[joelsdad]

http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=UTF-8&p=persecution+of+Christians+in+America&xargs=&b=1

Another central site with hundreds of web sites documenting persecution of Christians around th eworld and in America (some sites good, some just op ed pieces)

[Ridley's Own]

I particularly enjoyed the first one...

[Chrysostom]

(Previous) Yes, you can give specific instances of this kind of abstinence. However, no matter what happens, you will act from the foundation of your moral view of the world. Therefore, when you interact with other people, your moral view of the world will rub off.

(JerryLove) How can you equivocate what "rubs off" with a demand for moral conduct?

(Me) The word would be 'relate' or 'equate', not equivocate. I was about to argue for/explain my statement here.



(Previous) If you do not, you're not really going to meaningfully interact with society at all. For, if you do not express your likes and dislikes, whether moral or aesthetic, whether verbally or non-verbally, whether explicitly or implicitly, then you are not communicating with anyone. And if you are not communicating with anyone, then you are not meaningfully interacting with anyone.

(JerryLove) Again, you equivocate personal interaction (behaving in an internally moral fashion) with enforcement of morals as law or in practice.

(Me) Preliminary question: are we talking about only the civil government here, or are we going to include personal interaction at all?




(Previous) The case of law-makers is especially explicit. Every law they make is a moral one, because every law they make carries with it information about what they think about how government should be run, what kind of control it should have, what its functions should be, how society should be, and so on.

(JerryLove) But the root of these decisions need not be moral:

Law should serve one end, to protect me. Laws are not to create or envorce morals, but to ensure my protection.

See, no moral. I don't talk about "good and evil" simply the purpose with which I would choose to enter into government, just like one has a purpose for joining the boy-scouts.

(Me) The root of those decisions is necessarily moral/ethical. For one example, see your justification: "Law are... to ensure my protection." This is based on a fundamentally moral/ethical view: specifically, that you think that you should protect yourself. Additionally, what you do not do with laws is also completely based on your moral view about the world (except when "abnormal" circumstances prevent it). For one example of that, the fact that you think it is wrong to make laws that are based in your view of morality is a completely moral view, and is reflected in the laws you would choose to make.




(Previous) The question is not whether or not we'll try to "force" our beliefs on others. The question is only the way we'll choose to do it.

(JerryLove) Your opinions leaking out, and a decision to compel others to conform to your morality are not the same thing. Stop equivocating.

(Me) Trying to communicate with others without pushing your own moral viewpoint is like doing math for someone in binary and not expecting them to learn how to deal with non-10 bases (in this case, base 2). Everything you say to them is grounded in your philosophy of life, so everything you say to them includes all the information about your philosophy of life. Therefore, the question is not whether or not you will influence others with your philosophy of life, try to push your philosophy of life, and so on; rather, the question is how actively you will do it. Some may, indeed, do so in a passive way. But, of course, passive influence (or, more appropriately, subtle influence), is generally the most effective.

[joelsdad]

Pretty much every bombing of an abotrion center... would you like me to cite one or do you accept their existance?

Name one mainstream Christian Church or even mainstream Christian organization that approves of bombing abortion clinics and murdering baby killers.


certinal pro-life organizations which have encouraged or condoned such behavior

Which ones--are they mainstream or considered way out on the fringes. Careful how you answer lest you accept things that the extreme left fringes do as considered mainstream thought for secularists and atheists.

[JerryLove]

Website postin g verbatim , the humanist manifestos 1 and 2 and showing some of the very influential signatories.

Another nice web site against Christianity and religion.

Another central site with hundreds of web sites documenting persecution of Christians around th eworld and in America (some sites good, some just op ed pieces)

Connect the dots for me, because I see no relevence at all to the current discussions going on.

1. Weather there is persecution of Atheists by Christians.
2. Weather there are US laws in place which persecute Christians/Theists

These are the two issues at hand, please deal with-them before starting a pity party over how badly someone in Germany talks about Christians.

Which ones--are they mainstream or considered way out on the fringes. Careful how you answer lest you accept things that the extreme left fringes do as considered mainstream thought for secularists and atheists.

So you take another step back and draw a new line in the sand.

You start with "No Christians persecute Atheists" and move back to something like "No mainstreem organizations that I accept as Christian have put on record something you can point to as persecution" (assuming you even manage to win that point) and then declare victory on your original topic.

