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.
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.
And you seem to think that it either is not capable of that or that it would be very wrong.

And yet, you do not show why it is impossible or why that’s wrong.

Showing something is impossible would require pointing to some law of nature. Or, at worst, to some unambiguous law.

Showing something is wrong would require pointing to some Church teaching.

You have done neither.
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?
The discussion is about influencing people in the government to get them to force people not in government to do or avoid doing something.

Usually, governments aren’t forced. They are influenced. They force others.

Or did you imagine we are planning a coup d’etat in plain view of all the Internet? 🙂
 
Is there anything you couldn’t hold based on “faith”?
If person A hold X to be true and person B holds X to be false on “faith”, how do determine who is correct? Not counting who asserts it more firmly, stomps their foot harder and/or willing to go to socially extreme measures to fight for the claim that it is true.
As I understand it, we can not tell a difference by someone’s held belief based on faith because it is impossible to falsify position based on an assertion that can not be tested in reality. Assertions about reality can be dismissed if reality does not provided evidence of the existence of that assertion.
Here is how I understand the difference between Belief, Hope, and Faith.
Dice example:
I belief a 1 to 6 will appear if I roll a 1d6. (All known possible results based on what reality has shown.)
I have hope that a 5 will appear when I roll a 1d6 since I placed a bet that a 5 will appear. (The specific result I would want and that is possible out of all the known possible results of rolling a 1d6 dice.)
I have faith that a 7 will appear out of a 1d6. (The hope in an outcome that has no basis in reality to be a possibility of the result.)
Faith is the excuse people give for their hopes when they don’t have a good justified reason to hold that position. If you have a justified good reason to hope for an outcome you desire, then it’s just Hope. Rare events, like winning the lottery, cancer going into remission, etc. are all examples of rare documented outcomes of those events. They are rare, but possible.
 
Last edited:
IWantGod: But we cannot force our beliefs and criminalize people based only on what we believe according to faith.

Mpat: So, again, why not?

There’s the comment from IWantGod, specifically talking about FORCING one’s belief on others and there’s your foolish response.

If you’d like to backtrack on that, then feel free. Maybe something along the lines of ‘Oh, what I MEANT to say was…’.

Fill in the blanks as you see fit.
 
I don’t understand why Christians in America are not aware of that reality.
I think I get where you’re coming from, but I disagree that “human from conception” is a faith-based concept.
The zygot has their own distinct DNA from the moment of conception and starts to develop quite independently of mom for the first five days (until implantation).
So I make the case that you can use science and not religion to argue for protections starting at conception.

I actually never use religion when I’m arguing life or sexual morality.
 
Specifically, you have to accept that people are not equal, views are not equal, cultures are not equal - and that’s fine.
From the reference point of Human Well-Being, everyone is equal from that reference point. It just goes to the foundational drivers of the human experience. We require life over death, freedom over enslavement, socialization over isolation, etc. When other factors come into the equation, then we start weighing which factors are more fundamental to the social identity of humanity over others. That is where views and cultures are not equal and where you have to have a conversation. Culture A expresses that blasphemy is more important that women’s and child’s rights. Well from the the reference of human well-being, the rights of women and children wins out over blasphemy towards that specific cultural reference point of morality since not everyone has access to that reference point in reality but we all have access to the human experience.

As to your discussion on abortion, there are somethings that we value over even the life of others, our bodily autonomy. Our right to how our bodies get used regardless of the situation. Since you are granting special rights to the fetus that is not granted to any other group of people, that is a problem. Children that are born have no more rights to their father’s kidneys than the unborn do without his consent to have his body be used that way. Even if his decision will result in the death of his child. The mother is ending a pregnancy early term because she is choosing to not have her body be used by anyone else without her consent. The results of unhooking the child early on, will result in the child’s death because it is under developed to live without her body. It is the underdevelopment that kills the child, not her choice to end the pregnancy. (Just like it is the disease that kills the father’s child, not his choice to not have his kidneys taken.) But her choice to end a pregnancy late term is just called a c-section and the child gets to live. This is no different than if a father refused to give up his blood and kidney to save his child’s life, the child still dies. He never looses his right to how his body is to be used, even at the death of his child. So why does a fetus get special rights over their mother when her born daughter does not have this right over her father? It is a universal human truth that our rights to our bodies supercedes’ someone else’s right to life. That is why we do not harvest organs from our prison population on death row or blood from the prison inmates not on death row.
 
