118 replies to this topic

[JillliJ]

Nonny said:

Perhaps you could clear up something else. This was said by a recent Mormon convert last year. She was trying to interest me and was politely telling her I wasn't interested and she said, that's okay, there will be missionaries waiting for you when you die and I won't tell you what I said to her that made her blink and back off, but what's the deal? Is that a Mormon doctrine, missions to the afterlife?

Yes and no.  Yes, Mormons believe that there are people acting as missionaries in the next life.  Anyone who hasn't had a chance to listen, will get that chance.  BUT, they also believe that people leave this life with the same personalities, likes and dislikes, etc that they had here on earth.  You don't want to hear the missionaries here, you don't have to hear the missionaries there.

Does that answer your question?

Oh, and about the quote thing (crosses fingers that the one above works), some of us are just dumb and can't FIND the nifty difty quote button....

[Gefiltefishmon]

Interesting thread!

Here's my dilemma, maybe you all can help me deal with it.

I am not a Christian, I am a Buddhist and have been practicing Buddhism for over 20 years. I am not a buddhist priest, I am a member of the laiety. I do not prosyletize, preach or otherwise spread Buddha's message, because frankly, it's not my responsibility to preach. A seeker will find their way to the Dharma, or they won't. It's that simple.

My problem is this. I work with some VERY religious folks. People who wallpaper their workspace with religious iconography. people who attach things like " may the Lord Jesus Christ protect and keep you" to their internal - INTERNAL - emails. People who generally force their beliefs down your throat at every available opportunity.

We have a strict policy here - which we call "the Wedge" and basically if you make a pie of all topics of conversation only sex, religion and politics are "In the Wedge" and off-limits. So, when presented with these OBVIOUSLY outside guideline religious proselytizations what is one to do. Well for several years I did nothing. Recently however, due to "current events" there have been some complaints from Muslims that their being "persecuted" by the christians and now HR is coming down hard on the Christian Prosyletizers.

Of course, the loudest criers of "FOUL" and "Discrimination" are??????

The Christians.

This is mind-boggling. But it's part and parcel to the original post. Right now in this country the "With us or the enemy" mentality has fully dissemenated itself into our society and anyone with the slightestly (is that a word? - I don't think it is....) different viewpoint or belief structure is so clearly THEM - you know the THEM that are going to destroy the American Way of Life.... That's it's OK to attack them:

Verbally today, physically tomorrow. Mark my words.

If we cannot escape from the tide of Christian Fundamentalism we are well and truly doomed.

All of the above is factual as to events which took place in my sight/purview and the rest is my own opinion and not designed to offend anyone....

Thank you (edited for spellnik - ooops)

Edited by Gefiltefishmon, 23 July 2005 - 01:48 AM.

[Julianus]

Gefiltefishmon, on Jul 23 2005, 06:36 AM, said:

If we cannot escape from the tide of Christian Fundamentalism we are well and truly doomed.


Thank you (edited for spellnik - ooops)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Don't worry. If the Christian fundamentalists don't get you, the Moslem fundamentalists will.  

[Chakotay]

Well, as far as I'm concerned, the fundamentals of Christianity are to love God and LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOUR AS YOURSELF.

Anyone saying that it is something else has completely missed the point of what Jesus was preaching. And he was preaching in an occupied country where other Jews were taking part in acts of terrorism against the Romans. Radical or what.

[woody000]

Chakotay, on Jul 23 2005, 02:38 PM, said:

Well, as far as I'm concerned, the fundamentals of Christianity are to love God and LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOUR AS YOURSELF.

Anyone saying that it is something else has completely missed the point of what Jesus was preaching. And he was preaching in an occupied country where other Jews were taking part in acts of terrorism against the Romans. Radical or what.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Raina]

Quote

Wow, this is such a revelation to read! (No pun intended.)  Up here you never get approached in such an aggressive manner, except by panhandlers and telemarketers. Even the Jehovah's Witnesses use a half-hearted "survey" now to try and trick their way into your home before they lay down the religion. I wonder what accounts for the dramatic differences in intensity and technique. Is it a cultural thing?

At first I thought that the reason why people are preached to so agressively in the US and not in Canada was because Canada's not as religious as the US, but now I'm pretty sure that it's a cultural thing. I've spent the last few months in Uganda, and this is a very Christian country. There's religious slogans all over the place, people bring up Jesus in everyday speech, and religious programming is very common. However, I've never been preached to at all. When the topic of religion has come up with acquaintances and I've mentioned that I'm not religious, they express surprise that me (and many other Canadians) don't believe in God, then they drop the subject.
So either the Ugandans figure that I'm a lost cause, or this agressive, in-your-face preaching is a cultural thing.

