| 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 (2,218 Views) | |
| Wichita | Nov 23 2004, 02:33 PM Post #31 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
Personal Response Please don't claim that I have done something that I have NOT DONE. :angry: End of Personal Response |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Minuet | Nov 23 2004, 03:57 PM Post #32 |
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
|
Wichita, I gave specific examples and instead of refering to those you chose to make an issue out of there being extremists on the other side. It seemed to me that you were ignoring much of what I was saying and focusing on just the one example I made. You said nothing about my remarks regarding those who would beat up gays. In fact you were the one who insinuated I meant something that I did not. I never said there was anything wrong with peaceful protest - only the kind of protest that involved infringing on the rights of others. There is a limit. I am against those who cross the line in order to impose thier will on those who do not agree with them. If - in the case of abortion, you were to turn the argument upside down then I have a question for you. Would you be for dragging a person who did not want an abortion into a clinic and forcing them to undergo an abortion? To me shoving a person, calling them a murderer and physically preventing them from getting a legal procedure is pretty much the same thing. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| cptjeff | Nov 23 2004, 06:39 PM Post #33 |
|
Captain of the Enterprise-J
|
You got it exactly right. I am personally opposed to abortions, but I belive that the decision is not mine. that is why it is pro choice, not anti-life. accually, I belive that I am -pro- life. I am jous opposed to pro-Control idealoigies. who in their right mind cannot claim to be pro life? you can claim to be anti-choice, or pro- rule, but you cannot say pro-life, because we all value life highly. however, veiws differ on wether or not a fetus is a life, and wether or not a mother's choice is more important. Even the label 'Pro-Life' is not a nutral title. it makes it seem as if the pro-choice folks are anti- life. personally I belive in the pro- choice argument, not the pro-restriction one. it's all about the terminoligy... as for the topic- Min, Wichita was only giving one example. yours in another. they are both valid ways (or should I say invalid) ways to force one's particular beliefs on somone. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Wichita | Nov 23 2004, 10:00 PM Post #34 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
Personal Response Actually I responded to everything in your first post with the exception of two sentences.
I didn't respond to the first because it was already taken care of and I didn't respond to the second because I agreed with you. In that post you said:
You quoted the same section again in your response to my post. From that, I got the impression that you were expressing the opinion that "If something is legal then there needs to be a proper access to it." Now if that is not your opinion, then I apologize. If it is, I disagree with it. Why? Because "if something is legal, then there needs to be a proper access to it" is the criteria, then the most of the actions of the civil rights movement and nearly 100% (if not 100%) of the Vietnam (and now Iraqi War) protests violate it. (Which is what I said in response to your response to me.) Social change, IMO, sometimes requires that law be violated even if it requires that proper access to a legal entity be denied. I also believe those who do should be prepared to pay the consequences of their acts, but not pay different prices based on which beliefs they hold. The rest of your response to me:
The rest of my response:
(Highlights mine - and now) Unless you are stating that EVERY anti-abortion protester accosts and shoves pregnant teenagers and calls her a murderer, then IMO, then you are talking about "just the extremists" .... ... which is what I said in my post.
What - specifically - did I ignore? I didn't quote the whole paragraph in the interest of space, but I responded to it IMO.
Where did I say that you did? Not only do I not think I said it, I don't recall even thinking that you did.
Again, where did I say that you did?
Which I disagreed with and have covered already.
No I wouldn't. Now I have a question for you: What makes you think that it doesn't happen now?
Which is something like shoving a person who honorably has served their country, spitting on them and calling them a baby killer .... End of Personal Response |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Coda | Nov 23 2004, 10:16 PM Post #35 |
|
Commander
|
What is an abortion clinic? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Minuet | Nov 23 2004, 10:37 PM Post #36 |
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
|
An office where a doctor provides abortions. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Minuet | Nov 23 2004, 11:17 PM Post #37 |
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
|
Wichita - you have me thoroughly confused. Of course I was only talking about extremists - I never, never, never, meant to imply that what I was saying was true of all anti-abortionists. However it is true of a certain vocal group and there is no denying that some, like the sniper in Buffalo, would kill to get thier way. Many, but arguably not all of these people are religious zealots. You may not have meant it that way - but the way you presented your case it sounded to me like you were accusing me of saying that all the protesters acted that way and all were Christian. I was simply presenting the case that there are some who do and they are wrong because they are infringing on the rights of others.
I'm not sure what this question has to do with what I am saying. Obviously I think that if this happens it is dead wrong. That was my point.
