Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
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:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Why is it wrong for Christians to impose; their morals on people?
Topic Started: Nov 22 2004, 05:47 PM (2,207 Views)
doctortobe
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
Quote:
 
By John Leo

I am struggling to understand the "don't impose your values" argument. According to this popular belief, it is wrong, and perhaps dangerous, to vote your moral convictions unless everybody else already shares them. Of course if everybody already shares them, no imposition would be necessary.


Nobody ever explains exactly what constitutes an offense in voting one's values, but the complaints appear to be aimed almost solely at conservative Christians, who are viewed as divisive when they try to "force their religious opinions on us." But as UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh writes, "That's what most lawmaking is -- trying to turn one's opinions on moral or pragmatic subjects into law."


Those who think Christians should keep their moral views to themselves, it seems to me, are logically bound to deplore many praiseworthy causes, including the abolition movement, which was mostly the work of the evangelical churches courageously applying Christian ideas of equality to the entrenched institution of slavery. The slaveowners, by the way, frequently used "don't impose your values" arguments, contending that whether they owned blacks or not was a personal and private decision and therefore nobody else's business. The civil rights movement, though an alliance of Christians, Jews and nonbelievers, was primarily the work of the black churches arguing from explicitly Christian principles.


The "don't impose" people make little effort to be consistent, deploring, for example, Catholics who act on their church's beliefs on abortion and stem cells, but not Catholics who follow the pope's insistence that rich nations share their wealth with poor nations, or his opposition to the death penalty and the invasion of Iraq (news - web sites).


If the "don't impose" people wish to mount a serious argument, they will have to attack "imposers" on both sides of the issues they discuss, not just their opponents. They will also have to explain why arguments that come from religious beliefs are less worthy than similar arguments that come from secular principles or simply from hunches or personal feelings. Nat Hentoff, a passionate opponent of abortion, isn't accused of imposing his opinions because he is an atheist. The same arguments and activity by a Christian activist would likely be seen as a violation of some sort.


Consistency would also require the "don't impose" supporters to speak up about coercive schemes intended to force believers to violate their own principles: anti-abortion doctors and nurses who are required in some jurisdictions to study abortion techniques; Catholic agencies forced to carry contraceptive coverage in health plans; evangelical college groups who believe homosexuality is a sin defunded or disbanded for not allowing gays to become officers in their groups; the pressure from the ACLU and others to force the Boy Scouts to admit gays, despite a Supreme Court ruling that the Scouts are entitled to go their own way.


Then there is the current case of Rocco Buttiglione, an Italian Christian Democrat who was named to be justice and home affairs commissioner of the European Union (news - web sites), then rejected for having an opinion that secular liberals find repugnant: He believes homosexuality is a sin. The Times of London attacked the hounding of Buttiglione "for holding personal beliefs that are at odds with the prevailing social orthodoxy ... despite a categorical statement that he would not let those beliefs intrude upon policy decisions." The Times said this is a clear attempt by Buttiglione's opponents to impose their views. No word of protest yet from "don't impose" proponents.


Sometimes the "don't impose" argument pops up in an odd form, as when John Kerry (news - web sites) tried to define the stem-cell argument as science vs. ideology. But the stem-cell debate in fact featured ideology vs. ideology: the belief that the chance to eliminate many diseases outweighs the killing of infinitesimal embryos vs. the belief that killing embryos for research is a moral violation and a dangerous precedent. Both arguments are serious moral ones.


Those who resent religiously based arguments often present themselves as rational and scientific, whereas people of faith are dogmatic and emotional. This won't do. As professor Volokh argues, "All of our opinions are ultimately based on unproven and unprovable moral premises." No arguments are privileged because they come from secular people, and none are somehow out of bounds because they come from people of faith. Religious arguments have no special authority in the public arena, but the attempt to label those arguments as illegitimate because of their origin is simply a fashionable form of prejudice. Dropping the "don't impose" argument would be a step toward improving the political climate.



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
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
Member Avatar
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
Member Avatar
Admiral
Quote:
 
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.

Doctortobe,

Agreed. If only that axiom were followed, I think toleration (and perhaps even acceptance) might be increased.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
cptjeff
Nov 22 2004, 05:52 PM
propose? fine. Impose? Never.

You cannot force you beliefs on a person. End of story.

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
Member Avatar
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
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
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
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
Who pays for medicare or medicaid?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
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
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
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
doctortobe
Nov 23 2004, 03:48 AM
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.

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
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
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
Minuet
Nov 22 2004, 11:50 PM
I am talking of those "anti-abortionists" who would picket a clinic, denying legal access to it.


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
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 | ^
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create your own social network with a free forum.
Learn More · Register Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus