Enforcing your beliefs onto others

[athenian200]

I think that it is not desirable for people to force their beliefs on others. However, I don't believe it's possible for people to function socially without doing so to some extent. We have to force a certain conception of language onto people in order to understand what's being said. We have to push our thoughts onto other people in order to be understood.

All communication is, inherently, pushing one's views onto another person in some form.

Look at this, for instance. Am I not pushing you to agree with me a bit, just by writing this? It only seems unpleasant when what the other person is pushing you to do or think, is something you don't care for. Otherwise, it goes unnoticed.

 

[basic]

There is a difference between presenting an idea to someone and actively trying to apply your own ideals upon someone else.

I think it's only fair to freely present your ideas, but taking action (for good or bad) is a whole other story.

I originally wrote a whole thing on the structure of this kind of "conflict" but I decided to work on a flowchart of it instead. I am still working on it but I will post it when I'm done.

 

[Norton]

If you believe all people have a right to their own beliefs, would it be wrong NOT to stop those people who enforce their beliefs onto others (such as religious reformers?). And if you do, wouldn't you be being a hypocrite?

As the question is posed, it's unclear what constitutes forcing (enforcing?) one's beliefs on another. If you mean a situation where coercion is used to alter others' beliefs, and confrontation is possible and not dangerous, then yes, one should attempt to stop such authoritarian behavior to avoid being labeled a hypocrite. This kind of situation is often found in dictatorships (fascist, communist, and others), and fundamentalist, proselytizing religions. Interestingly, if one chooses not to interfere with such belief "enforcement" because of danger, is one still a hypocrite?

However, it is important not to confuse "force" (is "enforce" really the right word?) with strong persuasion. The line is murky.

 

[basic]

However, it is important not to confuse "force" (is "enforce" really the right word?) with strong persuasion. The line is murky.

This is why I choose to use the word "action." Here is my little flowchart showing what happens in this type of conflict. I know there are a million other possibilities, but this is how I think of it.

First I think we have to make clear the difference between just sharing an idea and "enforcing" it. I think putting an idea on the table is fine and dandy, but taking "biased action" upon the other party is what goes against my personal values. By biased action I mean attempting to "force" or "enforce" beliefs upon another by whatever means. I do not think one should try to change another, nor do I think it is practical.

If you believe all people have a right to their own beliefs, would it be wrong NOT to stop those people who enforce their beliefs onto others (such as religious reformers?). And if you do, wouldn't you be being a hypocrite?

First of all, we all have have our own beliefs whether there's a right to them or not. If someone told me tomorrow that my name is John (which it isn't) I would not believe them even if they told me it is true. This is not a problem unless they start beating me with a spoon until they forced me to say MY NAME IS JOHN. Even then, I would be telling a lie. Although I guess one could argue with enough reinforcement one may start believing things they normally would not.

If we think of the situation from the stand point that simply sharing an idea (such as religion) is different and separate from enforcing it, one could argue that in the situation where (for example) religious reformers imposing their beliefs on others, should warrant a third party intervention, and would not be considered hypocritical. This is because you would be intervening on the ACTION part, not the BELIEFS part.

Anyone still follow what I'm saying? I'm not sure whether I do anymore.

 

[deadred]

My younger brother is a Primitive Baptist preacher in Fort Worth. He called me yesterday afternoon and at one point he went into this deal of how can I consider myself as a believer if I didn't go to church. It didn't really bother me, but it is so typical of the prostlyeizers...they assume by definition that they are right and you are wrong. I just told him we were gonna have to agree to disagree about the subject.

 

[VH]

My younger brother is a Primitive Baptist preacher in Fort Worth. He called me yesterday afternoon and at one point he went into this deal of how can I consider myself as a believer if I didn't go to church. It didn't really bother me, but it is so typical of the prostlyeizers...they assume by definition that they are right and you are wrong. I just told him we were gonna have to agree to disagree about the subject.

Doesn't everyone think they are right about the things they believe? Otherwise, they wouldn't believe it... whatever it is.

 

[Lumi Spitsbergen]

I believe that the Jovians are sneaky no-good dirty tricksters out to get us. I will enforce that position by stepping onto you. It will prevent the Jovians from doing the same.

 

[the]

Doesn't everyone think they are right about the things they believe? Otherwise, they wouldn't believe it... whatever it is.

Ha so true! I been saying that for years.

 

[shahmeran]

Really? If a person's in your face 24/7 preaching the word of god, just the constant exposure to him has to shift your views somewhat

It would only make me more determined to tell him to stuff it. It sure wouldn't make me a believer, rather it would totally turn me off whatever "word" hewas spewing.