16 Comments Add your own

• 1. Mackenzi  |  May 10th, 2008 at 2:40 pm

  Their definition of an Evangelical is wrong. “The Bible as God’s Word written, fully trustworthy as our final guide to faith and practice.” Catholics are considered Evangelical, but tradition comes first. I used to be one.

  Also interested in where the line between coercion and peruasion is drawn, because the preacher and preachee often disagree on that.

  Other than that, +1

  And your comment form is confusing. Is the URL part only for OpenID URLs?

• 2. matthew  |  May 10th, 2008 at 3:01 pm

  Thanks for the comment!

  I would say that many, perhaps most, Catholics would also be considered Evangelical, and that some would not. I think this is true of any particular Christian group or denomination we could choose; Methodists, Baptists, Pentecostals, or whatever. The definition the authors used would be intended to give a clear sense of who they are describing themselves to be as the ones making the statement.

  Anyway, that’s my guess.

  On the OpenID thing, the box can be used for any url you want to use to identify yourself, like a blog link, or for your OpenID. For a lot of people, that is the same. I haven’t found a way yet to set it up for those who have separate links for OpenID pages and personal blogs. I’m looking, though.

  If someone inserts an OpenID link, their name and contact info should be added automatically. Otherwise, those are needed.

  The plugin is definitely a work in progress, but I’m glad it has come as far as it has in such a short time.

• 3. Futbol Argentino Mexicano&hellip  |  May 10th, 2008 at 3:11 pm

  [...] in America looking to moderate themselves May 10, 2008 - 10:10 am | ourpughouse Escribio un articulo buenisimo hoyAqui hay un pedazo del articuloToday I was reading the news and [...]

• 4. Marconius  |  May 10th, 2008 at 3:42 pm

  As a Mormon myself, it’s good to read such a manifesto. Thanks for linking to it (no mention of Linux in here…hmm). I might just print it out and save it somewhere, because many of the feelings inside of that document are universal.

  I had never read the phrase “coercive secularism” before this either. But just last night I was reflecting on the idea that everything has its extremes. Maybe especially when you throw the word “French” in there too. (j/k)

  Finally I would just say that as long as religious people are able to vote or organize themselves politically, religion will be misused and abused by politicians. So I think there will always be some backlash. Reading Josephus lately, this principle really struck home for me.

• 5. Christian Times » B&hellip  |  May 10th, 2008 at 3:54 pm

  [...] exevangel [...]

• 6. FreddyMartinez  |  May 10th, 2008 at 6:27 pm

  I disagree wholeheartedly with the phrase “I would love to see people of faith able to live their beliefs publicly and openly, yet without forcing them on others, just as I would love to see people who do not believe in spiritual things able to live their lives in freedom without forcing others to give up their beliefs”

  I am a strict non-believer. I don’t “force” non-believers to give up anything. Belief in supernatural beings is a choice, one that I can not “force” others to give up. When have you seen any instances where non-believers force others to give their beliefs up? I’ve seen the exact opposite often in American society.

• 7. matthew  |  May 10th, 2008 at 6:38 pm

  Freddy, I’ve seen the same things you have seen, people of faith demanding that others conform to their thinking. I have seen it often. It both saddens and irritates me.

  I have also seen what you have been fortunate not to have seen; non-believers forcing their way, condemning those who do believe and demanding that all discussion of belief, religion, etc. be relegated to the private realm as inappropriate in public society. I don’t think that is appropriate either.

  I grew up in a fairly secular part of the United States, so maybe that is why I am more familiar with this. In some areas, Christianity is inescapable and seems to be forced upon the masses. In other areas, I have personally witnessed people being told that any and all mention of religion related topics either is or should be strictly prohibited. I don’t mean proselytizing, but just mere mention.

  The problem, in my experience, really does go both ways. I am thrilled to hear you have seen at least one side get it right where you live.

