Can proselytizing be considered harassment or hate speech?

[hyphenate]

Or must we hear it as part of freedom of speech?


Madalyn Murry O'Hair got prayer out of public schools, which was excellent, so why can't we get god out of politics? Couldn't we use the same logic of removing faith from secular societies, and limit proselytizing to places that are faith based, or where the function of the religious group [that is listening to something religious in context] is limited to what the audience is agreeing to listen too?

Couldn't we have people like the Westboro morons leave a funeral because their religious beliefs are not in line with those of a person being buried?

Couldn't we damn the discussions on religion during the election campaigns unless they are in a church, and in a situation where religion of any kind is against the best interests of citizens who are not of that faith?

We've also got to get rid of "in god we trust" on coins and currency, and remove "under god" in the pledge of allegiance.

The zealots on the right need to be brought back to the reality of our lives, and make those things happen in order to claim our heritage.

[Ian David]

1. If Occupy Wall Street were holding prayer vigils, would they still be trampled by cops? n/t

Last edited Sun Mar 18, 2012, 06:18 PM - Edit history (1)

[Zalatix]

21. Yup. Absolutely.

If you were a Capitalist captain of industry how would you feel having someone invoke God and causing your skin to burn as a result?

[Bluzmann57]

2. Not real sure how to answer your question

But I will say that I have not met one single person of faith who supports what the westboro people are doing because they are not really a religion, but more of an inbred cult.

[dkf]

3. Yes you must hear it as freedom of speech.

You don't want them shutting you up either do you?

[2ndAmForComputers]

4. Depends on what part of the Bible you're reading.

*cough*leviticustwentythirteen*cough*

[cali]

5. peop;le who want to destroy the first amendment amaze me.

[bluestateguy]

6. Separation of church and state does not mean separation of religion and politics

We've also got to get rid of "in god we trust" on coins and currency, and remove "under god" in the pledge of allegiance.

Yeah, uh good luck with that.

Couldn't we have people like the Westboro morons leave a funeral because their religious beliefs are not in line with those of a person being buried?

Sounds a lot like Bush Administration era free speech zones.

[hyphenate]

7. Well, I found this entry at thefreedictionary.com

which is a great help, and helps to define and separadte what it considers free speech, and what is considered unprotected [from the constitution] under the law. Interestingly, it looks like it answers the legitimate uses of preaching versus those some of us find dubious.

Propriety of proselytism
Views on the propriety of different types of proselytism differ radically. Some feel that freedom of speech should have no limits and that virtually anyone, anywhere should have the right to talk about anything they see fit. Others see all sorts of proselytism as a nuisance and an intrusion and would like to see them restricted (either completely or to a limited arena). Thus, Prof. Natan Lerner of Tel Aviv University observes that the issue is one of a clash of rights—the perceived right of a person to express his or her views versus the perceived right of a person not to be exposed to views that he or she does not wish to hear.

Some don't mind preaching but are concerned if the speech is accompanied by physical benefits (e.g., a soup kitchen that provides food, but only under the condition that the recipients listen to an evangelical discourse) or new converts are given physical benefits not available to those who don't convert. Others are concerned if the preaching is aimed at children without the knowledge and consent of the parents.

Legal standpoint
From a legal standpoint (international, as well the European Union, or nationally India, Canada and United States), there do appear to be certain criteria in distinguishing licit from illicit proselytism:

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 18 states:

Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.
No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.
Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.
The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.
The first amendments to the constitutions of United States and India, the European Union Charter of Human Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provide that all people have:

the right to have religious beliefs (or to not have religious beliefs) (Freedom of Religion);
the right to form organizations for the purpose of worship, as well as for promoting their cause (Freedom of Association); and
the right to speak to others about their convictions, with the purpose of influencing the others. (Freedom of Speech).
By the same token, these very rights exercise a limiting influence on the freedoms of others. For instance, the right to have one's religious (or non-religious) beliefs presumably includes the right not to be coerced by the government into changing these beliefs by threats, discrimination, or similar inducements.

Limits
Proselytism is considered inappropriate and not protected in certain environments open to the public or are owned privately: government buildings, public education (grade schools and college campuses), the workplace and private properties like ones' home or front yard.

In Islam, the Qur'an states "Let there be no compulsion in the religion: Surely the Right Path is clearly distinct from the crooked path." (Al-Baqarah, 2:256) which is taken by Muslim scholars that force is not to be used to convert someone to Islam.