I don't need to establish anything about statements made by main-stream pro-life groups.. I just need to establish that a Christian persecuted an Atheist for being Atheist or Atheist behavior (OK, 2).

[JerryLove]

The word would be 'relate' or 'equate', not equivocate. I was about to argue for/explain my statement here.

So you avoid the question by arguing the semantics...

You said:
but it is no complaint at all to say that a worldview is "attempting to impose its religious and moral beliefs on the country." All worldviews do that, no matter the case.

Then when I argued it, you defended it but rephrased as:
Yes, you can give specific instances of this kind of abstinence. However, no matter what happens, you will act from the foundation of your moral view of the world. Therefore, when you interact with other people, your moral view of the world will rub off.

There is a distinct difference between my beliefs rubbing off in my actions, and me imposing my beliefs on others... use what ever piece of syntax you like, your second argument is different from your first without admitting the concession. You are acting as though proving "rubbing off" will prove "imposing" (what was the name of that fallacy again?)

Preliminary question: are we talking about only the civil government here, or are we going to include personal interaction at all?

We are talking about actions which impose one persons standard of behavior on another person for the sole purpose of enforcing a percieved moral.

The root of those decisions is necessarily moral/ethical. For one example, see your justification: "Law are... to ensure my protection." This is based on a fundamentally moral/ethical view: specifically, that you think that you should protect yourself.

That's a personal decision, not a moral I'm imposing on others.. They may protect themselves or not as they see fit.

Additionally, what you do not do with laws is also completely based on your moral view about the world (except when "abnormal" circumstances prevent it). For one example of that, the fact that you think it is wrong to make laws that are based in your view of morality is a completely moral view, and is reflected in the laws you would choose to make.

And yet not imposing my moral views cannot be imposing my moral views (reflexive, if NOT x then NOT x) regardless of my motivation.

Trying to communicate with others without pushing your own moral viewpoint is like doing math for someone in binary and not expecting them to learn how to deal with non-10 bases (in this case, base 2). Everything you say to them is grounded in your philosophy of life, so everything you say to them includes all the information about your philosophy of life.

But I am using no compulsion to make them follow my morals... that was the issue, not weather I might infuence.

Therefore, the question is not whether or not you will influence others with your philosophy of life, try to push your philosophy of life, and so on; rather, the question is how actively you will do it. Some may, indeed, do so in a passive way. But, of course, passive influence (or, more appropriately, subtle influence), is generally the most effective.

No, the question is weather "
"All worldviews do that [attempt to impose its religious and moral beliefs on the country.]"

[Chrysostom]

(Previous) The word would be 'relate' or 'equate', not equivocate. I was about to argue for/explain my statement here.

(JerryLove) So you avoid the question by arguing the semantics...

(Me) It's not semantics. Using the word 'equivocate' assumes that I have made an error. The reason that I answered nothing else you had said there is that, as I noted, my justification for the statement immediately followed.



(Previous) Preliminary question: are we talking about only the civil government here, or are we going to include personal interaction at all?

(JerryLove) We are talking about actions which impose one persons standard of behavior on another person for the sole purpose of enforcing a percieved moral.

(Me) If it is "for the sole purpose of enforcing a percieved moral," then I doubt that anyone has ever been guilty of this, Christian or non-Christian. There are always other reasons involved. For instance, someone might want to outlaw prostitution because it's immoral, and they want to protect girls from that, and they're mad at prostitutes, and so on. So, "sole" is a poor choice of words.

However, if you're going to allow any behavior, personal or otherwise, you impose these kinds of ethics all the time. You honk at people when they drive poorly. You defend yourself when attacked. You respond in disgust when insulted. I could continue this. No matter what you do, you are going to "impose" your ethics on others.



(Previous) The root of those decisions is necessarily moral/ethical. For one example, see your justification: "Law are... to ensure my protection." This is based on a fundamentally moral/ethical view: specifically, that you think that you should protect yourself.

(JerryLove) That's a personal decision, not a moral I'm imposing on others.. They may protect themselves or not as they see fit.

(Me) But you're using your view of ethics in order to make decisions about what you think other people should be required to do. You're saying that you wish other people wouldn't hurt you because of your view of ethics, and you're going to do what you can to impose upon them the requirement that they follow that rule (by not hurting you).



(Previous) Additionally, what you do not do with laws is also completely based on your moral view about the world (except when "abnormal" circumstances prevent it). For one example of that, the fact that you think it is wrong to make laws that are based in your view of morality is a completely moral view, and is reflected in the laws you would choose to make.

(JerryLove) And yet not imposing my moral views cannot be imposing my moral views (reflexive, if NOT x then NOT x) regardless of my motivation.

(Me) Indeed! But this does not deal with my argument, for I showed that you cannot escape making laws on the basis of your view of morality.



(Previous) Trying to communicate with others without pushing your own moral viewpoint is like doing math for someone in binary and not expecting them to learn how to deal with non-10 bases (in this case, base 2). Everything you say to them is grounded in your philosophy of life, so everything you say to them includes all the information about your philosophy of life.

(JerryLove) But I am using no compulsion to make them follow my morals... that was the issue, not weather I might infuence.

(Me) It depends on the kind of compulsion it is about which you are speaking. If that kind of compulsion is physical, then I certainly agree. However, social pressure is much more effective than physical force.




(Previous) Therefore, the question is not whether or not you will influence others with your philosophy of life, try to push your philosophy of life, and so on; rather, the question is how actively you will do it. Some may, indeed, do so in a passive way. But, of course, passive influence (or, more appropriately, subtle influence), is generally the most effective.

(JerryLove) No, the question is weather "
"All worldviews do that [attempt to impose its religious and moral beliefs on the country.]"

(Me) Take the humanistic worldviews. Read the Humanist Manifestos. They clearly outline a view which will try to push itself.

See the obsession with telling people "who are you to tell me what I should believe?" In other words, they require their interlocutor to not tell them what they should believe -- in other words, they are telling their interlocutors what to believe!

See art, and so on, as I already mentioned. Literature, film, etc. are obviously attempts to communicate from one's worldview to other particular individuals.

[JerryLove]

If it is "for the sole purpose of enforcing a percieved moral," then I doubt that anyone has ever been guilty of this, Christian or non-Christian. There are always other reasons involved. For instance, someone might want to outlaw prostitution because it's immoral, and they want to protect girls from that, and they're mad at prostitutes, and so on. So, "sole" is a poor choice of words.

What justification for prohibiting oral sex exists other than a moral one?

However, if you're going to allow any behavior, personal or otherwise, you impose these kinds of ethics all the time.

No, I cannot impose by not acting.. it's oxymoronic.

You honk at people when they drive poorly. You defend yourself when attacked. You respond in disgust when insulted. I could continue this. No matter what you do, you are going to "impose" your ethics on others.

That's personally acting within my ethics. If I take away someone's ability to drive because I think they were driving in an immoral manner; I've imposed my morals.

But you're using your view of ethics in order to make decisions about what you think other people should be required to do. You're saying that you wish other people wouldn't hurt you because of your view of ethics, and you're going to do what you can to impose upon them the requirement that they follow that rule (by not hurting you).

But it's not a moral. I'm protecting myself from others; this is not forcing them to a moral law.

Indeed! But this does not deal with my argument, for I showed that you cannot escape making laws on the basis of your view of morality.

"I want to be ssafe" is not a moral view, therefore I am not.

It depends on the kind of compulsion it is about which you are speaking. If that kind of compulsion is physical, then I certainly agree. However, social pressure is much more effective than physical force.

Social pressure to leave is more effective than two big guys picking you up and throwing you out? Support that.

Take the humanistic worldviews. Read the Humanist Manifestos. They clearly outline a view which will try to push itself.

Anticdotal.. I'm not talking about the authors of that.

See art, and so on, as I already mentioned. Literature, film, etc. are obviously attempts to communicate from one's worldview to other particular individuals.

You still ignore the distinction between influence and force. When I start protesting Christians acting morally as opressive, or having shows with Christian morals in them, they you will have a valid response.

Since I have no problem distingushing the difference between the Christians around me placing social inference, and a law being in-place prohibiting activity based on a moral premise, you should not either.

It really is both simple and clear... there really are good bright-line tests... I don't know why you either refuse to see them, or pretend you dont... I know your smarter than this.

[Chrysostom]

(Previous) If it is "for the sole purpose of enforcing a percieved moral," then I doubt that anyone has ever been guilty of this, Christian or non-Christian. There are always other reasons involved. For instance, someone might want to outlaw prostitution because it's immoral, and they want to protect girls from that, and they're mad at prostitutes, and so on. So, "sole" is a poor choice of words.

(JerryLove) What justification for prohibiting oral sex exists other than a moral one?

(Me) This is an unfitting question, because all actions are fundamentally rooted in ethics. To the question you're really asking: someone might choose to outlaw oral sex because they think it's immoral, because they think it's gross, because they are mad that other people get it and they don't, and so on.



(Previous) However, if you're going to allow any behavior, personal or otherwise, you impose these kinds of ethics all the time.

(JerryLove) No, I cannot impose by not acting.. it's oxymoronic.

(Me) None of the examples that followed were related to not acting. However, I've argued at other places that many cases of "not acting" are actually acting, because the absence itself is experienced by others. For instance, if there is a train on its way off a cliff, and I can pull the lever to save it, but I don't, my "not acting" is, effectively, an "action." More importantly, when a father often tells his son what that son has done wrong, but never tells his son what the son does right, the "not acting" is, in effect, an action.



(Previous) You honk at people when they drive poorly. You defend yourself when attacked. You respond in disgust when insulted. I could continue this. No matter what you do, you are going to "impose" your ethics on others.

(JerryLove) That's personally acting within my ethics. If I take away someone's ability to drive because I think they were driving in an immoral manner; I've imposed my morals.

(Me) By honking, you've communicated to them that they should have acted otherwise. By defending yourself, you communicate to them that they should have ated otherwise.


The crucial distinction between the actual claim I made ("All worldviews do that") and the claim it's becoming in your arguments ("all human actions do that") needs to be heeded.



(Previous) But you're using your view of ethics in order to make decisions about what you think other people should be required to do. You're saying that you wish other people wouldn't hurt you because of your view of ethics, and you're going to do what you can to impose upon them the requirement that they follow that rule (by not hurting you).

(JerryLove) But it's not a moral. I'm protecting myself from others; this is not forcing them to a moral law.

(Me) This is forcing to act them in accordance with your view of ethics.




(Previous) Indeed! But this does not deal with my argument, for I showed that you cannot escape making laws on the basis of your view of morality.

(JerryLove) "I want to be ssafe" is not a moral view, therefore I am not.

(Me) But you're trying to impose your desires (your own safety) on others. And, fundamentally, the desire to be safe comes out morally because the standard for your actions -- e.g., "I will try to achieve what I want" -- is.



(Previous) It depends on the kind of compulsion it is about which you are speaking. If that kind of compulsion is physical, then I certainly agree. However, social pressure is much more effective than physical force.

(JerryLove) Social pressure to leave is more effective than two big guys picking you up and throwing you out? Support that.

(Me) Social pressure is more effective because you can make the person not want to be there at all, so they will leave of their own accord and never return. If two guys throw you out, you may easily try to sneak in again. However, if you strike at the root -- the person's desire to be there -- you have changed the person.

Additionally, kicking someone out can have all sorts of adverse effects -- e.g., that they will dislike you. This may breed hatred, and thus retribution. A supposed friend who is actually your enemy is much more devastating that a known enemy.



(Previous) Take the humanistic worldviews. Read the Humanist Manifestos. They clearly outline a view which will try to push itself.

(JerryLove) Anticdotal.. I'm not talking about the authors of that.

(Me) These examples are present in any system of thought. It's a case example.

I mentioned the Humanist Manifestos specifically because humanists are supposed to be the ones promoting tolerance and keeping we "evil Christians" from "imposing" our thoughts about morality on others.



(Previous) See art, and so on, as I already mentioned. Literature, film, etc. are obviously attempts to communicate from one's worldview to other particular individuals.

(JerryLove) You still ignore the distinction between influence and force. When I start protesting Christians acting morally as opressive, or having shows with Christian morals in them, they you will have a valid response.

Since I have no problem distingushing the difference between the Christians around me placing social inference, and a law being in-place prohibiting activity based on a moral premise, you should not either.

(Me) You're changing the issue (as I already pointed out). I've talking about all worldviews pushing their philosophy.

