Challenging another person's stance on religion?

Some people are of the conviction that the behavior of those "God squads" is a form of religious or spiritual bullying or religious intimidation. And that as such, it should be outlawed.


What do you think?

Is it an assault, an act of bullying to stop a person in a public or private space and inquire of them what their religious stance is?

Some people take offense at being challenged on their religious stance. Why?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

From the article:
A friend in a northern Virginia high school said religious hectoring by students is "very aggressive and sometimes involves physical threats."

That's why. And Intimidation is intimidation, whether it's found in Pakistan, Jerusalem, Florida, or northern Virginia.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not outlawed no. Just discouraged. Its none of anyones business what religious beliefs one has or doesn't have just as much no one should have to explain whom they sleep with and why, whether they have had an abortion or not or what color underwear they prefer.

Suffice it to say those who are approached by the 'god squad' should give a healthy dose of 'none of your damn business, now fuck off'. Aggressive bullying and haranguing should not be allowed in any situation no matter who is doing the bullying and that is for the school administration to keep dole out punishment within the rules and regulations.

I can't stand those who proselytize. They are free to practice their cult beliefs in private and no one feels the need to have them explain their rituals, traditions and beliefs as long as they are not forcing them on others.

"Western civilization has become far too tolerant of religious intolerance that masquerades as freedom of religion. Young people today are taught not to be "judgmental," but without making critical judgments, how can we curtail threats to individual liberty? And amid such intellectual tapioca learning itself becomes irrelevant."

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It would be healthier to create a debate on it. OTOH, we have atheists in the public sphere challenging belief in God and wanting to impose their lack of belief on the majority. So perhaps intolerance is just what the world is more in tune with.

 

Not in this case just read the article. A debate is always performed by the willing. For example I may entertain a discussion or dialectic with a Jehovah Witness who comes knocking on my door but to go to people who are minding their own business who obviously do not want to enter into a debate about their beliefs then its just plain harassment.

 

Isn't it a high school? How hard is it to have debates in high school?

 

Why do you need to debate this issue? This is about groups of religious kids who bully and harass students who are not interested in their cult beliefs. If a teacher chooses to hold a class debate or its part of the debating team then you will have a discussion among willing participants. This isn't about willing participants, its about students harassing those who do not believe. The article of course goes deeper attempting to link all forms or religious intimidation:

A friend, a Pakistani journalist, recently came out of the troubled Swat valley in northwest Pakistan and told a chilling tale. He said, "It is now halal [religiously sanctioned] to kill journalists."

The tribal Muslim clerics in Swat, he said, have declared open season on reporters whose writings they disapprove of. My friend, a brave and devout Sunni Muslim, seemed quite shaken, having spent two weeks reporting under threat in Swat, an area once called the Switzerland of Pakistan. Several journalists have already been murdered for a perceived breach of theocratic codes.

Such violence is religious "correctness" in the extreme, but vigilante enforcement of theocratic codes can crop up whenever and wherever an individual or minority does not conform to the religious tenets of the majority.

In the United States, when Muslim Congressman Keith Ellison (D) of Minnesota asked to be sworn in using the Koran, the personal attacks on him from the Christian right were just short of poisonous.

In areas such as the Balkans and Iraq, religious intimidation has taken the form of ethnic cleansing, forcibly coercing religious minorities to emigrate.

In the West Bank a decade ago, I witnessed Hamas activists taunting Christian women for wearing crosses around their necks. Though Palestinian officials deny religious coercion, the exodus of Christian Arabs from the West Bank suggests otherwise.

 

Because its a high school. Its where standards for argumentation are set. If messianic students are bullying other students, they should be challenged to a debate on their beliefs.

They can use that fora to express their views and also to hear the arguments against them. Regardless of the outcome, both sides will hear about each other's viewpoints more readily when challenged.

 

We were not discussing the solution to the problem, but seeking agreement upon whether or not it is a problem.

Stay focused: is such behaviour, as described in the article, acceptable to you or not?

 

Bullying is an offense Sam, they should be disciplined. A debate is a requirement within the context of a classroom topic not because a bunch of assholes feel the need to use aggressive means to intimidate someone. Would you have suggested that blacks be forced to debate their inherent humanity if bullied by a bunch of teenage neo-nazis? Of course not. Religion does not belong in public schools outside of a comparative religious study program. Religion belongs in the church or mosque and in the home.

 

Oh this is a debate on if bullying is a problem when done by messianic students as compared to anyone else?

Ah I see. Well then I will bow out and let the great minds decide on it.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Agreed. They should be made to switch sides halfway through the debate.

 

Ah. I see you didn't read the article

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Again I see you didn't read the article as there is no stage set for a debate among 'god squads'. Randomly approaching someone who isn't of your faith and harassing them is not an act of intellectual enlightenment its simply bullying.

 

There's always a social tension between determining when an act should be formally outlawed and when it should be merely a social taboo. Generally its an issue that is best resolved by the communities the act appears in

 

Hence my solution that it be debated. When the Swat valley was Switzerland it was still predominantly composed of Muslims. The difference is in the educational process now, as compared to before. Refugee camps do not provide an atmosphere conducive to universalism.

 

Which is illegal. Religion belongs in the church or the home unless you attend a religious school. There is a separation of church and state and public schools tend to veer off the topic of religion. At the end of the day a thug is a thug and being forced to 'explain oneself' when you have not willingly entered a debate is 'harassment'.

 

In that case, carry on. :shrug:

 

What does this have to do with anything? Please spare us the red herrings.

 

This is not how I intended it. It does seem that the bullying of the "messianics" seems to be the one that is felt as being the most harrassing.

A militant atheist may threaten you with physical force or even use it while imparting on you his militant atheist doctrines, but I doubt that the psychological turmoil this puts you in is as severe as when harrassed by a militant theist.

 

No, they should be treated as any other bully.

 

The fact is that these things happen.

Just like robberies, rapes, murders happen. Making them illegal does not stop them from happening.
Nor does making them illegal help people to deal with them when they do happen.

If someone stops you in the street, pointing a gun to your head, demanding your purse, you probably can't simply ignore the attacker, or go on minding your own business. You will have to do something - either fight him off, run away yourself, something.


I'm suspecting that in order to successfully ward off or protect oneself from religious bullying, one's own stance on religion has to be superior to that of the religious bully.