Skip to comments.'DON'T IMPOSE YOUR VALUES' ARGUMENT IS BIGOTRY IN DISGUISE
Posted on 11/25/2004 9:04:40 AM PST by RepCath
I am struggling to understand the "don't impose your values" argument. According to this popular belief, it is wrong, and perhaps dangerous, to vote your moral convictions unless everybody else already shares them. Of course if everybody already shares them, no imposition would be necessary.
Nobody ever explains exactly what constitutes an offense in voting one's values, but the complaints appear to be aimed almost solely at conservative Christians, who are viewed as divisive when they try to "force their religious opinions on us." But as UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh writes, "That's what most lawmaking is -- trying to turn one's opinions on moral or pragmatic subjects into law."
Those who think Christians should keep their moral views to themselves, it seems to me, are logically bound to deplore many praiseworthy causes, including the abolition movement, which was mostly the work of the evangelical churches courageously applying Christian ideas of equality to the entrenched institution of slavery. The slaveowners, by the way, frequently used "don't impose your values" arguments, contending that whether they owned blacks or not was a personal and private decision and therefore nobody else's business. The civil rights movement, though an alliance of Christians, Jews and nonbelievers, was primarily the work of the black churches arguing from explicitly Christian principles.
(Excerpt) Read more at story.news.yahoo.com ...
Imposition of values is what it's all about. Destruction of the leftist state of mind and all desciples and apostles is the goal.
Envirowacks, diversitycranks and PCnuts all impose their advocacies constantly. Imposition is a mild term when considering the rabid tactics of the left.
"Don't impose your values" is a fallacy. Laws are based on values, basically a belief that it's immoral to hurt or steal from your neighbor. What the liberals really mean is "we don't like your values so we'll impose ours on you".
The "values imposers" of the secular left are intellectually dishonest as they never admit to the imposition.
Great piece from the ever dependable Leo.
Yet they'll try to force gay marriage on us and change the very culture we live in.
It's just like saying a government can't legislate morality. Of course they can, and DO, all the time!
Consider Welfare as one instance; Monetarily rewarding people who have children out of wedlock is legislative morality. Monetarily rewarding laziness and sloth is the same thing.
"Don't impose your morality on me" is self-hypocritical.
It itself is a moral value that they are imposing upon you by telling you what to do.
It's really just a way to avoid having to actually defend the morality of their behavior.
When the liberals fail to impose their values through the electoral process they do it through the court system.
I'm hoping for three Supreme Court appointments in the next 4 years. Maybe that will at least slow down the process of federal judges changing the laws.
Reminds me of Spock saying, "Captain, not to make a decision is a decision".
There is nothing in the US founding that everyone who comes to this country will try not to offend everyone else. In fact, arguing that a people have a right not to be offended is really dumb.
"In fact, arguing that a people have a right not to be offended is really dumb."
It's also a sham as well. The left never cares about offending people who are conservative, white, from the south, believe in God, etc.
Can't legislate morality? Let's start by repealing all laws against murder. Thou shalt not kill (murder) is one of the commandments, and is based on morality, which we must not legislate.
Let's also get rid of all laws against stealing -- another law based on a commandment.
Ping for later reference. I hope the link doesn't go stale.
For future searching excerpt:
Sometimes the "don't impose" argument pops up in an odd form, as when John Kerry (news - web sites) tried to define the stem-cell argument as science vs. ideology. But the stem-cell debate in fact featured ideology vs. ideology: the belief that the chance to eliminate many diseases outweighs the killing of infinitesimal embryos vs. the belief that killing embryos for research is a moral violation and a dangerous precedent. Both arguments are serious moral ones.
What liberals really mean is every one MUST follow THEIR values but they have the right to prevent others from following values liberals disapprove of. In other words, the "don't impose your values" argument is really an argument for the inapplicability of conservative values but its normal and mainstream for liberal beliefs to be considered normative for the rest of society. Liberal values by extension aren't an imposition; they just are what people accept all along and all other values don't fit the template because they are controversial and people don't feel comfortable with them. Either way, heads or tails, liberals win.
Moral Absolutes Ping - Haven't read down the thread yet, I hope someone copies more of Leo's article. I usually like what the man says.
Looks like some good discussion points so far.
Happy Thanksgiving everyone!
Let me know if anyone wants on/off this pinglist.
The Left uses the government and the public schools to impose its moral views on sexuality all the time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.