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

[JanSobieskiIII]

Chastity
Temperance
Charity
Diligence
Patience
Kindness
Humility

Tolerance may be an aspect of some of these in certain circumstances but is not in and of itself a virtue.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I think you mean “irrelevant” or maybe “relative”?

Yes, I meant relative, thanx !

Each person decides what is moral for themselves. However, the fact is, few would allow such a society, especially when another’s morality doesn’t impact them.

Jim

 

[MPat]

I already said. There should have been a higher threshold than 50% + 1. It should have been at least 60%, with each country in the UK reaching the 60% level. If one voted no, no it would be. But they didn’t listen to me, and look where they are now! And if “an important issue” is deadlocked 50-50? Don’t do anything. Again, I’m not talking about administrative or technical issues, but the issue of making something legal or illegal. No consensus, no action. Wait.

You write as if “no action” is not a decision. But it is.

For example, in case of Brexit “no action” means that the side against Brexit wins. Nothing more, nothing less.

And one should note that in such case it pays to make a “fait accompli”.

Not inconsistent. Read my posts please. Flexibility is not inconsistency. I have said several times it depends on the issue how much “consensus” you need. And yes, it would be fine to debate that. For example, the Constitution says that 3/4 of the states have to ratify a new amendment–not 51%. Is 75% better than 70% or 80%? That’s debatable. What’s not debatable is that such an important matter shouldn’t settled by a simple majority of 50% + 1.

So, what is so magical about that threshold of 70% or 75% or 80%, that it is OK for 70%+1 (75%+1, 80%+1) to make a decision, but it is “imposition of views” and a great evil, if 70%-1 (or 75%-1, or 80%-1) make a decision?

And please note that “That’s what the law says.” is not an option to you, although it is for me. After all, you keep claiming that merely doing as the law says is not sufficient to avoid “imposition of views”.

If you don’t see the difference, nothing I can say will change that. You’re on your own.

Of course I can see the difference. You call passing laws that you do not like “imposition of views”, you do not call passing laws that you like “imposition of views”.

If you would admit that, there wouldn’t be that much of a problem.

Unfortunately, you want to pretend that this “imposition of views” is a great evil for some more weighty reasons than that you personally do not like them. Of course, you can’t list them, you can only insinuate that they exist.

 

[AndrewAxland]

Are you saying that what are considered crimes, are based upon the commandments?

I;m saying quite the opposite. Except for blasphemy laws and some laws regarding sexuality and vices, the commandments have had little affect on either civil law or common law.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

You write as if “no action” is not a decision. But it is.

For example, in case of Brexit “no action” means that the side against Brexit wins. Nothing more, nothing less.

And one should note that in such case it pays to make a “fait accompli”.

I would be perfectly comfortable not making a decision if an important issue were deadlocked about 50-50.

So, what is so magical about that threshold of 70% or 75% or 80%, that it is OK for 70%+1 (75%+1, 80%+1) to make a decision, but it is “imposition of views” and a great evil, if 70%-1 (or 75%-1, or 80%-1) make a decision?

And please note that “That’s what the law says.” is not an option to you, although it is for me. After all, you keep claiming that merely doing as the law says is not sufficient to avoid “imposition of views”.

Erikaspirit16:

And you’re ignoring what I said (imagine!). What is a “consensus”? I keep saying that is up for debate. In the Senate it’s 60%. Ratifying a amendment to the Constitution is 75% of the states. It seems to me that any particular % is up for negotiation. But lower than (for example) 60% can not claim to be a consensus.

“That’s what the law says…” Where is this coming from? You lost me. Where exactly did I say “merely doing as the law says is not sufficient to avoid 'imposition of views.” Have I said that some laws (for example against polygamy; you could add child marriage, etc.) ARE an imposition of views? Yes. But then I added those laws reflect a consensus of society. Without looking at a poll, I suspect 95%+ would make polygamy illegal. So it is.

Of course I can see the difference. You call passing laws that you do not like “imposition of views”, you do not call passing laws that you like “imposition of views”.

If you would admit that, there wouldn’t be that much of a problem.

Unfortunately, you want to pretend that this “imposition of views” is a great evil for some more weighty reasons than that you personally do not like them. Of course, you can’t list them, you can only insinuate that they exist.

“imposition of views” has absolutely nothing to do with whether I like the law or not. It simply describes any law that is enforced against the majority opinion of the society, or, in the case of a new law, that is supported by a bare 50%+ minimum. Has nothing to do whether I like it or not.

Why is “imposition of views” a great evil? Because it’s not democratic. It’s authoritarian. It is against the will of the majority. Isn’t that clear? Don’t you agree? Are you anti-democracy?

 

[margaret42]

Civil law takes a back seat every time!

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Each person decides what is moral for themselves. However, the fact is, few would allow such a society, especially when another’s morality doesn’t impacts them.

OK, at least we agree on the definition then! But please don’t confuse morality with legality–which a debate about abortion ALWAYS does. Let’s say there’s a law against drinking in a park. I bring some beers to a picnic in the park. Am I breaking the law? Sure. Am I being immoral? No. (Except in a secondary sense, where, if I’m aware of the law, I’m intentionally disobeying lawful authority. But “drinking beer in a park” isn’t immoral as an absolute rule.)

But a society where everyone has totally different moral values doesn’t exist and never has. Almost all of us, regardless of religion or lack of religion, agree on probably 99% of the laws and the morality that lies behind them. So that’s not a real issue–it’s a fantasy issue…“what if unicorns flew…” sort of thing.

 

[margaret42]

Each faith can believe what they want, and talk about it, but they can’t try to change other people’s minds

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Let’s make sure our definitions are the same

Definition;

mo·ral·i·ty
məˈralədē/Submit
noun
principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
synonyms: ethics, rights and wrongs, ethicality More
a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society.
plural noun: moralities
“a bourgeois morality”
the extent to which an action is right or wrong.

So, if it’s against the law to drink in the park and you know it’s the law, but ignore it anyway and drink beer in the park, it is immoral as you’re placing yourself above the law that society has decided to be needed. In other words, it’s disrespectful which is a moral principle.

Jim

 

[MPat]

I would be perfectly comfortable not making a decision if an important issue were deadlocked about 50-50.

So, I write that it is impossible to be “not making a decision”, that it is also a decision, and you answer that you are comfortable not making a decision…

And after that you have the chutzpah to write

And you’re ignoring what I said (imagine!).

Oh, of course you do not point out a single place where I actually ignored what you said.

But I am looking at the consequences of your views, and you have not looked at them. And, as it looks, you do not actually like the consequences of your views.

For if you demand a “consensus” (and not just “whatever the law demands”) for important changes in law, and define “consensus” as some specific “supermajority” of x% (perhaps depending on an issue), it necessarily follows that it is OK for x%+1 to pass the law, and wrong for x%-1 to pass it.

And I’m asking, why it is so, what is so special about x%. There could be “This x% is in the law.”, but you act, as if it was independent of law.

And here we have cognitive dissonance. You need some reason for x%, but none exists, and I keep demanding it.

“imposition of views” has absolutely nothing to do with whether I like the law or not. It simply describes any law that is enforced against the majority opinion of the society, or, in the case of a new law, that is supported by a bare 50%+ minimum. Has nothing to do whether I like it or not.

I find that pretty hard to believe. You yourself mentioned “free speech” which you’d like to enforce against wishes of majority.

Why is “imposition of views” a great evil? Because it’s not democratic. It’s authoritarian. It is against the will of the majority. Isn’t that clear? Don’t you agree? Are you anti-democracy?

So, again, you do not have any reasons, and want to avoid admitting that by offering various slogans, as if they were self-evident.

Or as if they fit with your other views.

But, of course, they do not.

For example, you were just claiming that it is wrong to have Brexit just because majority demands it. And now something is wrong just because “It is against the will of the majority.”.

As you can see, demands for “consensus” with “supermajorities” are incompatible with demands for majority rule.

Of course, I’m pretty sure that it can get still worse, as you are unlikely to have something more substantial than “How dare you!!!”, if I asked you to explain why “it’s not democratic. It’s authoritarian. It is against the will of the majority.” are supposed to imply a great evil.

So, maybe I won’t.

 

[ATraveller]

Yeah, that’s it! I must be a Nazi.

No one was accusing you of being a Nazi. The point was majority rule is not infallible.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

So, if it’s against the law to drink in the park and you know it’s the law, but ignore it anyway and drink beer in the park, it is immoral as you’re placing yourself above the law that society has decided to be needed. In other words, it’s disrespectful which is a moral principle.

As I said (and how many times on this thread have I said that?): “in a secondary sense…I’m disobeying lawful authority.” But drinking beer in a park isn’t “intrinsically” evil. Or to take another example, let’s say my town has an ordinance against putting up a sign bigger than 3 x 5 ft., and I put up a sign 3.5 x 5 ft. Is that “intrinsically” evil or immoral? Of course not. Is it illegal? Certainly. Is it immoral to disobey laws of the society where I live? Sometimes. Sometimes the only moral thing to do is DISobey the laws. Most of the time morality and legality coincide; but not always, and not necessarily.

 

[ATraveller]

When used correctly they’re extremely effective, which is why I included education as one of the goals. That also includes education on long term options like subdermal implants and IUDs. A lot of patients and even doctors lack awareness of these options.

The numbers disagree with you:

One in four women who had an abortion in 2016 were using the most reliable methods of contraception, says the British Pregnancy Advisory Service.

More than 14,000 women, who were treated at BPAS clinics, became pregnant despite using the pill or a long-acting contraceptive.

They often spotted their pregnancy late because they hadn’t expected their contraception to fail.

Ann Furedi, chief executive of BPAS, said: Our data shows that women cannot control their fertility through contraception alone, even when they are using some of the most effective methods.

"Family planning is contraception and abortion.

“Abortion is birth control that women need when their regular method lets them down.”

Out of 60,000 women who had an abortion at BPAS clinics last year, more than half were using at least one form of contraception.

Contraception fails in quarter of abortions, say experts

Increased availability and education in regards to birth control is correlated with lower abortion rates

Not all the time. Included in the cuts were access to ‘free’ contraception and sex ‘education’:

In recent years, English local authorities have been forced to make significant cuts to devolved expenditure. In this paper, we examine the impact of reductions in local expenditure on one particular public health target: reducing rates of teen pregnancy. Contrary to predictions made at the time of the cuts, panel data estimates provide no evidence that areas which reduced expenditure the most have experienced relative increases in teenage pregnancy rates. Rather, expenditure cuts are associated with small reductions in teen pregnancy rates, a result which is robust to a number of alternative specifications and tests for causality. Underlying socio-economic factors such as education outcomes and alcohol consumption are found to be significant predictors of teen pregnancy.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167629617304551

 

[JimR-OCDS]

But for something to be immoral, it doesn’t have to be intrinsically evil.

As the definition I provide you with in my post, he’s the main part of it again

principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

Wrong behavior is to disobey a law for self serving pleasure and yes, it would be immoral.

Jim

 

[Dan123]

More than 14,000 women, who were treated at BPAS clinics, became pregnant despite using the pill or a long-acting contraceptive.

Break down the usage of the pill vs the other ones I mentioned.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1400506?query=featured_home&

“Of the 1404 teenage girls and women enrolled in CHOICE, 72% chose an intrauterine device or implant (LARC methods); the remaining 28% chose another method. During the 2008–2013 period, the mean annual rates of pregnancy, birth, and abortion among CHOICE participants were 34.0, 19.4, and 9.7 per 1000 teens, respectively. In comparison, rates of pregnancy, birth, and abortion among sexually experienced U.S. teens in 2008 were 158.5, 94.0, and 41.5 per 1000, respectively.”