• 8. James  |  May 10th, 2008 at 6:45 pm

  “I would love to see people of faith able to live their beliefs publicly and openly, yet without forcing them on others…”

  Along the lines of FreddyMartinez, I don’t think that anyone is “forcing” anyone to proclaim or believe anything these days. But there are those for whom evangelism is an integral part of their faith. So for those believers you would be asking them to practice their faith the way you think it should be practiced. Do you see where this is going? You are now the one “forcing” your belief on others. You are doing exactly what you say that those “religious” people should not do! I am all for tolerance. If I tell someone about my faith and they reject it, I respectfully leave them alone. This, by the way, is exactly what Jesus told his disciples to do.

• 9. matthew  |  May 10th, 2008 at 8:03 pm

  Hi James,

  There is a big difference between speaking on behalf of your beliefs and forcing someone else to conform to them. I advocate the freedom of people to speak, live and promote what they think is right. I do not advocate the legislation of and coerced compliance with it.

  I am perfectly happy to let my friend or acquaintance, who is of a different philosophical or religious persuasion, tell me what she thinks and believes and why I should do likewise. The line is drawn when I am not allowed the same courtesy and am told to keep my beliefs to myself because they do not conform. The reverse should also be true.

  I think we are a lot closer in opinion than your comment on my statement would seem.

• 10. BrokenCrystal  |  May 10th, 2008 at 11:39 pm

  Let me begin by saying that I am not part of any denomination. I am just a plain vanilla Christian.

  I just hate when I am scolded for being a Christian by some atheists who insist that all Christians are extremists and crazy. These people group us with the few crazies that make the main stream media and make the rest of us look bad. I am, and never will be ashamed to proclaim the name of Jesus Christ as my lord and personal savior. Let’s just get something strait… The crusades were political, not Biblical. Christ taught love and peace. Being a Christian goes along with following the teachings of Christ himself. You can bring in everything that ever happened in the old testament and try to use it against us Christians, but in the long run, we (the true Christians) follow Christ, who himself was persecuted for the things he believed, said, and did.

  I don’t push my beliefs on anyone, so I expect the same respect from atheists, or anybody else for that matter. We all need to just get along. I have atheist friends and we get along great, but for those of you who have no tolerance and believe that your belief is the only valid belief… well, I have no time for you.

• 11. BrokenCrystal  |  May 10th, 2008 at 11:53 pm

  @FreddyMartinez:

  Quote: “I am a strict non-believer. I don’t “force” non-believers to give up anything. Belief in supernatural beings is a choice, one that I can not “force” others to give up. When have you seen any instances where non-believers force others to give their beliefs up? I’ve seen the exact opposite often in American society.”

  I don’t think you (non-believers) could force others to give up their beliefs. I do however think that you can influence their beliefs. Yet you claim that you have seen the exact opposite happen very often in American society? Your first point was valid. Your second statement makes no sense. You cannot force anybody to believe either way. If you can not force me to un-believe then how can I force you to believe? See the problem here? People can influence other people, but cannot force them to believe anything other than what they truly believe.

• 12. jacques  |  May 11th, 2008 at 4:39 am

  @BrokenCrystal:
  Your comment makes no sense to me. When Freddy and Matthew say ‘force something upon someone’ they refer to social pressure, which is something that exists whatever you say. You’re saying that you cannot be pressured into not believing. Well, you can surely be influenced into not believing by your environment, whatever you think. The influence of the environment is greater than you think: just look at how much of the US approved of the war in Irak before it started and how many do now. Now look at the reasons invoked for going there. What, besides mediatic pressure, could have made people believe in these reasons earlier?

• 13. Tony Yarusso  |  May 11th, 2008 at 9:37 am

  Yeah, sadly it does go both ways. I also find it annoying that what has come to be referred to as “Evangelical” in this country is anything but. Actually being evangelical would mean living the gospel, which as pointed out by others is actually quite antithetical to the sorts of things conservative Christians in the US have been doing lately. And yes, you can force beliefs on others, by writing them into law. For instance, the continuing lack of same-sex marriage in this country is directly the result of “Christians” opposing it.

