In the US, no one can impose religious restrictions on another person. It is part of our Bill of Rights specifically the First Amendment.
Actually the 1st Amendment states that Congress cannot impose restrictions.
How does that affect you??
exactly brainiac. That is why sandorski's comments are non-sensical. no individual can impose their religious will on another individual including through law
exactly brainiac. That is why sandorski's comments are non-sensical. no individual can impose their religious will on another individual including through law
im·pose
imˈpōz/Submit
verb
1.
force (something unwelcome or unfamiliar) to be accepted or put in place.
"the decision was theirs and was not imposed on them by others"
synonyms: foist, force, inflict, press, urge; More
forcibly put (a restriction) in place.
"sanctions imposed on South Africa"
require (a duty, charge, or penalty) to be undertaken or paid.
synonyms: levy, charge, apply, enforce; More
exert firm control over something.
"the director was unable to impose himself on the production"
2.
take advantage of someone by demanding their attention or commitment.
"she realized that she had imposed on Miss Hatherby's kindness"
synonyms: take advantage of, exploit, take liberties with, treat unfairly
You could argue that jehova's witnesses knocking on your door are imposing, I certainly never came looking for them. A buddy from work's brother tried to push a deathbed conversion on their father, is that imposing? I'm sure the African slaves felt somewhat imposed on when the slave trade was alive and well and kept that way under the 'justification' of the bible.
You're arguing semantics at best. As I said earlier, we shouldn't forget about how christianity acted when it had power. How many atheists have been forcibly converted? How many christians... millions?
My comments are not non-sensical in the least. There is a constant push to force Religion into places it doesn't belong.
exactly brainiac. That is why sandorski's comments are non-sensical. no individual can impose their religious will on another individual including through law
you would have to show an example. I cannot recall anyone forcing religion on another person or place it does not belong.
you would have to show an example. I cannot recall anyone forcing religion on another person or place it does not belong.
Creation/ID in the Science Classroom, Prayer in Schools, Abortion restrictions, etc.
Gay rights movement, Civil rights movement, equal pay, voting rights...all these are "imposing" change, even when it's unwanted.
The point is that there is absolutely nothing wrong with "imposing" change as shown above...the question is whether or not said change is good for society.
Every [insert movement here] is an example of a group forcing their views into law.
These are based upon Principles and are not just Change for changes sake. They also don't "Impose" anything on anybody. Instead, they provide greater Liberty to those denied it. That would be Unimposing.
My point is, if blacks sat down and didn't march and fight, they'd not have any rights today -- they had to demand rights.
And it doesn't matter what its based on, imposing is imposing. For instance, I agree that the forced overthrow of the Egyptian president equals more freedom, but overthrowing someone for the sake of freedom isn't any less imposing than demanding ID be taught in science class.
They just have different results.
I can't call that "Imposing". To me Imposing is a Negative act, providing Liberty is Positive. Womens Suffrage, Equal Rights, and even Gay Marriage does not Impose anything on Anyone. Even those who oppose all these things do not lose any Rights in the process.
dude get a life.....your already embarrassing other fine outstanding Atheists...Creation/ID in the Science Classroom, Prayer in Schools, Abortion restrictions, etc.
are you really that dense??? The mission trips don`t affect you at all...so what`s the issue??How does family going on missions trips affect me? Or religion/christianity in general?
dude get a life.....your already embarrassing other fine outstanding Atheists...
Of course you can't call that "imposing" because you're narrowly defining the word, and its always associated with something undesirable and hence, carries a negative connotation. Much like how the word "criticize" is always used negatively...yet the word itself doesn't imply anything negative.
The facts are, though, that when legislation is changed due to the desires of a group (religious or secular), then they've just legislated their views into law. Period.
you would have to show an example. I cannot recall anyone forcing religion on another person or place it does not belong.
Pledge. Which we make children say before they have any concept of what the words mean.
Insidious.
pledge forces religion on children....right.
are you really that dense??? The mission trips don`t affect you at all...so what`s the issue??
You all are amazing. It is never imposing if you force your belief system on others, but if someone who happens to be religious tries to implement a change, then all of a sudden that is imposing on others. Sorry. Your argument simply does not stand up in a public place.
There is nothing wrong with advocating for Civil Rights or gay marriage or whatever. But don't take away the same right for others to advocate for a stronger moral code let's say or advocate for allowing a person to say a private prayer to themselves before a meal or a test for instance.
The very reason that "In God We Trust" was added to our currency first to declare that God was on the US's side in the Civil war, and then (along with "under God" in the pledge of allegiance) to separate the great, God-fearing United States from the evil, atheist communists.In God We Trust is imposing religion on others. What weakminded those poor souls must be to be terrified of 4 little words that are meaningless to them - or so the atheists say.
*Totally unrelated, but interesting note: if you ever read Rousseau's The Social Contract, he argues something quite different: that the "general will" of the people in a democratic society is the will of each individual, and that there is no distinction and thus no conflict. This does a lot to explain the French attitude towards religious and ethnic minority groups.