Propagation of Religion

[Sparhafoc]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-41981430

Indonesia's Orang Rimba: Forced to renounce their faith

The Sumatran rainforests of Indonesia are home to the Orang Rimba - the people of the jungle. Their faith and nomadic way of life are not recognised by the state and, as their forests are destroyed to make way for palm oil plantations, many are being forced to convert to Islam to survive.

An age old story of forced conversion.

Ustad Reyhan, from the Islamic missionary group Hidayatullah, has stayed to make sure the new faith is practised.

"For now we are focusing on the children. It's easier to convert them - their mind isn't filled with other things. With the older ones it's harder," he says.

"Before Islam they just believed in spirits, gods and goddesses, not the supreme god Allah.

"When someone died, they didn't even bury the dead, they just would leave the body in the forest. Now their life has meaning and direction.

As usual, the religionist acts as if their abhorrent behavior is unquestionably justified.

As usual, the religionist preys on the innocent and naive because mature minds are not so easy to fool or frighten.

As usual, when the religionist talks of purpose and meaning, they recognize only their beliefs as being so.

 

[Bango Skank]

Ever heard that old song "Civilization" by Andrew Sisters? Cause that was playing in my head when i read that article.

So many people are so obsessed of the thought of living forever...and afraid of their own mortality at same time. I have witnessed that with my own eyes. Deep down they are fucking scared, so they are even ready to kill for even a slight promise of living forver in eternal bliss. It is really, really hard to feel any kind of compassion towards people like that.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Ever heard that old song "Civilization" by Andrew Sisters? Cause that was playing in my head when i read that article.

I hadn't heard of it before you mentioned it. Surprising for such an old song!

So many people are so obsessed of the thought of living forever...and afraid of their own mortality at same time. I have witnessed that with my own eyes. Deep down they are fucking scared, so they are even ready to kill for even a slight promise of living forver in eternal bliss. It is really, really hard to feel any kind of compassion towards people like that.

They want to get at the kids, because they in turn were got to as kids.

 

[Laurens]

Forcing someone to act as though they believe something under threat of violence is so fucking abhorrent.

 

[Tree]

An age old story of forced conversion.

More specifically of jihad, warfare against non-believers to get them to convert or pay the jizya tax, see verses 9:5 and 9:29.

The size and scope of this problem of forced conversions is not equal in every religion. Do not try to imply that this is a general religious problem. Judaism for example doesn't even seek converts, potential converts have to make their case to be accepted. If you don't get more specific about this problem of forced conversions, then I don't see how you could ever solve it.

https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-conversion-process/

Beit Din (Rabbinic Court)

Once the circumcision has healed, a beit din is assembled. This three-person court, generally comprising at least one rabbi and two other observant Jews knowledgeable about the laws of conversion, has sole authority to rule on the convert’s readiness for conversion. The beit din explores a candidate’s sincerity by evaluating his or her knowledge, motivation, and intent to live as a Jew. For traditional Jews, a convert must assent to kabbalat ol ha-mitzvot, acceptance of the yoke of the commandments, that is, a willingness to accept the validity and often to commit to the performance of the Jewish commandments. Liberal rabbis usually ask only for a commitment to perform selected commandments.

Jainism is radically committed to non-violence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism#Main_principles

Christians are required to proselytize to non-Christians, but not to use violence. Christians doing violence is entirely at their discretion, they're not required to do so by any normative Christian doctrine.

While anyone of any religion can choose to force another to convert (atheist individuals can also choose to force atheism on others) Islam is the only major religion with a codified doctrine of warfare against non-believers, including offensively.


That said, I do object to some extent to referring to those forests as "their forest". Proximity alone to a resource doesn't grant you ownership of that resource according to John Locke's labor theory of property. This would be as ludicrous as the idea that the first people to land on Mars get to own all of Mars. Well no, they get to own the part of the Mars that they actually make productive use of. Your settlement + immediate surrounding necessary for resources and security, yes. A barren land miles away from their settlement, no, another Mars colony would be perfectly entitled to build something else there. The opposite part of Mars relative to their location - definitely not.

Leave them alone, build around them to the point where you don't disturb them, but they don't get to own everything either. That seems like a fair non-aggressive way to deal with primitive societies that "don't wanna leave the Congo".

 

[australopithecus]

*cough*SpanishInquisition*cough*

 

[Tree]

*cough*SpanishInquisition*cough*

Please elaborate on this.

 

[Visaki]

*cough*SpanishInquisition*cough*

Please elaborate on this.

Nobody expects it.

Or maybe he was eluding to the fact that the Spanish Inquisition did this very same thing to Jews; convert or die. Though mainly just wanted to make a Monty Python reference.

 

[Bango Skank]

Christians are required to proselytize to non-Christians, but not to use violence. Christians doing violence is entirely at their discretion, they're not required to do so by any normative Christian doctrine.

I have to disagree a bit. There is physical violence and then there is psychological violence, and christians often use the latter (threats of eternal torture in afterlife, mockery and attempts to dismantle non-christians meaning of life etc.)

 

[Sparhafoc]

*cough*SpanishInquisition*cough*

And the 8 centuries of forced conversion in Christendom. And the enslavement and castration of pagans in Europe. From Charlemagne to Vladimir, not so much as a drop of Islam - perhaps they were confused and no one told them that this wasn't 'normative Christianity'? Then there's the Age of 'Discovery' which could as well be known as the Age of Religious Subjugation and Enslavement from Goa to Mexico, those Christians came in the name of their God to plunder, loot, and rape, and the only hope was to join the club to reap the benefits of not being seen as valid prey.

But let's ignore reality in preference of axes we brought to grind.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Proximity alone to a resource doesn't grant you ownership of that resource according to John Locke's labor theory of property. This would be as ludicrous as the idea that the first people to land on Mars get to own all of Mars. Well no, they get to own the part of the Mars that they actually make productive use of.

And when was Locke's labor theory of property made universal law?

You keep forwarding an 18th century idea that basically revolves around fences and a culturally preferred type of land-use, for fuck's sakes. It was wholly motivated towards justification of theft from millions of people whose culture didn't include the notion of ownership being related to fencing something off.

It's no more coherent a justification than Eddie Izzard's parody of 'we put a flag there'.

In reality, the actual 'justification' of taking native American's land is precisely the same employed in the story of the original post and is always the case with respect to taking other people's shit - military superiority. My stick's bigger: give me your stuff.

 

[Tree]

Proximity alone to a resource doesn't grant you ownership of that resource according to John Locke's labor theory of property. This would be as ludicrous as the idea that the first people to land on Mars get to own all of Mars. Well no, they get to own the part of the Mars that they actually make productive use of.

And when was Locke's labor theory of property made universal law?

Human rights involve property rights.

You put effort into transforming the world around you in a productive way, that's your effort, you should benefit from it. It's not the effort of someone else who happens to live a few miles away but did nothing. You don't like property rights? Okay, then you're against human rights as well, little Stalin.

You keep forwarding an 18th century idea that basically revolves around fences and a culturally preferred type of land-use, for fuck's sakes. It was wholly motivated towards justification of theft from millions of people whose culture didn't include the notion of ownership being related to fencing something off.

That's misleading.

It's not just that they didn't "fence something off", they literally did not use most of the land (or used it temporarily and then discarded it as is the case with nomads). Most of it was uninhabited, untapped wilderness. On what basis can one claim ownership in such a circumstance? Proximity alone?

Does that even make sense considering how relative it is? On a cosmic scale, I have pretty good proximity to Mars. Do I now own Mars?

In reality, the actual 'justification' of taking native American's land is precisely the same employed in the story of the original post and is always the case with respect to taking other people's shit - military superiority. My stick's bigger: give me your stuff.

In reality, you're avoiding the elephant in the room that you have no discernible principles to base this on.

Explain for example how ownership of Mars or things on Mars would be decided on if we had the means to make settlements on Mars? John Locke's theory makes sense. You own the parts of Mars you make productive use of. The rest remains up for grabs. You don't get to have it all because you landed the first shuttle, unless maybe you had the means to build an extensive infrastructure covering the entirety of Mars' surface. Good luck with that LOL

Christians are required to proselytize to non-Christians, but not to use violence. Christians doing violence is entirely at their discretion, they're not required to do so by any normative Christian doctrine.

I have to disagree a bit. There is physical violence and then there is psychological violence, and christians often use the latter (threats of eternal torture in afterlife, mockery and attempts to dismantle non-christians meaning of life etc.)

Okay, to you it's "psychological violence", to me it's "I'm not in high school anymore so I'm immune to your ramblings".

Words alone do not constitute an aggression, unless you're literally instigating others towards violence in a very credible way ("go kill the witness" would count, "blow up the Earth with the Death Star" or "God please smite all the homos" would not). If someone's merely saying I'll go to hell if I don't do X, Y or Z, then I can choose to not talk to that person and not associate with that person.

 

[Tree]

Or maybe he was eluding to the fact that the Spanish Inquisition did this very same thing to Jews; convert or die. Though mainly just wanted to make a Monty Python reference.

Since the Spanish Inquisition was mentioned specifically, that's an institution founded by monarchs (rather than the Catholic Church directly) in 1478 and formally ended in 1834 and which applied to one country...

...and which the Catholic Church totally disavows today, not just paying lip service to it, there is literally no attempt to recreate any inquisition anywhere.

How is that comparable with a 14 century old doctrine of universal warfare against unbelievers which provided the framework for all Islamic empires and for the global jihad groups like AQ or ISIS today?

Have any prominent theologians denounced jihad or dhimmitude like the Catholics denounced inquisitions?

 

[Bango Skank]

Okay, to you it's "psychological violence", to me it's "I'm not in high school anymore so I'm immune to your ramblings".

You and I are immune to their attempts of using psychological violence in order to get us converted, but not all are (kids and people with mental health problems for example). Just because it doesn't work on you and i, doesn't mean it isn't what it is.

Words alone do not constitute an aggression, unless you're literally instigating others towards violence in a very credible way ("go kill the witness" would count, "blow up the Earth with the Death Star" or "God please smite all the homos" would not). If someone's merely saying I'll go to hell if I don't do X, Y or Z, then I can choose to not talk to that person and not associate with that person.

True, but words are often accompanied with passive aggressive behaviour, which can escalate quickly in a workplace or group for example.

 

[thenexttodie]

Christians are required to proselytize to non-Christians

Christians are not required to proselytize to non-Christians.

If Sparhofoc became a Christian today and then some time later died before he decided to tell the world about his conversion, he would still be saved.

 

[thenexttodie]

I have to disagree a bit. There is physical violence and then there is psychological violence, and christians often use the latter (threats of eternal torture in afterlife, mockery and attempts to dismantle non-christians meaning of life etc.)

Bango, why is it that gays portray themselves as being the most oppressed and victimized people in the world?

 

[Bango Skank]

I have to disagree a bit. There is physical violence and then there is psychological violence, and christians often use the latter (threats of eternal torture in afterlife, mockery and attempts to dismantle non-christians meaning of life etc.)

Bango, why is it that gays portray themselves as being the most oppressed and victimized people in the world?

I love you too

 

[Bango Skank]

Christians are not required to proselytize to non-Christians.

They are, ordered by Jesus to spread the good news. And if a place dont take those news, they are ordered to leave. I also remember there being a verse that if a christian doesn't attempt to convert non christian, he will be punished in afterlife for it (sadly cannot remember the passage).

 

[thenexttodie]

Christians are not required to proselytize to non-Christians.

They are, ordered by Jesus to spread the good news. And if a place dont take those news, they are ordered to leave.

You are refering to the time where Jesus sent out his disciples to heal the sick and to preach that the kingdom of heaven is near. This had nothing to do with converting people to Christianity.

I also remember there being a verse that if a christian doesn't attempt to convert non christian, he will be punished in afterlife for it (sadly cannot remember the passage).

Sorry buddy, there is no such verse.

 

[borrofburi]

Bango, why is it that gays portray themselves as being the most oppressed and victimized people in the world?

Do they really?