Issue with Online Proselytizing (Trigger Warning)

While analogies can be great for exploring ways of thinking about a new idea (e.g., banning any hint of proselytizing), I think they have limited value as a debate tool in terms of conclusions, though I could be wrong. And this is not a concession that you’ve finally got a workable analogy.

Regardless, I believe I get your point:  any grouping of humans will have its bad apples. The counter would be that some are more attractive than others to those bad apples.

Am still liking the idea of a proselytizing or ideology filter, even though it may not get beyond the brain storming phase.  I suspect the OP would settle for that.  Why wouldn’t C4C? Those who are believers could still opt in.

I don't see many people bitching about a filter... but that was obviously not the OP's conclusion. his solution was much more draconian, not to mention the ridiculous hasty generalization. I don't give two craps what CFC does but, as Jarmila pointed out, it's hilariously hypocritical to bitch about, let alone basing it on the "guilt by (non?) association" angle.

Christian Hesch wrote:

hypocritical to bitch about, let alone basing it on the "guilt by (non?) association" angle.

Don’t really agree with that. Even today, apologies continue to be made. See churches involvement with natives in Canada.

And to declare the concern merely as guilt by association is naive. When the belief is absolute (or the military is the actor), all manner of evil actions are possible unless there are enough checks and balances. A religion that believes it knows god’s will in all things is a dangerous religion. 

Good to see MP tackle this 2000 year old problem. I'm sure it will go as good as renaming everyones' routes for them.

I am not religious, but don't see any fault with a religious person looking to climb with others of their faith. As they say, you can leave the church, but you can't leave the church alone. Meaning the biggest haters of religion are from the church its self.

Christian Hesch wrote:

Fuggin A dude, listen to yourself and try replacing your chosen group with another group, and see how well it holds up. Holding person B responsible for the unrelated sins of person A - just b/c they share some random similarity - is one of the biggest reasons this country is a bit of a sh**-show right now.

This plug-and-play linguistics is always terrible logic. "Why not replace one noun with another? If someone says they won't climb with Black people, that's just the same as saying they won't climb with tomatoes! But tomatoes can't even belay, therefore it's reasonable not to climb with Black people. Nouns are nouns, bro."  

If you want to address OP's point by analogy, that's all good. But you have to chose something that meets the relevant criteria laid out in the post. In this case, a group that has had many people murder in it's name, and that has many more trying to use less-overt state violence in it's name. 

Take the Manson Family. Some of them were murderers, many advocated for a race war. Would it be OK for a Manson Family Climbers group to post on MP? I think the answer is, 'yes, it would be OK.' But let's not pretend like it's obviously a yes. 

Grug M wrote:

I am not religious, but don't see any fault with a religious person looking to climb with others of their faith. As they say, you can leave the church, but you can't leave the church alone. Meaning the biggest haters of religion are from the church its self.

Who cares who you climb with, or anything else with, for that matter?

The objection isn't the fraternization aspect. Climbers for Christ is a missionary organization. That's the mission statement. As such, they host events, do climber breakfasts at events, that sirt of thing. It isn't a mere meetup group for that belief.Same mission for many Christian sects (but not all), The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and other sects. Winning converts is a big deal in some of them, and moves the world closer to their vision of the future.

Religions are a deep, deep rabbit hole to fall into! Super interesting, once you poke your nose into beliefs. 

Then there's the pink tricam and black totem cults...

Best, Helen

I don't care what group of people want to try to find like minded people to climb with. Christian, Muslim, Gay, Black, Pastafarian. 

It's interesting to so often hear the claims of double standards from the different sides. And if the persecutions some groups have experienced could compare to others.

Someone upthread said I'm not woke or religious, me too, and I'm fine with people doing and being what they want to be as long as they don't try to force me what to do or how to be. Your right to swing your fists ends where my nose begins. Otherwise have at it. But when you start trying to pass laws or rules which impose your beliefs on me I will fight it. 

Jamila W wrote:

Is there a religion that doesn’t meet this criteria?

Maybe but a lot of folks seem to hone in on the Christian ones to call out.  Buddhists can get pretty violent too (talk to any Rohingyas lately?) but I bet a call for Buddhist partners wouldn’t get the same backlash.

I mean, that's definitely talking point #32 from the playbook. I dunno, I would imagine a "Wahhabist recruitment climbing group" would get a lot of flak. But I haven't seen any actual data one way or the other. And without actual data, most conclusions are just going to be restating assumptions, no?

JonasMR wrote:

This plug-and-play linguistics is always terrible logic. "Why not replace one noun with another? If someone says they won't climb with Black people, that's just the same as saying they won't climb with tomatoes! But tomatoes can't even belay, therefore it's reasonable not to climb with Black people. Nouns are nouns, bro."  

If you want to address OP's point by analogy, that's all good. But you have to chose something that meets the relevant criteria laid out in the post. In this case, a group that has had many people murder in it's name, and that has many more trying to use less-overt state violence in it's name. 

Take the Manson Family. Some of them were murderers, many advocated for a race war. Would it be OK for a Manson Family Climbers group to post on MP? I think the answer is, 'yes, it would be OK.' But let's not pretend like it's obviously a yes. 

I see that nuance is a lost art (wait, I think we all know that).

