What's the best way to approach the "religion is infringing on my rights" argument that is often brought up?

[Rence]

We should reply that they don’t have to follow those rules. This is because you are referring to rules that are only Catholic rules, such as abstaining from meat on certain days. As a Catholic, if I were to say that an atheist must observe the same abstinence rules would be as unfair as it is for a Muslim to claim that a woman must cover her head.

However, I suspect that the OP was referring to more substantial things, such as abortion. If an atheist says that outlawing abortion is an imposition of religion, we should kindly point out that it has to do with biology and human rights, not religion.

Actualy, even the abortion issue has to do with religion. Specifically, most religions - though they forbid abortion – make exceptions when the woman’s life is in danger. The Catholic Church takes it the furthest with their no exception under any circumstances rule. So this part of it truly is a religion issue for most people.

If the topic is so-called gay marriage, then religion is again not essential to the discussion.

Actually it is – because the Church doesn’t recognize civil marriage for Catholics, and the State doesn’t recognize Sacramental marriage at all. People who are seeking SSM are doing so in the context of civil law, which has nothing to do with, and is completely separate from, Sacramental marriage.

My point is that the contentious issues that atheists like to blame on religious beliefs have been things that any society from the beginning of time has handled, regardless of beliefs about God. The cry of “you’re imposing your religious views on me” could be a diversion tactic, or it could be an opening to a meaningful discussion that reduces innocent ignorance.

But it’s true. If the contentious issues were really ‘universal laws’ such as ‘stealing is a crime’, and ‘murder is a crime’, then they wouldn’t be contentious issues. They are contentious issues because no one agrees completely with them in the same way.

 

[sedonaman]

How to turn the tables on a moral relativist.

Relativist: That’s the trouble with you religious. You always want to force you morality on everyone.

Me. What do mean my that?

Relativist: I think everyone should decide on what is moral.

Me: Does that mean I shouldn’t have an opinion

Relativist: You can have an opinion, but you shouldn’t force it on anyone.

Me: Is that your opinion?

Relativist: Well, yes.

Me: Then why are you forcing your opinion on me?

Relativist: Well I believe everyone should be able to decide what is right.

Me: That’s fine that you believe that, but what gives you the right to force your belief on me?

Relativist: Well, now you’re just confusing me.

Me: No, you were confused when you got here. I’m just helping you to see it.

Peace
David

That’s the problem with relativism: it doesn’t pass its own test.

 

[surritter]

Actualy, even the abortion issue has to do with religion. Specifically, most religions - though they forbid abortion – make exceptions when the woman’s life is in danger. The Catholic Church takes it the furthest with their no exception under any circumstances rule. So this part of it truly is a religion issue for most people.

Actually it is – because the Church doesn’t recognize civil marriage for Catholics, and the State doesn’t recognize Sacramental marriage at all. People who are seeking SSM are doing so in the context of civil law, which has nothing to do with, and is completely separate from, Sacramental marriage.

But it’s true. If the contentious issues were really ‘universal laws’ such as ‘stealing is a crime’, and ‘murder is a crime’, then they wouldn’t be contentious issues. They are contentious issues because no one agrees completely with them in the same way.

Rence, but that’s my point! These things that you claim to be religious-oriented are not. They are based on natural law, which is written on every human heart.

The life-in-danger dilemma regarding abortion shouldn’t be a dilemma. The bottom line is this: the ends never justify the means. This is religious? We are called to respect each other, and to directly kill a baby even if the mother is in danger is wrong. (Isn’t it strange that the a mother would willingly jump in front of a bus to save her week-old baby? Why not the same attitude to protect the child in the womb?)
So indeed it is a “universal law”; a law against killing the innocent (murder). Do an Internet search of the “trolley problem.”

Same with so-called “gay marriage” – if we really understood what marriage is, it wouldn’t be a problem. Marriage is the starting cell of a family. This is religious? No, it’s biology, and the realization by a non-religious state that a child needs that cell to remain intact. Yes, as Catholics we have had it elevated to a sacrament, but that’s not what is being discussed. (Recall that a Catholic can be in a valid marriage that is not sacramental.)

So if these are supposedly universal laws, you ask, why are they so contentious? Because of sin, and people’s unwillingness to turn from sin. It’s a problem as old as Adam and Eve. It ain’t rocket science; it’s a perhaps-unintentional strategy to justify sinful behavior.

 

[Rence]

Rence, but that’s my point! These things that you claim to be religious-oriented are not. They are based on natural law, which is written on every human heart.

But that’s my point as well. If they were ‘natural law’ and were ‘written on every human heart’, they would be contentious issues. That’s the point.

The life-in-danger dilemma regarding abortion shouldn’t be a dilemma.

But it is a dilemma. Otherwise, everyone would be on the same page and they’re not. This makes it a religous issue.

Same with so-called “gay marriage” – if we really understood what marriage is, it wouldn’t be a problem. Marriage is the starting cell of a family. This is religious?

Yes it is religious. There is nothing like Catholic Sacramental marriage with all its rules and laws. All other marriages are completely different, especially civil marriage, which is wide open without the rules and laws that accompany Sacramental marriage. Civil marriage, as evidenced by the high divorce and remarriage rate, is very disposable. Sacramental marriage is not.

So if these are supposedly universal laws, you ask, why are they so contentious? Because of sin, and people’s unwillingness to turn from sin. It’s a problem as old as Adam and Eve. It ain’t rocket science; it’s a perhaps-unintentional strategy to justify sinful behavior.

They are contentious because no one agrees and the only answers to the questions come from ‘morality’ which is defined by religion and even varies from religion to religion. Different religions teach them differently and members of each religion regard themselves as the only true religion. That makes it a religous issue. “Do not steal” on the other hand, is not a contentious issue and everyone agrees that ‘stealing is bad’.

 

[surritter]

But that’s my point as well. If they were ‘natural law’ and were ‘written on every human heart’, they would be contentious issues. That’s the point.

I don’t know what you mean here (unless you forgot a “not”). Are you saying that abortion and so-called “gay marriage” are not contentious? Or that objection to them is not written on the human heart?

But it is a dilemma. Otherwise, everyone would be on the same page and they’re not. This makeds it a religious issue.

I think there is confusion about “moral” vs. “religious.” Morality has to do with right and wrong in the natural order. Of course, religion teaches us to follow morality and to do what is right. But religion also provides us with doctrines and dogmas which are not “moral” issues – consider the dogma of Mary’s Assumption. It’s a part of our faith, but it’s not something that dictates right or wrong behavior in the natural order.
So terminology is important. For instance, in your earlier post you claimed that the concepts of “stealing is a crime” and “murder is a crime” are not contentious. So you were really saying that they are not moral issues? Does not compute.

Yes it is religious. There is nothing like Catholic Sacramental marriage with all its rules and laws. All other marriages are completely different, especially civil marriage, which is wide open without the rules and laws that accompany Sacramental marriage. Civil marriage, as evidenced by the high divorce and remarriage rate, is very disposable. Sacramental marriage is not.

I was talking about marriage as a state institution, not a sacrament. (Because that’s where the debate of “gay marriage” is centered, right?) But the lack of a sacramental character doesn’t make civil marriage “disposable,” as you claim! Why do you think governments even got into the business of certifying marriages? To protect new citizens (children), who deserve an intact cellular family in which to grow. It’s not an issue of arbitrary religion making up this thing about a mommy and a daddy.
Thus, a nonsacramental marriage is still bound by natural law – for instance, artificial contraception is wrong within any marriage, not just a Catholic marriage! (And the proscription against artificial contraception is not for dogmatic religious reasons, but because of the biological connection between the sexual act and reproduction.)

My original point was that it’s a disservice to paint all moral issues as religious issues, because that connotes that they are esoteric or something acquired by faith. The dogma of Mary’s Assumption? That’s a religious issue. But marriage as one man and one woman (even for irreligious people)? Or the protection of unborn children? Those concepts are not issues of revealed religion – they are written on every human’s heart, if they would only bother to form their consciences and listen.

 

[damian_clarke]

The whole thing is a trap. Obvioulsy religous observation must be kept out of other people’s lives. So we should not force atheists to attend mass on Sunday. So we all accept that. Atheists and secularists then try and square a circle with things like pornography, gambling, abortion etc. They say if you agree that religion is a private matter then these issues are purely religious and if you do not like porn for religious reasons that shoudl not be imposed on me. This is a false argument on two grounds. One is almost all of the above mentioned have real and sustainable objections based on pragmatic reason, gambling( impoverishing the poor and weak willed) porn ( degrading women and increasing sexualization amongst children etc). However there are also moral reasons for objecting to them. The atheists claim that there is no basis for morality so therefore we should not use the moral objections. This has been the whole basis of the sexual revolution. In 1955 everyone no matter how irreligious they were thought having an illegitimate child was problematic. Society accepted Judeo_Christian morality implicitly. Same with homosexual relationships and gambing. Now society does not implicitly accept our morality so we have difficulty using this argument. When we say gay marriage should not be allowed we have to base our objection of the basis of gay marriage undermines teh benefits of heterosexual marriage.

 

[Rence]

I don’t know what you mean here (unless you forgot a “not”). Are you saying that abortion and so-called “gay marriage” are not contentious? Or that objection to them is not written on the human heart?

Yes, I forgot a “not”. Sorry about that

I think there is confusion about “moral” vs. “religious.” Morality has to do with right and wrong in the natural order.

Morality has to do with right and wrong ‘in the natural order’ according to whom? Because, you realize, a muslim, Jew, Lutheran, etc. will disagree with a lot of the ‘morality’ as defined by a Catholic.

Of course, religion teaches us to follow morality and to do what is right. But religion also provides us with doctrines and dogmas which are not “moral” issues – consider the dogma of Mary’s Assumption. It’s a part of our faith, but it’s not something that dictates right or wrong behavior in the natural order.

But we’re not talking about doctines that define a religion’s teachings and theology.

So terminology is important. For instance, in your earlier post you claimed that the concepts of “stealing is a crime” and “murder is a crime” are not contentious. So you were really saying that they are not moral issues? Does not compute.

“Stealing is a crime” and “murder is a crime” are not contentious because everyone agrees that stealing is a crime and murder is a crime. They are universal laws. On the other hand, some rules of the Church are not as universal as we would like to believe. When you have different cultures and different religions all arguing about the ‘morality’ of a subject, it’s obviously not universal, otherwise we’d all agree.

I was talking about marriage as a state institution, not a sacrament. (Because that’s where the debate of “gay marriage” is centered, right?) But the lack of a sacramental character doesn’t make civil marriage “disposable,” as you claim! Why do you think governments even got into the business of certifying marriages? To protect new citizens (children) who deserve an intact cellular family in which to grow. It’s not an issue of arbitrary religion making up this thing about a mommy and a daddy.
Thus, a nonsacramental marriage is still bound by natural law – for instance, artificial contraception is wrong within any marriage, not just a Catholic marriage!

And yet other religions allow it. So it’s not true for people of those religions that ‘artificial contaception is wrong within any marriage’. This is where one is imposing their religious views on another party. Their religions allows it. They are living within the confines of their religion, so to them, it is not ‘wrong’.

My original point was that it’s a disservice to paint all moral issues as religious issues, because that connotes that they are esoteric or something acquired by faith.

No one is saying that all moral issues are religious issues. But when one religion says something is ‘wrong’, and other religions allow it, obviously those who belong to the religions that allows this ‘wrong’ are going to take issue. In this case, it is a religious issue.

 

[surritter]

Yes, I forgot a “not”. Sorry about that

No problem; I suspected that based on your other statements. More about this below.

Morality has to do with right and wrong ‘in the natural order’ according to whom? Because, you realize, a muslim, Jew, Lutheran, etc. will disagree with a lot of the ‘morality’ as defined by a Catholic.

But wait…

“Stealing is a crime” and “murder is a crime” are not contentious because everyone agrees that stealing is a crime and murder is a crime. They are universal laws.

So who decides which issues are universal laws? Is it simply whatever the majority of people seem to agree on? If I find a culture where something is common, does that make it OK for them? (Yes, according to your statements quoted below.)
The degree to which a culture or individual senses the universal right or wrong is wide-ranging, I admit. But that’s not because the issue is up for grabs. It’s because of many reasons such as ignorance, laziness, or a refusal to give up something we seemingly enjoy.

When you have different cultures and different religions all arguing about the ‘morality’ of a subject, it’s obviously not universal, otherwise we’d all agree.

Hmmm, weren’t there religions that sacrificed innocent people at one time? Who are we to say they are wrong? They would certainly argue that we were forcing our religious views upon them.

The logic you propose says that the only way we can know what is true is to look about and see if everyone else (or a majority) agrees about it.

And yet other religions allow it [artificial contraception]. So it’s not true for people of those religions that ‘artificial contraception is wrong within any marriage’. This is where one is imposing their religious views on another party. Their religions allows it. They are living within the confines of their religion, so to them, it is not ‘wrong’.

You propose an idea called moral relativism, whose adherents believe that there is no absolute truth, but that universal right or wrong can be voted upon or simply decided by each individual.
Contraception is indeed immoral in any marriage! It’s not OK just because they think to themselves that it’s no problem. (I’m not implying personal culpability on anyone who does this. I’m just talking about the objective morality of it.) Numerous threads can help you learn why it is an issue of natural law (separating the “love” aspect of sex from the “life” aspect). I think this would be a good point to help you see what I’m saying. It’s not like the rule for going to Mass on Sunday or abstaining from meat. Those are not based on natural law.

No one is saying that all moral issues are religious issues. But when one religion says something is ‘wrong’, and other religions allow it, obviously those who belong to the religions that allows this ‘wrong’ are going to take issue. In this case, it is a religious issue.

OK – I get that idea now. The fact that lines of division about an issue are drawn around religious groups does make it fall under “party lines” and we can call it a religious issue. I was simply saying that the reasoning behind a moral issue is grounded in natural law, not a decision by a church leader. Recall that Protestants also forbade contraception before 1930. Did the truth about sex happen to change for them? Or did they “discover” that their earlier proclamations about its immorality were wrong all along?

 

[Rence]

But wait…
So who decides which issues are universal laws? Is it simply whatever the majority of people seem to agree on? If I find a culture where something is common, does that make it OK for them? (Yes, according to your statements quoted below.)

Well, let me put it this way because it’s really the only way I know how. I wouldn’t want the morals of the society in which I lived decided on by muslims who make their women cover from head to toe and imprison them if a patch of skin is showing, if they get raped, if they are ‘accused’ of infidelity, etc. I’m very grateful for the society in which I live and wouldn’t want extreme muslim laws carved into civil law. A muslim man and I can argue until we’re blue in the face, but my morals are more worthy than his, and I’m sure he feels the same.

The degree to which a culture or individual senses the universal right or wrong is wide-ranging, I admit. But that’s not because the issue is up for grabs. It’s because of many reasons such as ignorance, laziness, or a refusal to give up something we seemingly enjoy.Hmmm, weren’t there religions that sacrificed innocent people at one time? Who are we to say they are wrong? They would certainly argue that we were forcing our religious views upon them.

Ok, well, the same can be said of the early Catholic times when ‘heretics’ were burned at the stake, or tortured during the inquisitions. You’ll see people on this forum not really “defend” it but “understand it” in it’s “context” and say that those involved were correct in the times in which they lived. So what does that mean? It means all societies and cultures have their moments of shame, that’s what that means. But it also means we should be growing and evolving as a culture so that what was done before, and proven wrong, doesn’t get done again.

The logic you propose says that the only way we can know what is true is to look about and see if everyone else (or a majority) agrees about it.

Not exactly, but it’s pretty obvious that when one (or few) demographics in the world are claiming that they are right and everyone else is wrong, they have to know they stand alone on a particular thought or action. It’s not always about looking around and seeing what the majority is doing. It’s also looking at what one group is demanding of the rest of the world.

You propose an idea called moral relativism, whose adherents believe that there is no absolute truth, but that universal right or wrong can be voted upon or simply decided by each individual.
Contraception is indeed immoral in any marriage! It’s not OK just because they think to themselves that it’s no problem. (I’m not implying personal culpability on anyone who does this. I’m just talking about the objective morality of it.) Numerous threads can help you learn why it is an issue of natural law (separating the “love” aspect of sex from the “life” aspect). I think this would be a good point to help you see what I’m saying. It’s not like the rule for going to Mass on Sunday or abstaining from meat. Those are not based on natural law.

As a Catholic, I know that the Church teaches that contraception is immoral in any marriage. The Jewish couple down the street are taught something different. They are allowed to use contraception in certain circumstances. The Lutherans, Baptists, JWs, etc. are all allowed by their religions to use contraception in their marriages. So all these others don’t teach that it’s immoral. I don’t need to read the various threads, I already know why the Catholic Church teaches about contraceptives. And I assure you, other people of other religions feel the same way about what their religion teaches.

OK – I get that idea now. The fact that lines of division about an issue are drawn around religious groups does make it fall under “party lines” and we can call it a religious issue. I was simply saying that the reasoning behind a moral issue is grounded in natural law, not a decision by a church leader.

Actually, the reasoning behind these moral issues is grounded in ‘natural law’ as defined by the Church, which again, points to a religious issue. We can argue that it’s a natural law but natural law for Catholics is defined by the Church, and natural law for non-Catholics is defined by a person’s own religion. I can assure you, regardless of how we feel about it, the rules and laws of the Church (tho those who are not Catholic) are nothing more than rules and laws made by Church leaders. They don’t care what the Church says, because their rules are defined by their own spiritual guides.

Recall that Protestants also forbade contraception before 1930. Did the truth about sex happen to change for them? Or did they “discover” that their earlier proclamations about its immorality were wrong all along?

The evolved, like everyone else. They changed with the additional information that they gleaned from life experiences. Everyone thought the world was flat at one point, and now we know that’s not true. We ‘discovered’ they were previously wrong and had to rethink their views of the world.

 

[surritter]

But your common mantra is that all these things revolve around what a particular group teaches. I’m saying it should all be based on truth. And it’s not the kind of truth that is revealed; it is truth based in logic and reason. If my society began to impose the harsh Muslim disciplines you speak of, then I would certainly object, not because of what my Catholic faith teaches, but because of what is right and true. You mention heretics being tortured/burned, but recall that those were carried out by the state (with the tacit approval by Church leaders), and recall that those things were not Church teaching; they were merely disciplinary actions. Big difference. We say that the Church is infallible in “faith and morals.” And we are discussing morals, so the Church has never wavered in these teachings.

I suspect you’ll disagree, but our ideas as Catholics about contraception are based on truth. That means that it should be able to be explained by logic and reason, not pointing to a leader’s proclamation.
I don’t care what any particular religion teaches; if given an opportunity, I would gently explain to a Lutheran or Jew why contraception violates natural law and is thus harming their marriage. If they claim that I am imposing my religious views on them, I would guide them toward the biological purpose of sex, and try to show them how it must be engaged in within the context of love and an openness to life. This is about truth and biology (and honesty), not religion.

If you know why the Church is against contraception, and you are a Catholic, why would you say that it’s not immoral for others to engage in it? As I wrote before, a Lutheran couple is probably not in mortal sin, but contraception is a hindrance in their marital life, whether they know it or not. Wouldn’t you like to help them improve their marriage by living within the truth? Or are you more concerned with disturbing their religious views?

I’m probably not going to convince you, but it’s a good discussion we’ve got going.

 

[sedonaman]

…
So who decides which issues are universal laws? Is it simply whatever the majority of people seem to agree on? If I find a culture where something is common, does that make it OK for them? (Yes, according to your statements quoted below.)
The degree to which a culture or individual senses the universal right or wrong is wide-ranging, I admit. But that’s not because the issue is up for grabs. It’s because of many reasons such as ignorance, laziness, or a refusal to give up something we seemingly enjoy.Hmmm, weren’t there religions that sacrificed innocent people at one time? Who are we to say they are wrong? They would certainly argue that we were forcing our religious views upon them.

The logic you propose says that the only way we can know what is true is to look about and see if everyone else (or a majority) agrees about it.

You propose an idea called moral relativism, whose adherents believe that there is no absolute truth, but that universal right or wrong can be voted upon or simply decided by each individual.
Contraception is indeed immoral in any marriage! It’s not OK just because they think to themselves that it’s no problem. (I’m not implying personal culpability on anyone who does this. I’m just talking about the objective morality of it.) Numerous threads can help you learn why it is an issue of natural law (separating the “love” aspect of sex from the “life” aspect). I think this would be a good point to help you see what I’m saying. It’s not like the rule for going to Mass on Sunday or abstaining from meat. Those are not based on natural law.

OK – I get that idea now. The fact that lines of division about an issue are drawn around religious groups does make it fall under “party lines” and we can call it a religious issue. I was simply saying that the reasoning behind a moral issue is grounded in natural law, not a decision by a church leader. Recall that Protestants also forbade contraception before 1930. Did the truth about sex happen to change for them? Or did they “discover” that their earlier proclamations about its immorality were wrong all along?

Do universal laws exist?

…

I propose a simple challenge to those who still need to be convinced of my central proposition: that a moral code exists within us that is independent of what men think, do, are genetically, learn from others, where they live, and just as important, when they lived. What I say will be as true for someone living today in Buenos Aries, or in Kentucky in 1947, as it will be for an Egyptian pharaoh centuries earlier, or a human being born 1,000 years in the future.

Here’s the challenge.

Walk into a crowded public place and yell at the top of your voice, “I love the XYZ football team/chocolate donuts/long walks in the moonlight!” See if anyone looks at you with revulsion. They may think you’ve had too much coffee or too much sugar that morning, or your choice of football team completely sucks, or make some other relatively benign personal observation. But they won’t run away in horror or call the police.
Now do the same exact thing, but instead yell, “I love to rape and kill little children!” You don’t even have to be any more graphic than that.

Now I ask those of you who think my belief in a universal moral code is wrong to guess how many people will have shouted “Me too!” or “Tell us how you would do it!” as opposed to, “I’m going to kill you myself right now you perverted son of a *****!” It will be interesting to hear what the person accepting this challenge reports back. That is, if he hasn’t been beaten into a coma by the people who attacked him after he shouted.
…

“What kind of car would Jesus drive to take his girlfriend to an abortion clinic?”
By Phillip Ellis Jackson
intellectualconservative.com/2006/what-kind-of-car-would-jesus-drive-to-take-his-girlfriend-to-an-abortion-clinic/