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

au1929 wrote:

real life
Let me remind you that the question asked in this thread is" Why do people try to force their religion on others". To which my response was that they were bigots. By definition that answer holds.
Your questions regarding whether I was ever forced to Bla,bla,bla. are irrelevant and have nothing at all to do with the theme of this thread. Try staying on issue instead of asking irrelevant questions.

The issue of "What is force?" when used in this context is extremely relevant. Sorry if that isn't clear to you.

0 Replies

It apparently isn't clear to you that the locution is "try to force" . . . the ability to force someone to see things one's preferred way is then one of persuasion. Au's position remains valid--sorry if that isn't clear to you.

0 Replies

real life
The question posed was not whether people force their religion on others but why do people force their religion on others. Perhaps you are having a problem understanding the difference between whether and why. Try websters.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

real life
The question posed was not whether people force their religion on others but why do people force their religion on others. Perhaps you are having a problem understanding the difference between whether and why. Try websters.

You may not be used to someone questioning your premise and challenging you to prove it. But get used to it.

When has "force" ever been used to get you to adopt a religious position?

0 Replies

You may not be used to someone insisting upon a precision of terms and challenging you to adhere to it, but get used to it. The title of the thread is: "Why do people try to force their religion on others." In our times, persuasion is the only legally acceptable method which would amount to force. As recently as two centuries ago, states in America had established churches, and laws which required attendance upon divine services. The point, once again as it seems not to sink in with you, is about trying--what force may or may not be adduced is meaningless.

0 Replies

Real
I am driven to ask what your native language is since you seem to be having difficulty with English. Question

0 Replies

Heck, au, most Americans have difficulty with the English language. Those who think they know better are in the minority.

0 Replies

Judge sentences offenders to attend church

Tuesday, May 31, 2005 Posted: 10:38 AM EDT (1438 GMT)

LONDON, Kentucky (AP) -- A Kentucky judge has been offering some drug and alcohol offenders the option of attending worship services instead of going to jail or rehab -- a practice some say violates the separation of church and state.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/05/31/churchsentence.ap/index.html

0 Replies

Cripes.

0 Replies

Double cripes if he prescribes any particular sect within Christianity.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Real
I am driven to ask what your native language is since you seem to be having difficulty with English.

Hmm, first religion.

Then, my native tongue.

Is there any other criteria by which you wish to prejudge?

How about the colour of my skin?

Or perhaps my nationality?

Now which word was it that you were trying to give us the definition of?

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

One must conclude based on your complete failure to produce a single example where you have ever been "forced" to adopt a religious position, that it probably has not occurred.

Therefore it is not surprising that you have resorted instead to personal attacks instead of defending your proposition. How sad that your argument has sunk to this level.

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

The use of real force and coercion to mandate "belief" in a set of ideas is actually alive and well in the world , as millions still living under enforced atheism and politically kept alive as Communism in China, North Korea, Cuba, etc can attest.

Unfortunately, the trivialization of the term "force" to include a talkative co-worker or a persistently evangelizing neighbor really cheapens the understanding of the sacrifice that many make every day living under subjugation.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

au1929 wrote:
Real
I am driven to ask what your native language is since you seem to be having difficulty with English.
Hmm, first religion.

Then, my native tongue.

Is there any other criteria by which you wish to prejudge?

How about the colour of my skin?

Or perhaps my nationality?

May I choose "IQ" ?

0 Replies

I would like to take this opportunity to note that this is not a case of "pre-judging." Rather, it is a product of a greater familiarity with your rant than we would have chosen had we known.

0 Replies

Real Life,
.....Is it not written in the bible , that when Moses came down the mountain, he told his followers that God had spoke to him, and showed him where the promised land was? And then did they Proceed to go to it, and upon their arrival. did they not murder all the men, women, and CHILDREN, who did not accept their religion? (cult?......mob?...gang colors?...Whatnot?)

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

real life wrote:
au1929 wrote:
Real
I am driven to ask what your native language is since you seem to be having difficulty with English.
Hmm, first religion.

Then, my native tongue.

Is there any other criteria by which you wish to prejudge?

How about the colour of my skin?

Or perhaps my nationality?

May I choose "IQ" ?

Yes Eorl we can always count on you to insult rather than debate the real issue. Thank you for being consistent. It is something we will regard as a given in the future, rather than acknowledge each one.

0 Replies

real life, no problem !

I tried rational discussion with you and found it extremely frustrating and ultimately fruitless. Even when I go out of my way not to insult you, you still take offence so it hardly matters what I write...the outcome is the same.

Having said that, I enjoyed my petty humour immensely! You seemed to get it right away:)

Still, I'll try not to do it again. In future I'll attack only your ridiculous arguments instead of you personally.

0 Replies

Anonymouse wrote:

As John Steinbeck said, "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."

Spoken like a true anarchist. Thank God his vision of social chaos has not been achieved.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Anonymouse wrote:
As John Steinbeck said, "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."

Spoken like a true anarchist. Thank God his vision of social chaos has not been achieved.

I believe Steinbeck was speaking more as an anti-fascist than an anarchist.

Or maybe you would prefer living under a government that limits you as an individual and prevents you from worshipping your religion and instead forces you to be a pagan?

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

real life wrote:
Anonymouse wrote:
As John Steinbeck said, "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."

Spoken like a true anarchist. Thank God his vision of social chaos has not been achieved.

I believe Steinbeck was speaking more as an anti-fascist than an anarchist.

Or maybe you would prefer living under a government that limits you as an individual and prevents you from worshipping your religion and instead forces you to be a pagan?

Governments pass laws.

Each law is an expression of SOMEONE'S idea of what is right and what is wrong.

Laws limit behavior.

The only way for a government not to pass laws that limit behavior based on someone's idea of right and wrong is for the government not to exist. This is called anarchy, no matter what Steinbeck or anyone else wants to label it.

Most people understand that to live in society means that your behavior will be limited in some respect.

High sounding platitudes like Steinbeck's quote sound very noble until you work them out to their logical conclusion.

0 Replies

[quote="real life]
Each law is an expression of SOMEONE'S idea of what is right and what is wrong.
[/quote]

A minor quibble, but in a modern democracy it is impossible for a law to be an expression of someone's idea of right and wrong.

Laws are drafted by teams of people, modified by parliaments implemented by law enforcers, manipulated by offenders and interpreted by lawyers and judges.

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.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know