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.
Sure and I think we’d all agree on that, even if there’s 0 risk to the donor we’d still honor their right to refuse the procedure. Even if they were laying on the table with it about to begin we’d honor it.

I’m repeating myself but I do feel if abortion is to be banned we should just acknowledge we’re taking away that consent potentially from the moment conception occurs until the end of the pregnancy. Sure if a woman just ‘doesn’t want it anymore’ it would be hard to feel bad about pushing her to continue even if she chooses to give the kid for adoption, but when there’s risk involved, and while low there’s ALWAYS risk involved, as I said I’d like to see it clarified, are we banning it in every situation, and how much risk is a woman required to accept, and who determines the risk.
 
MPat said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think you are ignoring one simple fact, that sometimes we can have good intentions when really our actions are doing harm to the spread of the gospel. You cannot pretend that is not a legitimate concern. I am not arguing that Christians should not go out and preach the truth. This isn’t about cowardice and it isn’t about being silly. I am saying forcing change when that change is not seen by a large portion of society as a legitimate good could have dire consequences. It would push people further away from the truth, and you cannot blame them. Being attack for what you believe is one thing, but being attacked because you went and got the government to impose your christian values on society is another thing entirely, quite possibly an act of fascism. It really doesn’t matter if we have the truth or not if we are the ones entrenching their ignorance. Our primary goal is evangelisation, not a government enforced Christian utopia.
 
Last edited:
You throw that “fascism” tag around freely and loosely. I suggest you actually look up what that word actually means.
 
Right. Which doesn’t correspond to the way YOU are using the term. I would suggest you find a better term instead of using the knee-jerk Marxist habit of labeling everything you don’t like “Fascism”.
 
What, and you don’t think there couldn’t be such a thing as religious fascism? The intolerance and government enforced suppression of all other religious thought and expression in the public square other than Christianity. The government enforced suppression of atheism. The enforcement of Christian values and beliefs on the rest of society for purely religious reasons and the forced removal of all other minority identities and values.

Think.
 
Last edited:
You’re describing authoritarianism not “Fascism”. Authoritarianism doesn’t equal “Fascism”. Communism is authoritarian. Absolute monarchy is authoritarian. Neither system is “Fascism”.
 
IWantGod said:
Our primary goal is evangelisation, not a government enforced Christian utopia.
Click to expand...
Actually, both evangelisation and right ruling of society are means to an end.
IWantGod said:
I am saying forcing change when that change is not seen by a large portion of society as a legitimate good could have dire consequences. It would push people further away from the truth, and you cannot blame them.
Click to expand...
Would it?

There is the saying “History is written by the winners.”…

I’d say that part is so unpredictable, that it is silly to worry about it, when more certain problems exist - for example, that we aren’t in position to overthrow the government.
IWantGod said:
because you went and got the government to impose your christian values on society is another thing entirely, quite possibly an act of fascism.
Click to expand...
I sense “fascismophobia” here - an irrational, exaggerated fear of fascism. After all, you could say such actions would be simply wrong, but chose to call it “fascist action”, as if that was worse.

So, can you explain why you do not like Mussolini?

Hopefully, in the process you will end up giving the reasons that relate to the subject of the thread more directly.
 
Last edited:
I suspect he subscribes to the Marxist definition of Fascism: Anything that isn’t Marxist is Fascist.
 
I view the intolerant unjust suppression of any minority, identity, religion, or belief a fascist act. It doesn’t matter who is doing it.

You disagree? I’m glad you have the freedom to disagree in public.
 
Last edited:
Given its actual track record (and I mean the real, self-proclaimed thing, not the generic label for bad things), is it actually possible to have an irrational and exaggerated fear of Fascism?
 
The Leftist Utopia consists of the following: “It is forbidden to forbid.” But we will reap what we sow. The truth is the truth.

Spreading True Tolerance

The difference between true Christian tolerance and intolerance.
www.ncregister.com www.ncregister.com
 
My stance on all this is that I want to live in a Catholic theocracy someday … that being Heaven, the only place where the concept is guaranteed not to be deeply twisted in execution.

Until then, as a modern American, I prefer the “no established religion, laws mainly to restrict direct harm to others” approach.
 
There is nothing modern about this idea. The date on the calendar changes nothing. Only people change things. And slavery is still here but relabeled as if we live in an alternate reality. Human trafficking.
 
This this THIS.

And while I mainly see it from the Left, it seems to sneak out any time there is talk of becoming (or already being) a vast majority — or fear of some other group, such as Muslims, becoming one. That being the notion that with enough people and enough votes, we can make anything happen.

That’s technically true, since even constitutions can be amended or replaced, but I’m not sure we should be looking forward to it. The whole point of things like the American Bill of Rights is to delineate the areas of life in which the majority doesn’t get to rule, because those are the areas in which the rights of the minority (including the smallest minority, the individual) are protected.

And yes, at least in the U.S., that means people get to disagree with us, hold beliefs we consider false, and act in ways we don’t like provided they aren’t actually hurting people. But in return, we get to do things others disagree with, hold beliefs they don’t share, and act in non-harmful ways they don’t like, even if they wind up with the majority behind them.

Sure, unlike the U.S. Constitution, the Church does not recognize an absolute, innate right to believe in a false religion, and is okay with the idea of an established state church when she is it. But she does recognize freedom of conscience, and would rather see a legal regime that allows Catholics and everyone else to believe and practice freely than one that suppresses her followers.
 
Usagi said:
Given its actual track record (and I mean the real, self-proclaimed thing, not the generic label for bad things), is it actually possible to have an irrational and exaggerated fear of Fascism?
Click to expand...
It is.

People often have irrational, exaggerated fear of something genuinely dangerous. People can have exaggerated fear of snakes, dogs, heights.

One way to have an exaggerated fear of fascism is to see fascism everywhere.

For that matter, are you sure you fear fascism because of its track record? Can you easily list several bad things Mussolini’s regime did?

I suspect it will not be as easy, as the fear would suggest (although sure, he did do things that are evil).
 
Human trafficking is illegal, though, and widely recognized as deeply immoral. Yes, it still happens, but at least we don’t pretend it’s a proud and necessary part of society, as we once did with slavery.
 
I do not know a great deal about Mussolini’s specific evils, as he has been overshadowed in history by his German neighbors. Nazism also falls under the umbrella of fascism (though I’ll
grant you they did not use the capital-F term as much as Benito’s bunch did), and we are all aware of their abominable crimes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top