Is this a true Christian?

[Aardverk]

"I admire anyone with the courage of their convictions."

OK Epi. I reluctantly have to award you just one point. I did forget using the word 'conviction' but that was not about the oaf in the video, it was a generalisation - hence the word 'anyone'. What I was/am admiring is the 'courage', not the conviction.

My belief in justice and fairness to all remains exactly the same. Once you start treating someone unfairly where will you draw the line? Should homosexuals be treated unfairly, or women or religious people or atheists or rapists or paedophiles? What about if someone is just suspected of committing a crime? Who gets to decide who you can and cannot treat fairly?

---

The answer is, 'Yes, I would admire you'.

That's what I thought.
Does it make t any difference to you that it is actually illegal to proselytise other religions in Muslim countries? In Malaysia,you would be arrested,gaoled for 2 years and then deported. In Saudi Arabia,you would probably be killed outright by an enraged mob.

The legality or otherwise of the act makes no difference to me. In your example I would admire the courage of the individual even more if it were illegal as they are then facing two separate dangers. Please don't forget that I also said that I would think you a fool to do it, it is only the courage that I am admiring in that example.

I see nothing to admire in arrogant /stupid/ignorant behaviour which shows contempt for the beliefs,rights and feelings of others.That is exactly what the proselytiser does.I despise such people.

I understand your point and agree with much of it. I disagree with the oaf's actions but there are situations that do justify that sort of behaviour. Again, please note that I am not admiring the arrogant/stupid/ignorant behaviour in any of the examples given so far, just the courage.

There are situations where I would agree with the sentiments of the person and admire their courage in breaking the law and putting themselves in extreme danger just to make a point and at the same time deliberately insulting others and causing extreme annoyance to the vast majority who would regard the protester as displaying arrogant/stupid/ignorant behaviour. The most obvious example that springs to mind is the suffragettes but maybe you disapprove of their actions too and perhaps you would have simply dismissed them as arrogant/stupid/ignorant fools.

I guess we will need to agree to differ.

That's fair enough. I don't expect everyone to agree with me or with the laws of most civilised countries. I would like to make one final point for clarity though.

The suffragettes actions were only taken when every 'normal' process had been exhausted. Many people thought them absolutely mad, indeed some were confined in lunatic asylums for the rest of their lives. Most of us now accept their aims as obvious and natural justice but they had to suffer and die to achieve their perfectly reasonable aims. If I hear someone spouting what I think is rubbish I will probably express my view against their words but I will defend their right to spout their 'rubbish' because they may just have a point that I haven't yet understood AND it would be grossly unfair to gag them as long as they were not inciting hatred.

As far as I am concerned there must be fairness for all, even for villains and fools. Condemnation where condemnation is due and credit where credit is due. Never lose sight of the fact that any one person may be a mixture of both good and bad.