Evangelism at uni? Acceptable or not?

financialwar on 11/08/2015 - 19:00
Last edited 11/08/2015 - 19:46

University should a place of learning, knowledge and reasoning. But at Macquarie University, evangelical Christians are very active, they do this by writing christian and jesus crap everywhere on uni ground in chalk, display jesus loves you signs etc. Christians are the ones that does this, no other religion preaches.

http://www.christianunion.org.au/, the group is funded by https://www.afes.org.au/about

Whose goals are

<i>The Fellowship
AFES employs staff to help and encourage students in their Christian growth and witness, and has student groups on campuses in every state and territory in Australia. Groups hold a variety of activities, such as regular public Bible talks, smaller Bible studies, prayer groups, mid-year conferences and outreach events.

AFES provides materials to students for evangelism and Bible study, and releases various publications such as Salt Magazine and the email prayer resource, Prayernet.

The Vision
Proclaiming Jesus Christ at university to present everyone mature in Him.

The Mission
To promote the mission of Christ in Australian universities by building evangelical student groups that:

evangelise students by proclaiming Jesus Christ as Lord
encourage growth toward maturity in Christ
train students in the skills and character to serve Jesus and his people
send graduates throughout Australia and the world to serve Christ
</i>

Do you think this acceptable on a University ground?

Poll Options

  • 249
    appropriate
  • 296
    not appropriate
  • 67
    Should be banned
Education & Work

Comments

  • rompastompa on 11/08/2015 - 19:06
    +7

    You may find that the University may be funded by them. Or they've demanded the freedom of speech/ability to enlist followers.

    There is a fine line between religious writings on the wall and graffiti.

    Though, as long as they're not pestering you, does it really matter?

    • QuickToThePointless on 12/08/2015 - 11:27
      +34

      Why dont you buy some chalk, and start writing your own positive messages about the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

      Dont forget to wear your strainer for a hat

      https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/204447

      • rompastompa on 12/08/2015 - 12:05
        +4

        I'm thinking you probably meant that comment for financialwar, but I'll respond anyway.

        No thanks. This is how things escalate. There should be a message board where people can add their single flyer (no pun intended), and people can make their own informed decisions. Not be forced to view their point everywhere they look. As I said before, as long as they're not pestering. They meaning any religion/sales/point of view, not aimed at a single group.

      • Squidmcsproggen on 13/08/2015 - 12:12
        +19

        Ramen

      • nikey2k27 on 13/08/2015 - 17:30

        Contact uni as band it tell them make place look ugly. they did it at my uni a few year now it so much nicer.

      • pxrnm on 14/08/2015 - 12:00
        +1

        I think the Flying Spaghetti Monster was very much skinned in this article.

        http://www.reasonablefaith.org/god-and-the-flying-spaghetti-…

      • Skinnerr on 15/08/2015 - 08:02

        WAAAAAAAAA!

      • [Deactivated] on 16/08/2015 - 11:38

        I second that. It only costs ~$30US to become an ordained Pastafarian cleric. Drink more beer.

        (and the certifcate looks very nice when framed and hanging on the wall)

  • mskeggs on 11/08/2015 - 19:07
    +57

    Welcome back from the penalty box.
    This poll is well considered knowing you will have observed there are both strongly religious and strongly atheist members on OzBargain.
    I hope you get the drama you are wishing for.

    • QuickToThePointless on 12/08/2015 - 00:28
      +8

      Its a scam, just like pulled beef.

    • SlickMick on 12/08/2015 - 10:27

      I wasn't aware - I was surprised by the vote. I don't feel so alone :)

  • Sage on 11/08/2015 - 19:14
    +4

    Sounds annoying. How often is this? If it was just once or twice within a few month period it wouldn't be cause for alarm but if it's every week or so then it's pretty obnoxious and ill-fitting.
    I suppose it's too impolite to be seen cleaning off the chalk?

  • iridiumstem on 11/08/2015 - 19:19
    +1

    I don't know, I've seen worse. There was this guy on an online forum talking about the superiority of a race while not even reading literatures that he thinks he is basing his opinion properly. Mixing science with superiority complex, those trolls are the worse.

  • PVA on 11/08/2015 - 19:20
    +16

    photo or it doesnt happen.

    and why two negative choices in the poll and only one positive choice.

    • quack28 on 14/08/2015 - 07:21
      +2

      have seen, was a student at Macquarie Uni 4 years ago. Chalks always on the main walk way in/out of uni

      • PVA on 14/08/2015 - 08:11
        +1

        thanks, i thought it may have just been the OP stirring things up as he does often (and gets sin binned for it)

      • unelectric on 16/08/2015 - 20:07

        I'm a student and it is still happening.

  • 2jzzzz on 11/08/2015 - 19:20
    +3

    You've never heard any of the others preach? Not sure you're observant enough for uni….

    • financialwar on 11/08/2015 - 19:23

      At MQ? I have never seen a muslim, jew or any other group preach, there are various religious clubs and prayer room, never seen them preach or write "allah loves you" messages.

      • scrimshaw on 11/08/2015 - 19:41
        +8

        That's probably because MQ is a different demographic, mainly quite a bit of Asian students (Chinese, Korean) who are split between Christianity and Buddhism.

        You go to UWS parramatta and you'll see a Muslim Students' Association and they hold events too.

        • scrimshaw on 11/08/2015 - 20:48
          +1

          @DeafMutePretender:

          Read up on http://www.quora.com/Why-are-so-many-Chinese-people-atheists

          If you TLDR: Chinese people are a bloody superstitious bunch, while they may not practice what you'd

        • DeafMutePretender on 11/08/2015 - 20:56
          +2

          @scrimshaw:

          Fascinating. That explains all the grounded tiger penis stuff.

          BTW, did you just experience a home invasion or did you need to go to the toilet badly?

        • belongsinforums on 13/08/2015 - 17:01
          +1

          @DeafMutePretender: I don't know why you got so many negs for that

        • ankor on 13/08/2015 - 21:17

          @DeafMutePretender:

          Thats right kids, we love tiger penis, elephant tusk, chicken feet, bulls intestines and hate the number four.

        • DeafMutePretender on 14/08/2015 - 01:25
          +1

          @tomkun01:

          I just came from my most upvoted comment to my most downvoted one. 3 milestones in one day?

          Most upvoted comment: +19
          Most downvoted comment: -8
          Most offseted comment: +1 (4 -ves, 5 +ves)

          As for this comment, maybe they have a problem with facts?

          Fact: Chinese people are "atheists" (relative to America or the Middle East).
          Fact: Unlike neighbour Japan (who are generally easygoing when it comes to religion), South Korea has been very receptive and enthusiastic about Christianity.

          As for my "grounded tiger penis" comment which stands at a net +1… deal with it. That shit (like tiger fin that is completely tasteless) needs to be eradicated.

        • DeafMutePretender on 14/08/2015 - 01:26
          +1

          @ankor:

          Perhaps, but at least you don't need to kill any animals to keep up the 'Four = death' superstition.

        • McFly on 14/08/2015 - 09:24

          like tiger fin that is completely tasteless

          I hear snake wings are also tasteless. :p

        • McFly on 14/08/2015 - 09:28
          +3

          @ankor:

          hate the number four.

          we love:
          1. tiger penis
          2. elephant tusk
          3. chicken feet
          erm.. 5. bulls intestines

        • Schezwon on 14/08/2015 - 16:05
          -2

          How about I'll just say fork you then

        • ankor on 14/08/2015 - 18:29

          @DeafMutePretender:

          For the record, i didnt downvote you, i just described my older rellies in hong kong.

        • ankor on 14/08/2015 - 19:15

          @McFly:

          Actually it's beef tripe - first three chamber's of a cow's stomach. Not the intestines, my bad. :P

        • [Deactivated] on 14/08/2015 - 21:26

          @DeafMutePretender:

          South Korea is mellow and "easy going" with religions too.

