Quote:
Logic and principle don't belong unless were talking about strict objective law.
In that case, well yes, then if Muslims suddenly outnumbered everyone else in every state, and had massive political influence in every level of government then YES the nation should embrace a new type of law.
Because at that point its now an Islamic nation.
However it's not going to happen to doing what if questions holds no meaning. A nation is determined by the people living in it, not the age old decrees of a bunch of dead men. Nations are people, not law. Law only serves as an method of control, and parts of our constitution now serve to only help promote an agenda of secularization.
If the majority of a populace desire something they get what they desire.
|
You are under the mistaken impression the United States is a popular government, where the will of the majority is the 'end' and not a 'means' to a wider aim. However, the United States is a democracy in the style of a republic.
As pointed out by Aristotle, popular governments tend to be pathetic and are quickly replaced with the rule of one (tyranny) or rule of the few (oligarchy).
The aim of democracy is equality, where rights are distributed evenly among the populace. Popular government as you have described is not democracy, as it exalts a majority above the rest of the community (which could very well be substantial, not to mention dangerous if provoked).
It is true democracy gives great power to the majority, but not for the same reason as popular government -- in popular government, power is given to the majority for the sake of making the majority powerful, whereas in democracy, power is given to the majority for the sake of preventing one or a few from having the lord's share control over the distribution of rights. However, in case you haven't noticed, democracies have special features which put checks on the power of the majority, just as the majority puts checks on the power of the few.