Challenging another person's stance on religion?

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Well first you have to show evidence that there is violence or threatening bullying against the religious by the non religious. I have yet to see any proof of this. The haranguing usually comes from the religious

 

[S.A.M.]

And? If the dimwitted don't need to be protected from words, why does it matter if they are religious or not religious?

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

And? If the dimwitted don't need to be protected from words, why does it matter if they are religious or not religious?

If anyone needs protection from the term 'nonsense' or 'dimwitted' then they are hardly in any position to get through life. I would suggest the safety of the cloister.

It seems to matter to you whether they are religious or not. I mean you did not seem to understand the plight of the non-religious who were being bullied but you are so so concerned over some perceived injustice towards the religious by the non-religious over which you show no evidence.

 

[S.A.M.]

Lets just say that my own experience of the non-religious has made me skeptical of their claims of harassment. Those who advise others to get used to it, shouldn't really be crying foul when they are told to do the same.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Lets just say that my own experience of the non-religious has made me skeptical of their claims of harassment. Those who advise others to get used to it, shouldn't really be crying foul when they are told to do the same.

Oh Sam I'm so sorry. I had no idea you were bullied by non-believers in high school. Oh wait. NO! You must mean right here on sciforums.

:xctd: So you equate entering a forum designed for intense argument on a variety of issues as 'bullying and harassment'. What did someone pull on your pigtails? Did you get hate mail? Did someone throw you down in the mud?

Or is it that you willingly engaged in a debate on religious issues with the non-religious?

Grow up sam and stop painting yourself as some kind of joan of arc.

 

[S.A.M.]

Like I said, I'm treating them the same way I would the treatment of Muslims in Chinese society. As a dogma of dominance. It was your option to consider it dimwitted to be protected from words. Are the high school bullies doing anything more than talking? If not, what do they want? Someone to hold their hand while they proselytise their unbelief?

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Like I said, I'm treating them the same way I would the treatment of Muslims in Chinese society. As a dogma of dominance. It was your option to consider it dimwitted to be protected from words. Are the high school bullies doing anything more than talking? If not, what do they want? Someone to hold their hand while they proselytise their unbelief?

What? You mean you are arresting and killing non-believers like the chinese?

Well I think that is shocking.

Oh Sam I can just see you now with the back of your hand held against your brow, wretched with pain sobbing 'woe is me, woe is me'.

Come on Sam snap out of it. Bullying and proselytizing have no place in school period. Your reading comprehension is off. I said that hate crimes do not cover protecting the oversensitive from 'words' it is used for assault and murder.

Threats and taunts are a form of bullying and not as nice as 'talking'. What they want is for the religious to appreciate that not everyone wants to be hounded by their beliefs and superstitions. Not too much to ask in a public school.

 

[S.A.M.]

Threats and taunts are a form of bullying and not as nice as 'talking'. What they want is for the religious to appreciate that not everyone wants to be hounded by their beliefs and superstitions. Not too much to ask in a public school.

Why don't they move to China? Doesn't it make more sense to live in a society where your beliefs are closer to the majority, since its inconvenient to suggest the majority accommodate minority beliefs [like minarets on mosques]?

Shouldn't the majority have the right to keep their society free from undesirable minority opinions?

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Why don't they move to China? Doesn't it make more sense to live in a society where your beliefs are closer to the majority, since its inconvenient to suggest the majority accommodate minority beliefs [like minarets on mosques]?

Shouldn't the majority have the right to keep their society free from undesirable minority opinions?

Why don't you? You were the one who said you would prefer the Chinese to the Americans if you had to be occupied. I hate to tell you but there are a lot of agnostics and atheists in the US or people who never give religion a second thought. In NY I know more christians and jews who couldn't give a toss about god or church and synagogue than those who harp on the issue (we usually think of them as kooks) The US protects the right of the religious and the non religious alike but we really really like to keep god out of some of our institutions.

 

[S.A.M.]

I did, I'm back in India. See? Its not hard to move to where your views are more in line with the majority. Like you, I can see the pragmatic necessity to let those with minority undesirable views find themselves some other place to be. Why accomodate people you cannot stand? Oppress them enough and they'll go away. Or die or something.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

So relax, be happy and lose the chip on your shoulder.

 

[wynn]

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.

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.

Actually, in highschool (and it was a public highschool, if anything, it was "liberal", not in any way religious) I had a classmate, a Catholic who was heavy on proselytizing the whole class.

She (yes, it was a she) would pick out some people and preach to them, including myself. Before class, sometimes during class (especially when we discussed literary works, which provided ample opportunity for contentious issues), and right after class. She'd go right after the person, wouldn't let go. I sometimes ended up in tears.

