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

[edwest211]

Interesting take on the situation. There are already a number of contraceptives on the market. Personally, I think self-control is the best answer.

 

[buffalo]

It’s objectively proven to be the best value system on which to build a society

Absolutely it is! No other comes close.

 

[edwest211]

I think a few thousand years is enough time to sort things out.

 

[Damian]

t means that “human well-being” is a phrase that is too ambiguous to be useful as a “common reference point”.

At first glance it could be too ambiguous. Especially from a group used to the clearer approach of dictation of divine command theory. To others not from that frame work, it is not too ambiguous. Take the example of Nutrition. Is it too ambiguous to have a goal of a nutritious lifestyle? No no it is not. People can argue over eating apples or pears but no one argues over eating fruit is part of a nutritious life style and drinking battery acid is counter to that. We can do the same thing with the nebulous idea of human well-being as well. Nebulous to you apparently but not to others. Dont undercut this before you explore it more

 

[MPat]

At first glance it could be too ambiguous. Especially from a group used to the clearer approach of dictation of divine command theory. To others not from that frame work, it is not too ambiguous. Take the example of Nutrition. Is it too ambiguous to have a goal of a nutritious lifestyle? No no it is not. People can argue over eating apples or pears but no one argues over eating fruit is part of a nutritious life style and drinking battery acid is counter to that. We can do the same thing with the nebulous idea of human well-being as well. Nebulous to you apparently but not to others. Dont undercut this before you explore it more

The very fact that we all agree with the goal means that it does not perform the function you want it to.

For we do not agree who counts as “human” and what counts as “well-being”.

For example, we count the unborn among the “humans”. Some others do not.

We count being a Catholic as a part of “well-being”. You probably do not.

You are not going to find many policies that cannot be justified as supporting “human well-being”, given some additional assumptions.

 

[IWantGod]

There is no way to determine the sacredness or the true moral value of something from a scientific perspective. Without God, without faith, all we have is our pragmatic decisions.

If you want to believe that a human embryo has the same value as you and me from the moment of conception, is a person as defined by the Catholic faith, that’s up to you and me. But we cannot force our beliefs and criminalize people based only on what we believe according to faith.

As evil as abortion is based upon what i ontologically believe, it makes logical sense that a secular court would give mothers the right to decide whether or not they want to take a pregnancy to full term, because a secular court is not operating according to catholic definitions of value and personhood.

I don’t understand why Christians in America are not aware of that reality.

 

[MPat]

If you want to believe that a human embryo has the same value as you and me from the moment of conception, is a person as defined by the Catholic faith, that’s up to you and me. But we cannot force our beliefs and criminalize people based only on what we believe according to faith.

So, again, why not?

Can you derive this principle from the teaching of the Church?

 

[Bradskii]

IWantGod:

If you want to believe that a human embryo has the same value as you and me from the moment of conception, is a person as defined by the Catholic faith, that’s up to you and me. But we cannot force our beliefs and criminalize people based only on what we believe according to faith.

So, again, why not?

Because (and I thought this was too obvious to actually need to be explained), anyone else with a specific religious view will claim the same right.

 

[MPat]

Because (and I thought this was too obvious to actually need to be explained), anyone else with a specific religious view will claim the same right.

And…?

Is that supposed to be bad?

Is that something I claimed to deny to others?

Of course, in pluralism every single interest group gets to try to influence the government in a legal way. So do the Atheists, so do the Muslims, so do the Catholics.

 

[IWantGod]

Of course, in pluralism every single interest group gets to try to influence the government in a legal way

And the legal way is secular operating according to secular definitions. So what makes you think that a law can be enforced on other people or religions according to religious faith?

 

[Bradskii]

Raxus:

It’s objectively proven to be the best value system on which to build a society

Absolutely it is! No other comes close.

Comes close to what? The number of homicides? The number of abortions? The gap between rich and poor? Education?

 

[Damian]

Could you explain to me how we can solve this problem then based on your problem with this? The idea of X being the goal is not everyone agrees on, then go from there. How is a deity or religion or anything else different from X in that case? I have pointed out the problem with referencing a deity or religion for an X since it is just cultural bias to a specific group. Human well-being as a reference is the most common overlap of every culture to allow the most amount of people to access that reference point for establishing a moral system.
Once you subjectively pick a point for your moral reference, you can now come up with aughts, is, objective bad and good.

The very fact that we all agree with the goal means that it does not perform the function you want it to.

I am not at all suggesting that we will not fail at this process. But the secular discussion starts from asserting that no idea is dogma and the grounding foundations are not unchangeable. That is a fundamental problem with divine command theory. It’s pronouncements are infallible, so we have to learn to paint the bulls-eye around the arrow instead of going back to the assumption that it is infallible. In the secular discussion you can even go back and challenge the assumption that the starting reference point of Human Well-being may not be the correct reference point. We will fail at these process for figuring out the “good” life. But the secular process has within itself the tools to correct its mistakes. Divine command theory does not.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

Because (and I thought this was too obvious to actually need to be explained), anyone else with a specific religious view will claim the same right.

