Is Proselythising of Christianity and Islam a Crime

[Fayzal Mahamed]

While I have no problem with theist deriving comfort from believing in God or their religious belief, I have a problem with the immorality of many religious beliefs.

One such particular immoral belief is the arrogant and vain idea is that only the religion adopted by the respective person is the correct or good religion and any person outside the fold of this religion is bad, immoral, an infidel, an unbeliever.

The manifestation of such immoral religious belief has led to the proselytising of religion or the conversion of infidels and unbelievers. This proselytising of religion is predominant in mainly two religions and that is Christianity and Islam.

Christians and Muslim missionaries make use of elaborate language such as believing Jesus as the Son of God to attain heaven; The concept of heaven and hell where believers are going to be rewarded and unbelievers punished; that Prophet Muhammad is the final messenger of God etc. to portray a racism and a superior complex upon a mainly rural, impoverished third world community of people that do not belong to these respective religions. Normally these messages are combined with material inducements to entice the "infidel" to convert.

Recently there was the reported death of three Christians by a Muslim mob in Ankara, Turkey. The Christians were accused of proselytising Christianity and this enraged many Muslim Turks.

Not so long ago there were violent protests that led to the death of three Christian Missionaries in the slums of Mumbai, India. The conversion of lower caste Hindus has forced several states in India to pass anti-conversion laws outlawing the forced conversion of lower caste Hindus.

I am against the anti conversion laws passed by those Indian states because it punishes the victims and not the perpetrators of the hate speech and racism and superior complex.

Yet at the same time I think there should be laws banning the proselytizing of religion because it is a form of hate speech, a form of racism trying to portray a superior complex; proselytizing religion and converting people brings no material benefit but rather causes division amongst communities of people.

What do you think?

Fayzal

[Potoooooooo]

I hate missionaries too. You should check out this book
http://www.amazon.com/Missionaries-Against-Indians-Norman-Lewis/dp/0330354450/ref=sr_1_2/102-1061704-5196900?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1178922536&sr=8-2

[OldYgg]

Missionaries suck, yes. Proselytizing is annoying. But illegal?

No, people should be free to express themselves or attempt to influence you with speech. Otherwise you have no room for advertising of anything.

People think their stuff is better than anyone else's stuff. It is a whole ego thing.

My wife doesn't work and takes care of our children. She plays an online game where every time she talks about our boys, this other parent just has to chime in about how his kids are better than ours, that his kids since his wife can't be at home - will be more socialized than ours will be.

He does that because he can't admit that what he's got might not be the best that he needs. So, instead of telling my wife online 'You know that's great, I wish my family could do that.' He goes on about how much better things are for him - although doubtless he is making less than I am (proportionally for wherever he lives) and therefore his wife has to work and can't be at home to take care of the children.

People seem to have to be the best, and to prove they are the best some of these people that proselytize just have to do it - to show that they've got the best stuff to everyone else.

But you know, everyone's stuff stinks, in one way shape or form.

Old Ygg

[JamesBannon]

Unless it's incitement to kill or something, hell no! What kind of democracy would it be then?

[Fayzal Mahamed]

No, people should be free to express themselves or attempt to influence you with speech. Otherwise you have no room for advertising of anything.

Imagine the Klu Klux Klan taking out an advert on television claiming that black people are worse than animals and should be treated as slaves and encouraging other Whites to join it's ranks. Would that free speech be allowed? I hope not because it is a hate speech that should be legislated against! And if the KKK's speech is a crime why is the proselytizing of Christianity or Islam any different!


People think their stuff is better than anyone else's stuff. It is a whole ego thing...People seem to have to be the best, and to prove they are the best some of these people that proselytize just have to do it - to show that they've got the best stuff to everyone else.

But you know, everyone's stuff stinks, in one way shape or form.

I agree, but I think there is a big difference between ego's, thinking that your opinion is better, right etc and proselytizing of religion.

Take for example two scientist who may have differences in a scientific theory. Each scientist might think he may be right. In fact one scientist may even think that the other scientist is pretty dumb to believe in that theory. The difference between a religious difference or opinions and everyday differences and opinions is one of MORALITY.

The scientist may differ but one scientist will not accuse the other of being IMMORAL merely because he happen to differ in opinion. Similar with ego's and the idea that I am living a socially higher class of life than you, or that my taste in art is grand and yours is tasteless. In all these differences no one person will claim to be MORALLY better than the next person.

Yet in the proselytizing of religion this is exactly what is being claimed. The Christian or Muslim missionary will state that by virtue of the infidels lifestyle of non belief he is an immoral person destined for hell and only through believing in Christ or the Islamic God does a person become MORALLY GOOD and by extension go to heaven and not punished in hell.

I would imagine that if I am confronted by any theist that claims that I am an IMMORAL person merely because I do not believe in the existence of God I would find it extremely offensive and feel like choking the living daylights of the person making the claim. Imagine those poor Hindu's living in dire conditions being confronted by these missionaries. I can understand why some Hindus anger would be so inflamed that they would resort to killing those missionaries although I do not agree with the murders.

Fayzal

[AdamWho]

The thing I dislike about missionaries is that they usually come from a wealthy, more technologically advanced society and use this to their advantage.

All throughout history religion has been an obstacle to individual prosperity, equality and science; they stand on the shoulders of the people they persecuted to spread their message.

[OldYgg]

Imagine the Klu Klux Klan taking out an advert on television claiming that black people are worse than animals and should be treated as slaves and encouraging other Whites to join it's ranks. Would that free speech be allowed? I hope not because it is a hate speech that should be legislated against! And if the KKK's speech is a crime why is the proselytizing of Christianity or Islam any different!



I agree, but I think there is a big difference between ego's, thinking that your opinion is better, right etc and proselytizing of religion.

Take for example two scientist who may have differences in a scientific theory. Each scientist might think he may be right. In fact one scientist may even think that the other scientist is pretty dumb to believe in that theory. The difference between a religious difference or opinions and everyday differences and opinions is one of MORALITY.

