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

[buffalo]

So continue with the split between religion and the state, yes?

At the time of the founding 99% were Christian. Most of the colonies had a state sponsored Christian denomination. Since all the states already had sponsored Christianity the Feds punted it back to them.

The so called separation is a recent construct. Every state has in its preamble or constitution, God.

Government cannot impose a religion but we, the people can propose ours. America is and was a Christian nation with its laws and moral foundations rooted in Christianity.

I will continue to vote to preserve this.

 

[MPat]

What are you talking about? What argument do you think i have made?

A bit like this:

1. USA is a democracy. (premise)
2. USA is good. (premise)
3. Democracy is good. (from 1 and 2)
4. Criminalising abortion is not universally popular. (premise)
5. Passing a law that is not universally popular is undemocratic. (premise)
6. Criminalising abortion would be undemocratic. (from 4 and 5)
7. Criminalising abortion is not good. (from 3 and 6)

I’m pointing out that word “democracy” has one meaning in steps 1-3, and another meaning in steps 4-6. Thus the argument is not valid.

The main point i have argued throughout this thread is that the American legal system cannot create laws based only on what we hold by faith. For example, it cannot criminalize people who have abortions based on the belief that we have a personal soul from the moment of conception. There is a reason for that. You have a secular legal system.

“You”? I am not an American. Lithuanian Constitution (article 43) says: “The State shall recognise the churches and religious organisations that are traditional in Lithuania; other churches and religious organisations shall be recognised provided that they have support in society, and their teaching and practices are not in conflict with the law and public morals.” (http://www3.lrs.lt/home/Konstitucija/Constitution.htm). It explicitly refuses to pretend that all religions are perfectly equal.

And you have not actually argued for those things. You just claim that they are true and act surprised when someone disagrees.

Coupled with refusal to answer many questions that creates an impression that your position is in fact indefensible.

 

[buffalo]

You have a secular legal system.

No we do not. The left wants you to believe we do.

 

[Benadam]

I would say that a zygote is a POTENTIAL human being from a scientific point of view. As a Catholic, I would even say it’s a human being. But that is my religion talking, not science.

Just a short google of evidence will show that calling a zygote a human being at most is controversial among embryologists. Saying they don’t with certainty to me indicates an agenda or confirmation bias

 

[Benadam]

A human zygote has already begun reducing human POTENTIAL to act. In other words it is already being human. A human being.

 

[Benadam]

To answer the question, of course we have a right to promote our beliefs in politics. The word impose seems manipulative. If Christian beliefs form good policies and are voted in why would that be wrong. What is wrong is to claim to be a Christian and not support the promotion of Christian policies.To call those policies an imposition. That’s what’s wrong.

 

[IWantGod]

Everything you are saying is a straw-man of my position. And bringing up the laws of Lithuania as a rebuttal is incomprehensibly ridiculous. If you look at the context of the debate and the direction its gone, it’s clear that i am responding to Christian Americans and their idea that secular law should reflect Christian law, and i have argued, i think quite successfully that such an idea is impossible if the legal system intends to remain secular.

I don’t think it’s me that is evading the reality of American law…

 

[MPat]

Everything you are saying is a straw-man of my position.

Everything?

If you said that the seven-step argument I ascribed to you is strawman, that would at least be plausible.

Yet even there you would have to give at least some explanation what part of it you disagree with.

And bringing up the laws of Lithuania as a rebuttal is incomprehensibly ridiculous.

I was reminding you that you should not argue as if everyone was an American here.

If you look at the context of the debate and the direction is gone, it’s clear that i am responding to Christian Americans and their idea that secular law should reflect Christian law, and i have argued, i think quite successfully that such an idea is impossible if the legal system intends to remain secular.

Actually, I don’t get an impression that you actually argued for that. In order to argue for that you should have cited something concerning American Law. But it doesn’t look like you did.

Instead, you sort of argued (badly) that something like French Laïcité is a good idea.

 

[IWantGod]

No we do not. The left wants you to believe we do.

