Compass Direct News reports that last Tuesday a court in Djilfa, Algeria imposed a fine of 300 Euros and a one year suspended prison sentence on a 33-year-old Muslim convert to Christianity who was charged with printing, storing and distributing illegal religious material. Charges were filed against the defendant after he was stopped at a police roadblock, and authorities found a Bible and several religious study texts in his luggage. He was also carrying a computer printer. Apparently during defendant's 5-day detention, authorities tried to convince him to convert back to Islam. Since January, at least five Christians from Tiaret have been detained or tried for their religious activities.
Monday, May 12, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.jpg)
Posts
18 comments:
This is where some Americans want to take the religious freedom issue, I think. Telling a teacher he can't have a bible on his desk, e.g. lest he be seen as proselytizing. For pete's sake! They are trying to tell citizens that we have no identity of our own as school employees --and no religious freedom while we are on state time.
Barb, representatives of the state do give up expressing certain opinions under color of state authority. You have yet to give a reason Freshwater has some particular need to broadcast his religious bent to the students in his class.
And, worse, she has quite happily overlooked the question of if he did "more" than place a Bible there, and if he in fact tried to "push it" on anyone. I agree, if all he had was on on his desk, this wouldn't be a problem. However... Oddly enough, the sort of person that tends to **specifically** choose to do such a thing tends to, "Gasp!", think that it also gives them a mandate to judge, argue against others beliefs in the classroom, or preach there own. And, once again, Barb misses the point that its not about the outward symbols, or personal freedom of the **individual in question** to believe what they want, its "how the idea behind them is expressed", and, "if the *context* of that expression is acceptable by law".
The teacher is only being charged with the Bible's presence on the desk, Kagehi. If he did more than that, THAT would be the issue!
Christians do believe in identifying as Christians as a witness --but not to say "YOU must be a Christian, too," NOT to apply pressure --but to take a stand, "Yes, I am a follower of Jesus." This is not proselytizing --it is doing what the Bible tells us --taking a stand for Christ, "not being ashamed of the Gospel of Christ...." claiming Him as my Savior so He will claim me as the "saved" before the Father God. Because Jesus said He would not confess us to His father if we would not confess our faith in Him before men. A Bible on the desk is a very subtle witness to the teacher's faith --like a cross necklace --or a yarmulke or a nun's habit, etc.
Proselytizing is an effort to convert others --and that isn't wrong except when done on teaching time and anytime to kids whose parents would not appreciate it when you are in the role of teacher--but it isn't what a Bible on the desk does.
I would appreciate a teacher who would encourage MY child in his faith on the child's and the teacher's free time --like when a few teachers joined in with students to pray at the flagpole on "see you at the pole" day before school started.
There's no law that says a teacher can't be a Christian or let anyone know that he's a Christian when he's at his place of business.
"Proselytizing is an effort to convert others --and that isn't wrong..."
Ah, but it is wrong.
In a world in which you claim to espouse freedom of religion and freedom of conscience, proselytizing is an assumption that the person you're talking to is inferior to you...and that you have the power to "make" his status equal to yours. Hubris!
It's an invasion of privacy and security of the person. It's intrusive and overly inquisitive.
It's classist, elitist, and segregationist. It's also divisive, derogatory, and downright rude.
If you can't bring yourself to accept people as you find them, then leave them alone and don't bother them.
Barb, have you not been following this?
He,
1) Had a stack of Bibles in his classroom
2) Had religious posters on the walls
3) Had the ten commandments posted on his door
4) burned a cross into a student's arm
5) lectured the students on the meaning of Christmas and Easter
He was asked to, and removed, the other displays, and said he had to keep one Bible on his desk. The question is, can the school do this. The answer is that they can.
He could wear a cross necklace. No one, not even God, is going to claim he's trying to hide his identity as a Christian at this point or is "ashamed" of his faith.
