“Witnessing” is not the same as “being approached by [or even spoken to by] strangers.” “Witnessing” has a specific meaning in the context of religion, and therefore is only one of hundreds of reasons, some acceptable (someone asks for the time) some distasteful (someone makes an insulting comment), for which a person might approach another in public.
The fact that Person A is subject to being approached does not mean that Person B has an absolute right to approach him or her. It may be that someone will ask me for the time today. That person does not necessarily have a right to ask me for the time.
In the context of religion, a person does have a right to free speech, but it is not “absolute;” it is subject to the same restrictions (time/place/manner) as any other type of protected speech.
From which we see that “A may be (or may not be) approached by B for a nonspecific purpose” does not translate to “B has the absolute right to approach A for a specific purpose.”
You might be. That doesn’t mean that the person speaking to you has an absolute right to do so, any more than you have an absolute right that he not do so.
Gosh, sounds like a legal question. It’s too bad you hold lawyers in such low esteem; that might make it harder for you to find one who’s willing to answer your questions for you.
Maybe this is just me, but I’ve never known a Christian of the stripe prone to evangelizing to make a distinction between “witnessing” and “proselytizing.” That is, what they refer to as “witnessing” consists of aggressive attempts at conversion, NOT merely wearing their cross pendant in public.
Okay, broomstick. Sounds like a reasonable compromise to me, except that maybe if you’re really into proselytizing, you might not want to stop at the workplace doors – it puts one’s job in danger, possibly, but what’s a mere job when eternity is at stake?
your conviction of eternal reward/damnation is absolutely irrelevant to many of us.
you are NOT doing us a favor by “sharing” your “joy” - you are inflicting yourself where you are not wanted - ever see the crazy person on the corner babbling something meaningless?
for some of us real, live, grown-up, rational, educated people, YOU are that crazy person.
whatever happened to “keep your light under a bushel”?
I was taught that was a desirable quality among the faithful - share your faith when asked, but do not inflict it where it is not welcome.
I was going to point out that “neo-pagan” encompasses “witch” and “Wiccan,” kinda like how “Christian” encompasses “Lutheran” and “Catholic” and a host of others, but I find myself more intrigued by the idea of a pretend belief. I’m guessing it was an attempt to say “something they made up” rather than “something they don’t believe” but I could be wrong.
It may be irrelevant, but there is the chance, however slight, that there is one who is not familiar with the Gospel, or one who may be won over if they hear it only one more time. As much as it makes one look possibly crazy, it might be necessary. And that is a chance many are willing to take.
at what point will you (collective, including all evangelical Christians) cease to promulgulate the Gospel to we pagans/heathens?
can we simply say, “please, I do not wish to discuss this”, or do we have to use sufficient physical force to render you incapable of speech, in order to convince you to take your beliefs elsewhere?
you simply astound me in your ability to ignore the wishes of rational adults, and preach anyway.
I guess it is an improvement over the various sword-point/gun-point conversions, but still, the mindset is the same - force the non-believer to accept our truth, so that he might be saved.
do you really not realize the similarity of your position with those of the Inquisitions, Star Chamber, and various nightmares of the Reformation?
if you do, how do you rationalize your behavior?
hint: you don’t get to claim moral superiority because you can no longer get away with physical torture - your mindset is the same:
“maybe if we just ram a hot iron into his ass one more time, he’ll convert”
is now:
“maybe if we describe the horrid nature of the eternal torment of hell one more time, he’ll convert”
Then you won’t mind when you get fired for being an annoyance rather than doing the work for which you were hired.
Render under to Ceaser and all that – or did you skip the point of that bit of the New Testament?
“Really into prostelytizing” in the sense you mean here - conversation at all costs - is about as justifiable in my mind as the genital mutilation of girls in the Sudan to render them “pure” and “impossible” to rape. It’s not justifiable. Eternity is NOT at stake, even if you believe it to be.
happyheathen, I would hope that saying that you do not wish to discuss this would be sufficient. And don’t mistake me, I’m not going to be the one pushing it on people anymore, I hope.
There are generally work breaks where one can proselytize – I don’t know if one would say that’s during work or not.
While I say that to some proselytization may be important, I am not condoning proselytization at gunpoint, or genital mutilation, or killing homosexuals or beating people until they convert. Proselytization must be done with an intent to love – if some form of proselytizing would not be effective and/or would cause physical harm to another, it should not be done. If we speak strictly of Christian proselytizers, they need to remember that bit in the New Testament about loving one’s neighbor, and physical harm is not loving.
As for whether or not eternity is at stake, hasn’t that been debated for centuries with no definitive conclusions?
many, many things have been debated for many centuries, and yet there are no universally recognized “truths”.
Individuals, however, HAVE come to conclusions which they consider incontrovertable - you have your incontrovertable truth - the soul is immortal, and will receive either eternal reward or damnation; we heathens/pagans have our incontrovertable truths - the soul, if any, dies with the body, and there is no such thing as eternal life, at least not in anything resembling the J/C/I concept.
in that difference lies the problem of proselyization - one reality is incompatible with/obscene to the other reality - therefor, a virtuous person will not do not do violence to the beliefs of others.
There was a discussion awhile back as to whether or not it was appropriate for atheist to refer to other people’s deities as “magical sky pixies” and/or “invisible pink unicorns” - cannot there be a similar discussion of the appropriateness of suggesting “eternal damnation” to those who believe that eternity does not exist?
I think that we should be able to talk about these differences in beliefs. Whether or not you think we’re “going to hell” for what we believe, we still think it and should be able to discuss it. We don’t stifle and demand silence from you when you hand out tracts that we find offensive, so why should that be demanded of us when we discuss our different ideas on how things work?
-indigo-
It shouldn’t, which is what Minty Green and Jodi are arguing - Freedom of speech. It is happyheathen, obviously a Pagan, who is arguing that there should be restrictions on speech regarding religous beliefs. Some quotes:
no one is saying that there is not a point at which witnessing becomes harrasment
they are saying that all people have the right to share their religous beliefs
obviously there are limits to what is acceptable, but those limits are no different from other forms of speech
one sentence paragraphs with improper capitalization sure are annoying, aren’t they?
somebody may give you a “hard sell” on the street trying to get
you to vote a certain way, or buy a watch from them, or sign a petition
these activities are legal, and no different for street preachers
if they are deisturbing the peace, they are asked to leave. this is the same standard that is applied to people who witness
physical force is not, and should not be condoned
this posting style is giving me a headache, i think i’ll stop now.
Anyway, I think my part of this discussion is closed. You guys can continue arguing points if you want, but I’m over it and I’ve moved on. Thanks for at least listening and responding initially for everyone that did.
-indigo-
<hijack>
The phrase “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” is widely attributed to Voltaire, but cannot be found in his writings. With good reason. The phrase was invented by a later author as an epitome of his attitude. It appeared in The Friends of Voltaire (1906), written by Evelyn Beatrice Hall under the pseudonym S[tephen] G. Tallentyre.
Not taking a position in the debate, but I did want to offer this hijack: I think you’ve offered a malapropism and a misinterpretation.
In Matthew, Christ tells his disciples that they are the light of the world. People, he says, do not light a lamp and put it under a basket, but rather on a stand, so that it gives light to all who are in the house. He tells them to let their light shine before men so that they may see the disciples’ good works, and thus glorify God in Heaven.
So if you’re talking about keeping lights hidden under a basket, Christ uses this as an example of what not to do.
Just wanted to keep our literary allusions straight.
Yeah, I know the “do not” is the position of the Gospels - but, when I was a wee lad, being raised (more or less) Methodist, I was taught not to speak of religion outside religious places and times.
maybe the rules were different for adults, but the custom I knew was to not be the first to mention one’s faith.
IIRC, there were a few less-than-pleasant terms for those who made a point of declaring their religion.
MIS, not only do you sound like a perfect reflection of what LGBT folk go through every day of their lives (let alone those of us who are actually out and active in the community), but you also sound like me on the SDMB. Careful, lest you, too, be branded a One Trick Pony[sup]TM[/sup]!
And minty, FTR, I think you were pretty fucking rude, too. Nobody said she has to like it, but it helps to vent a little steam now and then when it gets to you (and speaking from experience, it does, and venting helps a lot).
