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 (2,214 Views)
gvok
Unregistered

ANOVA
Nov 24 2004, 04:37 PM
Quote:
 
One should not rule the other. They should be kept seperate.

I also think it is a mistake to judge another man's religious faith. There is no way you can step inside another person's mind or heart.


First, if one votes against his religious and moral beliefs one has ruled the other.

Second, Kerry is a catholic last time I checked, they believe in an immortal soul and in mortal sin. His statements on abortion place his soul in danger and directlly oppose the Pope's position on this issue. His actions (not my psychic abilities) allow me to question his "faith" and his actions allow me to state that his faith is a sham. Why else would bishops of his own church state that he should not recieve the sacrement?

An acient Japanese saying goes "No Samurai can serve two masters." the same is true for any person of faith.

ANOVA
the theological Ronin

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
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
gvok
Nov 24 2004, 04:54 PM
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.

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
Member Avatar
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
I didn't know that Jesus was an ancient Japanese. :o
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
doctortobe
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 :P
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
DEFIANT
Commodore
Dandandat
Nov 24 2004, 04:58 PM
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?

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
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
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
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
Not so much clarification as it is exposition.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
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

Quote:
 
It is not for any of us to judge someone else's faith.


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
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
Admiralbill_gomec
Nov 24 2004, 10:59 AM
Funny that they asked JFK if he took his orders from Vatican City.

Who cares, except for libs, if he has faith and isn't afraid to show it? In today's wussified, politically-correct, anything goes, secular society, that takes guts. A little faith never hurt anyone, and those who show fear and loathing of it have something to hide. To those who don't believe, but don't feel threatened by someone else's belief, they get it. To those who believe differently, but don't feel threatened, they get it.

This nation was, like it or not, founded on Christian principles. The first settlements here were founded by those seeking religious freedom, NOT freedom from religion. The president is not forcing his Methodist beliefs on anyone else.

I wonder if those who whine about President Bush's religious beliefs had any problem with John Kerry's brand of "Cafeteria Catholicism" or not?

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
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
Personal Response

Quote:
 
It is not for any of us to judge someone else's faith.


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
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
Member Avatar
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
Member Avatar
A Robot in Disguise

doctortobe
Nov 24 2004, 06:13 PM


HOW IS RELIGION ANY DIFFERENT FROM ANY OF THE OTHER GROUPS THAT ARE OUT THERE?


I thought that was a link, and wasted several minutes trying to click on it ;)



Quote:
 


PS:  Proton, do I LOOK brainwashed to you?  You're starting to sound like somerland :P


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
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
Personal Response

It just occurred to me that this thread isn't limited to just discussing the US ...

Quote:
 
 
1m Christians sign EU religion plea
By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in Brussels
(Filed: 25/11/2004)

More than a million people from all over Europe are to deliver a petition to Tony Blair and fellow EU leaders calling for changes to the constitution recognising Europe's Christian heritage.

 




Refusing to accept a secular "fait accompli" from Brussels, a Christian coalition is demanding that each EU state publish its version of the constitution's preamble, with references to God if desired.

Already armed with 1,149,000 signatures and with thousands more pouring in from Holland since the murder of the film-maker Theo van Gogh, the group claims that most states want some reference to Christianity but were blocked by France.

The move is keenly backed by Pope John Paul II, who has repeatedly condemned the "moral drift" of Brussels. "One does not cut the roots to one's birthright," he told pilgrims this summer.

Euro-MPs voted this week to back the calls for a change in the text. Petitioners, led by Italy's International Mission Centre, will now take their case to EU governments. The current version of the preamble eschews Christianity, talking vaguely of "the cultural, religious and humanist inheritance of Europe".

Valery Giscard d'Estaing, the former French president, deliberately left the issue open when he wrote the document, inviting a petition.

"I have chosen not to insert the reference to the Christian heritage in the constitution,"he said. "Rather I appeal to you to persuade me of its necessity."

A British official said it was too late to change the preamble, although national parliaments could add a "rider" stressing their country's Christian roots.

An EU official said: "These Christians could at least have the good grace to accept that they lost the argument."




source

I loved this comment:

Quote:
 
An EU official said: "These Christians could at least have the good grace to accept that they lost the argument."


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 | ^
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus