What happens when civil rights conflict with popular opinion?

Question

Is there ever a good reason to let the bias of the masses interfere with the human rights a few?

Actually, it's the "Bible-believing Christian" community that I was referring to...

What about when "the law" reflects the popular opinion that certain rights should be hindered?

Answer 1

"Civil rights" are those enjoyed by people within a system of law. "Human rights" are those that some assert belong to all people regardless of culture or law. As we see very often, the two are often not the same.

In the specifics of your question, the issue really seems to be whether civil rights should be protected and enforced despite public opinion's weight against that. So, there is the matter of all citizens having free and open access to voting regardless of color, national origin, primary language spoken, or religion. At the moment a howling mass of Americans want to abridge voting access for one or more of all those reasons.

Then there is the matter of separation of church and state. At the moment, a howling minority of Americans think that state funds should be used to subsidize private church schools (at the expnese of public education), finance social services (at the expense of state-operated programs), and pay for displays and presentations of "Christian" or "Biblical" concepts in public places. This is an ever-more-bitter conflict, too. But it violates the "civil rights" of the entire country - by violating a strict prohibition of church and state engagement, as well as by favoring one minority group of peolpe - bible-thumpers - over all others.

Another extremely important issue right now is that of full protection of the laws of the nation and of the states for persons in America who are NOT citizens. According to the concept of universal human rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, and to the terms of the actual source of U.S. law, the Constitution, ALL persons regardless of nationality, are accorded equal protection of human rights and civil rights. However, a howling mass of Americans now, led by a White House that does NOT choose to support and defend the Constitution, wish to defy this principle.

If you wish to protect "human rights," you must first protect "civil rights." THEN you must legislate greater recognition of "human rights" as a matter of law.

And to do this, first the Republicans must be run out of Washington, D.C.

Answer 2

This borders on the philosophical and moral questions of sacrificing a few for the "greater good" so there will be many answers that might be considered correct. One might look at something like the bombing of Hiroshiman and Nagasaki at the end of WWII and argue that it violated the human rights of the innocent civilians living in those cities. Others would argue that it brought a quick end to the war, saving many civilian and military lives as well as sent a political message to the Soviet Union that the U.S. had the ability to stop their burgeoning territorial aggression if things deteriortated.

If you look just within our own political system in the U.S. the system is set up to help protect the minority from the tyranny of the masses. The Constitution is difficult to amend because it is not supposed to be used to satisfy the political or moral whims of the moment. Of course there are instances where this has happened (prohibition being a great example) but for the most part by making the ratification of an amendment require a lengthy period of time and a super majority (2/3 of the states must approve) it cuts down on this behaviour.

Answer 3

It happens all the time. The 1960s civil rights movement is an example. Slowly people fighting for rights try to change other people's opinions and it does happen.

The Supereme Court set a precedent in 1954, and that was an important step. Slowly one portion of the country changes their opinion and then that leads to other changes that can be seen throughout society. Then years later we as a society have a consensus of what we think is right.

I do not think that there is ever a good reason to let the biases of the majority interfere with the rights of a few.

Answer 4

It's never good for any sort of bias to interfere with human rights. Look at the Holocaust, Sudan, Armenian genocide, etc. Hell, even the Civil War and Civil Rights movements, the women's lib movement, etc.

Answer 5

properly couple of years in the past an israeli 16 years previous boy got here upon a lady on some variety of a area and she develop into arab, they were speaking for better or less a 12 months, then they set a date to finally connect up in individual at Jerusalem suitable station and it became up that she develop right into a terrorist actual tale you could google it,her call is amna muna, i imagine Arab households many times don't like the concept that their daughter brings homestead an israeli guy My appropriate chum's aunt is jewish and she married an arab guy,they're nonetheless married and each and every thing's superb yet her relations aren't any further in contact such as her anymore so sure, that is a uncommon element (even if it is not any longer no longer conceivable, i have heard about that variety of realationships) on the different hand, an arab guy courting an israeli lady occurs plenty

Answer 6

No, there is NO good reason. Never allow yourself to be pressured by "popular opinion", be your self and fight for what is right. The "Masses" are usually narrow minded people who just love to hate and sadder still, they usually hide behind God to do it. All of us, black, white, red, yellow, Christian, Jew, gay or straight should be allowed our civil rights because no matter what, we are ALL just mere human beings.

Answer 7

No. The public must educated and the laws must be enforced. You cannot deny civil rights to anyone because of religious beliefs.

Answer 8

Absolutely not. That's why true Bible-believing Christians don't listen to the masses. We listen to the Words of God~

Answer 9

the law is the law. popular opinion may be more right then the law but it's not the law. even though a law may be wrong it's still the law and that makes it right. how about those apples.

Answer 10

I dont understand what you are asking

civil rights and popular opinion have never met eye to eye