Challenging another person's stance on religion?

[wynn]

There's always a social tension between determining when an act should be formally outlawed and when it should be merely a social taboo. Generally its an issue that is best resolved by the communities the act appears in

Sure, this seems common-sense.

However, modern life tends to be such that there is no coherent community, or the acts of religious harrassment take place in public places (e.g. on the street) or in private (e.g. door-to-door proselytizers).
So in such cases, each person has to fend for themselves against the bully.

 

[Ophiolite]

Oh this is a debate on if bullying is a problem when done by messianic students as compared to anyone else?

Ah I see. Well then I will bow out and let the great minds decide on it.

For once in your ****ing life stop being so intransigently passive-aggressive and misunderstanding every second point made to you in order to remain true to your self indulgent, I've-got-the-moral-high-ground, it's-all-a-conspiracy-against-muslims agenda.

Pay ****ing attention.

1. Everyone here (apparently) agrees that bullying of any kind by any party is wrong.
2. That includes members of these so called "God squads'.
3. Singling out these for condemnation does not mean we think other kinds of bullying are acceptable. Implying that is does is a cheap debating trick, a logical fallacy, and sinful as well. I recommend you say three Hail Mary's and see if God's forgiveness can cross the ecumenical divide.
4. So do you, or do you not think the activities of these squads deserve condemnation?
5. No vacillation: yes, or no?

 

[rainbloggy]

... Religion does not belong in public schools outside of a comparative religious study program. Religion belongs in the church or mosque and in the home.

I think they deserve a talking to and I think their motives need to be questioned. Threatening the other students is wrong, but perhaps someone just needs to give them another way to make their point. While I'm not a christian, I know many people who fervently believe that it is their duty to reach out and "enlighten" others. I think religion should be allowed to be openly discussed at school, just not in a way that is demeaning or threatening to others.

 

[S.A.M.]

For once in your ****ing life stop being so intransigently passive-aggressive and misunderstanding every second point made to you in order to remain true to your self indulgent, I've-got-the-moral-high-ground, it's-all-a-conspiracy-against-muslims agenda.

Pay ****ing attention.

1. Everyone here (apparently) agrees that bullying of any kind by any party is wrong.
2. That includes members of these so called "God squads'.
3. Singling out these for condemnation does not mean we think other kinds of bullying are acceptable. Implying that is does is a cheap debating trick, a logical fallacy, and sinful as well. I recommend you say three Hail Mary's and see if God's forgiveness can cross the ecumenical divide.
4. So do you, or do you not think the activities of these squads deserve condemnation?
5. No vacillation: yes, or no?

Yeah sure, but [and there is a but] we probably disagree on the how. Like someone else said here some religions are evangelical. And like all evangelicals, they feel compelled to share their enlightenment even if they have to ridicule, malign and be derisive about it

Also what is the moral high ground on debating contentious issues? If the situation were reversed ie more non-religious and few fervent believers, would there be a difference in attitude? Or would the non-religious then do the same thing to those they are are complaining about?

 

[rainbloggy]

... And like all evangelicals, they feel compelled to share their enlightenment even if they have to ridicule, malign and be derisive about it

I disagree on the "have to ridicule, malign and be derisive about it" part. I think in school, or any place for that matter, that threats should be not allowed in any form. They can share, but if a student feels threatened, tells them to stop, and they continue, then it's harassment. They do not HAVE to ridicule, malign or be derisive about it and there should be consequences for those who do.

 

[S.A.M.]

Has this been your experience of school? That you can expect rational discourse with the prejudiced? I'm a believer in accepting diversity, bullies come from all sides of the equation. In a school the atmosphere should be to develop thinking skills, not teach that everything can be solved by punishment.

 

[rainbloggy]

Has this been your experience of school? That you can expect rational discourse with the prejudiced? I'm a believer in accepting diversity, bullies come from all sides of the equation. In a school the atmosphere should be to develop thinking skills, not teach that everything can be solved by punishment.

I'm not saying I expect rational discourse with the prejudiced, I'm saying that harassment is a crime no matter the ideals behind it. A school should be a place to develop thinking skills; many students find this difficult when there is someone breathing down their neck and threatening them to convert or else. Generally school consequences help define borders and protect others from abuse, not to teach that everything can be solved by punishment.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

I think they deserve a talking to and I think their motives need to be questioned. Threatening the other students is wrong, but perhaps someone just needs to give them another way to make their point. While I'm not a christian, I know many people who fervently believe that it is their duty to reach out and "enlighten" others. I think religion should be allowed to be openly discussed at school, just not in a way that is demeaning or threatening to others.

A discussion implies a willing partnership in discourse. If a student says they are not interested in someone's cult beliefs and is threatened or continues to be harassed then there is no 'willing' partnership in discourse. A religious student isn't at school to pass on his or her personal beliefs. A class study of religion is not the same as proselytizing!! Proselytizing has no place in school!

 

[S.A.M.]

I'm not saying I expect rational discourse with the prejudiced, I'm saying that harassment is a crime no matter the ideals behind it. A school should be a place to develop thinking skills; many students find this difficult when there is someone breathing down their neck and threatening them to convert or else. Generally school consequences help define borders and protect others from abuse, not to teach that everything can be solved by punishment.

How do you define harassment? If the evangelicals protested they were being harassed for harbouring creationist views what would you recommend?

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

How do you define harassment? If the evangelicals protested they were being harassed for harbouring creationist views what would you recommend?

Where in the article did you read of students being harassed because they choose to believe in 'creationism' by other students?

 

[S.A.M.]

Where in the article did you read of students being harassed because they choose to believe in 'creationism' by other students?

I'm not referring to the article; I'm referring to what such bullying entails. Usually the dominant dogma of the day.

You yourself have given examples of the Chinese massacre of Muslims and Tibetans

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

The Chinese massacre of muslims and tibetans have nothing to do with this subject.

To give your reference some context why don't you show an example (google if you like) where students who do not believe in evolution are harassed by other students.

 

[S.A.M.]

I doubt you'd hear of it by other students since most places, there are more evangelicals than anti-religious bigots but there is the case of a suit won by a high school student against his teacher:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,518864,00.html

I'd have to look into how the Stalinists and Maoists treated the religious in their societies.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

I doubt you'd hear of it by other students since most places, there are more evangelicals than anti-religious bigots but there is the case of a suit won by a high school student against his teacher:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,518864,00.html

This isn't a case of bullying. This is a case where a teacher told a student their beliefs amounted to nonsense. This is not an example of bullying and harassment by other students.

"A federal judge ruled that a public high school history teacher violated the First Amendment when he called creationism "superstitious nonsense" during a classroom lecture."

 

[S.A.M.]

Of course its bullying, its also called coercion. If the teacher was an evangelical would you consider it as not bullying?

Frankly in the case of students harassing students the law should be kept out of ideological differences. Whoever has the numbers on their side will bully the rest and be protected by the authorities. We can even see it here at sciforums.

 

[lightgigantic]

Sure, this seems common-sense.

However, modern life tends to be such that there is no coherent community, or the acts of religious harrassment take place in public places (e.g. on the street) or in private (e.g. door-to-door proselytizers).
So in such cases, each person has to fend for themselves against the bully.

but even all this happens in the wider context of a society that either makes or breaks the proselytizers. For instance take the salvation army, which originally was a very hard core christian group that was heavy on the hell and brimstone thing in the public forum. Eventually they got hit with such a bad rep that the organizers figured they had to do something to change this image so they hit on the charity line ... needless to say the current day image of a volunteer for the salvation army doesn't conjure imagery of a recalcitrant proselytizer ....

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Of course its bullying, its also called coercion. If the teacher was an evangelical would you consider it as not bullying?

Frankly in the case of students harassing students the law should be kept out of ideological differences. Whoever has the numbers on their side will bully the rest and be protected by the authorities. We can even see it here at sciforums.

No its not Sam. Its a teacher being glib and judging her religious assertions in a classroom setting. Harassment and bullying that is being described in not a matter of telling someone you think their ideas are silly, its threatening and intimidating. There is no sign from the article that the teacher was trying to coerce the student. What exactly is it that the evangelical teacher would be doing?

As far as the law is concerned bullying for ANY reason is an offense.

The article states:

"During the course of the litigation, the judge found that most of the statements cited in the court papers did not violate the First Amendment because they did not refer directly to religion or were appropriate in the context of the classroom lecture. But Selna ruled Friday that one comment, where Corbett referred to creationism as "religious, superstitious nonsense," did violate Farnan's constitutional rights."

 

[S.A.M.]

I wonder if the new hate crime bill passed in Congress would view it differently?

House Democratic Leader Steny Hoyer urged passage of the Federal Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009.

"Hate crimes motivated by race, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, and identity or disability not only injure individual victims, but also terrorize entire segments of our population and tear at our nation's social fabric," Hoyer said.

Bush had helped stop such a bill in the last Congress, arguing existing state and federal laws were adequate. But President Barack Obama asked Congress to send it to him to sign into law.

"I urge members on both sides of the aisle to act on this important civil rights issue by passing this legislation to protect all of our citizens from violent acts of intolerance," Obama said in a statement before the vote

http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE53S8IM20090429

I'm sure the Chinese/Afghanis have laws against religious expression as well. Which only makes my point about numbers and supporting authorities.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Hate crimes? Hahaha!!!

This thread and the article covers religious bullies and you have somehow decided to turn it around so that its the religious folk who are the victims.

Sam a hate crime is used against those who assault or kill someone because of their ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation etc.

We already have hate crime laws in the US. It has nothing to protecting the dimwitted from words like 'nonsense'.

 

[S.A.M.]

Hate crimes? Hahaha!!!

This article covers religious bullies and you somehow have decided that its the religious folk who are the victims.

Sam a hate crime is for assaulting or killing someone because of their ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation etc.

We already have hate crime laws in the US. It has nothing to protecting the dimwitted from words like 'nonsense'.

Clearly.

And my point is, that goes both ways.