POTUS Donald Trump

[USAFChief]

Who is imposing abortion on anyone? Or same sex marriage? Are those laws forcing anyone to have an abortion or marry a same sex partner? Seriously? Having those laws is not imposing a belief on anyone. They are protecting people from having beliefs imposed on them. Forcing women to live through an unwanted and/or dangerous pregnancy and give birth is imposing a belief. It's also removing her right and ability (because most feel she hasn't the ability) to make her own moral and educated decision. How is giving her that choice imposing anything on anyone else? Other than they don't like it or agree with it, it is NOT imoosing anything on anyone else. Same with same sex marriage. How is allowing a group of people the same equality imposing anything on anyone else? By that same token, and in that same logic, I suppose abolishing slavery was also an imposition, too.

There are people who believe abortion is taking a human life. That separates that issue from, say, same sex marriage, IMO.

[Squirrel]

There are people who believe abortion is taking a human life. That separates that issue from, say, same sex marriage, IMO.

The difference is that isn't a law that is directly imposing anything on that person who disagrees with it. While it is on the other. The difference is living knowing it exists vs having to personally experience the results of that. There is a huge difference in that. Yes, we don't like all laws and they go against what we believe, but that is not the same as constructing a law that forces a person to actually have to do something against their beliefs because a law forced them to.

 

Vaccinations are another that might fall into that category.

[D. Hocking]

 

Maybe that town hall had an effect?  That would be encouraging.

 

It would be nice if the effect was investigating Trump instead of resurrecting the Hilary e-mail investigation.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Vaccinations are another that might fall into that category.

 

And most of us would impose laws that force people to give medical care to their children.  Or vaccinate them for the good of others.  Or impose laws that restrict ownership of firearms.  

 

We all seek to impose for what we deem is the greater good.  Asking religious people to stop doing it is hypocrisy.  (And they ask the left to do it too.  Which makes them hypocrites also)

[TheLeviathan]

 

It would be nice if the effect was investigating Trump instead of resurrecting the Hilary e-mail investigation.

 

Yeah, I totally misread your post.  So the Town Hall had the opposite effect?  Doh.....

[jimmer]

It would be nice if the effect was investigating Trump instead of resurrecting the Hilary e-mail investigation.

have to put the focus tearing down the person who lost instead of focusing on the tool that won. Deflection is this administrations game.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Religious people vote and act within the democracy to impose their beliefs just as you do.  You (and me and everyone else) wish to impose all sorts of values on the country, be it abortion rights or same sex marriage or whatever.  The only difference is where we derive our values.

 

The key isn't to get religious people to stop imposing their values but to help change their values.  Best way to do that is with discussion and the exchange of ideas.  Not telling people they "can't" or "shouldn't" impose their values.  We all do that.  Lecturing them on that is just engaging in hypocrisy.  

 

Best part is we have hundreds of years of evidence that changing their ideas can and does work, even if it's hard and slow.  

I see where you're going with this, Levi, but I think one important distinction to make is that when we tell religion to stop imposing their beliefs, it's usually of the negative variety.

 

Me: Religious people, stop telling other people who they can marry.

 

Religious People: You can't marry that person.

 

There's a pretty significant difference there and while I agree that we need to change opinions to really fix the problem, there's a big difference between "stop being an ass to other people" and "stop doing that thing I don't like".

 

There's definitely some overlap buried in there - such as when the government tells someone they have to serve a person whose lifestyle they do not approve - but most of the time, religious people are the instigators who tell someone they can't do something. The pushback is "stop being an ass and telling people what to do", which can kinda be viewed as the same thing but really isn't.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I see where you're going with this, Levi, but I think one important distinction to make is that when we tell religion to stop imposing their beliefs, it's usually of the negative variety.

 

Me: Religious people, stop telling other people who they can marry.

 

Religious People: You can't marry that person.

 

There's a pretty significant difference there and while I agree that we need to change opinions to really fix the problem, there's a big difference between "stop telling people what to do" and "stop doing that thing I don't like".

 

Couldn't some gun nut flip that argument around?