She wasn't so much into the whole fire and brimstone thing, but somehow, she was extremely manipulative, extremely slick. She'd pounce in on heavy issues like death penalty, abortion, politics, morality, justice. She was somehow able to twist around everything one would say, and so quickly, and with that poisonous emotion. She wasn't directly rude, derisive or dismissive.

There is of course the factor of one's own insecurity about big issues of philosophy and morality.
Moreover, when you're in highschool, you don't want to embarrass yourself in front of the other students, and you feel you need to intelligently rise to the challenge.
Sometimes, she'd challenge someone and some of the others cheered on (even if they weren't Christians).
The pressure was intense.

I do not recall though that anyone would ever mention this to the teachers.

 

[wynn]

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.

I guess our school was on the other end: protecting the rights of the minority (in our case, the Christians). Perhaps this was the school's way to teach liberalism and open-mindedness. Not sure how much it worked. I think it resulted mostly in students either becoming cynically polite or merely seemingly tolerant; philosophically combative; becoming indifferent; or psycholgically/spiritually broken.

A religious student isn't at school to pass on his or her personal beliefs.

But in effect, highschool is often the one place where one is intensely tested on one's personal beliefs.

 

[wynn]

but even all this happens in the wider context of a society that either makes or breaks the proselytizers.

I suppose so. But there can be quite a bit of collateral damage in the process!

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 ....

I have noticed the local Mormons have downsized their operations as well.

 

[sniffy]

Dare I say it but bullies tend to be bullies regardless of religion, politics, nationality or sexuality. Humans are funny creatures in that they have a propensity to want others either to be just like them or vice versa. Once accepted by or part of whatever group we desire (literally) we then go about bullying those who are not like us into going away or putting up and shutting up. Or we live and let live the latter of which appears to be terribly, terribly difficult for humans.

Do we not have the courage of our own convictions or something?

 

[wynn]

Dare I say it but bullies tend to be bullies regardless of religion, politics, nationality or sexuality. Humans are funny creatures in that they have a propensity to want others either to be just like them or vice versa. Once accepted by or part of whatever group we desire (literally) we then go about bullying those who are not like us into going away or putting up and shutting up. Or we live and let live the latter of which appears to be terribly, terribly difficult for humans.

Do we not have the courage of our own convictions or something?

Well, this is just it. Bullies - of whatever kind - don't pick on just anyone, but on those whom they perceive to be safe victims. And it is only some people who are vulnerable to bullies - in the case of the religious bullies, it is those who have some kind of religious or possibly other inferiority that are vulnerable to religious bullies.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

But in effect, highschool is often the one place where one is intensely tested on one's personal beliefs.

Theoretically, there is a difference between students testing each others ideas on philosophy, religion and life (an exchange and introduction of ideas if you will) and trying to drum up membership for ones religion in gangster fashion. In the case of the former there would never be complaints of bullying and harassment.

 

[sniffy]

Well, this is just it. Bullies - of whatever kind - don't pick on just anyone, but on those whom they perceive to be safe victims. And it is only some people who are vulnerable to bullies - in the case of the religious bullies, it is those who have some kind of religious or possibly other inferiority that are vulnerable to religious bullies.

What on earth is a religious inferiority?

And if you only think some people are vulnerable to bullies I would suggest you are wrong.

It is the tactics that are the same; not necessarily the victims.

 

[wynn]

What on earth is a religious inferiority?

Having a religious conviction that is inferior to some other religious convictions.

And if you only think some people are vulnerable to bullies I would suggest you are wrong.

The fact is that there are people who are rarely or never molested by bullies.

It is the tactics that are the same; not necessarily the victims.

Sure - in the sense that one person may be susceptible to a sexual bully, but not a religious one, for example.

 

[Pipes75]

Some people are of the conviction that the behavior of those "God squads" is a form of religious or spiritual bullying or religious intimidation. And that as such, it should be outlawed.


What do you think?

Is it an assault, an act of bullying to stop a person in a public or private space and inquire of them what their religious stance is?

Some people take offense at being challenged on their religious stance. Why?

I think it goes both ways, and I can see both sides to both ways!

If religious minds feel it's okay to question non-believers, then those same religious minds should be comfortable answering questions too.

Problem is when religious minds question those that don't want to be bothered, it doesn't really help to show anything.
And when a religious mind can't explain what they know, they don't like to answer tough questions, yet they still want to reach out to others.

The biggest problem with questioning belief, is it generally comes with a double standard. 'Let me question why you don't believe - but don't expect any answers about why someone does believe'

I understand why though, we all need to figure it out ourselves, it's pretty unexplainable. But you don't need to be religious or even to believe in 'God' - to be able to find your spirituality that is within you.