Those who would convert and those who would eradicate religion

[sandandfoam]

On one side there are those religious who would convert others.
On the other there are those who would eradicate religion, stamp it out.

I see no difference between either type of zealot. Am I mistaken?

 

[The Enlightened One]

No mistakes my friend. Both are arrogant and unrespectful of others beliefs
I run into them every other day on the street. I kindly tell them that I respect their beliefs and appreciate their concern for me but I'm not religious any more. Typically they go about their business but some try to push further. It's these ones that I love to reveal my beliefs to. Call it childishness on my part but I ask them if they would appreciate it if I pushed my beliefs on them after finding out their religious affiliation or telling them that they are on the "wrong path", and they usually respond that they would feel that it was rude. I then thank them for doing the same thing to me that they would consider rude and go about my way leaving them to rant.

 

[K.Venugopal]

"Live and let live." Anything less is zealotry.

 

[kejos]

On one side there are those religious who would convert others.
On the other there are those who would eradicate religion, stamp it out.

I see no difference between either type of zealot.

You see no difference between a democrat and a totalitarian?

 

[sandandfoam]

You see no difference between a democrat and a totalitarian?

Where's the democrat?

 

[Onkara]

I guess what we are witnessing there is not true love of the divine, but rather a political or social cause. Unfortunately there are political groups who wield the sword of religion in their favour. A topic all too familiar in eastern politics it seems? When people are arrogant, opinionated and discriminative within religion then they have still missed the teachings of the saints.

"Some, by His Command, are blessed and forgiven; others, by His Command, wander aimlessly forever." - SGGS

 

[kejos]

Where's the democrat?

Why would a missioner not be a democrat?

 

[Badran]

On one side there are those religious who would convert others.
On the other there are those who would eradicate religion, stamp it out.

I see no difference between either type of zealot. Am I mistaken?

Those who want to eradicate in what way? and those who want to convert others in what way?

If both do it by arguments and inviting others to their view of the truth, then of course they are the same. But i don't see either as mistaken to do so. However, if done in a different fashion, that includes any kind of oppression or pressure or force or whatever, then they are still both the same, and wrong.

 

[kejos]

Those who want to eradicate in what way?

By stamping it out. I'm trying to imagine how one would stamp out religion without resorting to the techniques of totalitarians.

 

[Badran]

By stamping it out. I'm trying to imagine how one would stamp out religion without resorting to the techniques of totalitarians.

If that's the method meant in the OP, then that would of course be very wrong. People are free to believe what they want.

 

[LuisDantas]

On one side there are those religious who would convert others.
On the other there are those who would eradicate religion, stamp it out.

I see no difference between either type of zealot. Am I mistaken?

From my part, I see a big difference. The second time is far rarer, and even even more despicable.

Apologists vary quite a lot in their methods, insistence and discernment. Only a few are really dangerous (although unfortunately not too many people contest them effectivelly either).

Religious-eradicators, however, are nearly unheard of. At least since Communism went the way of the dodo bird.

Secularism, however, is in the rise and I fully expect it to continue to disseminate. That is quite distinct from opposing religion, of course.

 

[Breathe]

I see no difference between either type of zealot. Am I mistaken?

I don't believe you are mistaken. I too see no difference between them. Both are still zealously pushing belief or non-belief onto you, and neither would be pleasant to be at the receiving end of.

 

[kejos]

I don't believe you are mistaken. I too see no difference between them.

So which is preferable; a state in which theism is illegal, or one in which atheism is legal, and people can hold and discuss religious faith?

 

[Breathe]

So which is preferable; a state in which theism is illegal, or one in which atheism is legal, and people can hold and discuss religious faith?

Theist states can also be as restrictive as atheist ones, see Saudi Arabia versus the Soviet Union. Additionally, secularism does not, and should not, suppress religious adherence - except when it's being forced upon the general public.

Additionally, we were not talking about people, not nations, please look again:

On one side there are those religious who would convert others.
On the other there are those who would eradicate religion, stamp it out.

 

[LuisDantas]

So which is preferable; a state in which theism is illegal, or one in which atheism is legal, and people can hold and discuss religious faith?

A state in which theism is illegal is simply silly. It is not possible to forbid theism. Religious practice is hard enough to repress, much less theism.

For that matter, atheism can't be forbidden either, although some have tried to.

Maybe a little work on making the comparisons more realistic would be well spent.

 

[kejos]

Theist states can also be as restrictive as atheist ones

Quite so. But which is preferable; a state in which theism is illegal, or one in which atheism is legal, and people can hold and discuss religious faith?

Read carefully, please.

 

[kejos]

A state in which theism is illegal is simply silly.

Russians have not thought so.

It would appear that the question is too difficult.

 

[LuisDantas]

Russians have not thought so.

It would appear that the question is too difficult.

You mean Soviets? Russians have largely decided to resume their Orthodox Christian practice, and I must assume many kept believing in God even under Stalin anyway.

Anyway, I maintain that it is silly for a state to try and outlaw theism (which I'm not even sure was the case with the Soviet Union). It can be tried, sure, but one can attempt to outlaw catching a cold as well. It is still silly and ultimately pointless and ineffective.

But taking your question at face value - well, it turns out that the first option is both silly and unrealistic (or at the very least deeply delusional), while the second one is found most often in Secularist cultures, not so often on Theocracies.

So the choice is very clear, but the applicability of the choice is quite misleading.

 

[The Enlightened One]

So which is preferable; a state in which theism is illegal, or one in which atheism is legal, and people can hold and discuss religious faith?

The second one
It would be the most tollerant out of the two

 

[Breathe]

Quite so. But which is preferable;

...

Like you have to even ask.

First of all, see the purple name tag? Means I belong to the theist private group. Because I'm a theist.
In fact, if you hover over my name next to my picture, it even comes up with "Theist".

So, why would I think a nation that restricts religious adherence would be preferable to a tolerant one? I feel the same about the idea of a nation enforcing theism on everyone just as much.

...​