The application of the laws may not exclude one citizen and allow another citizen based on discriminating between the two citizens on the basis of a long list of distinguish characteristics, including, but not limited to, race, gender, age (after attaining the qualifying age), occupational status, religious preference, sexual preference, educational level, and a host of other distinguishing characteristics established by both legislation and by case law examples.
The "law" turns a blind eye to the process of deciding who is more qualified by experience or intelligence to vote on matters of social conscience, but any such majority measures must be consistent with the legal symbolic environment.
It is pure unadulterated elitism to suggest that only some citizens are "qualified" to make decisions on matters of social conscience, regardless of "science". Who is "qualified" to say who is qualified? This cannot be answered, so everyone is allowed to answer, and the issue of qualification will be resolved by the majority, by test cases, and by some convincing others.
Who qualifies the qualifiers?
Who qualifies them?
Who qualifies them?
Etc., etc.
If you think this sequence can be answered, you delude yourself.
The only way out is to deny the start of the sequence itself.
We shall have no such qualification hierarchy placed on voting. All citizens shall be presumed to have the right to select their representatives, and to instruct those representatives how to act.
Our society has created systems of licensing and certification for various professions, but these apply to practicing the "art" of each such profession. They do not apply to citizens rights to decide what they think is good for society and themselves. Restrictions as to qualification cannot be placed on this right.
That conclusion is so abstract and so far away from my formulations that I haven't a clue as to how you arive at such a formulation from my statement above. My statement above did not say anything about my personal agreement or disagreement with particular choices my government has made. I said earlier that I do not agree with all the decisions made by all three branches. That is still true. For the most part, I have no interest in arguing or discussing particular specific views on those decisions in the context of this message board. The particular values are, in my opinion, not relevant to understanding the process; they may prove useful as extensional illustrations in certain cases, but they will not be the principle subject matter. That would be for another message board or blog that discusses the government's actions and peoples attitudes and preferences about the decisions.
So to respond to your question in that context, my opinion on that subject, or on any other specific action of the goverment, is irrelevant to the purpose of this message board. I have an opinion, but it is not relevant. You asked what I meant by "equal rights", and since general semantics denies that any two "things" can be equal, I gave an extensional interpretation that is consistent with general semantics, by identifying a long list of differentiation criteria which are disallowed as a basis for allowing access. This "defines" "equal" in terms of specific differences while allowing other differences.
Scientists are only a part of our culture. They are not given any special status above non-scientists. Nor, for that matter, are any other groups. All who are citizens are granted "equal" rights, as I previously noted. To allow any one group to take precedence over another, whether scientists, Mullahs, royalty, "Gods", etc., is to allow elitism. You seem to constantly grant elite status to scientists. We cannot have that. If you want them to make political decisions for you, work to get them elected. Al Gore, more science oriented than most, did not get elected. Chalk it up to this: The people get what they deserve. We can sit back and say, tisk, tisk, tisk, but we don't have the right to be the elite in charge either.
Decisions are made by people. One cannot grant "elite status" to any method without granting that status to those who make the decisions using the method. I accept the "scientific" method as more reliable that others, but I don't trust that anybody in charge will use or even can use the method.
Who's to say that the majority did something stupid? Is that not a minority opinion whenever anyone disagrees with the majority? One cannot "jump outside the system" and presume an evaluation of it somehow entitles him or her to believe that he or she is somehow "right" and the majority is "wrong". This is an example of self-appointed elitism.
Let's see, you want our elected officials to pick so-called "experts" to make decisions for them, and to give up both the responsibility and authority to make such decisions themselves. This is a recipe for disaster. You would be having elected officials appointing dictators.