Freedom of Speech VS Proselytizing
According to the New Expanded Webster's Dictionary the following definitions are given:
Proselytize: (noun); To make a proselyte of. To engage in making proselytes.
Proselyte: (noun); A convert to the Jewish faith, to make a convert of.
I realize many lately are on the bandwagon of "anti-proselyting"; my question is this.
Are there clear cut differences between "informing with information" and "proselytizing"??
IF one can be deemed as "proselytizing" by merely expressing his/her ideas, information or personal opinions (that may or may not be accepted by the recipient), then perhaps freedom of speech in the general sense is always "proselytizing".
I believe one can not correctly differentiate between "prosetlytizing" and "freedom of speech".
It is too grey to judge. For if we agree with the information of a speaker or poster, we can say "ah, yes freedom of speech is grand".
If we disagree we can be appauled and claim the author of the hypothetical article is trying to "Proselytize".
Freedom of speech is not always a proselytizing, but proselytizing is always a FREEDOM OF SPEECH.
Are we not in America allowed the freedom to gather and assemble?! yes, and is not the aim always to convince others to see as you do?!
..you're right, i didn't really think about the freedom of expression, speech and religion before i voted for no prose in the poll.. there should be a middle choice, 'Yeaa, but don't kill anyone!'
..someone vote yes, just for me :)
..and what does a poll matter anyways? i know that qrswave is at least as dedicated as you and the rest of us to free speech! maybe we could have another poll to see if we'll enforce the first one; NOT lol
..i do find some of the prose and verses interesting, with a few exceptions, but then i just skip 'em like i do many of the long-winded comments that offer little substance; not just religious ones! =P
..maybe we'll ban parrotizing?
When people hear "proselytizing" i thing most think about converting someone to a religion.
But others might think it means just trying to convince someone of your idea, like the article says.
===
Since
The Poll
"Should This Website Be Used for Proselytizing?"
had more possible meanings it is near useless.
===
However I think the poll is about trying to convert people to your religion. Since so many posters (i think) appose this.
Probably reminds them of Jehova witnesses.
IF one see's this life as the only one we have, and that their is no God, then I can understand why they don't want to hear of God or anothers understanding of the scriptures pertaining to God.
Now, this can not possibly more then a simple paradigm for a particular sentient being.
For another may understand that it is the next life that is everlasting, and that this is the seperation of light and darkness in the real sense, the DOING of God, the dividing of the Goats and the Sheep. This interest and belief can become engrained into such a person, and when this HOPE (Life after this suck-arse world of usery and destruction and fakery), is in us, we can not help but want to discuss this HOPE with others.
Yes, many will see it different. But it all comes down to priorities, opinions, biases and dreams which are a collective humaness we all possess if we be.
Now that it is collective, how can we ever suppress anothers ideas? Suppress anothers communication in regards to his dreams, hopes and if he or she deems that hope or dream important, why would they not COMMUNICATE IT to others willing to hear?
Regardless it all comes right down to peoples opinions of what is important, what is free and what is offensive. All simply opinions; regardless of their ultimate outcome.
But of course the overlording Zionist, goy-robot-government and industrialists (mostly so-called Jews), and bankers KNOW that opinions actually DO MATTER!
Because it is from the thoughts, the very thinking, that our opinions are formed, and from opinions and thoughts spring action.
Freedom of Speech is always worth fighting for; especially when it pertains to the common human instincts we all posses.
"I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it"...Voltaire
My unabridged Merriam Webster notes etymology of Proselyte as: Middle English proselite, from Anglo-French prosilite, from Late Latin proselytus proselyte, alien resident, from Greek prosElytos, from pros near + -Elytos (akin to Elthein, to come, to go; suppletive aorist to Erchesthai, to com; Elan, to drive, Elythe he went).
I don't know how and when Judaism got involved in this word's definition, but the original Judaism by definition cannot be proselytized.
But anyway, I think we have two types of Freedom of Speeches: legal and civil. Legal freedom of speech covers everyone, but civil freedom of speech is voluntarily exercised by those who take "personal responsibility" for their speech. I normally value and respect more the latter. I don't think proselytizing is part of civil freedom of speech.
It all comes down to the definition of the word, and then even more so to our own paradigms.
We should always be responsible for what we say, but we should not be imparted punitive damages over merely words.
All I can say is what Voltaire stated long ago....
"I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it"...Voltaire