Excuses for Persecution?

[A Vestigial Mote]

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

I definitely feel that for something to reach the level of "persecution," there needs to be some physical (including financial or health-related items) manifestation of the mistreatment. This could be that someone has convinced everyone in town to avoid your business because you are [insert creed/color/sexual-orientation here], in an attempt to make you lose your livelihood and probably need to move out. Or maybe people are harassing you so often that you fear for your safety and have stress-related symptoms arise in your health as a result. "Hurt feelings" just doesn't cut it.

 

[thomas t]

@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.

This is getting personal (see bolded text). Can you stop this please?

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.

that example was interesting indeed. But it did not involve missionaries trying to exploit, as I see it.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Often proselytizing includes coercion: 'If you don't believe what my religion says, you will suffer.'

 

[thomas t]

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

persecution often involves human rights abuses.

Everyone has the right to seek asylum from persecution. from Article 14, UDHR.

Furthermore, Article 2 UDHR prohibits discrimination on the following 10 grounds: race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, [...]

meaning that if you don't persecute that hypothetic Nissan sales agent for desperately wanting to sell his product... you should not persecut Christians who proselyte, either. Non-discrimination, please.

 

[thomas t]

What sorts of human rights violations?

for example, these sorts of things (quoting from Christian Persecution | Open Doors USA):

"A woman in India watches as her sister is dragged off by Hindu nationalists. She doesn’t know if her sister is alive or dead.

A man in a North Korean prison camp is shaken awake after being beaten unconscious; the beatings begin again.

A woman in Nigeria runs for her life. She has escaped from Boko Haram, who kidnapped her. She is pregnant, and when she returns home, her community will reject her and her baby.

A group of children are laughing and talking as they come down to their church’s sanctuary after eating together. Instantly, many of them are killed by a bomb blast. It’s Easter Sunday in Sri Lanka.

These people don’t live in the same region, or even on the same continent. But they share an important characteristic: They are all Christians, and they suffer because of their faith. While Christian persecution takes many forms, it is defined as any hostility experienced as a result of identification with Jesus Christ. From Sudan to Russia, from Nigeria to North Korea, from Colombia to India, followers of Christianity are targeted for their faith. They are attacked; they are discriminated against at work and at school; they risk sexual violence, torture, arrest and much more."

and @A Vestigial Mote,
I also refuse to accept an inability to proselytize as a form of "persecution."

 

[thomas t]

I don't really care where you get your confirmation bias from.

I don't have it.

 

[thomas t]

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.

I slightly disagree. Noone should be thrown into jail for 'repeated unwanted religious solicitation of an individual'.... as annoying as this may be, in my opinion.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

and @A Vestigial Mote,
I also refuse to accept an inability to proselytize as a form of "persecution."

That's not what one might take away from the content of your OP. Do you understand where a person might be easily confused into inferring that you feel that being asked not to proselytize equates to "persecution?" Granted, in the OP, you mention laws being enforced - but if those are the laws of the land, and you aren't literally being hurt or physically affected by your inability to proselytize, then I still don't see "persecution" - and it only could possibly amount to persecution if your group was one of only a few being targeted, and others were still allowed to continue to proselytize.

It would be like claiming that the government requiring you, personally, to obtain a driver's license before being able to drive is persecution. Or that a limit on the number of fish you can catch from a river is persecution. You mistake what someone might see as a harmful, or intrusive act being outlawed, as a personal insult to "Christianity" in particular. But don't you see? With laws like that in place, NO ONE would be allowed to proselytize. So, as previously stated, the only case you might have for "persecution" is if the law specifically mentioned Christians, but let other groups (assumedly favored groups) continue to proselytize. Otherwise you have no case to make.

 

[ppp]

I slightly disagree. Noone should be thrown into jail for 'repeated unwanted religious solicitation of an individual'.... as annoying as this may be, in my opinion.

I don't see how it is different from any other form of stalking. There is no reason to treat anti-social behavior any different just because it has a religious motivation

 

[thomas t]

Do you understand where a person might be easily confused into inferring that you being asked not to proselytize equates to "persecution?"

well then this would be a misunderstanding of my post.
My focus here is on laws * with strong enforcement * against proselytism.
In India, for example, these laws get to the point where noone is allowed to convert, violating the right to religious freedom...
In India, for example, these laws get to the point where noone is allowed to evangelize through 'inducement' ... whatever this means... and there were arrests.*

see https://adfinternational.org/commentary/india-and-its-anti-conversion-laws/
or India's government advocates anti-proselytization law - UCA News

* "Despite criticism of India’s anti-conversion laws, some human rights bodies, including the USCIRF, have acknowledged that “these laws have resulted in few arrests and no convictions.”" see State Anti-conversion Laws in India

EDITED I misspoke, please consider the blue part, and forget the red one...

 

[ppp]

well then this would be a misunderstanding of my post.
My focus here is on laws * with strong enforcement * against proselytism.
In India, for example, these laws get to the point where noone is allowed to convert, violating the right to religious freedom...

see https://adfinternational.org/commentary/india-and-its-anti-conversion-laws/
or India's government advocates anti-proselytization law - UCA News

That article keeps putting scare quotes around ‘forcible’. As though the idea that Christians would engage in forcible conversion is outrageous or ridiculous.

 

[ppp]

Often proselytizing includes coercion: 'If you don't believe what my religion says, you will suffer.'

Proselytizing specifically preys upon human vulnerabilities. Especially grief, sadness and uncertainty. When such religions provide assistance they entail it with obligation.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

well then this would be a misunderstanding of my post.
My focus here is on laws * with strong enforcement * against proselytism.
In India, for example, these laws get to the point where noone is allowed to convert, violating the right to religious freedom...

see https://adfinternational.org/commentary/india-and-its-anti-conversion-laws/
or India's government advocates anti-proselytization law - UCA News

No one can stop a person from personally converting. No one can force what you believe. They may be able to control what you present to the public, which is not good by any stretch of the imagination, but to literally state that someone "can't convert" by law is lunacy of the highest order.

But, truly, there is no guaranteed "right" to religious freedom. Don't get me wrong - I believe it to be among the best things to have and to provide, but it is a privilege, as has been proven by religiously-affiliated authoritarian regimes of the past (and present!). We may take it for granted in many modern societies, but that doesn't mean we're guaranteed religious freedoms in any way. Even today, atheists can be sentenced to execution in some countries if "found out."

 

[ppp]

But, truly, there is no guaranteed "right" to religious freedom.

Yep. We are the grantors of rights. The 'guarantee' is only as good as the humans involved.

 

[ChristineM]

persecution often involves human rights abuses.

Everyone has the right to seek asylum from persecution. from Article 14, UDHR.

Furthermore, Article 2 UDHR prohibits discrimination on the following 10 grounds: race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, [...]

meaning that if you don't persecute that hypothetic Nissan sales agent for desperately wanting to sell his product... you should not persecut Christians who proselyte, either. Non-discrimination, please.

Meaning that if i were faced with a nissan salesman it would be because i conciously sought out a car salesman.

If a christian forced themself into my presence without my permission and began proselytising i would be within my rights to use reasonable means to tell them to butt out. If you think this is persecution then tough.

No discrimination involved even if you think its clever to hide behind a UN charter.

 

[ChristineM]

I don't have it.

Sure you do, you chose an unrecognised, anonymous description that agree with your own bias and completely ignore world recognised dictionary definitions because they don't agree with your bias.

Classic confirmation bias.

 

[ppp]

In India, for example, these laws get to the point where noone is allowed to convert, violating the right to religious freedom...

But, truly, there is no guaranteed "right" to religious freedom. Don't get me wrong - I believe it to be among the best things to have and to provide, but it is a privilege, as has been proven by religiously-affiliated authoritarian regimes of the past (and present!). We may take it for granted in many modern societies, but that doesn't mean we're guaranteed religious freedoms in any way. Even today, atheists can be sentenced to execution in some countries if "found out."

Yep. We are the grantors of rights. The 'guarantee' is only as good as the humans involved.

I appreciate the "like" Thomas, but just to be clear, my post was agreement with Vestigal Mote.

 

[thomas t]

Sure you do, you chose an unrecognised, anonymous description that agree with your own bias and completely ignore world recognised dictionary definitions because they don't agree with your bias.

Classic confirmation bias.

no since I can easily switch to human rights bodies and their definitions. Wikipedia is nice, so long as you can switch to serious stuff.

And no I don't think it's persecution that "If a christian forced themself into my presence without my permission and began proselytising i would be within my rights to use reasonable means to tell them to butt out." I never claimed otherwise.

 

[ChristineM]

no since I can easily switch to human rights bodies and their definitions. Wikipedia is nice, so long as you can switch to serious stuff.

And no I don't think it's persecution that "If a christian forced themself into my presence without my permission and began proselytising i would be within my rights to use reasonable means to tell them to butt out." I never claimed otherwise.

But you don't do you? You stick with what suits you and ignore recognised definitions


But i do think meets the requirements of the OED DEFINITION definition i put forward and think under that DEFINITION. it is persecution.

 

[thomas t]

You stick with what suits you and ignore recognised definitions

ah no.

And again: no, I don't think it's persecution to tell someone to butt out. Even if that guy started proselyting you... it's no persecution to ask him to stop.

And I switched to what human rights bodies had to say on the issue.