Fairminded wrote:This slips into the dangerous water of tyranny of the majority. One of the major things the founding fathers were trying to do with the Constitution was not only limit government to following the will of the people, but preventing the majority from taking away the freedoms of the minority (as often happens in a true democracy).
We have plenty of examples of that, especially in the history of the Church. But we also ascribe to the tenet of obeying the laws of the LAND. If a law is made law under the Constitution -- and almost anything can be -- is it in fact tyranny?
I'm starting to think it is not.
I don't see backlash in Massachusetts to repeal Romneycare, certainly not on the level with the passion against Obamacare.
I'm not defending Romneycare here, mind you. I'm just saying, it's the law of the land and it was lawfully enacted, whether there are those who opine that it is morally wrong or unconstitutional. We can say that about a number of laws. Abortion is immoral. It is also the law of the land. It seems that tyranny then is more defined by those who stand in defiance to the law and think to only change it in illegal ways....such as revolution. Slippery slope indeed.