Dubai & the UAE:
Shari'a
Torture
Slavery
Homosexuals, adulterers and apostates can be stoned to death.
Abortion, blasphemy, public displays of affection, premarital sex, all illegal and punishable by flogging.
Domestic violence against women is legal.

Qatar:
Shari'a
Sodomy, extramarital sex, alcohol consumption, blasphemy, apostasy, proselytism all illegal and punishable variously by flogging or imprisonment.

Kuwait:
Blasphemy, homosexuality, transgenderism, public displays of affection, eating or drinking in public during ramadan, alcohol, pornography and 'sending immoral messages' are all illegal.
Domestic violence and marital rape is legal.

Indonesia:
Islamist violence against religious minorities is widespread.
Muslims are pushing hard to criminalise homosexuality.
Female applicants to the military and police are subjected to 'virginity tests'.
Shari'a in Aceh province includes the flogging of homosexuals among its atrocities.

Tunisia:
Homosexuality and blasphemy are illegal.
Persecution of the LGBT by both government and private groups is common and increasing.

Mali:
~90% prevalence of FGM
Half the country under islamist control, with all the oppression, murder, torture and rape that implies.

Thank you for not tagging this as parody, because it's not. The exact same argument can be heard in churches and republican meetings, with only slightly less snark.

How dare those evil servicemen abuse our God given constitution against our attempts at militaristic proselytizing.

I find it disgusting that an organization like the military religious freedom foundation has anything to do. That's a massive failure of leadership that should be just cause to force a few generals to retire.

@transmorpher
ha! right on man.

let me start that there really is no argument between us,just a disagreement by degrees is all.

you do not have to refute my claim that "veganism is carried out for the feeling of superiority."

because i never made that claim.
my criticism was specific and focused on a single person @ahimsa,who,if you read his commentary,is most certainly taking a morally superior stance.

if you compare how you were interacting and how ahimsa was interacting.the differences are quite stark.

you were quite open and honest on how you eventually reached veganism.(bravo my friend),but i didnt really see you berate or belittle someone for still eating meat,or being a non-vegan.

oh...you certainly argued your points and exposed weak and facile arguments.you offered new ways of looking at the situation,but you really didn't judge a person for not following your ways of thinking/being/doing.

basically you took responsibility for your choices.shared your reasons for those choices and have allowed people to make THEIR own choices.

how can you not respect that?
which is why i wanted to trade partners.
tongue in cheek of course..that was my way of giving you props and respect.

ahimsa,on the other hand,didnt even respect those he engaged with enough to even use his own words,and instead indulged in presumption,laziness and pretentious twattery.(god,i love that phrase.thank you britain!)

ahimsa approached veganism much the same way a newly born again person approaches talking about their new love for jesus,by proselytizing.

being a man of faith i can understand and relate to someone experiencing a profoundly life changing event,manifested by a serious epiphany and the desire to share that new understanding with everyone you meet.confident in an absolute certitude of righteousness.

but it can be so aggravating to be on the receiving end of such self righteousness,because there has been little time of actual examination and reflection.the newness and novelty cloud all other considerations and ANY rebuttal or deviation is seen as an affront,a sacrilege and blasphemy and therefore should be dismissed...entirely.

i suspect that ahimsa is young and his/her veganism is fairly new and fresh.this would explain the religious quality of his/her arguments.

YOU..on the other hand,have approached from a far more even handed and open way.choosing instead to use humor and wit to make your arguments while not judging those you disagree,allowing for a real dialogue which can lead to understanding.

so good on you mate.

i specifically like the fact you lay out your journey and the reasons why ,but you do not admonish those for not following the same path.which is the correct way to engage.

and what i REALLY dig,is that your argument is basically "this is how i came to where i am,and i am betting that you will to...eventually".

because,at it's heart,you are 100% correct.there really IS no reason to eat meat.

a person who eats meat really has only ONE reason and that is simply "because i want to".now there are cultural and racial reasons,long standing heritage and dishes passed down over generations,and you acknowledge that,because it really is important and is underlying reason why so many still eat meat(and because we want to).

but i suspect that your final argument is more correct than incorrect.meat will eventually go away and be replaced by something better and more healthy.

but that takes time.possibly a generation or two.maybe three.
you recognize this,while ahimsa does not.

i also suspect you may be heading on your way to old fartdom.

anyways,thanks for the dance mate.
you seem a righteous dude.

