WHAT DO YOU THINK? I applaud the MeetUp discussion groups.
They represent an attempt to bring those of diverse opinions together to
counteract the growing divide and antagonism. They promote listening,
understanding, and civility. Refreshing, yes?
While no one will ostensibly disagree with these goals,
practice sometimes reflects something very different. I’ve noticed that two
conversation groups have forbidden any form of proselytizing.
Should I remain silent? I felt that this prohibition was
directed towards me. In opposition to the common expression of a secular faith,
I have often presented a Christian perspective. Some have taken issue, as if
the Christian worldview is the one voice that should be silenced. One group
leader wrote to express his displeasure with me, claiming that others had also
complained about me.
Had I tried to kidnap the conversation in favor of my own ideology,
I could better understand their objection. If I had been rude, long-winded, or
disruptive, I would gladly apologize. Instead, I think that their complaints
were just a matter of bias, the same bias we have seen proliferating across the
West - the very thing that these groups are designed to oppose.
Therefore, I decided to challenge this group leader by
writing a response on his discussion group announcement:
·
I am concerned that your injunction against
“proselytizing in any shape or form” is directed against those who express a
Christian POV as opposed to a secular or materialistic one. After all, we all
proselytize in one way or another, whether by promoting a certain idea or just
simply ourselves. Therefore, isn’t your prohibition merely a matter of
viewpoint discrimination?
As far as I know, no one has commented. However, to remain
silent is to allow the further silencing of the Christian voice and also other
voices that might be deemed “unacceptable.” What do you think?
No comments:
Post a Comment