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

[MPat]

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.

But, to take your example, my “personal development” as a chess player is worse than it would be if playing chess was mandatory.

In order to patch up your requirement you are going to have to find a way to say that playing chess well is outranked by, let’s say, becoming rich (and thus I can’t demand someone to stop working and start playing chess with me).

But then you’d have to explain why those beliefs can be imposed on the people.

I’m afraid that you need a different requirement for “imposing” something on the people.

 

[Usagi]

I presume the OP would say that none of them do, but he’s asking the question on a Christian forum.

 

[ratio1]

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

Excuse my ignorance but I actually don’t understand your question.
What do you mean by pluralistic? I thought by definition that means one group doesn’t impose on another group otherwise do you still call it pluralistic?

So my answer is no in a pluralistic society. Yes in a Christendom.

 

[Dan123]

That’s not even plausible, however - because they can’t do that without consent.

You couldn’t say anything if you were sedated and unconscious. We have laws that say you can’t do procedures on the unconsented.

You’re right, though I’ll say we’re discussing changing the law so citing the law isn’t necessarily a complete answer. It would be like saying ‘should abortion be legal?’ – ‘well it’s legal, so yes’. I get what you’re saying though and in retrospect it was an unnecessary element.

So instead someone is being prepped for surgery and is asked if they’ll also donate part of their body to save a life. If that person says no, for a good reason or a selfish one or whatever, does that make them a killer?

I think we’d all say no but what are we saying, we’re saying bodily autonomy is very important, that their consent is needed even if it means someone dies. In a way philosophically an abortion is a woman revoking her consent to have a part of her body used to keep another person alive, and the consequences that follow. As you pointed out we’d never force someone to risk their life and body without consent if they were in for surgery. Heck at least in the US we don’t even allow the use of dead bodies without prior consent.

So when someone says abortion should be banned I think some of those questions I asked about should be addressed. If a woman stands a 90% chance of dying if she carries to term, is it still banned? 80? 50? 20? At what point does her right to make those decisions become less than the rights held by a cadaver?

And to be clear I’m not even arguing the law shouldn’t be changed but I don’t want these questions tucked under a rug either. If a woman has to carry that risk the moment she gets pregnant until the moment the final outcome is known then make that the law. Don’t pass a half thought-through law and then only worry about compassion later.

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

The alternative is letting heretics and pagans spread falsehoods in public and lead souls into damnation.

 

[Maximilian75]

Well, but… Is it the government’s job to save souls, or the Church?

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

The church of course. But the governments job is to create an environment where the church can do its role. Peace and order.

 

[Pup7]

This is why the Church has clarified the issue. I first learned about it in the Terry Schaivo case, which you may not have heard of. She had been fine in her condition, but her husband asked that nutrition (via feeding tube) and hydration (via IV) be withdrawn. She died of dehydration as a result.

As you pointed out elsewhere, Alfie died as a result of the ventilator being withdrawn, not of dehydration. However, his condition was already deteriorating, and he would have died even with ventilation eventually. The two situations (his and Terry Schaivo’s) were very different in that regard.

Yep. Completely different.

I have indeed said elsewhere that what was done in the Schiavo case was very different - not a pointed remark, just commenting. I 100% agree.

 

[Pup7]

I agree with you on that. No, it doesn’t make them a killer.

I’ve worked in bone marrow transplant (which these days is mostly peripheral blood stem cell transplant, with a few exceptions where live marrow is needed). When a donor is identified as a potential match and they are called, they can still refuse to participate and aren’t required to tell us the reason. We have called folks who are literally the only match in the world found so far for that patient - and we can’t tell them that, nor do we judge.

I agree - refusing to donate doesn’t make one a killer. It’s a huge decision and everyone has reasons - and every one of them is valid (unless they’re saying no to be a jerk, but I think you know what I mean here).

 

[Pup7]

I think Dan123 said it best.

Dan123:

Might be fair to summarize it as laws that have a religious origin or source can and often should be civil laws, but ideas that ONLY have a religious reason to them probably not.

