The philosophy of forced conversion

[crowonsnow]

I can’t think of anything more repugnant, totalitarian, and evil than forced conversion. There is no such thing as the “philosophy of forced conversion”. Forced conversion is not a philosophy, it is an aggressive, evil act with no mitigating circumstances whatsoever. It is foul and fascist. It makes no ethical sense whatsoever, and is against freedoms and civil rights, and degrades humans.

It has no theological justification whatsoever, and those who subscribe to it do their faith a great disservice. Any religious body that took on this “cause” I would oppose with every fiber of my being, including the use of military force.

Is anyone so insecure in their faith to believe that religion must be so bad as to be forced on others? Where are such people’s humanity, or respect for humans and their souls and dignity? I am throughly disgusted that such a subject is being even discussed.

You are right. It’s really just plain old terrorism.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I can’t think of anything more repugnant, totalitarian, and evil than forced conversion. There is no such thing as the “philosophy of forced conversion”. Forced conversion is not a philosophy, it is an aggressive, evil act with no mitigating circumstances whatsoever. It is foul and fascist. It makes no ethical sense whatsoever, and is against freedoms and civil rights, and degrades humans.

i can think of several things more foul. how about the darwinistic eugenics of Jews, gypsies, andf the disabled? ever hear of mengele and auschwitz?

i assure you there are things much more foul.

It has no theological justification whatsoever, and those who subscribe to it do their faith a great disservice. Any religious body that took on this “cause” I would oppose with every fiber of my being, including the use of military force.

as atheism and agnosticism are simply the lack of belief, i cant see what ire might be raised. really, why would you care?

in practacality, an atheist would best be served by saying ‘yeah whatever, i believe’ and going about his business.

Is anyone so insecure in their faith to believe that religion must be so bad as to be forced on others? Where are such people’s humanity, or respect for humans and their souls and dignity? I am throughly disgusted that such a subject is being even discussed.

welcome to the forums, but expect to be offended alot then.

we pretty much discuss what we want. its a little thing called freedom of speech, you might have heard of it.

 

[JDaniel]

No, I’m thinking of force in conventional terms.

…and your answer makes perfect sense, thanks.

Shall I extrapolate from this that there is an inference that “forced” religious choice is no choice at all? Or, that “choice” is superior in some way to imposed persuasion or encouragement?

Did I get a chance to ask you what your motives are, in asking the questions you’re asking and in the manner you’re asking them? I must tell you, it is extremely suspicious.

jd

 

[Darwinsbulldog]

i can think of several things more foul. how about the darwinistic eugenics of Jews, gypsies, andf the disabled? ever hear of mengele and auschwitz?

A scientist [least of all Darwin, who was a liberal!] is not responsible for non-scientists who warp his theory and apply it in ways for which it was never intended.

as atheism and agnosticism are simply the lack of belief, i cant see what ire might be raised. really, why would you care?

Atheism is a lack of believe in deities, and it is an unjustifiable assumption on your part that atheists don’t care about people and humanity. I for one, regard myself as a highly ethical and caring person, and so are many [in fact most] of the atheists I know.

in practacality, an atheist would best be served by saying ‘yeah whatever, i believe’ and going about his business.

Another assumption pulled out of the air from nowhere!

What if I made a blanket statement like “All Catholics are [edited]” -you would get upset right? And rightly so! So I don’t say that, because I know very well that there majority of Catholics are good folks.
In any case, no matter what religion or lack of a religion a person has, I judge them as I see them, and do not have pre-conceived ideas about them, nor do I pre-judge folks.

we pretty much discuss what we want. its a little thing called freedom of speech, you might have heard of it.

I agree with you here on free speech. My objection was not that it was being discussed, but that forced conversion was a “philosophy”. That was what raised my hackles. Using force to convert folks to a belief in my mind has a fascist flavour to it.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

A scientist [least of all Darwin, who was a liberal!] is not responsible for non-scientists who warp his theory and apply it in ways for which it was never intended.

who is blaming darwin? the result of his theories, when combined with a functional atheism could not have been forseen.

Atheism is a lack of believe in deities, and it is an unjustifiable assumption on your part that atheists don’t care about people and humanity. I for one, regard myself as a highly ethical and caring person, and so are many [in fact most] of the atheists I know.

i mean, why would you care personally.

that said, i find the idea of an ethical atheist to be a silly idea, they have no motivation to be ethical at all.

Another assumption pulled out of the air from nowhere!

its not an assumption, its an opinion. i dont see the point of an atheist being concerned about conversion. it would be a non starter, its something that just wouldn’t matter.

What if I made a blanket statement like “All Catholics are [edited]” -you would get upset right? And rightly so! So I don’t say that, because I know very well that there majority of Catholics are good folks.

other than an oppurtunity to call us names, i dont see how this qoute follows from my opinion. i

In any case, no matter what religion or lack of a religion a person has, I judge them as I see them, and do not have pre-conceived ideas about them, nor do I pre-judge folks.

really? because you just said that you knnow very well that the majoruty of Catholics are good folks

looks like you do pre-judge folks.

I agree with you here on free speech. My objection was not that it was being discussed, but that forced conversion was a “philosophy”. That was what raised my hackles. Using force to convert folks to a belief in my mind has a fascist flavour to it.

do you really think its possible to convert ones belief by force?

think before you post.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

Remember to keep the discussion civil, everyone. If not, I’ll have to close the thread. Thank you all.

 

[valueperson]

Did I get a chance to ask you what your motives are, in asking the questions you’re asking and in the manner you’re asking them? I must tell you, it is extremely suspicious.

jd

 

[MindOverMatter]

Hello. 00010010010001010001010100100010

Why do you call you self value-person?

I am very interested in this concept called “value”
0000000001010100100000000000000010101000

 

[PJM]

Some countries are predominantly Christian because they were colonized or conquered by Christians.

Think about the millions and millions of souls saved in (for example) Latin America over the last four hundred years or so. Would all those souls have been saved if their ancestors had not been forced to convert?

Not all of their ancestors were forced to convert, obviously, but a great many of them were.

So, picture one 17th Century Incan or Aztec who was forced at gunpoint to become Catholic. His own soul may or may not have been saved, depending on his actual, inward acceptance of Jesus. His children, though, were born and confirmed in the faith, and most were definitely saved. So was the next generation, and the next and the next, to the present day.
:tiphat: to convert, some in the generations after would have converted on their own, for reasons of their own. But, obviously, culture and parents influence this sort of thing a lot.

Which do you think is more important: the souls of that Aztec’s many descendants, or his right of choice in his religion?

Is forced conversion justified for the sake of generations to come?

Why or why not?

GREAT QUESTION:tiphat:

It has to be “his RIGHT” to chose his own religion.

Why? Because it conforms to the very reason God created us, to know, love and serve Him! Indeed, we must evangelize, but we must rely of God The Holy Spirit to Convert!

We are to Know the truth, live the truth, share the truth, pray for converts, and then let the Holy Spirit “convict” whomever He choses:extrahappy:

Love and prayers,

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

what is a right to to choice in religion?

sounds like something protestants made up, G-d most certainly sees no right in which one may be allowed to worship other dieties, or to ignore the one true G-d. the old testament is full of those who were punished just for those activities.

The OT is quite worthless as a guide for this question: the OT is splendid for justifying the slaughter of those who hold the “wrong” religious beliefs, & has been used by Catholics against “heretics” & by Protestants against Catholics in exactly that way. But how can a pre-Christian & often barbaric book be of any use for specifically Christian morals ? The OT is not the word of God - it is all-too-fallible & morally limited word of men, & it is frequently inferior to the best insights of so-called “pagans”. The “true God” is too often more like a devil than a god (as Thomas Paine rightly pointed out). There is no wickedness as wicked as that of religious men - this has often been said, and it bears repeating.​

Besides, the CC disagrees with your position.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Saved from what?
​

It doesn’t say much for the “holy religion” of some people that it is thought to be justified even if it is forced on people. This is an appalling suggestion - it’s completely amoral . And it is in the most blatant possible contradiction to the moral character of the religion which is being forced on people. No one - one hopes ! - would for a moment approve of genocide for the propagation of peace: that would be an insane contradiction. But this is even more of a contradiction, because it makes far higher claims than any project for peace in this world.​

If that is true Christianity, then Christianity is without doubt the vilest plague ever conceived, & no decent human being should bother with it - it deserves to join Aztec religion and similarly horrible aberrations of the human spirit. IMHO, the only thing anyone needs to be saved from is Christianity.​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I’m not insinuating anything, or proving anything. I’m asking a philosophical question. Forget I mentioned Latin America, and let’s assume nobody’s ever been forced to convert.

We can instead take hypothetical Group A who are somehow forced to convert. Some of these conversions are genuine, some aren’t. The children of Group A are educated and accepted into the faith just as children in any group are, and stay in the faith in same numbers. The children of those children are educated in the same way, and so on for generations, until the group (now very large) is overwhelmingly Christian.

Some in these generations would have entered the faith in other ways, but clearly to grow up Christian makes it more likely.

So. Were the forced conversions of Group A justified for the sake of so many more souls being saved?

No, no, no & a million times “No !” To do evil that good may come is an obscenity - it is not allowed by Catholic teaching, because it amounts to making the devil into an assistant to God. Faith is free or it is not faith at all - it cannot be compelled, & it is utterly wrong even to try to compel it, no matter what goods might be intended by doing so. It is sacrilege, blasphemy & idolatry to force faith, because it is not man’s to give, & never could be; for it is absolutely God’s to give, & God’s alone.​

Catholics should not need telling something as fundamental as this - it ought to be blindingly self-evident

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

From Dignitatis Humanae (see here):

The truth cannot impose itself except by virtue of its own truth, as it makes its entrance into the mind at once quietly and with power.

…

1. This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.

Thanks for quoting that I knew the CC had said that, but couldn’t remember where - until now.​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I can’t think of anything more repugnant, totalitarian, and evil than forced conversion. There is no such thing as the “philosophy of forced conversion”. Forced conversion is not a philosophy, it is an aggressive, evil act with no mitigating circumstances whatsoever. It is foul and fascist. It makes no ethical sense whatsoever, and is against freedoms and civil rights, and degrades humans.

It has no theological justification whatsoever, and those who subscribe to it do their faith a great disservice. Any religious body that took on this “cause” I would oppose with every fiber of my being, including the use of military force.

Is anyone so insecure in their faith to believe that religion must be so bad as to be forced on others? Where are such people’s humanity, or respect for humans and their souls and dignity? I am throughly disgusted that such a subject is being even discussed.

​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

who is blaming darwin? the result of his theories, when combined with a functional atheism could not have been forseen.

i mean, why would you care personally.

that said, i find the idea of an ethical atheist to be a silly idea, they have no motivation to be ethical at all.

its not an assumption, its an opinion. i dont see the point of an atheist being concerned about conversion. it would be a non starter, its something that just wouldn’t matter.

What is done to others today, will be done to atheists tomorrow: try reading Martin Niemoller’s poem:​

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out–
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out–
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out–
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out–
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me–
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

** **http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/niem.htm

That is why. If Catholics come after non-Catholics who wish only to be left alone to mind their own business, those non-Catholics must be protected from being molested (take that in any sense you wish) by those whose religion they do not believe & do not wish to believe. The humanity that they share with atheists is more than enough reason for atheists to care a great deal about what happens to others. As that poem makes clear enough, selfishness & isolationism are suicidal. Atheists need no god to love their fellow-men - the “religion of love” is notorious for the fiendish brutality of Christians. Atheists do what is divine by loving others: by behaving as God ought to, they are being god to those whom they help. Because God is non-existent & can not do any good, atheists must do good instead. And in so doing, they are truer Christians than any “Christian” wife-beaters, murderers, liars, fraudsters, thieves, rapists, perjurers, traitors, hypocrites or persecutors. Christians do all these things, & more, which is enough to scare any atheist away from such evils.

other than an oppurtunity to call us names, i dont see how this qoute follows from my opinion. i

really? because you just said that you knnow very well that the majoruty of Catholics are good folks

looks like you do pre-judge folks.

do you really think its possible to convert ones belief by force?

think before you post.

Never. The question should be meaningless to Christians.​