"Religious freedom" and the right to proselytize

[Kalt]

I was just watching Hannity and Colmes on FNC, and they had the story about the American Christians who were arrested in Afghanistan by the Taliban for trying to convert muslims to christianity.

One of the (christian) guests on the TV show was saying that the taliban is “so extreme that they don’t even welcome the Holy Father.” I couldn’t listen to that without giggling at the self-centered ignorance of the speaker. This made me think that maybe these christian prisoners in afghanistan are in that situation because christians really have a problem with respecting non-christians.

One of the biggest problems with christianity is the “duty” to proselytize. I am a firm believer in freedom of (and from) religion, but there is no right to proselytize - that is not what freedom of religion means. Freedom of religion does not mean you are free to force your beliefs on others. Christians think they have a “god-given right to proselytize.” I’ve seen christians make the argument that Roe v. Wade violates their freedom of religion - their freedom to live in a country that has laws based on their dogma. I think this is wrong - it is rude, unethical, and against public policy.

Religions are like pubic hairs - they should be kept to yourself. I see a horrible example of christian emperialism in this presumed “right to spread the word” not only in America, but around the world as well - in countries that blatantly do NOT want jesus. Christians do not have the right to infringe on Islam any more than Islam has the right to infringe on christianity. This is a prime reason why religion leads to war.

Is it so hard for Christians to understand that there are plenty of people out there who don’t want jesus because their religions make them just as happy as jesus makes the Christians? I realize Christians think they “know” something great that nonchristians don’t, but their belief in jesus is no different from a Muslim’s belief in Mohammed or Allah. Muslims think they “know” something that Christians don’t. Proselytizing is when one religion doesn’t respect other peoples’ belief in their religions.

I think it is horribly disrespectful for a person of X religion to try to force their beliefs on, and convert, a person of Y religion. Not only is it disrespectful to Y religion, but they have no right to do it. It is violating another person’s right to be secure and happy in their belieif(s) - and to not be harassed because of their religion. I DO think people have that right.

The worst is when Christians try to use food and medicine as “blackmail” to convert the hungry and sick. That’s another thread for another day, though.

Of course, the Christian will say “there is a right to proselytize, because the bible tells me to do so, and the bible is the word of god.” We don’t let Mormons men have more than one wife, nor do we let them have sex with 10 year olds; despite what their god tells them to do/what is okay in the Book of Mormon. Is that a violation of their freedom of religion (despite what the sex-hungry mormon would say)? Of course not. There is no right to do whatever you want just because your god-book of choice says you should. If my god-book tells me to kill little children, it is not a violation of my freedom of religion when I am arrested for practicing my beliefs. Surely we would all believe in a god that forbids the payment of taxes.

A “right to proselytize” is against public policy. First of all, it is a blatant pyramid scheme which is illegal (at least in the US). Second of all, it causes hostility, resent, and annoyance.

The “you should proselytize” tenet of christianity is very clever marketing, for sure. More members = more money for the religious leaders. Of course that’s the bottom line. But non-proselytory (if there is such a word) religions, such as Judaism and Buddhism, do not die out because of their lack of active conversion.

No religion has the right to try to convince others to join. You have the right to pray to whatever god you want and practice your religion however you want, so long as it doesn’t hurt anyone. But you have no innate right to actively convert people.

Religions should spread by either parent/child relationships or passive conversion (without being the subject of proselytizers, a person wants to convert for whatever reason).

So, my question is the following:

Does the Taliban (an Islamic government) have the right to punish people who try to spread christianity?

Since (according to my theory) there is no right to proselytize, the Taliban is therefore not violating any “human right” by arresting proselytizers of non-islamic religions. A government (regardless of how nice it is) has the right to prevent people from uprising. A government based on X religion should have the right to prevent Y religion from spreading, because people of Y religion are a threat to the government’s stability and power. Governments have an innate right to protect their power - as long as they don’t violate human rights. Of course, ideally, there would be no religious governments. Without separation of church and state, you end up with the Taliban (fortunately our founding fathers realized this).

