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

[mcq72]

And you want to blame are your problems on me?

Actually I am bummed that many “separatists” are religious , even baptists, but perhaps in name only

 

[Damian]

It is not an argument showing that necessity of human equality follows from trying to achieve “Human well-being”.

Sounds like you need to know what “Human Well-Being” means then. It means that, from the universal human experience of Life is preferable over Death, Fire = Hot = Bad, Socialization is preferable over Isolation, etc. All these universal norms are what produces a mentally healthy and physically healthy human being which is summed up in the idea of the goal of “Human Well-Being”. We may fail at accomplishing these goals when there are conflicts that arise over limited access to resources and being ignorant of what the outcomes will be after applying a law to address these issues, but that is because we are not ever going to get this right 100% of the time. That is what I am taking from your argument of, “not an argument showing that necessity of human equality follows from trying to achieve “Human well-being”.” Nothing will necessitate that as an outcome unless it is 100% perfectly applied, which is impossible to do. Your bar for dismissing this process is absurd to use. So I look for a reference point that allows for the most amount of people to be involved in the process. Any other process that, by definition, excludes other people or groups from the process is necessarily less accurate in this process since it excludes people. That is the application of “cold” reason there for concluding that the reference point of “Human Well-Being” necessarily references all of humanity in its target for the “good” instead of “Christianity” or any other religious group for their target of the “good” which is “their favorite comic book character”.

Interest groups can have different levels of organisation. There are even “anonymous interest groups”, being just crowds that spontaneously protest against some decision.

I agree.

Oh, of course you do not notice you are proposing your own personal dictatorship.

Non sequitur - a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.

First you claim that anything else those other people want is too partisan.

Yes because religions are definitionally referencing their favorite comic book character as their reference for the good life. While the reference point of “Human Well-Being” necessarily points to the most common overlapping commonalities of the good life regardless of culture and time period. Such as what I listed above.

 

[Damian]

Then you propose your “Human well-being” as something neutral.

Non sequitur - a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.
Not neutral, just most overlapping for everyone to be involved since it, again, necessarily points to the most common overlapping commonalities of the good life regardless of culture and time period. Such as what I listed above.

And then we discover that this “Human well-being” is not really neutral - it is simply a name for your own goals.

I really have to spell things out for you. My personal goals may not be the same as everyone else. But everyone else is allowed to the conversation to have that discussion. If people agree with my personal goals are actually good for everyone else, then someone had to come up with the idea in the first place right? Religion’s reference points necessarily dismisses everyone else’s reasons for why they disagree with your favorite comic book character’s dictations for the good life since it is the dictation of that character that is the reference for the good life, not the people affected by it. And I’m the dictator according to you.

I now believe your outrage and objections are just trolling me and I’m moving on from this absurd conversation.

 

[MPat]

Yes because religions are definitionally referencing their favorite comic book character as their reference for the good life. While the reference point of “Human Well-Being” necessarily points to the most common overlapping commonalities of the good life regardless of culture and time period. Such as what I listed above.

Very good. It is much better when you present your position honestly, without pretending that it is somehow “neutral”, clearly pointing out that you like it because you think ideas of everyone else are stupid, and your own ideas are not.

Now go and try to influence the government as anyone else.

Just try to avoid playing some sort of “comic book character” yourself.

 

[mcq72]

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.

There is no stronger idea in legal government rationales than we having certain inalienable rights , bestowed by God…centuries before our constitution.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

Then it was admitted that maybe the society hasn’t turned out so well after all.

Be honest. You are twisting this. Much of society has abandoned the faithful practice of Christianity and instead is one of me, myself and I.

Atheists have ridden on the back of our Judeo Christian society and enjoy many of the benefits. You just don’t want the God part.

Perhps your utopia would be a fully atheistic country. As an experiment try it out. Oh. it has been tried…

Remember, it was an atheist who petitioned the courts to remove God. It is atheists who are trying to remove the 10 commandments and crosses. It is atheism that is responsible for over 100 million deaths in the last century. Why? When humans are looked at as just higher animals and not in the image and likeness of God, power is the rule.

Much of society has abandoned the faithful practices.of Christianity? Really?

Let me tell you what I know. You profess Christianity. You claim Christianity as the means to a great end. You almost demand that we accept your own country, soaked as it is in self righteous religious fervour, as an example to the world.