I can only judge a system by how it operates. You would like to believe that laws such as those that represent same sex marriage and abortion are a result of a corruption of what might as well have been a christian utopia in your eyes…I am Arguing that such laws are an inevitable result of the split between church and state and the intrinsically secular operations of the legal mechanism that proceeded. The fact that nearly everyone was some kind of Christian at the time doesn’t change that reality. The fact that laws tended to reflect Christian values at that time was merely a convenience of the fact that most people were Christian at that time and wasn’t really anything to do with the intrinsic nature of American law or the Constitution. Otherwise it would never have changed at all…

 

[edwest211]

As will I. The falsehood that America was built on anything else will also be challenged.

 

[Bradskii]

IWantGod:

You have a secular legal system.

No we do not. The left wants you to believe we do.

Madness.

You are.making the same mistake as others keep doing. Over and over and over again. Just because something in the legal system aligns with what you would describe as Christian morality, you claim that it is there in the legal system (the SECULAR legal system) BECAUSE it is in the Christian system of morality.

You are the type of person that when it is explained to them that an animal has four legs goes around pointing to all four legged animals and shouting: ‘It’s a dog!’.

 

[Bradskii]

I guess that anyone who wants to follow the same line of reasoning might declare that the Indian law system or that of Indonesia or Thailand or Vietnam or South Korea is based on Christian precepts because, gosh, they don’t allow murder or theft either. Just like it says in the bible!

 

[Benadam]

I am Arguing that such laws are an inevitable result of the split between church and state and the intrinsically secular operations of the legal mechanism that proceeded.

Are you sure that it is inevitable because of separation of Church and state and that the state legal mechanism is secular?. One has to accept that a shift in moral values that favor such laws is inevitable.

 

[IWantGod]

One has to accept that a shift in moral values that favor such laws is inevitable.

Well, i am quite sure that most of the people who wanted abortions did not subscribe to the Catholic view of the soul and did not see anything intrinsically evil in choosing not to take a pregnancy to full term because they did not believe in the catholic definition of what constitutes a person.

The nature of America law, how it operates, certainly accommodates the possibility of pro-choice laws because it’s secular.

 

[Benadam]

Well, i am quite sure that most of the people who wanted abortions did not subscribe to the Catholic view of the soul and did not see anything intrinsically evil in choosing not to take a pregnancy to full term.

But a shift in moral values was required if it’s true that abortion was not valued by the majority of people of past generations.

The nature of America law, how it operates, certainly accommodates the possibility of pro-choice laws. I

As it should. I disagree it is inevitable.

 

[IWantGod]

But a shift in moral values was required if it’s true that abortion was not valued by the majority of people of past generations.

Not just moral, but also theological. Sometimes ontological.

As it should. I disagree it is inevitable.

What, you really think that all women have a fun time being pregnant? Do you think Roe v. Wade just popped out of thin air? There was no stopping it. It was inevitable. There will always be differences and disagreements. Humanity and their beliefs about whats going on will always have a tendency toward plurality.

And the Christian unfortunately cannot change or stop abortion law with principles of faith alone. What justification did the courts have to prevent it?

 

[Benadam]

What, you really think that all women have a fun time being pregnant? Do you think Roe v. Wade just popped out of thin air? There was no stopping it. It was inevitable.

Your premise is that a moral shift that focuses on pleasant experience is inevitable.

There will always be differences and disagreements. Humanity and their beliefs about whats going on will always have a tendency toward plurality.

I think the premise here is that a plurality by definition will value abortion as a right

 

[edwest211]

The American people were lied to. The situation was manipulated regarding abortion. Here’s how:

An Ex-Abortionist speaks

 

[Benadam]

And the Christian unfortunately cannot change or stop abortion law with principles of faith alone. What justification did the courts have to prevent it?

The courts interpreted the common good. Their interpretation of the evidence that defines a constitutional right was based on moral values that have shifted.and not what was valued by past generations

 

[Benadam]

ah, so, I do believe this. Institutions used false information and disingenuous persuasion to shift moral values to values that would create a social environment in which they can provide services and profit. Thanks Ed.