 

Gun nut: Brocks, stop telling people how many guns they can have

 

Brock: You can't have that many guns

 

Or perhaps:

 

Dumb anti-vaccination person: Brock, stop telling me what to inject in my children

 

Brock: Stop not injecting your child

 

We all do this, it's just what we choose to do it about that changes.  The act, the thinking, the imposition is still the same.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Couldn't some gun nut flip that argument around?

 

Gun nut: Brocks, stop telling people how many guns they can have

 

Brock: You can't have that many guns

 

Or perhaps:

 

Dumb anti-vaccination person: Brock, stop telling me what to inject in my children

 

Brock: Stop not injecting your child

 

We all do this, it's just what we choose to do it about that changes.  The act, the thinking, the imposition is still the same.

Heh, I accidentally hit post before I was finished. As you responded, I was kinda bringing up the same thing.

 

Yes, it's very much the same thing. That's why I understand some of the pushback on gun control. I don't agree with it, but I understand it.

 

And my views on gun control are pretty reasonable for that reason. I dislike telling people what to do but the obvious problem of guns needs some work.

[jimmer]

Couldn't some gun nut flip that argument around?

 

Gun nut: Brocks, stop telling people how many guns they can have

 

Brock: You can't have that many guns

 

Or perhaps:

 

Dumb anti-vaccination person: Brock, stop telling me what to inject in my children

 

Brock: Stop not injecting your child

 

We all do this, it's just what we choose to do it about that changes. The act, the thinking, the imposition is still the same.

is gun control a religious issue? I was raised catholic and i never heard anything about guns.

[TheLeviathan]

Absolutely, we should all be aware of how we are trying to impose our views.  It changes our approach, makes us sympathetic, helps us find common ground.

 

All things sorely lacking on all sides these days.  Hence why I found this aside important.  

[TheLeviathan]

 

is gun control a religious issue? I was raised catholic and i never heard anything about guns.

 

That's precisely my point.  You can impose all sorts of things that aren't religious.  You started by criticizing religious people for always imposing their beliefs on others.  My point is...it's not just religious people that do that.

 

So do you.  So do I.  So do all of us.  Asking them to stop doing that is hypocritical and unfair.  Just as when they demand you stop pushing your whatever agenda.  We need to get away from that kind of flimsy criticism because we all do it.

 

We need to change their minds, not tell them to stop doing the same thing we're doing.

[Squirrel]

Absolutely, we should all be aware of how we are trying to impose our views. It changes our approach, makes us sympathetic, helps us find common ground.

 

All things sorely lacking on all sides these days. Hence why I found this aside important.

 

And this is my problem ... are people opposed to abortion and/or same sex marriage, or other things, because of their religious views? Certainly not all are, but I would bet that a good number are and are pushing for legal sanctions against that which they hold a religious viewpoint for, with no exceptions. That's the difference. I'm not in support of laws because my religion told me so. I'm in favor of certain laws because there is a reasonable decision as to why this isn't right or wrong for the greater good that isn't faith based. And that's how lawmaking works ... prove through reasonable thought and logic that this is for the greater good, not because God told me so.

[jimmer]

That's precisely my point. You can impose all sorts of things that aren't religious. You started by criticizing religious people for always imposing their beliefs on others. My point is...it's not just religious people that do that.

 

So do you. So do I. So do all of us. Asking them to stop doing that is hypocritical and unfair. Just as when they demand you stop pushing your whatever agenda. We need to get away from that kind of flimsy criticism because we all do it.

 

We need to change their minds, not tell them to stop doing the same thing we're doing.

well, not sure i have an agenda, really, other than not wanting government laws imposed on others based on some people's religion/god. Equal rights is my agenda.

[TheLeviathan]

 

 I'm not in support of laws because my religion told me so. I'm in favor of certain laws because there is a reasonable decision as to why this isn't right or wrong that isn't faith based.

 

So now you're arguing values built on religious faith aren't worth entertaining at all.  That has it's own host of issues.  (I may even agree with it on a personal level, but that's one big ass can of worms)

[jimmer]

Btw, good morning.

