Freedom vs social control

[edwest211]

How then shall will live? is an old question. Most people, when I was growing up, lived an average life. This has been carefully documented. What has been less well documented but documented well enough, is the increase in marketing sexual perversity after World War II. The late 1940s transitioned into the early 1950s with unknown someones being very concerned about legalizing the outfits strippers were wearing. In some states, some outfits were OK, while in others, they were not. Someone paid money to get laws changed. So, the issue about legislating morality is brought up often, the issue of legislating immorality less often.

radicalize is a fake, new term that tells those not in the know nothing. One has a definite commitment to actually do something that will actually, physically harm others. What are their motives? That has to be explained so that both sides understand. Of course, there are those who do not want to physically harm others but do want to impose their view(s) especially through legal means. Both sides can’t be right.

 

[niceatheist]

It strikes me that misusing faith to, say, bully fellow believers into voting for your candidate, is fundamentally wrong.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

But when non believers become ensnared in any church’s attempt to impose their own beliefs, or at least the effect of their beliefs, on everyone else, that my feathers get ruffled.

This isn’t possible unless there’s is coercion, otherwise they are doing it on their own. Many Catholics are free to believe in whatever they want in the same sense that they can commit sin. In fact most Catholics already do things that are against the Church. The supposed social control isn’t really a problem, nor an effective influence at least in first world countries.

 

[vsedriver]

It strikes me that misusing faith to, say, bully fellow believers into voting for your candidate, is fundamentally wrong.

can you give an example of ‘misusing faith’ for political purposes?

All bullying is wrong. Doesn’t matter if it is from what ideological POV it comes from.

 

[vsedriver]

The question is why do some percentage of people become radicalized to one particular point of view and become unable to even consider another? Most people aren’t like that. They don’t insist that everyone else must think the same and try to legislate their view

a very interesting statement. I used to work in the advertising industry. I also have a background in philosophy. The more emotional an issue the more I research source material. It’s not that hard to find out who is pushing buttons and why.

we currently have legislation in our state that is dealing with the power grid. One side claims it’s a energy producer bail out and one side says it is protecting our energy from the control of foreign entities. The commercials are pretty alarming! But someone is paying for all this advertising and sad to say, a lot of people will be swayed to vote simply by their emotional reaction.

 

[Pattylt]

These kind of issues drive me nuts! Maybe both sides have a point? Maybe both are right…I know our electric grid is very vulnerable to cyber hacking. One grid somewhere is still using a Commodore! They buy old used ones of of eBay to keep the parts running. Good news on that one is that it’s probably the only system that isn’t hackable. On the other hand, utilities really never want to put out the money to upgrade. It’s very costly with little ROI. Should they have to shoulder the entire burden just for our security? Or, should the government (us) share in that cost?

Many issues that people become almost obsessed with do tend to be very personal (religion, politics) and very emotional. Should we base our views more on those that are so vested in them or on those that are not. Who has the correct information. Who has the full information? Who should actually decide?

These opposing views rarely get discussed in calm rational manners and those with a ‘side’ rarely acknowledge the other points of view. That’s why I hate media bias…I don’t think all media is left or right. I think all media is EITHER left or right and if you don’t take in multiple different sites, you’re uninformed or misinformed. Fanatics sure don’t even recognize that there might BE another side.

Ok, rant over. I have no answers other than to have faith that the majority of people aren’t so fanatical about issues or views and are capable of looking beyond their comfort zones.

 

[niceatheist]

I think the Five Non-negotiables falls into this category. It’s political manipulation masquerading as theology.

 

[vsedriver]

I think the Five Non-negotiables falls into this category. It’s political manipulation masquerading as theology.

how are the non-negotiables political manipulation?

I can support all five of these from a non-religious POV. Why would my non-religious POV count more than my religious POV? Politically speaking.

 

[niceatheist]

And what if a Catholic doesn’t accept the Five Non-negotiables? That’s the point.

 

[vsedriver]

And what if a Catholic doesn’t accept the Five Non-negotiables? That’s the point.

in respect to what? Politics, the Church, or their salvation?

if someone rejects a teaching of the church then they should seek to find understanding behind the teaching. If the church tells you these are non-negotiables, that is not political bullying. That’s moral instruction. The Church can not teach error in matters of faith and morals. Either you believe that or what’s the point of remaining Catholic?

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Exactly and it’s not like anything actually happens if they obey, temporally speaking. Any remarks they get over revealing their opinon won’t have an effect on their views anyways. Otherwise BC, SSM, and abortion would all be gone by now, so it’s hardly anything to take seriously right now.