Sunday Disparage

[Bhim]

so you believe in religious freedom but promote that a certain religious denomination should be banned?

could you please tell me your definition of religious freedom?

Hi Francesco. As I stated to Adam, I take this as an exception to my general belief in religious freedom. This belief is not absolute, after all. Most beliefs aren't. The classic example is that free speech doesn't entitle you to yell fire in a crowded theater. Likewise I think that a ban on evangelical Christianity is a legitimate restriction on religious freedom?

 

Does this answer your question? Let me know if not, I don't want to obfuscate.

[duderonomy]

 

so you believe in religious freedom but promote that a certain religious denomination should be banned?

could you please tell me your definition of religious freedom?

Hi Francesco. As I stated to Adam, I take this as an exception to my general belief in religious freedom. This belief is not absolute, after all. Most beliefs aren't. The classic example is that free speech doesn't entitle you to yell fire in a crowded theater. Likewise I think that a ban on evangelical Christianity is a legitimate restriction on religious freedom?

 

Does this answer your question? Let me know if not, I don't want to obfuscate.

 

 

Bhim, are you admitting that the way of the United States is correct?  Good job!

[Bhim]

Prof., I of course respect your opinion on the issue of institutionalizing persecution of evangelicals.  While I hold to my view that evangelical churches should be reduced to ashes, emulation of Nazis is indeed an understandable concern.  For your consideration, I would submit this.  Even if my proposals did result in pogroms, extermination camps, etc., the fundamental difference between evangelicals and groups that were Nazi targets is that the latter were all defined by birth or other static traits.  A Jew (as defined both by Jews and Hitler) is one by birth.  Same goes for a gypsy and a homosexual.  Evangelicals are defined by belief.  If we were indeed targeting evangelicals for extermination, all an evangelical must do to save himself is utter the words "I do not believe that Jesus is Lord."  Actually, even that is a bit too extreme for me.  If the event of the end time preacher's wet dream, i.e. an anti-evangelical holocaust, I would be quite satisfied with "I promise never to commend the Christian religion to anyone and to turn away all prospective proselytes."  Let the evangelical retain his belief in his demon god Jesus.  All I ask is that he not propagate it to anyone else.

 

But let's talk further about persecuting Christians.  Given the unpopularity of my proposal to physically demolish churches, I'm sure no one will like this either.  Fortunately my next suggestion doesn't require any popular consensus or legislation.  I'll cut to the chase: I recommend that we out evangelical missionaries in countries with anti-proselytizing laws.

 

Back when I was part of an evangelical church, I'd sometimes be part of a prayer team for a group of students going on a mission trip.  These people went to places like China, Turkey, and India.  Now, there are parts of the world where it is illegal to proselytize.  Examples include Israel, most Muslim countries you could name, and a couple of states in India.  When evangelicals go to these places, they take jobs or come as students as opposed to using the title of "missionary," and they preach the gospel under the pretense of befriending locals.  As far as the people in these countries no, the evangelical is just another American traveler, and his true purpose is concealed.  But at my church, I was given pamphlets about my former friends' stated intent to convert others, complete with their names and pictures.  The point is that this information is easy to obtain if you're living in America, right across the street from the missionary's sending church.  Assuming I do not violate any laws concerning putting a fellow American's life in jeopardy (not that I care too much about the life of a professional homewrecker), here is what I think every ex-Christian including myself should commit to.  When you run across a prayer booklet or other information concerning a missionary in a foreign country with anti-proselytizing laws, send that missionary's name and photo to the foreign consulate here in the United States.  Better yet, send it directly to the local police wherever that missionary is located, so that he can either be deported or, better yet, face the prison time he justly deserves.

[thereisnoperfect]

Bhim, your position creeps me out. In part because it is so destructive in its vision, but more because it assumes that people just choose their worldviews freely instead of coming to them as a result of many factors, several of which are beyond their control. 

 

Also it's so black/white. There's a lot of that kind of thinking on this site, but I don't think it's productive. 

[Adam5]

Bhim, more bile. You are a sad man. Perhaps you should go to Nigeria and join Boko Haram and put your sick fantasies into practice.  These terrorist groups have razed hundreds of homes and churches to the ground.  You would feel right at home.

[MerryG]

Bhim -- I'm with the others. This does not sound like the decent, clear-thinking Bhim I've seen elsewhere at Ex-C. Everything you're saying sounds insanely dangerous.

 

If you're going to persecute a group of people, it doesn't matter whether those people were "born that way" or not. The result is the same; genocide, chaos, tyranny, and a society that ends up much worse than it began.

 

If anyone were foolish enough to create conditions in which evangelical christians could be persecuted and destroyed in this way, then the same machinery and mindset could just as readily be used to persecute and destroy all atheists and agnostics. Or muslims. Or hindus. Or gays. Or intellectuals. Or whatever.

 

MORE readily used, really. Because the numbers are smaller.

 

I can't imagine that you mean what you're saying here.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Prof., I of course respect your opinion on the issue of institutionalizing persecution of evangelicals.  While I hold to my view that evangelical churches should be reduced to ashes, emulation of Nazis is indeed an understandable concern.  For your consideration, I would submit this.  Even if my proposals did result in pogroms, extermination camps, etc., the fundamental difference between evangelicals and groups that were Nazi targets is that the latter were all defined by birth or other static traits.  A Jew (as defined both by Jews and Hitler) is one by birth.  Same goes for a gypsy and a homosexual.  Evangelicals are defined by belief.  If we were indeed targeting evangelicals for extermination, all an evangelical must do to save himself is utter the words "I do not believe that Jesus is Lord."  Actually, even that is a bit too extreme for me.  If the event of the end time preacher's wet dream, i.e. an anti-evangelical holocaust, I would be quite satisfied with "I promise never to commend the Christian religion to anyone and to turn away all prospective proselytes."  Let the evangelical retain his belief in his demon god Jesus.  All I ask is that he not propagate it to anyone else.

 

But let's talk further about persecuting Christians.  Given the unpopularity of my proposal to physically demolish churches, I'm sure no one will like this either.  Fortunately my next suggestion doesn't require any popular consensus or legislation.  I'll cut to the chase: I recommend that we out evangelical missionaries in countries with anti-proselytizing laws.

 

Back when I was part of an evangelical church, I'd sometimes be part of a prayer team for a group of students going on a mission trip.  These people went to places like China, Turkey, and India.  Now, there are parts of the world where it is illegal to proselytize.  Examples include Israel, most Muslim countries you could name, and a couple of states in India.  When evangelicals go to these places, they take jobs or come as students as opposed to using the title of "missionary," and they preach the gospel under the pretense of befriending locals.  As far as the people in these countries no, the evangelical is just another American traveler, and his true purpose is concealed.  But at my church, I was given pamphlets about my former friends' stated intent to convert others, complete with their names and pictures.  The point is that this information is easy to obtain if you're living in America, right across the street from the missionary's sending church.  Assuming I do not violate any laws concerning putting a fellow American's life in jeopardy (not that I care too much about the life of a professional homewrecker), here is what I think every ex-Christian including myself should commit to.  When you run across a prayer booklet or other information concerning a missionary in a foreign country with anti-proselytizing laws, send that missionary's name and photo to the foreign consulate here in the United States.  Better yet, send it directly to the local police wherever that missionary is located, so that he can either be deported or, better yet, face the prison time he justly deserves.

I agree that evangelicalism is a largely destructive force in American society, but resorting to persecution is a solution I can't support, even if I agree that I'd like to see such churches shut down.  

 

Here's the reason I just can't go there:  Unlike you, Bhim, I was indoctrinated from birth in evangelical christianity.  During my teens and twenties, I had no choice but to be an evangelical because that is the only life I had ever known and because my parents (especially my mother) constantly manipulated me through guilt and fear.  I was full-on hardcore fundie, because my parents labored under the delusion that evangelical christianity was true and raising me as a "man of god" was what was best for me.

 

Should I be persecuted for the delusion of my parents?  Should I suffer simply because I was manipulated through guilt and fear above and beyond the suffering caused by said guilt and fear?

 

I have to agree with MerryG: This doesn't sound like the Bhim I've come to respect and admire.

[Roz]

From a practical standpoint:

 

Persecution rarely solves problems.  I'd guess that if the christian sect were never persecuted by the Romans, it would've died out gradually.  Christianity continually needs to make itself a martyr.  It's the attention whore that says "follow me or you'll burn!" and then cries and moans at the smallest perceived slight.

[Bhim]

Bhim -- I'm with the others. This does not sound like the decent, clear-thinking Bhim I've seen elsewhere at Ex-C. Everything you're saying sounds insanely dangerous.

 

If you're going to persecute a group of people, it doesn't matter whether those people were "born that way" or not. The result is the same; genocide, chaos, tyranny, and a society that ends up much worse than it began.

 

If anyone were foolish enough to create conditions in which evangelical christians could be persecuted and destroyed in this way, then the same machinery and mindset could just as readily be used to persecute and destroy all atheists and agnostics. Or muslims. Or hindus. Or gays. Or intellectuals. Or whatever.

 

MORE readily used, really. Because the numbers are smaller.

 

I can't imagine that you mean what you're saying here.

 

Well, I don't. Or rather, I should say that I seem to have poorly communicated my position in post #28, since many find it objectionable. Maybe everyone find my actual position objectionable also, but either way, allow me to clarify, because I think a few people have misunderstood me.

 

To be sure, I don't support persecution of evangelicals (with some very significant exceptions, which I will describe below). My comments to the Prof. pertain to the hypothetical scenario in which there is persecution of evangelicals, and in which death is a consequence for belief in Jesus. My point is that in that case, comparisons to the Holocaust aren't quite apt, because escape from death is much simpler; it requires only a recantation of evangelical doctrine. Between you and me, I'll say that I probably wouldn't shed a large number of tears for evangelicals who take their belief in eternal conscious torment to their graves. Yet I don't support this approach specifically for the reasons you described: this sort of apparatus can be used to persecute others. And as I already said in post #17, I morally justify my position because I specifically do not want to physically injure evangelicals. As I've said in many posts before, it's not evangelicals I hate so much as Jesus. Having said that, I must also say that the "love the sinner, hate the sin" mindset is untenable, as I think any ex-Christian can attest. At some level, a person who does awful things will become the object of a certain degree of hatred. And make no mistake, when you come from a non-Christian culture, being converted to Christianity can be an awful thing. I think my view of evangelical Christianity is significantly more negative than that of the average ex-Christian on this forum. This may be the source of the disconnect between me and other posters when it comes to how this religion should be treated in a free society. Most people here think of Christianity is objectively or intellectually "wrong." I, rather, view the evangelical in much the same way a family man in the inner city views a heroin dealer. Both the evangelical and the heroin dealer destroy lives by peddling their wares, and are thus worthy of some sort of measurable punishment.

 

So, hopefully I've made it clear that I don't wish to physically harm any evangelical. Please feel free to ask me for any further clarification on that. But otherwise, let's move on to this issue of burning down churches. The destruction of evangelical houses of worship is really just one step in a systematic eradication of a social evil. You all regard evangelical Christianity as a legitimate (if still false) religion. But continuing with my drug dealer analogy: if a person in your neighborhood is making meth in his basement, it's necessary to shut down his lab. Otherwise he'll continue harming children by spreading his poison. Much like meth, evangelical Christianity is a poison which hurts people, and I don't think anyone should be allowed to spread it freely. There are, of course, concerns about free speech. But few would argue that the FBI wasn't right to systematically target the KKK, or that people should be allowed to publically call for the deaths of minorities we don't like. Every Sunday, evangelical pastors proclaim that non-Christians are going to eternal hell. If you think this is merely an intellectual position, Google Dennis Terry to hear an evangelical endorsing a presidental candidate while calling for the deportation of non-Christians. This is hate speech couched as religion, and should not be protected.

 

If the imagry of burning churches is difficult for anyone, then allow me to restate my position as follows: I believe that evangelical Christianity should not be protected by the First Amendment guarantee of religious freedom. I have no problem with liberal Christianity, mainline Protestantism, or any other form of Christianity which doesn't prescribe conversion of non-Christians. But evangelical Christianity is in no way different from a cult, except that it is more widely practiced. This is not something which should be allowed to exist in a free society. Evangelical Christianity does not merely constitute an exercise of free speech. It requires active conversion of non-Christians, and this violates the rights of others.  This is why all of my criticisms are against evangelical Christianity, and not Christianity in a broader sense.

 

Up until this point, the discussion is academic. Obviously Christianity won't become an illegal religion in America, not in our lifetimes anyway.  But my proposal to out missionaries in foreign countries is quite feasable, and the Prof.'s comments below are a good springboard to get into this.

 

 

Here's the reason I just can't go there: Unlike you, Bhim, I was indoctrinated from birth in evangelical christianity. During my teens and twenties, I had no choice but to be an evangelical because that is the only life I had ever known and because my parents (especially my mother) constantly manipulated me through guilt and fear. I was full-on hardcore fundie, because my parents labored under the delusion that evangelical christianity was true and raising me as a "man of god" was what was best for me.

 

Should I be persecuted for the delusion of my parents? Should I suffer simply because I was manipulated through guilt and fear above and beyond the suffering caused by said guilt and fear?

 

I can't say whether you should be persecuted or not.  If so, then I should be as well since at one point in my life, I believed in eternal condemnation for non-Christians, and attempted to convert others.  Generally I'm not one to criticize another poster's parents so I won't go there.  But as you have shared your personal history, let me be equally candid.

 

As you know I wasn't raised Christian.  Fortunately not one member of my immediate or extended family is Christian.  In fact many of my relatives live in India.  As an American I focus on the plague of evangelical Christianity here, but its influence on my extended family motivates me to oppose it as well.  Over in India, evangelical Christianity threatens their very way of life.  In a country that is not historically Christian, I am beginning to see public displays of crosses and "Jesus is Lord" written on the backs of autorickshaws.  I recently went to a Hindu family's house there, and their six year old son came back from his Catholic-run school telling me about how they teach him to pray.  Maybe others here don't see this as a problem.  Over here in the States we view ourselves as a melting pot culture, and when one set of cultural traditions gives way to another, it's no big deal.  So maybe this will be more convincing:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Liberation_Front_of_Tripura

 

The National Liberation Front of Tripura is a Baptist terrorist organization in India which actually kills people.  And as you can probably guess, the church which funds the NLFT was itself founded by missionaries.  So perhaps one can see why I believe that missionaries should be reported to the authorities for the egregious act of trying to convert others to evangelical Christianity.

 

As I said, this is not an academic discussion.  A couple of weeks ago I got an email from my old church from college (I'm still on the college ministry's mailing list after all these years) with information about students who are going on a mission trip to India.  Many of you may not know this, but in several Indian states it is actually illegal to convert others to Christianity.  I believe this is a necessary and just law, one which I wish we had on the books in the United States.  I am currently intending to get in touch with police officers in the area in order to inform them about the arrival of these proselytizers (I know someone who may be able to get me in touch).  No one here seems to think that I ought to do this.

 

I find it perplexing that anyone would want me to not report illegal and immoral activity to the authorities.  But given the strength with which people have voiced this disagreement, I'm willing to listen to anyone who has a decent argument and perhaps reconsider my position.  All I ask is that anyone who wishes to do so make a suitably long post (i.e. don't post some pithy one-liner), and not engage in too much emotional rhetoric.

 

In any case, I hope I've made clear what I believe and don't believe should be done with evangelical Christians, and perhaps why I have such a harshly antagonistic view of them.  I believe that converting someone to Christianity is morally reprehensible, and that it should be punished with the full weight of law.  A missionary is a person who has dedicated his life to one of the most wicked professions I can imagine, which is why I can sleep quite comfortably at night knowing that I put one of them behind bars.

[amateur]

Bhim, I've seen your point since the beginning of this post.  You do have a unique perspective here as being raised non-xian, with relatives outside of a xian country and xianity, becoming indoctrinated, seeing things in a way we can't see, then rejecting xianity because of their teachings condemning your relatives to some "hell" they never even believed in.

 

One thing I have learned from this site is how harmful xianity has been to some of you.  I grew up in a "Jesus loves you" type church with polite people being polite to each other.  I never felt like I was going to hell or my agnostic parents/grandparents were going to hell because that's not what was pushed in my church and definitely not in my family.  I gave up xianity as a kid would ultimately give up Santa Claus or the Easter bunny or the "happily ever after" of fairy tales.  To me, giving up religion was simply saying, "Oh, my parents were right all those years!  Imagine that!  No one can prove anything, and people are afraid of death, so they make up religions to try to explain things."  For me, being religious wasn't traumatic and giving up religion wasn't traumatic.  I experienced a mild "wow, that took me a while; I feel kind of dumb that I couldn't see through that quicker," but no trauma.

 

But on this site I read of young children losing sleep thinking they're going to go to hell, of adolescents thinking they're going to hell because they masturbate, of young children pleading with adults to convert, telling the adults they're going to go to hell because they're the "wrong" religion or drinking a beer or something.  I read of people whose depression and mental illness has been exacerbated by their religion, and when they go to their religious leaders, are told to "have more faith" and "pray it away."  Same with gay people on this site.  Same with people in a wretched marriage who keep repeating "god hates divorce" and being told by their religious leaders to "just work harder" and again "have more faith."  No amount of praying can "pray away" gayness or mental illness or wanting to masturbate or enjoy sex, or make decades of marital abuse "go away," and the religious leaders know it.  What a wretched, wretched way to live and how evil of religious leaders to keep people in the fold with that guilt so they can keep collecting their money.

 

Before joining this site, I never thought of xianity as actually wrong, since my background was a liberal church and parents who pooh-poohed concepts like sin and hell ("just be nice to people and get along" was pretty much their motto, and an addendum from my mom, "don't get too involved in religion.").  I am appalled when reading here of people raised in evangelical churches with evangelical parents.

 

And Bhim, what you've experienced is truly awful, and what you see happening in India is worse, and yet one more step deeper into what this religion can actually do to people.

[Bhim]

Thank you for the note Amateur.  I'm glad you grew up in a liberal Christian denomination.  I'd imagine that this spared you the sort of hardening and desensitizing that comes upon evangelical Christians, who so blithely dismiss eternal torment as God's just revenge.  As I've said many times before, this is not the sort of Christianity I take any issue with.  That's why I'm always careful to level my charges against evangelicals as opposed to Christians in general.

[Roz]

Bhim, I think your line of thinking will only make more converts in the long run, honestly.  You know as well as I do that evangelicals will view a ban on their practices as persecution, and that'll be an affirmation of their faith.  I would probably still be an SDA (different beliefs, just as insane) if a law were passed banning the teachings of adventism. 

 

Instead of legislation forbidding anyone to teach something, I argue that making it easier for people to get different viewpoints would ultimately lead to the death of religion. 

[Guest afireinside]

Bhim, I think your line of thinking will only make more converts in the long run, honestly. You know as well as I do that evangelicals will view a ban on their practices as persecution, and that'll be an affirmation of their faith. I would probably still be an SDA (different beliefs, just as insane) if a law were passed banning the teachings of adventism.

 

Instead of legislation forbidding anyone to teach something, I argue that making it easier for people to get different viewpoints would ultimately lead to the death of religion.

Do they use this phrase in the States?

 

"Give them enough rope and they'll hang themselves"

[Roz]

It's why the internet is the deathbed for religion.  They're free to express all of their cherished beliefs in the world wide web, but then again it's also very easy to fact check them.  I think it's one of the biggest factors on why more and more Americans are becoming non-religious. 

[Deva]

As a person raised in a hard core fundamentalist evangelical Independent Baptist Church I agree with Roz.  Its only a matter of time, the internet will bring them down, but it will take some time.

 

Bhim, to an extent I understand where you are coming from, but burning churches conjures up images from the 1960s for me that are not pleasant. Violence is not the answer, and informing on people is not something I would do, either in this situation. I am simply not geared that way.  Or, perhaps over many decades, I have made some peace with my past, but its always an ongoing process.  

[Bhim]

Bhim, I think your line of thinking will only make more converts in the long run, honestly.  You know as well as I do that evangelicals will view a ban on their practices as persecution, and that'll be an affirmation of their faith.  I would probably still be an SDA (different beliefs, just as insane) if a law were passed banning the teachings of adventism. 

 

Instead of legislation forbidding anyone to teach something, I argue that making it easier for people to get different viewpoints would ultimately lead to the death of religion. 

 

Hi Roz.  Respectfully, I think you are incorrect about your assertion that persecution would encourage the growth of evangelical Christianity.  And I do understand that this is not simply your position alone.  A lot of people, both Christian and otherwise, think that Christians florish under persecution.  Evangelicals cite the growth of Christianity in China, where it is supposedly persecuted.  Indeed, as the saying goes "the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" (this is a quote by Tertullian, a second century Christian apologist).

 

However I'd like to challenge that view.  The recently published book "The Myth of Persecution" by Dr. Candida Moss suggests that the Roman Empire never engaged in a systematic persecution of Christians prior to the reign of Emperor Constantine.  This flies in the face of the belief that Christianity overcame the Roman Empire through adversity.  But more telling is that China is the only example you usually hear about from Christians with a martyr complex, and the correlation between persecution and church growth is problematic given that persecution doesn't explain growth in other places like South Korea and India.  It also explains the utter failure of Christianity in Islamic theocratic nations, where belief in Christianity is punishable by death.  If I might make an editorial comment, it seems to me that evangelicals are a bunch of whiners who say they are persecuted because they can't force their religion on their fellow Americans, but who shrink back with fear when they are asked to put their lives on the line for their faith.

 

I've asked myself why it is that persecution is often an effective means of suppressing Christianity, despite Tertullian's belief to the contrary.  The key, I think, is the impetus behind fundamentalism in general.  We hear a lot on the news these days about Islamic fundamentalists.  Fundamentalism seems to grow in war-torn regions such as Afghanistan and Iraq.  It likewise takes root in poor regions like the rural areas of Pakistan and Northeast India (this is where the Baptist terrorists I mentioned reside).  I might pose the hypothesis that people turn to fundamentalism when they are poor and disenfranchised, i.e. when they have little left to lose.  So I'd suggest that the growth of fundamentalist Christianity perhaps has less to do with persecution, and more to do with the fact that it provides a refuge for those who have no money or power.

 

Let's explore the demographic of evangelicals in America.  81% are white; while I'm not one to claim that white Americans enjoy "privilege," this does suggest that they are not particularly disenfranchised on account of race.  66% make more than $30,000/year, so extreme poverty is probably not a problem for these guys either.  These statistics and more can be found here: http://religions.pewforum.org/portraits.  So let's ask ourselves: what if one day evangelicals were told that they could give up their faith in Jesus, or suffer some terrible punishment (e.g. being forced to watch their loved ones be immolated, much as Jesus threatens for non-Christians).  What do you suppose they'd do?  If the number of missionaries signing up for trips to Saudi Arabia is any indication, I think they would shrink back and simply deny their faith in Jesus.  I'm not questioning the general sincerity of their faith, I'm only suggesting that they don't really love Jesus enough to "be faithful unto death."  I'm not even faulting evangelicals on this count.  If you are poor and have little to look forward to in life, fundamentalist Christianity provides an easy escape, and in a sense I can't blame someone for seeking this.  But when you have a family, a reasonable sum in the bank, and the basic comforts of life, are you really going to give this up for Jesus?  I highly doubt that anyone who has the basic necessities in life met would do this.

 

And I'm not even out to "persecute" evangelicals in the sense that I've described above.  I merely think that evangelicals should be treated like any other hate group, which is why their missionary work should not be legally tolerated.  I think that evangelicals should be regarded as child predators, since they prey on Jewish, Hindu, and Buddhist children to the end of conversion away from their very upbringing, and that in the American spirit their houses of worship should be demolished.  As I've already stated, that's what we American do to buildings where horrible things have been done to children.  The only difference between evangelicals and other child predators is that the abuse evangelicals subject other people's children to isn't sexual in nature.  But converting a kid to another religion (a prospect that many of my relatives actually have to worry about) is abuse nonetheless.

 

Having said all this, I am not opposed to the free exchange of ideas you suggest.  This is not an either/or scenario, after all.  The problem is that the conversation I desire isn't actually happening across the American religious landscape.  The only vocal opposition we hear to Christianity is the atheist/new atheist movement.  While I respect this movement, there are other issues that need to be considered besides the objective truth or falsehood of Christianity.  No one is talking about the horrendous damage that evangelicals do by evangelizing.  My objective here is to convince you and others that Christianity should be illegal, but having this conversation about the evil of religious conversion would be a step in the right direction.

 

On a sidenote to anyone who's listening, I find it interesting that no one actually came to the defense of the missionaries I mentioned, whom I seek to make into victims of the Indian judicial system.  People find my vitriolic speech distasteful, but I'm wondering if anyone actually thinks that I'm wrong.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Hey Bhim, this is a bit off-topic, but if you didn't see it, I thought you might raise a wry smile at this: the chaplain at Exeter says that a Hindu student came to him wanting to be baptized a Christian, and the chaplain told him to investigate the religion of his birth first, about which the youth knew nothing, and then if he still wanted to be a Christian he'd baptize him. The young man became a much more committed Hindu.

 

The chaplain is clearly not a fundy. What point he sees in Christianity is not clear to me - maybe just a traditional religion for non-Jews of European background, or... ? Anyway, that's another question.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/12/us/at-phillips-exeter-a-world-of-religious-diversity.html

[Deva]

 

On a sidenote to anyone who's listening, I find it interesting that no one actually came to the defense of the missionaries I mentioned, whom I seek to make into victims of the Indian judicial system.  People find my vitriolic speech distasteful, but I'm wondering if anyone actually thinks that I'm wrong.

