proseltyzing vs. evangelism

[BuckeyeInNC]

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.

If THAT is your issue, you have serious problems.

Again, language is a tool for us to understand each other.  They are not so bastardizing the language that it is now incomprehensible.  We all read the definition and understood the intent.  They succeeded in their purpose.

Definitions for words change all the time and sometimes to completely different meanings.  We need language to be flexible enough to adapt to our own purposes.  As long as we are clear on the intended meaning, no one should be offended.

Its not childish or manipulative.  Its a fact of life and our use of language.  Language is a tool and we should not require each other to be slaves to any particular set of definitions.  Seems like your 9 year old may be the one who is more mature in understanding this basic fact.  It can be quite a fun game too!  Don't take it soo seriously.

[Whitney]

I somehow missed the part that the military had explained what they meant by proselytizing in their rules....and what their rules allow is the issue here.

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?

If the soldiers are preaching on duty then it can be challenged by referencing separation of church and state.  Basically, the rules of what they are allowed to do could be deemed to be breaking church and state separation and then changed.  If they are off duty there isn't much we can do about it since telling them to not wear their uniforms might be a violation of their freedom.

But, it's a matter of which issues are more important and more practical to be tackled now since not everything can be fixed at once.

[BuckeyeInNC]

I somehow missed the part that the military had explained what they meant by proselytizing in their rules....and what their rules allow is the issue here.

In the OP, the quote from the article says that the military distinguished between proselytizing and evangelizing based upon the former requiring the use of some type of force (maybe including intimidation?).  Apparently proselytizing is prohibited, but evangelizing is not.

If the soldiers are preaching on duty then it can be challenged by referencing separation of church and state.  Basically, the rules of what they are allowed to do could be deemed to be breaking church and state separation and then changed.  If they are off duty there isn't much we can do about it since telling them to not wear their uniforms might be a violation of their freedom.

I agree.  If they are preaching while on duty, that would be a clear violation.

If they are off-duty, I would argue that a soldier's first amendment right to free speech is not removed merely because they are currently employed by the military.  They should have every right to exercise their free speech during their off-duty hours.

Having said that, while they are off-duty they are still responsible for their actions.  As long as they are not offending the host country or committing crimes or the like, I do not believe that we should curtail their freedoms.

Again, I do not like the fact that some off-duty soldiers may be evangelizing and taking advantage of the fact that they are in a foreign country to perform "missionary" type actions.  We have enough non-military people doing that as it is . . .

Imho, we need more evangelical Atheists out there letting people know that religion is not the only means to lead a good and moral life.

[Jolly Sapper]

Again, I do not like the fact that some off-duty soldiers may be evangelizing and taking advantage of the fact that they are in a foreign country to perform "missionary" type actions.  We have enough non-military people doing that as it is . . .

As long as you are deployed to a theater of combat operations, a trooper is NEVER "off duty".  So a trooper, standing in Afghanistan or Iraq, even if they aren't on guard duty or running a convoy or kicking down doors is still considered on duty.  So no drinking and no evangelizing.

[Sophus]

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.

I agree that what is being done shouldn't be done. But I think that's the real issue. In the dictionary, sure, there's not much of a difference. However for their purposes this is how they have defined it. In fact to avoid obfuscation let's just just call one A and the other B.

Again, I completely agree that they have altered the definition for their own purposes. But it is for the intent of a different idea. What they should have done is coined a new word. But the discussion should be about whether or not preaching in general is in our best interest, not semantics.

You initiate great conversations as always rose

[rlrose328]

As long as you are deployed to a theater of combat operations, a trooper is NEVER "off duty".  So a trooper, standing in Afghanistan or Iraq, even if they aren't on guard duty or running a convoy or kicking down doors is still considered on duty.  So no drinking and no evangelizing.

THAT is my point.  Thanks, Jolly.

[rlrose328]

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.

If THAT is your issue, you have serious problems.

I guess so.   I never realized that until today.  Sucks to be me.

Again, language is a tool for us to understand each other.  They are not so bastardizing the language that it is now incomprehensible.  We all read the definition and understood the intent.  They succeeded in their purpose.

Definitions for words change all the time and sometimes to completely different meanings.  We need language to be flexible enough to adapt to our own purposes.  As long as we are clear on the intended meaning, no one should be offended.

I work with language myself, though not as a lawyer.  What you're saying is that as a living language, people can make any word mean what they want as long as they put it in writing?  Or am I oversimplifying?  If this IS the case, why bother to have dictionaries with standard definitions of words if anyone can put something in writing to change the definition to fit their own needs, even if it goes against what other groups of people see as the "correct" definition?

Its not childish or manipulative.  Its a fact of life and our use of language.  Language is a tool and we should not require each other to be slaves to any particular set of definitions.  Seems like your 9 year old may be the one who is more mature in understanding this basic fact.  It can be quite a fun game too!  Don't take it soo seriously.

More mature?  Gee, thanks.  My 9yo son tries to change the meanings of words to get out of doing chores and going to bed.  So if he comes up with a good definition, should I just let him because he was creative enough to change the language?  No... it's up to me to let him know that definition can't be changed to suit his needs.  And that's what I'd like to tell these people as well.  

I want them to say they are proselytizing AND evangelizing.  Call it what it is instead of trying to hide behind made up definitions.  I believe in a living language but not a chaotic one.  We need to have finite definitions that can be referenced and used for specific purposes, not changed willy-nilly whenever someone decides they like B to mean A now because A doesn't make anyone mad.

I love the language.  If I didn't, this wouldn't bother me so much.  I'm trying desperately to see your POV, but it's quite hard for me to just be so casual about letting people use whatever words they want however they want to use them in a serious context like this.  I use poetic license all the time when I write poetry and open verse.  But there's a difference between my prose and manipulating the law using different definitions like they did on that page.

If you, as a lawyer, say they are completely within their rights to do so and there's no reason I should be upset at all, I guess I'll have to deal.  But I won't like it.... no sir, not one bit.

Normally, I love making up my own words and the definitions for them.  But those are entirely NEW words that no one currently uses to mean something else.  I'm not always the serious one here... Hell, I play Pokemon for cat's sake.  

[rlrose328]

You initiate great conversations as always rose

I just wish I didn't wear my feelings on my sleeve so much or get so bent out of shape over something so benign.  I always feel like I'm all    :cool:  :raised: .

IRL, I'm pretty much  :dig: for myself all the time.

 

[Whitney]

It's kinda like how Clinton redefined "sexual relations."  

[BuckeyeInNC]

I work with language myself, though not as a lawyer.  What you're saying is that as a living language, people can make any word mean what they want as long as they put it in writing?  Or am I oversimplifying?  If this IS the case, why bother to have dictionaries with standard definitions of words if anyone can put something in writing to change the definition to fit their own needs, even if it goes against what other groups of people see as the "correct" definition?

As a lawyer, we spend ALOT of time interpreting the language and trying to clear up ambiguities in the language.  The only issue that I see with the use of the language here is that it may contradict a commonly held definition and the fact that someone, like yourself, picked up on the difference became an issue in its own right.  That sort of thing tends to divert attention from the real issues, which in this instance, I think we can agree is any sort of evangelism by our troops.

Dictionaries are helpful for those occasions when people are lazy and do NOT provide their own definition and those who are struggling to understand the intent of the writer may turn to the dictionary to provide examples of how others may have used that term.  When the meaning of a term is ambiguous, it is then that we turn to dictionaries to provide some examples of how others may have commonly used the same word.  Dictionaries are helpful guides, they are not to be used as the bible of language.

If a word is confusing or unclear and you really want to know the intent of a writer, you first need to start with the context of the word in which the author has placed the word to see if that can remedy any ambiguity and if that is not sufficient, then perhaps turn to other writings of that same author, others in the authors peer group, the usage of the word in the art area in which the author is writing, etc. etc.   These are much better sources for determining an author's intent than using a dictionary.  A dictionary is the last resort.

I think that I approach language much in the way I approach religion.  We should not be subject to any dogma.  In college, I can recall an English professor who was devoutly committed to a particular writing style.  He railed against any evolution of the language and viewed it as some sort of debasement.  It all seemed quite silly to me.  Incidentally, in that same class a fellow class mate and I would joke about a very vocal preacher that showed up about every other day on the lawn of a popular student gathering place to try to convert all of us.  Most of us would sit and listen because he was entertaining.  Later that same year, I bumped into that class mate on my way out to the bars that evening.  He was outside the bars on the sidewalk holding a very large sign telling us that we were all going to hell if we did not convert.  

The professor and that student both fell into a similar trap Imho.

I can't help but to see the irony about someone defending a particular style of writing in an almost dogmatic religiously zealous fashion on an atheist board.

[rlrose328]

Buckeye, thanks for clearing up the ambiguities I was feeling about the language issue here.  I do tend to be a zealot about words.  I'm almost ready to graduate to do medical transcription and with medical terminology, there is little ambiguity... words mean what they mean and you can't slip up.  I tend to carry that around.  I can see the similarities with my issues with words and a Christian's devotion to the word of god.  The irony is delicious, isn't it?  

I do see the big picture... that's the motivating factor behind my frustration.

[BuckeyeInNC]

I think you have the right attitude about writing.  As I tend to be the same way about my writing and demand as much from the other attorneys around me.  When we are writing we should strive to be as accurate and clear as possible to avoid potential ambiguities in the future when someone else is trying to read our writing and understand.

Now, lets get back to hammering on those evangelical theists!