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

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

But the point being that some folks are quick to say “no moral absolutes!”
When in acutal fact there are boundaries beyond which they believe no one ought to cross…

 

[Dan123]

Like I said it’s not about what they think people should shouldn’t do, it’s about whether there are things every single person would agree. If I found someone who enjoyed torturing children they’d likely not think it was wrong, and I’d leave promptly after asking. Those are the absolutes I meant when responding to Imdaman.

 

[Shakuhachi]

We can promote them and hopefully many will be adopted by society. But until that happens we grantvreligious freedom to others.

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

Pretty much

 

[Bradskii]

Why do people post and then withdraw immediately after? Shooting from the hip?

 

[Dan123]

I’m surprised too. His point was valid, that 80,000 victims doesn’t mean 80,000 assailants. I don’t think it counteracts your original point though that the US has a major sexual assault issue that people should acknowledge before they judge other cultures for the same.

 

[philipl]

nope, just realizing that sometimes posting facts is a waste of time.

 

[philipl]

There is a huge difference. In Western Culture sexual assault is illegal where is some cultures that behavior is acceptable. facts and feelings are different and the only one that matters is facts.

 

[IsaiahSpirit]

Standing by way too much over gradually more and more over the decades,
with a clear disconnect from the 1990s with ‘grave moral’ language truths of not consenting to the deliberate murder of helpless children in the most immense mass murder by ideology in humankind’s history as opposed to other concerns
like serious society forces effecting the poor. Especially in regards to how many
ideologies and agenda in history were put forth using concern for the poor,
but disregarded the solidarity of the dignity and sacredness of life of every human
being - justifying their actions with ideological agendas.
Where is the loud persistent to raise awareness of things like Good Counsel Homes, and Sisters Of Life — with so many lacking an informed conscience;
where seeds of the word can be planted, consciences spared — and children’s
lives spared.
The Holy Spirit revealed this via “Evangelium Vitae,” “Living The Gospel of Life,”
and many Church writings. And it is no coincidence that John Cardinal O’Connor,
who received the Church’s Official Charism of Life asked John Paul ii to write
an Apostolic Exhortation on The Sacredness of Life, resulting in Evangelium Vitae.
And it is no coincidence that it was exactly 100 years after Leo xiii’s Encyclical “RERUM NOVARUM” warning of collectivism, which is alive and well today in disguise in the free nations.
Those who uncover these things, like Fr. Pacwa, show they are as true as the sky is blue. I can understand how concerns to help one another in society can cloud this, but it there is a ‘strong delusion,’ regarding certain sins of consenting, complacency, or omission in protecting helpless little children and their parents to have an informed conscience and laws to protect them. Creating a more and more Sacredness of Life atmosphere.
God commands this. “Speak up for people who cannot speak for themselves. Protect the rights of all who are helpless. Speak for them and be a righteous judge. Protect the rights of the poor and needy.” - Proverbs 31:8-9
Someone could use all the rhetoric in the world, and it has been done for
decades to cloud the issue, knowingly or unknowingly — but the response
in magnitude of the atrocity leaves much to be desired.
God help us!

 

[Erikaspirit16]

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.

Absolutely not. Luckily, almost all religions have a similar moral code, so things like rape (which seems to be a hot topic here…), murder, theft, etc. are all seen as evil by almost every religion.

Only if we have a strong consensus (exactly what percentage that is is debatable) are we justified in making an action illegal. For example, legally we can give blood transfusions to minor children of Seventh Day Adventists.

In the case of abortion, several major religions (Islam and Judaism, for example) have different standards than Catholics as to when a human being has a soul. In that case, there is no consensus, so there should not be a law against abortion that fits only one religion’s criterion.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Let me guess: we no longer need morality because of all the “smart” philosophers in universities?

 

[SuperLuigi]

In that case, there is no consensus, so there should not be a law against abortion that fits only one religion’s criterion.

Incorrect. The laws should be based reducing offenses against life as much as possible independent of what any religion says.

to Christian principles.

Absolutely not. Luckily, almost all religions have a similar moral code, so things like rape (which seems to be a hot topic here…), murder, theft, etc. are all seen as evil by almost every religion.

Not as simple as that to say the least.

 

[Brendan_64]

But you must admit that these ideas have a practical sensibility that we can all agree with despite having different beliefs.

Is there agreement between Christianity and secular society on what constitutes murder? Murder of the unborn for example?

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Incorrect. The laws should be based reducing offenses against life as much as possible independent of what any religion says.

But different religions / cultures have different definitions of when life begins. So you would impose your views on the majority who believe differently? And once you have done that (assuming you could), what happens when other religions want to impose their morality on you? You good with that?

Is there agreement between Christianity and secular society on what constitutes murder? Murder of the unborn for example?

Yes to your first question, though there may be exceptions I haven’t thought of. “Murder of the unborn,” as I’ve said, depends on your definition of “human life.” Different religions define it different ways–it’s NOT “Christianity vs. secular society” at all. Some other religions don’t consider first trimester abortions “murder.” It’s more like cutting your hair. You may disagree all you want, but the fact is that outlawing all abortion is a minority position in the US. And imposing your own definition of morality on others is a dangerous, slippery road.

 

[SuperLuigi]

But different religions / cultures have different definitions of when life begins. So you would impose you views on the majority who believe differently? And once you have done that (assuming you could), what happens when other religions want to impose their morality on you? You good with that?

In that case, different cultures have different ideas about what slavery is. Some of them also believe GLBTQ folks should be executed.

Should we accommodate those as well? You good with that?

 

[Erikaspirit16]

In that case, different cultures have different ideas about what slavery is. Some of them also believe GLBTQ folks should be executed.

Should we accommodate those as well? You good with that?

We’re not (at least I’m not) talking about some universal world-wide law. We’re talking about the legality of certain things in the US. If Uganda, for example, wants to make homosexuality illegal because that’s the consensus of opinion there, they can–and should. If you believe Trump and his “America First” you have to believe in “Uganda First” too. Slavery is a different matter, since the UN has outlawed it. If you’re saying some countries still have “slavery” under some other name, we can certainly try to change that, but ultimately it’s up to the citizens of those countries to change their laws.

By the way, I’m not suggesting that you can’t try to persuade people of the correctness of your point of view. Go for it. But if you look at statistics from c. 1973 to today, you’ll see public opinion overall has not changed. It does change based on how the question is asked though. You have to ask the same questions.

 

[edwest211]

I lived through 1973 till today and people were encouraged to change their behaviors from mostly functional to dysfunctional, and too many did. I’m referring to the West.

 

[Brendan_64]

You may disagree all you want, but the fact is that outlawing all abortion is a minority position in the US. And imposing your own definition of morality on others is a dangerous, slippery road.

So does liberal secular society not impose its own values on others?

And what about the innocent child in the womb who is killed as a result of the imposition of liberal secular values?

What of the down syndrome child killed shortly before birth as a result of ‘liberal progressive’ values being imposed, leading to the loss of her life?

 

[Thom18]

In response to the OP: not strictly religious beliefs, such as attending church, but we are within our rights to try and impose our morality on society- every single law in existence is an account of someone imposing their beliefs on society.

 

[edwest211]

Liberal secular society is being heavily promoted by the media. I watched how liberals changed things over the last 40 years and the media became their promotion machine. We, meaning Christians, have been lied to or told “see it our way.” Or laws get passed, like legalizing abortion in 1973, not by the people but by the US Supreme Court. Why do women want abortions? Because they’re going to have “a blob of tissue”? Of course not.