Last edited:
A few years ago, a debate between atheists and religious believers spilled out from the halls of academia and the pews of America’s churches and into the public spotlight. A crop of atheist manifestos led the charge, surmounting and holding the tops of the nonfiction bestseller lists. This offensive brought on an outpouring of religious rebuttals. As both sides exchanged spirited volleys, accusations were leveled; myths, stereotypes, and strawmen arguments were perpetuated; and bitter hostility filled the air. Today many of these misconceptions and myths linger on, along with the generally acrimonious spirit of the debate.
In America’s Blessings, distinguished researcher Rodney Stark seeks to clear the air of this hostility and debunk many of the debate’s most widely perpetuated misconceptions by drawing from an expansive pool of sociological findings. Looking at the measurable effects of religious faith and practice on American society, Stark rises above the fray and focuses exclusively on facts. His findings may surprise many, atheists and believers alike.
Starting with a historical overview, Stark traces America’s religious roots from the founding of the country up through the present day, showing that religiosity in America has never been consistent, static, or monolithic. Interestingly, he finds that religious practice is now more prevalent than ever in America, despite any claims to the contrary. From here, Stark devotes whole chapters to unpacking the latest research on how religion affects different facets of modern American life, including crime, family life, sexuality, mental and physical health, sophistication, charity, and overall prosperity. The cumulative effect is that when translated into comparisons with western European nations, the United States comes out on top again and again. Thanks in no small part to America’s rich religious culture, the nation has far lower crime rates, much higher levels of charitable giving, better health, stronger marriages, and less suicide, to note only a few of the benefits.
In the final chapter, Stark assesses the financial impact of these religious realities. It turns out that belief benefits the American economy—and all 300 million citizens, believer and nonbeliever alike—by a conservative estimate of $2.6 trillion a year. Despite the atheist outcry against religion, the remarkable conclusion is clear: all Americans, from the most religious among us to our secular neighbors, really ought to count our blessings.

 
Last edited:
Oh, the solution that pluralism provides is easy. There is no need for “common reference point”.
To have a moral legal system, by definition it must be grounded in a reference point that is universal to everyone, not just to interest groups. Then we have the messy process of trying to figure out the good life for everyone, not just the interest groups by referencing reality as our grounding foundations, not just appealing to an idea that is not found in reality. Example: Trickle-down economics is held like religions are for how to run an economic model, despite the evidence conclusively indicating this does not work.
 
IWantGod: But we cannot force our beliefs and criminalize people based only on what we believe according to faith.

Mpat: So, again, why not?

There’s the comment from IWantGod, specifically talking about FORCING one’s belief on others and there’s your foolish response.

If you’d like to backtrack on that, then feel free. Maybe something along the lines of ‘Oh, what I MEANT to say was…’.

Fill in the blanks as you see fit.
So, why don’t you describe how you imagine us forcing other people without influencing the government?

That should be entertaining. 🙂
Here is how I understand the difference between Belief, Hope, and Faith.

Dice example:

I belief a 1 to 6 will appear if I roll a 1d6. (All known possible results based on what reality has shown.)

I have hope that a 5 will appear when I roll a 1d6 since I placed a bet that a 5 will appear. (The specific result I would want and that is possible out of all the known possible results of rolling a 1d6 dice.)

I have faith that a 7 will appear out of a 1d6. (The hope in an outcome that has no basis in reality to be a possibility of the result.)

Faith is the excuse people give for their hopes when they don’t have a good justified reason to hold that position. If you have a justified good reason to hope for an outcome you desire, then it’s just Hope. Rare events, like winning the lottery, cancer going into remission, etc. are all examples of rare documented outcomes of those events. They are rare, but possible.
If you define “faith” as “stupid belief”, then, um, you define it so.

But you should know that we do not happen to define “faith” in such way.
From the reference point of Human Well-Being, everyone is equal from that reference point.
Very well. Prove it. 🙂
That is where views and cultures are not equal and where you have to have a conversation. Culture A expresses that blasphemy is more important that women’s and child’s rights. Well from the the reference of human well-being, the rights of women and children wins out over blasphemy towards that specific cultural reference point of morality since not everyone has access to that reference point in reality but we all have access to the human experience.
And now we can see the dishonesty of your demand.

At first you present “human well-being” as a “common reference point”, about which everyone can agree. Because it is supposed to be bad to base laws on something not everyone agrees about.

And now we find out that by “human well-being” you mean specifically your views about human well-being.

And yes, that’s completely dishonest.
To have a moral legal system, by definition it must be grounded in a reference point that is universal to everyone, not just to interest groups.
Says who? 🙂
 
Last edited:
From the reference point of Human Well-Being, everyone is equal from that reference point.

Very well. Prove it.
From every human that has existed. That is why it is called, “human well-being”. The experience of being human is universal to all human beings as far as we can understand it. You seem to imply that this is not the case, so explain why? Or are you just being contrarian here for the sake of further explanation?
But you should know that we do not happen to define “faith” in such way.
So what is your definition? I gave you mine.
Because it is supposed to be bad to base laws on something not everyone agrees about.
I think there is a problem implied here. Everyone may not agree on the application of that universal reference point to the situation being addressed. Like my example of nutrition and people arguing over apples vs pears. But no one is arguing that nutrition is not a universal norm for humans to strive towards because it is universal to the human experience.
And now we find out that by “human well-being” you mean specifically your views about human well-being.

