WHY DO PEOPLE TRY TO FORCE THEIR RELIGION ON OTHERS??

hingehead wrote:

At best a law is a compromise of many world views. You don't have to watch too many episodes of Law & Order to see how hopeless law is with dealing with the infinite variations of human behaviour. Laws try to draw lines where there are none.

Irrelevant, but thanks for making me think about it.

Hi Hingehead,

Sorry I don't watch Law & Order. Guess I didn't understand how the world works. Thanks for straightening me out. I'll try to watch more TV in the future.

0 Replies

joining this thread late, as usual, but the Steinbeck quote by anonymouse was spot on, IMHO. Steinbeck sounded like a true libertarian, in the manner of J.S. Mill, who argued for freedom of thought, not freedom to act on any impulse.

0 Replies

Gee Real Life - I see what Eorl means.

0 Replies

hingehead wrote:

Gee Real Life - I see what Eorl means.

Hey Hingehead,

Sorry if you took that the wrong way. Just one of my MANY faults. I can be rather blunt at times, and sarcastic at other times.

But in your case, I really was only kidding. Hang in there.

0 Replies

yitwail wrote:

joining this thread late, as usual, but the Steinbeck quote by anonymouse was spot on, IMHO. Steinbeck sounded like a true libertarian, in the manner of J.S. Mill, who argued for freedom of thought, not freedom to act on any impulse.

Hi Yitwail,

Could be an important distinction you are making. Obviously freedom of thought is something we all cherish. It is also something we all have. All the time, it seems to me. Can anyone really make you think other than what you have chosen to think?

They may attempt to persuade, or by punishment or reward hope to influence, but in reality no one holds the key to your thoughts except you.

Now behavior is different. And it seemed to me that this is what Steinbeck was really meaning when he discussed his willingness to fight etc for freedom for the individual without limit. If we already have complete freedom of thought at all times, what is it he was fighting for?

I think the freedom that he was referring to extends to behavior as well, and that is why I see it as an anarchist's motto, if you will.

Some may not see it that way and only think it is thought that was referred to, and in that case there's no disagreement.

But freedom of thought really is never an issue since everybody has it. It is when behavior is mandated that the issue comes into play.

Government does have a role in mandating certain behavior. It is the essence of lawmaking, which is government's function. Man cannot live in a chaotic society. This is due to Man's basic sinfulness.

There is no society that could function without Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, etc. We must be restrained and protected, in part by law, because of our natural propensity to sin.

Of course the best restraint on evil is morality, internalized law. And the governmental model that affords the most freedom of action is a limited one such as the U.S. Constitution.

It was in this context that John Adams stated, "Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people; it is wholly inadequate for the governance of any other."

That is, if people do not have internal restraint, you're going to have to write a lot of laws.

0 Replies

r l,

i concede that "freedom of thought" of thought, narrowly defined, is more-or-less absolute--which doesn't preclude future technology that could compromise it. but in a broader context, it includes freedom of conscience and expression, which governments can and do infringe on. that's why the European Parliament has annually awarded the Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought since 1988, for instance.

0 Replies

WHY DO PEOPLE TRY TO FORCE THEIR RELIGION ON OTHERS??
Somebody wrote that "reality is consensual." No, reality stands on its own, but humans do at times misperceive reality (individually, as for example a person under the influence, or corporately, like people drunk on political ideologies) or try to conform it to their own image.

As for "forcing" one's religion on others: there are of course ATTEMPTS to force others to believe a certain way (cf. the Inquisition or radical Islam), but the only thing they really achieve is an outer conformity, not an inner conviction. The latter grows freely from within.

Simply proselytizing (verbally) does not constitute "forcing" one's beliefs on others.

0 Replies

diag, It's not always a "force." People are born into it, and they just follow what their parents and siblings do - or even the larger community. If you are born in Mexico City, the chances are you'll 'become' a catholic like all the others around you. It's not force; it's cultural. Most people do not question cultural practices as a child.

0 Replies

WHY DO PEOPLE TRY TO FORCE THEIR RELIGION ON OTHERS??
Cicerone, absolutely, there are beliefs that folks are born into, but I was responding to the original question. Very Happy

Those are 2 different issues.

0 Replies

diag, First of all, welcome to a2k. You are correct; my bad. Sometimes when a thread goes on forever, we lose sight of the original question. Wink

0 Replies

yitwail wrote:

r l,

i concede that "freedom of thought" of thought, narrowly defined, is more-or-less absolute--which doesn't preclude future technology that could compromise it.

Yeah, like the Borg. Could it happen? Doubtful.

And really no need for it since many seem to willingly conform anyhow. American culture which was very diverse not so many years ago is extremely homogenized today.This is due largely, I think, to the influence of TV and movies.

This trend is also spreading throughout the world as American culture, mostly learned by non-Americans only in American TV and movies, is marketed around the globe.

0 Replies

r l, pretty much agree with your assessment of conformity, mass media, and american culture, but i note that influences run both ways. pop culture has elements from around the world, such as anime & video games from japan, kung fu movies from hong kong, yoga more-or-less from india, world music, and so on, which could someday lead to the global village Marshall McLuhan envisioned.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Now behavior is different. And it seemed to me that this is what Steinbeck was really meaning when he discussed his willingness to fight etc for freedom for the individual without limit. If we already have complete freedom of thought at all times, what is it he was fighting for?