Quote

Quote

and if you don't want people coming up to you in public, don't wear a shirt that says "Sin like you mean it.

Actually, its lots of fun if people smile and nod their heads. They 'get' it.

I wore a shirt that says "evil inside" around London, and the few people that commented on it were quite amused. I haven't had the guts to wear it around Uganda though, since the country is much more noticeably religious.

Quote

My mom once sent in for a free Book of Mormon once. Those come with a hitch, y'know - they bring it to you in person and read it to you.

Good thing I never got that free Book of Mormon I sent for! I figured it'd be an interesting read, but I never got it.

Edited by Raina, 23 July 2005 - 11:15 AM.

[Nonny]

JillliJ, on Jul 22 2005, 09:42 PM, said:

Does that answer your question?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, thanks.  Good to know that eventually I'll be a lost cause to them.    

JillliJ, on Jul 22 2005, 09:42 PM, said:

Oh, and about the quote thing (crosses fingers that the one above works), some of us are just dumb and can't FIND the nifty difty quote button....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Excellent!  Now if you leave all the snapback stuff (at the end of the quote, in brackets) in, the little snapback arrow will show.  Click on it and it'll take you to the original.    Very handy.  

Nonny

[nutmeg]

Since I'm pretty sure what VA hospital and what religion Nonny is refering to, I thought I'd jump back into this discussion with my observations. While  the word is that your career path is greatly enhanced at said hospital if you are of a certain faith (and it ain't catholic), my nicest and least judgemental neighbors of 10 years happened to be of this faith. I have had other experiences like this (with people of other faiths too).  I do tend to respond better to people who know the difference between   *the practice of faith* and conversion tactics employed to drum up more church members.

Also in terms of the saving of souls. News flash to those christians who want to shove a pamphlet in my face, ring my doorbell, comment on my attire, or book I'm reading  -- try giving witness to Jesus's teaching by actually imitating his way of peace and love, not through said tactics above.  The former tactics just come across as intrusive *and* as acts of desperation. If you trust in Jesus' message, then follow it. I've read the New Testament a number of times. I see very little of Jesus in many of his so-called followers.  I'm actually more interested in how people practice their beliefs -- are the behaviors flowing from their beliefs congruent, make sense, and something I want to be around (if not actively engaged in?)  If a person *must* push the idea soul-saving as paramount and the idea of Jesus as personal savior, then at least make the expression of that salvation attractive rather than a pain in the butt to others. I really think that had Jesus acted like many of his intrusive, in-your-face soul saving followers, we wouldn't have christianity today as a major sect.

[tennyson]

Going by the recorded Biblical incidents Jesus could be quite like them, running the moneychangers, merchants and others out of the Temple is one incident that stands out as well as condeming the behavior of both the Pharasees and Sadducees.

[Lover of Purple]

Chakotay, on Jul 23 2005, 07:38 AM, said:

Well, as far as I'm concerned, the fundamentals of Christianity are to love God and LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOUR AS YOURSELF.

Anyone saying that it is something else has completely missed the point of what Jesus was preaching. And he was preaching in an occupied country where other Jews were taking part in acts of terrorism against the Romans. Radical or what.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

BINGO!!! Got it in one!

[nutmeg]

Quote

Going by the recorded Biblical incidents Jesus could be quite like them, running the moneychangers, merchants and others out of the Temple is one incident that stands out as well as condeming the behavior of both the Pharasees and Sadducees.

Tennyson, sorry, I have to differ with you here on your interpretation. Standing up to moneylenders and/or moneychangers and their inappropriate operations within the Temple and condemning the hypocrisy of the Pharasees and Sadducees in no way equates to the behaviors of his so-called followers that I find annoying. I can't find anything in the New Testament that equates to the current behaviors that people have objected to in this thread.  And I didn't mean that operating out of the values of peace and love means that one stands around and ignores shady business practices (or any for that matter) within the church walls or ignores the hypocrisy of one's leaders. The practice of peace and love is not a passive reaction/acceptance/surrender to events around yourself (but that's another subtopic).

nutmeg

[Nonny]

nutmeg, on Jul 26 2005, 09:33 AM, said:

Since I'm pretty sure what VA hospital and what religion Nonny is refering to, I thought I'd jump back into this discussion with my observations. While  the word is that your career path is greatly enhanced at said hospital if you are of a certain faith (and it ain't catholic), my nicest and least judgemental neighbors of 10 years happened to be of this faith. I have had other experiences like this (with people of other faiths too).  I do tend to respond better to people who know the difference between   *the practice of faith* and conversion tactics employed to drum up more church members.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have the feeling that the nice, nonjudgemental ones aren't telling me their religious affiliation.  I know they're out there.  Come to think of it, my primary care physician is, and he never, ever mentions it, which is one of the reasons I deal well with him.  Somebody else told me.  

My first experience of a member of that church, which I think I've already told in another thread somewhere, had to do with a classmate who asked me out when I was newly separated but not divorced.  He wanted to go straight to the bedroom when he came to pick me up, and got all strange when I mentioned that we could go dancing.  I asked him, joking, if he was from one of those churches where it's a sin to dance.  Bingo!  Here he was planning to sow his wild oats with a scarlet woman who didn't count before being married off to the virgin of his parents' choice.      Much as I didn't like being cast as the no account nonperson in the melodrama, I pressed him for information before I threw him out, and I'm glad I did.  Seems that fornication is a lesser sin than dancing   , so he was okay with his seriously skanky behavior, clueless as he was that I was a person with feelings who counted.  The best part of my retribution was enjoying the look on his face when I informed him that, since I was still technically married, his sin would have been adultery, not fornication.    

Dancing, a sin.            Not in my world!  

Nonny

[Bad Wolf]

Gefiltefishmon, on Jul 22 2005, 11:36 PM, said:

Interesting thread!

Here's my dilemma, maybe you all can help me deal with it.

I am not a Christian, I am a Buddhist and have been practicing Buddhism for over 20 years. I am not a buddhist priest, I am a member of the laiety. I do not prosyletize, preach or otherwise spread Buddha's message, because frankly, it's not my responsibility to preach. A seeker will find their way to the Dharma, or they won't. It's that simple.

My problem is this. I work with some VERY religious folks. People who wallpaper their workspace with religious iconography. people who attach things like " may the Lord Jesus Christ protect and keep you" to their internal - INTERNAL - emails. People who generally force their beliefs down your throat at every available opportunity.

We have a strict policy here - which we call "the Wedge" and basically if you make a pie of all topics of conversation only sex, religion and politics are "In the Wedge" and off-limits. So, when presented with these OBVIOUSLY outside guideline religious proselytizations what is one to do. Well for several years I did nothing. Recently however, due to "current events" there have been some complaints from Muslims that their being "persecuted" by the christians and now HR is coming down hard on the Christian Prosyletizers.

Of course, the loudest criers of "FOUL" and "Discrimination" are??????

The Christians.

This is mind-boggling. But it's part and parcel to the original post. Right now in this country the "With us or the enemy" mentality has fully dissemenated itself into our society and anyone with the slightestly (is that a word? - I don't think it is....) different viewpoint or belief structure is so clearly THEM - you know the THEM that are going to destroy the American Way of Life.... That's it's OK to attack them:

Verbally today, physically tomorrow. Mark my words.

If we cannot escape from the tide of Christian Fundamentalism we are well and truly doomed.

All of the above is factual as to events which took place in my sight/purview and the rest is my own opinion and not designed to offend anyone....

Thank you (edited for spellnik - ooops)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Okay I have the flu so I hope this makes some sense (and note I'm talking California only).  From what I can tell you are talking about the workplace and you are talking about a private as opposed to a public employer.  It is well established that employees have a lesser expectation of privacy in the work place than they do at home.  Examples include searches of lockers, drug testing as a condition of employment, and email monitoring.  In terms of freedom of expression and non discrimination my understanding is that an employer has restrictions when it comes to engaging in conduct that is content based or tends to single out just one group.  An example would be prohibiting people from placing crosses on their desks while allowing symbols of other religions to continue, or having a dress code that applies to only one gender, or having a policy that prohibits only one kind of slogan on shirts (like labor related stuff).  So to avoid the problem in the arena of religion it seems to me that an employer may simply prohibit all public displays on the premises.  Of course this includes things like the XMas tree.  Or it has to allow all public displays regardless of religion, so long as people are respectful of others' boundaries.  To that end I think a policy prohibiting ANY solicitation (including religious soliciting) whether in person or in email would be appropriate.  Of course that would probably include those pesky girl scout cookies and those catalogs with XMas cards, wrapping, and the like.  The key is to be even handed and consistent and not be singling out one faith over another, one subject over another, one kind of expression over another.