 

 

I said "informing is something I wouldn't do," which is perhaps a subtle way of saying its wrong.  I guess you missed that.  Anyway, feel free to ignore me, that's also OK.

[Bhim]

As a person raised in a hard core fundamentalist evangelical Independent Baptist Church I agree with Roz.  Its only a matter of time, the internet will bring them down, but it will take some time.

 

Bhim, to an extent I understand where you are coming from, but burning churches conjures up images from the 1960s for me that are not pleasant. Violence is not the answer, and informing on people is not something I would do, either in this situation. I am simply not geared that way.  Or, perhaps over many decades, I have made some peace with my past, but its always an ongoing process.

 

Hi Deva.  Thank you for expressing your concern.  Like I said before, I understand that the imagry of burning churches is problematic for some, but as I've said from the beginning violence is not at all what I advocate.  Rather, I favor a legal and systematic marginalization and destruction of the evangelical form of Christianity.

 

I'd like to make an observation regarding your comment about the burning of churches in the 1960s.  There are many prominent cases of violence against black churches during this period, and the most famous case of the 16th St. Baptist Church bombing was perpetrated by members of the KKK.  Many are unaware of this, but the KKK, which is a white supremacist group, is in fact an overtly Christian organization.  Here we have a case of a very orthodox Christian group practising their faith by terrorizing blacks.  If anything, I think that the negative imagry of church burnings (which really should be associated with violence against blacks as opposed to Christians in general) is precisely why evangelical Christianity should no longer be legal.

 

I said "informing is something I wouldn't do," which is perhaps a subtle way of saying its wrong. I guess you missed that. Anyway, feel free to ignore me, that's also OK.

I'm sorry, it looks as though we were posting around the same time.  But to be fair, you haven't yet given me much to work with.  Why do you think it's wrong to inform the authorities about lawbreakers?

[Bhim]

Hey Bhim, this is a bit off-topic, but if you didn't see it, I thought you might raise a wry smile at this: the chaplain at Exeter says that a Hindu student came to him wanting to be baptized a Christian, and the chaplain told him to investigate the religion of his birth first, about which the youth knew nothing, and then if he still wanted to be a Christian he'd baptize him. The young man became a much more committed Hindu.

 

The chaplain is clearly not a fundy. What point he sees in Christianity is not clear to me - maybe just a traditional religion for non-Jews of European background, or... ? Anyway, that's another question.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/12/us/at-phillips-exeter-a-world-of-religious-diversity.html

 

Hi Ficino, thanks for the link.  It is very interesting, and indeed I must say that while I was a Christian, I did not understand Christians of the liberal bent.  Turning away a potential proselyte is as unthinkable to an evangelical as it would be for a capitalist to reject free money.  Yet I think this is the standard approach taken by any mainline Protestant.  I can't find much information about Phillips Church's denominational affiliation, but they may be part of the Episcopal Church.  I can't get in the minds of liberal Christians, but my guess is that as you say, religion for them is a traditional aspect of their culture as it is for most Jews.

 

Regarding the would-be Christian convert, I've found that one of the greatest problems among Hindu youth in America is a lack of education about our own religion.  For those who are born and raised in India the problem is the same, but when you're surrounded by a Hindu culture the symptoms never manifest (i.e. you become familiar with the rituals, never think about converting, etc.).  A lack of more rigorous religious upbringing is likely responsible for my own foolish conversion to Christianity.  After all, nature abhors a vacuum.  And this is unfortunate, since other religious communities such as Jews have found a way to raise religious children without producing fundamentalists.

 

As you thought, I'm quite amused that the student studied Christianity and found it wanting.  I'm also glad that he didn't need to spend six years being a Christian to figure this out.

[Roz]

Bhim, you might not know of this, but in America Atheists face prejudice every single day.  It's not unheard of for Atheists to suddenly get fired from a job for "performance reasons."  It's not unheard of for Atheists to be denied promotions, be denied child custody, etc. 

 

Why?

 

Because the christians would rather persecute than see the other side for what it is.  If the tables were suddenly turned on them, it wouldn't be right.  Disinformation must be defeated by information.  The lions' den proves this point.  Take Ironhorse (no really, take him heh).  Right now he's spouting off how he thinks heaven is going to be like.  When asked point black to "please quote chapter and verse" he just responds with "quote in the bible that heaven will NOT be like this."  That just proves to all guests that the christian can't defend his ramblings.

 

If however, he's not allowed by law to say what he wants to say, then we would be the ones acting christlike (think old testament jesus, he's one with his dad eh).

 

I'm glad Europe has a sizeable Atheist population.  I'm glad that 1 in 4 youths in America declare they don't have any gods.  We're winning the war by fighting christianity where it cannot stand, the arena of reason.

 

Mind you, I'm of the mindset that all other religions belong with christianity, including Hinduism.  I wouldn't feel right about outlawing Hinduism for the same reason I wouldn't outlaw christianity.  Plus, I'm having too much fun fighting and barring the other side from talking would just be boring.

[Deva]

 

As a person raised in a hard core fundamentalist evangelical Independent Baptist Church I agree with Roz.  Its only a matter of time, the internet will bring them down, but it will take some time.