Of course the punishment should fit the crime - and I’m not saying I hope those American prisoners are executed or kept imprisoned. Let’s just focus on whether the Taliban islamic government has the right to disallow non-islamic proselytizers, not how harsh the punishment is/should be. In other words, I’m trying to keep this a philosophical question, not a legal one.

I’m very curious what others think about this, but rest assured I will ignore (as I always do) any responses based on “the bible says…” reasoning.

[RoboDude]

In case you weren’t aware, the right to peacefully express one’s self is largely looked upon as a fundamental human right. Saying “My religion is better than yours” does not, by any stretch of the imagination, constitute forcing one’s beliefs on others. If you don’t agree with the proselytizer, don’t convert.

[MEBuckner]

Religious freedom certainly doesn’t include the right to “force” anyone to convert–but freedom of religion, not to mention freedom of speech, most certainly do include the right to talk about your beliefs and to seek to peacefully persuade others to adopt them. As Thomas Jefferson might put it, having someone else tell me to convert to the worship of their God “neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg”. (You may find the attitudes expressed by missionaries or evangelists to be arrogant, condescending, irritating, or outrageous, but no one has any “right” not to be offended.) Naturally, the right to proselytize does not allow anyone to violate the laws of a civilized society. No one has a right to trespass; if you knock on my door, I have a right to tell you no thanks and to go away, and you must leave. No one may commandeer the state in order to proselytize–you may not take a job as a public school teacher and then try to convert your students at work. And anyone who is being subjected to religious proselytization is always free to say “I’ll take one of your tracts if you’ll take one of mine”.

Note that I defend this view not on Biblical grounds, but on classical liberal ones:
[list=1]
[li]Laws should not be enacted where there is no “harm” to anyone. Having one’s beliefs questioned, or being “offended”, does not, in my view, qualify as a “harm”. If it did, freedom of speech would be impossible.[/li][li]Freedom of speech is a core value of liberalism. Proselytization is speech. I favor as minimal restrictions on freedom of speech as possible (libel and slander, fraud, revealing genuine state secrets such as troop movements in wartime). This would be a very broad attack on freedom of speech.[/li][li]Freedom of conscience is another core value of free societies. If someone’s conscience demands they “save souls”, and this is done by means consistent with point 1 (i.e., no one else is harmed), then it is unaccetable to burden the conscience of a Christian (or an evangelical secular humanist, for that matter) by persecuting them on account of their carrying out their religious duties (or acting on their deeply held philosophical convictions).[/li][/list=1]

Since (according to my theory) there is no right to proselytize, the Taliban is therefore not violating any “human right” by arresting proselytizers of non-islamic religions.

Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (emphasis added):

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

[Odesio]

*Originally posted by Kalt *
**
A “right to proselytize” is against public policy. First of all, it is a blatant pyramid scheme which is illegal (at least in the US). Second of all, it causes hostility, resent, and annoyance.

**

Excuse me but can you please expalin to me how it is a pyramid scheme?

**
No religion has the right to try to convince others to join. You have the right to pray to whatever god you want and practice your religion however you want, so long as it doesn’t hurt anyone. But you have no innate right to actively convert people.

**

I have a right to peacefully convince others to believe whatever the hell I want them to believe. You know that non religious groups do these things all the time. PETA, the NRA, the Sierra Club, and all long distance phone companies are organizations which actively attempt to get people to change their minds. Why is that? Because it is public policy, at least in this nation, that people have a right to freedom of expression.

**
Does the Taliban (an Islamic government) have the right to punish people who try to spread christianity?

**

They have just as much right to do that as they do to beat women for not covering enough flesh.

**
Since (according to my theory) there is no right to proselytize, the Taliban is therefore not violating any “human right” by arresting proselytizers of non-islamic religions.

**

Is there no human right to self expression?

**
A government (regardless of how nice it is) has the right to prevent people from uprising. A government based on X religion should have the right to prevent Y religion from spreading, because people of Y religion are a threat to the government’s stability and power. Governments have an innate right to protect their power - as long as they don’t violate human rights.