The scientist may differ but one scientist will not accuse the other of being IMMORAL merely because he happen to differ in opinion. Similar with ego's and the idea that I am living a socially higher class of life than you, or that my taste in art is grand and yours is tasteless. In all these differences no one person will claim to be MORALLY better than the next person.

Yet in the proselytizing of religion this is exactly what is being claimed. The Christian or Muslim missionary will state that by virtue of the infidels lifestyle of non belief he is an immoral person destined for hell and only through believing in Christ or the Islamic God does a person become MORALLY GOOD and by extension go to heaven and not punished in hell.

I would imagine that if I am confronted by any theist that claims that I am an IMMORAL person merely because I do not believe in the existence of God I would find it extremely offensive and feel like choking the living daylights of the person making the claim. Imagine those poor Hindu's living in dire conditions being confronted by these missionaries. I can understand why some Hindus anger would be so inflamed that they would resort to killing those missionaries although I do not agree with the murders.

Fayzal

The KKK cannot take out an advert saying black people are bad things, no. But they can take out an advert extolling the virtues of their subculture. They can and do still parade in towns.

It is a pain in the butt with these people telling us that they are morally superior to us, but it is a long tradition of assholes doing the same thing.

Older missionary efforts, some documented in an African novel I read in an African culture class - the missionaries would actually go for the outcasts of the society and say there is something better out there.

So, our Hindu friends, the untouchables, would be very vulnerable to Islamic and Christian missionaries. In the African historical fiction, it was the outcasts, twins, albinos, whom the missionaries really contacted and brought up in status.

I'm not saying it is the correct thing to do, but I am saying that short of persecuting people horribly, these people are going to proselytize.

I take a grin and bear it attitude, make fun of them in places like this on the web, and use it as a source of humorous stories.

Old Ygg

[Fayzal Mahamed]

The KKK cannot take out an advert saying black people are bad things, no. But they can take out an advert extolling the virtues of their subculture. They can and do still parade in towns.

It is a pain in the butt with these people telling us that they are morally superior to us, but it is a long tradition of assholes doing the same thing.

These comments captures exactly the problem of hate speech and the tolerance and limits thereof.

The KKK may march in a nearly all white town with the white occupants of the town cheering the KKK on. But what happens if the KKK happens to come to Kinshasa deep in the heart of Congo with its supremacist message. Should the all black residents of Kinshasa be as tolerant as their white counterparts in America or should those residents be armed with knives and guns waiting the set upon the KKK to state how dare you try and come into our country and preach your hatred. Personally, I would be one of the crowd armed to my teeth to state that I am offended and INTOLERANT of hate speech.

So what makes the message of Christianity and Islam any different from the KKK. It claims a message of superiority and racism (taken at its broader meaning). It deems to make a segment of the populace as IMMORAL persons merely based on a belief and does not take into account the conduct of those people.

90% of the countries of the world claim to be secular. That is based on a common understanding of secularism it claims that all its citizens are equal to each other and should not be discriminated against. It also allows the freedom of speech and expression. It is my view that the freedom of advocating hate speech and speech discriminating against fellow citizens should be limited and even banned. It is my view that proselytizing of religion is one of those acts that should be banned and not merely discouraged.

It seems in the Western World many people are tolerant of missionaries because the states are predominantly secular with large Christian majorities. The atheist and the secular humanist in these societies tend to laugh of and dismiss the manner of the missionaries. However if you read the history of how missionaries operate and used their influence of power to divide nations of people amongst themselves missionary'ism is no laughing matter. Often it was a matter of a life and death struggle.



Older missionary efforts, some documented in an African novel I read in an African culture class - the missionaries would actually go for the outcasts of the society and say there is something better out there.

You paint a rather rosy, forgiving and righteous picture of missionary work. More often than not the missionary was accompanied with an army and forced the conversion upon a whole tribe. This in turn would set one tribe against another killing each other. In the meantime all this death and destruction was all in the day of "Gods Work" to the missionary who couldn't give a damn on the misery his preaching caused but focused only on how many "souls he saved".


So, our Hindu friends, the untouchables, would be very vulnerable to Islamic and Christian missionaries. In the African historical fiction, it was the outcasts, twins, albinos, whom the missionaries really contacted and brought up in status.

I sympathise with the plight of the untouchables in India. Its another case of class difference that the religion of Hinduism has inflicted upon it's adherents but converting to Christianity and Islam is NOT going to make the problem of untouchables GO AWAY. The equality of the untouchables requires a systematic legal chipping away at the discrimination in Indian society and challenging this discrimination in the courts. The conversion of untouchables simply perpetuates the problem and makes things worse because it now proclaims the Untouchables as morally good and the Hindus (including other Untouchables) as morally bad. You will now begin to understand the flaming of anger in the Indian society.


I'm not saying it is the correct thing to do, but I am saying that short of persecuting people horribly, these people are going to proselytize.

I take a grin and bear it attitude, make fun of them in places like this on the web, and use it as a source of humorous stories.

May I suggest a change in attitude against missionaries. It is only when we as citizens of the world start to show the serious harm that missionaries cause in our society will Christians and Muslims start to see why missionary work is a form of hate speech that should not be tolerated.

However, I will leave you with this missionary joke:

Dillard Annie (1974) Pilgrim at Tinker Creek
"I read about an Eskimo hunter who asked the local missionary priest, ‘If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?’ ‘No’, said the priest, ‘not if you did not know’. ‘Then why’ asked the Eskimo earnestly ‘did you tell me’."


Fayzal

[Angra Mainyu]

Yet at the same time I think there should be laws banning the proselytizing of religion because it is a form of hate speech, a form of racism trying to portray a superior complex; proselytizing religion and converting people brings no material benefit but rather causes division amongst communities of people.

I have a few questions:

Where do you think such laws should be passed (i.e., in which countries), and which religious views do you think they should cover?

In other words, should only Christianity and Islam be banned from proselytizing, or should that apply to other religions, and if so, which ones?
Should that apply to atheism as well?

Also, while I think Islam and Christianity are pretty bad, I don't think proselytizing is any worse than indoctrinating children in those religions. After all, children can suffer under the threat of Hell, or alternatively, they can “learn” that they are part of the group of people who will be saved, and the rest will – and deserve to – be tortured for eternity in Hell.

Do you think indoctrinating children is better, and if so, why? Else, would you favor a ban as well?

[Fayzal Mahamed]

I have a few questions:

Where do you think such laws should be passed (i.e., in which countries), and which religious views do you think they should cover?

I think the laws are existent already in the constitution of every true secular state in the world . All the states have to do is apply their minds to the constitution. This view can also be construed from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations. It just requires a strong willed government to stand up to the religious organisations.

In other words, should only Christianity and Islam be banned from proselytizing, or should that apply to other religions, and if so, which ones?
Should that apply to atheism as well?

The ban should apply to ALL religions and atheism as well if their can be cause shown that atheist wish to proselytize a superior belief that declares atheism to be MORALLY SUPERIOR to other beliefs and declares people who are not atheist to be morally bad.

As far as I know atheist do not proselytize their belief like Christians and Muslims do. Often atheists do claim that their philosophy is superior to theism but I have never seen them claim a MORAL SUPERIORITY. Every atheist will state that there are good and bad persons in every religion or irreligious.


Also, while I think Islam and Christianity are pretty bad, I don't think proselytizing is any worse than indoctrinating children in those religions. After all, children can suffer under the threat of Hell, or alternatively, they can “learn” that they are part of the group of people who will be saved, and the rest will – and deserve to – be tortured for eternity in Hell.

Do you think indoctrinating children is better, and if so, why? Else, would you favor a ban as well?

I do not think indoctrination of children to feel that they are morally superior to other human beings is any better than proselytising. However the crucial difference is that the indoctrination is a private affair that is kept within the confines of the home whereas proselytising of religion is a very public affair that is offensive and should be banned.

For example here in South Africa we have overcome the ravages of racism perpetuated by a small minority of whites. This does not mean that individual racism not more prevails. There are still many homes in South Africa where white parents teach their kids that blacks are inferior and whites are superior. But no white would dare take out a placard and walk in the middle of a street in Johannesburg declaring openly what he teaches his kids privately.

I am stating that proselytising of religion is that form of openly declaring that a group of people that do not subscribe to your belief are inferior. It is this open declaration that I feel must be made illegal. And why should making hate speech and discrimination illegal, infringe on the right to free speech and expression.

Fayzal.

[general_koffi]

In a free society, the people have a right to freedom of expression, where that expression does not include threats or constitute coercion.

There is no right to not be offended.

You argue that proselytizing religion implies that people who aren't part of the religion are wrong/morally inferior/damned to hell.

In many cases, this is true. But such an assumption on the part of the proselytizer is not limited to Christianity, Islam, or religion in general.

When someone advocates a political ideology - communism or libertarianism, for example - it is assumed that those who do not ascribe to the ideology are either ignorant, misguided, or indeed evil/greedy/oppressive.

When someone advocates a exercise program or diet, it is assumed that those who do not exercise or eat as prescribed are unhealthy.

When someone speaks out against smoking, it is implied that those who smoke are irresponsible, and are going to die.

When someone advocates vegetarianism, it is often implied that those who eat meat are immoral.

The list goes on. Opinion in itself is inherently exclusive.

The government is not voted voted in to be the arbiter of truth and correct opinion. Not in a free, democratic society anyway.

[Fayzal Mahamed]

In a free society, the people have a right to freedom of expression, where that expression does not include threats or constitute coercion.

There is no right to not be offended.

You argue that proselytizing religion implies that people who aren't part of the religion are wrong/morally inferior/damned to hell.

In many cases, this is true. But such an assumption on the part of the proselytizer is not limited to Christianity, Islam, or religion in general.

When someone advocates a political ideology - communism or libertarianism, for example - it is assumed that those who do not ascribe to the ideology are either ignorant, misguided, or indeed evil/greedy/oppressive.

When someone advocates a exercise program or diet, it is assumed that those who do not exercise or eat as prescribed are unhealthy.

When someone speaks out against smoking, it is implied that those who smoke are irresponsible, and are going to die.

When someone advocates vegetarianism, it is often implied that those who eat meat are immoral.

The list goes on. Opinion in itself is inherently exclusive.

The government is not voted voted in to be the arbiter of truth and correct opinion. Not in a free, democratic society anyway.

Your points are well taken and I feel I must concede that although I think it is offensive that I am declared immoral by any theist proselytising his or her religion there were many acts such as the of cartoons of Prophet Muhammad that I did not think as offensive but was regarded as highly offensive to Muslims.

Yet in a limited way I still feel that proselytising of religion is a form of hate speech that should be banned, although I cannot get passed General Kofi's arguments to see how this can be done.

But thanks to General Kofi for showing me where my fault is with my argument. I have therefore have changed my mind to conclude that banning of proselytising religion is correct in a free and democratic society.

I should instead focus on attacking the immorality of religious beliefs.

Fayzal.

[Fayzal Mahamed]

Notwithstanding what I stated above perhaps General Kofi and others might answer why is it then that author Irving? was jailed in Switzerland? for publishing a book denying the Holocaust?

here we have a statement that was offensive to many Jews that resulted in the imprisonment of an author. What is so different about the proselytising of religion as compared to author's Irving Holocaust denial?

Fayzal

[general_koffi]

Holocaust denial should not be illegal, as far as I'm concerned.

But laws prohibiting holocaust denial seldom face mass-opposition, as trying to ban Christianity or Islam would.

Prohibiting an opinion is wrong regardless, but prohibiting an extremely unpopular and distasteful opinion is a lot easier, in a democracy, than prohibiting a very popular one.

Maybe the moral line between denying the holocaust and saying that all non-Christians go to hell is blurred, but that only serves to reinforce my point...

If you ban one opinion on the grounds of being insulting or insensitive, then you're going to have to ban many more to remain consistent.

[Potoooooooo]

Fayzal, this is also a good book for those who hate missionaries
http://www.amazon.com/Servants-God-Masters-Men-Capuchin/dp/B000OJ8KHC/ref=sr_1_1/102-1061704-5196900?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1178988050&sr=1-1

[Fayzal Mahamed]

Holocaust denial should not be illegal, as far as I'm concerned.

But laws prohibiting holocaust denial seldom face mass-opposition, as trying to ban Christianity or Islam would.

Prohibiting an opinion is wrong regardless, but prohibiting an extremely unpopular and distasteful opinion is a lot easier, in a democracy, than prohibiting a very popular one.

Maybe the moral line between denying the holocaust and saying that all non-Christians go to hell is blurred, but that only serves to reinforce my point...

If you ban one opinion on the grounds of being insulting or insensitive, then you're going to have to ban many more to remain consistent.


I noticed that your argument has shifted from one claiming a standard throughout any democracy for the right to offend to one of relativism where different democracies are applying their own individual standard where an offence is serious to become hate speech and be banned.

That is in India it may be OK to ban the proselytising of religion because it offends the majority of Hindus but not so in the West where the majority are Christians and wont' take lightly to banning the proselytising of religion in general because they know it will be a damning indictment of the religion of Christianity which is practiced by the majority in the West.

At least the bottom line is that the only reason the proselytising of Christianity and Islam is allowed in the West is not for any altruistic reasons nor any other good moral reasons but defended with only the right to offend and therefore cannot be banned.

I accept this reasoning but it still seems a pretty flimsy reason to sustain such behaviour. Have humankind not progressed far enough as to form a minimum consensus as to what should be regarded as a deep seated hatred of one religion towards other religious beliefs.

I often will here every theist from the Pope down to the parisher that they respect each other religious beliefs. What sort of respect is this if you cannot accept another persons religion on equal terms. That is if you respect the next persons religion and religious belief than there is no need try and convert the next person to your religion.

Some RESPECT, indeed. Instead these religious leaders should rather speak the truth and state that they have NO RESPECT for the next person belief if it differs from their own.

Fayzal.

[general_koffi]

At least the bottom line is that the only reason the proselytising of Christianity and Islam is allowed in the West is not for any altruistic reasons nor any other good moral reasons but defended with only the right to offend and therefore cannot be banned.


That is exactly the reason. I didn't say I supported it.

I believe that everyone should have a right to express their opinion, provided they don't directly threaten violence in the process. Whether their opinion is that the Holocaust never happened, or that all atheists go to hell... Of course, they then stand to have their opinions ridiculed. But don't send someone to jail simply because what they say offends you, or you disagree with it.

[Angra Mainyu]

I think the laws are existent already in the constitution of every true secular state in the world . All the states have to do is apply their minds to the constitution. This view can also be construed from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations. It just requires a strong willed government to stand up to the religious organisations.

I'm not sure which countries you'd consider truly secular, but constitutions of most of the countries that are often called secular, do not explicitly state that proselytizing religion, and the courts have not construed them in that manner, either. As for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), could you elaborate on the argument, please?

In any case, the UDHR is not binding in most countries, whereas other conventions that are binding for and in the countries that ratified them (such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ICCPR) actually tend to guarantee religious freedom. Granted, their clauses contain exceptions that could be used to pass a law banning the proselytizing of specific religions, but without a specific law, I doubt that the courts of any country would construe them as banning religions as widespread as Christianity or Islam – not in countries often deemed secular, anyway.

Still, if you think such construction is possible in some countries, could you provide some examples, please?

In other words, could you mention some of the countries in which you think the courts could ban Islamic and Christian proselytizing, on constitutional grounds?


The ban should apply to ALL religions and atheism as well if their can be cause shown that atheist wish to proselytize a superior belief that declares atheism to be MORALLY SUPERIOR to other beliefs and declares people who are not atheist to be morally bad.

As far as I know atheist do not proselytize their belief like Christians and Muslims do. Often atheists do claim that their philosophy is superior to theism but I have never seen them claim a MORAL SUPERIORITY. Every atheist will state that there are good and bad persons in every religion or irreligious.

Actually, moral arguments aren't uncommon in my experience. For instance, an atheist could argue that, if the Christian or the Muslim God existed, He'd be a monstrous infinite torturer, worse than any human criminal could ever be. They can also point out that the theists in question not only condone those atrocities, but worship the entity that (again, if existed) would commit them, and they consider Hell to be perfect, infinite justice.

Granted, many atheists will say that there are good and bad people in every religion, or among non-religious people, but so do many Christians. Catholics, for instance, will usually argue that Catholic morality is better than any other morality, but their not likely to argue that Catholics are always morally superior to non-Catholics.


I do not think indoctrination of children to feel that they are morally superior to other human beings is any better than proselytising. However the crucial difference is that the indoctrination is a private affair that is kept within the confines of the home whereas proselytising of religion is a very public affair that is offensive and should be banned.
What's offensive depends on the person, but in any case, being offensive is generally neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for a ban.

For instance, child abuse usually occurs privately, within the confines of a home. But child abuse – what the law sees as such – is generally banned, and that includes physical and psychological abuse. One could argue that “teaching” children about Hell is child abuse. More generally, many religious practices imposed on children could be seen as abusive.

Also, religious activities that take place in public places can also be very offensive. Actually, any public manifestation of many types of Christianity or Islam can be seen a group of people expressing their allegiance to a religion that considers other people to be morally inferior, and deserving of torture – of the infinite kind -, and to an imaginary deity that, if He were real, would be the Ultimate Torturer. Those are very public and very offensive affairs too.

