Yes our disagreement is totally ok, but if you want to petition the government to force me to live by your interpretation of Gods will then its no longer totally ok.
I either want to live in a completely different society than you, or I want absolute and strictly enforced tolerance of completely divergent worldviews. The choice, to me, is totally binary. You get no more of a say over me and mine, about absolutely anything, than I might about you and yours. Sound fair?
"You get no more of a say over me and mine, about absolutely anything, than I might about you and yours."
How is this compatible with your desire to have Gods hand considered when deciding on laws that guide our entire society? If justification for a law rests on Gods will, that would be giving you a say "over me and mine"
For example, if a Christian wanted abortion banned from conception because it was against Gods will.
It's the acknowledgment of pluralism, which was my point. I would strongly prefer to live in a society with the guardrails of Christian morality (the United States of the late 19th Century is a good example, at least in the North) but if I can't, then the only pluralism that is acceptable is one in which freedom of conscience is absolute. That, or Balkanization in the style of Austro-Hungarian Empire, in which a disparate and motley band of interests are loosely bound in a political confederation where no one party has any say over any other.
I want the morality of the United States before the 1960's restored. I do not want what passes for a culture in the current US; it is a failure and needs to be replaced by something better, and I think that something can be found in the Christian religion.
You say "strictly enforced tolerance of divergent worldviews" and "freedom of conscience" as though someone is telling you you're not entitled to your thoughts or opinions. I can't find that someone in this thread. You are free to hold and share your beliefs as you see fit. You can proselytize on the corner for all I care. In fact, you can even try to influence a lawmaker, but that lawmaker should ignore you if your justification is a religious one.
We all hate when the woke left puts forward some asinine idea and then refuses to debate its merits. They want to control my speech, but won't provide a coherent rationale and refuse to answer questions. A christian wanting to curtail any freedom of mine and justifying it with an appeal to Gods will is doing the exact same thing.
Yes our disagreement is totally ok, but if you want to petition the government to force me to live by your interpretation of Gods will then its no longer totally ok.
I either want to live in a completely different society than you, or I want absolute and strictly enforced tolerance of completely divergent worldviews. The choice, to me, is totally binary. You get no more of a say over me and mine, about absolutely anything, than I might about you and yours. Sound fair?
"You get no more of a say over me and mine, about absolutely anything, than I might about you and yours."
How is this compatible with your desire to have Gods hand considered when deciding on laws that guide our entire society? If justification for a law rests on Gods will, that would be giving you a say "over me and mine"
For example, if a Christian wanted abortion banned from conception because it was against Gods will.
It's the acknowledgment of pluralism, which was my point. I would strongly prefer to live in a society with the guardrails of Christian morality (the United States of the late 19th Century is a good example, at least in the North) but if I can't, then the only pluralism that is acceptable is one in which freedom of conscience is absolute. That, or Balkanization in the style of Austro-Hungarian Empire, in which a disparate and motley band of interests are loosely bound in a political confederation where no one party has any say over any other.
I want the morality of the United States before the 1960's restored. I do not want what passes for a culture in the current US; it is a failure and needs to be replaced by something better, and I think that something can be found in the Christian religion.
You say "strictly enforced tolerance of divergent worldviews" and "freedom of conscience" as though someone is telling you you're not entitled to your thoughts or opinions. I can't find that someone in this thread. You are free to hold and share your beliefs as you see fit. You can proselytize on the corner for all I care. In fact, you can even try to influence a lawmaker, but that lawmaker should ignore you if your justification is a religious one.
We all hate when the woke left puts forward some asinine idea and then refuses to debate its merits. They want to control my speech, but won't provide a coherent rationale and refuse to answer questions. A christian wanting to curtail any freedom of mine and justifying it with an appeal to Gods will is doing the exact same thing.