In a pluralistic society of different beliefs, does the Christian have the right to impose their religious beliefs on those who do not believe?

[Brendan_64]

Murder of the unborn,” as I’ve said, depends on your definition of “human life.”

Human life begins at conception. That is the basic science. Or are you arguing that a child in the womb is not human or is not a life? Human life begins at conception, a unique human individual is created with its unique genetic identity.

Arguing about whether it is right to kill this innocent human being is one thing, but arguing that it isn’t actually a human life is ludicrous. But I suppose it is easier to justify such an act if one can convince oneself that there is no killing of another human being involved (let alone the killing of an innocent little child).

 

[Erikaspirit16]

I love it when I post on this subject, because people always respond to what they THINK I said, or what they WISH I said. It would be more helpful to respond to WHAT I ACTUALLY said!

So does liberal secular society not impose its own values on others?

Not to my knowledge. It imposes the values of a consensus of the population of the society it’s in. For example, the right of homosexuals to marry–the court decision is NOT in opposition to the great majority of the population, it’s simply reflecting it. Again, you might not like it, but it doesn’t affect your rights.

And what about the innocent child in the womb who is killed as a result of the imposition of liberal secular values.

I’m not talking about–and have never talked about–“liberal secular values.” That’s your term. I’m talking about different definitions of the beginning of life by world religions like Judaism and Islam. Probably a lot more.

What of the down syndrome child killed shortly before birth as a result of ‘liberal progressive’ values being imposed, leading to the loss of her life?

Again, I wouldn’t throw around the term “liberal progressive” values (does that simply mean anyone who disagrees with you!?) Right now the issue doesn’t seem to be laws making it legal to abort a Down Syndrome baby, the issue seems to be (in Ohio) an attempt to make it ILLEGAL. As far as I know, there are no special laws governing that situation, just abortion in general.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

every single law in existence is an account of someone imposing their beliefs on society.

I would disagree. Laws are “imposed,” they are agreed on.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Or laws get passed, like legalizing abortion in 1973, not by the people but by the US Supreme Court.

Yes, it was a court decision. But it reflected the consensus of opinion–both then and now. Sorry you’re in the minority, but that’s the way it goes.

 

[otjm]

We all have the right to petition the governement as to what laws are enacted and what laws are nullified.

So, for example, we could petition the government to enact “Sunday laws”. And it is possible that Sunday laws could be enacted, should the governement determine there is a worthwhile, although separate valid purpose for such laws other than an imposition of Christian law and/or observance.

You might take a look at the 1st Amendment and case law concerning it. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

So your question, while hypothetical, ignores the fact that Christians per se are not the governement, even if every last member of the Senate, the House, and the Administration were Christian.

As to business, generally a business has some latitude as to how it operates; for example, Chick-a-fil chooses to close on Sundays and give their employees the day off. It cannot force the employees to go to church; and discrimination laws may prevent the managers from determining who they hire on the basis of faith. But they can enforce behavior which might be considered Christian -strong respect for the customer. On the other hand, many if not most religions would also respect the customer.

Whether Chick-a-fil could hire a Muslim woman and require that she not wear what might be considered religious garb may be open to question. I don’t know the case law on that one. Nor do I know if they have any policy as such.

 

[edwest211]

The American people were lied to and manipulated. Jane Roe’s real name is Norma McCorvey and she never got an abortion. She became actively pro-life.

An Ex-Abortionist speaks

 

[MPat]

But different religions / cultures have different definitions of when life begins. So you would impose you views on the majority who believe differently? And once you have done that (assuming you could), what happens when other religions want to impose their morality on you? You good with that?

With them wanting to do so? Sure, why not? I’m also OK with them trying to do so in a legal and orderly way.

That is definitely better than the government imposing the view that all religions are equal on everyone (while letting some sort of worship of State to be more equal). After all, how many religions accept this view?

It is not really a compromise, if the secularists get everything, while everyone else gets nothing.

I would disagree. Laws are “imposed,” they are agreed on.