**

I find this to be rather strange. You think that a government based on religion X is respecting the human rights of others? Of course in this country people practicing religion X, Y, and Z are terrorized and executed. If you attempt to stop someone from spreading their religion you are removing their ability to practice free speech. That is certainly wrong.

**
Of course the punishment should fit the crime - and I’m not saying I hope those American prisoners are executed or kept imprisoned.

**

What is the crime? Who was harmed by the actions of those spreading their religion?

**
Let’s just focus on whether the Taliban islamic government has the right to disallow non-islamic proselytizers, not how harsh the punishment is/should be. In other words, I’m trying to keep this a philosophical question, not a legal one.

**

If you’re trying to keep it philosophical instead of legal you might want to avoid using words like “crime.”

Marc

[Neurotik]

*Originally posted by Kalt *
I was just watching Hannity and Colmes on FNC

There’s your first mistake

I am a firm believer in freedom of (and from) religion, but there is no right to proselytize - that is not what freedom of religion means.

No, but that’s what freedom of speech means.

Christians think they have a "god-given right to proselytize."

No, but they’ve got a Constitutional right to proselytize…in this country at least, I’ll get to others in a few seconds.

I’ve seen christians make the argument that Roe v. Wade violates their freedom of religion - their freedom to live in a country that has laws based on their dogma.

I’m saddened by the fact that I’m not surprised to hear this. Their understanding of the Constitution is severely flawed.

Religions are like pubic hairs - they should be kept to yourself.

I can think of some people’s who I wouldn’t mind if they didn’t keep their pubes to themselves

I think it is horribly disrespectful for a person of X religion to try to force their beliefs on, and convert, a person of Y religion. Not only is it disrespectful to Y religion, but they have no right to do it. It is violating another person’s right to be secure and happy in their belieif(s) - and to not be harassed because of their religion. I DO think people have that right.

Proselytizing is not the same thing as forcing your beliefs on someone. There are plenty of examples of that from just about every religion in the world. Proselytizing is definitely not the same thing though.

How is it causing people’s beliefs to be less secure or happy if they were truly secure and happy in them before. So long as they are not forcing them into anything, anyone can try and convince anyone else of just about anything they want. If the person changes their mind, so be it, if not, so be that, too.

Of course, the Christian will say "there is a right to proselytize, because the bible tells me to do so, and the bible is the word of god."

Hmmm…possibly, but I think more say they have an obligation to proselytize because the Bible tells them to. They know they have the right to do so because the Constitution tells them so. Again, in this country

A “right to proselytize” is against public policy. First of all, it is a blatant pyramid scheme which is illegal (at least in the US).

OK, you are going to have to provide a cite for this. No one is FORCED to give any money. There was a thread on this about a year ago in which the person asserting the pyramid/extortion thing was pretty much shot down. Try running a search for religion = organized crime or something along those lines.

Second of all, it causes hostility, resent, and annoyance.

True, but so do conflicing political beliefs and political values. I am assuming you do not advocate the stifling of political opposition.

No religion has the right to try to convince others to join. You have the right to pray to whatever god you want and practice your religion however you want, so long as it doesn’t hurt anyone. But you have no innate right to actively convert people.

Actually, they do in this country. By the way, when I keep meaning this country, I mean the USA. My apologies if you are not from here.

Does the Taliban (an Islamic government) have the right to punish people who try to spread christianity?

Ah…here’s where things get interesting. First off, the Taliban are not a recognized government. But let’s assume for the sake of argument they are.

How much latitude do sovereign states have in making their own laws? In the past, no one would have doubted for a minute the “right” of the Taliban to ban people from trying to convert Muslims to a different religion.

However, these days, unless a government is deemed a world power (China, USA, EU, etc.) most nations are subject to the so-called UN Charter of Human Rights. Assuming that this passes for international law (I’m not sure I am of the opinion that it does, but that’s another discussion)then no, the Taliban may not have the right to create laws regarding religious conversion.

Since (according to my theory) there is no right to proselytize, the Taliban is therefore not violating any “human right” by arresting proselytizers of non-islamic religions.

Well, they might be violating freedoms of speech and such. If that’s included in international law. I’m not sure that it is.

A government (regardless of how nice it is) has the right to prevent people from uprising.

Hmmmm…I’m not sure that’s true. Did the military juntas of Argentina and Chile have a right to disappear people simply to avoid them causing dissent?

Let’s just focus on whether the Taliban islamic government has the right to disallow non-islamic proselytizers, not how harsh the punishment is/should be. In other words, I’m trying to keep this a philosophical question, not a legal one.

Unfortunately, you brought in human rights, which are essentially a legal concept. Sure, you can theorize about them all you want but they are meaningless until put into law.

Realistically, governments have the right to do whatever they like so long as they have the muscle/cunning to get away with it. So the Taliban can pass whatever laws they want until either their own citizens put them out of power or an international body steps in and forces them to stop. So with this theory, I suppose the Taliban can do whatever they like until someone forces them to knock it off.

[capacitor]

Neurotik, Kalt favors the stifling of religious opinion.

Ok Kalt, what about atheism; should we stilfle atheist opinion that as well?

[bdgr]

Ok, since other people have ripped up the other points

The worst is when Christians try to use food and medicine as “blackmail” to convert the hungry and sick.

I’ve known a whole lot of missionaries. I have never heard of anyone in modern times saying “we will only feed you if you convert”. Its usually more like heres some food, and once your done eating, let me tell you about Jesus". Many times there are people who die without the intervention of these people. So what if they get to give a pitch at the end of the day.

When I was having financial problems when I lived in Utah, the LDS church helped me and my roomate out. I didnt care that they got a chance to recomend to book of mormon to me, even though I do not believe them, I was just thankfull that they would help me, and that I could keep the heat on so my child didnt freeze to death. There were no secular groups beating down the door to help.

[Kalt]

*Originally posted by MGibson ***

Excuse me but can you please expalin to me how it is a pyramid scheme?

**

Sure, but first you’ll have to recognize that organized religions are businesses. Imagine a preacher telling every member of his church (lets say he just has a few) that they have to bring more people to the church - and those people are then required to recruit others, and so on and so forth. Keep in mind, you gotta pay to pray - those preachers need cars n’ stuff. If anyone other than a religion tried to do this, the feds would break it up.

**
I have a right to peacefully convince others to believe whatever the hell I want them to believe. You know that non religious groups do these things all the time. PETA, the NRA, the Sierra Club, and all long distance phone companies are organizations which actively attempt to get people to change their minds. Why is that? Because it is public policy, at least in this nation, that people have a right to freedom of expression.

**

Sure - and I agree with that, except I think that someone’s “spiritual beliefs” are different than their long distance carrier. Freedom of expression only goes so far. You can skip up and down the streets singing “my religion is so great!” all you want, and that’s perfectly fine. But when you start going door to door threatening people with hell, opening up soup kitchens and only giving homeless people food if they learn about jesus, and trying to force your beliefs onto everone via your elected officials - there is a problem that is beyond the scope of freedom of expression (in my humble opinion).

**
If you attempt to stop someone from spreading their religion you are removing their ability to practice free speech. That is certainly wrong.

**

I think there is a big difference between practicing your religion (which I would surely consider protected free expression) and spreading your religion. Do you think Tom Green (the Utah polygamist, not the silly MTV guy) had his freedom of expression/speech violated when our government would not let him have 5 wives? I don’t.

If spreading your religion is inseparable from practicing your religion, then your religion should be against public policy (just like the religion that says marrying 13 year-olds is vital to going to heaven).

**
What is the crime? Who was harmed by the actions of those spreading their religion?

**

There is such a thing as a victimless crime. Someone doesn’t have to be harmed for something to be illegal. Regardless, they would surely say the integrity of Islam is harmed. It’s not for us to question them.

**
If you’re trying to keep it philosophical instead of legal you might want to avoid using words like “crime.”

**

Well, behind the law there is philosophy. The fact of the matter is those christians were arrested for the “crime” of spreading christianity in afghanistan.
Neurotik:

I watched O’reilly too

**
Proselytizing is not the same thing as forcing your beliefs on someone. There are plenty of examples of that from just about every religion in the world. Proselytizing is definitely not the same thing though.

How is it causing people’s beliefs to be less secure or happy if they were truly secure and happy in them before. So long as they are not forcing them into anything, anyone can try and convince anyone else of just about anything they want. If the person changes their mind, so be it, if not, so be that, too.

**

“Forcing” is the key word here. I think when christians target vulnerable people (the poor, the starving, etc) and threaten them with hell if they dont convert and conversely tell them they can have food, medicine, and heaven if they do - that is “forcing” in my humble opinion. For the reasons I stated in my initial post, I do not believe a right to do this falls under “freedom of expression.”

**
(regarding pyramid scheme) No one is FORCED to give any money. There was a thread on this about a year ago in which the person asserting the pyramid/extortion thing was pretty much shot down. Try running a search for religion = organized crime or something along those lines.

**

You cannot be a Scientologist without paying. Scientologists are supposed to proselytize and recruit new members (all of whom have to pay). In christianity, you are “heavily urged” to give as much money as possible. There are membership fees at ever church I know of (I’m sure someone will tell me about their entirely free church, but that is a vast minority). If you don’t pay, you will be looked down on and made to feel extremely guilty.

**
First off, the Taliban are not a recognized government.

**

That doesn’t mean they are not a government in power. It may make us feel good to not “recognize” them… but they’re still there. It’s been a while since i’ve read a child psychology textbook, but if I recall correctly, before X months old a baby will think things disappear if they are covered up. They won’t reach under the blanket to get the toy, because if they can’t see it, they think it is gone. Surely our government is beyond that metaphorical age. Just because we don’t diplomatically recognize them doesn’t mean they are not there.

**
Hmmmm…I’m not sure that’s true. Did the military juntas of Argentina and Chile have a right to disappear people simply to avoid them causing dissent?

**

If they had a specific rule that said “don’t do X or you will be removed” then sure they have the right to do it (not saying it is nice and happy). A government has the right to control its citizens. Our government has the right to put you in jail if you don’t pay your taxes, etc. As far as I know, the Taliban had rules against people trying to convert muslims to other religions before the people in question went in there and did exactly that.

[bdgr]

*Originally posted by Kalt *
**

*Originally posted by MGibson ***

Excuse me but can you please expalin to me how it is a pyramid scheme?

**

Sure, but first you’ll have to recognize that organized religions are businesses. Imagine a preacher telling every member of his church (lets say he just has a few) that they have to bring more people to the church - and those people are then required to recruit others, and so on and so forth. Keep in mind, you gotta pay to pray - those preachers need cars n’ stuff. If anyone other than a religion tried to do this, the feds would break it up.

**No church I have ever been too(and I have been to a lot of them) requires you to recruit others. They encourage it though.

**
opening up soup kitchens and only giving homeless people food if they learn about jesus, (in my humble opinion).

**and they dont do this. They give food out, if you wanna learn about Jesus, you do so. How many soupkitchens have you started?

**
If you attempt to stop someone from spreading their religion you are removing their ability to practice free speech. That is certainly wrong.

**

**
I think there is a big difference between practicing your religion (which I would surely consider protected free expression) and spreading your religion. Do you think Tom Green (the Utah polygamist, not the silly MTV guy) had his freedom of expression/speech violated when our government would not let him have 5 wives? I don’t.

**Actually, while I dont believe in poligamy, I dont think it is the governments business who marries who

**
If spreading your religion is inseparable from practicing your religion, then your religion should be against public policy (just like the religion that says marrying 13 year-olds is vital to going to heaven).

**and you cant see how this is an invalid comparison? How sad…

**

“Forcing” is the key word here. I think when christians target vulnerable people (the poor, the starving, etc) and threaten them with hell if they dont convert and conversely tell them they can have food, medicine, and heaven if they do - that is “forcing” in my humble opinion. For the reasons I stated in my initial post, I do not believe a right to do this falls under “freedom of expression.”

**when, in modern times, have christians held back food or medicine fro someone until they convert. Cite?

**
(regarding pyramid scheme) No one is FORCED to give any money. There was a thread on this about a year ago in which the person asserting the pyramid/extortion thing was pretty much shot down. Try running a search for religion = organized crime or something along those lines.