However, I don't think the teaching of Islam or Christianity could be banned, and I don't think an attempted ban would have positive consequences in most countries often deemed secular. The backlash would be very strong.

On the other hand, publicly making arguments against Islam or Christianity can be very offensive to Christians and Muslims too – whether the argument questions the existence of the Ultimate Torturer, or the morality of Him (if He existed), or the morality of considering infinite torture to be perfect justice.


For example here in South Africa we have overcome the ravages of racism perpetuated by a small minority of whites. This does not mean that individual racism not more prevails. There are still many homes in South Africa where white parents teach their kids that blacks are inferior and whites are superior. But no white would dare take out a placard and walk in the middle of a street in Johannesburg declaring openly what he teaches his kids privately.


And if I understand correctly, they wouldn't be able to march through the streets of Johannesburg, praising the “great qualities” of the White race, or have a public place of reunion dedicated to the celebration of White superiority.

On the other hand, Christians and Muslims may publicly worship the entity in whose existence they believe, and who would be – if real – the one torturing the rest of the people forever – and “rightfully” so.

My point is that the law generally doesn't put religions with large number of adherents in the same category as discredited ideologies like White supremacy ideologies. While the former can be as offensive as the latter, the degree of support that those religions have, would make any ban probably impossible, at least in non-totalitarian systems.


I should instead focus on attacking the immorality of religious beliefs.
No argument there, but I have to point out that they might find it very offensive if you declare their beliefs immoral – they might and many probably would construe that as calling them immoral for holding those beliefs. Not that I have a problem with that.


Holocaust denial should not be illegal, as far as I'm concerned.


But laws prohibiting holocaust denial seldom face mass-opposition, as trying to ban Christianity or Islam would.

Prohibiting an opinion is wrong regardless, but prohibiting an extremely unpopular and distasteful opinion is a lot easier, in a democracy, than prohibiting a very popular one.

Maybe the moral line between denying the holocaust and saying that all non-Christians go to hell is blurred, but that only serves to reinforce my point...

If you ban one opinion on the grounds of being insulting or insensitive, then you're going to have to ban many more to remain consistent

Then again, and playing the devil's advocate here, that depends on what one is trying to be consistent with. Arguably, conducts in general are banned because they're seen as negative for whoever holds the power to ban them.

I don't think that Holocaust denial should be illegal, but what about Nazism?

What if someone wanted to proselytize an ideology that asserted that a totalitarian state should be implemented, and that certain minority groups should be exterminated?

What if they didn't deny the Holocaust, but, say, criticized it for its failure to wipe out the Jews, and argued that the Jews must be exterminated?

Granted, an ideology like that isn't likely to have many followers, but my point is that some ideologies (religious or otherwise) are banned, because they're considered wrong by those who can make the law. The “religious” practices of a group in which the leader is seen as a deity, and has the right to have sex with all the worshipers and their children, would be not be allowed.

In short, I don't think Islamic proselytizing or Christian proselytizing should be banned, because the negative consequences of a ban – in terms of social conflict - would probably outweigh the negative consequences of the proselytizing.

[Angra Mainyu]

I often will here every theist from the Pope down to the parisher that they respect each other religious beliefs. What sort of respect is this if you cannot accept another persons religion on equal terms. That is if you respect the next persons religion and religious belief than there is no need try and convert the next person to your religion.
But would you not try to convince them to abandon the beliefs that their beliefs are superior to yours? ;)



I believe that everyone should have a right to express their opinion, provided they don't directly threaten violence in the process. Whether their opinion is that the Holocaust never happened, or that all atheists go to hell... Of course, they then stand to have their opinions ridiculed. But don't send someone to jail simply because what they say offends you, or you disagree with it.
However, the promotion of certain beliefs may very well be the promotion of political systems (based on religion or not) that would result in dire consequences for the people opposing such beleifs.

If, for instance, the proselytizing of certain forms of Islam turns to be successful enough to get a hard-line Islamic theocracy in power, then (for instance) being a Muslim could well become mandatory for all citizens, and apostasy could be a capital offense, and so on.

[Potoooooooo]

This one is also good http://www.amazon.com/Thy-Will-Done-Rockefeller-Evangelism/dp/0060927232/ref=sr_1_1/102-1061704-5196900?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1179029298&sr=1-1

[OldYgg]

Personally, I would be one of the crowd armed to my teeth to state that I am offended and INTOLERANT of hate speech.

You paint a rather rosy, forgiving and righteous picture of missionary work. More often than not the missionary was accompanied with an army and forced the conversion upon a whole tribe. This in turn would set one tribe against another killing each other. In the meantime all this death and destruction was all in the day of "Gods Work" to the missionary who couldn't give a damn on the misery his preaching caused but focused only on how many "souls he saved".

I sympathise with the plight of the untouchables in India. Its another case of class difference that the religion of Hinduism has inflicted upon it's adherents but converting to Christianity and Islam is NOT going to make the problem of untouchables GO AWAY. The equality of the untouchables requires a systematic legal chipping away at the discrimination in Indian society and challenging this discrimination in the courts. The conversion of untouchables simply perpetuates the problem and makes things worse because it now proclaims the Untouchables as morally good and the Hindus (including other Untouchables) as morally bad. You will now begin to understand the flaming of anger in the Indian society.

May I suggest a change in attitude against missionaries. It is only when we as citizens of the world start to show the serious harm that missionaries cause in our society will Christians and Muslims start to see why missionary work is a form of hate speech that should not be tolerated.

Fayzal

There is a slight problem with making hate speech illegal. The first portion of that slight problem is a question of who defines what is hate speech? The second problem is that in Europe there has been a push for anti-religion speech to be declared hate speech.

The problem with making hate speech illegal is that people take their religions very seriously and often even the most direct, dry criticism of religion or religious precepts is considered vehement, impolite and hateful speech (by many). That places anyone who would criticize religion in a very delicate position.

Corollary to that is the relativistic nature of such a law. "hate" is too ambiguous a term to codify legally. Now, it might be more palatable to me if we classified it as clear and present threatening speech, that would be different, but we already have a law or two on threatening people, which is not protected speech.

What is considered hate speech today might not be hate speech tomorrow and what people say today obliviously and without regard might land them in jail tomorrow.

I'm sorry if I gave a rosy picture of missionary work. It isn't, without a doubt. The working with the oppressed groups in other society's was not out of sympathy, but a clear strategic decision - which ended - as you said, in splintering existing societies and turning them against each other.

This kind of thing always reminds me of a statue in St. Augustine, Florida - of a missionary standing over an Indian Child. The look on his face, (the missionaries) the Indian CHILD, screamed all sorts of symbolism about what the missionaries thought of the Native Americans of that era.

And of course, any journey as a tourist in Mexico to South America - usually involves an encounter with a guide that doesn't exactly like white people and will straight out tell you that we came over there and killed a bunch of people.

If I had any choice in the matter, I would stop missionary activity. The assumption of moral superiority of someone to go out as a missionary is abhorrent to me, let alone the actions that often have been taken in the word of being a missionary.

But as a practical point (not a moral one) I understand that this kind of activity cannot be stopped without incurring vast amounts of people stating that they are being oppressed, even persecuted.

That is worse than a few missionaries wandering around. In the present, missionaries are really something of a joke. Sometimes they go around and get themselves killed, and not just in Islamic countries (but there, too).

So, I think the best course of action is to grin and bear it. Even among the Christians of a liberal bent, don't really want missionaries running around saying their way is the best, blah blah blah, because it really interrupts international trade when the local country thinks you are trying to subvert a major political power in their country.

Old Ygg

[OldYgg]

Notwithstanding what I stated above perhaps General Kofi and others might answer why is it then that author Irving? was jailed in Switzerland? for publishing a book denying the Holocaust?

here we have a statement that was offensive to many Jews that resulted in the imprisonment of an author. What is so different about the proselytising of religion as compared to author's Irving Holocaust denial?

Fayzal

It is a sore spot in Europe, the holocaust. It is something palpable and something that individually touched almost every family in Europe.

To deny the holocaust there is much like denying JFK was assassinated, only worse by many factors. They viewed it (unfortunately) as hate speech. As if to say that denying the holocaust happened is the equivalent to invite it to happen again.

I don't personally believe he should have gone to jail, but then again, I don't live in a country where many people remember losing grandparents or great-grandparents to the holocaust.

Like I said, it is a sore spot. He could write that book and publish it here without a problem. Then a number of scholarly works would be written showing what a dumbass he is. Over there...

If he wrote a book here, called , Niggers should go back to Africa, and used the N-word prolifically and spelled out how it should be done... Perhaps that might be an equivalent. Or a book denying that slavery happened while at the same time advocating a reduction in the citizenship rights that black people have.... It might come close to writing a history book (claiming to be a book of facts) denying the existence of the holocaust.

Old Ygg

[Fayzal Mahamed]

There is a slight problem with making hate speech illegal. The first portion of that slight problem is a question of who defines what is hate speech? The second problem is that in Europe there has been a push for anti-religion speech to be declared hate speech.

The problem with making hate speech illegal is that people take their religions very seriously and often even the most direct, dry criticism of religion or religious precepts is considered vehement, impolite and hateful speech (by many). That places anyone who would criticize religion in a very delicate position.

Corollary to that is the relativistic nature of such a law. "hate" is too ambiguous a term to codify legally. Now, it might be more palatable to me if we classified it as clear and present threatening speech, that would be different, but we already have a law or two on threatening people, which is not protected speech.

What is considered hate speech today might not be hate speech tomorrow and what people say today obliviously and without regard might land them in jail tomorrow.

I'm sorry if I gave a rosy picture of missionary work. It isn't, without a doubt. The working with the oppressed groups in other society's was not out of sympathy, but a clear strategic decision - which ended - as you said, in splintering existing societies and turning them against each other.

This kind of thing always reminds me of a statue in St. Augustine, Florida - of a missionary standing over an Indian Child. The look on his face, (the missionaries) the Indian CHILD, screamed all sorts of symbolism about what the missionaries thought of the Native Americans of that era.

And of course, any journey as a tourist in Mexico to South America - usually involves an encounter with a guide that doesn't exactly like white people and will straight out tell you that we came over there and killed a bunch of people.

If I had any choice in the matter, I would stop missionary activity. The assumption of moral superiority of someone to go out as a missionary is abhorrent to me, let alone the actions that often have been taken in the word of being a missionary.

But as a practical point (not a moral one) I understand that this kind of activity cannot be stopped without incurring vast amounts of people stating that they are being oppressed, even persecuted.

That is worse than a few missionaries wandering around. In the present, missionaries are really something of a joke. Sometimes they go around and get themselves killed, and not just in Islamic countries (but there, too).

So, I think the best course of action is to grin and bear it. Even among the Christians of a liberal bent, don't really want missionaries running around saying their way is the best, blah blah blah, because it really interrupts international trade when the local country thinks you are trying to subvert a major political power in their country.

Old Ygg

I appreciate your comments and your honesty but the more we are discussing this matter the more I get the feeling of hypocrisy of a Christian West and atheist defending the status quo.

Let me begin by addressing Angra Mainyu's question and I quote:

Originally Posted by Fayzal Mohammed
I think the laws are existent already in the constitution of every true secular state in the world . All the states have to do is apply their minds to the constitution. This view can also be construed from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations. It just requires a strong willed government to stand up to the religious organisations.

Quote by Angra Mainyu.
I'm not sure which countries you'd consider truly secular, but constitutions of most of the countries that are often called secular, do not explicitly state that proselytizing religion, and the courts have not construed them in that manner, either. As for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), could you elaborate on the argument, please?