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’ll bite.

Are there such laws currently enacted in the US, based solely on a religious framework?

I am not rattling the cage or poking the bear here. I swear.

 

[IWantGod]

People should have the right to express their beliefs. Should we have the government suppress atheism also?

It’s this kind of thinking that turns Christianity in to an oppressive movement. Instead of a religion of love and tolerance.

 

[edwest211]

The law in a pluralistic society is generally decided by popular vote and can be challenged. Each individual gets to vote as they see fit. Catholics should be informed by a properly formed conscience, and the guidance of the Church. Man has, over the centuries, tried different things, different ways of living. What is best for man, what is true for man, usually survives. The United States was founded on Judeo-Christian values and beliefs.

Oppression has been the complaint of radicals and anarchists since forever. In the late 1960s, a friend of mine belonged to a group called the SDS or Students for a Democratic Society. That didn’t work out. But, in later years, he still complained about “oppressive laws.” An ordered society means rules and limits. It can’t be otherwise. And since the beginning, man was free to do whatever he wanted. Always.

 

[deMontfort]

In the late 1960s, a friend of mine belonged to a group called the SDS or Students for a Democratic Society.

Also known as the “Weather Underground”…

 

[IWantGod]

Not everything is subject to voting. Somethings are considered human rights, like the right to a fair trial or the right not to be subjected to racist attacks or slavery. These things cannot be overturned. I think things like abortion and gay marriage and now transsexualism is like that too. You can’t vote it out. It would require a revolution in some way shape or form. And i guarantee you that such a revolution would be considered a fascist revolution if it is by force. And to make matters worse it would be led by Christians which would probably leave a black mark on Christianity and how it is received in society.

In other words it is my honest opinion that it would do greater harm than good. I Think it would undermine the spread of the gospel to impose certain Christian values through law because they are not self-evidently true…What happened to evangelization? A natural grass roots conversion of society?

When did Christian legalism take center stage in eyes of Christians in America?

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

Tolerance is not a Christian virtue.

Tolerating evil/depravity/degeneracy is not an act of love.

 

[IWantGod]

Is Tolerance a Virtue?

Tolerance, of itself, is not a virtue. Jacques Maritain(1882-1973) There are two kinds of tolerance. One is rooted in skepticism, the other in respect...

www.catholiceducation.org

The great Catholic philosopher Jacques Maritain has stated that the man who says: What is truth? as Pilate did, is not a tolerant man, but a betrayer of the human race. There is genuine tolerance, he goes on to say, when a person is convinced of a truth, but at the same time recognizes the right of others who deny this truth to speak their own mind. Such tolerance is respectful of other people and recognizes that they seek truth in their own way and may one day discover the truth they presently contradict, given their natural intellectual capabilities that are ordered to truth.

Tolerance may not be a virtue in itself but sometimes it is a necessity if a greater evil would exist in it’s place.

Fighting evil with evil is not love either. I’m sure that men with good intentions ended up being the founders of oppressive dictatorships because they did not understand that you have to respect the dignity of others even if you don’t agree with them.

 

[Dan123]

I think things like abortion and gay marriage and now transsexualism is like that too.

I think the key is that for plenty of issues ultimately the ruling is that the original laws were unjust. So gay marriage rights weren’t something technically extended to homosexuals, the rulings found the government had no right to deny the existing privileges and protections it was already offering to a group simply because they were gay in the first place. We could have had a society where the government wasn’t involved in marriage and it was solely a social and religious institution, but a long time ago enough people agreed they wanted the government involved that it became the case. Eventually the philosophy of equal protections and rights under the law caught up to it and the federal/state governments have slowly conceded the point, for the most part. It’s the same reason even though Catholicism doesn’t allow divorce, that’s not really the law anymore.

 

[Dan123]

I don’t see any reason for denying homosexuals the right to marry without a religious framework, at least not one that holds up when the same standard is applied across the board.

E.g. if you want to say they can’t have children, I’d expect you to also deny marriage rights to the infertile, or the elderly past the age where they’d be starting families.

The church can ban it and refuse to perform those ceremonies and I’ll support their right to do it but two people who walk into a courthouse for a private ceremony infront of a Justice of the Peace should not be bound by a religion they don’t adhere to.

I will say I can’t think of many examples and that’s probably one of the bigger ones, though I think a lot of that is due to a progression as well. 100 years ago there were more laws that seemed to favor those who adhered to Christianity. There are still on the books for example, though they’re unenforceable, laws against nonbelievers serving in government.

 

[MPat]

Not everything is subject to voting. Somethings are considered human rights, like the right to a fair trial or the right not to be subjected to racist attacks or slavery. These things cannot be overturned. I think things like abortion and gay marriage and now transsexualism is like that too. You can’t vote it out. It would require a revolution in some way shape or form. And i guarantee you that such a revolution would be considered a fascist revolution if it is by force.

OK, that’s a complete mess. You mix up several questions, as if they were the same:

1. What can be morally forbidden by the government? (What could we morally do, if we somehow (anyhow!) became government?)
2. What can be realistically achieved without overthrowing the government?
3. Is it realistic to overthrow the government?
4. Is it moral to overthrow the government?

Each of those questions can be discussed, but they have to be discussed separately.

Given the subject, this thread is supposed to discuss the first of them.

And i guarantee you that such a revolution would be considered a fascist revolution if it is by force. And to make matters worse it would be led by Christians which would probably leave a black mark on Christianity and how it is received in society.

Really?

You argue against overthrowing the government not because it is morally evil, “against the law”, impossible, or unlikely to succeed, but because people won’t like you in such case!?

That’s just silly.

And maybe cowardly.

These things cannot be overturned. I think things like abortion and gay marriage and now transsexualism is like that too. You can’t vote it out.

With such an attitude you certainly can’t.

But those things were once illegal, and it looked impossible to legalise them. And yet people worked hard, and did what looked impossible.

See the good in them (for example, courage), and work to undo their work.

 

[IWantGod]

OK, that’s a complete mess. You mix up several questions, as if they were the same:

What can be morally forbidden by the government? (What could we morally do, if we somehow (anyhow!) became government?)
What can be realistically achieved without overthrowing the government?
Is it realistic to overthrow the government?
Is it moral to overthrow the government?

Each of those questions can be discussed, but they have to be discussed separately.

Given the subject, this thread is supposed to discuss the first of them.

I was replying to edwest, and when viewed in the context of what he said, what i said was entirely appropriate.

The law in a pluralistic society is generally decided by popular vote and can be challenged. Each individual gets to vote as they see fit. Catholics should be informed by a properly formed conscience, and the guidance of the Church. Man has, over the centuries, tried different things, different ways of living. What is best for man, what is true for man, usually survives. The United States was founded on Judeo-Christian values and beliefs.

Oppression has been the complaint of radicals and anarchists since forever. In the late 1960s, a friend of mine belonged to a group called the SDS or Students for a Democratic Society. That didn’t work out. But, in later years, he still complained about “oppressive laws.” An ordered society means rules and limits. It can’t be otherwise. And since the beginning, man was free to do whatever he wanted. Always.

Not everything is subject to voting. Somethings are considered human rights, like the right to a fair trial or the right not to be subjected to racist attacks or slavery. These things cannot be overturned. I think things like abortion and gay marriage and now transsexualism is like that too. You can’t vote it out. It would require a revolution in some way shape or form. And i guarantee you that such a revolution would be considered a fascist revolution if it is by force. And to make matters worse it would be led by Christians which would probably leave a black mark on Christianity and how it is received in society.

In other words it is my honest opinion that it would do greater harm than good. I Think it would undermine the spread of the gospel to impose certain Christian values through law because they are not self-evidently true…What happened to evangelization? A natural grass roots conversion of society?

When did Christian legalism take center stage in eyes of Christians in America?