Just to toss things up a bit more… some interesting quotes from Pope John Paul II as quoted here:
First his comments to Catholics in India in Nov. 1999:
“Just as in the first millennium the Cross was planted on the soil of Europe, and in the second on that of the Americas and Africa, we can pray that in the Third Christian Millennium a great harvest of faith will be reaped in this vast and vital continent [of Asia];” “If the Church in Asia is to fulfill its providential destiny, evangelization must be your absolute priority;” and “I [the pope] pray to the Lord to send many more committed laborers to reap the harvest of souls which I see as ready and plentiful [in Asia].”
Now his comments to Catholics in Kazakstan (apparently quoting a Kazak scholar):
“Precisely because we worship God fully and have faith in him, we have no right to claim that we must force others to believe in him and worship him.”
A friend i showed these to said he was saying the same thing both times, since evangelism does not mean forcing others into anything. At the very least he’s substantially changing his tone.
It doesn’t say anything about age - and that is the problem. Tom Green (not the mtv guy) married his first wife when she was 13 - and quickly impregnated her - with the full support of his community and church. Fundamentalist Mormonism is a utopia for pedophiles. I’ll retract my statement about 10 year olds and replace it with the same statement about 13 year olds. The Church of LDS has tried to separate itself from the polygamy issue because it makes them look bad (e.g. cuts into their profits). But apparently the high-ups in the LDS still support the “fact” that polygamy is the right way to live.
Anyway, no I didn’t abandon this thread, I was just kinda busy. I still don’t have time to respond to every point people have made, but let me say that I think I may have been a little harsher in my OP than I really meant to be. The piece on those missionaries in Afghanistan on Hannity and Colmes really pissed me off - in my opinion, they are a major cause of the hatred Islam feels for the US. There are other causes, too, of course - but such proselytizers only make the situation worse. I typed my original post in a somewhat pissed-off state, and should have cooled down before getting behind the keyboard.
But, there are a few points I will address before I hit the sack
**
**
First let us define “religious government.” My definition (which I based my thoughts on) is a government whose highest laws are religious scripture. For example, the Koran is the law of the land in Afghanistan.
The laws promulgated by a religious government are, of course, all based on the scripture, as well. People who are against the law of the land are outlaws, and outlaws are persecuted in every society I can think of. We persecute outlaws here - we arrest them and punish them… sometimes we even execute them. So, yes, to rephrase your question, a religious government has every right to persecute outlaws. Under such a government, people soliciting another religion are in effect soliciting crime.
Now, this is why I am so against religious governments, and believe so strongly in the separation of church and state we have in our country. I fear the day we discard the Constitution and replace it with the Bible. We will end up with a “Christian Taliban,” enforcing the word of the lord, etc.
As for the fee speech issues involved in a non-right to proselytize, I can only say there is no absolute freedom of speech. I’ll spare you the “yelling fire in a crowded theater” line of reasoning - I realize there is no eminent danger of life and limb from proselytizing… nor am I advocating a legal ban on it in the US, either. I just don’t think Christians have an absolute right to go around the world, subverting local rules, customs, and governments, to “spread” their beliefs.
My biggest problem with proselytizing is that it is never done at arm’s length. The proselytizers always have the food, medicine, and/or money to spare… while the proseltytizees are always in need of some sort of (non-spiritual) help. The proselytizors target that need and market directly to it. So it is never “fair” - never an arm’s length discussion of the merits of X religion.
It is also innately unfair for a religion which espouses proselytizing to try to convert members of a religion (such as Judaism) which does not believe in proselytizing. Yes, it is great marketing on the part of the proselytizing religions, but that doesn’t make it right. How can the non-proselytory religion compete? Should they be forced to change their doctrine to support proselytizing themselves or should they be forced to eventually die out? If members of X religion will stoop to any low in order to spread their religion at any cost, then I would say that religion is dangerous to humanity. There has to be some “cost” to proselytizing.
There is no right to send SPAM email. All the reasons I dislike spam are the same reasons I dislike proselytizing. Do you think spam falls under freedom of speech? I don’t (but i don’t want to change the subject to a debate about spam).
As for all the people who say their preacher is poor and doesn’t demand money, I have two comments:
not every business is successful; and
when the people sitting next to you see that you don’t put any money in the donation tray, word spreads fast that you are cheap, stingy scum. If it is not required to pay, there is great pressure to do so.
