Excuses for Persecution?

[exchemist]

we can do it now, I am open to discussion.

You can start by addressing the issues @Vinayaka raised in the first thread on this topic.

 

[exchemist]

I permit myself to stay with wikipedia here.
The point of this thread is to discuss excuses for human rights violations in the context of proselyting Christians.
I find it wrong when people suffer violations of their human rights just for proselyting.
Proselyting never can justify human rights abuses.

Maybe it is a language issue for you (I don't speak German), but "excuses" and "reasons" have different meanings in English.

Nobody here has tried to excuse persecution. What @Vinayaka, myself and others have tried to do is to suggest reasons why persecution may arise, as a result of clumsy, culturally insensitive or frankly manipulative attempts at proselytising.

 

[thomas t]

but "excuses" and "reasons" have different meanings in English.

ok. In case you might think I have a disadvantage... please always treat me as you would treat a native speaker. Treat my statements as they are written.

I'm concerned about who is to be blamed for persecution. Persecution in the sense of human rights violations.
My point is: even if there were "reasons" as to why the persecution may arise, ... the blame goes 100% to the one who conducts the persecution... the perpetrator.

Even if the victim behaved clumsily, culturally insensitively or frankly manipulatively on a psycholgical level and attempted at proselytising... if there are human rights violations afterwards, the blame goes 100% to the one having committed the human rights violation. This is at least how I see it.

 

[exchemist]

ok. In case you might think I have a disadvantage... please always treat me as you would treat a native speaker. Treat my statements as they are written.

I'm concerned about who is to be blamed for persecution. Persecution in the sense of human rights violations.
My point is: even if there were "reasons" as to why the persecution may arise, ... the blame goes 100% to the one who conducts the persecution... the perpetrator.

Even if the victim behaved clumsily, culturally insensitively or frankly manipulatively on a psycholgical level and attempted at proselytising... if there are human rights violations afterwards, the blame goes 100% to the one having committed the human rights violation. This is at least how I see it.

Yes I think by now we've got that rather elementary point. You have said it about five times now. No doubt you will say it again another five times before this is over.

A mature person might however realise that, as persecution is a response of rejection by a community rather than an individual, it won't respond to somebody moralising about justification and blame. Such a person might thus think it useful to consider what can be actually done to minimise the likelihood that persecution will be triggered in a community.

For that, one needs to set aside attributions of blame and look the reasons why persecution arises. This you have yet to do. If you are not interested in that, there is not much to discuss.

 

[thomas t]

one needs to set aside attributions of blame

there needs to be 100% clarity about it, though.

For that, one needs to set aside attributions of blame

what you're saying is that those who resort to blaming the perpetrator... hinder the process needed to stop the human rights violations.
However, the society that is responsible for the human rights abuses... they need to undertake the steps necessary to respect human rights. Not me.

Such a person might thus think it useful to consider what can be actually done to minimise the likelihood that persecution will be triggered in a community.

what can actually be done by the victim, you say?

What you're doing here, if I get you right, is formulating an expectation that the victim has to meet, according to you.
This, however, is the first step to victim blaming.
If the victim is not to meet your expectation.... then they get subjected to your critisism.
So, you criticize the victim rather than the the government/ the society resonsible for the human rights abuses.
So first, the victim has to endure the violations of their fundamental human rights. On top, they also get to hear your criticism - as if they needed your "good advice".

Such a person might thus think it useful to consider what can be actually done to minimise the likelihood that persecution will be triggered in a community.

respect human rights.

 

[Terry Sampson]

just stupid?

Just stupid ... Everything We Know About The Isolated Sentinelese People Of North Sentinel Island

 

[exchemist]

there needs to be 100% clarity about it, though.

what you're saying is that those who resort to blaming the perpetrator... hinder the process needed to stop the human rights violations.
However, the society that is responsible for the human rights abuses... they need to undertake the steps necessary to respect human rights. Not me.

what can actually be done by the victim, you say?

What you're doing here, if I get you right, is formulating an expectation that the victim has to meet, according to you.
This, however, is the first step to victim blaming.
If the victim is not to meet your expectation.... then they get subjected to your critisism.
So, you criticize the victim rather than the the government/ the society resonsible for the human rights abuses.
So first, the victim has to endure the violations of their fundamental human rights. On top, they also get to hear your criticism - as if they needed your "good advice".


respect human rights.

There is nothing further to discuss.

 

[ChristineM]

I permit myself to stay with wikipedia here.
The point of this thread is to discuss excuses for human rights violations in the context of proselyting Christians.
I find it wrong when people suffer violations of their human rights just for proselyting.
Proselyting never can justify human rights abuses.

Well if you considered unattributed and contradictory information to be your guiide then i see where your problem lies.

I have the hunan right to enjoy a quiet relaxing meal with my family. And i have the right to object to prowling groups of religious people disturbing that peace to proselytize at my door.

I have the human right not to be disturbed by proselyting.

However, you were not talking human rights abuses but persecution which has dictionary definitions.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Lately I came across some what I consider excuses for the persecution of Christians. This may apply to the persecution of any other religion (or non-religion), too:

One poster said he'd be in favour of an anti-proselytising law with strong enforcement.

Moreover, another poster said that there are resentments that can contribute to persecution arising.

My conclusion: even if there are resentments because of proselytizing or other... these can not count as a valid reason for persecution.

What are you calling "persecution?"

Edit: and to be clear, the Wikipedia paragraph you keep quoting doesn't tell me. I have no idea what you personally consider to be "mistreatment."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I permit myself to stay with wikipedia here.
The point of this thread is to discuss excuses for human rights violations in the context of proselyting Christians.

What sorts of human rights violations?

And why are you focused on the context of proselytizing Christians? Persecution - and human rights violations - can happen in many other contexts.

For instance, here's the story of what one person went through when he endured persecution while he was a Christian child:

I experienced 'conversion therapy'—and it's time to ban it across Canada - Macleans.ca

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Nobody here has tried to excuse persecution. What @Vinayaka, myself and other have tried to do is to suggest reasons why persecution may arise, as a result of clumsy, culturally insensitive or frankly manipulative attempts at proselytising.

Personally, I'm just trying to figure out exactly what @thomas t is complaining about.

So far, I can't tell if his "human rights violations in the context of proselytizing" refers to cases where proselytizers have been killed or imprisoned, cases where proselytizers have just been told to stop using contemptible tactics, or something in between.

 

[exchemist]

Personally, I'm just trying to figure out exactly what @thomas t is complaining about.

So far, I can't tell if his "human rights violations in the context of proselytizing" refers to cases where proselytizers have been killed or imprisoned, cases where proselytizers have just been told to stop using contemptible tactics, or something in between.

No idea, I'm afraid. He can't seem to get beyond reiterating the obvious point that persecution can't be justified. There was an earlier thread, which now seems to have been mysteriously deleted (at least I can no longer find it), in which there was a quite interesting example brought up by @Vinayaka, of Christian missionaries trying to exploit Indian families whose breadwinners were working as expats in the Middle East to send money home for them. This apparently has resulted in persecution of the missionaries for taking unfair advantage of lonely people.

@thomas t showed himself incapable of responding to this, except by robotically intoning that persecution can't be justified. I thought he was a bot at one point. I've now given up. Maybe he's on the autistic spectrum or something.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yes, in India, a few proselytizers have been killed, both by Christians as well as Hindus; and the criminals have been brought to justice. We have some laws in certain states about proselytization (tourists are not allowed to indulge in religious matters), workings of NGO's (how they get foreign funds and the utilization thereof) and if someone transgresses these rules, then they are called by law. Amnesty International has left India at the moment because they did not adhere to FCRA.

The Foreign Contribution (regulation) Act, 2010 is an act of the Parliament of India, by the 42nd Act of 2010. It is a consolidating act whose scope is to regulate the acceptance and utilization of foreign contribution or foreign hospitality by certain individuals or associations or companies and to prohibit acceptance and utilization of foreign contribution or foreign hospitality for any activities detrimental to the national interest and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto."
Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 - Wikipedia

If there is a law in India, then foreign organizations are supposed to stick to it. It is not that Amnesty was unaware of the rules but they willfully chose to ignore them. Now if they stop working in India, it is their problem and not that of India. We know how to take care of such problems.

 

[ppp]

For example, nobody should be thrown into jail for harassment. This would be at odds with the principle of proportionality.

That's not true. There are several forms of harassments that violate civil and/or criminal law, justifiably incurring warrant fines, jail time or possibly prison time. Stalking. Sexual harassments. Menacing. Retaliation. And yes, repeated unwanted religious solicitation of an individual does fit on that list. And yes, I am talking about JW's.

And BTW, shunning is persecution.

 

[Twilight Hue]

maybe.....don't just tell people about it,
just do it and people will beat a trail to your door.
no need to convince people then..... hmmm?

People attempting to convince is more often a sign of weakness of what is being put forward isn't able to stand scrutiny on its own.

 

[ChristineM]

here we disagree.
As far as I understand persecution, it is:
"the systematic mistreatment of an individual or group by another individual or group. The most common forms are religious persecution, racism and political persecution, though there is naturally some overlap between these terms. The inflicting of suffering, harassment, imprisonment, internment, fear, or pain are all factors that may establish persecution, but not all suffering will necessarily establish persecution. The suffering experienced by the victim must be sufficiently severe. The threshold level of severity has been a source of much debate."
(wikipedia)

I have provided the relevant definition, you are welcome to ignore it as you wish.

I don't really care where you get your confirmation bias from. I will stick to the accepted dictionary definition

 

[Samantha Rinne]

Lately I came across some what I consider excuses for the persecution of Christians. This may apply to the persecution of any other religion (or non-religion), too:

One poster said he'd be in favour of an anti-proselytising law with strong enforcement.

Moreover, another poster said that there are resentments that can contribute to persecution arising.

My conclusion: even if there are resentments because of proselytizing or other... these can not count as a valid reason for persecution.

There aren't any valid reasons. Persecution actually happens because people hate the church. These are several stages where one runs afoul of the church and turns against it. Several different reasons.

• They hate the church because they were bratty kids made to go to church, and this was too much an imposition.
  
• They hate the church because at some point people were rude to them, and they had a mistaken impression that if you are part of the church, you ought to be perfect. They assume the church represents goodness, and that its members are somehow not flawed (you're thinking of Judaism, which focuses on righteousness and works of law, Christians are about inherent flaws and forgiveness).
  
• Tey hate the church because they themselves tried to be perfect, and gradually lost their faith. This is from exhaustion.
  
• They hate the church because they tried to be perfect, and failed to measure up, never realizing that this is exactly the point. You're supposed to fail. Failure shows us why we need Jesus.
• They hate the church because they are too nice, and wound up used and abused by others, taking on too many volunteer projects.
• They hate the church because when they wanted God to heal someone and they died instead. This is a failurw to understand that this world isn't the only one, and loved ones haven't really died, they just left their bodies.
• They hate the church because they are selfish or violent or cruel, and the church would stand in the way of license to hurt others.
• They hate the church because they THINK they are violent or selfish or cruel, and that nobody could forgive them.
• They hate the church because they have been told lies about it. Lies from their history teacher, like Christians caused the Crusades (they didn't, the Crusades were in response to Muslim invasion of Europe, and Christianity figured it had more to offer the world by being around than letting Islam move all the way to Sweden and Britain). Lies from their parents. Lies from disaffected Christians for many of the above reasons. Even lies from the state, like right now where the state is basically calling churches unclean.
• They hate the church because they are secular and have never understood what it is to value and love something outside the church. They don't get it, so they don't like it.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Lately I came across some what I consider excuses for the persecution of Christians. This may apply to the persecution of any other religion (or non-religion), too:

One poster said he'd be in favour of an anti-proselytising law with strong enforcement.

