Food for Thought: A Discourse on Deities

[Aldin]

Love God, love people.

If I were instructed to boil the Bible down to four words, those are them. They are the short form version of what Christians call the Great Commandment, which was Jesus response to the religious leaders when asked by them what the greatest commandment was. The longer version given by Him is:

Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind, and love your neighbor as yourself. (Luke 10:27 NIV)

Another thing He said that we still have as a common phrase today is in many ways a corollary to the above. We call it the Golden Rule:

Do to others as you would have them do to you. (Luke 6:31 NIV)

Most people don't want to be screamed at or physically assaulted. Most people don't want to be belittled or tricked. It is generally incredibly difficult to imagine doing those things to someone else in a loving way.

There can be some exceptions of course. I might scream at someone to try to alert them to a clear, present, imminent danger. Say someone coming at them from behind with a knife. Screaming at them might save their life. That wouldn't make screaming sensible regarding, say the avalanche dangers of a ski slope they are considering for next weekend. Screaming there is simply insulting and off-putting.

Which is how we come to the subject of proselytizing from this direction.

Most people do want to have other people around them who are genuinely interested in their well-being and behave in a friendly fashion towards them. Most people enjoy hearing good news. Most people are interested in hearing about things which are to their benefit.

When I've just passed deer crossing the road and I come on another motorist, I flash my lights at them to alert them to the hazard on the road ahead. If I see someone in my office that looks like they might be having a rough day, I ask them about it and if there is something useful I can provide I typically do so. When I find a cool app, video, or game I almost always share it with people I know who might also enjoy it.

Telling people the good news about Jesus is simply an extension of that. I genuinely believe everyone would be better off if they had a relationship with God the way I have a relationship with God. I am grateful for the good in my life, the satisfaction, peace, love, and joy I experience, and I want other people to share those same types of experiences.

So I share with the desire to convert others from where they are to Christianity. That is proselytizing. It is not however, to the best of my ability, any of the unloving actions that are often associated with that word.

~Aldin, lovingly

[Dad_Scaper]

Here is where I respectfully part ways with Aldin.

If I am contentedly living my life, and not hurting people, then a "friendly flash of headlights" warning me about the inadequacy of my relationship with a Higher Power, then it's not "friendly" at all. My relationship with my faith is not your concern, and despite (what you tell yourself are) your good intentions, your assessment of the adequacy of my life is not your concern.

Drive past me in peace. I'll be fine. You might have seen a deer and responded to it, but whether I care about it is my choice.

All of which is not to say that I think that you, Aldin, personally have been proselytizing at all in the context of this conversation, or others in this forum. I know your thoughts because you've shared them when & where appropriately, but you've always treated others here with respect. Which I know you know that I know, but I want our readers to understand that I'm not accusing you of anything. Just responding to the ideas in your post.

Also, the ideas you express present a justification for another form of (what I'll call) proselytizing, which is that you hint that anything you can do to prevent me hitting your deer might be justifiable. Such as, for instance, making it illegal for me to drive in the direction where you saw the deer. Or maybe just making it a little bit harder for me to drive that way, by ripping up the pavement or something, in an effort to dissuade me. Which is a different sort of thing, and obviously objectionable from the perspective of a person who enjoys freedom in road selection.

[Aldin]

Meh, the voting stuff is tricky. I wrestle with it a lot. If I believe we need stricter gun control laws, does the source of my desire really matter? Or to put it another way, should someone who wants stricter gun control laws solely because of their religious beliefs recuse themselves from voting for them? From our increasingly ridiculous deer example, should the government be prevented from putting up warning signs at deer crossings? Should we refuse to put a speed limit on the road? Abolish the requirement to license drivers?

As a person, I want the laws for my country to be the ones of the greatest benefit to my country. I can have many reasons for my beliefs as to what those laws are. The only responsible thing I can possibly do is vote for the people, positions, and proposals which I best believe will be of the greatest benefit to this country. It's the exact same thing I would expect of any of us. And my beliefs of what is best are going to be informed by my beliefs in other areas. How could it be otherwise?

So a call for anyone not to "push their beliefs" on others through the power of the voting box is absurd. It's what each and every one of us does each time we exercise our right and privilege to vote. We set our beliefs about what is best for this country against every person who voted differently. Trying to put some special restriction on Christians is simply wrong.

Having said that, I think it is important to vote for the things one believes is of the most benefit to everyone in the country and not out of some sort of misguided notion of creating a "Christian nation". That's where it gets tricky. A law that required everyone to go to church on Sunday would be a terrible idea, even though going to church is a solid Christian principle. Not murdering people, on the other hand, is a great idea - and also a solid Christian principle. Discerning which Christian principles make good laws for us is the tricky part and something with which I wrestle constantly.

~Aldin, picking and choosing

[Dad_Scaper]

Originally Posted by Aldin

So a call for anyone not to "push their beliefs" on others through the power of the voting box is absurd. It's what each and every one of us does each time we exercise our right and privilege to vote. We set our beliefs about what is best for this country against every person who voted differently. Trying to put some special restriction on Christians is simply wrong.

I have little trouble separating the secular from the non-secular, in my own head. I would urge everybody not to use the voting booth to push religious values on others. A statute forbidding murder? We can all agree on the secular reasons why that's a good idea. A statute forbidding the sale of alcohol on Sundays? Which, by the way, is a real thing* in Maryland? Spare me the smokescreen, and keep your religion to yourself.

There are communities in the United States where the will of one religious group has been forced onto the public and it's not always the Christians, by the way:

Under the current voting protocol, known as an at-large system, each school-board member is elected by all of the district’s voters rather than only by members of the geographic area in which she lives. Under this system, the NYCLU alleges, the district’s ultra-Orthodox Jewish majority has effectively managed to fashion a school-governing body that prioritizes private-school needs. “Communities of color have not seen their candidates of choice win a contested seat since 2007,” the press release states.