          25% Christians
          Around 23% Buddhists,
          Around 3% Muslim (and increasing)
          And the rest are generally athiest.

        • FlyingKanga on 15/08/2015 - 15:56

          I've heard Macquarie University has the largest Muslim society though, right?

        • alizzan on 15/08/2015 - 19:16
          +1

          @ankor: Nothing beats the 36 chambers, though.

      • KnifeEnthusiastBoi on 15/08/2015 - 21:27
        +9

        they do this by writing christian and jesus crap everywhere on uni ground in chalk, display jesus loves you signs etc. Christians are the ones that does this, no other religion preaches.

        Yes interesting you bring that up. Thats because christian's believe its good news, and just like if you propose to a girl and she says "yes", you would tell everyone too.

        Personally i think its fine, i am a christian myself. Call it diversity, call it tolerance. And i also wouldnt be asking this question given any other religious group be it buddhism/muslim/scientology unless people are being harassed to the point that complaints are being made. To which point if people identified themselves as "christians" and thought it was okay to harass other students in joining the faith, i would be quick to correct/speak out against them.

        To christians, thats the hope they have. A message of hope is better than despair. We in this country are blessed to be able to have the freedom of religious diversity. So just as you are free to start your own club/union for your flying spaghetti monster religion, so is the christian union free to promote their club.

        • financialwar on 16/08/2015 - 18:51
          +3

          Because I can see, touch and nail a girl. So if she loves me and she's not ugly then I might tell people.

          I can't don't see jesus or touch jesus, and neither can you, which is why you religious ones need faith. If you want to believe in an intangible being, just like a child believes in Santa Clause, that's your prerogative. But if someone comes up to you and tells you that Santa or the spaghetti monster is real and loves you, you'd be pretty weird out by that person.

          Just because a fairy tale give you a sense of hope, it does not give it any credit, it is still a fairy tale, a creation of the human imagination.

        • SlickMick on 16/08/2015 - 21:07
          +1

          @financialwar:
          Just so you know, your understanding of Christianity is very limited. I guess you've been exposed to a dead religion claiming to be Christian??

        • financialwar on 16/08/2015 - 21:10
          -2

          @SlickMick:

          Why do I need to deep understand something that's fictitious, stupid and irrelevant? It's 21 century, not the middle ages. Good thing is that christianity population is declining at an unprecedented rate.

        • SlickMick on 16/08/2015 - 21:15
          +1

          @financialwar:
          no-one's saying you need to understand Christianity or whatever you're talking about. I'm just saying if you do want to know about Christianity, you have a lot to learn.

        • financialwar on 16/08/2015 - 21:19
          +3

          @SlickMick:

          I don't want to know about it or understand it. And I don't want to be constantly bombarded with proselytising material.

        • Methodical on 16/08/2015 - 22:13

          @financialwar:

          What if its true though?

          Whatever caused the big bang was timeless , spaceless and immaterial , powerful.

          What caused a fine tuned universe for life and created life itself?

          What about morality?

          What did the most famous person to live and make the the most influence of the world and split history in 2 have to say?

          What if we aren't just molecules in motion?

          It's worth looking into and spending time thinking about it.

        • KnifeEnthusiastBoi on 17/08/2015 - 00:38
          +3

          @financialwar: You make many assumptions and as per the other people who have replied to your comment, it seems like your understanding of christianity is very skewed.

          Historically there are more eye-witness accounts of Jesus' life and death and resurrection and historians/scribes who have recorded his life and death, than there has been Julius Caesar or even Emperor Nero. Yet you dont doubt that either of those people existed in history.

          You are also assuming that the events in the bible are fictitious and somehow the people who wrote the gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) and Paul were somehow good storytellers and "made up" the whole Jesus thing. Totally not considering the fact that if these people were to "make up" a good story, they would put themselves in a positive light, not represent themselves in their own story as cowards. Unless your idea of a good fairy tale is to call yourself a coward and to say that you didnt stand by your friend in his darkest hour.

        • Cyb3rGlitch on 17/08/2015 - 01:01
          +2

          @nairdajun: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not the authors. The gospels were written anonymously decades after the events described within them, and had names assigned retroactively by the church centuries later. They've also been modified over time, the extent of which isn't clear.

        • financialwar on 17/08/2015 - 01:58
          +1

          @Methotical:

          Applying the same logic.

          What if one of the other thousands of religion is true? Are you going to study, understand and possibly believe in all of them in case one of them is true?

        • KnifeEnthusiastBoi on 17/08/2015 - 02:23
          +3

          @Cyb3rGlitch: I would be interested in where you got that information.

          Matthew was a tax collector, and he was well educated.

          Luke was a historian and a scribe, who was also well educated.

          It is possible from my understanding that Mark and John did not write with their own hands, but employed scribes to write it on their behalf. Yes i know that the gospels were not written within say 5 years of the events that actually happen, but scholars, historians and other experts generally agree that fairytale and rumours require a much longer time to be generated.

          For example: If you wanted to purge the idea that Jesus actually rose from the dead, and make everyone believe that it was just a myth, you would have to wait until all the eye witnesses were dead. 30 years after Jesus' actual death, first eye-witnesses were still alive. Historians believe that the Apostle John (one of the last of Jesus' disciples) died in 100AD, so we can assume that any "false" rumors would have had to occur after this time.

          Historically we know that the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem happened at around 70AD, so John was still alive. However the destruction of this event was a significant blow in jewish history. One must wonder if the gospels were written after 70AD, why is there no mention in the scriptures of the destruction of the Jewish Temple? Because it HADNT HAPPENED yet. Which means the Gospels were recorded between say 20AD-70AD. We know eyewitnesses were still alive, and could attest to the truth or falsity of the gospels. I know i am making a few assumptions, but bear with me. Scientists in the field of psychology (like myself) know that when something extremely significant happens in our lives, our brains and neurons are capable of storing that memory indefinitely. One great example of this is the time you heard about what happened on September 11, 2001. I can remember where i heard it, around what time i heard about it, where exactly i was, what TV i saw it on, and even what happened the next day.

          If you try and encapsulate the sheer wonder/amazement of the kinds of things that these people in Jesus' time witnessed, you must by association afford them the same assumption. That the things that they saw, they will never forget. Linguistic experts will testify that when people narrate stories they have witnessed, they might get the minor things wrong/inconsistent, but as they go into the more important parts of the story, their narrative increases in detail. The important parts of the story show high correlation/accuracy with each other's eyewitness accounts.

          We assume if Matthew, Mark, John did not pen these scriptures firsthand, that they had scribes who did it for them. Luke on the other hand was not an eyewitness, however he correlated eyewitness testimonies (with the original disciples and other anonymous eyewitnesses), collated the events and wrote "his" version of the gospels. When i say "his", i actually mean the testimonies of the 12, and other hundreds if not thousands of people who actually saw Jesus. In this case, you need to afford Luke at least the same amount of credibility as you would say…news reporters getting the stories from eyewitnesses of those who witnessed 9/11.

          Depending on what translation you read, you could say that they have been modified over time. But the current translations of the bible do not all stem from the Latin translation of the scripties (aka the Roman "bible). Translations within the last decades have been correlated to the original greek, aramaic, and hebrew scriptures, and scholars indicate a very high percentage of accuracy.

        • KnifeEnthusiastBoi on 17/08/2015 - 03:43
          +3

          @financialwar: You are constantly being bombarded by hundreds of organisations a day telling you to buy their shit. Its called "advertising". But you learned to tune out of that just fine.

          edit: after i re-read this i was going to say…"its called Ozbargain"..which is also true

        • SlickMick on 17/08/2015 - 13:22

          @nairdajun:
          nairdajun 1 Cyb3rGlitch 0 I think

        • bargaino on 17/08/2015 - 13:52
          +1

          @nairdajun:

          Historians believe that the Apostle John (one of the last of Jesus' disciples) died in 100AD,

          No, you are confusing Apostle John with John The Evangelist. Traditionally, Chrisitans hold that they are the same person, but historians do not.

        • KnifeEnthusiastBoi on 17/08/2015 - 14:24
          +1

          @manic:

          Nope i am referring to the Apostle John
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_the_Apostle

          Born in 6AD which makes him about 6 years younger than Jesus was.
          If you read the book of John it writes as a narrative - that is, like someone who was trying to document what they saw. You will find that there are 2 johns, john the baptist, and john (the narrator/aka the evangelist) his disciple, who were one of the three disciples to only witness the raising of Jairus' daughter.

          To be honest its the first time i have heard of the possibility that the Apostle John and John the evangelist are not the same people, and that provides an opportunity for me to see what people have been saying about that. Thanks for the heads up.

        • Tenebrae on 17/08/2015 - 15:07
          +1

          Only some historians claim that the Apostle and the Evangelist are different. This position is certainly not a matter of historical consensus.

        • Cyb3rGlitch on 17/08/2015 - 21:30

          @SlickMick: Considering neither of us provided sources, you're scoring based on conviction alone.

          "Many scholars doubt that the Gospels were written by eye-witnesses as their attributions seem to suggest: there is too much evidence of reworking oral traditions and of straight borrowing from other Gospels to make this likely."[12] For example, the vast majority of material in Mark is also present in either Luke or Matthew or both, suggesting that Mark was a source for Matthew and Luke."
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel

          The Gospel of Matthew is anonymous: the author is not named within the text, and the superscription "according to Matthew" was added some time in the second century.
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew

          The Gospel of John was written in Greek by an anonymous author.
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John

          The majority view is that Luke the Evangelist, the companion of Paul, was not the author of Luke-Acts. The anonymous author took for his sources the gospel of Mark, the sayings collection called the Q source, and a collection of material called the L (for Luke) source;[6] the most probable date is around 80-100 CE, and there is evidence that it was still being substantially revised well into the 2nd century.
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Luke

          The Gospel of Mark is anonymous.
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark

          They were all anonymous authors, which is what I claimed. I'm sure they have some historical value (particularly John), but we can't just assume that they're unmodified first person accounts. We certainly can't assume that the accounts are all factual.

          Like all good entries in Wikipedia, you can look up the sources directly and have a read for yourself.

        • eug on 18/08/2015 - 00:49
          +3

          @financialwar:

          And I don't want to be constantly bombarded with proselytising material.

          I don't want to be bombarded with posts by a person who clearly likes stirring things up, enjoying the resulting reactions or attention.

          So… I should just ignore those posts and go on my merry way, right?

          If chalk and signs bother you, you can just ignore them and go on your merry way too.

          But then you won't get a whole load of attention on the forum. :)

        • devnull73 on 18/08/2015 - 12:52
          -1

          @nairdajun:

          Yeh.None of that is true dude. Sorry.

      • rain on 17/08/2015 - 23:16

        We do have a Muslim community somewhere. The Muslim group have a big tent that is up for a day or two outside one of the cafeteria exits, though I think it's only once or twice a year and may be for some event, haven't seen preaching.
        Have seen them praying occasionally in the graduation hall but always out of the way and not taking any of the goo spots, compared to the Christian group (don't know which one) all around campus in twos or more speaking to the Asian students, always taking up good spots as well with random chairs they get from somewhere.
        There's also the random old white man that says something about the bible outside the train station, though have seen him more at Chatswood near the 7/11.

  • [Deactivated] on 11/08/2015 - 19:23
    +8

    You could start your own movement. Put up posters for texts which encourage critical thinking.

    How about The God Delusion to kick things off.

    • christopher8827 on 12/08/2015 - 00:17
      +1

      There's an Atheist League there already but no one can be bothered to join them. Anyhow, the God Delusion has been disproved and faulted heavily at uni due to its straw-man arguments and other logical fallacies - I read it myself and it would only persuade a person who is already an atheist with a weak understanding of logic and reason.

