proseltyzing vs. evangelism

[rlrose328]

From Pray in Jesus Name (dot org)

"IT'S NOT PROSELYTIZING, IT'S EVANGELISM:

The 4 May 09 Al Jazeera video proves the chaplain properly explained U.S. Central Command's General Order Number One, which prohibits "proselytizing" (forcing religious conversions by threats or weapons) but fully permits soldiers of any religion to engage in non-threatening "evangelism" (voluntary conversations about their faith) and legally allows giving private gifts, including books, to  Afghani citizens during off-duty hours in their unofficial capacity. The Afghani Constitution likewise protects freedom of the press and religion, so no laws were broken by our troops, despite complaints by anti-Christian Muslim extremists. The Al Jazeera film-maker Brian Hughes even admitted the Bibles could have been useful in helping soldiers learn the Pashto and Dari languages of the Afghan people."

Do they HONESTLY not see the difference????  Proselytizing = evangelism!

pros·e·ly·tize (prs-l-tz)
v. pros·e·ly·tized, pros·e·ly·tiz·ing, pros·e·ly·tiz·es
v.intr.
1. To induce someone to convert to one's own religious faith.
2. To induce someone to join one's own political party or to espouse one's doctrine.
v.tr.
To convert (a person) from one belief, doctrine, cause, or faith to another.

e·van·gel·ize (-vnj-lz)
v. e·van·gel·ized, e·van·gel·iz·ing, e·van·gel·iz·es
v.tr.
1. To preach the gospel to.
2. To convert to Christianity.
v.intr.
To preach the gospel.


Okay, by definition, they are not exactly the same.  Definition #1 of proselytize is very similar to definition #2 of evangelize.

But with Christianity (and any religion really), you have to look at intent.  Why would one evanglize if the intent is not to convert?  And in the war zone with the US military, the intent is DEFINITELY to convert.  And honestly... can our military ever have "off duty hours in an unofficial capacity" while in the middle east?

They are trying to play that ever-popular game of Semantics here, yet again.

[BuckeyeInNC]

They have provided a definition by which they are to guide their actions.

You have provided different definitions and then you ask how they can see any difference between your definitions?  Your point is not relevant because they are not using your definitions.

Seems like it is you who are "playing semantics"

They defined proselytizing as forcing conversion by threat or weapons.  Imho, the fact that they prohibit their off-duty soldiers from forcing anyone to do anything is laudable.

Me thinks thou protesteth too much.

Who are we to tell anyone to muzzle their voice and their beliefs.   Wouldn't we want the same right to be able to speak our minds and to convert others to our non-belief?

I think the world will gain much by people of differing backgrounds and belief systems sitting down with each other and having discussions.

Just my impression.

[BadPoison]

I think the world will gain much by people of differing backgrounds and belief systems sitting down with each other and having discussions.

I agree. Just speaking about religion with people who believe differently can cause people to 'open-up' their minds. Talking about the differences between your religion and others (when done peacefully) is a good thing. I don't see this as any different than what goes on all over the western world on a daily basis.

[Whitney]

I don't see how rlrose was the one playing semantics.....proseltyzing and evangelism are virtually the same thing.  She used the dictionary and apparently the people from the article did not (I haven't read it yet).  The military people we have sent over to the Middle East (or anywhere else) have no right to preach Christianity while representing the USA.  If they are given leave, they can preach during that time, but not while on duty (remember, war is not a 9 to 5 job).

[BuckeyeInNC]

I don't see how rlrose was the one playing semantics.....proseltyzing and evangelism are virtually the same thing.

According to your definition.  My point is that THEY defined it as using FORCE to convert people.

Your definition, rlrose's definition, the definition in any dictionary does not matter, the only definition that matters for the application of their rule is their definition.

[Whitney]

I don't see how rlrose was the one playing semantics.....proseltyzing and evangelism are virtually the same thing.

According to your definition.  My point is that THEY defined it as using FORCE to convert people.

Your definition, rlrose's definition, the definition in any dictionary does not matter, the only definition that matters for the application of their rule is their definition.

Wait...who is "THEY" and why do they get to redefine words?

[Sophus]

I can see how the attempt to convert those of another religion would cause more friction than trying to convert the irreligious. Other than that there's not a great difference between the two.

[rlrose328]

They have provided a definition by which they are to guide their actions.

However, their definition is not correct.  I could say "proselytizing" means jumping with a jumprope into a pool of dark water, but that wouldn't be correct either.  They've twisted the definition of an accepted English word to include violence where none exists in the standard definitions of that word.  I found no definitions anywhere for "prosyletize" that included violence other than religious sites that are trying to justify their use of evangelism to convert others.

You have provided different definitions and then you ask how they can see any difference between your definitions?  Your point is not relevant because they are not using your definitions.

My point is ENTIRELY relevant.  They are no MY definitions.  They are dictionary definitions from Websters, American Heritage, and Collins English dictionaries.

Seems like it is you who are "playing semantics"

Nope... I'm decrying their changing of definitions to suit their own needs.

They defined proselytizing as forcing conversion by threat or weapons.  Imho, the fact that they prohibit their off-duty soldiers from forcing anyone to do anything is laudable.

And no definition of proselytizing that I found contained ANYTHING about forcing, threats, or weapons OTHER than religious sites explaining the difference between the two.  I see this as manipulating the language to justify proselytizing through evangelism.  I agree... no force should be used and I'm glad they don't allow it.  But they should ALSO not allow evangelizing in the Middle East.  What if the Muslims in this country went around, passing out the Quran and asking people to read it, wanting to sit down and witness to them.  I guarantee it wouldn't go over well and would be seen as proselytizing though it is very passive and well-meaning.

Me thinks thou protesteth too much.

Clever.

Who are we to tell anyone to muzzle their voice and their beliefs.   Wouldn't we want the same right to be able to speak our minds and to convert others to our non-belief?

The US is seen as a huge beast, pushing their Christian beliefs on anyone who gets in our way.  The evangelical Christians want nothing more than to have every person on earth be saved by the Christian god and will do anything to accomplish that.  This is exactly what they then accuse Islam of doing.  BOTH are doing the same thing from my POV.

Further, I'm not OUT to convert others to non-belief.  I want everyone to keep their mythology to themselves.  Period.  Enjoy your faith or non-faith and let others do the same.  If you are trying to convert others to non-belief, more power to you.  That is not my goal.  I want a secular nation with secular schools and places of worship for those who choose that.  No evangelizing or proselytizing.

I think the world will gain much by people of differing backgrounds and belief systems sitting down with each other and having discussions.

Agreed.  But that's not what this person on this website is trying to do.  You have to read the articles on that website to see what his goal is.  It is to evangelize and convert the Muslims to Christianity and to ensure that the US becomes and stays a Christian nation, with all peoples following that path.  I fight that, not because it's Christianity but because it is intrusive and rude to want everyone in the entire country to follow his belief system.

Just my impression.

Thanks for voicing your impression... I disagree with what you've said, but glad that you said it.  

[rlrose328]

I don't see how rlrose was the one playing semantics.....proseltyzing and evangelism are virtually the same thing.

According to your definition.  My point is that THEY defined it as using FORCE to convert people.

Your definition, rlrose's definition, the definition in any dictionary does not matter, the only definition that matters for the application of their rule is their definition.

But THEY don't get to just change the definitions of accepted English words to suit their own purpose.  THAT is my issue here.  My 9yo son does that.  It's childish and manipulative.

[Sophus]

It's still a different idea though that is trying to be expressed. Words are our servants not our masters.

[rlrose328]

It's still a different idea though that is trying to be expressed. Words are our servants not our masters.

I don't get what you're saying, Soph... they are saying that they are not proselytizing (forcing others by using threats and violence) but by evangelizing (discussion their faith).

My problem is that this is not true... they are manipulating the language to fit what they want others to believe about them.

I've said before that I'm not fat, I'm fluffy.  So if you look at me, you should see, by my explanation, that I'm just fluffy, cuddly, and warm, like a kitten, but not fat or obese.  I'm manipulating the language to paint a picture of something flattering to replace the truth, which isn't flattering.  This is what I see them doing.  It's what they do with the bible, evolution, and everything else.

Words are indeed our servants... and they are making those servants work overtime doing jobs they weren't intended to do.

[BadPoison]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the real issue you have isn't what they call it, it's what they're doing. You don't like our soldiers talking about religion at all. Is this accurate?  

[Whitney]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the real issue you have isn't what they call it, it's what they're doing. You don't like our soldiers talking about religion at all. Is this accurate?  

Bad some groups of soldiers have been passing out Bibles and attempting to convert the locals to Christianity while on duty (there is no time off in war, only leave...if I understand correctly)...this means they did it while representing the USA.

I see that as being just a big of a problem as teachers preaching in the classroom.

[rlrose328]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the real issue you have isn't what they call it, it's what they're doing. You don't like our soldiers talking about religion at all. Is this accurate?  

It's two things, but yes, that is one of them.  Our soldiers are American citizens and as such, should be able to speak their mind on a variety of subjects.  HOWEVER, not in the Middle East.  I believe this specific war should remain focused on the military objectives.  It's like picking at a very large sore... eventually, it's going to bleed a lot so it's best to just put a bandaid on it and leave it alone.

But it's more than just that... it's that evangelical website (and hundreds of others like it) manipulating the language to justify their desire to have the soldiers proselytizing to the Muslims.

It's two things together.

I'm curious why I'm the only one who is bothered by this issue.  I'm all for free speech... heck, I'm using it right now.  And I agree that we shouldn't be in this war at all.  BUT we are and while we're there, we should behave and not aggravate the religious situation any more than our very presence does already.  AND to see a website like this manipulate the language and push for aggravating the religious situation is something we usually get bugged by.  So I'm confused.

[BuckeyeInNC]

Wait...who is "THEY" and why do they get to redefine words?

The point is that language is flexible and as long as they are clear, they can use any definition that they wish.

Look, I am an attorney and I work with definitions of words all day long and believe me the arguments about what words mean are quite important.  I applaud them for providing a definition that makes the intent for application of their rule to be clear that they only want to prohibit using force to convert.

The fact that you appear to take offense to their using a definition that you think is an improper use of the language is more your problem than theirs.  It appears that it might not have offended you if they were their own lexicographer and/or wordsmith, but why does it offend you?  They are not so bastardizing the language as to make their rule incomprehensible.  As long as they can apply the rule in the intended manner why does it offend you?

As was pointed out earlier, you seem to have two issues here.

The first is that you do not like the fact that they used a different definition than what you like.  My point is, so what?  Who cares.  Get over it.  I applaud them for defining the word so that the application of their rule is clear.

The second issue appears to be that you do not like the fact that our military is overseas and has access to people and may be spending their time trying to convert others and that regardless of whether they do it in their off-duty hours or not, they are representing our country at all times.  Anything they do reflects back on us.  I don't like it any more than you.  What can we do about it?