Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Maybe it is a language issue for you (I don't speak German), but "excuses" and "reasons" have different meanings in English.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.
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.but "excuses" and "reasons" have different meanings in English.
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.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.
there needs to be 100% clarity about it, though.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.For that, one needs to set aside attributions of blame
what can actually be done by the victim, you say?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.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.
Just stupid ... Everything We Know About The Isolated Sentinelese People Of North Sentinel Islandjust stupid?
There is nothing further to discuss.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.
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.
What are you calling "persecution?"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 sorts of human rights violations?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.
Personally, I'm just trying to figure out exactly what @thomas t is complaining about.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.
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.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.
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.For example, nobody should be thrown into jail for harassment. This would be at odds with the principle of proportionality.
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.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?
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)
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."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.
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.