Methods off preaching, conversion, spreading the Faith and religious tolerance

[Said1]

Sure, but who wants to hear "you're going to hell" all day long? So, it's not an atheist; same scenario, but it's a Hindi or Muslim.

That's when your boss steps in and tell both of you to stfu or turn in your name tags. See, everyone's happy.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Sure, but who wants to hear "you're going to hell" all day long? So, it's not an atheist; same scenario, but it's a Hindi or Muslim.

Anything repeated all day long would be offensive. Someone singing elvis presley songs all day to the annoyance of others, could probably be censured. That goes to form not content.

 

[no1tovote4]

Now anything can become harrassment if taken to an extreme. If I came into my workplace where we do discuss religion regularly and I started trying to convert everybody to Theravada Buddhism and spoke so much about it that it became annoying. Some people requested that I stop but I quoted First Amendment rights and kept right on going. They approach my boss who asks me to tone it down, I get offended and keep it up. At some point I will be fired for harrassing the other workers.

It can become a way of being ostracized and finally losing your job if not taken to the point of harrassment.

The person who began the thread even stated that at some times it may be legal but it simply isn't the time or place. There are times when unwelcome proselytizing can become an offensive attack on another person's beliefs or lifestyle and is inappropriate, but not illegal.


Just because something is legal doesn't mean that it should be done. There is no law against sleeping with another woman other than your wife, but should it be done? Not in my opinion.

There can become a time when proselytizing can become counterproductive and not only are you not converting but can be driving somebody from your religion. Case in point: Matthew Sheppard's funeral services. While it wasn't illegal all it did was make many people turn against the Christian religion and misrepresented what was stated in the Bible. There is no way that they can know if Sheppard didn't convert at the last second; they are not God and cannot know that he didn't go to Heaven. Yet they judge like they are God and stand with signs at the same time saying they are Christian. It is legal but more than inappropriate it is counterproductive.

 

[Shattered]

Now anything can become harrassment if taken to an extreme. If I came into my workplace where we do discuss religion regularly and I started trying to convert everybody to Theravada Buddhism and spoke so much about it that it became annoying. Some people requested that I stop but I quoted First Amendment rights and kept right on going. They approach my boss who asks me to tone it down, I get offended and keep it up. At some point I will be fired for harrassing the other workers.

It can become a way of being ostracized and finally losing your job if not taken to the point of harrassment.

The person who began the thread even stated that at some times it may be legal but it simply isn't the time or place. There are times when unwelcome proselytizing can become an offensive attack on another person's beliefs or lifestyle and is inappropriate, but not illegal.


Just because something is legal doesn't mean that it should be done. There is no law against sleeping with another woman other than your wife, but should it be done? Not in my opinion.

There can become a time when proselytizing can become counterproductive and not only are you not converting but can be driving somebody from your religion. Case in point: Matthew Sheppard's funeral services. While it wasn't illegal all it did was make many people turn against the Christian religion and misrepresented what was stated in the Bible. There is no way that they can know if Sheppard didn't convert at the last second; they are not God and cannot know that he didn't go to Heaven. Yet they judge like they are God and stand with signs at the same time saying they are Christian. It is legal but more than inappropriate it is counterproductive.

I prefer to call it "Simple common courtesy"..

 

[Mr. P]

Religous discussion = harrassment? that perception is only the perception of a Theophobe. You're bigoted and biased. Religious discussion = trespass? Only if one IS TRESPASSING. You're insane. Yelling fire in a theare would endanger others and charges would most likely be brought. That absurdly extreme case has no bearing on this discussion, Cyril.

Give us a break here...Geezzzzzzz
Ya just don't get it. Discussion would involve at least two willing participants.
Otherwise it's not a discussion is it, regardless of the subject.
Which I must say, from your posts to me you don't really seem to want to have a discussion here. That's fine.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Give us a break here...Geezzzzzzz
Ya just don't get it. Discussion would involve at least two willing participants.
Otherwise it's not a discussion is it, regardless of the subject.
Which I must say, from your posts to me you don't really seem to want to have a discussion here. That's fine.

Thanks for the irrelevancies. We're discussing workplace speech. You want to preemptively decide that ALL religious speech is inherently divisive and therefore, categorically disallowed. I'm saying that's a crap policy and an intolerant one. Of course, if someone is harrassing others with their speech then that really goes to form and not content. A person could harrass others with nonsense syllables, kind of like what you're doing.

 

[Mr. P]

...You want to preemptively decide that ALL religious speech is inherently divisive and therefore, categorically disallowed. ...

Surely you can point me to my post that gave you such a wild ass idea about "What I want".
You're making assumptions.
I'm beginning to think you're no more than the dreaded THUMPER, a thorn in the butt
of a true Christian. So far you fit the bill.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Surely you can point me to my post that gave you such a wild ass idea about "What I want".
You're making assumptions.
I'm beginning to think you're no more than the dreaded THUMPER, a thorn in the butt
of a true Christian. So far you fit the bill.

Ok. Tell us what your position is then. Why are you here, just to be a thorn in MY ass?

 

[Mr. P]

Ok. Tell us what your position is then. Why are you here, just to be a thorn in MY ass?

I'm here because I responded to the Original post. If that makes me a torn in your butt, so be it.

You on the other hand seem to be here just to carry over the argument
from the closed thread. You've made some incorrect assumptions about my position,
and in post #11 you insinuate Isaac suggested using Law to prohibit speech as well.
He said no such thing. If you return to the first page I think you'll see that.

So, I think the question here should really be, why are you here?

 

[freeandfun1]

I'm here because I responded to the Original post. If that makes me a torn in your butt, so be it.

You on the other hand seem to be here just to carry over the argument
from the closed thread. You've made some incorrect assumptions about my position,
and in post #11 you insinuate Isaac suggested using Law to prohibit speech as well.
He said no such thing. If you return to the first page I think you'll see that.

So, I think the question here should really be, why are you here?

We're all here for the same reason..... to debate and to defend positions or try and discount the positions of others.

I think everybody needs to take a . This thread just proves that when it comes to religion, sometimes civil discussions just aren't possible.

 

[Mr. P]

We're all here for the same reason..... to debate and to defend positions or try and discount the positions of others.

I think everybody needs to take a . This thread just proves that when it comes to religion, sometimes civil discussions just aren't possible.

The thread also proves the topic can be lost and twisted in a heartbeat..If allowed.

 

[dilloduck]

We're all here for the same reason..... to debate and to defend positions or try and discount the positions of others.

I think everybody needs to take a . This thread just proves that when it comes to religion, sometimes civil discussions just aren't possible.

Agreed---emotionally packed subject since we are here MOSTLY because we share political views. Religious beliefs are a whole different ball game but I think if people "chill out" as you say some decent interchange is possible.

 

[Said1]

We're all here for the same reason..... to debate and to defend positions or try and discount the positions of others.

I think everybody needs to take a . This thread just proves that when it comes to religion, sometimes civil discussions just aren't possible.

We aren't talking about religion, we're talking about the right to discuss it in a **common sense** manner while at work. Not combative "born agains" *touching* you ect.

 

[dilloduck]

We aren't talking about religion, we're talking about the right to discuss it in a **common sense** manner while at work. Not combative "born agains" *touching* you ect.

so do you reckon it's a more of a "whose personal space takes precedence" issue ?

 

[Said1]

so do you reckon it's a more of a "whose personal space takes precedence" issue ?

No, I think people are usually smart enough to judge what is acceptable conversation and what isn't. One or two people should not dictate policy for entire group.

 

[dilloduck]

No, I think people are usually smart enough to judge what is acceptable conversation and what isn't. One or two people should not dictate policy for entire group.

One or two people can only do that tho if everyone else lets them

 

[UsaPride]

I've never heard of Christian people being so forceful. Assaulting, tresspassing, destroying property. We must just have the nice Christians here, LOL!
I look at talking Religion just like I do anything else. If someone came up to me at the grocery store and started talking about gays rights and I didn't want to discuss it, myself, I'd probably just nod and find ways out of the conversation without being rude. But that is just me, I don't like being rude.
So, same goes for Religion, someone wants to discuss it, I nod, smile, find an out and take it.
What's the big deal? Not trying to be rude, I just really don't understand all the fuss.

 

[MissileMan]

so do you reckon it's a more of a "whose personal space takes precedence" issue ?

Well, as the right of Freedom of Religion has been said to also include Freedom from Religion, do you think it's possible that right of Freedom of Speech also includes Freedom from Speech?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I'm here because I responded to the Original post. If that makes me a torn in your butt, so be it.

You on the other hand seem to be here just to carry over the argument
from the closed thread. You've made some incorrect assumptions about my position,
and in post #11 you insinuate Isaac suggested using Law to prohibit speech as well.
He said no such thing. If you return to the first page I think you'll see that.

So, I think the question here should really be, why are you here?

I could see Isaac wanting a law to enforce workplace ban on religious speech. It's not so far out there for a lib. I don't think it has much to do with you, anyway.

Are you really just here to force me to document my assumptions about isaac's position? Doesn't that make you a buttinsky?


What is your position again? On the issue? do you think religious speech is inherently divisive and should be deemed inappropriate in the workplace?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Well, as the right of Freedom of Religion has been said to also include Freedom from Religion, do you think it's possible that right of Freedom of Speech also includes Freedom from Speech?

But those who say this are misinterpreting the constitution. this right is invented.