Happy Atheist Forum

From Pray in Jesus Name (dot org) (http://www.prayinjesusname.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.

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.

QuoteI 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.

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).

Quote from: "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.

Quote from: "BuckeyeInNC"

Quote from: "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?

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.

Quote from: "BuckeyeInNC"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.

Quote from: "BuckeyeInNC"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.

Quote from: "BuckeyeInNC"Seems like it is you who are "playing semantics"

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

Quote from: "BuckeyeInNC"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.

Quote from: "BuckeyeInNC"Me thinks thou protesteth too much.

Clever.

Quote from: "BuckeyeInNC"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.

Quote from: "BuckeyeInNC"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.

Quote from: "BuckeyeInNC"Just my impression.

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

Quote from: "BuckeyeInNC"

Quote from: "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.

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.

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

Quote from: "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.

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?  

Quote from: "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?  

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.

Quote from: "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?  

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.

Quote from: "Whitney"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?

Quote from: "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.

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.

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.

Quote from: "BuckeyeInNC"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.

Quote from: "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.

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.

Quote from: "Whitney"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.

Quote from: "BuckeyeInNC"

Quote from: "Whitney"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.

Quote from: "rlrose328"

Quote from: "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

Quote from: "Jolly Sapper"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.

Quote from: "BuckeyeInNC"

Quote from: "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.

Quote from: "BuckeyInNC"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?

Quote from: "BuckeyInNC"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.  

Quote from: "Sophus"You initiate great conversations as always rose :blush:

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  :rant:  :cool:  :raised: .

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

 

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

Quote from: "rlrose328"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.

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.

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!