Yet you are a classic example of all that could possibly go wrong with it.

 

[IWantGod]

Remember, it was an atheist who petitioned the courts to remove God.

How is that possible if the system is essentially Christian by definition in its operation and motivations?

 

[IsaiahSpirit]

Apropos would be Bishop Robert Barron’s discussion on how through honest critical historical study it is by Jesus Christ the idea given in the ideals of Judaeo Christianity of the dignity and worth of every human life
came to be widespread in the first place.
I do not want to get into the heart breaking hypocrisies of history. I’m just pointing out that rules of law
based on Inalienable Rights given by our Creator, specifically came from those who walked the walk
and were able to write proper interpretations of salvation history. The history of Israel or fallible, sometimes
outright hypocrites in Church history left very damaging witness cannot be understood without
the lens of Christ Jesus and those who, for two thousand years, within the Church taught this.
~
It is empirically true that the sense of community and common cause has been fragmented and scattered
by individualism opposed to commonality. This is the primary cause of the breakdown of the family.
As the secular laws of the land that used to reflect the natural law, and more clearly Judaeo Christian
ethics turned away from those things — so has society grown more angry and even mocking those things by many sides. In effect,
many individuals & groups make themselves oppressors of the Judaeo Christian ethic.
The hypocrisy of slavery was ended by decades of abolitionists of good will, either directly Christian
or of good will professing the dignity of every human person.
~
But the necessary civil rights witness of the 1960s to bring about equal opportunity under the law,
has been high jacked by many anarchists; individuals and groups who claim any behavior or marginalizing
children in the womb and other things like this — throwing away historical sense of the Sacred and
common decency. In effect they make themselves ‘gods’ over the children in the womb and what
children are being taught. And those of us who stand by the natural law, especially Christians are being
more and more legislated against with many judicial rulings oppressing our beliefs and observing
in society our conscience and religion.
~
So the the current problem of religious freedom being oppressed with those opposing the natural law
is the greater problem. Not what has been asked here. We must pray and support those who will
not let the legislator or judiciary continue this war of attrition against us. It is a time for Holy Spiritual
Courage. These rights will come back one way or another, but to stand by and let it happen,
is not Christian.

 

[buffalo]

Much of society has abandoned the faithful practices.of Christianity? Really?

Let me tell you what I know. You profess Christianity. You claim Christianity as the means to a great end. You almost demand that we accept your own country, soaked as it is in self righteous religious fervour, as an example to the world.

Yet you are a classic example of all that could possibly go wrong with it.

I will repeat again. The organic Christian society has not been reached and is currently headed in the opposite direction. The organic Christian society fully realized is as close to heaven as one can get on earth.

 

[buffalo]

How is that possible if the system is essentially Christian by definition in its operation and motivations?

An excellent question. It was done by using a false construct called “separation of church and state.” This will be our undoing.

 

[MikeInVA]

demand that we accept your own country, soaked as it is in self righteous religious fervour, as an example to the world.

Please name any country that has given anywhere near as much in terms of money and the lives of our sons and daughters to help others. The U.S. is far from perfect, but it is far and away the most generous, Christian nation in modern history.

 

[PetraG]

If you live in a democracy, every voter has the same right to put their views into law and policy as every other voter, whether their views come from religious belief or out of thin air or anywhere else.

We have a Bill of Rights that limits the degree to which the majority can dictate law and policy to the individual. That would, for instance, prevent a Christian majority from dictating religious participation as a matter of law.

Outside of those protections, it is a group enterprise to decide what sort of society we want, together. Individuals do not have unlimited rights to be free of a societal contract arrived at by voter participation and representational government.

Therefore, the answer is that a Christian has the same right as anyone else to work to see their vision for society put into law: no more, no less.

 

[IWantGod]

We have a Bill of Rights that limits the degree to which the majority can dictate law and policy to the individual. That would, for instance, prevent a Christian majority from dictating religious participation as a matter of law.

Why can’t they dictate religious participation as a matter of law?

 

[MikeInVA]

Why can’t they dictate religious participation as a matter of law?

The First Amendment to the Constitution.

 

[Raxus]

Whoa, no you don’t. You don’t slide away from tbe argument by turning it around. The US was held up as an example of how Christianity is the best system to produce this utopic society.

…I’m not sliding anything around.

Then it was admitted that maybe the society hasn’t turned out so well after all.

That’s your opinion, or whoever else voiced it. I think it’s done just fine, all things considered.

So then it was decided, after admiting that being such a God fearin’ Christian country hasn’t had the desired results then It must be somebody elses fault. And atheists at that!

I don’t know about atheists, per se. The recent liberal love affair with Islam and all its woman-hating, gay-killing ways is likely a bigger factor. The militant brand of atheist probably isn’t helping anything.

Can I ask who you think are having all these abortions? Who you think commit all the rapes and murders? Who are all these people commiting adultry and getting divorced? Who all these people are having sex before marriage? All these masturbators and fornicators and people engaging in unatural sexual trysts?

Doesn’t matter. Sin will always be with humanity. That’s kind of the reason we need Christianity in the first place, coming from the Catholic view. I contend that things would be much worse without it.

The country prides itself on being a Christian country. It is overwhelmingly Christian. I have travelled around tbe States these last 3 months and I have never seen so many churches and so many billboards proclaiming the Christian way of life. I have lost count of the bumper stickers and t shirts telli g me that Jesus is coming.

That ought to put paid to the idea that the country was founded on secular ideas, at the very least.

And you want to blame are your problems on me?

I didn’t say that at all. I simply asked for a country not founded on Judeo-Christian values that does better in ALL the things you’ve listed. I wasn’t blaming you at all. I was asking you to back up your assertions.

You are self delusional.

You’re strangely defensive and accusing me of things that I never said or did. Prickly, much?

 

[edwest211]

This is exactly right. As others demanded their freedom from just about anything, communities began to disappear. Those “Don’t shove your religion down my throat” people were left alone, or said, “Leave us alone! We’ll do what we want!” people also got to do what they wanted. Fewer and fewer people had anything they could say to them without getting an angry reaction. Mom, dad, whoever. So they lived how they wanted, did what they wanted, and some of them stayed angry. Today, some only have their computer, a bottle of booze and maybe a dog. That’s it. Many neighborhoods are now ghost towns. People live in houses but nobody knows anybody. In the decades-long effort to do it ‘my way,’ it’s easier to just leave other people alone. So, we have people in public who generally look sullen or upset, make no eye contact and don’t talk to strangers. But, if that’s what they want then they are getting what they want. Since committed relationships don’t matter to some, it’s some pleasure followed by separation. People are less involved with people.

In the meantime, thank God for the family and friends you do have. For Christians, and all men of good will, be encouraged. All you have to do is pray and turn over a new leaf. You can live according to the law God inscribed on men’s hearts. You can oppose anything that violates this basic, natural law. God will not be mocked. Not forever.

 

[buffalo]

Why can’t they dictate religious participation as a matter of law?

Because the “congress shall make no law” forcing a federal state sponsored religion. The states already had their state supported Christian denominations. Every state has God in its preamble or constitution.

There is no doubt we are founded and have been a Judeo Christian nation.
The question is" do we want to retain and strengthen?

I vote yes.

 

[edwest211]

It will not as long as the faithful remain faithful. The media, in its ongoing concern with spreading the secular gospel, is no longer to be trusted. There are groups and individuals, not just Catholics, who believe in right and wrong. The media rarely, if ever, mentions them or agrees with them. God will not be mocked. In the past, no matter what the Israelites did, God left a faithful remnant, always. He will not abandon those who love Him.

 

[buffalo]

It will not as long as the faithful remain faithful. The media, in its ongoing concern with spreading the secular gospel, is no longer to be trusted. There are groups and individuals, not just Catholics, who believe in right and wrong. The media rarely, if ever, mentions them or agrees with them. God will not be mocked. In the past, no matter what the Israelites did, God left a faithful remnant, always. He will not abandon those who love Him.

The Catholic way of life and moral principles occupy the high ground.

 

[IWantGod]

The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed. The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable. The people shall not be restrained from peaceably assembling and consulting for their common good; nor from applying to the Legislature by petitions, or remonstrances, for redress of their grievances.[4]

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”, thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.[9].

…The “establishment of religion” clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion to another . . . in the words of Jefferson, the [First Amendment] clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between church and State’ . . . That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.[11]

First Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia