Religious door to door callers are dense....

jmcquown wrote:


I don't think religion should be a door to door thing. It's a highly
personal subject and to do so is very intrusive.

I agree completely! There are a lot of highly personal
things I've no problem discussing with casual acquaintances,
but my religion or its lack is NOT one of them!

I worked with a woman who would send out bible scriptures via email to all
sorts of people in the company. This included email to a highly religious
Jewish man who wore a yarmulke every day. Trust me, he didn't welcome
getting emails about Jesus.

How odd - can't imagine why not! ;-) There is a VERY
"evangelical" organization called "Jews for Jesus" that I'm
sure does more to antagonize would-be converts than to
convert them!

Sherry wrote:

On Feb 20, 3:48�am, "jmcquown" wrote:

Sherry wrote:

I don't think religion should be a door to door thing. �It's a highly
personal subject and to do so is very intrusive.


I agree with the last line for sure. Then I thought, I support
overseas missions wholeheartedly. What a hypocrite I am.

Well, it depends upon the oveseas mission, I think! Many of
them, although religious in nature, are concerned with
saving bodies first, then souls. (By which I mean they
provide food and medical care to the inhabitants of the
third world countries where they minister.)

EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:


You realize you responded to some idiot troll, don't you?
However we may feel about door-to-door proselytizing, most
of us appreciate the "family values" most Mormons profess.
(They may not approve of homosexuality, but they certainly
don't engage in hatemongering - about that or anything else!)

You seem very quick to call people trolls even when they have posted many
times about their cats.
--
Adrian (Owned by Snoopy and Bagheera)
Cats leave pawprints on your heart.
http://community.webshots.com/user/clowderuk

wrote:


I personally don't understand the whole proselytizing thing. I come
from a tradition where not only do they not proselytize, but in fact,
you have to *convince* a member of the clergy that you really do want
to convert.

That's one of the things I most admire about Judaism! (That
and the fact that they prize education so highly - even the
most Orthodox don't argue with modern science!)


Joyce

EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:

You realize you responded to some idiot troll, don't you?

Tweed responded, but Jack's certainly not an 'idiot troll', and no doubt
he has his own reasons for saying what he did....

Deb.
--
http://www.scientific-art.com

"He looked a fierce and quarrelsome cat, but claw he never would;
He only bit the ones he loved, because they tasted good." S. Greenfield

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 15:53:56 -0500, EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:

most
of us appreciate the "family values" most Mormons profess.

Thank you for speaking on behalf of most of us.

--
Joey DoWop Dee
Remember: It is To Laugh

Adrian A wrote:

EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:


You realize you responded to some idiot troll, don't you?
However we may feel about door-to-door proselytizing, most
of us appreciate the "family values" most Mormons profess.
(They may not approve of homosexuality, but they certainly
don't engage in hatemongering - about that or anything else!)


You seem very quick to call people trolls even when they have posted many
times about their cats.

I consider the content! (When it appears to be from a
long-term, civilized poster, I simply assume someone has
forged his/her name.)

Ketzl's Dad wrote:

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 15:53:56 -0500, EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:


most
of us appreciate the "family values" most Mormons profess.


Thank you for speaking on behalf of most of us.

Does that mean you don't agree? (Sometimes it's difficult
to determine whether a remark is genuine or intended as
sarcasm.) I've been posting to this group for several
years, and what I said seems true for most of the posts I've
read here.

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 16:42:36 -0500, EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:



Ketzl's Dad wrote:

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 15:53:56 -0500, EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:


most
of us appreciate the "family values" most Mormons profess.


Thank you for speaking on behalf of most of us.

Does that mean you don't agree? (Sometimes it's difficult
to determine whether a remark is genuine or intended as
sarcasm.) I've been posting to this group for several
years, and what I said seems true for most of the posts I've
read here.

The term "family values", as is has evolved -- or devolved, a better
description -- has become symbolic to me of bigoted narrow-minded
bible-thumping zealots.

It's not the values I deplo it's the bigotry inherent in the term.

Beyond that, I'm always leery or anyone who speaks on behalf of "most of us."

--
Joey DoWop Dee
Remember: It is To Laugh

Ketzl's Dad wrote:

EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:

Thank you for speaking on behalf of most of us.

Does that mean you don't agree? (Sometimes it's difficult
to determine whether a remark is genuine or intended as
sarcasm.)

The term "family values", as is has evolved -- or devolved, a better
description -- has become symbolic to me of bigoted narrow-minded
bible-thumping zealots.

It's not the values I deplo it's the bigotry inherent in the term.

What I don't like about this phrase - aside from its usage as a euphemism
for "keep out the homosexshuls" - is the idea that everyone wants to,
or *should* want to, live in a family. Also, at least to me, the actual
meaning of the phrase is rather vague. What exactly *are* family values,
anyway?

I do realize that the majority of people want families, and that's fine.
But some of us are not interested in that aspect of life - does that mean
we're suspect, somehow? Does not having any interest in raising kids, or
being married, mean you're somehow dangerous to society? Do people think
we're perverts who have drugged-out orgies or something? (Or, perhaps,
who have drugged-out orgies at inappropriate times or places? )

Maybe what people are trying to get at when they use that phrase - other
than the ones who use it to refer to their hatred and bigotry - is a sense
of, maybe, civility, commitment to one's community, respect for other
human beings and for the needs of children? Single people, and couples
without kids, can certainly have those values, too.

So, if anyone cares to, I'd like to hear a definition of "family values".
What does it mean to you? What values are included? What values, behaviors,
attitudes, etc, are *not* included?

Thanks,
Joyce