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 (2,219 Views)
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
Quote:
 
I'm also anti- abortion, so taht palys into it. But pro- choice.

Cptjeff,

Question: How can you be for both? Or do you mean that the value of choice outweighs the first? If so, I can see where you could hold that position.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
Admiralbill_gomec
Nov 23 2004, 07:35 AM
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.

An elaboration is in order I think.

Your response was vague and way to generalised.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
captain_proton_au
Member Avatar
A Robot in Disguise

because Christianity is outdated
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
gvok
Unregistered

Quote:
 
Some want simply to be left alone, but others have this niggling fear that someone may ask them to take personal responsibility.


So in your world, those who wish to be left alone do not deserve to have other people's morales imposed upon them but those who (in your estimation) are avoiding personal responsible deserve to have other people's morales imposed upon them?
| Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
Quote:
 
because Christianity is outdated

LOL.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
Quote:
 
As in all things there needs to be a balance. If something is legal then there needs to be a proper access to it.


Wichita - I think this last line I wrote sums up my response to your response :rolleyes:

I may not have been clear enough - but I was refering to the use of violence - not the use of peaceful protest. You and I both know that there have been many instances of violence. The last thing a scared pregnant girl needs is to be acosted and shoved and called a murderer. That is the type of "protest" I am refering to as wrong.

There was also the highly publicized case in Buffalo, NY where a doctor who performed abortions was shot and killed by an anti-abortionist. This is what I call "forcing" an issue.

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
DEFIANT
Commodore
I am confused about the meaning of imposing beliefs on others. I don't believe the 10 commandments should be posted, for the sake of fairness. But at the same time I don't believe in one of the arguments used to ban them. I wouldn't feel as though opinions were imposed/forced on me if I saw Thou shalt kill, steal, and lie somewhere. Do the drink Sprite commercials impose/force you to get one?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
^^^ I guess this is where Canada and the US differ. We seem to be fine with putting up religious symbols of all religions without fighting. That includes symbols of christianity.

These are not up all the time in our parliament - but at Christmas time we see everything and anything. Usually you see a christmas tree beside a menorah and some symbol of Kwaanza.

Diversity is the key - not banning.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
All religions I think to a certain degree impose their beliefs on others. That's part of the reason for thier existence, quite possibly THE reason for thier existance. Without a moral compass, things would be even worse than they are now, if you can imagine that.

In America, Christianity is the majority and takes advantage of that status to impose many things on Americans. From printing "In God we Trust" on the currency, to swearing on the Bible before court, Christianity is well ingrained into our society like it or not. However, it could be worse. At least we don't have to follow "God's law" as civil law as fundamentalist governments in the Middle East do. Otherwise you couldn't get anything done on Sundays.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
DEFIANT
Commodore
Minuet
Nov 23 2004, 12:28 PM
Diversity is the key - not banning.

Yes I believe in diversity, but then one would have to represent the other religions in government buildings. And that's not fair. It's nothing outlawing any religion, poeple, as individuals, or organizations may still practice their faith. I am not athiest, but I do not need to be reminded of my religion, I have a fair memory.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
I am a bit confused on exactly what you are trying to say Defiant. Do you oppose religious symbols on public grounds or are you for them.

Seems to me you are saying you are against them, but if they must show up then they should be Christian because it's not fair to put up everything else??? :headscratch:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
DEFIANT
Commodore
sorry about the confusion. I oppose the symbols being placed. I also oppose those who agree with me when they use the argument "forcing their religion on me." That is a retarded argument, no one is being forced.

And I don't remember how I worded it, but I meant, to be fair..either represent all religions or none. and one just happens to be more practical.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
doctortobe
Nov 22 2004, 05:47 PM
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.

This sentence I agree with.

I have no problem with Christian ideas being implemented as long as "because they're Christian" is not the reason they are implemented. If it makes sense on a generically moral level - giving no particular preference to a specific religious, non-religious, or anti-religious belief system - but it happens to coincide with Christian views, then fine, implement it.

If ALL ideas are truly allowed, then what I just said can happen and I believe it should.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Wichita
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
Minuet
Nov 23 2004, 04:41 PM
Quote:
 
As in all things there needs to be a balance. If something is legal then there needs to be a proper access to it.


Wichita - I think this last line I wrote sums up my response to your response :rolleyes:


Personal Response

Based on your last sentence, I would think that you opposed most of the Civil Rights Movement and 100% of the Vietnam War protests. :rolleyes:

Ever been sitting quietly and passively and have someone walk up, thrust his hand between your breasts, grab your bra and haul you to your feet by it? It's a favorite way to pick up non-violent female protestors at abortion clinics. Why that particular method? Because it enrages otherwise passive people so that they fight back.

If you want to talk about just the extemists, there are extremists on both sides.

End of Personal Response

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
Wichita - I clarified myself - If you chose to ignore it there is not much to say.

I never said there were not extremists on both sides of issues. I just happened to use a particular example.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus