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

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Haha! Oh boy, the Heritage Foundation, accusation of “national pride” and bitterly accusing me of not believing in “fake news.” The mask slips …

Oh CAF.
 
The mask of objectivity. It’s just a mask covering a face of emotional banter.

EDIT: I thought you said you were done with me.
 
Last edited:
Okay. None of us is fully objective. I’ll cop to that. I also have emotions.

I was ready to end this but you accused me of hiding behind a mask because I don’t subscribe to nationalistic arguments that aren’t based on facts. I am ready to be finished, so please stop posting to me.
 
Pluralistic societal laws have to be grounded in a reference point that everyone has access to. That is not to mean that everyone doesn’t have access to your favorite book, just that it is not to be anymore significant in the argument than any other book. Your religion can not have a special place above anyone else’s world view. So we must ground our legal rulings within the most common overlapping universal reference point of these world views. That seems to be “human well-being”. If you can argue your religious position by way of referencing “human well-being” for the grounding reference point of your argument, that would be fine. However, if you argue your point for the legal laws of the land by referencing your bible or deity, then it is no more significant an argument than if I went and banged on the door of the government building with a Spiderman comic and stated I want X because Spiderman wishes it so.
 
I’m an RN. I’ve been one a long time.

It’s well known in my world that overall our healthcare outcomes are, to put it succinctly, crappy.

Andy235 has given tons of references. They’re all accurate and pretty reliable.

Just go to WHO and the CDC and look up numbers for yourself. All of this is easily verified. I love my profession, I trust the people I work with, and I believe in modern medicine and in my country (oh yeah, I’m a nurse in the Air Force) - but overall, we’re doing something wrong, and there’s a lot of research being poured into the why and how.

It is assuredly a moral issue. We are just about the wealthiest nation on the planet and we spend more of our GDP on health care than some nations spend on their national defense…yet our outcomes are awful in comparison.

It is ASSUREDLY a moral issue.
 
Last edited:
I’m not sure. Multiple saints have said that they were just there to inform, not convince, and it would seem to violate the principles of green ill to impose your beliefs on someone.

However, by virtue of the Social Kingship of Christ, only the Catholic Church (be careful of the words I use here) has the RIGHT to public worship.
 
Damian said:
So we must ground our legal rulings within the most common overlapping universal reference point of these world views. That seems to be “human well-being”. If you can argue your religious position by way of referencing “human well-being” for the grounding reference point of your argument, that would be fine.
Click to expand...
Oh, that we can do. 🙂

Abortion kills a human and therefore is bad for “human well-being”.

See? Easy! 🙂

So, are you going to support criminalisation of abortion now?

Or are you going to discover that we do not happen to agree about “human well-being” either?
Damian said:
Pluralistic societal laws have to be grounded in a reference point that everyone has access to. That is not to mean that everyone doesn’t have access to your favorite book, just that it is not to be anymore significant in the argument than any other book. Your religion can not have a special place above anyone else’s world view. So we must ground our legal rulings within the most common overlapping universal reference point of these world views.
Click to expand...
Good, so, just to make sure, are you going to be consistent and rule out teaching Darwinian evolution, since creationists exist? And are you going to rule out any kind of fighting against Global Warming (or Climate Change), since not everyone agrees?

That shows that those views are not “the most common overlapping universal reference point”, right? 🙂

Or are you not actually intending to be consistent, and that’s just a different way of saying “Just do what I say!”?

As you can see, actually carrying out what you demand is going to lead to Anarchy. And that simply means that the one with largest stick wins. If you’re very lucky, that ends in Feudalism and not slave-holding society.
 
Last edited:
I understand your point and I’ve already stated that the liberal vs. conservative and Christian vs. Atheist position is not the case. How many times do I have to say that? Life is more complex then that and perhaps you’re projecting your desires of who I am on to me but I ask you to refrain from doing so.

Many women having abortions have nothing to do with financial issues. For many women having a child is a lifestyle choice and not seen as a sacred undertaking. Secular repressive economics has little to do with abortion rates but social decay and an incessantly self possessed culture does. Women a hundred years ago had many children and never would have even considered slaughtering their unborn children, many also worked.

