--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], new.morning <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > But it's not quite > > > as easy to do so when what you're defending is an > > > active attempt to impose one's own spiritual beliefs > > > on another person. > > > > I am not arguing for the above. But do you feel that "an active > > attempt to impose one's own spiritual beliefs on another person" > > is always wrong in all contexts? > > While I can *theoretically* admit the possibility > that in some time and place it might actually be > appropriate to attempt to impose your spiritual > beliefs on another, I'm not pragmatically convinced > that such a time and place have ever occurred in > the history of the human race. :-)
I think the term "impose" introduces a red herring into the discussion. I seriously doubt Rick's friend would claim it was appropriate or that this was what he intended doing. "Imposing" one's beliefs is the extreme end of a spectrum (whether the issue is racism or beliefs about one's spiritual teacher). A less extreme action is to *attempt to convince*, which is, I suspect, what Rick's friend had in mind. Still less extreme is simply to state one's beliefs forcefully, not in an attempt to convince but to make it clear that there is strong disagreement. Less extreme than that is "Well, I disgree; here's what I believe, but I could be wrong." Then at the opposite end of the spectrum from "impose" is to change the subject and avoid disagreement altogether.