Moreover, another poster said that there are resentments that can contribute to persecution arising.

My conclusion: even if there are resentments because of proselytizing or other... these can not count as a valid reason for persecution.

I simply refuse to accept an inability to proselytize as a form of "persecution."

A dictionary I often reference has a definition I think sums up my ideas of persecution quite well:

a program or campaign to exterminate, drive away, or subjugate people based on their membership in a religious, ethnic, social, or racial group.​

People asking, or even demanding that you to stop bothering them with your wild stories and personal brand of unevidenced beliefs is NOT persecution. That's you being refused someone else's time - which YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO IN THE SLIGHTEST.

I get it... your beliefs are being marginalized. Tough. No one literally needs to buy what you are selling. That's a key indicator that what you have to offer can easily be considered unimportant, and there isn't much, at all, that you can do about that besides accept it.

 

[Vinayaka]

I simply refuse to accept an inability to proselytize as a form of "persecution."

A dictionary I often reference has a definition I think sums up my ideas of persecution quite well:

a program or campaign to exterminate, drive away, or subjugate people based on their membership in a religious, ethnic, social, or racial group.​

People asking, or even demanding that you to stop bothering them with your wild stories and personal brand of unevidenced beliefs is NOT persecution. That's you being refused someone else's time - which YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO IN THE SLIGHTEST.

I get it... your beliefs are being marginalized. Tough. No one literally needs to buy what you are selling. That's a key indicator that what you have to offer can easily be considered unimportant, and there isn't much, at all, that you can do about that besides accept it.

In my mind persecution examples are slavery and/or holocaust/genocides.

 

[ChristineM]

There aren't any valid reasons. Persecution actually happens because people hate the church. These are several stages where one runs afoul of the church and turns against it. Several different reasons.

• They hate the church because they were bratty kids made to go to church, and this was too much an imposition.
  
• They hate the church because at some point people were rude to them, and they had a mistaken impression that if you are part of the church, you ought to be perfect. They assume the church represents goodness, and that its members are somehow not flawed (you're thinking of Judaism, which focuses on righteousness and works of law, Christians are about inherent flaws and forgiveness).
  
• Tey hate the church because they themselves tried to be perfect, and gradually lost their faith. This is from exhaustion.
  
• They hate the church because they tried to be perfect, and failed to measure up, never realizing that this is exactly the point. You're supposed to fail. Failure shows us why we need Jesus.
• They hate the church because they are too nice, and wound up used and abused by others, taking on too many volunteer projects.
• They hate the church because when they wanted God to heal someone and they died instead. This is a failurw to understand that this world isn't the only one, and loved ones haven't really died, they just left their bodies.
• They hate the church because they are selfish or violent or cruel, and the church would stand in the way of license to hurt others.
• They hate the church because they THINK they are violent or selfish or cruel, and that nobody could forgive them.
• They hate the church because they have been told lies about it. Lies from their history teacher, like Christians caused the Crusades (they didn't, the Crusades were in response to Muslim invasion of Europe, and Christianity figured it had more to offer the world by being around than letting Islam move all the way to Sweden and Britain). Lies from their parents. Lies from disaffected Christians for many of the above reasons. Even lies from the state, like right now where the state is basically calling churches unclean.
• They hate the church because they are secular and have never understood what it is to value and love something outside the church. They don't get it, so they don't like it.

Apart from your history being a bit flakey and your poor grasp of other people's reasoning that you could not comprehend...
...you seem to have forgotten the thousands of years that religion has been persecuting those not of their faith, hell, even those with a slightly different interpretation of the same faith. And guess what, it's still happening.

You seem to have forgotten the lies told about those not of a particular faith to build hatred against them