      • Dan_ on 15/08/2015 - 13:55

        It's hard to make a strawman argument when there's such a broad spectrum of believers ranging from moderate to batshit crazy (e.g. WBC). Just because it doesn't fall within the claims made by your individual subset of beliefs doesn't automatically make it a strawman.

        Secondly, nearly every so called logical fallacy pointed out by a believer is based on or boils down to the assumption that the bible is infallible. Which is just laughable when the point of debate is the Bible itself.

        • KnifeEnthusiastBoi on 15/08/2015 - 21:40
          -2

          I'd be interested to know your thoughts on why the Bible is a laughable source.

          As a literary document, it has held up to extreme scrutiny, been tested for more inconsistencies than any other collection of historical documents, and even withstood the testing against the Dead Sea Scrolls which was found in the 50s.

          Literary experts educated in ancient greek, aramaic, and Hebrew, and the culture of Jews cant really fault the accuracy of the method they use to pass on scripture/stories.

          Still given this, i agree with you that the bible is not infallible. It doesnt give us all the answers to all our questions, and some would argue that is the point…because if it had all the answers to life's questions, it would not require 'faith'. Our belief in God would therefore be robotic, and we would have no choice but to agree/accept it.

        • Dan_ on 15/08/2015 - 22:53
          +6

          @nairdajun:

          I'd be interested to know your thoughts on why the Bible is a laughable source.

          Well… If you have another read of my comment, you'll see that I said no such thing. It may well provide a recount of historical events, I'm no historian.

          I'm talking about the tendency of the religious to start yelling Bible verses at you when discussing the existence of God. The basis of their argument being; the Bible is infallible because it is the word of God, God therefore exists because it says so in the Bible.

        • KnifeEnthusiastBoi on 15/08/2015 - 23:08
          +5

          @Dan_: Well i guess what you say is quite true, however sitting from the other side of the table…Christians often get asked to explain or "prove" the existence of God. We are about as good as explaining the existence of our creator as good as a table can explain it's carpenter.

          If for one moment we could ask anyone to try to explain the existence of a being that surpasses everything we understand is possible in this world, that Jesus for example can be both human and God, and that God exists in three beings…We cant even explain some things that we can see let alone things we cannot see or understand… We are only starting to theorize scientifically what God may have done to cause the miracles (e.g. wind to part the red sea) to happen during the book of Exodus (still nothing has been confirmed).

          So in some sense yes, faith is required…its an assurance that although we dont quite understand how or why, God exists…the Bible only gives us a glimpse to the character of God, but it doesnt give us enough to 'prove'/explain Him

        • Dan_ on 15/08/2015 - 23:37

          @nairdajun:
          Well I'm glad you're on the more reasonable end of the religious spectrum (I'm assuming you're religious) but with all the proselytizing and preaching, surely you see why Christians get asked to explain/prove, especially when such beliefs can have an impact on us as a society.

        • KnifeEnthusiastBoi on 15/08/2015 - 23:50
          +3

          @Dan_: Unfortunately the only task given to us by Jesus was to love one another…and we are told people will only believe in Jesus when they see how we love one another, not our religious stance on issues in society. Its unfortunate that most of us just generally dont do that loving part well.

        • Nobel on 02/01/2016 - 08:50
          -1

          @nairdajun:

          Jesus also asked his followers to spread the good news and to "go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I [Jesus] have commanded you." (excerpted from 28:19-20)

          Jesus said "Anyone who loves me [Jesus] will obey my teaching." (from John 14:23)

    • [Deactivated] on 12/08/2015 - 08:13
      -5

      Man, atheism is as bad as religion. In my experience full of racists, 'Richard Dawkins' anyone? Here's to critical thinking. Get on that shiz.

      • belongsinforums on 13/08/2015 - 17:02
        +5

        atheism is simply the lack of belief in gods dude

        • Forfiet on 20/08/2015 - 06:22

          Sadly the sterotypical grouping of Atheists are just as bad as a grouping of religious…..

          they have their pro's and cons….. I think the real problem is when people take to using groups as a form numerical superiority to force opinions on singular people….

