[ QUOTE ]
Two topics that always cause controversy (a) RELIGION and (b) POLITICS. Stated this earlier. Me I couldn't care less about either, even though I have very strong views on both but I really don't care to pressure others with them. I believe each has a right to have THEIR OWN views and beliefs. It makes for a healthy community, probably more loving too.
[/ QUOTE ]
I thought I had stayed somewhat peripheral in these discussions, and would have explained it as having been vaccinated by the school of hard knocks. It now occurs to me that I'm equally describable as having a short attention span. Both/either are
quant suff and comfortable for me.
But I'd like to share a look at
Wikipedia where I often review a definition or perspective, not because I want it "exactly defined," but instead how I can understand the current fluidity of a word.
I chose to use
prosthelytize rather than
convert because it more closely reflected those voices concerned with intrusion and coercion.
-----------------------------
Views on proselytism
Propriety of proselytism
Views on the propriety of different types of proselytism differ radically.
Some feel that freedom of speech should have no limits and that virtually anyone, anywhere should have the right to talk about anything they see fit. Others see all sorts of proselytism as a nuisance and an intrusion and would like to see them restricted (either completely or to a limited arena).
Thus, Prof. Natan Lerner of Tel Aviv University observes that the issue is one of a clash of rights—the perceived right of a person to express his or her views versus the perceived right of a person not to be exposed to views that he or she does not wish to hear.
Some don't mind preaching but are concerned if the speech is accompanied by physical benefits (e.g., a soup kitchen that provides food, but only under the condition that the recipients listen to an evangelical discourse) or new converts are given physical benefits not available to those who don't convert. Others are concerned if the preaching is aimed at children without the knowledge and consent of the parents.
[edit]
Exclusivity of membership
Many religions, including Abrahamic religions such as Christianity and Islam, doctrinally claim a sole ideological propriety over their members which forbids them from maintaining a simultaneous adherence to other religions. However, while Judaism discourages active proselytism in other religious communities and maintains an exclusivist doctrine on adherence,
Christianity and Islam both doctrinally advocate for active proselytism while discouraging converts from maintaining multiple adherences or, worse, apostasy; this stance by Christianity and Islam regarding proselytism is further reinforced by a doctrinal belief in post-mortal, eternal punishment for non-believers, thus justifying proselytism as a means of humanitarian outreach for "salvation" and condemning non-adherence or multi-adherence as sinful behavior.
This view, however, is countered by the alternate doctrine of universalism, which emphasizesuniversal reconciliation of all non-believers by default. Such a stance would functionally invalidate the concept of proselytism as a humanitarian gesture or duty for adherents, but it also technically maintains the ultimate "incompletion" of other religious traditions in their understanding of divinity.
[edit]
Legal standpoint
From a legal standpoint (international, as well the European Union, or nationally India, Canada and United States), there do appear to be certain criteria in distinguishing licit from illicit proselytism:
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 18 states:
1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.
2. No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.
3. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.
4. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.
The first amendments to the constitutions of United States and India, the European Union Charter of Human Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provide that all people have:
• the right to have religious beliefs (or to not have religious beliefs) (
Freedom of Religion);
• the right to form organizations for the purpose of worship, as well as for promoting their cause (
Freedom of Association; and
• the right to speak to others about their convictions, with the purpose of influencing the others. (
Freedom of Speech).
By the same token, these very rights exercise a limiting influence on the freedoms of others. For instance, the right to have one's religious (or non-religious) beliefs presumably includes the right not to be coerced by the government into changing these beliefs by threats, discrimination, or similar inducements. [citation needed]
(Full reference to Wikipedia above:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proselytism ) Someone should also look up Zealotry.
---------------------------
Seed me duty and I dood it.
Bob Wulkowicz
