First, I don’t think anti-thesism is a useful practice for atheists. That said …
#1 is harassment, and Free Speech doesn’t apply on private property (or internet forums). The biggest issue I see is that it presumes the Atheist household in unaware of the “Good News”. As a former owner/moderator of a large online atheism community (on the now defunct Google Plus) I can say with confidence there are very few atheists in the US who haven’t heard that news repeatedly. There is a certain arrogance in anyone who approaches that household thinking otherwise.
And now a bit of a pet peeve, which probably doesn’t apply to the good people here at Biologos. — Most proselytizers I have encountered are not sincere. They have no interest in actually bettering the lives of others, but do it because they think that is the way to ingratiate themselves to God. It’s something they do to “score God points”, for lack of a better term, not because they have any interest in the people they are God-bothering. I’ve talked to people doing this, suggesting ways they might be more effective at a communicating with atheists, and they are not interested.
I’ve also seen people successfully approach atheists for discussion using empathy, compassion, sincerity, and basic listening skills, and they are much more effective. Persuading atheists is another matter, but you have to reach them first.
#2 might be harassment too, depending on the nature of the forum. There are are atheists who troll Christian forums, AND Christians who troll atheist forums. Trolling is bad practice anywhere. (On G+ we reached out to some of the bigger Christian communities to discourage organized trolling.)
So my advice either way, is to see if the person is sincere about mutual discussion, or if they are just there to bother you. Sincere people are a treasure, if you can find them.
.
And if your community becomes majority Muslim, they will be reading the Koran in your children’s classrooms. Christians, like yourself, will still have that choice or leave.
I agree with most of what you’ve said. I have a blog about my non-supernaturalist (atheist) beliefs and sometimes I have Christians leave comments. I appreciate their point of view. Their comments are welcome as long as they are on topic. Sometimes I get a Christian who only wants to shut me up. He doesn’t discuss the topic of the post, he only discusses how stupid and ignorant he thinks I am. In comment after comment, he persists in attacking me, not my positions. His goal is to destroy the critic, not defend the positions I am critiquing. That is trolling. I try very hard to never be guilty of that when I am on Christian sites.
The same way I did in high school when the principal insisted that every student had to stand and put hand over heart and recite the Pledge of Allegiance: along with the majority of our Honor Society, I remained seated, hands in my lap, silent.
It probably depends on where you are at but I’d guess 5% care about the pledge in my urban district. My job is just to ensure the students remain quiet during it. Also, our moment of silence can be measured in nanoseconds. Even the admin is just going through the motions here.
There are such people and they may be more visible because they tend to be active. It does not mean that most people are like them.
I was thinking about the ‘nones’ or non-Christians who have been ‘victims’ of prayers recently in my circles. Most of them have been friends or family members, definitely people who are loved. Some have been interested people from other backgrounds, like Muslims or Buddhists who have asked to know more about Christianity. Or simply other people who have somehow touched the hearts of those who ask a prayer for these people. We also pray quite often for ‘nones’ that are sick, have cancer or some other health problem - usually from far, not on the spot unless they ask it. Much deeper reasons than just ‘scoring points’.
Many members in our congregation have spouses who do not believe. Some of those spouses occasionally participate in activities and may even help much in practical needs. They have heard the gospel so many times it would be foolish to try to preach to them. We who know them treat them like any friends, trying to avoid any sort of ‘preaching’ attitude.
2 Likes
gbrooks9
(George Brooks, TE (E.volutionary T.heist OR P.rovidentialist))
49
Growing up in a community with a fair number of Quakers, it was about 50/50 on whether they chose to do that. The hand over the heart pose can be problematic. I think it came down to whether the person considered it an empty gesture or not. If they considered it an oath then it was definitely not performed. Speaking for myself, I think it’s often a rote or ceremonial gesture and so I tend to not go along or simply stand unless to not come off as being dickish. I was an Eagle scout in a troop sponsored by a Quaker meeting house where they took a more nuanced approach than, say, a troop where the Scoutmaster was an ex-marine.
There were some students whose doctrines forbade making the Pledge. The administration had punished them despite their pointing out it was a matter of religious freedom. We discussed it and decided to make the point in favor of liberty.
If it hadn’t worked, we intended to get the Letterman’s Club to join us next, but the principal listened to us and agreed we were right.
gbrooks9
(George Brooks, TE (E.volutionary T.heist OR P.rovidentialist))
52
So this brings up the interesting question of which sentences or phrases would
have had to be removed to make it an ethical statement, rather than a pledge
that interferred witth faith.
Can you provide a ranking of just 3 phrases, from most infringing to less infringing?
I’m not sure any phrases were the problem apart from “I pledge allegiance”. But standing in honor of a symbol of authority, and placing a hand over one’s heart while doing so, was considered a form of worship by whatever group the punished students belonged to.