**

**
You cannot be a Scientologist without paying. Scientologists are supposed to proselytize and recruit new members (all of whom have to pay). In christianity, you are “heavily urged” to give as much money as possible. There are membership fees at ever church I know of (I’m sure someone will tell me about their entirely free church, but that is a vast minority). If you don’t pay, you will be looked down on and made to feel extremely guilty.

**Just about every church in the united states, they encourage you to give 10 percet, and even so, it is anonymous, so they dont know how much you give. **I have never heard of a membership fee at a church. Ever. I have been to just about every denomonation. It doesnt happen, not at any mainstream churches I am aware of. Scientologists are in thier own catagory.

[quote]
**
.

[Odesio]

*Originally posted by Kalt *
**

Sure, but first you’ll have to recognize that organized religions are businesses.

**

And I suppose you’re recognize that perhaps you just don’t like organized religion?

**
Imagine a preacher telling every member of his church (lets say he just has a few) that they have to bring more people to the church - and those people are then required to recruit others, and so on and so forth. Keep in mind, you gotta pay to pray - those preachers need cars n’ stuff. If anyone other than a religion tried to do this, the feds would break it up.

**

Churches also receive a tax exempt status. I bet that really chaps your hide. Actually a lot of churches use the money collected from members to keep up the church and in some religions to pay the preacher a small stipend or allowance. Most of them aren’t like Jimmy Swaggart out there making millions off of people in their churches. In fact in a lot of christian churches, especially the smaller ones, the preacher isn’t paid and has a day job to support himself.

**

Freedom of expression only goes so far. You can skip up and down the streets singing “my religion is so great!” all you want, and that’s perfectly fine. But when you start going door to door threatening people with hell, opening up soup kitchens and only giving homeless people food if they learn about jesus, and trying to force your beliefs onto everone via your elected officials - there is a problem that is beyond the scope of freedom of expression (in my humble opinion).

**

Who’s being forced? I’ve had religious people come to my door from time to time and I’ve simply told them “no thanks” and then they left. I’ve never had one come to my door spouting hellfire and damnation to all those who don’t follow the one true god. And I’ve never seen a soup kitchen that required someone learn about Jesus in order to get food or assistance. In fact a lot of soup kitchens run by religious organizations just help they don’t recruit. And even if they did so what? Is there some aspect to the pyramid scheme that makes recuriting people who can’t afford food useful?

**
If spreading your religion is inseparable from practicing your religion, then your religion should be against public policy (just like the religion that says marrying 13 year-olds is vital to going to heaven).

**

I don’t understand your major objection to people trying to spread their religion. Should attempting to persuad someone to view things your way always be illegal? In fact I think it should be illegal for you to proselytize here. You’re attempt to get the rest of us to see things your way is causing harm and should not be allowed in this society.

**
There is such a thing as a victimless crime. Someone doesn’t have to be harmed for something to be illegal. Regardless, they would surely say the integrity of Islam is harmed. It’s not for us to question them.

**

If there is no victim then there shouldn’t be a crime. I guess that’s another topic though. And actually it is up to us to question any nation which squashes the rights of their citizens.

**
Well, behind the law there is philosophy. The fact of the matter is those christians were arrested for the “crime” of spreading christianity in afghanistan.

**

Is it ok for them to be arrested for the crime of being christian? Oh wait, you think it is.

Marc

[RoboDude]

You can skip up and down the streets singing “my religion is so great!” all you want, and that’s perfectly fine. But when you start going door to door threatening people with hell, opening up soup kitchens and only giving homeless people food if they learn about jesus, and trying to force your beliefs onto everone via your elected officials - there is a problem that is beyond the scope of freedom of expression (in my humble opinion).

Perhaps, but that’s not what we’re talking about here. What makes you think that the people who were arrested were doing anything beyond peaceful persuasion?

There is such a thing as a victimless crime. Someone doesn’t have to be harmed for something to be illegal.

True, the government has the ability to prohibit people from doing things that cause no harm to others. But why should it?