Limits on proselytism is a combination of what is considered legal (and this varies from country to country) and what is considered moral (and this varies from person to person).

Some countries such as Greece prohibit all proselytism, some such as Morocco prohibit it except for Islam and in Canada or certain parts of the USA, sociocultural norms suggest proselytism is improper.[citation needed] Some restrict it in various ways such as prohibiting attempts to convert children or prohibit offering physical benefits to new converts.

Religious groups also draw lines between what they are willing to do or not do to convert people. For instance the Catholic Church in Ad Gentes states that "The Church strictly forbids forcing anyone to embrace the Faith, or alluring or enticing people by worrisome wiles." The World Council of Churches in The Challenge of Proselytism and the Calling to Common Witness states the following: (Note: this document uses proselytism in the negative sense only.)

19. Proselytism as described in this document stands in opposition to all ecumenical effort. It includes certain activities which often aim at having people change their church affiliation and which we believe must be avoided, such as the following:

making unjust or uncharitable references to other churches’ beliefs and practices and even ridiculing them;
comparing two Christian communities by emphasizing the achievements and ideals of one, and the weaknesses and practical problems of the other;
employing any kind of physical violence, moral compulsion and psychological pressure e.g. the use of certain advertising techniques in mass media that might bring undue pressure on readers/viewers;
using political, social and economic power as a means of winning new members for one’s own church;
extending explicit or implicit offers of education, health care or material inducements or using financial resources with the intent of making converts;
manipulative attitudes and practices that exploit people’s needs, weaknesses or lack of education especially in situations of distress, and fail to respect their freedom and human dignity.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/proselytizing

[USArmyParatrooper]

8. NO!

I don't care if it's Christian, Muslim, atheist, Hindu, Buddhist, Judaism or any other religion.

Everyone has a right to speak for or advocate their religion to whomever they wish as long as they're not breaking any laws or acting in any capacity related to local, state or federal government.

[cbayer]

9. Very slippery slope, that.

I would strongly advise not going down this road.

[Old Troop]

10. Why just religion? Why not any speech that I don't care for?

[cherokeeprogressive]

11. "limit proselytizing to places that are..." "limited to what the audience is agreeing to listen to"

those phrases put your argument to bed immediately.

That's not a hatchet job on the First Amendment; that's taking a Howitzer to it.

[RC]

12. We need to get "God" out of politics.

I doesn't matter whose "God". You will not like the "God" that we all, believers or not, will end up worshiping, if we don't.

[dems_rightnow]

13. Hate speech?

Only if you get to redefine hate speech as "anything I don't want to hear".

[pipi_k]

14. I think they have the right

to preach anything they want to, as long as those of us who don't want to hear the bullshit are not forced to listen to it.

Come to my home, I'll shut the door. or not even bother to open it.

Call me on the phone, I'll hang up.

Leave a religious tract on my car windshield, I'll heave it in the trash.

Preach to me and follow me around...that's harassment.

[hyphenate]

23. That's my point exactly! eom

[The Magistrate]

15. Yes To Both, Sir: Proselytizing Can Be Harassment And Hate Speech

If a person persists in it after being told to can it, it is harassment, and its contents may very well constitute hate speech. That expressions of bigotry and hate are part of a religious doctrine does not change the fact that they are expressions of bigotry and hate.

[hyphenate]

24. This is exactly my point

I'm talking mainly about the evangelicals who doggedly come after people, preaching about their "mission" to convert everyone to becoming a fundie, who support people like Santorum, who refuse to stop preaching, and never stop in their quest to take over the country with their extreme right views. Who want to take everyone else's rights away, and turn this country into a theocracy.

I don't give a shit about anyone else's beliefs, just don't push it on me! If you are doing no harm, fine. If you're proselytizing, shut the fuck up--I don't want to hear it! If you're trying to inject your warped, extreme views on kids in school by teaching creationism and removing science, you're an enemy, and you need to be prosecuted for your interference.

People need to know the difference between their right to worship as they please, and the fact that they should have NO right to manipulate a public school's curriculum.

I don't think that kind of speech should be covered by the First Amendment.

I'm an atheist. And I look back over the years to see so much shit happening in PUBLIC schools because of the Xtian Right, even to the point where Madalyn O'Hair and her damily were persecuted and prosecuted becaise they dared to stand up for their rights.

I guess I should have worded my question a little differently, but if anyone still thinks that the rights of the far right should still be protected in a public setting such as a school, I disagree vehemently.