Wichita - once again I do not understand. You seem to be implying that I would agree with this type of behaviour. I do not. I could not list every example known to man in my original response. Yes - the topic is "Why is it wrong for Christians to impose" and this is what I responded to. That does not mean that I think it is right for others to impose thier views. One does not automatically wipe out the other. Believe it or not I can think it is wrong for christians, liberals, conservatives, muslims, jews, ect.... to impose thier views on others. I stated very clearly that there is nothing wrong with someone religious running for office. I stated that if thier views were clear and they were voted in then they obviously have a mandate to vote thier views. However - I separated that from constitutional issues in that I do not feel that anyone should attempt to change the constitution based on thier religious views. The constitution, as I understand it (and being Canadian and not American I may not understand perfectly ) is meant to protect the basic rights of all citizens. It is not meant to impose one religion over another. I particularly mentioned the use of the courts because this is a discussion I have had with Doctortobe in the past. He is against constitutional issues being taken to court because he feels that it gives too much power to the courts to legislate. I disagree with that point of view. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Coda | Nov 24 2004, 12:30 AM Post #38 |
|
Commander
|
So Family Planning Centers and Hospitals are now called abortion clinics? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Wichita | Nov 24 2004, 04:24 AM Post #39 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
Personal Response Minuet, what are you talking about? The two quotes you pulled out of my last response were only made so you did not accuse me again of ignoring something. They were made in response to comments from you that I couldn't see having anything whatsoever to do with anything I said. ![]() I'm going to say goodnight now. End of Personal Response |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| doctortobe | Nov 24 2004, 05:42 AM Post #40 |
|
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
|
Allow me to elaborate on what my problem with this whole concept is. If the majority of Americans hold conservative or liberal ideals, then those conservative or liberal ideals will make their way into the government and be expressed as policy and law. The ideology in control will therefore be forcing their views on other people because not everybody is a conservative or a liberal. If a special interest group such as women's rights or pro-life (it is an accurate title by the way jeff), is able to come together and use their resources to make their position the popular one, then their morals will become policy and law and those that oppose those morals will have views forced upon them. In every case of government, when you have policy and law made, you are forcing those policies and laws onto some people that do not want to follow them. If everybody wanted to follow a certain moral, there would be no need to make it law. The reason why this happens is because we live in a society. We are not just seperate individuals that don't interact with each other, we're a group, we influence one another. As such, if there is a large group with a similar mode of thinking, then that large group will have more influence on the society then the smaller group(s). That is the base reason why laws and policies are made. So, in all reality, the only way to make sure that no views are forced upon others is to repeal all laws and policies and live in anarchy. But the question remains, if the forcing of views and morals upon those that don't agree with them is an inseperable part of government, then why is it okay for non-religious groups to do this, but it is wrong for religious groups to do it. Those that say it is wrong for religious groups to do so must also say it is wrong for all political parties, civil rights movements, special interest groups, or heck, any group that is made up of more then one person to do the same thing. Either that, or they must conclude that religion is something that must be repressed, religious people should be banned from voting, speaking about it in public, or from making any indication that they are religious. There really isn't much middle ground on this. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dwayne | Nov 24 2004, 07:27 AM Post #41 |
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
|
whew Based upon the fact one must often weed through your misspellings to devine the true meaning of your words, on reading the first half of that sentence, I thought you were getting ready to go somewhere else with that sentence than where you went. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| 24thcenstfan | Nov 24 2004, 07:46 AM Post #42 |
|
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
|
I had the same reaction when I first read that. It took me a minute to figure out if he was referring to a "whore" or "horse." :lol: |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Hoss | Nov 24 2004, 07:56 AM Post #43 |
![]()
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
|
He did refer to the 'hore' as a him. Doesn't whore usually mean woman and you call a male prostitute a gigilo (I don't know how to spell gigilo)? Why would anyone want to give contraceptives to their horse anyhow?
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| 24thcenstfan | Nov 24 2004, 08:05 AM Post #44 |
|
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
|
^^Have you never heard of a "man-whore?"
(From the movie Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigolo.)Cptjeff's spelling is so atrocious it takes a map, a compass and a guide to figure out what he is saying sometimes. I am not picking on him, because he may have dyslexia for example. Several of our board members do. I am just simply pointing out that it is difficult to discern what he says sometimes, and despite the “him” used, his wording caused me to hesitate in assigning meaning to the misspelled “hore” word. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Hoss | Nov 24 2004, 08:12 AM Post #45 |
![]()
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
|
Are you saying that his spelling is hore-able? :lol: Sorry, it is a punny day around these parts. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
![]() ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community. Learn More · Register for Free |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |


) is meant to protect the basic rights of all citizens. It is not meant to impose one religion over another. I particularly mentioned the use of the courts because this is a discussion I have had with Doctortobe in the past. He is against constitutional issues being taken to court because he feels that it gives too much power to the courts to legislate. I disagree with that point of view.

(From the movie Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigolo.)
3:18 AM Jul 11