So CFC is part of a group that "has had many people murder in it's name...and use state violence in it's name." Got it. So there's these people who claim to be "proper muslims" and they've gone on fuggin rampages, raping and killing, etc. So I should lump in *ALL* muslims with the ones who abuse the religion to do dastardly things, according your logic. Got it. 

Thanks anyway, I choose to be clear-eyed enough to see that the extreme whackos, be it marxist leftists, doomsday conservatives, muslims, christians, arabs, black, white, etc., do *NOT* represent the group that they happen to either claim affiliation with or have similar characteristics to. They are simply a minority (hopefully!) or false representative of a group that, on the whole, is probably made up of some nice, peaceful people. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that CFC climbers are generally *not* murderers and do not advocate for state violence against non-christian climbers. Maybe I'm wrong and you're right, but I don't think so...

^^^^

Well-said, Christian. Hey, "Christian"!

Claudine Longet wrote:

And as for taxing churches, the money they draw in has already been taxed as income by the poor bastards handing it over. 

I buy stuff with taxed income. So corporations shouldn't pay taxes then?
By not taxing religious organizations the government is requiring ALL taxpayers to support them, whether or not they agree with any religious belief. That is B.S. Should be unconstitutional, also. Freedom from religion and all that separation of church and state. 

and while we're at it

I just want to see the meme with the baby from the other thread. 

Christian Hesch wrote:

So CFC is part of a group that "has had many people murder in it's name...and use state violence in it's name." Got it. So there's these people who claim to be "proper muslims" and they've gone on fuggin rampages, raping and killing, etc. So I should lump in *ALL* muslims with the ones who abuse the religion to do dastardly things, according your logic. Got it. 

But you do acknowledge that if the hateful minority were to form a climbing group, they're going to call themselves "super mainstream group in favor of community and love," right? That doesn't mean CFC approves of what happened at residential schools, but it does mean that those who do approve of that would also call themselves something like CFC and might even be in the membership. 

Again, I'm of the opinion that the Manson Family Climbing Friends might be a perfectly nice group of folks. But there aren't just two options: 1) the nutjobs have nothing to do with the mainstream, or 2) the nutjobs represent all members. The real truth is surely along the lines of, "this ideology can and has lead to some really terrible things, and we should be aware of and remember that, and also respect the rights of the more mainstream members." It's being certain about the issue that seems to be the unjustified conclusion.

Old lady H wrote:

Who cares who you climb with, or anything else with, for that matter?

The objection isn't the fraternization aspect. Climbers for Christ is a missionary organization. That's the mission statement. As such, they host events, do climber breakfasts at events, that sirt of thing. It isn't a mere meetup group for that belief.Same mission for many Christian sects (but not all), The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and other sects. Winning converts is a big deal in some of them, and moves the world closer to their vision of the future.

Religions are a deep, deep rabbit hole to fall into! Super interesting, once you poke your nose into beliefs. 

Then there's the pink tricam and black totem cults...

Best, Helen

I thought the pink tricam and the black totem cult were one and the same.  When you want to know that your gear is good not pray that it is.

Seems to me this is stretching the logic. I mean the post the OP referenced is just people looking for some link-minded people to go climbing. Not much different than many others we see around - lgbt looking for lgbt, girls for girls, etc. It doesn't strike as advertising anything really. If you're that fragile to advertisement, I suggest unplugging from the internet for a bit.

I see the legitimate point behind that - I mean sure, I'm not interested in being preached about God or Christ or whatever other non-sense (from my perspective). However I suggest we reaction to out of place advertisement when we see out of place advertisement. The OP feels like an soccer "injury" being acted out on the field, without much cause to begin with....

Become Ungovernable wrote:

And as for taxing churches, the money they draw in has already been taxed as income by the poor bastards handing it over. 

I buy stuff with taxed income. So corporations shouldn't pay taxes then?
By not taxing religious organizations the government is requiring ALL taxpayers to support them, whether or not they agree with any religious belief. That is B.S. Should be unconstitutional, also. Freedom from religion and all that separation of church and state.

The whole double taxation thing is usually a red herring. Money get's taxed in a series transactions all the time. Not to mention it's often not even the case for churches. You can typically deduct 100% of your church donations if you itemize. So not only is the church not paying on it, the person donating isn't paying income tax on it either!

Personally I'm okay with non profit stuff being not taxed. But the blanket exclusion of religion is troubling. If the church is feeding the poor, great. But televangelists can have a private plane and it's not taxed? But it would require hard work and reasonable politicians to work together to pass laws that deal with this in a fair way, so I'm not holding my breath.

june m wrote:

I thought the pink tricam and the black totem cult were one and the same.  When you want to know that your gear is good not pray that it is.

If you are 100% faithful that your god will take care of you and has a plan for your life, why do you even need a rope and protection? 

Any religious climber that isn't free soloing everything is just a blasphemous hypocrite. Have some faith! 

M Appelquist wrote:

Isn’t faith an act in the absence of proof.

Hey this is a conversation about religion, reasoning has no place here. 

Christian Hesch wrote:

... but that [a filter] was obviously not the OP's conclusion.

Never said ... not even implied ... that a filter was the OP’s conclusion. (Huh?)

Often, the best solution is not known at the beginning of a discussion.  Some folks lack the patience or the objectivity to know that. Then again, if one has a single book that tell’s one everything one needs to know about life and eternity?

Anyway, the basic functionality is already embedded in MP with the “sales” filter. So adding an ideology filter or whatever-named filter should be relatively easy. Again, why not?