| 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 (2,214 Views) | |
| gvok | Nov 24 2004, 04:54 PM Post #91 |
|
Unregistered
|
I think you are looking at this too simplistically. A President's job as chief executive is to enforce the law whether or not it conflicts with his religious faith. His job is not to enforce his religious faith on a diverse population that may or may not share his views. This is why the two should be kept seperate and why the President should not wear his religion on his sleeves IMO. |
| | Quote | ^ | |
| Dandandat | Nov 24 2004, 04:58 PM Post #92 |
|
Time to put something here
|
Why cant a president, enforce the law whether or not it conflicts with his religious faith, and at the same time wear his religion on his sleeves? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Hoss | Nov 24 2004, 05:51 PM Post #93 |
![]()
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
|
I didn't know that Jesus was an ancient Japanese.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| doctortobe | Nov 24 2004, 06:13 PM Post #94 |
|
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
|
Here's a question, if a President is an adamant environmentalist, would he not wear that on his sleeve when in office? If a President was in the pocket of big business, trial lawyers, the NAACP, or any other special interest group, should we not question his loyalties just as much as if were religious? Somebody please answer this question for me. HOW IS RELIGION ANY DIFFERENT FROM ANY OF THE OTHER GROUPS THAT ARE OUT THERE? PS: Proton, do I LOOK brainwashed to you? You're starting to sound like somerland
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| DEFIANT | Nov 24 2004, 06:23 PM Post #95 |
|
Commodore
|
I think that's just fine, but to me the problem is usuing religion as justification. Doctobe - As far as those groups you mentioned. I agree that it should be important. But as far as your question How is it different....maybe it's just one issue that most people think of. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| doctortobe | Nov 24 2004, 06:32 PM Post #96 |
|
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
|
I'm merely stating that people who do not approve of religion in a politician's decision making seem to be just fine with it in terms of groups like political parties and special interest groups (especially groups that appeal to their political standpoint). |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| DEFIANT | Nov 24 2004, 06:37 PM Post #97 |
|
Commodore
|
I'm not sure why you made that last post, but for the record, I did not ask for clarification. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| doctortobe | Nov 24 2004, 06:56 PM Post #98 |
|
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
|
Not so much clarification as it is exposition. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Minuet | Nov 24 2004, 09:54 PM Post #99 |
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
|
I've been thinking a little about this issue (I know - thinking can be dangerous :lol: ) The little side discussion I had with Fes and Sisko based on this comment is what got me thinking
Doctortobe - I think that maybe we should be asking two questions. The first that you asked - about imposing Christian values should be answered by the above quote. It lays out a value. A very good value. I think what people are concerned about is not the imposing of a value. It is the imposing of doctrine. Doctrine does not allow for any disagreement or difference of opinion. Christians or anyone else who try to impose thier religious doctrines on others are not practicing the basic value of respect for others. Another thing I would like to do - which I should have done earlier - is to separate this from any specific example. I want this to stand as an idea. I want to be clear that I am not accusing anyone of imposing thier doctrine. However I am throwing out this idea for others to discuss. Doctrine and values definitely need to be separated in this discussion IMO. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| somerled | Nov 24 2004, 10:00 PM Post #100 |
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
|
Which JFK are you referring to ? The one who was assassinated ? (he was a RC was he ? doesn't that make him one of your mob ?) |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Wichita | Nov 24 2004, 10:21 PM Post #101 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
Personal Response
Minuet, I'm not responding to your post. You just reminded me that I wanted to comment on this sentence as well. I think this sentence sums up what Doctortobe was trying to say with this thread. We are all eager to say that we are not here to judge someone else's faith - as long as they agree with us. There is a theme of fear running through this thread - fear that George Bush is somehow imposing his religous beliefs. I know that I've asked 4 or 5 times in other threads for an example of how or on what issue he is imposing his beliefs, but I've yet to receive an answer. I believe a couple of other posters have asked the same question, but I've not seen them get a response either. It is just assumed that George Bush is imposing his religous belief .. somehow. But, by the same token, John Kerry in some miraculous fashion isn't going to do that. He supposedly could separate his beliefs from his actions but remain true to both. I believe that is what generated the quote. We don't know how or on what issue religous belief is imposed or not but - according to the theme of this thread - we "know" that one is capable of it and one is not. What are we basing that "knowledge" on? Whether we agree with him or not. So, in response to the quote, I will say that I agree. It is not for any of us to judge someone else's faith no matter who that person is ... John Kerry, George Bush, or anyone else. End of Personal Response |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| doctortobe | Nov 25 2004, 04:08 AM Post #102 |
|
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
|
I would like to add onto Rose's statement. Every group, religious or not, has a doctrine that, in the best case scenario, they would have applied to everybody in the country. If conservatives were firmly in control of the country, then a doctrine of conservatism would be applied. If liberals were in power, a liberal doctrine would be applied and we would all be doomed (j/k
).Point is, if any of these groups does something that the majority doesn't like, then the majority has every right to vote them out of power. Same thing with religious views. If the people don't like it, they can vote for less religious candidates. If the Congress doesn't like it, they can make laws opposing that policy. Point is, nobody can FORCE a doctrine on the country. Now, if the majority of the country ACCEPTS the doctrine, then that is another matter. We live in a society, the group with the largest population gets to control that society as long as we respect the rights of the minorities. As of this point, I cannot see any of the rights of minorities being violated. But you do not get to pick and choose which morals society lives by just because YOU don't agree with them. That is imposing YOUR beliefs on people. It takes a majority whether it be 100% or 50.1%. That is how democracy works. What you are suggesting is that a minority should control how the country works. That is a dictatorship. And you say that it should only happen if religious people are in control, that is bias. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Minuet | Nov 25 2004, 09:24 AM Post #103 |
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
|
Doc - you keep going on about the will of the majority. I do not think this is always correct. As others have pointed out on other threads sometimes the "majority" - which can be very slim, 51 or 52 percent can want something that is wrong. For example - slavery in your recent past I still think that the constitution of your country exists for a reason and certain basic values should not be wiped out due to the "flavour of the day". That is why the courts exist to interprete the laws and to try and protect basic freedoms from the whims of the "majority" And just to be clear - I am not accusing Bush or anyone else of trampling on any of these freedoms. I am discussing this in the realm of an idea only. But it is important to note that just because Christians are in the majority it does not mean that thier "doctrine" should be imposed on all. I feel this issue goes deeper then a simple majority. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| captain_proton_au | Nov 25 2004, 10:44 AM Post #104 |
![]()
A Robot in Disguise
![]()
|
I thought that was a link, and wasted several minutes trying to click on it
Ouch! I did say I spiced it up a bit Of course not all believers are brain washed, but some are kooky |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Wichita | Nov 25 2004, 11:08 AM Post #105 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
Personal Response It just occurred to me that this thread isn't limited to just discussing the US ...
source I loved this comment:
So, if someone complains about the Supreme Court rejected the 9TH Circuit's take on "under God" in the pledge, can I just accuse them of bad manners too? End of Personal Response |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |



).


3:18 AM Jul 11