And yes, that’s completely dishonest.
This is just us arguing over apples vs pears, not if nutrition should be the goal.
Says who?
Says the people outside of your groups that are removed from the legal system that is affecting them as well. I know that religion loves to grant more rights to group A, (men), over group B (women, children, slaves, other cultures, tribes, etc.) but that will always be a problem in that system.
 
I do too. Unfortunately the peace that the world is giving enables the flesh and will continue until it achieves it’s purpose…
 
Last edited:
From every human that has existed. That is why it is called, “human well-being”. The experience of being human is universal to all human beings as far as we can understand it. You seem to imply that this is not the case, so explain why? Or are you just being contrarian here for the sake of further explanation?
I’m exploring how you are going to use that “common reference point”.

You were saying that you can derive things from it. So, I have asked you to do so.

Of course, you have offered no proof, just a hand-wave.
So what is your definition? I gave you mine.
From the Catechism: “Faith is first of all a personal adherence of man to God. At the same time, and inseparably, it is a free assent to the whole truth that God has revealed. As personal adherence to God and assent to his truth, Christian faith differs from our faith in any human person.” (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__PW.HTM).
I think there is a problem implied here. Everyone may not agree on the application of that universal reference point to the situation being addressed. Like my example of nutrition and people arguing over apples vs pears. But no one is arguing that nutrition is not a universal norm for humans to strive towards because it is universal to the human experience.
Says the people outside of your groups that are removed from the legal system that is affecting them as well. I know that religion loves to grant more rights to group A, (men), over group B (women, children, slaves, other cultures, tribes, etc.) but that will always be a problem in that system.
Ah, yes.

The standard Communist propaganda tactic. The Western democracy, where all interest groups can try to influence the government is not supposed to be good, as those pesky Catholics can try to get to pass the laws they like. And how much better, more democratic, more free, more neutral it is supposed to be, if only the CPSU (or, perhaps “Damian” himself) would be able to even try to pass the laws they like!

And I happen to find this tactic very dishonest.

If you just want the laws you want, just argue for them. Don’t try to pretend to be in favour of some “neutrality”.
 
Lets say a country is 15th in the world regarding homicide rates. And fifth in the world re divorce. Let’s say that abortions are so common that only Khasakstan and Cuba have more. Let’s say that the vast majority of people claiming a religion (90%+) have no moral problem with contraception.

How would you say that place is going? Where might we be talking about? Maybe a third world country? Somewhere sub-Saharan? In the old communist block perhaps?

You haven’t just got your head in the sand. You are buried in it.

And please tell me that you have actually read that book and are not doing your usual cut and paste excercise for the day. How are those specific keys going on your keyboard by the way?
 
Tough luck, buddy. It was you that wanted to know why forcing religious beliefs on people was a bad thing.

Retract that question or back it up. There are no other options for you if you don’t want to appear to backslide and redirect anytime you are called out.
 
Tough luck, buddy. It was you that wanted to know why forcing religious beliefs on people was a bad thing.

Retract that question or back it up. There are no other options for you if you don’t want to appear to backslide and redirect anytime you are called out.
So, I guess you are not going to entertain us by explaining how you imagined us to actually do something like that not through influencing the government? 🙂

Yes, tough luck to us indeed… 🙂

By the way, can I take your answers as indicating that you see nothing wrong with us trying to influence the government to get it to, let’s say, criminalise abortion?
 
Last edited:
You can smiley-face all you want. You have lost any credibility which allows you to continue this debate in any meaningful way.

Thanks for playing.
 
They already incurred a death sentence. A never ending death sentence.
 
Many Christian beliefs are the same as basic human rights. Basic human rights should be imposed. Religious beliefs should most definitely not.
 
can I take your answers as indicating that you see nothing wrong with us trying to influence the government to get it to, let’s say, criminalise abortion?
I think you would have to change the very nature of the system when it comes to matters like abortion for the very simple reason that you have no practical evidence to support your faith based values. You just have belief. It’s not so much a qeustion of trying to influence the system, but rather it’s a matter of recognizing what the system actually is and understanding it’s intrinsic limitations. Given the nature of the system i don’t see how it’s possible to legitimately criminalize abortion as that would mean that the government is taking sides with a religion solely on the basis of faith without demonstrating any practical evidence that would justify enforcing our faith on members of the public that do not agree with our faith.

Are you okay with going to prison just because of what somebody holds by faith alone? If you are reasonable, i dare say that you don’t want to be criminalized on that basis alone.

We don’t want the government imposing other peoples religion on us, so why shouldn’t the same rules apply to us?

If the system was not secular but was instead operating according to Christian values then it would make sense that the government would criminalize abortion because it’s goal would be essentially Christian in nature. It doesn’t make sense, however, when you are dealing with a secular system.

The claim that America has Christianity in mind when making laws is nonsense.

Surely you would not want the system to enforce sharia law, just because a Muslim minority has influenced the government? Surely you realize that such a system would cease to be secular in its motivations when it comes to governing society?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top