A question of political correctness

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Well, in my mind that sort of anarchy only leads to the destruction of all values that humanity depends upon.

'Rights' are subjective. We invented them and it is basically the consensus that determines if anyone has any 'right' whatsoever. My own morality tells me that there is a fine line between discussing a dangerous topic and proselytizing. I would rather live in a society in which proselytizing was forbidden and religious people were obligated to keep their religions to themselves.

So, I guess you respect that opinion as well? Or not?

originally posted by: Rhaegar7
a reply to: Boadicea

My meter found zero rational thought in that post of yours.

LOL! Fair enough... Right back atcha

I really REALLY hope you're young, because, well, youth is the best excuse.

If I thought it would serve any practical purpose, I would expand on my thoughts. But I sincerely doubt you could understand the answer.

At any rate. All of you are off-topic.

The topic is whether a religious person can proclaim anything he wishes as long as it is 'his faith', and thus be protected by 'freedom of religious expression'.

As it is, Pence just recently informed the American public that he puts Jesus Christ first, then America, and then I forgot.. Isn't that ridiculous?

You have a right to your opinion. But who gave you 'the right' to leverage your position in society by proselytizing?

The problem with religious belief is that it is forceful and violent in its message. It demands to be accepted and will go to any lengths possible to spread.

To stop proselytizing would be to reduce violence in the world. And I am against violence of any kind.

a reply to: Boadicea

Another post that has zero arguments and not even a thesis, but is designed to insult and mock. You must really be a Christian.

a reply to: Boadicea

But please expand on your thoughts. There is no reason why we shouldn't exchange viewpoints.

a reply to: Rhaegar7

a reply to: Rhaegar7

Fair enough.

Though that doesn't refute my original point that parents are supposed to teach their children "right" from "wrong". Do you think parents should only teach their children what a govt's laws say are "right" and "wrong", or should they teach their personal beliefs of what's "right" and "wrong"?

a reply to: enlightenedservant

I would like to live in a world where there was no violence of any kind (and to me religious proselytizing is violence). In my ideal world, parents should pass on their wisdom to their children, while being careful not to cross the line between advice and indoctrination.

'I want you to be a good person, and I believe that a good person is one who tries to be compassionate and understanding towards others, but still one should be able to defend himself.' That I like.

'I want you to be good and to be good you have to go to Church, pray frequently and accept Jesus into your heart.' That I don't.

I mean.. one can tell me that I have no right to tell people how to raise their children and I don't know how I'd be able to answer that.. I don't think in 'rights', as I think only a slave has need of 'rights'. I think that if there is to be an organized, rational society, it should encourage some behaviors and discourage others. What I want is for indoctrination to be generally discouraged, possibly even outlawed. I don't think I'll live to see it, but still..

originally posted by: Rhaegar7
At any rate. All of you are off-topic...

I suggest that perhaps we are all just a little TOO on topic for your liking...

a reply to: Rhaegar7

I suspect your opinion, not respect it.

Rights are reasoned principles, tested, tried and true through argument and trial and error.

a reply to: Murgatroid

I don't agree that you're on topic.

The topic is whether proselytizing gives you the right to offend people without being scrutinized for that.

You don't discuss that. Instead you tell me that 'it is not proselytizing if it is true'. Well, no matter how firmly you believe in your Jesus, it's not going to make him real. People with psychotic delusions get put into clinics by law. Christians are as delusional as any schizophrenic in my book.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

See, you have a very annoying habit of assuming that everything you say is axiomatically true, while everything your opponent says is up for debate.

There is nothing I can do or discuss without arguments. I see only statements (truisms really) from your side. No arguments whatsoever.

originally posted by: Rhaegar7
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

See, you have a very annoying habit of assuming that everything you say is axiomatically true, while everything your opponent says is up for debate.

You have an annoying habit of advocating censorship for views and expression that offend you. Not only is it annoying, but pernicious and tyrannical.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Rhaegar7
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

See, you have a very annoying habit of assuming that everything you say is axiomatically true, while everything your opponent says is up for debate.

You have an annoying habit of advocating censorship for views and expression that offend you. Not only is it annoying, but pernicious and tyrannical.

Arguments please.

You forgot "Bless Your Heart"... If You get irked, and it reads as if You are, at what someone else says or types on an anonymous intraweb chat forum, who has the 'power' You or the person who irked You? Take back Your power and don't even waste Your ink.


Stay Hydrated...


P.S. Of course We are throwing out the whole exchange of dialogue being the purpose of the aforementioned site, so throw that out.

The end product of all this special treatment that religion gets, might just result in an Islamic Caliphate where people are put to death for not professing belief in Mohammad and etc.

And while that may or may not come to pass, the truth is that religious proselytizing is intrinsically a form of violence - it is precisely *coercion*. And I do not agree that we should tolerate coercive behavior. Especially not with children.

That is my thesis. What is yours? That I'm a bigot? Nice. By the way, the word 'bigot' comes from the time when Christianity was trying to spread towards the Nordic regions and it became a derogatory word that mocked the priests for their constant usage of 'By God'. So if I am the bigot, that is really ironic.

originally posted by: Rhaegar7

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Rhaegar7
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

See, you have a very annoying habit of assuming that everything you say is axiomatically true, while everything your opponent says is up for debate.

You have an annoying habit of advocating censorship for views and expression that offend you. Not only is it annoying, but pernicious and tyrannical.

Arguments please.

Arguments won’t convince someone who advocates censorship because of their fee fees.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Well then, I have zero respect for your opinion and so should every rational person.

originally posted by: Rhaegar7
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Well then, I have zero respect for your opinion and so should every rational person.

Rational? You advocate censorship because you’re offended.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

No. It would be censorship if I was censoring an opinion. 'Non-believers will burn in Hell.' is not an opinion. It is proselytizing. I aim to restrict coercive behavior in society. Just like we don't have the right to assault each other, and we are generally protected from outright insulting behaviors, we should be protected from proselytizing bigots. Proselytizing is not much different from bullying. Just like it wouldn't be nice if someone threatened me or you with murder, it's not nice to threaten people with eternity in Hell.

And, while I am offended, that is not the main reason for my stance. I want to live in a society where there is no violence, and where coercive behaviors are not tolerated. I am offended, because in my view our society is sitting idle, while demagogues and tyrants are abusing their 'rights' of 'religious expression' in order to profit, causing pain and suffering to sentient beings in the process.

I am arguing for this, because I care for the well being of sentient beings, and this well being is not compatible with people having 'the right' to loudly proclaim their incredibly offensive and ridiculous dogmas and in the process, try to spread their disease to the rest of us. And they are very successful as more than 50% of the population of the western world now identifies with Christianity and their Jesus. Something that was never a product of 'truth', and was always a product of *violence*, in one form or another. It used to be done with swords and pikes, nowadays it's done with *obnoxious* proselytizing. I just want this madness to stop and I will oppose it with all my heart.

Freedom of speech is impossible, when you give the same rights to the bully as you give to the one who's trying to oppose him.