 

Bhim, to an extent I understand where you are coming from, but burning churches conjures up images from the 1960s for me that are not pleasant. Violence is not the answer, and informing on people is not something I would do, either in this situation. I am simply not geared that way.  Or, perhaps over many decades, I have made some peace with my past, but its always an ongoing process.

 

Hi Deva.  Thank you for expressing your concern.  Like I said before, I understand that the imagry of burning churches is problematic for some, but as I've said from the beginning violence is not at all what I advocate.  Rather, I favor a legal and systematic marginalization and destruction of the evangelical form of Christianity.

 

I'd like to make an observation regarding your comment about the burning of churches in the 1960s.  There are many prominent cases of violence against black churches during this period, and the most famous case of the 16th St. Baptist Church bombing was perpetrated by members of the KKK.  Many are unaware of this, but the KKK, which is a white supremacist group, is in fact an overtly Christian organization.  Here we have a case of a very orthodox Christian group practising their faith by terrorizing blacks.  If anything, I think that the negative imagry of church burnings (which really should be associated with violence against blacks as opposed to Christians in general) is precisely why evangelical Christianity should no longer be legal.

 

I said "informing is something I wouldn't do," which is perhaps a subtle way of saying its wrong. I guess you missed that. Anyway, feel free to ignore me, that's also OK.

I'm sorry, it looks as though we were posting around the same time.  But to be fair, you haven't yet given me much to work with.  Why do you think it's wrong to inform the authorities about lawbreakers?

 

In thinking this whole thing over, I have decided that my feelings about religious freedom and informers run rather deep.  That is to say, I dislike informers (except to save lives) and I am all for religious freedom! No government has the right to tell people how to think or what to say. People should have the right of free speech expression as much as possible, and yes, that includes telling others about their religion if they want to.  The thought police is the last thing we need in society. I guess that shows how American I am but that is one place where we got it right.

 

The KKK and yourself have a different mission, for sure, but the end result is the same - destruction.  That would only promote Christianity and create more converts. 

 

What I originally intended to write was very strongly worded and I have toned this response down considerably. 

[Bhim]

In thinking this whole thing over, I have decided that my feelings about religious freedom and informers run rather deep.  That is to say, I dislike informers (except to save lives) and I am all for religious freedom! No government has the right to tell people how to think or what to say. People should have the right of free speech expression as much as possible, and yes, that includes telling others about their religion if they want to.  The thought police is the last thing we need in society. I guess that shows how American I am but that is one place where we got it right.

Well, like I've said to other posters, I can absolutely respect your opinion.  In fact I share it, but just not to the same extent.  Any freedom is a tradeoff between passivity and restriction.  With free speech comes rules against slander and libel.  Our toleration of anti-democratic political parties is mitigated by government surveillence of communist and neo-Nazi groups.  With gun ownership we also have restrictions on certain kinds of firearms (but don't get me started on why Christians are hypocrites to engage in any sort of self-defense).  Even capitalism has to be balanced against anti-trust legislation.  In each case, extreme practice of a certain freedom threatens that freedom for everyone else.  So I'd put the question to you: how do you tolerate a religious group that wants to take away your right to practice your own religion?  In a free society, I don't believe that evangelical Christianity can be allowed to exist.   If anyone has another solution I'm open to it, but I don't hear a lot of suggestions.

 

Now as to this issue of informing, the important question I have to ask you is: do you believe it's wrong simply to inform on people who are breaking the law by proselytizing non-Christians, or do you challenge the very right of a non-Christian country to ban the plague of evangelical Christianity?  I admit this is a loaded question, so I'm not asking specifically for a yes or no response here.

 

Let's be clear though, I don't advocate the policing of thoughts.  I don't care if someone thinks I'm going to eternal hell.  But I care very much what they do about that belief.  Do you think it's permissible for American evangelicals to prey on children in other countries?  Because they do precisely this.  Yet I am even in favor of the current Indian laws against proselytizing of adults.  When a particular ideology has done great harm to a country, it is sometimes necessary and reasonable to ban the propagation of that ideology.  For example, in Germany it's illegal to so much as make a Nazi salute or to deny the holocaust.  These are both what you might call "thought crimes."  Maybe you disagree with these laws too.  Again, I can respect that, but I'd like to identify the philosphophical root of our disagreement here.

 

The KKK and yourself have a different mission, for sure, but the end result is the same - destruction.  That would only promote Christianity and create more converts. 

 

What I originally intended to write was very strongly worded and I have toned this response down considerably.

Thank you, I also am interested in keeping this dialog civil (although I would prefer friendly).

 

Please don't take this as an offense, but pointing out that the KKK and I both want destruction isn't a particularly meaningful statement, wouldn't you say?  Technically the FBI was also engaged in "destruction" when they targeted the KKK.  Destruction in and of itself isn't immoral; this rather depends on the object being destroyed.  Like I said, I contest the very claim that Christianity florishes under persecution.  In addition to the Arab states I mentioned, Christian proselytizing is also illegal in modern Israel, and Christianity has not done particularly well there either.

[Bhim]

Bhim, you might not know of this, but in America Atheists face prejudice every single day.  It's not unheard of for Atheists to suddenly get fired from a job for "performance reasons."  It's not unheard of for Atheists to be denied promotions, be denied child custody, etc. 

