The Ethics of Proselytizing

[Vile Atheist]

We have to realize the mindset of these people, though. They believe they are doing a good service to others by forcing their beliefs down your throat. And believe it or not, atheists can be guilty of this too.

It's not just religious people. The difference is I know of no example of an atheist organization going to a foreign country that expressly forbids proselytization to preach to a vulnerable population and abuse them for their own ends.

Concerning televangelists, they pay for airtime, they can say whatever they wish, factual or not. It's their every right, no matter how wrong their beliefs may or may not be, no matter how much someone may or may not want to hear them, no matter how factual or entertaining their arguments are.

As soon as we start restricting free speech - even of televangelists - we get into some very dangerous political situations. I think this is the ultimate danger we should aim to avoid.

By all means, break the unethical laws of that country (even if they were meant to protect the vulnerable citizens, they restrict freedom of speech. There are other ways to protect them...). If you break them, you just may rally change. But to do so in order to use and abuse those vulnerable is also unethical and should as well be condemned.

I don't understand why some people here are not ready to consider breaking the laws of another country as an option. If my hypothetical country of Adanac started torturing people because they are gay, legal by law, would you not be outraged? Would you not want this law changed, even though it's of a foreign country?

I don't see how this is any different when the law is clearly a violation of free speech. It's unethical as well.

 

[TheKnight]

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.

If you live in a country where free speech is a right, and property ownership is a right, then yes. I do not agree with this whole "let's restrict people for what they pay for" mentality. If I pay for air time, I can do with it what I want. If Joe blow doesn't like it, he can change the channel. If it bothers Joe Blow to hear snippets when he is clicking through channels, then Joe Blow needs to grow up.

 

[blackout]

It may be annoying, but it shouldn't be illegal.

 

[darkendless]

If you live in a country where free speech is a right, and property ownership is a right, then yes. I do not agree with this whole "let's restrict people for what they pay for" mentality. If I pay for air time, I can do with it what I want. If Joe blow doesn't like it, he can change the channel. If it bothers Joe Blow to hear snippets when he is clicking through channels, then Joe Blow needs to grow up.

Better call the national alliance then and tell them their propoganda is legal so the Christians can turn around and whine about it.

America and politics though, does my head in. I think all religion should be behind closed doors.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Better call the national alliance then and tell them their propoganda is legal so the Christians can turn around and whine about it.

America and politics though, does my head in. I think all religion should be behind closed doors.

"Behind closed doors" can be interpreted in a variety of ways. If you mean "people keep their religion to themselves unless otherwise asked", sure, I'll agree. If you mean religious expressly forbidden by law, then I fervently disagree.

I think anyone should be allowed to say what they want on whatever venue so long as it does not offend the rights of others. You may be able to make a case for proselytizing infringing on the rights of others. But that may or may not be a case I'd accept. Depends on how you make that case.

 

[darkendless]

"Behind closed doors" can be interpreted in a variety of ways. If you mean "people keep their religion to themselves unless otherwise asked", sure, I'll agree. If you mean religious expressly forbidden by law, then I fervently disagree.

I think anyone should be allowed to say what they want on whatever venue so long as it does not offend the rights of others. You may be able to make a case for proselytizing infringing on the rights of others. But that may or may not be a case I'd accept. Depends on how you make that case.

I don't think it should be legislated. I think it should be common courtesy that people keep their beliefs to themselves. Like i keep saying, no one gives a rats what people believe and why (unless of course they ask).

I think its pretty pathetic that people are ignorant enough to think that its their right to preach their message. Its not about who paid for what or who's allowed to say what, it just shouldn't be an issue because people shouldn't have to or want to advertise their flavour of God.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So your saying it's okay to break those laws then?

Yeah. Some laws are made to be broken. Ones that would prohibit freedom of speech are a fine example of such laws.

 

[SHANMAC]

I don't think it should be legislated. I think it should be common courtesy that people keep their beliefs to themselves. Like i keep saying, no one gives a rats what people believe and why (unless of course they ask).

I think its pretty pathetic that people are ignorant enough to think that its their right to preach their message. Its not about who paid for what or who's allowed to say what, it just shouldn't be an issue because people shouldn't have to or want to advertise their flavour of God.

If everyone keeps their beliefs to themselves, there would be nothing to talk about. Everything we say is a belief about one thing or another when you think about it. So, that begs the question of where we draw the line. Who can talk about their beliefs and what beliefs can they talk about? That's an extremely slippery slope.

 

[Vile Atheist]

If everyone keeps their beliefs to themselves, there would be nothing to talk about. Everything we say is a belief about one thing or another when you think about it. So, that begs the question of where we draw the line. Who can talk about their beliefs and what beliefs can they talk about? That's an extremely slippery slope.

I think we're both falling victim to the same misinterpretation of his words.

I thought he meant proselytizing should be restricted by law, but he's now said that he wouldn't want it to be legislated. I think he's talking about societal pressures keeping the topic of religion to themselves unless in an appropriate venue or otherwise asked.

