Benefits of atheistic "evangelism"

[Sandra Craft]

How about proselytizing: "to convert a person from one doctrine, cause, faith, or belief to another"?

Again not the same thing as just giving your opinion, whether someone has asked you in a conversation or whether you have a column or TV show whose purpose is you giving your opinion. 

I get people telling me about their religious beliefs and experiences fairly regularly (I'm not sure why, maybe I just have one of those you-can-talk-to-me-about-religion faces, or maybe I live in a religious section of town) but I've never considered this an attempt to convert me or proselytize to me.  I click around the TV and see lots of religious shows, or commentators on political shows talking about their religious beliefs, I go into bookstores and see plenty of books about the joy of being religious and even a few about what idiots atheists are (ever heard of Ann Coulter?) and I have never considered these attempts at conversion or proselytizing.  Should I have?  Maybe people have been trying to convert me left and right and it's just gone over my head.

Let me ask another question, using Bill Maher as an example since I'm fairly familiar with him.  What is Maher doing that qualifies as trying to turn people into atheists, rather than just explaining why he's an atheist and why he thinks the religious are nuts?

Let me ask this, are you opposed to atheists giving their opinions as freely as the religious do?

Nope!  Just wonder what value you see in it. 

Asked and answered then but I'll do it again in case you missed it (this has been an active thread): I don't agree that atheists are proselytizing, and certainly not by the standard you're using, and I don't personally see any value in proselytizing but the value I do see in society having more atheist citizens (however they became atheist) is fewer attempts to violate the separation of church and state.  And that's the only value I see in an increased number of atheists. 

I notice you didn't answer my question about church and state, any reason why?

[bandit4god]

What standard of measurable value do atheists reference when they proselytize?

I think I answered that rather directly somewhere. I also think it varies from person to person and from group to group.

Agreed.

Thanks for sharing, Asmo--was just trying to get a few more data points, but I've having difficulty getting beyond, "But you've got 700 Club and don't support separation of church and state, gwahahahha!?!?"

[Sandra Craft]

was just trying to get a few more data points, but I've having difficulty getting beyond, "But you've got 700 Club and don't support separation of church and state, gwahahahha!?!?"

How are these invalid points, considering some of us are trying to determine if atheists are evangelizing at all or if you're just misinterpreting things (whether you're doing it deliberately is another issue), and protecting the separation of church and state is something that came up in one of your own examples?  If you'd address these points we might be able to move the discussion forward and you'd be able to collect more "data".

[bandit4god]

Asked and answered then but I'll do it again in case you missed it (this has been an active thread): I don't agree that atheists are proselytizing, and certainly not by the standard you're using, and I don't personally see any value in proselytizing but the value I do see in society having more atheist citizens (however they became atheist) is fewer attempts to violate the separation of church and state.  And that's the only value I see in an increased number of atheists. 

I notice you didn't answer my question about church and state, any reason why?

Got it, you don't believe atheists proselytize.  Thanks!

On the separation of church and state question, I thought answering here would be a distractor that would have us chasing alignment around definitions of separation, church, and state.  In passing, I'll hazard to say our state would be far worse if Washington, Lincoln, Harriett Beecher Stowe, King, and others did not leverage their Christian faith in it's service.

[Sandra Craft]

Got it, you don't believe atheists proselytize.  Thanks!

It's more accurate to say I don't believe you're using the word proselyize correctly in reference to atheists, and I'm trying to define your use of the term so at least we're talking about the same thing. 

I don't buy that atheists are proselytizing based on your first 4 examples because I also don't think Xtians who do similar things are proselytizing, I think both are exercizing their right to free expression.  Am I wrong, are Xtians who do the Xtian version of these things proselytizing?

On the separation of church and state question, I thought answering here would be a distractor that would have us chasing alignment around definitions of separation, church, and state.  In passing, I'll hazard to say our state would be far worse if Washington, Lincoln, Harriett Beecher Stowe, King, and others did not leverage their Christian faith in it's service.

And I'd agree with that, since I don't regard being guided by one's faith as a violation of the separation of church and state.  But your fifth example of school prayer (atho to the best of my knowledge this is usually only a problem if the prayer or prayer group is teacher-led and in public schools), and references to god on Government momuments and buildings, can be considered a violation of the establishment clause of the first amendment, since it does give the impression of favoring a specific religion.  Whether all these cases are worth fighting over or should just be shrugged off as historical is another issue.  But minor as these cases may be, they are authentic church and state issues.  Your example above is not.

[bandit4god]

I don't buy that atheists are proselytizing based on your first 4 examples because I also don't think Xtians who do similar things are proselytizing, I think both are exercizing their right to free expression.  Am I wrong, are Xtians who do the Xtian version of these things proselytizing?

Proselytizing: "to convert a person from one doctrine, cause, faith, or belief to another"?

