| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Why is it wrong for Christians to impose; their morals on people? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Nov 22 2004, 05:47 PM (2,207 Views) | |
| doctortobe | Nov 22 2004, 05:47 PM Post #1 |
|
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
|
This puts in better words my argument that those who believe that Christians should not be able to put their religious beliefs onto society are just giving the old "Freedom for me but not for thee" spiel. Saying that religious ideals are not meant for public policy is stating that religious ideals are somehow inferior or more evil then other ways of making up your mind on something (like flipping a coin). I am glad that there are people in this country that realize that democracy requires that ALL ideas be allowed, not just the ones that a certain group feels is right. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| cptjeff | Nov 22 2004, 05:52 PM Post #2 |
|
Captain of the Enterprise-J
|
propose, yes. Impose? no. there is a difference between free spech and forcing someone to follow your ideas. because they you force them into opression. you rule them. I can boil down this entire thing in a few words- an opposing argument taht not many could argue with. propose? fine. Impose? Never. You cannot force you beliefs on a person. End of story. last time that was tried, it was Hitler who did the forcing. and we all know how that went, know don't we. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Minuet | Nov 22 2004, 06:50 PM Post #3 |
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
|
Doc - for starters you forgot to provide a link
I think there is a lot of confusion about the concept of "forcing" beliefs. I for one have no problem with a politician who makes clear his beliefs at election time. If his constituency agrees they elect him and he votes as he pleases. However I still believe that if his vote breaks with what is seen by some as a constitutional right then those who believe that this is occuring should have every right to fight it through the courts. I still believe that this is why the court exists. I am also not so sure about changing the constitution through amendments based on religious beliefs rather then overall human rights. Second - there are those who would "force" thier beliefs, and I am not only talking politicians here. I am talking of those "anti-abortionists" who would picket a clinic, denying legal access to it. I am talking those who would beat up a gay person. Surely you would not condone those methods of "forcing" belief. As in all things there needs to be a balance. If something is legal then there needs to be a proper access to it. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Fesarius | Nov 22 2004, 07:46 PM Post #4 |
|
Admiral
|
Doctortobe, Agreed. If only that axiom were followed, I think toleration (and perhaps even acceptance) might be increased. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dandandat | Nov 22 2004, 07:50 PM Post #5 |
|
Time to put something here
|
Then I guess you are against government funded abortion clinks. This practice forces those who do not agree with abortion to be a party to it by making them pay for it. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Fesarius | Nov 22 2004, 07:57 PM Post #6 |
|
Admiral
|
^^^ When I found out that some of my monies were going toward funding this practice, I discontinued membership in those organizations. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| doctortobe | Nov 22 2004, 08:31 PM Post #7 |
|
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
|
That's the whole point of this thread. People seem to think that it is wrong for Christians to impose their beliefs, but there are non-Christian groups that do it all the time. Double standard I say! Do those who attack the Boy Scouts for their principles deserve to be berated for imposing their beliefs? Do those that force Catholic insurance agencies to provide contraceptive treatments impose their beliefs? If what is said about religion is true, then they do. So why is one allowed while the other is reviled? PS here is the source 'DON'T IMPOSE YOUR VALUES' ARGUMENT IS BIGOTRY IN DISGUISE |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| cptjeff | Nov 22 2004, 08:33 PM Post #8 |
|
Captain of the Enterprise-J
|
accually, I am against governmetn funded abortion clinics. they should operate just like any other doctor's office- medicare or medicaid should come into play if neccacary, and it should be covered by insurance, but it should not be government funded. Otherwise, free abortions relly do become too common. we really need stop that... I'm also anti- abortion, so taht palys into it. But pro- choice. also, with the countrerceptive treatments, well, nobody's focing anyone to use them... you can lead a hore to the water but you can't make him drink- that's all I'm saying. BTW, I'm a life scout- I don't see your pointa bout the Boy Scouts... |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dandandat | Nov 22 2004, 09:22 PM Post #9 |
|
Time to put something here
|
Who pays for medicare or medicaid? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| somerled | Nov 22 2004, 11:55 PM Post #10 |
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
|
Christian history should give the answer to that. The Roman Catholics have been at this since the Crusades, essentially imposing their beliefs and values on people who would have been better off without their interference. I would ask - what right do christians have to impose their values on anyone else ? Just because they might have different beliefs , or differences in culture and different values , doesn't make their non-christian beliefs, culture or values any less valid than those of say fundamentalist christian USA. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| doctortobe | Nov 23 2004, 03:48 AM Post #11 |