[Squirrel]

So now you're arguing values built on religious faith aren't worth entertaining at all.  That has it's own host of issues.  (I may even agree with it on a personal level, but that's one big ass can of worms)

That's not what I said. Don't turn this into an absolute. It can't be the sole reason for imposition. Yes, religion guides many of us morally, but it also guides many to immoral conclusions as well. But it cannot be the sole argument for imposing on others, no.

[TheLeviathan]

 

well, not sure i have an agenda, really, other than not wanting government laws imposed on others based on some people's religion/god. Equal rights is my agenda.

 

I was clumsily speaking as a right wing religious person when I said "your whatever agenda".  I should've made that more clear, my apologies.  

 

Just as I said to Chi, on a personal level I might agree with you about religion and laws.  But the reality is that the vast majority of our citizens have their moral values informed by religion.  Getting into a contest about whose morality has better grounding is opening a several century old philosophical battle that has no definitive conclusion. 

[Squirrel]

Ack, and now I'd just like to say, thank you very much for drawing me into discussions I don't like to get into and making me lose track of time and late for work!

[TheLeviathan]

 

That's not what I said. Don't turn this into an absolute. It can't be the sole reason for imposition. Yes, religion guides many of us morally, but it also guides many to immoral conclusions as well. But it cannot be the sole argument for imposing on others, no.

 

All value systems have the potential to lead to moral or immoral conclusions and even religious people use non-religious arguments on their side.  They certainly do about abortion, for example.  (Billboards everywhere attest to that) I doubt that changes your belief.

 

I feel like the problem is you're trying to hold moral high ground where there is none to hold.  For anyone.  I would suggest you try and just accept the fact that you do try to impose on other people.  It doesn't make you a bad person, it's just how it is.  

 

The key is to win the other side over for why your imposition makes us all better off. 

[TheLeviathan]

 

Ack, and now I'd just like to say, thank you very much for drawing me into discussions I don't like to get into and making me lose track of time and late for work!

 

Sorry, for me this was a pleasant distraction while I sit on the couch with a sleeping baby.  

[Craig Arko]

I want to impose Bob Dylan's will on the people.

 

Well, they'll stone you when you're trying to be so good

They'll stone you just like they said they would

They'll stone you when you're trying to go home

And they'll stone you when you're there all alone

But I would not feel so all alone

Everybody must get stoned

[Brock Beauchamp]

One difference that should be mentioned is that religion often tries to control who a person is versus what they own or how they act.

 

And society increasingly rejects the notion we can tell people who they are and interfere with how they identify as a human being.

 

Guns are objects, things to own. A person being gay is intrinsic to their identification as a person, something they cannot "shut off" when convenient. In the past, this was reflected in the Civil Rights Act and people of color. Before that, it was women.

 

The situation muddies a bit when that gay person goes out and demands the same services offered to other human beings, which is an imposition on another person's belief structure. Every act we take as a society is some kind of imposition on another person. It's the nature of being tribal.

 

But, as a society, we're coming around to the idea that when it comes to a person's core identify, their self-identification and something that cannot be changed or turned off when convenient, we don't allow intolerance toward that person.

[TheLeviathan]

I would agree Brock, that is one kind of imposition that is religious in nature. 

 

The situation muddies a bit when that gay person goes out and demands the same services offered to other human beings, which is an imposition on another person's belief structure. Every act we take as a society is some kind of imposition on another person. It's the nature of being tribal.

 

 

And this is another way to say what I'm saying, thank you.  It's interesting to me how several posters so aggressively rejected they take part in this.  Part of buying into the ol' social contract is the acceptance that you will impose and be imposed upon as part of signing up.  

[jimmer]

 

 

 

The situation muddies a bit when that gay person goes out and demands the same services offered to other human beings, which is an imposition on another person's belief structure. Every act we take as a society is some kind of imposition on another person. It's the nature of being tribal.

 

 

I'm curious why they shouldn't expect same services/equal rights?  Why is that an imposition on other people's rights/belief structure?   Again, no one is making anyone be homosexual when they provide these services.  Government services are paid for by ALL people in the way of taxes. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I'm curious why they shouldn't expect same services/equal rights?  Why is that an imposition on other people's rights/belief structure?   Again, no one is making anyone be homosexual when they provide these services.  Government services are paid for by ALL people in the way of taxes. 

I'm not saying they shouldn't expect same services and equal rights, obviously they can and should expect such things.

 

But society is a compromise. People ask things from one another and impose upon each other. Where we draw the line is what defines our laws and social structure.

 

And that concept was possibly the most important societal advancement of the 20th century: the acknowledgement that we, as humans, are flawed creatures and we often impose the will of the majority at the expense of the minority and that laws are needed to defend those who don't exist in great enough numbers to defend themselves.

[jimmer]

 

I'm not saying they shouldn't expect same services and equal rights, obviously they can and should expect such things.

 

But society is a compromise. People ask things from one another and impose upon each other. Where we draw the line is what defines our laws and social structure.

I just don't see the imposition onto others. Is the imposition making people do their jobs even if it means providing services to people who aren't living according to their religious beliefs?  It's like saying someone saying 'I have this government job, I am catholic, and I won't sign a license for a same sex couple to get married because they aren't living by my catholic beliefs.'  The gay couple isn't asking that catholic to be gay and have a double same sex marriage ceremony/service. That couple also isn't asking the catholic to stop being catholic or break faith.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I just don't see the imposition onto others. Is the imposition making people do their jobs even if it means providing services to people who aren't living according to their religious beliefs?  It's like saying someone saying 'I have this government job, I am catholic, and I won't sign a license for a same sex couple to get married because they aren't living by my catholic beliefs.'  The gay couple isn't asking that catholic to be gay and have a double same sex marriage ceremony/service. That couple also isn't asking the catholic to stop being catholic or break faith.

I agree with your outcome, we're just not agreeing whether it's an imposition.

 

I'm saying that, on a grand scale, every rule is an imposition on someone.

 

If I don't want to serve people named Mary and claim religious diktat to defend my belief, why do I have to serve people named Mary?

 

In the abstract, given a perfect humanity, I'd be allowed to do that. Anyone named Mary could go receive the services I offer from one of any number of people who perform my job.

 

But the reality is that I wouldn't do that to people named Mary because it's a ludicrous stand to take and never happens. What I'd do is refuse to serve black people or gay people or Muslims. So would lots of other people. The end result is that we create a caste system that prevents any of those groups from truly interacting with majority society.

 

So, as a society, we impose rules to stop me from doing that. And, technically, those rules are an imposition on my belief structure because I'm being forced to do something I don't want to do for whatever reason. The same way I don't really want to go get a driver's license but I do it every four years because them's the rules and I want to drive an automobile.

 

Everyone has rules they don't like an we're all imposed upon daily by society. It's part of the social pact we make by living in civilization and agreeing to its terms. If we don't like it, we can go find another society we prefer and join a different tribe.

 

[stringer bell]

 

Well, yes, abolishing slavery was an imposition.  We forced the south to give up slavery.  That's what an imposition is.  But impositions can be a good thing!  And we all want to impose our values more generally.  

 

There are a host of issues I'm sure you support that would directly alter the lives of other people but you seek to impose them anyway because you feel the greater good is served for it.  Campaign financing, income equality, criminal justice reforms, reducing gun proliferation, etc.  All of these things would force differences on others that disagree with you, but you seek to impose them anyway.  

 

All of us do.

I remember a long time ago when I was a freshman in college in my first class, the professor said that politics is defined as "the authoritative allocation of values in a society". I believe that definition still fits and means that those in political power allocate their values on us. We can argue about what is right and wrong and how the process is carried out, but this is the essence of politics.

[Craig Arko]

Social Contract theory has a long and much-debated history. I'm pretty sympathetic to Rawls and especially Gauthier, and tend to view this as reaching an equilibrium point in a negotiation game.

 

http://www.iep.utm.edu/soc-cont/

 

https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/game-theory-and-humanities