 

Why?

 

Because the christians would rather persecute than see the other side for what it is.  If the tables were suddenly turned on them, it wouldn't be right.  Disinformation must be defeated by information.  The lions' den proves this point.  Take Ironhorse (no really, take him heh).  Right now he's spouting off how he thinks heaven is going to be like.  When asked point black to "please quote chapter and verse" he just responds with "quote in the bible that heaven will NOT be like this."  That just proves to all guests that the christian can't defend his ramblings.

 

If however, he's not allowed by law to say what he wants to say, then we would be the ones acting christlike (think old testament jesus, he's one with his dad eh).

 

I'm glad Europe has a sizeable Atheist population.  I'm glad that 1 in 4 youths in America declare they don't have any gods.  We're winning the war by fighting christianity where it cannot stand, the arena of reason.

 

Mind you, I'm of the mindset that all other religions belong with christianity, including Hinduism.  I wouldn't feel right about outlawing Hinduism for the same reason I wouldn't outlaw christianity.  Plus, I'm having too much fun fighting and barring the other side from talking would just be boring.

 

Hi Roz.  I'd like to make a similar point to you as I did above.  Since you've taken Ironhorse as an example, I'd like to point out that he's not allowed to say what he wants to say.  He recently tried to proselytize a new poster, and the post was moved to block Ironhorse's access to her.  This is a restriction on free speech, and in principle is no different from a country saying that evangelicals may not proselytize their citizens in public.  Now, I wouldn't take the analogy too far since this is a private online forum and isn't entirely comparable to a nation, which must guarantee certain freedoms to its populace.  But it does go to show that giving an evangelical a platform to speak freely isn't always the right thing to do.

[Deva]

Well, like I've said to other posters, I can absolutely respect your opinion.  In fact I share it, but just not to the same extent.  Any freedom is a tradeoff between passivity and restriction.  With free speech comes rules against slander and libel.  Our toleration of anti-democratic political parties is mitigated by government surveillence of communist and neo-Nazi groups.  With gun ownership we also have restrictions on certain kinds of firearms (but don't get me started on why Christians are hypocrites to engage in any sort of self-defense).  Even capitalism has to be balanced against anti-trust legislation.  In each case, extreme practice of a certain freedom threatens that freedom for everyone else.  So I'd put the question to you: how do you tolerate a religious group that wants to take away your right to practice your own religion?  In a free society, I don't believe that evangelical Christianity can be allowed to exist.   If anyone has another solution I'm open to it, but I don't hear a lot of suggestions.

 

Now as to this issue of informing, the important question I have to ask you is: do you believe it's wrong simply to inform on people who are breaking the law by proselytizing non-Christians, or do you challenge the very right of a non-Christian country to ban the plague of evangelical Christianity?  I admit this is a loaded question, so I'm not asking specifically for a yes or no response here.

 

Let's be clear though, I don't advocate the policing of thoughts.  I don't care if someone thinks I'm going to eternal hell.  But I care very much what they do about that belief.  Do you think it's permissible for American evangelicals to prey on children in other countries?  Because they do precisely this.  Yet I am even in favor of the current Indian laws against proselytizing of adults.  When a particular ideology has done great harm to a country, it is sometimes necessary and reasonable to ban the propagation of that ideology.  For example, in Germany it's illegal to so much as make a Nazi salute or to deny the holocaust.  These are both what you might call "thought crimes."  Maybe you disagree with these laws too.  Again, I can respect that, but I'd like to identify the philosphophical root of our disagreement here.

 

The KKK and yourself have a different mission, for sure, but the end result is the same - destruction.  That would only promote Christianity and create more converts. 

 

What I originally intended to write was very strongly worded and I have toned this response down considerably.

Thank you, I also am interested in keeping this dialog civil (although I would prefer friendly).

 

Please don't take this as an offense, but pointing out that the KKK and I both want destruction isn't a particularly meaningful statement, wouldn't you say?  Technically the FBI was also engaged in "destruction" when they targeted the KKK.  Destruction in and of itself isn't immoral; this rather depends on the object being destroyed.  Like I said, I contest the very claim that Christianity florishes under persecution.  In addition to the Arab states I mentioned, Christian proselytizing is also illegal in modern Israel, and Christianity has not done particularly well there either.

 

 

How does evangelical Christianity take away my right to practice my religion? In this country, anyway, it does not.

 

You are correct that we draw the line in different places when it comes to a free society.

 

Yes, I agree that destruction is in some cases be necessary - example - Nazi Germany had to be destroyed, but that is not what we are talking about here, is it? We are talking about some Christians witnessing, or  proselytizing. Some people walking around witnessing on the street or knocking on doors cannot very well be equated in my mind with KKK lynchings and burnings and the Gestapo arresting people for being Jewish and putting them on a train to a concentration camp. The Nazis and the KKK were a threat to people's lives. And you are talking church burnings, such activities as the KKK did in the south. Destruction of property and most likely, lives as well.   Yes, we draw the line in different places, for sure.

 

Not sure if Christians have been historically persecuted as much as they claim, but certainly there is the image in their minds that they have been persecuted, and historically there has been a martyr's cult in the Catholic Church where this persecution is definitely elevated.  So, I think that persecution does tend to aid Christianity. But that really is not my main dispute with you.