  @Matthew, perhaps you just haven’t travelled north enough. Proud to be from a church with “evangelical” in the name that happily works with those of other faiths and non-believers in mission work without conversion being a goal at all, welcomes them to fully participate in our services and activities if they’d like to visit, and promotes equal rights and recognition for everyone. Also just a few miles away from the district that elected the first Muslim to the US Congress.

• 14. matthew  |  May 11th, 2008 at 2:10 pm

  Hey, Tony. Thanks for the comment! I appreciate it.

  You have a good point about morality and personal beliefs influencing law, and thereby forcing beliefs on others. I hadn’t considered that as part of my equation or thinking, and I’ll need to figure out how that would fit in. I guess I am ultimately more at odds with the sense of arrogance and grumpiness that often accompanies this sort of thing. I certainly wouldn’t want to say that people should not pursue a positive societal impact based on their religious or other beliefs.

  Do not murder, do not steal, things like this have a basis in some form of external, philosophical morality. There are some who have found these things pleasurable or personally desirable, yet we as a society have decided to say that these are wrong. Why? There must be some standard. For some it is a respect for life. For others it is birthed out of a belief in God. Still others boil it down to a practical matter of physical need for order for society to exist. Yet the standard is still external, this isn’t necessarily innate to all, and therefore some are having the beliefs of others forced upon them. Hmm. Interesting train of thought…this could lead somewhere.

  On another subject, I am actually okay with people having the conversion of others to their point of view and to their religion as a goal, as long as there exists enough respect in the process to allow someone to say, “No, thank you,” and to then walk away.

  When my Muslim friend asks me if I have converted to Islam, he (usually) is saying in his subtext that I am important and valuable to him and he wants to help me by leading me to something he finds meaningful. That’s cool!

  When a Christian tells someone about their faith, their motives are usually pure–they just want to share something they have found to be beautiful and meaningful. Great! I’m all for that.

  What I don’t enjoy is when I see someone say, usually very politely, that they are not interested only to suddenly find themselves ostracized, abused, or defamed.

  I have been called an infidel by some Muslims, an antisemite by some Jews, a heathen by some Christians, and an evil proselytizer and religious bigot by some atheists. Please note the use of the word “some” in each of those…

  Some have accused me of being far too willing to allow personal beliefs to inform and influence my decisions and actions, to which I would respond that if they didn’t, they wouldn’t be beliefs worth having, would they?

  Others have accused me of having beliefs so weak that I feel I have to overcompensate by allowing anyone and everyone to say and believe anything. I respond that having strong beliefs does not automatically imply that I must demand that everyone share them, nor must I demand silence from those who differ.

  I have received opposing and mutually exclusive criticism from both sides. It’s funny how that can happen.

  My whole reason for enjoying the article/manifesto was that it shows a group of people with very strong religious beliefs who are secure enough in them to allow others who differ to remain alongside them, loved and respected. The Evangelicals in the article may attempt to convert their neighbors to their way of thinking, but, at least the ones making this statement, are saying that they will also allow others to reject these beliefs while remaining loved and respected. That speaks of character, and it is something worth celebrating, whether you agree with their religious sentiments or not.

• 15. ayenack  |  May 12th, 2008 at 1:31 pm

  I have to say that I agree 100% with Matthews views on this subject.

  It seems to me that some people are searching for something in their lives that they can only reconcile with a `religious doctrine` or the exact opposite to fulfill their personal requirements.

  I personally believe that as maturity and life experience are gained peoples faith or otherwise becomes far more introspective and less about spreading the word.

  In my view we could all take a note from the female perspective on this subject.

  I am not religious in any way.

• 16. ayenack  |  May 12th, 2008 at 1:34 pm

  You could say it’s down to semantics.

Leave a Comment

Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed