Isn't there some biblical quotes along the lines of rendering unto caesar what is caesar's, and that all governments have divine mandate and should be obeyed as such? Wouldn't obeying the law of the divinely sanctioned government (no matter which one it is) fall into the category of religious duty at that point, regardless of whether one feels that the laws are ethical or legal? Assuming here that one follows a religion dependent upon the bible. I am not sure if the torah or koran include such sanction or not.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Ethics of Proselytizing
- Thread starter Humanistheart
- Start date
Isn't there some biblical quotes along the lines of rendering unto caesar what is caesar's, and that all governments have divine mandate and should be obeyed as such? Wouldn't obeying the law of the divinely sanctioned government (no matter which one it is) fall into the category of religious duty at that point, regardless of whether one feels that the laws are ethical or legal? Assuming here that one follows a religion dependent upon the bible. I am not sure if the torah or koran include such sanction or not.
TheKnight
Guardian of Life
When it comes to proselytizing, I feel that if your actions are not alone to cause someone to become interested in your faith, then your faith isn't worth believing.
All in all, I think it's wrong to break the law when it can be avoided.
So you believe in restricting their freedom to conduct business as they wish?
All in all, I think it's wrong to break the law when it can be avoided.
So you believe in restricting their freedom to conduct business as they wish?
Vile Atheist
Loud and Obnoxious
This is a complicated issue.
1) In my opinion, proselytizing - especially to the vulnerable - is unethical.
2) In my opinion, restricting proselytizing - basically restricting free speech - is unethical.
3) It is a fact that some of the greatest, most positive changes to law were made when people had the courage to break them. (Ex. Rosa Parks on the bus led to desegregation in the United States)
Bearing the above three points in mind, I am also of the opinion restricting free speech is one of the greatest atrocities any nation can commit against its own citizens.
I think many people breaking the law might lead to that law being changed and that country can have unrestricted speech. Restricted speech does more harm than what would be achieved by having some annoying religious zealots forcing their crapola on your family in your mud hut in some village in an Asian jungle. I'm not trying to trivialize the harm done. I'm comparing the two. Restricted speech ultimately poses the greater danger.
Thus, I have a weird position on this. I support the breaking of this unethical law. But I don't support the actions done to break it. However, even annoying religious zealots forcing their crapola on you and your family have a right to free speech, no matter how much we might not want to hear them.
1) In my opinion, proselytizing - especially to the vulnerable - is unethical.
2) In my opinion, restricting proselytizing - basically restricting free speech - is unethical.
3) It is a fact that some of the greatest, most positive changes to law were made when people had the courage to break them. (Ex. Rosa Parks on the bus led to desegregation in the United States)
Bearing the above three points in mind, I am also of the opinion restricting free speech is one of the greatest atrocities any nation can commit against its own citizens.
I think many people breaking the law might lead to that law being changed and that country can have unrestricted speech. Restricted speech does more harm than what would be achieved by having some annoying religious zealots forcing their crapola on your family in your mud hut in some village in an Asian jungle. I'm not trying to trivialize the harm done. I'm comparing the two. Restricted speech ultimately poses the greater danger.
Thus, I have a weird position on this. I support the breaking of this unethical law. But I don't support the actions done to break it. However, even annoying religious zealots forcing their crapola on you and your family have a right to free speech, no matter how much we might not want to hear them.
darkendless
Guardian of Asgaard
Yes. The sooner peopel realise that no one else gives a damn about anyones religion, because if they did, they'd have already joined them, the sooner i'll stop seeing people embarrass themselves on tv and the sooner missionaries will stop disturbing me minding my own business.
Religion should be behind closed doors.
TheKnight
Guardian of Life
So even if they pay for airtime, they shouldn't be allowed to use it as they please? Because you don't like what they say?
As I previously said... it was never meant in that sense... every time in the New Testament where it has a Christian preaching, that was illegal...
Isn't there also some NT statement (by Paul, perhaps?) about the government ruling with Yahweh's authority?
Yes, there are statements in the NT about how the powers that be are ordained by God... and how we should follow their laws... I never disputed that... What I am noting, is that those statements were never understood in the way you are proposing. Paul preached Christianity, and that was illegal...
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Unethical? No. But do not complain about being thrown in jail for violating another counties laws.
(And I think those laws violate basic freedoms and are therefor unethical themselves.)
(And I think those laws violate basic freedoms and are therefor unethical themselves.)
Humanistheart
Well-Known Member
So your saying it's okay to break those laws then?
Humanistheart
Well-Known Member
Consider the reasons behind those laws before you say their unethical.
Humanistheart
Well-Known Member
Humanistheart
Well-Known Member
You've failed to address the OP. We're talking about people from your own country, violating the laws of another country, by prostylitizing in the few countries christiainity is illigal.
Erebus
Well-Known Member
I've always been a little odd when it comes to people preaching their beliefs on the street or door to door... I usually listen.
I have no problem with people explaining their beliefs to me whatsoever and will always listen quietly as they explain. Of course I then proceed to explain my beliefs to them which usually takes them by surprise (particularly the door to door Christians
unk.
Banning proselytizing seems far too extreme in my opinion and I would say that if somebody wants to break the law in order to do it, well that's their choice. I wouldn't consider it worth the risk personally, but if somebody feels passionately enough about their religion then I don't see the harm in breaking such a petty law.
I have no problem with people explaining their beliefs to me whatsoever and will always listen quietly as they explain. Of course I then proceed to explain my beliefs to them which usually takes them by surprise (particularly the door to door Christians
unk.Banning proselytizing seems far too extreme in my opinion and I would say that if somebody wants to break the law in order to do it, well that's their choice. I wouldn't consider it worth the risk personally, but if somebody feels passionately enough about their religion then I don't see the harm in breaking such a petty law.
linwood
Well-Known Member
You mean reasons like keeping the flow of conflicting ideas ebbing at such a low as to keep your rule over the people a simple matter?
Those reasons?
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Alright, what are the reasons?
Humanistheart
Well-Known Member
Sort of. Political upheaval and social instability resulting in the death of thousands precepitated the laws banning the a certian religion in china. Given the violent nature of the members of the religion they banned, it seems perfectly understandable.
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
Is it ok to break a countrys law in order to keep a commandment from God?
linwood
Well-Known Member
I can relate and empathize as I`ve seen other situations like it on different scales.
I just can`t cross that line into banning thought, even crappy thought.
I still believe we should enforce bans on the actions the thought provokes.
I do realize this is a far more difficult, immediately dangerous, and inefficient strategy but I simply can`t justify censoring ideas, even bad ones considering that sometimes those ugly ideas were only ugly from the wrong perspective.
darkendless
Guardian of Asgaard
So if i pay i should be allowed to say what i want? I can think of some pretty poor taste things to talk about.
Its not about money its about the fact that people need to keep their message to themselves because their preaching is unnecessary.
As i've said, people need to realize that the world couldn't care less what they have to say.