I always forget to not bother arguing with vegans. You simply cannot argue with extremists of any type and expect to change their attitudes. Sadly, we as a species tend to feel our way is better no matter what.

So, in the spirit of live and let live, be vegan if you like. Just let the rest of us find our own way without proselytizing.

"Doing these things as a prelude to proselytizing means they aren't altruistic..."

Altruism isn't the right word. When people help others to their hurt, that is called agape love, a word the Christian community has owned for 2000 years. You're right of course, that more than a few churches out there are always trying to figure out how to get more members, more money etc. But that isn't all the churches, or even nearly so. For instance the churches in this community dont care who goes where; they all work together and no one is taking the credit for it. This is just one counter example to the broad brush strokes you're painting here.

I think you need a little more nuance here too, newtboy; for instance, would you say it is wrong for atheists to do good deeds in the name of atheism? Or, for the red cross to air commercials showing their accomplishments so they could raise more money to expand their mission in the world?

"And yet, here you are calling attention to yourself (and them), so you proved your statement wrong by stating it publicly. Oops! ;-)"

I didn't mention what I do newtboy, but I have no problem calling attention to the righteous who glorify God through their lives.

"Churches are for profit institutions.."

The church according to the bible is a non-profit organization. Whether churches in America reflect that or not is another question entirely. I know for my church, and almost any other church, you can request to see how the church spends its money year by year. None of the churches I have dealings with are making "profits"

"Once again I would ask, why do you question your god's clear wish that I (and others) not believe in him..."

Jesus Christ died for our sins, yours and mine. God already demonstrated His love for us while we were sinners, now the only question is, will you reciprocate? The insanity of the question posed to Stephan Fry, ie what would you say to God, is exposed by the answer "How dare you!" by Stephan. It seems that people believe God is a man who needs to explain Himself, who has something to hide. Yet, Stephan and every other human being have a lot to hide; the brutal and ugly truth of how we have all lived our lives here.

It's easy for a man to say to people who know nothing about him that he will shake his fist at God when they meet. Yet, what will he do when all of his lawless deeds are exposed and the secrets he has kept from everyone are brought to light? All the fight will go out of him immediately, this I guarantee you. Yet, this in itself is still ridiculous, considering that even merely being in Gods presence is enough to make the most hardened sinner fall to his knees and weep uncontrollably. But people won't be weeping because God loves them on that day, they will be weeping and gnashing their teeth after being confronted by the fact that they have missed the boat for eternity.

"Shirley.."

My name isn't Sherlock..

"Doing 100 good deeds and one incredibly evil deed makes one evil. No church in history has ever reached that level of goodness. Churches are evil. I hope that clears things up."

I'm glad you understand what I have been trying to explain to the sift for years; a relative goodness is no goodness at all. If you set fire to someones home, and then built 27 orphanages, would people call you good? Why is it then that people think that all of our good deeds should cause God to forgive us for a single sin? This is the reason Jesus died for us, because we can't earn Gods forgiveness and our good deeds can't erase our bad ones. Could you ever go to court and say "your honor, although I commited this crime I have done over 1000 hours of community service in my lifetime, so please dismiss the case; will that ever happen? That wouldn't be justice, and if God threw out our case without true justice, He wouldn't be a just judge.

What would I say about churches who have done evil? These are institutions; the true church is the body of Christ, of which every born again believer is a member of. That is what is happening in my community, is that no one cares about the institution of the church; they are just being the church. The reward is simply this, to serve God honorably by living a sacrificial life predicated on sacrificial love.

Doing these things as a prelude to proselytizing means they aren't altruistic, they are a part of the indoctrination process. If your church does all these things without ever mentioning religion, asking for donations, or asking for those helped to volunteer, it is incredibly abnormal.

"You dont get to see those kinds of Christians because they don't call attention to themselves"
And yet, here you are calling attention to yourself (and them), so you proved your statement wrong by stating it publicly. Oops! ;-)

Churches are for profit institutions, why shouldn't they pay taxes? The Catholic church is a haven for pedophiles, why have it's assets not been seized under RICO statutes? Many other for profit companies donate food, shelter, and services, yet they also pay their share for the public services they enjoy. Why should it be different for an organization who's product is intangible and invisible?

There won't be an effort to exterminate Christians, there may well be an effort to exterminate Christianity, along with all other divisive religions. I hope I'm around to see it.

Once again I would ask, why do you question your god's clear wish that I (and others) not believe in him? Shirley, you don't think you know better than he/she, right? (that's right, I called you Shirley.) ;-)

Doing 100 good deeds and one incredibly evil deed makes one evil. No church in history has ever reached that level of goodness. Churches are evil. I hope that clears things up.

Fortunately, no. I had seen the words 'atheism +', but had no idea what it was....and now I wish I didn't know. Screw these idiots, they ain't riding the coat tails of atheism if I have anything to say about it.
That's not a crusade, it's an excuse for outrageous crazy bullying. As a staunch atheist, I would have stood between those two to protect the proselytizer from the raving lunatic, even though I HATE them.

They care.
If it could absolutely not be justified and was instead clearly, strictly forbidden under any circumstance by their chosen religion, most of them would not be involved.

It's actually not a distorted interpretation, it's a literal one. The same can be said for nearly all major religions, certainly for all Judeo-Christian religions (and Islam is one). When interpreted literally, most religions call for murder of infidels and proselytization by force. It's just that most people only give their religion lip service unless it's supporting what they want at the time, at which time they become strictly religious and excuse the inexcusable by claiming their religion requires "X", so it must be tolerated because GAWD.
I say the intolerable must not be tolerated, no matter what the excuse. Society has determined that murder is intolerable. If your organization's written rules call for murder (whether those rules are regularly followed or not), your organization is a violent criminal organization and should be eradicated immediately. That goes for all major religions in the same way it goes for other organized criminal organizations...I simply can't ever understand why we don't act that way as a society.

Nice. I just have a sign on my door stating -

The owners of this house offer consulting services. We will provide our consulting services to solicitors, canvassers, proselytizers, or others offering goods, services, or information, but only at our emergency rate of $100 an hour, with a 2 hour minimum charge, payment due in cash up front, knocking or ringing the doorbell indicates acceptance of these terms.

I've only had one solicitor since putting up the sign 15 years ago, and they didn't have the $200 cash, so they got an ear full and were told that their church would be getting the bill. No more Jehovah's witnesses for me! Now I have a secure gate and a dog, so the sign rarely gets read.

replying here to avoid hijacking another thread...but leaving it public in case others might be interested in my reasoning, or yours.

Perhaps at times he has advocated responsible use, but often (like this instance) it's nothing more than 'DMT is what you all need, take some'.

I also agree, some people may benefit from psychedelics...but some may have disastrous experiences that end in death or permanent brain damage, especially when not done with pharmaceutical grade substances (which is never mentioned here). You never know what you have on the black market, video's I've seen of testing being done on drugs bought at 'raves' and concerts showed that well over 50% were not what they were supposed to be, or had dangerous adulterants. Unless you pay for testing, you don't know what you've got (sometimes true even with pharmaceuticals, sadly).

I also see it that way, as proselytizing for a drug that can have life altering effects, sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. That always leaves out the dangers and usually any warning on how to be 'safe' at all, which leaves some readers thinking there are no dangers. That's my main issue, if there was a clear warning with each advocating instance, I wouldn't complain (but might still disagree that it's good for all).

My point exactly, people are made differently and what works for one may destroy another. That's why blanketly advocating strong drugs is a problem for me.

I have a healthy respect for psychedelics and their effects, especially one's as strong as DMT, which is why I'm disturbed at the off hand, blanket promotion of taking them without clear warnings included.

Ken Kesey beat you to the cult of acid by what, 47 years or so, at least according to Tom Wolfe. (Electric koolaid acid test)

What I mock are the institutionalized versions of spirituality...organized religions. They all have stories/mythos that, when looked at from outside, are simply silly and ridiculous...and I often oblige by ridiculing them. They are also all quite dangerous, easily abused and, IMO, a net drain on society/humanity. I did not ONLY mock religion though, there were many valid points expressed, but with too much snark for your taste.
That said, I will apologize for being rude, even though it was all in jest. While I have no respect for the ideas/stories I discussed, I was not trying to upset you. When you proselytize here, posting walls of scripture, it often gets my hackles up right away and I get snarky. Think of it as a balanced equation...when you add religious positive, it should be balanced with religious negative...religious respect/religious disrespect. I would think you would expect that reaction from many regular sifters by now. But wouldn't you say that's just how god made us? ;-)
Don't take it personally.
EDIT:...and keep in mind, if you're really secure about something, you can always joke about it.

Understand that claiming to 'know' the 'unknowable' is a definition of insanity. :-)
I can understand your position on ET life, but I disagree it's a certainty, it's merely a statistical NEAR certainty. Just as I must leave that tiny possibility that 'god' exists, you should leave open that tiny possibility that other life does not. We can't know (until we find positive proof, of either, until then it's a question...one can't prove a negative).
Please don't indicate I said any such thing. I do not 'hate people who do', nor have I ever said any such thing. I have said I am disturbed by the ACT of claiming to know the unknowable, and hate the assertion of 'proof' that is never 'proof' (or as you said, BS as fact). It doesn't matter what the topic, to me.
While you may be correct, most don't mention their beliefs daily, that's not what I said...I said when they DO discuss their beliefs, it's usually offered in a 'these are the facts, believe them' manner, morphing to anger if the beliefs are not simply accepted as fact. Again, not always, but more often than not in my experience.
No, proselytizing is not just accepting others' different beliefs, and allowing others to make up their minds. It's saying 'my way is right, anything else is wrong, now do and believe as I do'. I'm guilty of it myself at times, but I'm looking for people to not 'believe' anything but learn how to assess data and figure out reality for themselves (not based on others ideas and beliefs).
I'm pretty much there with you about greed and religious elite.
We differ about science. Beauty, love, love of beauty (art) have been boiled down to chemical processes in the brain scientifically (my godfather was the brain chemist that discovered most of the chemicals in the brain and how they interact). I see no need for anything else, no matter how cool it might be if there were really 'magic' or 'supernatural' things out there to explore and understand.
I try to never take it personally, unless I see a personal attack. I hope you do the same. As I said, I usually try to 'hate' actions and methods, but not the people that use them (with some exceptions for assholes).

EDIT: I think it boils down to people mistaking what they fervently believe for what they 'know', an understandable mistake.

Understand, for people who have faith, faith is knowing the unknowable.

Example: I know that intelligent life exists on other planets. It is a 100% certainty in my mind. I am so certain of this "fact" in fact, that I think it's ridiculous that there are people who even question it. Yet, there is no actual scientific proof. Nothing published. Nothing discovered. I believe it though. I know it to be true. If someone were to tell me I shouldn't believe or talk about it, I would find it nonsensical and offensive. This is what faith feels like.

There's a difference between passively not believing in God and actively hating people who do.

If someone offers some bullshit as fact, and you know it isn't, welcome to every day on earth (or at least the internet). It doesn't matter if it's religion or not.

For example: (paraphrasing) 'Most people proselytize'.

Most of the (almost 6 Billion) people who believe in God go through their day to day lives without ever even mentioning their beliefs let alone trying to proselytize when they do.

And on that note I will say that proselytizing is not necessarily wrong either. You believe what you believe and they believe what they believe and everyone gets to express themselves (all proselytizing) and everyone can make up their own minds. Now, I'm talking about people expressing themselves, not entities who have an agenda.

Which brings me to my last point. None of this is to suggest that I disagree with Bil Nye. Kids should not be fed bullshit. Adults either. The real problem? It's not "money is the root of all evil". It's "the love of money". Greed is behind the majority of evil.

There are those who desire positions of power and pervert religion into a tool to achieve their own agenda. This is a very old story. And it is these people who "take God's name in vain". But that's just one hammer in their toolbag. Religion is one. Anti-intellectualism another. Manipulation through fear. On and on.

Science is truth but it is not the only "truth" in life. Art exists. Beauty exists. Love exists. There is more. Maybe all of that can be boiled down to some chemical reactions in the brain and sociological pressures, but I believe there is a greater truth.

Sorry for ranting. Don't take any of this personally please!

Granted, but it was a request, not a command.
How about I ask them to just stop acting like they KNOW the unknowable, and insist they preface their religious conversations with 'this is what I believe' instead of 'this is how it is'?
While I would prefer to not have to hear about other's beliefs constantly, my real issue is with them being offered as 'fact' that I MUST accept in the face of all evidence to the contrary.
My problem also lies with the fact that most people (not all) can't discuss their beliefs without proselytizing, that's especially so for religious zealots. I would have much more patience with the topic if that were not the case.

With the VAST majority of the world's population believing God exists in one form or another, you're asking a whole lot of people to just shut up about it.

Tolerance goes both ways.

I tolerate living in a world where cartoons depicting literally shitting on Jesus is considered a form of entertainment. Maybe other people can tolerate when a person simply relates an experience they had and shares their view without even trying to proselytize.