Let me begin by quoting a few pertinent articles of the UDHR:
Extracted from the United Nations "Universal Declaration of Human Rights"
Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

PREAMBLE
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.

When I look at the UDHR the most important aspect of it is the article on equality. We are all born equal in dignity and rights. That is no one person is superior to another person and this applies to an individual, group of persons, a community or a nation.

The simple logic of this article of the UHDR is that no man is greater than a woman, no American is greater than a Chinese and no Christian is superior to a Hindu.

Now lets put the UDHR into practice into the daily lives of nations worldwide. If for example we have a Neo Nazi organisation that declares that they are the superior to any other persons in the world and further declare that Jews are the scum on earth. I guess if an individual harbour these views than you cannot legislate against the conscience of a person and so nothing can be done except by view of education to change the Neo Nazi's mind.

However if these Neo Nazi's get together and form an organisation should this organisation be allowed to exist? Going a bit further the Neo Nazi organisation organises a march in Germany expressing its opinions and inviting other Germans to join their organisation. Should such a march be allowed or is it illegal.

I have no hesitation in declaring that based on the UDHR the Neo Nazi organisation should be banned and the march declared illegal. I think this is the prevailing situation at the moment in Europe. Yet atheist on this forum seem to be suggesting that the offence of the Neo Nazi's should be allowed and suffered by the rest of humanity in the name of free speech and expression.

I find this situation incredible and untenable. Why are atheist so insecure?

Now if it accepted that the existence of the Neo Nazi organisation goes against the basic tenets of human civilisation as espoused by the UDHR why is proselytising religious organisations any different than the Neo Nazi organisation.

What I am getting from atheist on this forum is that the existence of atheist lies in the "goodwill" of theist (Christians). That we are causing an offence to them with our atheist views but because Christians are causing an offence to other religious and irreligious people everything being equal it does not matter.

Again it seems clear we have a hypocritical Christian West that is stating freedom of speech is allowing everyone to be offended because it suits the "Christian" agenda.

Fayzal

[achristianbeliever]

I hope its ok if a Christian puts in his two cents. I don't have a problem with
KKK material being sent out as long as it doesn't lead to purposeful harm. In other words material could theoretically lead to harm but the question is was it the writer's intention for harm to occur. I also don't have a problem with holocaust denial writings.

Some atheists have indeed called Christians delusional and ignorant. Those like me who deny evolution are told that the evidence is so overwhelming that only a blind, dumb or brainwashed person could deny it. I've been told this to my face and I still don't believe an atheist should be told what they cannot say. I also have no desired fantasy of seeing atheism gone. I think Christians need atheists to keep them honest and asking the hard questions.

Obviously this means I don't believe proselythising should be banned. One reason is what exactly does this look like? Should a Christian who does this be fined, put in prison, capital punishment?

And does this mean that a parent is not allowed to tell their children what their parent believes? "Mommy why do you go to church every Sunday?"

"I'm sorry dear I'm not allowed to tell you."

Don't forget Christians really believe that they are saving people from Hell. Now whether its true or not is not the point. Should a non-smoker not be allowed to tell a smoker of cancer if the smoker says, "I don't believe smoking causes cancer". Should the non-smoker still be allowed to try and convince them?

So whether Hell is real or not doesn't change the fact Christians are trying to save them.

Yes Christianity believes this religion has a moral superiority from other religions but I don't think other Christians or at least myself I don't believe non-Christians are morally inferior. In fact as a Christian I believe I suck worse than an atheist. I'm asking an innocent man to die for my sins while an atheist is willing to face his sins head on. But what can I say I'm a selfish bastard and God has granted me a pardon from my sentence so I'm taking it.

But still we do the moral superiority card all the time. We've gotten morally better than those past morons who all approved slavery in the past. In the past women were treated terribly but we've evolved beyond that. Shouldn't that be treated the same way as holocaust deniers?

I want atheists to tell me that I'm delusional or ignorant if that's what they truly believe. But I want atheists to give me the same chance.

[general_koffi]

However, the promotion of certain beliefs may very well be the promotion of political systems (based on religion or not) that would result in dire consequences for the people opposing such beleifs.

True.

But the criminalization of such beliefs would result in dire consequences for the people opposing the current system. (Probably not death, but jail.)

One should not lower oneself to their level. The preservation of free speech is core to the preservation of liberal, secular democracy.

[OldYgg]

You still don't quite get it, Fayzal.

So, let's put it this way. Recently, a country that has laws against statements criticizing their monarch banned Youtube, and forced an international company to apologize and remove the content.

"Hate Speech" is so widely definable, that criticism of governments, or any established organization could be considered hate speech.

So, the Sam Harris books, and the Dawkins books could all be classified as "hate speech". While your intentions are good, and would accomplish some good - say elimination neo-nazi web sites and crippling those organizations, it would have the negative effect of being political correctness gone crazy. No-one would be able to criticize anyone without the chance of being accused of hate speech.

In particular, I have seen many Christians act extremely offended just by me saying I don't believe in their god. Offense turns to it was hate speech and next thing you know I'm in a cell next to the holocaust denier in Germany.

Minorities - are always the ones protected by free speech. Majorities, do not care for free speech. It is a tension and a yardstick that moves back and forth.

There is no insecurity in atheism. There is insecutiry in ideals that think they need to be protected.

Now, speech where there is a clear threat, such as the website that listed the abortion doctors and their home addresses and featured lines crossing them out as they were killed - is obviously a threat and is not free speech.

But a threat, is already not-protected speech, and need not be hate speech in order to be made illegal.

Old Ygg

[espritch]

Not so long ago there were violent protests that led to the death of three Christian Missionaries in the slums of Mumbai, India. The conversion of lower caste Hindus has forced several states in India to pass anti-conversion laws outlawing the forced conversion of lower caste Hindus.

I am against the anti conversion laws passed by those Indian states because it punishes the victims and not the perpetrators of the hate speech and racism and superior complex.

Forced conversion? If I were a lower cast Indian, I couldn't wait to convert to some other religion that didn't treat me as dirt from the moment of birth. I doubt any force is required. The purpose of anti-conversion laws is to maintain the status quo that preserves the privileged status of the upper casts.

I don't like missionaries and religious proselytizing in general, but I wouldn't support any law prohibiting free speech. You have to protect the rights of people to say things you disagree with, or freedom of speech is meaningless.

[premjan]

As long as coercion is not used, people should be free to convert. I am a little divided on the issue of whether it should be possible to simply offer money in exchange for conversion. Maybe yes.

[OldYgg]

You know, conversion itself would be a funny thing to fight against as an atheist.

Most atheists are converts from something. They may not be converted by a person, but definitely converts. Not me, I'm a lifelong agnostic/atheist. But most.

Perhaps we should all watch Les Mis, and then discuss if Jean Val-jean (sp?) had his soul bought for Christianity.

Old Ygg

[Potoooooooo]

This website is also quite good http://www.quechua.org.uk/Eng/Main/i_MISS.HTM

[Clivedurdle]

I basically agree with the OP.


There are huge difficulties about implementation, but that does not invalidate the proposal.

It is as if xianity and Islam specifically get a free pass because they are old.

I'm sorry, if their attitudes are racist (discriminatory?) the age of the belief is irrelevant!

Look at the UN Declaration. Take it seriously. Imagine what that means.

[OldYgg]

The major problem is telling the difference between proselytizing and advocating an opinion.

Let's say for a minute that we ban proselytizing because the things advocated in these scriptures are almost by nature derogatory to other peoples, racist, sexist and recommends genocide as a solution to problems.

Then all the missionaries or missionary type institutions go away - banned, and illegal.

But already, in some of the links Potooo has sent out - it has been clear that the missionary institutions do not advertise that they are missionaries. Instead they claim to be linguists.

So, these institutions arise again, except they are called something else - perhaps food relief agency or whatever.

Then, proselytizing can come in many forms. Perhaps they will sponsor parties and in these parties will come a hard sell for religion (or their brand or religion) just like these free vacation things.

I don't think banning missionaries would solve the problem. It might drive some of it underground. That would simply make it even harder to recognize who these people are and what they are doing.

Of course, if you as an atheist are involved in an in-depth conversation and blurt out as part of it - that you think everyone in the room should be atheists as well, and then you give your logical reasons why - would this too not be considered being a missionary and proselytizing for our non-god?

The dangers of legislating this kind of thing are all over the place.

And the UN statements and rules are widely disregarded and ridiculed by most countries. Just because it is on their books, doesn't mean that anybody is going to pay attention to it.

Old Ygg

[jemand]

Not so long ago there were violent protests that led to the death of three Christian Missionaries in the slums of Mumbai, India. The conversion of lower caste Hindus has forced several states in India to pass anti-conversion laws outlawing the forced conversion of lower caste Hindus.



Uh... I would think if one's religion labeled one an "outcast" one would be pretty eager to convert to pretty much ANYTHING and I, for one, would think that a solid IMPROVEMENT. In any case, their lives probably DO get better after having joined a religion that treats them as equal believers than one in which they were ostrasized for their cast.

Outlawing proselytizing is about the same as outlawing free speech... and outlawing conversions is even worse. People convert for all manner of reasons but forcing people to stick with the religion of their parents is immoral, imo.

[OldYgg]

Uh... I would think if one's religion labeled one an "outcast" one would be pretty eager to convert to pretty much ANYTHING and I, for one, would think that a solid IMPROVEMENT. In any case, their lives probably DO get better after having joined a religion that treats them as equal believers than one in which they were ostrasized for their cast.

Outlawing proselytizing is about the same as outlawing free speech... and outlawing conversions is even worse. People convert for all manner of reasons but forcing people to stick with the religion of their parents is immoral, imo.

This makes the Hindus look no better than Islam, in terms of freedom of determining who you are.

I'm so anti-authoritarian sometimes, that really, if atheism was the enforced way you had to be, I'd probably end up being fascinated with being a deist or something. Probably not religious, but not something described as atheist.

Old Ygg

[Potoooooooo]

See here for a related point http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070514/wl_nm/pope_brazil_indians_dc

You really should read my posts they are relevant

[OldYgg]

See here for a related point http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070514/wl_nm/pope_brazil_indians_dc

You really should read my posts they are relevant

I have been reading your Posts Potooooooooooooooooooo - although I don't konw if you mean me or not. :)

I have found some the articles incredibly interesting. This one, reminds me so much of my brief time in Mexico. They make no bones that we were a bunch of assholes. I guess there are just too few Native Americans up here to put up much of a publicity on their destruction.

Old Ygg

[Potoooooooo]

I have been reading your Posts Potooooooooooooooooooo - although I don't konw if you mean me or not. :)

I have found some the articles incredibly interesting. This one, reminds me so much of my brief time in Mexico. They make no bones that we were a bunch of assholes. I guess there are just too few Native Americans up here to put up much of a publicity on their destruction.

Old Ygg
:D
Try to get ahold of the books. They are interesting as well

[OldYgg]

:D
Try to get ahold of the books. They are interesting as well

well, I have to say that Linguist guy's website - reminds me of what happened in PA - with the deceptions inherent in the ID movement repeated in the missionary movement.

However, I think we all overestimate the power of the law, especially UN law, on activities that occur in multiple countries, crimes committed by people in countries not of their national origin.

To make anti-missionary stuff work... It would have to be against the law in the country the problem is happening.

Often though, these countries are officially catholoic/christian in the present (say Brazil or Agentina come to mind) and to make laws that are apparently anti-christian (although they aren't really, just anti-missionary) would be a tough sell.

Making laws in the US, to stop missionaries, would be non-workable. all the witnesses would need to be flown to the US at great cost to prosecute the returning missionaries - and that simply isn't going to happen. There is a price tag on the law - and it is pretty low.

Old Ygg