What did Billy Graham, Martin Luther King Jr, Richard Dawkins, and Stephen Hawking all have in common?  They met the definition of proselytizing as defined above.

The difference for me between proselytizing and opinion-sharing as you describe is proactive/reactive respectively.  If the perspective is proactively shared or broadcast unasked-for with the intent of persuasion, it's proselytizing.  If someone asks your opinion and you subsequently share it, it's reactive opinion-sharing.  All of these are protected, as you rightly said, under the right to free speech.

I'm clear on the motivations for the first two above, but less so the motivations of the second two (aside from financial profit).

And I'd agree with that, since I don't regard being guided by one's faith as a violation of the separation of church and state.  But your fifth example of school prayer (atho to the best of my knowledge this is usually only a problem if the prayer or prayer group is teacher-led and in public schools), and references to god on Government momuments and buildings, can be considered a violation of the establishment clause of the first amendment, since it does give the impression of favoring a specific religion.  Whether all these cases are worth fighting over or should just be shrugged off as historical is another issue.  But minor as these cases may be, they are authentic church and state issues.  Your example above is not.

Makes sense, but worth noting that it cuts the other direction as well.  Article in the opinion section of today's Wall Street Journal highlighted a case being taken up by the Supreme Court in which a church-based school fired a teacher and the teacher is suing for her job back.  Should the state be permitted to interfere in the hiring/firing of ministers?

[Whitney]

- professors beginning their classes by asking if there are theists present and excoriating them

I have a 5 year degree and took an extra year kinda off in which I took philosophy classes, so that's 6 years of college 1.5x as long as most people...yet not once did I have a professor do anything like that.  I did have a philosophy of religion professor imply that we might as well drop the class if we made it past all his "proofs" of god and were still atheists....I couldn't tell if he was joking or not because the rest of the class was a discussion of theistic religious philosophy.  That was the only time i had a professor say something that even kinda looked like evangelism.  So, I have a hard time believing that it is common for any professor to evangelize in general.

I think the examples you are looking for is in books such as God is Not Great, A Letter to A Christian Nation, The God Delusion, The God Virus etc  But I wouldn't consider their type anything new; there have always been atheist authors/philosophers; it's just safer for their ideas to be spoken publicly now than it was back in the day when speaking out against religion would get you tortured, hung, or burned at the stake.  So there's your answer...why now because we are free.  Why at all?  They all have their own personal reasons and most of the above books will explain why somewhere in them.

[Whitney]

Makes sense, but worth noting that it cuts the other direction as well.  Article in the opinion section of today's Wall Street Journal highlighted a case being taken up by the Supreme Court in which a church-based school fired a teacher and the teacher is suing for her job back.  Should the state be permitted to interfere in the hiring/firing of ministers?

A teacher at a church based school can teach the state mandated curriculum without having to share the religious beliefs of the school and so there would be no basis for firing.  It's not like the teacher would be allowed to say anything negative about religion in class...professional can separate work from home.  A minister, however, would need to be religious (or at least able to pretend to be religious) in order to fulfill his job responsibilities so it wouldn't violate non-discrimination to overlook an atheist for such a position.

Being religious doesn't exclude organizations from federal non-discrimination laws.

[Sandra Craft]

Proselytizing: "to convert a person from one doctrine, cause, faith, or belief to another"?

What did Billy Graham, Martin Luther King Jr, Richard Dawkins, and Stephen Hawking all have in common?  They met the definition of proselytizing as defined above.

I don't consider that simply saying "I believe this" unasked qualifies as an attempt to persuade, saying "I believe this and you should too" is an attempt to persuade, esp. if the speaker won't shut up about the "you should too".  And in the cases you mentioned, the individuals were not giving their opinions unasked -- they were either preaching to a congregation who asked them come and talk about their beliefs or communicating with people who'd chosen to listen to them either by tuning them in or reading their book. 

I discussed this topic today with a co-worker who's a devout Xtian and he did have an real example of atheist evangelizing -- a man he once worked with would put phamplets explaining why no one should believe in god on peoples desks.  Since nobody asked for those pamphlets, I think the message does qualify as "I believe this and you should too", so that was definitely atheist evangelizing.  As to what value there was in it for him, I would guess working off annoyance at having "you should believe in god" pamphlets left on his desk.  That's not an excuse for it, just a stab at explanation.

And I'd agree with that, since I don't regard being guided by one's faith as a violation of the separation of church and state.  But your fifth example of school prayer (atho to the best of my knowledge this is usually only a problem if the prayer or prayer group is teacher-led and in public schools), and references to god on Government momuments and buildings, can be considered a violation of the establishment clause of the first amendment, since it does give the impression of favoring a specific religion.  Whether all these cases are worth fighting over or should just be shrugged off as historical is another issue.  But minor as these cases may be, they are authentic church and state issues.  Your example above is not.