[ThomThom]

35. true... I was once followed down the street by a religious nut

telling me I was going to hell and needed to find Jesus because I was wearing a Grateful Dead t-shirt. I did not talk to this person or encourage him in anyway. This is harassment.

[UTUSN]

16. Jehovah's Witnesses have consolidated freedom of speech rights in courts on that basis n/t

[Initech]

17. Oh absolutely.

I go to Angels games a lot and there's this church in Anaheim that holds these giant religious signs outside the stadium. Usually they're pretty civil about it but they turned into serious assholes by the end of the season last year. I heard one guy yell to these girls who were walking by: "Hey ladies if you died tonight how would knowing that change you?"

Then last year they had a kid reciting John 3:16 on opening day and telling people they were going to hell if they didn't repent their sins.

[hyphenate]

25. I remember back a few years ago when the RR were making bumper stickers

with the message to kill Obama, using one of the Psalms.

http://gawker.com/5407568/christian-conservatives-praying-for-god-to-kill-obama

THIS is not protected freedom of speech!!!! THIS is PURE HATE. And needs to be talked about, and justifiably removed, with prosecutions.

Sarah Palin was rightfully slammed when she talked about the bullseye remark, but I don't recall a major stink going on when the meaning of those bumper stickers became known.

There IS no other name for it. People wanted Obama killed, period. And there are enough unstable people in this country who would have done the job.

[Initech]

27. God... how is that not a threat???

I hate the religious right more and more every single day - they're really no different than the Taliban. You'd think they would make natural allies with their intense hatred of anyone who's not straight and white.

[Warren DeMontague]

18. For one, "hate speech" is not illegal. Two, any speech can be harrassment- it depends on context,etc

I would think that if it's legitimate to have "free speech zones" near, say, political conventions that contain dissenting opinions, it would be legitimate to have "free speech zones" a few blocks away from cemeteries to contain Fred Phelps and his noxious flock of turds.

But beyond that, no, you can't eliminate discussions of religion or anything else during a political campaign, nor should you. Prayer in school (and, by extension, "God" on the money or in the pledge if schoolchildren are being coerced or even 'encouraged' to recite it) is a wholly different animal in terms of violation of the establishment clause.

[jwirr]

19. As a Christian I am saying yes. There is nothing I hate more than that knock on the door from

some group that thinks they should try to convert me to their interpretation. I do not do that to anyone. My religion is personal and I want to keep it that way.

[intaglio]

20. Yes, if the proselytisers are honest

I think that the language used by any religion can be used to oppress certain parts of the human race. Consider the Mormons before they accepted Blacks into their faith, the language of the Book of Mormon used to spread that faith was racist. For Christianity texts can be found proposing the subordination of women and the enslavement of people and Islam has the same problem. Greek Orthodoxy is infamous for its imprecations about women and I must hold the same doubts about the Russian Orthodox.

I am not certain about Buddhism, but Jainism and Hinduism both support "traditional" roles for women and, purely hearsay, was advised that racism existed as well in the texts.

[Romulox]

22. no. nt

[emilyg]

26. No.

[SpartanDem]

28. Do other types get speech limited too?

If this is your standard any type of speech could be limited to an audience that agrees. And how is free speech? Oh that that's right, it's not. How are you any better than RWNJ who completely try to silence non believers?

[alferoutou]

29. It depends on where it occurs and the context

If they are in a public area it is free speech.

If they come on private property to spew without the owners permission then it is tresspassing.

The gray area is public schools and Government facilities.

If someone get in your face with their nonsense and you don’t want to listen to it, tell them to STFU and go away. If they physically block you or touch you have them arrested for assault. Don’t forget that once they touch you, you became fearful for your life and had to defend yourself too.

[badtoworse]

30. The short answer is no.

Your premise is ridiculous.

[Bluenorthwest]

32. The actual question is the opposite one.

Can harassment or hate speech be considered proselytizing? The term needs definition. Is anything I say is proselytizing proselytizing?

[rug]

33. I'm tired of people displaying their religious views.

[RZM]

34. Heaven forbid Americans exercise their first amendment rights to say things you don't want to hear

What you're essentially arguing for is 'free speech zones.' If those are a bad thing when it comes to antiwar protests, how can they be good when it comes to religion?

This post is exactly the type of thing conservatives love to hear from the left, because it gives them something to point to when they say that liberals are secret authoritarians who want to take away the first amendment rights of conservatives and people of faith.