The right to impose

RatDog
atheistSilver Member
Posts: 562
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
The right to impose

How much do people have the right to impose their beliefs on others?  For obvious reasons we believe things like rape and murder are wrong.  No one question our ability to impose this belief on other threw the use of law.   With other beliefs it’s not so obvious.   For instance the belief we should bane smoking.  No one denies that smoking is bad for your health, but some people want to do it anyway.  Do people have the right to stop other people from hurting themselves?  What about second hand smoke which puts other people at risk. Do we have the right to do things that put other people at risk, if you say no what if the risk is very small?  How should these things be decided?  Can everything be decided by Democracy, or are some things so important that they can’t be risked by putting them to a vote? 

Because this site talks mostly about religion I’ll add one more thing. Science gives us knowledge about the universe, but it’s not always obvious how best to use that knowledge.  Some people say religion can provide answers science or philosophy can’t.  How do you justify this claim?
 


RatDog
atheistSilver Member
Posts: 562
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
my opinion

As long as people are not hurting other people I think they should have the right to do whatever they want.  People don’t have the right to hurt others, but if we do nothing that puts anyone else at risk we couldn’t even drive.  I think most things should be decided democratically, but that some rights need to be protected.  Like the freedom of speech.  I don’t think Religion provides any answers for anything, and that it’s just made up lies.     


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13248
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I don't think you'll find

I don't think you'll find many here disagreeing. If you want fire works you might go to a fundy website or politically correct left website.

I would suggest the following books.

1984

Animal Farm

The God Delusion

End of Faith

Atheism The Case Against God.

 

The first two books, if you haven't heard of them are anti fascism pro freedom, fictional stories about what an uber fascist state looks like. 

 

The rest will give you arguments as to why theism is not a tenable position.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
RatDog wrote:How much do

RatDog wrote:
How much do people have the right to impose their beliefs on others?  For obvious reasons we believe things like rape and murder are wrong.  No one question our ability to impose this belief on other threw the use of law.   With other beliefs it’s not so obvious.   For instance the belief we should bane smoking.  No one denies that smoking is bad for your health, but some people want to do it anyway.  Do people have the right to stop other people from hurting themselves?  What about second hand smoke which puts other people at risk. Do we have the right to do things that put other people at risk, if you say no what if the risk is very small?  How should these things be decided?  Can everything be decided by Democracy, or are some things so important that they can’t be risked by putting them to a vote

Because this site talks mostly about religion I’ll add one more thing. Science gives us knowledge about the universe, but it’s not always obvious how best to use that knowledge.  Some people say religion can provide answers science or philosophy can’t.  How do you justify this claim? 
 

We have the "Bill of rights" (the first ten amendments to the constitution).

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


RatDog
atheistSilver Member
Posts: 562
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:We have the

Paisley wrote:

We have the "Bill of rights" (the first ten amendments to the constitution).

I realize we have the bill of rights.  I asked that question because I wanted to see if anyone on this site would disagree with the idea of limiting democracy.  I was also kind of hoping it would lead to a discussion about what kind of things are more important than the will of the majority. 

If the environment is destroyed then we will likely all die with it.  Should a clean environmental be a legal right?  
 


anniet
Silver Member
Posts: 325
Joined: 2008-08-06
User is offlineOffline
RatDog wrote: . . .  I

RatDog wrote:

 

. . .  I asked that question because I wanted to see if anyone on this site would disagree with the idea of limiting democracy.  I was also kind of hoping it would lead to a discussion about what kind of things are more important than the will of the majority. 

If the environment is destroyed then we will likely all die with it.  Should a clean environmental be a legal right?  
 

I think you pretty much answered yourself with "as long as they're not hurting anyone else."  That's really what the discussion boils down to doesn't it?  What harms others is where the disagreements lie and are generally issue specific. 

Did you read the recent news about the EPA beginning to at least look at regulating greenhouse gases?  I find this heartening, even though nothing constructive is happening yet.  At least it's a start.

What other issues specifically were you thinking of with this topic?

"I am that I am." - Proof that the writers of the bible were beyond stoned.


RatDog
atheistSilver Member
Posts: 562
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
anniet wrote:Did you read

anniet wrote:

Did you read the recent news about the EPA beginning to at least look at regulating greenhouse gases?  I find this heartening, even though nothing constructive is happening yet.  At least it's a start.

What other issues specifically were you thinking of with this topic?

What about people just being annoying, or offensive.  Do people have the right to annoy other people?  For instance going up to peoples doors at 10:00 a.m. on Saturday morning and trying to talk to them about god is very annoying, but is it violating anyones rights?  What about going to some ones house at 7:00 a.m. on Saturday morning?  What about 2:00 a.m.?  Do people have the right to say offensive things to other people?  Exactly were is the line drawn between someone just being unpleasant and someone violating another persons rights?


anniet
Silver Member
Posts: 325
Joined: 2008-08-06
User is offlineOffline
RatDog wrote:What about

RatDog wrote:

What about people just being annoying, or offensive.  Do people have the right to annoy other people?  For instance going up to peoples doors at 10:00 a.m. on Saturday morning and trying to talk to them about god is very annoying, but is it violating anyones rights?  What about going to some ones house at 7:00 a.m. on Saturday morning?  What about 2:00 a.m.?  Do people have the right to say offensive things to other people?  Exactly were is the line drawn between someone just being unpleasant and someone violating another persons rights?

We all have the right to be annoying.  I like to remember that while they can knock on my door I can slam it in their face.  While they can knock at 2 am, I can also throw a banshee screaming fit and chase them around the neighborhood with a rake, or any do any other similarly crazy behavior that pops into my angry mind.  Insanity tends to put a stop to such things!  It's not like I was going to be friends with the fools anyway.  I don't really see a need for larger community involvement for annoyances.

Offensive is harder to call sometimes.  Most things that are offensive would be better classified as annoying. (EX - Anti-choice protesters with their mangled fetus signs. )  To be able to have the community regulate offensive behavior clear harm has to be shown.  And not just some fuzzy study saying the consequences of the offensive behavior are more bad than good, but actual harm to others being detailed.  Then you can get into analyzing if the harm is enough to warrant some sort of regulation.

 

"I am that I am." - Proof that the writers of the bible were beyond stoned.