Makes sense, but worth noting that it cuts the other direction as well.  Article in the opinion section of today's Wall Street Journal highlighted a case being taken up by the Supreme Court in which a church-based school fired a teacher and the teacher is suing for her job back.  Should the state be permitted to interfere in the hiring/firing of ministers?

I would say no, the whole point of the separation of church and state is that it goes both ways, protecting both from the interference of the other.  Not sure what a teacher has to do with ministers.

[bandit4god]

Makes sense, but worth noting that it cuts the other direction as well.  Article in the opinion section of today's Wall Street Journal highlighted a case being taken up by the Supreme Court in which a church-based school fired a teacher and the teacher is suing for her job back.  Should the state be permitted to interfere in the hiring/firing of ministers?

A teacher at a church based school can teach the state mandated curriculum without having to share the religious beliefs of the school and so there would be no basis for firing.  It's not like the teacher would be allowed to say anything negative about religion in class...professional can separate work from home.  A minister, however, would need to be religious (or at least able to pretend to be religious) in order to fulfill his job responsibilities so it wouldn't violate non-discrimination to overlook an atheist for such a position.

Being religious doesn't exclude organizations from federal non-discrimination laws.

The mission of the church-based school was, "To provide a Christ-centered education based on Biblical principles."  To the extent that teachers are fully aware of their role in this mission and sign statements of faith accordingly, in what way are they not full-fledged ministers of the church?  Separation of church and state does not apply here?

Legal precedent for cases such as this (never at the Supreme Court level) have gone two directions in the past:
- attempt to add up the amount of time the teacher spends on secular education vs ministerial activities and render a minister/non-minister verdict based on which supercedes a 50% threshold
- consider the all educational activities conducted by the teacher as impacted by the ministerial tenor of the church/school mission, rendering him/her a full minister

[Whitney]

Makes sense, but worth noting that it cuts the other direction as well.  Article in the opinion section of today's Wall Street Journal highlighted a case being taken up by the Supreme Court in which a church-based school fired a teacher and the teacher is suing for her job back.  Should the state be permitted to interfere in the hiring/firing of ministers?

A teacher at a church based school can teach the state mandated curriculum without having to share the religious beliefs of the school and so there would be no basis for firing.  It's not like the teacher would be allowed to say anything negative about religion in class...professional can separate work from home.  A minister, however, would need to be religious (or at least able to pretend to be religious) in order to fulfill his job responsibilities so it wouldn't violate non-discrimination to overlook an atheist for such a position.

Being religious doesn't exclude organizations from federal non-discrimination laws.

The mission of the church-based school was, "To provide a Christ-centered education based on Biblical principles."  To the extent that teachers are fully aware of their role in this mission and sign statements of faith accordingly, in what way are they not full-fledged ministers of the church?  Separation of church and state does not apply here?

Legal precedent for cases such as this (never at the Supreme Court level) have gone two directions in the past:
- attempt to add up the amount of time the teacher spends on secular education vs ministerial activities and render a minister/non-minister verdict based on which supercedes a 50% threshold
- consider the all educational activities conducted by the teacher as impacted by the ministerial tenor of the church/school mission, rendering him/her a full minister

I think you assumed I actually read about this case...my point was merely that a teacher can teach at a religious school without having to be religious; most religious schools don't have the preaching and the classrooms mixed that much.

[bandit4god]

I discussed this topic today with a co-worker who's a devout Xtian and he did have an real example of atheist evangelizing -- a man he once worked with would put phamplets explaining why no one should believe in god on peoples desks.  Since nobody asked for those pamphlets, I think the message does qualify as "I believe this and you should too", so that was definitely atheist evangelizing.  As to what value there was in it for him, I would guess working off annoyance at having "you should believe in god" pamphlets left on his desk.  That's not an excuse for it, just a stab at explanation.

That's interesting, I've never heard of such pamphlets before.  Appreciate you sharing!

[Sandra Craft]

That's interesting, I've never heard of such pamphlets before.  Appreciate you sharing!

Neither had I, probably for good reason.  Why do I have the feeling you're now going to run off thinking such pamphlets are in wide circulation and not just something slapped together by one irate atheist to tick off some irritating Xtians he worked with?

[Xjeepguy]

That's interesting, I've never heard of such pamphlets before.  Appreciate you sharing!

Neither had I, probably for good reason.  Why do I have the feeling you're now going to run off thinking such pamphlets are in wide circulation and not just something slapped together by one irate atheist to tick off some irritating Xtians he worked with?

Our secret is out, it will likely be on faux news tomorrow night, and the pamphlet revolution will be over. Drat! Foiled again by meddling Xtians!

[bandit4god]

That's interesting, I've never heard of such pamphlets before.  Appreciate you sharing!

Neither had I, probably for good reason.  Why do I have the feeling you're now going to run off thinking such pamphlets are in wide circulation and not just something slapped together by one irate atheist to tick off some irritating Xtians he worked with?

Perhaps not... but I walked out to my car after work and my car was covered in them!!

kidding