How to let the regligius to leave you alone?

[colmquinn]

In my local area we have a Christian sect & I have no problem with then but they are very anti abortion no matter what the reason.

Thing is the man who came to my door I hate - I remeber his daughter coming to my cousines house with her legs beaten black & blue by him, about 15 yrs ago,. He is a pillar of the christian community here, thankfully I will have a "chat" with him - ie I'm gonna headbutt da bastard & explain how the world works. Bastard

Am i going too far or not far enough?

[Mikey]

My human reaction is to beat him like he stole something. Unfortunately, "because he deserved it" is rarely a successful legal defense. If you can't involve local youth authorities a/o police - which you probably can't considering the elapsed time - you can always disseminate to his beloved Christian community in just how Christian a manner the guy treated his daughter. Let his own society pillory him.

[Teaos]

MIdnight letter drop his neighbourhood with information on him.

Unless he really has turned over a new leaf... people do change.

[colmquinn]

Thanks guys for your imput. People do change I'll admit. I will debate the point with him when he calls back. I may be beligerant

[Coalition]

I went with the following combo a few years ago:

"If a person does good deeds and is never told about god, will they go to heaven?"

"If that same person is told about god, does not accept him, and continues to do good deeds, will they go to hell?"

"Why are you telling people about god, and making them go to hell?"

Pretty much the only answer given was "we leave that up to god," aka a non-answer.

[Tsukiyumi]

"If a person does good deeds and is never told about god, will they go to heaven?".

I was flat-out told "no" as a response to that one by a person I considered a friend once.

I responded with "So, you're saying that half of my ancestors went to hell, just because they lived on the other side of the Atlantic?"

His answer: "Uh..."



As for your problem, Colm, I'm with Mikey; as much as I may want to beat certain people into a pulp on occasion, I rarely act on those impulses. It's bad for business. When he calls back, remind him that you know what he did, and you aren't interested in hearing "The Word" from a child abuser.

[colmquinn]

Thanks for the input again. They haven't called back funnily enough since my first "polite but get off my doorstep fuckers" response. The pamphlet they left is still lying on my porch in case they call around so I can point to it.

Sorry for being a bit of a burden

[Jim]

I find that talking logically to them seems to work. Joe-Average religious guy (or gal) has usually thought about their beliefs in how it applies to them personally and how certain aspects of the established beliefs do or do not apply to them fully. These people can have conversations about their beliefs… or they feel that their beliefs are theirs, and yours are yours and they have no desire to convert you or even debate points.

The kinds of people that go door-to-door are usually the type that simply drank the cool-aid and never really thought about the ins and outs. They simply regurgitate the rhetoric without thought. You can usually get them to start talking in circles within a couple minutes. They then get aggravated and unable to cope and they leave.

[Mikey]

The problem is that the idea of "Your beliefs are fine, just keep them to yourself" breaks down when part of someone's personal belief system includes spreading that system. It's all well and good to say (for example,) "You don't have to accept abortion/homosexuality/[insert random topic] but don't try to impose your philosophy on others," and I wish more people felt like that; but if somebody's ideology on abortion/homosexuality/whatever includes stopping other people/spreading the message, then "live and let live" doesn't work. The dogmatic Roman Catholic stance on abortion, to use an example, isn't merely to have each individual Catholic avoid abortion; it is to have abortion be stopped - EOS. While I don't agree with that stance, we must remember that in cases like this telling people not to spread their ideals is tantamount to telling those people that they are not free to fully practice their religious ideals. It is a terrible conundrum, no doubt.

[Jim]

The problem is that the idea of "Your beliefs are fine, just keep them to yourself" breaks down when part of someone's personal belief system includes spreading that system. It's all well and good to say (for example,) "You don't have to accept abortion/homosexuality/[insert random topic] but don't try to impose your philosophy on others," and I wish more people felt like that; but if somebody's ideology on abortion/homosexuality/whatever includes stopping other people/spreading the message, then "live and let live" doesn't work. The dogmatic Roman Catholic stance on abortion, to use an example, isn't merely to have each individual Catholic avoid abortion; it is to have abortion be stopped - EOS. While I don't agree with that stance, we must remember that in cases like this telling people not to spread their ideals is tantamount to telling those people that they are not free to fully practice their religious ideals. It is a terrible conundrum, no doubt.

There is a difference between spreading our beliefs and attempting to force them on people that do not want them, or have even directly stated to you that it is not welcome. At that point, the point of forcefullness... MANY of the rules change. They would then not only be going against our personal right to be left alone but also against accepted societal norms. At some point a line needs drawn.

Do you draw it at them coming to your door every day but leaving when you say no?
Do you draw it at them coming to your door every day but they calmly will not leave when you say no?
Do you draw it at them coming to your door every day but loudly condemn you when you say no?
Do you draw it at them coming to your door every day but causing damage to your property when you say no?
Do you draw it at them coming to your door every day but cause you physical harm when you say no?

Where is the line drawn to THEIR right to spread their word? Freedom of religion only covers so much ground. Any and all freedoms only cover so much ground. At some point it goes too far…

[Mikey]

Don't get defensive - I agree with you. However, if my religious beliefs dictate that I need to tell people about my faith, then abrogating my right to do so is in itself an abrogation of my religious freedom (this is hypothetical, my own personal beliefs do not include proselytizing.) As I said, it's easy to say, "You shouldn't bother people." It's less easy to say, "You shouldn't practice your religion because it mildly annoys me."

[Tsukiyumi]

I actually rather enjoyed my short debate with a pair of Jehovah's Witnesses.

... I didn't get a lot of company at that time.

[Jim]

Don't get defensive - I agree with you. However, if my religious beliefs dictate that I need to tell people about my faith, then abrogating my right to do so is in itself an abrogation of my religious freedom (this is hypothetical, my own personal beliefs do not include proselytizing.) As I said, it's easy to say, "You shouldn't bother people." It's less easy to say, "You shouldn't practice your religion because it mildly annoys me."

Sorryt, I wasn't trying to be defensive. There is a fundamental issue... the "rights" that one person has to be left alone are the same "rights" that someone else has to bother you. How can one say that they are justified in imposing their will (do NOT preach to me) on someone by forcing them to not be allowd to impose their will (preaching) on you...? It's opposite sides of the same coin. You have two people: "I wanna preach" and "I don't wanna hear it"... Who's rights get supported and who's get denied?

So where is the line? At some point you are potentially putting one person's right over that of the other person...

[Mikey]

Exactly my point. I don't want anyone to preach to me either... but it's very tricky to tell them that they don't have the right to try to do so.

[Captain Seafort]

I don't want anyone to preach to me either... but it's very tricky to tell them that they don't have the right to try to do so.

Not at all. If all else fails you just tell them to fuck off.

So where is the line? At some point you are potentially putting one person's right over that of the other person...

No, you're not. You're putting one person's right not to be harassed above another's wish to harass them. The latter is not a right.