And again, if you just want to talk about civil laws, I've already presented an argument. To re-hash: the way we think government and society ought to be is ultimately based in our ethical view of reality, so the way we try to get government to be (esp. through laws) will be ultimately based in our view of morality.




(JerryLove) It really is both simple and clear... there really are good bright-line tests... I don't know why you either refuse to see them, or pretend you dont... I know your smarter than this.

(Me) And I should hope that you are more intelligent than you have appeared in our recent discussions.

[joelsdad]

1. Weather there is persecution of Atheists by Christians.
2. Weather there are US laws in place which persecute Christians/Theists


Okay Jerry to answer your 2 questions, yes there is persecution of Atheists by Christians in this country unfortunately. This is wrong on the part of Christians.

as to question 2 there are no specific laws that have been passed by legislatures that I know of that persecute Christians/theists/taoists/buddhists/hindus/muslims etc. Their have been court opinions and interpretations of law that have narrowed the scope of the practice of Chritianity in this land however. Whereas Mcguffies eclectic readers were wiely used in this land up until the early 60's they since have been removed from the public schools , not because of their inadequacy but because of their religious content. I guess I phrased my point very poorly, for this is the kind of deterioration of Christianity thatr is contuing to take place even now.

Despite you r listing of crimes in this country (which every country has religious or secular) where Biblical based Christianity was predominant in a local culture-crimme was down, caring and giving was up.

[joelsdad]

http://www.rutherford.org/resources/...t.asp#students

Here is an actual website with cases that are in courts or have gone beofre courts concerning Christians in schools, work and public life.

[JerryLove]

This is an unfitting question, because all actions are fundamentally rooted in ethics. To the question you're really asking: someone might choose to outlaw oral sex because they think it's immoral, because they think it's gross, because they are mad that other people get it and they don't, and so on.

Indistinct variations of the same thing. A law exists primarily to protect or impose. There is no protection in outlawing oral sex, ergo it imposes. Why does it impose? External moral? Internal moral? Sense of "grossness"? A feeling of being "left out"? Doesn't really matter in damning it as a bad law.

That said, I cannot believe you would make a good-faith argument that this law exists from some other pretext than a Christian moral one.

None of the examples that followed were related to not acting. However, I've argued at other places that many cases of "not acting" are actually acting, because the absence itself is experienced by others. For instance, if there is a train on its way off a cliff, and I can pull the lever to save it, but I don't, my "not acting" is, effectively, an "action." More importantly, when a father often tells his son what that son has done wrong, but never tells his son what the son does right, the "not acting" is, in effect, an action.

I did not claim that non-action did not carry consequences.. I said it could not be defined as "imposing".

By honking, you've communicated to them that they should have acted otherwise. By defending yourself, you communicate to them that they should have ated otherwise.

The crucial distinction between the actual claim I made ("All worldviews do that") and the claim it's becoming in your arguments ("all human actions do that") needs to be heeded.

The distinction you ignore is the one of "imposing vs illustrating". I do not impose good driving by being angry at bad driving... more to the point, my personal actions do not a law make.

Feel free to tell your children to not have sex till they get married... for that matter, feel free to buy TV time to send the same message. You'll notice I never complain about that. Ever wonder why? Because it's not imposing.

This is forcing to act them in accordance with your view of ethics.

No, it's forcing them not to damage my safety... It's not a moral imposition.

But you're trying to impose your desires (your own safety) on others. And, fundamentally, the desire to be safe comes out morally because the standard for your actions -- e.g., "I will try to achieve what I want" -- is.

It's not a moral, it's a desire.. there is a reason these words are not synonyms.

Social pressure is more effective because you can make the person not want to be there at all, so they will leave of their own accord and never return. If two guys throw you out, you may easily try to sneak in again. However, if you strike at the root -- the person's desire to be there -- you have changed the person.

Fine, I will shoot and kill you as my form of physical compulsion. Find me a more effective social pressure.

Additionally, kicking someone out can have all sorts of adverse effects -- e.g., that they will dislike you. This may breed hatred, and thus retribution. A supposed friend who is actually your enemy is much more devastating that a known enemy.

Hypothetical... social pressure to conform can cause them to rebell and bring some guns into school and start shooting... happens with annoying frequency. Please try to avoide speculation on potentials unless you have hard data for comparison.