I think the freedom that he was referring to extends to behavior as well, and that is why I see it as an anarchist's motto, if you will.

Ah, but have you read it fully?

John Steinbeck wrote:

This I believe: that the free, exploring mind of the individual human is the most valuable thing in the world. And this I would fight for: the freedom of the mind to take any direction it wishes, undirected. And this I must fight against: any idea, religion, or government which limits or destroys the individual."

Before the last sentence, he was talking about ideas and thoughts. Therefore in the context of the rest of the paragraph, the last sentence must haveb een him takling about ideas and thought, not behaviour as well.

Any sentence relating to behaviour would not fit into the context of the paragraph, because he is talking about thought from the very beginning of that paragraph.

Quote:

Some may not see it that way and only think it is thought that was referred to, and in that case there's no disagreement.

I guess, you could interpret it that way, but it wouldn't make sense if put into the context of the entire paragraph, as stated before.

Quote:

But freedom of thought really is never an issue since everybody has it. It is when behavior is mandated that the issue comes into play.

However, during Steinbeck's days, there were governments that tried to repress it and freedom of speech too. I think in the context of when he said it and what he said it, I'm sure he was talking about speech and thought.

Quote:

Government does have a role in mandating certain behavior. It is the essence of lawmaking, which is government's function. Man cannot live in a chaotic society. This is due to Man's basic sinfulness.

You are correct, but for the wrong reason. It has nothing to do with sinfulness.

It is to ensure the chances of survival. Bees and ants work in an ordered society and cannot really live in a chaotic one. It has nothing to do with their sinfulness, though, more that they are stronger as a community than as an individual.

Quote:

There is no society that could function without Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, etc. We must be restrained and protected, in part by law, because of our natural propensity to sin.

Unless we're talking about the Ancient Spartans, in which case, stealing was okay as long as you weren't caught, killing was okay as long as it was your enemy etc. etc.

0 Replies

for some religions... its cos their "books" tell them to try to make others take to their religion.. thats why.

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

However, during Steinbeck's days, there were governments that tried to repress it and freedom of speech too. I think in the context of when he said it and what he said it, I'm sure he was talking about speech and thought.

OK, thought is thought, and speech is behavior. So you really can't have it both ways.

0 Replies

Quote, "for some religions... its cos their "books" tell them to try to make others take to their religion.. thats why."

The good book even goes so far as to tell it's followers to stone people who do not believe in the bible god - and that includes parents, siblings and their own children.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

However, during Steinbeck's days, there were governments that tried to repress it and freedom of speech too. I think in the context of when he said it and what he said it, I'm sure he was talking about speech and thought.

OK, thought is thought, and speech is behavior. So you really can't have it both ways.

Actually, I think speech is more the expression of thought and ideas. It is not really behaviour per se.

After all, without freedom of speech, how can you have total freedom of thought? To have complete freedom of thought, you must be able to express that thought and to do that, you must have freedom of speech.

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

real life wrote:
Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

However, during Steinbeck's days, there were governments that tried to repress it and freedom of speech too. I think in the context of when he said it and what he said it, I'm sure he was talking about speech and thought.

OK, thought is thought, and speech is behavior. So you really can't have it both ways.

Actually, I think speech is more the expression of thought and ideas. It is not really behaviour per se.

After all, without freedom of speech, how can you have total freedom of thought? To have complete freedom of thought, you must be able to express that thought and to do that, you must have freedom of speech.

Of course speech is the expression of thought , so are actions. How can it be said that speech is not behavior?

It is behavior and is regulated by government every day. Laws against perjury, fraud, defamation and libel come to mind. Naturally, freedom of speech is important but there is no such thing as an absolute freedom of speech.

---------------------

Thought by its very nature cannot be regulated. It is completely private and confidential. It may or may not be expressed in speech or action but it is there in either case. I may think something but never say it, or act upon it. Did I somehow not have freedom of thought? Of course I did.

That is why to argue for "freedom of thought" is an exercise in wasted time. However it is often used as a smokescreen for arguments on expanded "freedom" of speech and or action, or more often -- subsidized speech or action.

Groups wanting government funding for outlandish art or political activity often argue that if they do not receive government money to express themselves in speech and action, then somehow their freedom of thought is being stifled. Most folks recognize this as bogus but somehow we keep paying for it anyhow.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Quote, "for some religions... its cos their "books" tell them to try to make others take to their religion.. thats why."

The good book even goes so far as to tell it's followers to stone people who do not believe in the bible god - and that includes parents, siblings and their own children.

I've said often that one must read the bible carefully.

It appears to me that you have made a hasty generalization of things you may have heard about or read. It seems so, because your conclusions are not correct.

The entire bible contains a promise by God to reinstate the paradise lost in Eden and to give all those who never knew him the opportunity to live again in that paradise.

What's so bad about that?

0 Replies

One of the main reasons I know that the average Christian tries to convert everyone is because of the guilt trips laid upon them by their pastors and ministers. They tell their followers that they are letting people, even their own friends and family members live their sinful lives and go to hell. Christians then feel like if they don't win more lives for Christ then they are not very good Christians. Where in reality, it's just a way to get people to go around scaring people into believing in what they believe.

0 Replies

WHY DO PEOPLE TRY TO FORCE THEIR RELIGION ON OTHERS??

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know