LINK. Israel, unsurprisingly, has to be careful about the political power of the Jews who would limit the freedom of others. In this country, for the most part but not completely, the shoe is on a different foot.

I'm not singling out Christians. I'm just opposed to the idea that you are doing the community a service by shining bright lights into your neighbor's eyes, when your neighbor is perfectly capable of seeing for himself and has not asked your opinion on which deer matter and which do not.

[Aldin]

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper

I have little trouble separating the secular from the non-secular, in my own head. I would urge everybody not to use the voting booth to push religious values on others. A statute forbidding murder? We can all agree on the secular reasons why that's a good idea. A statute forbidding the sale of alcohol on Sundays? Which, by the way, is a real thing* in Maryland? Spare me the smokescreen, and keep your religion to yourself.

Hilariously, laws against alcohol probably make more sense from a secular perspective (88k deaths per year, many from younger and thus potentially more productive members of society) than from a Christian one (don't be drunk), though the specific exception of Sundays is pretty clearly religious in nature. So if I led a crusade to reinstate prohibition, using the CDC as my source, would I be accused of trying to push my religious values using those as a smokescreen? Pretty sure I would. The issue shouldn't be whether or not the reasons behind something are religious, but whether or not that thing has a good, true, and appropriate application to the populace.

~Aldin, re-writingly

[Tornado]

[Dad_Scaper]

"Hilariously"? I think not. Again, you are using stronger language than your argument can bear. In this real world example, placing the forbidden day on Sundays reveals it as the smokescreen it is.

Regardless, my point is not about a hypothetical situation in which you and I might disagree on the existence of a smokescreen. My point is that I would urge my friends and neighbors not to use the voting booth to push their religion onto their neighbors, for the same reason that I might encourage my friends and family not to approach strangers on the street and attempt to convert them. It's just not their business.

Ultimately, if you want to vote to forbid liquor sales on Sundays then I can't stop you. So whether something is actually a smokescreen or not is sort of beside the point. If you (generic "you") will do your best not to expect (and then demand) your neighbors to comport their behavior with your faith, great. If not, I've done the best I can to explain myself, and I let it go. I don't care to quibble over whether or not a specific person is actually minding his or her own business, absent some real-world specifics.

But I'll nibble on your bait. Reinstate prohibition? My first response is that your proposal would be foolish for a number of reasons. If I saw it was (let's say) principally coming from Hindu-based communities, then I might also think it was a faith-based thing and therefore a smokescreen. Whether it actually is one or not, of course, is subjective (one person's reason for doing a thing may be different from another person's), but we are rational people capable of drawing reasonable conclusions about what other people intend when they take actions we can perceive and contemplate.

[Aldin]

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper

Whether it actually is one or not, of course, is subjective (one person's reason for doing a thing may be different from another person's)

This is the core of what I've been trying to drill down to. The inherent subjectivity of the thing and the fact that people do things for different reasons. At the end of the day a good law is a good law, regardless of the religious standing or lack thereof of its backers. Both religious folks and secular folks ought to have good leadership and good laws as their primary concern, and both should use their best understanding of civics and ethics to make that determination.

~Aldin, agreeably

[Dad_Scaper]

I don't know why you've been trying to drill down on the goodness of the law, Aldin. If our imagined law was a good law, then good, and if it was a bad law, then that's not good. I think we can agree on that, but I never said that a good law - however it came to be - is a bad law.

My point was that you should not use the voting booth to bully your neighbors on matters of faith. I'm writing about avoiding the temptation to subjugate your neighbors, and you're responding that sometimes a law that subjugates your neighbors might somehow be "good" for secular reasons. Whether liquor stores being closed on Sundays is a cosmic good or a cosmic bad is beside the point I was making, which was that - because of the focus on Sunday - you can read the intent behind the law unusually clearly.

When some law is being considered, let's talk about it. Whatever it is. You give your reasons for your position; I can agree or disagree for reasons that are my own. But I would rather you did not say that your reason is to impose your faith upon me, and I would similarly rather you did not give me some nonsense reason ("The dictionary says 'between a man and a woman!'") and pretend your faith has nothing to do with it. Let's not use the voting booth, or the law, to bully members of other faiths.

Do what you want, in the voting booth. At that point you're beyond my words and it's no longer a discussion. But here, in the public square of the marketplace of ideas, I am attempting to promote the idea that proselytizing, including in this form, is not healthy for a broad community. I don't anticipate I'll persuade you on this point, Aldin, but I'd at least like to make sure I'm being clear about what it is.

[Aldin]

If that's what you're seeing in my message then I think I need to be done.

~Aldin, miscommunicatingly

[Dad_Scaper]

I'm not saying you're deliberately putting it there. But, from the perspective of The Other, as I used the term above, that's how it appears to those affected.

If Adam flashes his brights at Beth, causing Beth to get distracted and drive into a tree, and then Adam tells Beth that he's sorry but a divine being moved him to flash his brights at Beth, that is no comfort. With the best of intentions, and because of his relationship with his own faith, Adam distracted Beth and she has driven into a tree.

And she may or may not share Adam's faith; it doesn't even matter. She can decide for herself and would just as soon not have her own life affected by a matter strictly between Adam and his god.

I hope I did not give offense.

[Aldin]

Meh, you had a point to make and you made it. I thought we were having a different conversation than that. I do kinda feel like religious folks may be your "Other", but that's mostly because I felt like you kept responding to things I wasn't saying to make sure everyone understood that people who believe the way I do are inherently dangerous and tend towards bullying, subjugating and spreading nonsense. Not sure why you think I might be offended.

~Aldin, who is more disappointed at the inability to communicate than offended in any way