And Barb, I don't think it helps your image as an impartial commentator any that you'd actually prefer teachers to proselytize to your children. "It's perfectly fine because I wouldn't mind it" wouldn't even work as an argument coming from me, much less from you.
CL --first of all, I am not an impartial commentator. Did I ever have you thinking that??? : D I am very partial to the religious interests and liberties of the people and partial toward Christianity in general.
No, I am not aware of all the detail about the teacher who wants a Bible on his desk. I realize that not all who call themselves Christians are reasonable, sensible, sincerely Christian, etc. I don't think a public school classroom should look like a sunday school room --or that a teacher has any business tattooing or carving any students!
I wouldn't mind at all if a Christian teacher, knowing I am a Christian parent, would encourage my child in his faith, on their mutual free time after school, on the lunch hour, etc. Such teachers have always been in the minority --ones who really live and proclaim their faith. I'm not supporting anyone chasing someone down, haranging them, threatening with Hell, etc. --but intellectual discussions where kids ask questions of a philosophical/religious nature. I would not want an atheist undermining my child's faith but I would be glad if there was a Christian teacher as a role model and friend to Christian kids on free time. It's interesting how teachers all sort of make their philosophies of life known --kids over time can guess by what they say, what they wear, how they act --if the teacher is an immoral person, a Christian, an atheist. People's true colors tend to show.
I was once asked in a public school English class, after the American lit book study of Jonathan Edwards' famous Puritan sermon, "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God," if I thought this was how God was. I was very mindful of my limitations and rights and answered cautiously that the Bible, Edwards' source, says that God is both angry at wrongdoing and compassionate and merciful when people are sorry --that the Bible which the Puritans and Edwards believed does say that God has the wrathful side as well as the loving side. I was aware of my right to answer the question about what I thought in that context truthfully without proselytizing but I don't think I even said "I believe...." I said "The Bible which they believed does say....."
It was later that an observation of my class by the North Central accreditation team got us high marks for English --however, they observed the discussion of poetry, not religious, as I recall. The only religious conversation I remember ever having as a teacher was that one when the text provided the springboard.
Later on, when the sup't's daughter plagiarized her first research paper for me --and I gave her a D --even though I had discussed word for word plagiarism in the assignment --but I passed her --it was a low grade for her --because I realized that kids don't know how to write papers without copying huge chunks because they don't know anything about their topics or have any original thoughts --but the principal heard about it from me, in case the family were to protest the grade and the accusation of plagiarism--and he went to her locker and made her give him her source, a college catalogue, and threw the issue in the sup't's face when they had a fight one day --(You can't imagine these 2 characters! the two stooges) and the sup't whirled around, out of context, out of the blue, and pointed his finger at me and said, "And another thing, young lady, about this religion in the classroom..." That was only about the day many months earlier when I had discussed the Edwards sermon with the kids. He and his daughter didn't really mind what I had said --all the kids were either nominally Christian in this small rural school (he was Catholic)--or unchurched and indifferent--but the sup't. surmised that even a discussion of the sermon in the text book was borderline in a time when the issue about religion in schools was just as hot as it is today--believe it or not.
The sermon was in the approved curriculum, the students' question was logical and predictable, I believe I skirted what I thought personally and I know I answered the question according to the Bible the preacher believed.
I also know I was in my rights to answer the question and tell her that I believed what the Bible believed --since they asked me and in that context. But I don't think I did say, "I believe as Edwards did....about the dual nature of God's personality."
Chimera -you proselytize for your point of view.
"To convert to some religion, system, opinion, or the like; to bring, or cause to come, over; to proselyte."
It's not illegal, Chimera --yet you say so over and over!
Everybody here is proselytizing in one sense of the word --trying to get others to agree or at least understand their opinions. We are trying to enlighten one another, are we not? or at least explain how our views are legit? If not, then perhaps we are just wasting time.
apparently, you define the word differently as "force!" "coerce" -"denying the freedom to differ in opinion?" That's not what I mean by Proselytize.
"Chimera -you proselytize for your point of view."
No. What I'm doing is resisting your attempts to do so.