I mentioned the Humanist Manifestos specifically because humanists are supposed to be the ones promoting tolerance and keeping we "evil Christians" from "imposing" our thoughts about morality on others.

I'm talking about me, and have no desire to see which of the two of us know more quotes from someone I don't give a rat's *** about.

You're changing the issue (as I already pointed out). I've talking about all worldviews pushing their philosophy.

I objected to imposing morals I don't care weather all worldviews push their philosophy through behavior of their adherents (though I don't agree with that claim either, it's irrellevent)... I care about using moral grounds in order to impose behaviors... in other-words (and as I have said from the beginning) passing laws which seek to impose the morals of one worldview on everyone.

And again, if you just want to talk about civil laws, I've already presented an argument. To re-hash: the way we think government and society ought to be is ultimately based in our ethical view of reality, so the way we try to get government to be (esp. through laws) will be ultimately based in our view of morality.

And my view is not to impose my view... merely to enter into a compact which insures my protection.

And I should hope that you are more intelligent than you have appeared in our recent discussions.

Careful John.

[Chrysostom]

(Previous) This is an unfitting question, because all actions are fundamentally rooted in ethics. To the question you're really asking: someone might choose to outlaw oral sex because they think it's immoral, because they think it's gross, because they are mad that other people get it and they don't, and so on.

(JerryLove) Indistinct variations of the same thing. A law exists primarily to protect or impose. There is no protection in outlawing oral sex, ergo it imposes. Why does it impose? External moral? Internal moral? Sense of "grossness"? A feeling of being "left out"? Doesn't really matter in damning it as a bad law.

That said, I cannot believe you would make a good-faith argument that this law exists from some other pretext than a Christian moral one.

(Me) My original claim was that 'sole' was an improper/inexact choice. Nothing you've said here engages my argument relating to that. I never made any claims about all reasons being justified. I just made claims about actual reasons for law-making.



(Previous) None of the examples that followed were related to not acting. However, I've argued at other places that many cases of "not acting" are actually acting, because the absence itself is experienced by others. For instance, if there is a train on its way off a cliff, and I can pull the lever to save it, but I don't, my "not acting" is, effectively, an "action." More importantly, when a father often tells his son what that son has done wrong, but never tells his son what the son does right, the "not acting" is, in effect, an action.

(JerryLove) I did not claim that non-action did not carry consequences.. I said it could not be defined as "imposing".

(Me) Trying to keep "moral" laws off the books is certainly "imposing" (as you're imposing your desire to keep "moral" laws off the books).



(JerryLove) By honking, you've communicated to them that they should have acted otherwise. By defending yourself, you communicate to them that they should have ated otherwise.

The crucial distinction between the actual claim I made ("All worldviews do that") and the claim it's becoming in your arguments ("all human actions do that") needs to be heeded.

(JerryLove) The distinction you ignore is the one of "imposing vs illustrating". I do not impose good driving by being angry at bad driving... more to the point, my personal actions do not a law make.

(Me) Your honking is "imposing" because it provides negative consequences to an action you wish would not occur.



(JerryLove) Feel free to tell your children to not have sex till they get married... for that matter, feel free to buy TV time to send the same message. You'll notice I never complain about that. Ever wonder why? Because it's not imposing.

(Me) I'm starting to get very confused. How is fining people for speeding any less "imposing" than forcefully telling people not to speed? Either way, it's an attempt to cause others to follow the rules you want them to follow.

Look, if all you're saying is that not all people send others to jail for doing things that they don't like, then sure that's true. I just don't see how that's nearly as important a claim as I'm making (specifically, that all worldviews attempt to bring others to accept them).




(Previous) This is forcing to act them in accordance with your view of ethics.

(JerryLove) No, it's forcing them not to damage my safety... It's not a moral imposition.

(Me) See below:



(Previous) But you're trying to impose your desires (your own safety) on others. And, fundamentally, the desire to be safe comes out morally because the standard for your actions -- e.g., "I will try to achieve what I want" -- is.

(JerryLove) It's not a moral, it's a desire.. there is a reason these words are not synonyms.

(Me) How you think people should act is ethical.