Lil

Edited by Una Salus Lillius, 27 July 2005 - 04:37 PM.

[Nonny]

Coming up this hour on All Things Considered:

NPR audio link

Quote

Evangelical Chaplains Test Bounds of Faith in Military

by Jeff Brady

All Things Considered, July 27, 2005 · The idea of a chaplain along the lines of the ecumenical Father Mulcahy of television's M*A*S*H is fading away in the military.

The percentage of Evangelical Christian chaplains is higher than their faith's representation in the ranks. The military directs them not to proselytize. But many say that would force them to deny a basic tenet of their faith.

If they can't not proselytize, then they don't belong in the military.  

Nonny

[sierraleone]

Una Salus Lillius, on Jul 27 2005, 05:36 PM, said:

In terms of freedom of expression and non discrimination my understanding is that an employer has restrictions when it comes to engaging in conduct that is content based or tends to single out just one group.  An example would be prohibiting people from placing crosses on their desks while allowing symbols of other religions to continue, or having a dress code that applies to only one gender, or having a policy that prohibits only one kind of slogan on shirts (like labor related stuff).

Lil

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Then why in the dress code does it not mention kinds of dress or skirts under the list of appropiate attire for men  

Edited by sierraleone, 27 July 2005 - 09:27 PM.

[Bad Wolf]

What dress code, specifically, are you talking about?

[sierraleone]

^ I'm just joking. Though my dress code at work specifys how long a skirt/dress can be to be appropiate, and that dress/tops can't be spagetti straps and that sort of thing. Doesn't mention skirts or dresses at all under men's attire.

It probably has never come up because no men have ever challenged it

[FnlPrblm]

sierraleone, on Jul 21 2005, 07:12 AM, said:

FnlPrblm, on Jul 21 2005, 01:03 AM, said:

Basically what I'm trying to say is like with most things, whether it be a religious discussion or a gay guy hitting on me or even someone I know well making me a butt of a joke several times over (I can take a joke, but not everytime I see someone), once I say no-thanks or okay, that's enough...things should cease right there.  It's not that I wouldn't have an open mind to something or that I'm against it, just on some things I don't wish to pursue venturing into a territory I'd rather not be in.

Hey don't single out gay guys hitting on you... I honestly don't get that... I hear so many people saying thats one of the things they object to about gay people, that gay people know gay from straight (more likely though they think it will be contagious or label them gay or something... I don't mean you, I can't assume you are like that from one sentence, but I'm sure you know the kind of person I'm talking about ). Anyways, round to my *point* in my objection to that.

I don't like lesbians *or* straight male people hitting on me. Unwanted advances are unwanted advances no matter where they are coming from. Do you never get unwanted advances from women FnlPrblm

Oh no, don't get me wrong, nothing was meant by it really (in any harsh way).  I have no problems with people being who they are (be it gay or not).  What I was trying to say was that I do sometimes have a problem when people cross a line they know I've drawn in the sand right in front of them.  I've been hit on twice by gay men.  After I told them I was straight, one stopped and one persisted (though he was a friend of mine and probably was doing it to mess with my mind. ).  Either way, I really don't hold any grudges about that.

Oh and I'll refrain from answering the last question.    

Edited by FnlPrblm, 28 July 2005 - 01:19 AM.

[sierraleone]

^ oh I figured as much, I'm just sick of some people going "I don't like/am afraid of gay people hitting on me" or some other related non-sense, like its contagious or something, to seemingly use in their arguements against homosexuals/ity for their homophobia, makes me want to roll my eyes every time.
So even though I figured you were cool, though I'd say something about the people who do say such things for different reasons, well, just because

Now if they persist when you've already drawn the line (but honestly, do you think all men give up hitting on women, just because they say they aren't interested? Some people don't get a clue, even when hitting on people of the opposite gender... now maybe, because they figure the person they are hitting on are straight that eventually that person will come around   heck, even when women say they are gay, sometimes it *still* doesn't stop men from hitting on them).

Maybe men have less problems with this, I don't know


Now, erm, back to the topic

Edited by sierraleone, 28 July 2005 - 08:15 AM.