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

[Annie]

Yes, but some of those principles are natural law and some are revealed law. It is revealed that one should spend the seventh day at worship; it is natural law that one should not kill.

 

[Tulitas]

Your name is IWANTGOD

God wants rules to free us from the bondage of sin.

If people would rather live in sin, I don’t know what to tell you
But rules are liberating, and God NEVER imposes Himself on anyone.
But Christians do have rights. I can’t think of any Christian beliefs that seriously impinge on anyone else’s rights.

 

[Canvas]

Yeah, the whole “US healthcare is sooooo great” is a real eye roller. The empirical evidence to support that the American style medical care system works better overall is noticeably absent from any objective study. There is a cottage industry in the US of people who find isolated incidents of mistakes or wrongs in other countries that have a universal system and use them as “proof” that we are better off with our highly flawed model. Of course, they ignore or make excuses for virtually every injustice or wrong that Americans are forced to put up with because we have a system that is primarily profit driven, rather than care given.

 

[Bradskii]

Andy235:

To say that the American government functions from a Christian worldview is an insult to Christianity. Most of our elected officials left their morality at the door a looooong time ago.

I hate to tell you, but the common law our code is derived from is indeed based in Christianity.

No one said the lawmakers themselves were stellar examples of Christians across the board.

Always good for a chuckle when someone claims that their particular system of law is based on the ten commandments and/or Christianity in general. Maybe you could tell me what the fine is in your area for not honouring your mum and dad. Or tell me if there’s jail time for covetting your neighbours ox. How about adultery? And I can’t remember when I last kept the Sabbath holy.

You might find that what you class as specifically Christian laws are actually Christian values that are common to multiple systems of law. I’m not sure you’ll find anywhere that doesn’t criminalise murder. Not withstanding that you would.probably cherry pick the rukes and regs you’d like to see on the statute books. Stoning people for homosexuality or picking up some firewood from the local gas station on a Sunday seems like overreach to me.

The law in the US, as it is in the UK and Australia is based on Common Law. That is, law based on precedent. If a law happens to correlate with a particular religious belief, from ANY religion, then that’s all it means. It happens to correlate. Unless you are in a country that has specific religious rules that are enforeable by law. Sharia law in Saudi for example. And hands up anyone who thinks that’s a great idea. Well, anyone who hasn’t been caught stealing something and still has hands to raise

If you were to argue that religious rules and regs should be enforeable within law, then you are going to picking them cherries until the cows come home.

 

[AndrewAxland]

Always good for a chuckle when someone claims that their particular system of law is based on the ten commandments and/or Christianity in general.

I can’t think of a single legal system in the world that is based on Biblical or Christian principles (except Canon Law). There is no Christian equivalent of Sharia Law.

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

Suppression doesn’t mean persecution. I’m fine with them being able to practice their faith but only the church should receive recognition and preferential treatment.

 

[HolySpirit]

Yes, Andrew. At this time, Germany was the Holy Roman Empire which covered the majority of the Continent. The Germanic legal system incorporated the Roman legal system. Isn’t that what the Normans brought with them?

 

[Bradskii]

Not everyone agrees that rape is bad. The rapist, for example, may think rape is good, such as the Muslim refugees who have raped European women - there’s at least a new report every week about that.

Way to go, bo. A dumb comment and a dig at Muslims in one short sentence. Can you give a moment while I dig up the rape figures for the US?

Ah yes. Got them.

Approximately 80,000 people are sexually assulted in the US every year. So lets say there are 80,000 people doing the assaulting. The percentage of Christians the US is around 75%.

Do you want to do the maths or shall I do it for you?

 

[AndrewAxland]

But any idea that Christianity should get special treatment or that our beliefs should come first before other religions is shortsighted and quite arrogant.

And fundamentally unchristian.

 

[meltzerboy2]

Yes, of course moral principles shared by most people of all religious beliefs and no religious belief are for the common good of society. Specific views regarding worship and the practice of one’s religion, however, as well as the general belief in the existence of G-d, should not be imposed on anyone. Such matters regarding religion must remain up to the individual. At the same time, those who do practice a religion must be free to do so, provided their practice does not illegally infringe upon the rights of the common good. The latter is not always so easy to discern, and hence we have disagreements which are resolved, for better or worse, by the court system.

 

[MPat]

So religious beliefs that only have a religious context and no observable connection to practical reality. We should not impose those beliefs onto other people through rule of law.

I am not asking what are the conditions under which you would agree that a religious belief can be “imposed” on others.

I am asking what are the conditions under which you would agree that something (anything!) can be “imposed” on others.

 

[IWantGod]

I agree that the system should protect religion. But any idea that Christianity should get special treatment or that our beliefs should come first before other religions is shortsighted and quite arrogant.