 

[darkendless]

I think we're both falling victim to the same misinterpretation of his words.

I thought he meant proselytizing should be restricted by law, but he's now said that he wouldn't want it to be legislated. I think he's talking about societal pressures keeping the topic of religion to themselves unless in an appropriate venue or otherwise asked.

Bingo.

Legally people can and do what they want, but its common courtesy that i don't shove my atheism down your throat and i would (if it happened) respect christians a lot more if they kept their preaching among the converted.

I wish it went by "Don't ask, don't tell."

SHANMAC - not everything is a belief. Gravity is not a belief as it is observable and measurable as a constant. Do the laws of nature change if we add or remove god as a constant? No.

 

[logician]

Actually, evangelism has been and will continue to be a dangerous force. Millions of -people and many cultures and been destroyed by evangelism.

 

[SHANMAC]

SHANMAC - not everything is a belief. Gravity is not a belief as it is observable and measurable as a constant. Do the laws of nature change if we add or remove god as a constant? No.

I disagree. Everything is a belief - whether observable, mesasurable, constant or dynamic. Gravity is a belief that there is some "force" causing objects to attract to one another. This belief may change at some point, but right now it is commonly accepted as a fact or truth. The belief in gravity may change at some point in the future. Probably not, but it's certainly a possibility.

For example, oce upon a time there was a commonly accepted belief (both observable and measurable by instrumentation of that age) that the world was flat. Obviously, we no longer hold that belief.

As for adding or removing God as a constant to this equation, my belief is that everything changes. Remove God as a constant and you have nothing. Add God as a constant and you have everything. I'm certain we disagree on that point.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Remove God as a constant and you have nothing. Add God as a constant and you have everything. I'm certain we disagree on that point.

I actually agreed totally with the rest of your post. But not this. Where is your evidence for this?

 

[SHANMAC]

Yeah, disagreement on this point is inevitable based upon our respective belief systems. I believe God cast the world and the heavens into existence. Based on that belief, if you remove God, you remove existence. If you're of the belief that there is no God or of the beleif that there may be a God, but not one who is responsible for creating the universe, then my position does not hold true.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Yeah, disagreement on this point is inevitable based upon our respective belief systems. I believe God cast the world and the heavens into existence. Based on that belief, if you remove God, you remove existence. If you're of the belief that there is no God or of the beleif that there may be a God, but not one who is responsible for creating the universe, then my position does not hold true.

Obviously, but what I mean to get at is what evidence made you arrive at your belief that "God cast the world and heavens into existence"?

 

[darkendless]

I disagree. Everything is a belief - whether observable, mesasurable, constant or dynamic. Gravity is a belief that there is some "force" causing objects to attract to one another. This belief may change at some point, but right now it is commonly accepted as a fact or truth. The belief in gravity may change at some point in the future. Probably not, but it's certainly a possibility.

For example, oce upon a time there was a commonly accepted belief (both observable and measurable by instrumentation of that age) that the world was flat. Obviously, we no longer hold that belief.

As for adding or removing God as a constant to this equation, my belief is that everything changes. Remove God as a constant and you have nothing. Add God as a constant and you have everything. I'm certain we disagree on that point.

The problem is you "believe." I don't have to believe in anything to know that God has no affect on this planet and not a scrap of evidence exists to show he does. We disagree because i do not make a leap of faith.

Like i've said, Gravity is not a belief because it is there and 5.5 Billion people know its there, and can explain it. The same for your God cannot be said. Numbers are not important, im just saying if you take gravity away, a lot of natural laws fall away which are proven to work for any situation you can think up.

 

[rusra02]

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.

Jesus said to "Pay back to Caesar what belongs to Caesar" in answering a question about paying taxes. He added "but God's things to God." (Mark 12:17) When man's law violates God's law, Christians have the duty to obey God. The apostles were told by annoyed religious authorities to stop their preaching about the Christ. Their response sets an example for us today. "We must obey God as ruler rather than men" (Acts 5:27-29)

 

[Standup Philosopher]

Christians have been commanded to tell others the good news. I think the best way to do this is to live an ethical life and treat people with love. If they ask, tell them why you live like this. Even Billy Graham said the Gospel can be preached without words. People know when they are being pressured/manipulated and they rightfully resent it.

Treating people with love means to respect what they believe and to value them as individuals, even if you don't agree with them.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Christians have been commanded to tell others the good news. I think the best way to do this is to live an ethical life and treat people with love. If they ask, tell them why you live like this. Even Billy Graham said the Gospel can be preached without words. People know when they are being pressured/manipulated and they rightfully resent it.

Treating people with love means to respect what they believe and to value them as individuals, even if you don't agree with them.

Unfortunately many people in this world don't see things like that.

 

[logician]

Christians have been commanded to tell others the good news. .

To me, killing someone on a cross is not good news. Again, evangelistic religions are dangerous.