Dammit, my mind is not organized enough to the quote thing. Grrr. Well, I'll try.
Carstonio wrote:...or the reverse, if some atheists have their way.
I obviously agree. I hope you're not saying that hijacking government to push beliefs would be more wrong if it was done by atheists and not Christians.
Nope, just as bad. I think the government has a lot of problems they can deal with before moving on improving their citizens, to say the very least.
Carstonio wrote:Good point. But the "open invite meeting" metaphor doesn't reflect what happens in real life, in my view. In my experience, evangelists hijack conversations with friends, relatives, and acquaintances in order to pressure people to convert.
Oh, I was specifically thinking altar calls at a church (which you sort of have to show up for). Well, really, I was thinking Billy Graham, since you sort of have to show up at the stadium or whatever.
I don't like it when you have people who try to drag you into conversations about stuff like that. I mean, I don't think you should live under a pall of silence, either, but I don't like one track people. Though most people I meet like that are more into politics than religion, anyway. Maybe that's more respectable.
Carstonio wrote:By the way, I use "evangelist" in the general sense, meaning people who make it their business (or obsession) business to win converts to their belief systems.
I think that's a good use. I think one reason people have really hit the wall with evangelism these days is that it is
everywhere--people want you to join side in poltiics, culture, music and fashion...
Carstonio wrote:Again, good point. I would never tell service members (or anyone else) that they shouldn't follow their religious beliefs. That wasn't the issue at Colorado Springs. The issue was that the institution was hijacked (there's that word again) to try to force cadets to become Christians. Calling non-Christian cadets "heathens" and telling them they're going to hell - that has no place anywhere, certainly not in a government institution.
Well, there you go, then. I think the heathen word should pretty obviously not be allowed in any situation like that. I was thinking of something else, then.
Carstonio wrote:I never said religion was my enemy. My enemy is the desire by others to make me change my beliefs, even when the desire is not directed at me personally.
Sorry, I was referring back to the thread here--Science VS Religion. I really am less scatter-brained in real life, when the phone isn't ringing and all.
Carstonio wrote:And that pisses me off too. That's part of the reason I've been venting in this thread. Those people claim to possess absolute truth, something that I'm not sure even exists. As I see it, such claims amount to redefining the other people, or redefining the world for other people. In their view, I'm stupid because they say I'm stupid, or I'm a sinner because they say I'm a sinner. I don't mean that their attitude about truth is directed at me personally.
It's hard for me not to feel that way sometimes, though. I suppose when you actually talk to someone like that they mean present company excepted. But then not always.
Carstonio wrote:I don't have the answer. I've never had the desire to make someone else change his or her beliefs. I am not responsible for what others believe, and they are not responsible for what I believe.
See, I think you and I basically agree. It's hard to say from a few message board posts, but I definetely think we have much in common.