And…?

Is that supposed to be bad?

Is that something I claimed to deny to others?

Of course, in pluralism every single interest group gets to try to influence the government in a legal way. So do the Atheists, so do the Muslims, so do the Catholics.

Don’t move the goalposts when.you are found out posting nonsense. The qestion was not about trying to ‘influence governments in a legal way’. It was SPECIFICALLY about FORCING beliefs onto others and CRIMINILISING people.

Go back and read the relevant posts. Then.come back and rejoin the conversation.

 

[MPat]

And the legal way is secular operating according to secular definitions.

Quote one.

No, “legal way” means that one can make a petition, but cannot do an act of terrorism.

So what makes you think that a law can be enforced according to religious faith?

What makes you think it cannot?

There is a law. It is enforced. End of story.

Also, I would still like a derivation of this:

But we cannot force our beliefs and criminalize people based only on what we believe according to faith.

from teachings of Catholic Church.

Could you explain to me how we can solve this problem then based on your problem with this? The idea of X being the goal is not everyone agrees on, then go from there. How is a deity or religion or anything else different from X in that case?

Oh, the solution that pluralism provides is easy. There is no need for “common reference point”.

There are interest groups. They want some laws passed. In order to achieve that, they try to influence the government. Some succeed and some do not.

And there is no need to worry about “common reference point”.

Of course, if you want “common reference point”, there’s a way to have that too, but one more change has to be done:

I have pointed out the problem with referencing a deity or religion for an X since it is just cultural bias to a specific group.

Specifically, you have to accept that people are not equal, views are not equal, cultures are not equal - and that’s fine.

That’s another option, if you want a “common reference point”.

Don’t move the goalposts when.you are found out posting nonsense. The qestion was not about trying to ‘influence governments in a legal way’. It was SPECIFICALLY about FORCING beliefs onto others and CRIMINILISING people.

Go back and read the relevant posts. Then.come back and rejoin the conversation.

As one might suspect, using force and criminalising some actions is usually done by governments.

Thus an interest group that wants a law criminalising some action passed has to influence the government to pass it.

Your side seems to be willing to demand that Catholics wouldn’t have such an option, but unwilling to actually say so openly.

 

[buffalo]

Comes close to what? The number of homicides? The number of abortions? The gap between rich and poor? Education?

An organic Christian society is the best. Not everyone follows it and why there are homicides, crime and abortion.

An organic Christian society also has the lowest cost of enforcement. Why? Because its adherents exhibit better self control.

 

[IWantGod]

As one might suspect, using force and criminalising some actions is usually done by governments.

Thus an interest group that wants a law criminalising some action passed has to influence the government to pass it.

But you seem to think that a secular legal system can and should criminalize a group based only on what we hold to be true by faith.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

Comes close to what? The number of homicides? The number of abortions? The gap between rich and poor? Education?

An organic Christian society is the best. Not everyone follows it and why there are homicides, crime and abortion.

An organic Christian society also has the lowest cost of enforcement. Why? Because its adherents exhibit better self control.

So there is better self control but…not everyone controls themselves better (anyone see something of a contradiction there?).

Hence less than admirable figures on homicides, crime, abortion etc.

You don’t need me to contradict anything you say, Buffalo. You do such a good job of it yourself.

 

[buffalo]

So there is better self control but…not everyone controls themselves better (anyone see something of a contradiction there?).

Hence less than admirable figures on homicides, crime, abortion etc.

You don’t need me to contradict anything you say, Buffalo. You do such a good job of it yourself.

What you are seeking is what we call heaven. Since we aren’t there and we are flawed humans we do best in an organic Christian society, one that strives to follow the teachings and example of Jesus.

 

[Bradskii]

Could you bring those goalposts back if you have a chance?

The discusion is not about influencing people but forcing them. Are you actually reading anything being posted?

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

So there is better self control but…not everyone controls themselves better (anyone see something of a contradiction there?).

Hence less than admirable figures on homicides, crime, abortion etc.

You don’t need me to contradict anything you say, Buffalo. You do such a good job of it yourself.

What you are seeking is what we call heaven. Since we aren’t there and we are flawed humans we do best in an organic Christian society, one that strives to follow the teachings and example of Jesus.

I’m not seeking anything. You have specifically agreed with a comment that a society based on Christian values is by far the best.

By what metric are you claiming this? Because all I see in these forums are complaints about the number of abortions. Complaints about rampant sexuality. Complaints about how society is going down the drain.

And then you have the brass nerve to claim that your system is the best.

You post contradictory comments depending on which way the wind is blowing.