 

[AndrewAxland]

But any idea that Christianity should get special treatment or that our beliefs should come first before other religions is shortsighted and quite arrogant.

And fundamentally unchristian.

 

[IWantGod]

I am asking what are the conditions under which you would agree that something (anything!) can be “imposed” on others.

Whatever ever ensures the practical development of society while at the same time respecting the individual and his or her own personal development or freedom…So murder self evidently impinges on everyone’s freedom, so it makes sense that it’s illegal. Choosing not to play chess with someone, while it may hurt their feelings, does not impinge on my freedom or the freedom of others.

 

[meltzerboy2]

I think the mindset of those in the majority, whether we are talking about religion, race, class, gender, sexual orientation, or able-bodied people, is that the majority rules. Those already in power by means of their sheer numbers are often resistant to relinquishing or sharing that power with those who are members of a minority group. We prefer to hold on to what we have and what we no doubt take for granted.

 

[Genesis315]

It depends what you mean by “Christian principles.” The natural moral law, yes, since that is not strictly a matter of faith, but can be known by reason alone. That doesn’t mean every violation of the natural law needs to be punished–public authority should choose what to punish and what to tolerate based on the needs of the common good. The flipside of that coin is that public authority cannot make laws contrary to the natural law.

No one can be coerced by the state into believing or practicing the Christian religion in regards to matters of revealed truth. The acts of faith must be free. However, the state may place limits on the exercise of this freedom within the limits of the common good. The common good takes into account the good of the whole man, including his supernatural end–the salvation of his soul.

From the Catechism:

2109 The right to religious liberty can of itself be neither unlimited nor limited only by a “public order” conceived in a positivist or naturalist manner.39 The “due limits” which are inherent in it must be determined for each social situation by political prudence, according to the requirements of the common good, and ratified by the civil authority in accordance with "legal principles which are in conformity with the objective moral order."40

Note again the conception of the common good can’t be “positivist” (it has to be measured according to the truth) and it can’t be naturalist (It has to take into account man’s supernatural well-being) and things contrary to the objective moral order cannot be justified by an appeal to faith (e.g. you can’t claim religious freedom to practice, say, human sacrifice).

continued…

 

[Genesis315]

…continued from above

Taking into account the proper religious freedom of man, the Church teaches that, since public authority is subject to the King of kings, it’s laws and governing should be inspired and measured against the true religion:

2105 The duty of offering God genuine worship concerns man both individually and socially. This is "the traditional Catholic teaching on the moral duty of individuals and societies toward the true religion and the one Church of Christ."30 By constantly evangelizing men, the Church works toward enabling them "to infuse the Christian spirit into the mentality and mores, laws and structures of the communities in which [they] live."31 The social duty of Christians is to respect and awaken in each man the love of the true and the good. It requires them to make known the worship of the one true religion which subsists in the Catholic and apostolic Church.32 Christians are called to be the light of the world. Thus, the Church shows forth the kingship of Christ over all creation and in particular over human societies.33

2244 Every institution is inspired, at least implicitly, by a vision of man and his destiny, from which it derives the point of reference for its judgment, its hierarchy of values, its line of conduct. Most societies have formed their institutions in the recognition of a certain preeminence of man over things. Only the divinely revealed religion has clearly recognized man’s origin and destiny in God, the Creator and Redeemer. The Church invites political authorities to measure their judgments and decisions against this inspired truth about God and man:

Societies not recognizing this vision or rejecting it in the name of their independence from God are brought to seek their criteria and goal in themselves or to borrow them from some ideology. Since they do not admit that one can defend an objective criterion of good and evil, they arrogate to themselves an explicit or implicit totalitarian power over man and his destiny, as history shows.51

 

[steve-b]

In a pluralistic society of different beliefs, does the Christian have the right to impose their religious beliefs on those who do not believe? That is, do we have the right ,by force of law, to force others to act according to Christian principles.

technically, In a democracy, the one with the most votes wins. Abortion is always wrong. Yet in a democracy, it can be approved by law

Then consider what God wants. He doesn’t operate by vote. He gives the rules/laws and it is up to us to follow them … or else

 

[Zaccheus]

In a pluralistic society of different beliefs, does the Christian have the right to impose their religious beliefs on those who do not believe? That is, do we have the right ,by force of law, to force others to act according to Christian principles.

Does the Moslem have the right to impose their religious beliefs on those who do not believe?

Does the Buddhist have the right to impose their religious beliefs on those who do not believe?

Does the Hindu have the right to impose their religious beliefs on those who do not believe?

Does the Polytheist have the right to impose their religious beliefs on those who do not believe?

Does the Pagan have the right to impose their religious beliefs on those who do not believe?

Why is it only Christians whose rights you question?

 

[Maximilian75]

It’s a fine line to walk