You seem to imply that since some girls and women who use birth control still get pregnant and potentially have abortions that it doesn’t reduce the number overall.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Oh, of course you do not point out a single place where I actually ignored what you said.

Well, if you need a quotation: “So, what is so magical about that threshold of 70% or 75% or 80%, that it is OK for 70%+1 (75%+1, 80%+1) to make a decision, but it is “imposition of views” and a great evil, if 70%-1 (or 75%-1, or 80%-1) make a decision?” That ignores what I said. It ignores what I have said over and over and over… There is no “magic” number. I keep saying a “consensus” (use another word if you like) is SOME percentage, in my opinion over 60%, but what percentage you want to use is debatable and negotiable. It’s not a magic number. And I gave example of the Senate, where it’s 60% and the number of states needed to ratify a Constitutional amendment: 75%. The more serious the issue, I would think the bigger majority you would need.

And I’m asking, why it is so, what is so special about x%. There could be “This x% is in the law.”, but you act, as if it was independent of law.

And here we have cognitive dissonance. You need some reason for x%, but none exists, and I keep demanding it.

And I keep saying it’s debatable and varies according to the seriousness of the issue. There is no “magic” number. Do you think there should be? Or do you think that a serious issue (say Brexit) should be decided by 50% + 1, so that if some guy wakes up the next day and changes his mind that turns a majority into a minority? That’s just a bad way to run things, and the Brits should never have allowed that. Now they’re going to pay.

I find that pretty hard to believe. You yourself mentioned “free speech” which you’d like to enforce against wishes of majority.

I don’t find that allowing everyone else to decide what they want to do is imposing anything on them.

So, again, you do not have any reasons, and want to avoid admitting that by offering various slogans, as if they were self-evident.

Well, yes, I would think democratic values are self-evident. I don’t want to live in an authoritarian state. Do you?

 

[Erikaspirit16]

part 2…

For example, you were just claiming that it is wrong to have Brexit just because majority demands it. And now something is wrong just because “It is against the will of the majority.”

I simply used that as an example of a very important issue that was allowed to be voted on on a 50%+1 basis. I think that was stupid. As I just said, if some guy woke up the next morning and changed his mind, that might turn a majority into a minority. And important issues shouldn’t flip flop like that. So you need a “consensus,” whatever percent you want to make that–60%, 65%, 70%. But not 50%+1.

Would something (for example, making abortion illegal for any reason) be wrong because it would be “against the will of the majority”? Yes, it would be wrong. Even if you think the thing being made illegal is an intrinsic evil.

There is nothing inconsistent about my “demands” (?) for majority rule and “demands” (?) for consensus in important matters. If I am inconsistent, then the Constitution is inconsistent and the Senate is inconsistent. And probably almost every government in the world that requires a super-majority (or “consensus”) for something or other. As I’ve said over and over, it seems to me that administrative issues (how big should a commercial sign be?) or technical issues (How many miles of road can we re-surface with this budget?) can certainly be decided by a 50%+1 vote of the governing legislative body. You don’t want to hold a referendum on every single issue. At least I don’t. However–and I’m in agreement with governments all over the world here–in a serious matter (Should Catalonia be allowed to secede?) it’s folly to be happy with a 50%+1 majority. And, as I’ve said, the more serious the matter, the bigger majority should be required. Sounds sensible to me. Maybe not to you. Sorry.

 

[ATraveller]

The problem is that when you do a study in one city and make a comparison with nationwide statistics, you are no longer comparing like with like. One must control for confounding variables. When it comes to issues like this, they are multivariate. Such variables vary state by state. This study doesn’t do that.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

No one was accusing you of being a Nazi. The point was majority rule is not infallible.

I am SO relieved to hear I’m not a Nazi. You had me worried there. Whoever said “Majority rule is infallible”? Not me. Never. Not once. Sounds like we agree on that one: majority rule can be fallible. There.

 

[ATraveller]

Great to hear. It would nice if you could stop acting offended and being passive aggressive.