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

[J_the_Centrist]

I think that you’ll find that Hitler and Mussolini were nominal Catholics at best. If Stalin were so Orthodox then why would he destroy one of the most beautiful cathedrals in the world in 1930 just because he was tired on looking at in. What about the priests, nuns and monks that were brutally murdered and churches and monasteries looted and destroyed under Stalin? Just because someone has a religious background that they grew up with doesn’t mean they’re retaining it as adults while they do what they do and in the face of all the evidence you have to do better than that. Can you prove that Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany imposed a Catholic agenda, I thought on one occasion in1937 Hitler tried to remove all imagery from Catholic institutions and replace them with images of himself. That’s not very Catholic if you ask me.

I’m pleased we agree that innocent bakers and photographers shouldn’t be forced to compromise themselves.

I am completely aware that the Christian/Atheist paradigm is not always the case and I never said it was and if I gave that impression then I apologize but I don’t think that I did.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

The numbers disagree with you:

I hate to butt in on a separate debate, but a 1% failure rate is acknowledged; 1% of 1.4 million = 14,000. 14,000 is not nothing, but it’s a relatively small number.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin rejected religion.

Stalin was an avoid atheists who persecuted people of faith, both Jews, Catholics and Protestants.

Joining the Nazi Party, required rejecting institutional religion. Hitler sent nuns and priests to the concentration camps.

Jim

 

[ATraveller]

14,000 is not nothing, but it’s a relatively small number.

It’s relatively smaller but the method is not foolproof. But the problem is it’s sold as 100% effective so when it does fail, the individuals are more prone to abort rather than keep the child.

 

[J_the_Centrist]

And one more thing, the abortion issue is still a debatable issue. Saying that it is just a glob of cells in the first few months is a very dispassionate position to me and has little to nothing to do with freedom or “women’s rights.” You seem to be balanced in your views on freedom, as I can see from other posts of yours, but I cannot see how indiscriminate slaughter of the unborn constitutes as freedom. I wish I could see your point but even after so many years after Roe v. Wade I honestly cannot see it.

 

[MPat]

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,

Oh, it is easy to explain why the law should demand a supermajority.

But your position is not simply that a law should demand it, but that in specific cases it is morally wrong to get a law passed without supermajority (or “consensus”), even if the existing laws allow that.

And then you’d better have an explanation stronger than “it would keep laws more stable”.

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

Of course it is. A right to do something implies the lack of right to stop that something.

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

No, I do not think your “democratic values” are even clear enough.

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.

And let’s note that the only thing to support this position is your wishes - “I don’t want to live in an authoritarian state.”.

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.

No. The very existence of a Constitution implies that rule of law outranks “majority rule”.

And yes, rule of law is something that can allow democracy to function, giving a place for majority rule and supermajorities.

But if you leave it out and take “majority rule” as the highest law, you have a mess.

But, of course, if you have rule of law, and higher laws “overruling” lower laws, you will find it hard to explain why there cannot be a Divine Law that outranks all Human Law.

Not to mention that rule of law means that “majority is against it” does not invalidate a properly passed law, nor does it mean that passing it was necessarily immoral.

But if you do not put rule of law above majority rule, then majority rule becomes incompatible with any requirement for supermajority.

 

[J_the_Centrist]

Your are absolutely correct. I was emphasizing their religious upbringing and how that upbringing did did automatically make them Christian for the rest of their lives. Everyone knows that none of these men were practicing Christians of any variety, Stalin most of all.

 

[ATraveller]

That is, do we have the right ,by force of law, to force others to act according to Christian principles.

In countries that are officially Christian but wind up being pluralistic, they have every right.
But generally, I don’t think that should be the case. Like others have said, we can make the case but can’t force.
It’s hard to expect non-Christians to follow many aspects of Christianity like praying, religious attendance or sexual morality. These are worth considering:

I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges[a] those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.” -1 Cor 5:9-13
[a]Or will judge

Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonouring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen. -Ro 1:23-24

But Blue Laws could be imposed on the basis of workers’ welfare and strengthening families.

 

[Kei]

Indeed, in the past, it was considered that this “freedom of religion” would be disastrous as it makes Catholicism, the One True Faith, to be on the same level as the false religions of demons, and heresies. As if we can’t tell the difference! What an absurd thing!
Yet, we need to ensure that we can practice the Faith. Ultimately, truth trumps belief, even if you disagree with it. Thus, I answer in the affirmative.

 

[IsaiahSpirit]

Since no one can prove otherwise regarding life at conception;
a distinct growing person with unique DNA, with all due respect
that some scientists will fudge the word ‘person’ - is empirically true.
Since no one can prove there is no person, and especially
with the more widely know near death experiences that consciousness
exists apart from the body (even for days sometime) —
It is unconscionable and against all of humanity to support
their demise.
The Sacredness of Life will win, and the opponents, with many
convoluted rhetorical arguments and honey speech playing at heart strings
language regarding situational ethics fail to realize that the widespread
searing injustice toward our brothers and sisters in the womb effect all of us.
And promoting a vast lack of an informed conscience among their parents,
as to help to keep their child or have another loving family raise their child,
firstly — then once that is established — gradually but assertively attest
to the reality of the child — is a humongous crime against humanity.
~
Peace.

 

[Pup7]

It’s relatively smaller but the method is not foolproof. But the problem is it’s sold as 100% effective so when it does fail, the individuals are more prone to abort rather than keep the child.

What birth control method is marketed as 100% effective?

Let me answer on your behalf: not a single, solitary one of them.

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.

Which form? Were they overweight (being overweight reduces the effectiveness of implantable birth control and patches AND some pills)? Were they using every method correctly every time, for those that were not implantable? That’s a pretty broad statement.

That whole thing - I’m sorry to say, especially since I generally respect the BBC even more than most American news outlets - seems a bit skewed, and not by the media, but by the places providing the data.

 

[ATraveller]

What birth control method is marketed as 100% effective?

To clarify, what I meant was they give users the idea they are 100% effective despite the fact they aren’t. 99% becomes 100%. It’s treated that way. It’s not emphasised. It’s almost ‘forced’ for a lack of a better word, like those American TV ads for drugs with those warnings. Mention all the positives 99% of the time. It may even get overlooked. ‘Sold’ was not a good word to use.
I’m quite disturbed by the fact in the BBC article the person they interviewed expects failure and abortion should occur when it happens. That’s quite chilling. I suppose it does explain why those who promote abortion happen to be the same people who want easy access to contraceptives.

 

[Pup7]

To clarify, what I meant was they give users the idea they are 100% effective despite the fact they aren’t. 99% becomes 100%. It’s treated that way. It’s not emphasised. It’s almost ‘forced’ for a lack of a better word, like those American TV ads for drugs with those warnings. Mention all the positives 99% of the time. It may even get overlooked. ‘Sold’ was not a good word to use.

They actually don’t. No medical professional says that nor do they lead anyone to think that. It’s 100% unethical to do so on top of that. It’s called informed consent, and providers are required to give it.

 

[Pup7]

I’m quite disturbed by the fact in the BBC article the person they interviewed expects failure and abortion should occur when it happens. That’s quite chilling. I suppose it does explain why those who promote abortion happen to be the same people who want easy access to contraceptives.

They probably picked the person who answered the question that way. That does indeed happen.

 

[ATraveller]

No medical professional says that nor do they lead anyone to think that.

I didn’t say that was the intent with medical professionals but it’s the consequence. It’s pushed and favoured by activists and the chance of failure is likely ignored by those requesting it.

They probably picked the person who answered the question that way. That does indeed happen.

I don’t know about that in this case. She’s the head of the abortion provider that provided the data.

 

[Pup7]

She’s the head of the abortion provider that provided the data.

I agree with you, but that’s pretty telling to me. I think we agree that seems a bit agenda-driven, as if she’s providing a service for some poor unintelligent women. I’m serious. Seems very patronizing of her.

I didn’t say that was the intent with medical professionals but it’s the consequence. It’s pushed and favoured by activists and the chance of failure is likely ignored by those requesting it.

If they ignore the chance of failure, that’s their fault. Not the product and not the provider and not even the company that produced it. So by my reckoning you can’t really say the drugs are marketed as infallible or pushed as infallible. There’s an insert with every drug. If the patient isn’t smart enough to read it, that is completely on them.

They bear the culpability. Sadly, so does the unborn child here.

I actually think we agree here.

But none of this is the fault of contraception. Because modern contraception, when used correctly, is extremely effective with low failure rates - again, when used correctly and consistently. For the most part, failure falls on the user.

And dear Lord, before anyone pillories me, nothing I’ve said here is any more or any less than verifiable medical fact.

 

[A_Really_Big_Cat]

It is important to consider what “impose” means. If someone believes that by me advocating that abortion should be treated just as gravely as murder is, I am “imposing” my beliefs, they would (in this case) be wrong because murder is almost universally considered immoral by people of all faiths, and the value of unborn children is not determined by religious tenets but (from my perspective) by the biological nature of a human being’s development and the lack of physical difference between a fetus and a newborn besides the fact that one is dependent on its mother’s womb for protection and sustenance. If I was advocating the same cause, but based entirely on religious teachings with no scientific support, then they would be right in complaining I was trying to impose my views. Although I believe that all morality ultimately derives from God, which is why all human life is equally precious, science is still required to prove that a fetus is just as human as you or I.

In answer to the question, no person has the right to insist another person must act according to the teachings of any religion. But those who dislike or are distrustful of Christians must be able to discern the difference between a matter of faith and a matter of science, and between “imposing” and “informing” or “encouraging”. So if i went into the street preaching the gospel and trying to convert others by example and with no use of force, I would have every right to do so. But if I were a politician trying to make Christianity the state religion, I would be violating multiple Charters of Rights. Similarly, Europeans when colonizing other nations had the right to attempt to convert natives to their own brand of Christianity, but certainly not to force them to convert to a religion they did not yet fully understand.

 

[Usagi]

I like your general principle of consensus, and I agree that in practice a shift in public opinion generally accompanies a major judicial reinterpretation of the law (abolition of slavery, expansion of civil rights, protection of legal abortion, same-sex marriage).

However, I can’t completely buy into your attachment to majority (or supermajority) rule as the prerequisite for such a change to be moral. “We vote and the majority rules” is an important tool in cases that could go either way and require a single choice for the whole group, but there are areas of life the majority shouldn’t get to rule on. The U.S. Constitution identifies these in the Bill of Rights and some of the subsequent amendments, and I’m sure there are similar ideas in other governing documents. Slavery was wrong even when a majority still defended it. Equality before the law was already being violated before the collective consciousness realized that segregation or laws tying women to their husbands or limits on marriage were such violations. If abortion is a matter of bodily autonomy and private medical decisions, then restricting it unduly is wrong even if the vast majority wants to do that, and if it is murder of a distinct human being then it is wrong even if the vast majority doesn’t think so. The reason decisions like that end up being made by courts instead of purely relying on the will of (the majority of) the people is that some things are wrong (or at least unconstitutional) even if the majority supports them.

 

[kainosktisis]

This is an interesting question.

I’ve actually lived abroad, & during that time, no one ever asked me if I thought their beliefs were being imposed on me. Well, yes, they were, but I take the view of “Their house, their rules.” It’s just the way I was brought up.

I think that people’s beliefs - be they theistic or atheistic - informs their worldview & their politics. I followed their laws, but admittedly, too, because I was in the military, sometimes military law (the UCMJ) trumped the law of the land. For example, in Saudi as a female, I would not normally be allowed to drive a car (at least at that time, I couldn’t technically, but I think that may have recently changed). BUT…in the military with the forces there during Desert Storm, an exception was made in some instances. Some of the locals though made it amply clear that they did not approve…

I’m not sure why the US seems to be a hotbed of dissension among people from here or abroad who can’t seem to accept the law of the land & have to find reasons to rebel against it. I can understand if there is an unjust law (We have some I’d like to see changed). We have laws to change bad laws, but lately people seem to be more inclined to get violent & reinterpret laws to their own liking anymore. Either way, one person’s beliefs will inform their worldview, their politics - & their actions.

I just had an interesting thought though…What do you do if your visit to someone’s “house” becomes a place that permits crimes to take place - like sexual abuse? Or domestic abuse? Or some other crime, & the law of the land calls it a crime, but the “house owner” says “No, it’s not…?” Does their denial of the crime make it not so?

 

[A_Really_Big_Cat]

This. Friendly reminder that nearly everyone in Germany thought that the Jews were subhuman during the 1930s.