Yes, it was a court decision. But it reflected the consensus of opinion–both then and now. Sorry you’re in the minority, but that’s the way it goes.

So, are you OK with us trying to become majority and make the other view the minority one? With all that “that’s the way it goes”?

That’s the whole question.

At the moment it looks like your position is that when anti-Catholics legally get a law enacted, it is “consensus”, but when Catholics legally get the law enacted, it is “imposition of views”.

And I don’t think there is any justice in such view.

 

[otjm]

Well, the “West” is a bit vague. Come to Oregon or Washington or California and you will find a high degree of dysfunction. Idaho, Montana, parts of Nevada, Utah, Wyoming, and a lot of Arizona and New Mexico, not so much.

 

[Thom18]

Thom18:

every single law in existence is an account of someone imposing their beliefs on society.

I would disagree. Laws are “imposed,” they are agreed on.

Not everyone agrees with them. Someone decided that abortion had to be made legal, yet millions of Americans are strongly opposed to it. Others think that E-Check is ridiculous, but a group of lawmakers imposed it on us because they thought it was the right thing to do.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Human life begins at conception. That is the basic science. Or are you arguing that a child in the womb is not human or is not a life? Human life begins at conception, a unique human individual is created with its unique genetic identity.

So I guess all Muslims and Jews are just godless, liberal hypocrites, right? Please. And once again, you’re doing what anti-abortion “advocates” (I’m being polite) do–muddying the waters between “life” and “human life.” You could certainly argue that at conception the “life” that is created is not viable outside a laboratory–and it would be a long shot IN a laboratory. And of course you realize most “life” (it that’s what you’re calling a sperm meeting an ovum) dies before it’s implanted on the uterus wall–estimates range from 67-85% die. So if those are all “human beings,” where are all the funerals? Oh, and did you know that this “life” doesn’t have its own DNA until the cells have divided several times? (Look it up if you want science). So…if unique DNA is a criterion for separate “life,” it doesn’t happen at conception. Science.

But I’m not talking about science. I’m talking about religious values that just happen to differ on this point.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

The American people were lied to and manipulated. Jane Roe’s real name is Norma McCorvey and she never got an abortion. She became actively pro-life.

What’s your point?

 

[edwest211]

I should be more clear. By the West, I mean North America and Western Europe. Pope Francis talked about “ideological colonizations” but has yet to name specific countries.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

So, are you OK with us trying to become majority and make the other view the minority one? With all that “that’s the way it goes”?

That’s the whole question.

At the moment it looks like your position is that when anti-Catholics legally get a law enacted, it is “consensus”, but when Catholics legally get the law enacted, it is “imposition of views”.

Read my posts, please. There is only so much repeating I want to do: "By the way, I’m not suggesting that you can’t try to persuade people of the correctness of your point of view. Go for it. But if you look at statistics from c. 1973 to today, you’ll see public opinion overall has not changed. It does change based on how the question is asked though. You have to ask the same questions.’ --post 181

If you are able to convince a consensus of Americans that abortion should be outlawed, good for you. But as I pointed out, after 45 years, the needle hasn’t moved. Public opinion on abortion is just where it was in 1973. So I would suggest you are not doing a very good job. Take a page from the gay handbook–they flipped public opinion in a few years! Whatever you think of them, you have to hand it to them for political savvy.

To me an “imposition of views” is a minority inflicting its minority opinion on the majority. You don’t like the status quo? Knock yourself out trying to change it. But don’t impose it on a majority who believe differently. Convince them. No one’s stopping you.

 

[edwest211]

You should read “An Ex-Abortionist Speaks.” People are lied to all the time. When a woman gets pregnant, what does that mean if she aborts the baby? We were told in 1972, by a nice lady on TV, that abortion was necessary. Then, in 1973, the liars got their way with the Supreme. Every year, Catholics gather along major streets to remind people that abortion is wrong and a stated goal of the Church is to overturn Roe v. Wade. And the Supreme Court’s lame reasoning, citing “penumbras” and “emanations” from the Constitution and a vague right to privacy. I was there and felt my country had just stabbed me in the back. The Supreme Court made an irrational decision and women were told “it’s just a blob of tissue.” Another lie.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

Take a page from the gay handbook–they flipped public opinion in a few years!