Just remember that polls change and if the retraditionalization trend that is beginning to envelop the West continues then those polls will change for the better. Retraditionalization is the most predictable means of self preservation. The reason why retraditionalization is happening is because the secular repressive model doesn’t work, multiculturalism most of all. Superficial causes, like gay marriage, cannot unite societies and no one will die for them. People will die for religious reasons and genuine freedom (preservation of traditions that work, your family, and your people to name a few) though, either on the battlefield or through martyrdom.

I could go further but I have made my point and I will say it again. Indiscriminate slaughter of the unborn is not only dispassionate but a shame, particularly because so many innocent children were massacred for a superficial cause and worse, a lifestyle choice. Utterly monstrous.
 
J_the_Centrist said:
Women a hundred years ago had many children and never would have even considered slaughtering their unborn children, many also worked.
Click to expand...
Yes, abortions happened 100 years ago. They happened 1000 years ago. They happened further back than that.
 
I am very well aware of that but that doesn’t mean that it should be promoted and even encouraged for the purposes of promoting a lifestyle choice. I say that the unborn child has rights too. Who is speaking for them? Who is fighting for them?

Third wave feminism is a farce, promoted by spoiled, depraved and, most often, very affluent women who have too much time on their hands.
 
Last edited:
The overwhelming majority, absolutely not. That doesn’t mean that some women used them. Nice try.
 
Very good points. When the Hippies entered our neighborhoods, we had something called community and values that were shared by most. We talked to each other, helped each other and enjoyed just spending time together. No, it was not perfect. We had crime and all the rest but we didn’t lock our doors at night. But the wolves took advantage of our trust and did a lot of preaching: smoke dope, cohabitate, have sex with whoever, “Don’t trust anyone over 30!” so mom and dad and what they taught you now meant nothing and even though we all didn’t go top the same Church, being Christian meant nothing. They were offering us corruption and calling it “freedom.”

We, in the US, still live in a feudal society. There are no kings or queens, but our President and his cabinet are the substitute for the king and his court, and we still have noblemen, either from old money, hereditary money or new money. The top one percent of people in this country own about 90% of the wealth. The lower 80% get by as best we can, and then we have the poor. Slavery is back under the whitewash name, “human trafficking.” Just like the military who doesn’t like unpleasant terms like ‘dead soldiers,’ we get casualties.

It is clear some of the same anarchists and the new anarchists have gotten together to continue to change things to their liking. Meanwhile, Christians and those of other faiths are being told: “You can think that but you can’t say it out loud.” But our freedom of speech is being infringed upon. People who only believe in ‘human potential’ have a humanist belief system. Man, not God, has the only say.

I observe what’s going on but I do not participate in all the things I know I shouldn’t, but I will speak up if false, misleading or defamatory information is posted.
 
Last edited:
The only secular ‘sin’ I’ve seen is boredom. But when attempts to relieve that boredom are channeled to very bad ends, people need to reexamine their values system, no matter where it came from. The affluent are susceptible to very elaborate arguments, peer pressure and even social status to accept and support new things. Instead of con artists dressed in everyday clothes, those they face are attractive, well-spoken and can be very convincing. And they can be very skilled liars and manipulators. In the end, from what I know, knowledge is eventually replaced by creating a sense of deep emotional distress which is usually followed by some donating large sums to the cause at hand, if not time and their seal of approval based on their social status and standing/reputation in their community or ‘circle,’ No, not everyone who has a lot of money is bad or easily misled. Some are philanthropists and wise, wise about the world in order to escape any snares.
 
I’m against anything that impinges on religious freedom. We have rights whether people like it or not. But the same principles that protect us protect other people of differing beliefs as well. I think a lot of Christians in America confuse the right to religious freedom with the right to a legally enforced Christian utopia. They want a Christian America, not just in a cultural sense, but in a legal sense as defined by Christian principles. I don’t believe that will ever happen so long as America remains a secular democracy.

The qeustion is, do we support democracy, or are we against democracy?
 
This isn’t about democracy but ideas. Are bad ideas not bad simply because Group A says they’re not? I had no idea America was anything other than America.

Secular "denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis.
“secular buildings”

America is not 100% secular.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top