A McDonald’s franchise may not be successful and may go out of business, but the McDonald’s corporation makes billions of dollars. The McCatholic Church does the same exact thing - only they threaten their customers with hell to make them go around trying to convince everyone to buy into McJesus. The Catholic Church has more money than McDonald’s Corp. has. Gee, I wonder why?
Kaje: I wonder how the Pope reconciles those two quotes? Quote 1 he says christans are supposed to go to asia and convert all the people there; quote two is a little ambiguous because I bet his definition of “to force” is quite different than mine.
Freedom of speech is all well and good, but not a valid defence of proselytizing in countries where free speech doesn’t exist. No matter what your motives, you still have a responsibility to follow a country’s laws, or you must accept that there will be consequences of breaking them.
I like drinking beer. I would like everyone to join me. But I wouldn’t go on the streets of Saudi Arabia dishing out free booze as it is againt the law.
It is no good debating whether the laws restricting religious freedom are good or bad; the fact is, in countries like Afghanistan, they exist. Live with it.
If a Christian decides to flout the laws in the name of their religion, then that is brave and I wish them luck. But if they then cry “unfair” if they get caught, then it seems that bravery didn’t come into it, but that they assumed that they have the right to do as they wish.
But, to answer the OP…
Of course. A country can make pass any laws they like. Challenge them by all means if you think they are unfair or unjust, but accept that you will face the consequences.
To ignore the OP…
The debate seems to have drifted into a question of whether Christians have the right to proselytize.
In a country where it is disallowed: no, by definition. A law is a law.
In a country where it is allowed: yes. But others also have the right not to listen, so if they say “not interested, thanks”, just leave it.
**
If I was starving, and someone gave food and then wanted to tell me about scientology, or some other thing I didnt believe, I would politely listen to them and be glad they gave me food. You think its better for the people to starve? The Mormon church helped me out of a real jam when I lived in Utah. Although I disagree with them religiously, I did not at all resent them talking to me about the book of mormon. I thank god for them, and they have my utmost respect.
Most members of a church mail in a check each month. If you dont put money in the plate, the guy sitting next to you assumes [list=a]
[li]You mail in your tithe[/li][li]You paid last week[/li][li]You are too broke[/li][li]And the most popular at the churches I have been too: Its none of my business what the guy next to me does, so I don’t even look.[/li][/list=a]
In my church, the offering plate is on a stand at the back, it isnt passed around and they specifically state during the service that they dont want donations from anyone who is not a memeber. Just enjoy the service, and eat the free donuts.
The reason most Christians are so keen on witnessing to everyone is out of a genuine desire to help other people. Thats what its all about. Not some kind of plot to try and make money or control people. The money donated to a church goes toward paying the bills, and paying some of the staff(many work for free, and as I understand it, all mormon ministers work for free), and the rest goes toward helping people who need it.
Well, I’m not Mormon, but I really doubt that is an “impartial” source of information you are giving there.
Getting super picky and anal-retentive, you initially said that the Book of Mormon tells LDS members to have multiple wives and marry 10 year olds. But from the cite you gave, there was a seemingly anti-polygamy verse from the Book of Mormon, while the pro-polygamy verse is in D&C. (Monty also said the relavent verse was in D&C, IIRC.)
(I see in preview that Monty has already responded! )
I’ll let Monty challenge you on that one. But the Mormons I knew in L.A. didn’t think that it was.
:rolleyes:
So it’s all the Christians’ fault. Those assholes. Going over there with aid and food and stuff. That’s why Afghanistan hates the US so much! Yeah! It’s all that simple.
But the separation of church and state that you feel so strongly about allows free speech, (at least in the USA) and supports the rights of religious folk to proselytize! Isn’t that terrible? This whole free speech thing is such a bummer, because it allows the “wrong” people to speak. And to speak to just anyone! We’ve got to find a way to control that. We oughta pass a law, to make sure the “right” people can speak freely, but the “wrong” people can’t. And you get to dictate what is “wrong” and “right”. Yeah, that sounds fair.
Yeah, because maybe they’d also “spread” the belief that women have rights too, or it’s not right to beat your kids or wife. Or they might try to subvert “local rules” about female genital mutilation, that kind of stuff. Or try to educate the locals (and try to change their “customs”) about sex and protection, to help prevent AIDS. Because by doing that, it might change some of the local “customs”. And we wouldn’t want that. The nerve! No, let’s not try to subvert any local rules or customs. Because they are all so wonderful and perfect, all the time.
Damn them! Damn them all that food and money and medicine! The bastards! They’ve got a lot of nerve doling out food and medicine to those in need!
So they should take all their food and medicine and leave? And let all the needy starve, right? I don’t see you offering to step up to the plate and take their place. All you are doing is bitching about how they seem to have the food and money and medicine to spare. The heartless bastards.
And what makes you think that many religions don’t just give out aid without any preaching involved? My church does exactly that. But the thing is, the recipients know that a church is behind the food and aid that they are being given. They KNOW. We don’t hide the fact, since the soup kitchen is in the church building. And sometimes they ask about our church, or they have a positive feeling about our religion, because of what we’ve done for them. Is that “fair”? Should we find a neutral building (non-church building) and set up our soup kitchen there? Would that satisfy you? Or should we close down our soup kitchen and leave, since we are not being “fair”?
Damn! Well, why do I keep on getting SPAM then? Why aren’t all these spammers in jail, then? They have no right! ::stomps foot::
Prove it. Give me some (neutral, inbiased) cites that prove this is commonplace. Prove that this is so with my church. Prove that this is so with all non-salaried churches. It’s not. We have plenty of resources at our church. And no one gets a salary. I have gone for months without dropping anything in the collection plate, and no one gives me a dirty look. No pressure. No one knows my business. Not all churches are alike.
Hey! What an idea! That’s what we should have done before the Civil War! Slavery was legal! Live with it! No reason to try to “flout” it! And if you do try to fight it, and suffer because you broke the law, tough! No use in crying “unfair”!
There is no “plate passing” during the LDS services. I really have no idea of what the RLDS do, but I will actually venture to one of their services this coming Sunday (their meeting hall is a far cry closer to my apartment than ours is {assuming theirs is still open}) and report back.
You see, for the LDS, the offerings are tendered via offering envelopes with offering slips. One does the “paperwork” (the slips) at home and then drops the envelope in a box in the chapel or one can mail it to the ward clerk.
The offering slips have little designation boxes on them: Fast Offering, Tithing, and special offerings categories.
Umm… yes, and your point is? Of course in a country where free speech doesn’t exist, you’ll get in trouble for not following the proscribed speech codes. That a law is unjust does not mean that you won’t be punished for breaking it, but it does mean that your punishment will also be unjust.
So if, in whichever country you live in, your human rights were all denied you, you should just live with it? Why? Aren’t they called human rights for a reason?
Funny; I assumed that it WAS brave to flout the laws, given an awareness of the consequences, but I also think that freedom of speech is a fundamental right, they did have the right to do as they did, and it is unjust to prohibit it. That doesn’t mean it’s not prohibited, but being illegal != being wrong.
I disagree. In a country where it is disallowed, by definition, a Christian can not legally proselytize. This is a distinct issue from whether he or she has the right to proselytize.
What’s wrong with giving kids candy? Nothing? Ok. What’s wrong with waving candy in front of kids and saying they can have it if they just listen to you for a little while? Nothing still? What if it’s somebody else? What if it’s the Grand Wizard (Dragon?) of the KKK? He’s giving them candy, damnit, what’s wrong with that? Oh wait… he’s not JUST giving them candy… He’s just using the candy as a tool, and suddenly the implication becomes much less than magnanimous and not necessarily something to support.
The only personal experience I’ve had with mission trips was a bit different than the ones we’re talking about. We went to a small village in northern mexico with some doctors and such and provided medical checkups/treatment to the already almost completely christian community (Oddly enough I think it was protestant, not the norm for Mexico). So naturally there wasn’t much proselytizing and the only religious activity included a visit to the local church the day we left (a Sunday). This would suggest that the motives aren’t only to convert, but to help, which is good. However, it seems clear that this isn’t always the case, and that when you go to a community which is not already Christian, the motivation/activities will be slightly different. In these cases I don’t see why there would be any need to do more than give the food/medicine away and refrain from evangelism if for no other reason than respect for another culture.
Certainly when injustice occurs in a culture that views it as injustice, something can/should/will be done. Why, however, is it our duty to enforce the ideals we’ve arrived at onto cultures that have come to different, nay (gotta use nay), contradictory ideals. Our cultures are different, and we see things others do as wrong, but how is it our right to take the “truths” we “know” and force them down everybody’s throat?
I see two problems with this logic… First off, I don’t see that proselytizers are just using their food/medical supplies/whatever as a tool. As you yourself noted, the motives are both to help and to convert. The more serious problem is that Joe Average is not a child. I’d agree that for the Grand Imperial Poobah of the KKK to give candy to kids in exchange for them listening to him is a problem, but is this not largely BECAUSE they’re kids? Doesn’t the G.I.P. have the right to offer candy to grown people in exchange for them listening to him?
I actually agree with you here, but just because I feel it’s a bit tacky doesn’t mean I feel it shouldn’t be allowed. If people wish to evangelize, who am I to get in their way?
This is a thorny issue, obviously; when is it right for person A to prevent person B from doing something? If duelling is acceptable in person B’s culture, should person A interfere? What about slavery? Homocide? Obviously, the line between interference and non-interference has to be drawn somewhere; where you choose to draw it is a matter of personal choice.
However, I’m not convinced this is entirely relevant. Question: who’s doing the forcing, and why? Is it the evangelizer who proselytizes despite the ban, or is it the person who actively forbids proselytization?
Hmmmm…I’m gonna have to disagree with you here. Essentially, rights are something worked out between a government and the people it governs. You either have them or you don’t.
In Afghanistan, you do NOT have the right to proselytize until someone (either the domestic population or a foreign government) steps in and grants you that right.
This is a distinct issue from whether or not you SHOULD have the right
Naturally they should have the right to in a country that supports free speech. However if my television informercials are informing me correctly, children are a major target for “christian aid” type operations… Secondly, you may not be one to get in their way, but the Government of a country can, by definition, do just that. If they don’t feel that’s a right they need to bestow on their citizens, they don’t do it.
Actually I was referring to those of us here in the US who think we need to go into Afghanistan and force them to allow such things as freedom of religion, such as yosemitebabe at the end of her last post (the quote I was responding to when i made that comment)
Basically it bugs me to no end that we are convinced that our utopia is everybody else’s utopia. Even though I’m not a big Nozick fan, one of his points I agree with is that the only way to have utopia for the masses is a plurality of utopias, in which members of one won’t understand why members of another find that utopia preferrable, but nevertheless they do. Analogous situation here… We think our ideals should be pressed upon everyone else, which is rediculous…
If i’m just rambling… sorry… anything for a break from work.
While I’m not trying to hijack the topic, Neurotik, I think it’s only fair to point that there’s a long line of thought that says that rights naturally inhere in the individual (or are God-given), and are surrendered to a government only to the extent necessary for it to govern. Of course, the people to think this were all radicals: Tom Paine, Tom Jefferson, Jim Madison, and all that ilk.
Please copy and paste where I said we should force Afghanistan to allow freedom of religion. I think they should, just like I think they should allow women to be treated like human beings. I don’t know how we can force them to, however. Is it so wrong of me to wish that there was some way we could influence this country to (among other things) treat woman like they were…like…human? Because in order to do that, to influence them to do that, we’d have to try to influence their stance on religion.
So, I was responding to the OP’s complaint that we are trying influencing other cultures, like that’s always a bad thing. Sometimes it is, often it isn’t.
Anyway. Is trying to prevent the spread of AIDS a bad thing? Is trying to prevent female genital mutilation a bad thing? Does trying to prevent wife and child abuse a bad thing? Does trying to prevent illness and disease a bad thing?
Umm… I was going to say the same thing, but on preview I see that Polycarp beat me to it, and has it phrased far better than I did, so I hope you don’t mind if I just weigh in with “what he said.”
No, I’m aware of those “state of nature” arguments. I don’t think they’re correct, though.
The English had to fight to gain their rights as expressed in the Magna Carta. The Americans had to fight to gain their rights as expressed in the Constitution. Latin American countries are constantly engaged in fighting for their rights. The French had to fight a couple of times for their rights…and so on and so forth.
The problem with your statement is that the policies of the Taliban do not, by any stretch of the imagination, represent the will of the citizens of Afghanistan. I have heard no indication that the people there actually want to be deprived of aid just becausethe people giving it out wanted to tell everyone how great their religion is.
If we were talking about a democratic society where the people decided to forbid proselytizing, you’d have a valid point there.
)