Quote:
Some of us believe that you are free to believe whatever you want, but that you should grant others that right too. Others seem to believe that their particular belief system is the only "right" one, and try to impose it on others. That's a pretty fundamental difference of view.
At the risk of exploding this thread again, I’d have to disagree with the line you’ve drawn here. It’s more like a spectrum and we find ourselves in different places. We all impose our beliefs on other people; the only question is how much we do it. Some say they only impose their beliefs when the behavior in question affects other people, but the truth is that 99% of all behavior affects others- the only question is how drastic the consequences are.

Most people agree that there has to be some kind of law that prohibits certain behavior. And this law is derived from some sort of collective internal idea of what is “right” and “wrong”. For instance- we pretty much all agree that if someone wants to go around killing people for no good reason, well that’s wrong. But when we start talking about motivation, the line seems to get blurry. What if the person is insane? What if they are defending their property? What if they are defending a loved one? What if they were being manipulated? What if they are a soldier in battle? What if the state is doing the killing as a form of punishment? What if there is a question as to the personhood of the "victim”? Some of these questions have clear answers that most agree on, others are murkier. Some seem very clear and obvious, and yet we come up with different answers. The point is, virtually EVERYONE seeks to impose their beliefs on others, just in different areas and to different extents.

And then once you add religion to the mix the difference get even more pronounced because you have ideas based on premises that don’t make sense to others. People on the outside see the issues as irrelevant and an overreaching of personal beliefs. People on the inside see the issues as truth that the world has obscured, but that also really does affect others and is important to enforce.

People have used religions to prop themselves up and create codes that bring them personal power and control over others. It is the most abused part of religions (and what Jesus spent that majority of His time on earth talking about). However, people have also abused many other institutions such as business, government, and other completely secular organizations. But as true as that is, many involved in organized religion are not seeking power or control- merely to help us all experience the best possible life that we can. Yes religion sometimes seeks prohibitions on things that not everyone agrees with. So does enlightened thinking. And many times (I believe) both are right, even though the world doesn’t see it. I realize the popular answer to this is, “I don’t want someone deciding what’s best for me, thank you very much.” But there are many things we have as a society deemed as best for you, whether you agree with these is immaterial- you ARE protected from murder, robbery, slander, and a host of other things. And you are not allowed to murder, rob, or slander someone else, even if you think you should be allowed to. In a sense, society already protects you from yourself, it’s just that none of us really need to be told not to murder, rob, or slander. But those are clear examples, and there are an awful lot of laws that are fare more complex.

I truly, deeply believe that all of the political conflict comes from humanities obscuring of the truth and being who we were created by God to be. And by this, I don’t mean that if everyone were Christians then we’d all get along. I’ve can tell you internal Church politics between well meaning people are every bit as contentious as some of the division between political parties. My point is that we live in a world where the truth has been obscured and we all see things in a different, unfocused light. Others believe that there is no real “truth”, but the result is the same: we all think that we draw the “correct” line between personal liberty and imposition of law on other individuals, but (I believe) none of us really do, and we certainly can’t agree on it. So the best system we have is to voice our ideas, sometimes very fundamental and personal ones, and decide as a democracy what to follow- or in another word: politics. It’s ugly and I personally hate politics, but at least none of us have to submit to the fringe beliefs of a single individual. We at least get to submit to something that’s widely accepted, even if we don’t agree. And I don’t know how we can ever do any better than that, even as ugly as it is.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.