic attack. I'm looking for a guiding principle that can fairly used by all people, regardless of religious affiliation.

I believe that if you do someone's homework for them, you are hurting them. And yet, I don't feel that way about other questions.

Do other people consider this a problem?

Is there anything we can do as a community to prevent this kind of abuse here?