That’s a very interesting take…
The problem is, not all their strategies were truthful or accurate.
Is it okay to lie to get the results you want? Even if it’s for a good cause?

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Not everyone agrees with them. Someone decided that abortion had to be made legal, yet millions of Americans are strongly opposed to it. Others think that E-Check is ridiculous, but a group of lawmakers imposed it on us because they thought it was the right thing to do.

Once again, read my posts. Don’t attack something I never said and never would say.

I never said you need 100% agreement or unanimity. I said you need “consensus” and that the exact percentage that might define that is open to debate. But is 51% “consensus”? Clearly not. 2/3? Maybe. 80%? Certainly.

The “millions of Americans” who strongly oppose abortion are a minority. And the other point you should think about is that the law is not forcing THEM to get an abortion. It’s simply allowing the decision to be made by the individual. If a law were passed that forced everyone to go to Mass every Sunday, that would be unfair; but if a law were passed simply saying everyone had a right to decide whether or not they want to go to church on Sunday, that would be perfectly fine. Unnecessary, but fine.

 

[Thom18]

Thom18:

Not everyone agrees with them. Someone decided that abortion had to be made legal, yet millions of Americans are strongly opposed to it. Others think that E-Check is ridiculous, but a group of lawmakers imposed it on us because they thought it was the right thing to do.

Once again, read my posts. Don’t attack something I never said and never would say.

I never said you need 100% agreement or unanimity. I said you need “consensus” and that the exact percentage that might define that is open to debate. But is 51% “consensus”? Clearly not. 2/3? Maybe. 80%? Certainly.

The “millions of Americans” who strongly oppose abortion are a minority. And the other point you should think about is that the law is not forcing THEM to get an abortion. It’s simply allowing the decision to be made by the individual. If a law were passed that forced everyone to go to Mass every Sunday, that would be unfair; but if a law were passed simply saying everyone had a right to decide whether or not they want to go to church on Sunday, that would be perfectly fine. Unnecessary, but fine.

Then maybe you need to read my posts as well, because your last paragraph sounds a lot like what I said in my original post.

 

[MPat]

Take a page from the gay handbook–they flipped public opinion in a few years! Whatever you think of them, you have to hand it to them for political savvy.

Sure. It demonstrates that changing the public opinion in an unexpected way is not impossible. That, by the way, was one of the points I made in another post. So:

Read my posts, please. There is only so much repeating I want to do

On the other hand, I’m OK with repeating my points once in a while.

To me an “imposition of views” is a minority inflicting its minority opinion on the majority.

And how can one do that?

For that matter, what is so special about 50% and 1 voter, that they can impose their views on the rest, even if the rest can somehow get their own views in the laws legally?

I can see the point in following legal procedure, but why should anyone care about majority as such, if the legal procedure does not mandate that?

Once again, read my posts. Don’t attack something I never said and never would say.

I never said you need 100% agreement or unanimity. I said you need “consensus” and that the exact percentage that might define that is open to debate. But is 51% “consensus”? Clearly not. 2/3? Maybe. 80%? Certainly.

Um, then you should talk not about “majority”, but about “supermajority”.

For “majority” is just 50% and one.

 

[otjm]

That makes a difference.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Then maybe you need to read my posts as well, because your last paragraph sounds a lot like what I said in my original post.

This was your original post: “but we are within our rights to try and impose our morality on society- every single law in existence is an account of someone imposing their beliefs on society.”

Sorry, I don’t see the connection between that and what I’ve said. As far as I can see, we are saying opposite things: you’re talking about “imposing” beliefs; I’m talking about convincing a consensus of the population that my beliefs are correct. I’m not “imposing” anything. I’m persuading.