You don't even know what my religious views are. How can you say I'm proselytizing them?
Yes, as I see you doing it, I define it as force, coerce, cause involuntary adherence. That's what you want to do -- force everyone to live by your standards.
And it becomes illegal when you break other laws in order to force compliance with your own attitudes. You advocate the compliance to Christian standards (as you define them) by people who are not Christians -- and (more importantly) have no wish to be Christians, or held to such standards.
You act and talk like you've never heard of, "Mind your own business."
You act and talk like you've never heard of, "You ARE your brothers' keeper." and "Evil triumphs when good men do nothing"
MYOB is not my creed.
You are on this forum--you are proselytizing for your own opinions which are usually in opposition to mine.
I never said you are proselytizing your RELIGIOUS views. You are proselytizing nonetheless.
What? you have a right to express your views here in opposition to mine, but I don't have the same right??
Your opinion is that I should mind my own business. My opinion is that I am minding my own business --and the people's business is OUR business --all of us. That's why we are discussing legal cases here and giving our opinions on what we think is fair and right and should be the law or not.
Do I want to force everyone to live by my religious-based standards? I'd rather persuade them.
But I do think the law should stand for what's right --and what is healthy and good for society.
I do think sodomy should be discouraged and all the public health risks should be known and reason to discourage sodomy and prostitution, etc.
The society needs to at least acknowledge that adultery is wrong (good for the democrats for disciplining the attorney general of Ohio --kind of odd after bill Clinton.)
society needs to consider what is best for children--happy hetero monogamous marriages are best for children --best for the economy, the emotions, academic focus, physical and emotional health of their parents, and as a bulwark against drug abuse and early sex activity with teen pregnancy and disease, etc.
"MYOB is not my creed."
Well, it is mine. And I insist on it. Go find another brother to keep, because I am not going to allow you to "keep" me.
"I never said you are proselytizing your RELIGIOUS views. You are proselytizing nonetheless."
Barb..."proselytizing" is a verb that needs a specific object, spoken or unspoken, and religious in nature. If I were in fact proselytizing, we'd be deep in a discussion about my own religion. Since you don't even know what my religion is, because I have not told you, it therefore stands to reason that I am not proselytizing.
Refuting proselytizing is not proselytizing. Pushing a specific POV and trying to make other people accept it as truth is proselytizing. Saying no is not.
I'm not out to make you believe in one thing or another, I'm just telling you that you can't push your beliefs on anyone else if they indicate that they are not interested.
And what "society" really needs is to stop trying to force the homogenization of thought.
I quoted the dictionary def. for you --YOU DO proselytize for your views. It doesn't have to be religion.
If you don't have a viewpoint and aren't trying to persuade people to see things your way, you sure fooled me!
ditto to your last statement above --which is why Cynthia Dixon should get her job back.
Here's the definition you quoted to me:
"To convert to some religion, system, opinion, or the like; to bring, or cause to come, over; to proselyte."
Now...what, exactly, am I proselytizing? Be specific.
You are proselytizing about your liberal views --e.g. that abortion is a woman's choice --that a child is not a person with a right to life during its whole first 9 months --that there should be no religious free expression on tax-supported property --no public prayers in schools, etc. that there should be no laws about private sexual behavior between consenting adults --polygamy is ok, shacking up, homosexuality, etc. You promote your view that religious people and should be seen but not heard and their faith-based sentiments not heard if you don't want to hear them. Everyone should be quiet about their faith wherever you happen to be --lest you hear any faith-based opinions or beliefs.
Sorry, Barb. That does not fit the definition of proselytizing. It fits under refuting proselytizing.
Proselytizing is where you say "everybody has to (insert global morality wish)..."
Why I'm saying is that everyone should get to make up his own mind. You get to keep yours and I get to keep mine.
That's not proselytizing.
You ARE proselytizing for your point of view, Chimera. Give up. You know I'm right on this --don't you?
You're wrong.
Post a Comment