The debate "If I do not follow your faith I shouldn't be held to its rules" was started by
July 9, 2019, 11:55 pm.
31 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 8 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
ototoxic posted 1 argument, Allirix posted 1 argument, JDAWG9693 posted 4 arguments to the agreers part.
ototoxic, sk25, Allirix, wmd, Nemiroff, boispendaddy, Communistguy, JDAWG9693, mtbtheboss, eva_pet35 and 21 visitors agree.
Light and 7 visitors disagree.
Me, too. But, that's an example of how religion has permeated into government and how we shouldn't be forced to follow such a law if we do not follow the faith.
I would argue it depends on the utility of the law and what the majority of people want. Also factoring in if it negatively affects people. If the law serves no practical purpose and it negatively affects people, then it shouldn't be a law.
I don't think laws about polygamy serve a purpose and they do negatively effect people, so I would be in favor of repealing those laws.
No, we should have laws, obviously. But, those laws should have secular reasons, not religious reasons. For example, polygamy is illegal in the U.S. Why? Because it was against religious beliefs at the time it was created. There is no secular reason for that law. So, should I be required to follow that law, being that it is solely religious?
Actually, in Canada the catholic school board is a public school, not a private one. It's a weird hold over from when the country was roughly half french catholic and half English protestant.
I would need examples to really answer that question. What do you consider a religious rule? How restrictive is that rule? The bible says thou shalt not commit murder, should we consider laws against murder religious laws and therefore people shouldn't have to follow them?
But, for example, one doesn't choose to be born in a theocratic country or, on a smaller and more common scale, a theocratic family unit. And, I would argue that the child didn't choose (at least not usually) to go to the Catholic private school, the parents did. But that's just par for the course of being a youth. However, what school you go to and going to church regularly are mundane compared to other religious practices.
My more direct question would be this: should one be required to follow the rules of a faith if they do not believe in that faith, in relation to theocracy, both large and small scale?
Could you provide some specific examples of that happening that you object to? It is very difficult to debate you when you are being vague because I don't know what specifically you are talking about.
I can think of examples of this that are perfectly fine. For example in Canada we have a catholic school board. You don't have to be catholic to go to those schools, but if you attend that school you are held to some of the catholic rules. If you choose to go to a catholic school, i see no issue with being held to catholic rules.
What about parents pushing their faith on their children? I would equate that to a small theocracy.
What if you are in a theocracy that has laws that are inspired by a religion?
I totally agree. If I am not in the same faith that you are in, why should I have to follow their rules. I mean that makes no sense at all.
I see all the time people trying to force their beliefs onto others who do not follow the same faith, as if they believe that their faith dictates everyone's lives, even the ones who want nothing to do with said faith.
Well that kind of depends. For example, muslims aren't supposed to drink alcohol. Therefore, some muslim countries make it illegal to drink alcohol. So it is based on their religion, but it is also the law of that country. If you go to that country you need to obey the local laws.
Do you mean that you are forced to obey religious rules in a western country? When exactly would that happen?