“Forcing” is the key word here. I think when christians target vulnerable people (the poor, the starving, etc) and threaten them with hell if they dont convert and conversely tell them they can have food, medicine, and heaven if they do - that is “forcing” in my humble opinion. For the reasons I stated in my initial post, I do not believe a right to do this falls under “freedom of expression.”

There is a big difference between using their acceptance of help as an opprotunity to talk to them about Jesus and saying “If you want our help, you have to convert”.

Oh, and one other thing: Not all Christians, even among those who like to proselytize, believe that all non-Christians go to Hell. Just though I’d let you know.

[MEBuckner]

So, Kalt, what exactly do you think the state should do to Christians who proselytize? Fine them? Put them in jail? (If so, for how long?) Send them into exile? Flog them? Publicly stone them to death?

Also, would this extend to forbidding an atheist or a secular humanist from trying to convert others to a non-theistic viewpoint?

How would you–or would you–distinguish between “proselytizing” and a debate about religion (like the ones we have here in Great Debates) where people discuss and defend their different viewpoints?

You say the Taliban is not violating human rights insofar as it bans Christian proselytizing, because no one has a “right to proselytize”. Under the Taliban Muslims are certainly free to proselytize any non-Muslims who happen to still be around. (There are at least a handful of Hindus left, we know because the Taliban ordered them to wear a special badge not long ago. Clearly, it isn’t illegal simply to be a Hindu, at least not yet. If Hindus went for that sort of thing–which by and large I don’t believe they do–it would obviously be illegal under the Taliban’s laws for them to attempt to win converts. It would not be illegal for Muslims to try to convert Hindus.) Do you approve of this sort of asymmetric ban on proselytizing?

[yosemite]

I saw Hannity and Colmes tonight. I saw a completely different show, apparently.

The relatives of the captured Christians maintain that the people were NOT proselytizing. They claimed that they were their with a “human aid” organization (something like that - sounds like some charity helping out with food and care.) They were not afraid to say they were Christian, but were not there on a “missionary” trip. They were there to show their love for Jesus through helping these suffering people with food and aid. NOT by preaching, or “forcing” anyone to convert. (I got the impression that their goal was to show through their humanitarian aid that Christians are Nice People.) This is what they claim, this is what they said on “Hannity and Colmes”. One woman was arrested with just her backpack, which had her own personal Bible, and a few other items, yet the Taliban claims they have evidence of Christian teaching materials. (Which could not fit into a backpack, obviously.) The relatives are claiming that these people were set up. This is what I saw on the show tonight.

The relatives said they hoped that our government could “hold off” making any military strikes against Afghanistan during the time the trials are going on for these Christians. But, they said they’ll understand if the USA can’t wait. They said that our goverment should do whatever we feel we must do, even if it may put these Christian “detainees” in more danger. I thought that was pretty unselfish of them, frankly. (So did Hannity and Colmes.)

The reference to the Taliban not welcoming the Pope - well, I am not Catholic, but doesn’t almost every country tolerate (if not welcome) a visit from him? I mean, it isn’t like he has cooties, or something! It isn’t like he’s a…terrorist or anything! So, yeah, since I am unaware of too many countries refusing to allow the Pope in - yeah, I’d say that it was “extreme” to refuse to allow him to visit.

MGibson wrote:

In fact in a lot of christian churches, especially the smaller ones, the preacher isn’t paid and has a day job to support himself.

Yep. That’s how my church is set up. No one “forces” us to pay any money to our church. Also, our church has a little soup kitchen, and at no time is any sermon given to the people we feed. And CERTAINLY, there is no “you must convert before we feed you” bullshit. I also remember years ago, our congregation helped out a local family in need. We all specifically agreed to NOT attach any “preaching” or “message” to the aid. Just helped out, that was it.

I’d like to repeat the requests of others here, and ask for some substantive cites that show evidence to the contrary - that the majority of churches are in the practice of “forcing” starving people to convert before giving them any aid. This is all news to me.

[yosemite]

Oh damn. I spelled “there” as “their”. I usually know better than that. Please ignore all other typos.

[Urban_Ranger]

I must agree with Kalt that many Christians who proselytise don’t quite do it in a “peaceful” sort of way. They don’t do it when their victims are fed, dressed, have complete control of their mental facilities, etc. before they start. No sir, they are like vultures, swoop down on the weak and the helpless. They attack the hungry and the emotionally downtrodden. They appear to be nice, but they want nothing more than shackle other people’s minds.

Is that legal? Perhaps, but clearly immoral. Taking advantage of the situation to foist religious dogma upon others is comtemptible.

[yosemite]

*Originally posted by Urban Ranger *
I must agree with Kalt that many Christians who proselytise don’t quite do it in a “peaceful” sort of way. They don’t do it when their victims are fed, dressed, have complete control of their mental facilities, etc. before they start. No sir, they are like vultures, swoop down on the weak and the helpless.

Cites, please?

And you know, if there were enough non-religious sources of charity, these downtrodden wouldn’t have to go to the “vulture” Christians, would they?

So - if you feel what these Christian charities are doing is so “contemptable”, where’s your soup kitchen? Why don’t all of you who feel this way drum all the little Christian soup kitchens out of business, and flood the market with your own soup kitchens?

[Mangetout]

*Originally posted by Kalt *
** I am a firm believer in freedom of (and from) religion

**Please, don’t lecture me about your beliefs, I don’t want to hear it.

I think this is wrong - it is rude, unethical, and against public policy…Religions are like pubic hairs - they should be kept to yourself…This is a prime reason why religion leads to war… but their belief in jesus is no different from a Muslim’s belief in Mohammed or Allah…Proselytizing is when one religion doesn’t respect other peoples’ belief in their religions…I think it is horribly disrespectful for a person of X religion to try to force their beliefs…Not only is it disrespectful to Y religion, but they have no right to do it…The worst is when Christians try to use food and medicine as “blackmail” to convert the hungry and sick…it is a blatant pyramid scheme which is illegal…No religion has the right to try to convince others to join…Religions should spread by either parent/child relationships or passive conversion

I resent you forcing all these opinions down my throat in such an aggressive way.

Seriously though, the point I’m trying to make is that we can scarcely open our mouths on any subject without expressing an opnion, so even when we say “It’s a nice sunny day”, we’re forcing an opinion on someone who maybe doesn’t like the sunshine, why is it different when the subject is metaphysical?

Everybody has the right to peacefully state their opinions(as long as nobody is harmed and all that), everybody has the right to reply “talk to the hand”, changing this is the first dangerous step in the direction of excessive censorship and thought-police scenarios (Gaaah, I hate ‘slippery slope’ assertions, sorry)

[Guinastasia]

Nice straw man you got going there, Kalt.

:rolleyes:

[casdave]

Kalt

What do you mean by prosletysing ?

If I say happy Christmas to a non-Christian is that prosletysing or just insensitivity?

If I happen to possess a book which you do not see, should that posession be illegal, as it is in Afghanistan.

If someone is feeding my people who are starving whilst I find the money to go out and purchase weapons with which to threaten other citizens in other countries would I deserve to be in power at all ?

Shouldn’t I as that government remember which hand is feeding me and restrain myself from biting it ?

If my actions in biting that hand result in the starvation of my citizens then what claim can I possibly have in saying that my path is the one to divinity ?

If I routinely deny 50% of my population the right to medical care, education, employment and self-possession then I certainly would not be a government that has the best interests of that population at heart, no matter what my religious persuasions and self-delusion might say.

How is it that Muslims can live and work peacefully and follow their observances unmolested for the most part(except for the occasional lunatic) in democratic societies and yet the devout Sharia states seek to supress the rights of others who do not follow their code ?

The Western states were at one time heavily controlled by Christian clerics but now their grip has been broken other aspects of Christianity besides fear and eternal damnation have come to the fore.Perhaps Islam will eventually turn out that way, in some places it has but Afghanistan is most certainly not one of them.

[Neurotik]

*Originally posted by Guinastasia *
**Nice straw man you got going there, Kalt.

:rolleyes: **

It really is quite good, isn’t it?