(Previous) Social pressure is more effective because you can make the person not want to be there at all, so they will leave of their own accord and never return. If two guys throw you out, you may easily try to sneak in again. However, if you strike at the root -- the person's desire to be there -- you have changed the person.

(JerryLove) Fine, I will shoot and kill you as my form of physical compulsion. Find me a more effective social pressure.

(Me) See below:



(Previous) Additionally, kicking someone out can have all sorts of adverse effects -- e.g., that they will dislike you. This may breed hatred, and thus retribution. A supposed friend who is actually your enemy is much more devastating that a known enemy.

(JerryLove) Hypothetical... social pressure to conform can cause them to rebell and bring some guns into school and start shooting... happens with annoying frequency. Please try to avoide speculation on potentials unless you have hard data for comparison.

(Me) You're equating social pressure with social force. Telling someone that you're going to mock them (a social consequence) is similar to telling someone that you're going to kick them. However, building within them your presuppositions will change them fundamentally. Take, for instance, a person I met last year. He was a legalistic racist. Now he is fairly tolerant. Why? Because I didn't attack him physically or emotional -- I lived a lifestyle around him that demonstrated for him presuppositions that rubbed off on him.



(Previous) I mentioned the Humanist Manifestos specifically because humanists are supposed to be the ones promoting tolerance and keeping we "evil Christians" from "imposing" our thoughts about morality on others.

(JerryLove) I'm talking about me, and have no desire to see which of the two of us know more quotes from someone I don't give a rat's *** about.

(Me) If the groups that are supposed to be most tolerant (humanists) are overtly pushing their philosophy, it is no small jump to say that less "tolerant" groups are going to push their philosophies!

You're also being inconsistent in the position you want to defend. At times, you seem unconcerned with your personal actions (like above with the discussion of laws); here, however, you're talking about you. Let's put them together.



(Previous) You're changing the issue (as I already pointed out). I've talking about all worldviews pushing their philosophy.

(JerryLove) I objected to imposing morals I don't care weather all worldviews push their philosophy through behavior of their adherents (though I don't agree with that claim either, it's irrellevent)... I care about using moral grounds in order to impose behaviors... in other-words (and as I have said from the beginning) passing laws which seek to impose the morals of one worldview on everyone.

(Me) Define "impose." Is it imposing for a student to tell another that he will kill him if that student does not act as the student desires? Is it imposing to tell someone that they can't come to the party on Friday night if they don't act like you want them to act? Is it imposing for a professor to teach a student that his beliefs are true? Is it imposing for a kindergarten teacher to teach her students that her beliefs are true? Is it imposing for a father to teach his son that his beliefs are true? Is it imposing for a celebrity to tell his/her fans that his/her beliefs are true? Is it imposing for a TV writer to place the characters in a situation and provide a certain outcome according to what he/she thinks about the starting scenario?



(Previous) And again, if you just want to talk about civil laws, I've already presented an argument. To re-hash: the way we think government and society ought to be is ultimately based in our ethical view of reality, so the way we try to get government to be (esp. through laws) will be ultimately based in our view of morality.

(JerryLove) And my view is not to impose my view... merely to enter into a compact which insures my protection.

(Me) This kind of reasoning can be rephrased into your above example: "I'm just trying to prohibit oral sex in order to insure my protection."



(Previous) And I should hope that you are more intelligent than you have appeared in our recent discussions.

(JerryLove) Careful John.

(Me) If you're going to insult me (for the second time), I can return the favor of frankness.

[xSuspensionx]

Fundamentalist Christianity is most certainly persecuting and attempting to impose its religious and moral beliefs on the country.

That is why I am not fundamentalist. That is why many members here are not fundamentalist in the way that you are describing.

---

I am having a hard time figuring out what this argument is about.
To me, it seems that Jerry knows what everyone else means, but intentionally finds something that he wants to dissagree just for the sake of arguing. It seems to me that everyone else is more concerned with proving Jerry wrong then actually talking about the topic that the thread was created in order to address.

---

Peace,
Walker

[JerryLove]

My original claim was that 'sole' was an improper/inexact choice. Nothing you've said here engages my argument relating to that. I never made any claims about all reasons being justified. I just made claims about actual reasons for law-making.

Yes, I complained about laws being created for the purposes of requiring a behavior in others for the reason that it is "moral"... you responded that all worldviews do this.

I pointed out the difference between a moral motivation (it's abd for you to do this), and an non-moral motivation (I won't allow the results)... There are a reasonable number of clear distinctions between the two that are quite obvious.

Trying to keep "moral" laws off the books is certainly "imposing" (as you're imposing your desire to keep "moral" laws off the books).

I'm imposing a non-imposition? The question then becomes weather it is a moral motive for not putting moral laws on the books. I don't consider putting morality laws on the books immoral; ergo it's not an imposing of morals.

You are also, again, putting the cart and horse in the wrong place. I've not discussed imposing morals on the law-making process, I've discussed imposing morals on others [private lives] through law. Show me how not allowing laws which impose morals on others is making a law which imposes morals on others.

Your honking is "imposing" because it provides negative consequences to an action you wish would not occur.

When you eat too much candy your stomach hurts... does candy impose? It's a silly statement.

I'm starting to get very confused. How is fining people for speeding any less "imposing" than forcefully telling people not to speed? Either way, it's an attempt to cause others to follow the rules you want them to follow.

Because the rule isn't imposed on a moral ground.

Look, if all you're saying is that not all people send others to jail for doing things that they don't like, then sure that's true. I just don't see how that's nearly as important a claim as I'm making (specifically, that all worldviews attempt to bring others to accept them).

I've said... over and over and over... that I'm discussing the IMPOSING of MORALS. I'm not discussing the tendancy of actions to influence; I'm not discussing the basis for personal action; I'm not discussing the influence of peer pressure; I'm not even discussing things as direct as knocking on my door and evangelizing... I'm talking about IMPOSING (forcing, requiring by force of law or might, making, requiring, setting as neccessairy) a MORAL (from the sole standpoint of "right and wrong" or "good and evil", determined not by it's consequence, but by its sinfulness) on others.

My worldview does not attempt to impose its morals on others. I see the only purpose of law as to protect rights, therefore nothing is illegal nor required on the grounds that it is moral / immoral... only on the grounds that it serves or fails to serve the goal of protection.

How you think people should act is ethical.

No, standards of behavior are ethics... We are back to "I want to be safe, os I punish things that lead to me being unsafe". This is not a moral stance... merely a pragmatic approach to achieving a chosen goal.

I don't consider me being safe either moral nor immoral, just desired.

You're equating social pressure with social force. Telling someone that you're going to mock them (a social consequence) is similar to telling someone that you're going to kick them. However, building within them your presuppositions will change them fundamentally. Take, for instance, a person I met last year. He was a legalistic racist. Now he is fairly tolerant. Why? Because I didn't attack him physically or emotional -- I lived a lifestyle around him that demonstrated for him presuppositions that rubbed off on him.

Then you persuaded, you did not impose.

If the groups that are supposed to be most tolerant (humanists) are overtly pushing their philosophy, it is no small jump to say that less "tolerant" groups are going to push their philosophies!

What you, or others, suppose these people to be is entirely irrellevent.

Define "impose."

Done above.

Is it imposing for a student to tell another that he will kill him if that student does not act as the student desires?

Yes.

Is it imposing to tell someone that they can't come to the party on Friday night if they don't act like you want them to act?

No

Is it imposing for a professor to teach a student that his beliefs are true? Is it imposing for a kindergarten teacher to teach her students that her beliefs are true?

Within the context of a class, it could be argued, but I would say "no".

Is it imposing for a father to teach his son that his beliefs are true?

No.

Is it imposing for a celebrity to tell his/her fans that his/her beliefs are true?

No.

Is it imposing for a TV writer to place the characters in a situation and provide a certain outcome according to what he/she thinks about the starting scenario?

No

This kind of reasoning can be rephrased into your above example: "I'm just trying to prohibit oral sex in order to insure my protection."

Show how it protects you and you would have an argument... but we both know this was not the logic.

If you're going to insult me (for the second time), I can return the favor of frankness.

It was not an insult to you (unless you are inferring that I called you a liar)... and while it might be interpreted as an insult to your post, that's fair ground... nor do I know what you are referring to as the first insult, nor does it matter.

I'm sorry that you took the statement as an attack on your person, it was not. You know full well the road that bringing me to a trading of insults is; you also should have a good idea that I don't use such subtleties in insulting.