|
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
|
We have as much right to impose our beliefs on others as others have the right to impose theirs on us. If a group decides that a cross or nativity scene should not be allowed on a public area, then they should not be surprised when we overturn Roe v. Wade or outlaw gay marriage. Fair IS fair after all. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| somerled | Nov 23 2004, 05:35 AM Post #12 |
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
|
No you have no right to impose your beliefs and economic and political system on those who don't want them. Just because they are different , doesn't make their's any less valid than your's. The example given by you is trivial. The real issue is fundamentalist and evangelical christians who assume they have a monopoly on morality, ethics and that everyone else must accept their way of seeing things , and their concept of ideal way of life and civilisation else they are evil. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Nov 23 2004, 07:35 AM Post #13 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
What a pantload. Your answer is rife with fear, but it is fear of accountability and responsibility. Some want simply to be left alone, but others have this niggling fear that someone may ask them to take personal responsibility. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Wichita | Nov 23 2004, 09:08 AM Post #14 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
Personal Response First, picketing a place and denying legal access to it are entirely two different things. *Do you think striking workers should be prohibited from picketing a place? *Do you think environmentalists who oppose a bill or construction in a certain place should be prohibited from picketing it? *Do you think persons of color or who are not native born should be prohibited from picketing a place because they feel that it is wrong in some way? If you say "yes" to all three, then I can see why you oppose picketing of an abortion clinic. If you don't, I have to wonder why you find it wrong. Second, denying legal access to a place... During the civil rights movement, a common tactic was to "sit-in" a place. The same tactic was used extensively during the Vietnman War protests and in the early days of the Women's Rights Movement. The concept was to simply disrupt the work of the place (whatever it was) by "sitting" in the way. People waited to be physically picked up by police and arrested before they moved. *Would you have opposed sit-ins during the Civil Rights movement? (They were impeding the legal right of an establishment to serve customers.) *Would you have opposed sit-ins during the Vietnam War protests? (They were impeding the right of universities and colleges to provide classroom instruction and other students rights to take those classes.) *Would you have opposed sit-ins during the Women's Movement? (They often impeded the work of various businesses and government institutions to do what they were designed to do.) Although we know each other only over the Internet, Minuet, we know the other does NOT support violent protest in any of these instances so I don't see a need to discuss that option. But I think it reasonable to ask why non-violent protest is OK in one instance but not in another. The Pro-Life movement was targeted by the Women's groups for the imposition of the RICCO Act. I say targeted because they actually tried to get in enacted several times prior to being successful. The RICCO Act - which was designed to fight organized crime - was employed against anti-abortionist protestors ONLY. The idea was that individual protestors could be sued for damages running into the millions if they were found guilty of obstructiong a clinic - even if they were simply sitting there silently and non-violently. What a chilling effect it could have on free speech to know that, if you were simply arrested (Edit - spelling corrected)and convicted of a misdemeanor like trespass (a common one to protestors), you could lose millions of dollars personally. Imagine the effect that would have had on the early Civil Rights movement or on the Vietnam War protests? Fortunately several brave souls divested themselves of ALL personal property and for something like 8 years fought the use of the RICCO Act against them. While the Women's groups continued the fight, other groups recognized the problems with it's use against civil protests (I think even Martin Sheen wrote a plea on the behalf that it not be imposed.) and the Supreme Court struck down its use. As to the rest ... I too do not like "imposition" of beliefs. I do not believe that, if a politicians espouses certain beliefs and he is voted in, he is "imposing" his beliefs. His beliefs were just chosen by the majority over someone else's beliefs. Also, failure to chose a belief automatically "imposes" other beliefs so I don't think that NO decision on the subject is appropriate either. I think someone will always believe a belief is being imposed regardless of how it is done however. End of Personal Response |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ANOVA | Nov 23 2004, 09:17 AM Post #15 |
|
Vice Admiral
|
I agree with Dr. Toby on this. Every law has the threat of governmental force behind it. Therefore federally funded actions that may be considered immoral by any group force that group to act counter to its moral principles. A government ban on federal funding for items such as abortion and stem cell research are not the same as banning such action. The individual can donate or invest in companies that perform the above acts, including overseas investment. Besides, both items should be a states rights issue. ANOVA There's a reason I'm libertarian. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |



3:18 AM Jul 11