| 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 (2,219 Views) | |
| Fesarius | Nov 23 2004, 10:25 AM Post #16 |
|
Admiral
|
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 | Nov 23 2004, 10:31 AM Post #17 |
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
|
An elaboration is in order I think. Your response was vague and way to generalised. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| captain_proton_au | Nov 23 2004, 10:34 AM Post #18 |
![]()
A Robot in Disguise
![]()
|
because Christianity is outdated |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| gvok | Nov 23 2004, 10:40 AM Post #19 |
|
Unregistered
|
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 | Nov 23 2004, 10:53 AM Post #20 |
|
Admiral
|
LOL. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Minuet | Nov 23 2004, 11:41 AM Post #21 |
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
|
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 | Nov 23 2004, 12:08 PM Post #22 |
|
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 | Nov 23 2004, 12:28 PM Post #23 |
|
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 | Nov 23 2004, 12:30 PM Post #24 |
|
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 | Nov 23 2004, 12:35 PM Post #25 |
|
Commodore
|
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 | Nov 23 2004, 12:43 PM Post #26 |
|
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???
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| DEFIANT | Nov 23 2004, 12:48 PM Post #27 |
|
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 | Nov 23 2004, 12:50 PM Post #28 |
|
Admiral
|
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 | Nov 23 2004, 01:13 PM Post #29 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
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 | Nov 23 2004, 01:46 PM Post #30 |
|
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 | ^ |
![]() Our users say it best: "Zetaboards is the best forum service I have ever used." Learn More · Sign-up Now |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |





3:18 AM Jul 11