          An individual is rarely as much of a pain in the a$$

  • scrimshaw on 11/08/2015 - 19:38
    +13

    You get annoyed easily don't you.

    Why not start a cult of your own and fight back? you could call it Bargain Union and you could praise the Almighty Lord Broden, the true Father of Bargains, Coupons, and Pricematching.

    • financialwar on 11/08/2015 - 19:39
      +10

      I am already in that "cult", it is called the banking industry.

      • UncommonName on 11/08/2015 - 20:31
        +16

        I am already in that "cult", it is called the banking industry.

        Replace "cult" with "cartel".

  • RockyRaccoon on 11/08/2015 - 19:42
    +30

    While its annoying and I dont like what they are saying , in reality if you want free speech - determining one view can be "allowed" and another not, is totally against that principle.

    When it's ok for your views to be heard, while others are not, means we will end up with either Right wing Totalitarianism, or Left wing Totalitarianism

    BTW your voting options are biased.

    appropriate
    not appropriate
    Should be banned

    Balanced if you add

    Should be allowed

    • financialwar on 11/08/2015 - 19:46
      -7

      I can't edit poll choices can I?

    • DeafMutePretender on 11/08/2015 - 20:41

      The issue with free speech is that you end up with a Fox News style "fair and balanced" situation where one side operates with science (climate change is real and attempts should be made to protect the environment) and the other with religion/muh feels/non-science (climate change is false, let's keep F-ing things up). Also, the vaccine debate.

      Sometimes you want to limit speech because one side is a waste of time to listen to.

      • RockyRaccoon on 12/08/2015 - 07:26
        +12

        AH yes the Free speech Vs Free speech argument

        Mines Free Yours Isn't.

        The Greatest Danger to FREE speech is "Free" speech

        As for the usual Fox News argument. There is always the ABC News argument.

        Fox is a business so they can have their views. ABC is for ALL the people, not just to "balance" Fox

        The Guardian can offset Fox because it's run like Fox as a business. They like Fox target a market segment. They both stay in business because they are successful with their target. They give these segments a voice.

        Again the ABC is supposed to be for All not just a segment

        BTW I voted your comment up, because I do believe in Free speech and that's to offset the negative vote . It wasnt because I believe in what you said.

      • FatBlanket on 13/08/2015 - 13:40
        +3

        We shouldn't limit free speech but we should educate our children properly (as in to think critically). To anyone with a half decent education those Fox News style programs are comedy.

    • grasstown on 13/08/2015 - 18:20

      Would depend if op combined the votes of the two categories, or whether the higher of all 3 prevails.

  • saine on 11/08/2015 - 20:02
    +19

    Unis are full of student groups. Personally, I find the Young Liberals more offensive, but live and let live.

      • BigTed on 11/08/2015 - 23:04
        +60

        Actually Universities are precisely the sort of places these messages should be shared for at least the following reasons:
        1. Universities historically were places of religious learning. They therefore have a strong historical basis for discussing religious philosophy,
        2. Universities should be bastions of free speech because being confronted with new ideas is the essence of learning, and
        3. Once you start to discriminate on the basis of speech content you inevitably end up with a homogeneous message - which is not only boring but is the anti-thesis of a rounded education.
        Embrace it - its really a small price to pay for living in a free society

        • belongsinforums on 13/08/2015 - 17:04
          -3
          1. Do stuff because we've always done it, i.e. tradition!?
            Agree with 2 and 3 though
        • katatonic289 on 14/08/2015 - 12:13
          +7

          This.

          The point of a university education is to expose learners to new experiences and opinions. If you have a problem with being exposed to other peoples' opinions, you should have stayed at home with mum and dad.

        • khomeini on 14/08/2015 - 22:27
          +1

          As someone who studied (flunked) philosophy - some religious, I disagree. Where else would you be able to learn philosophy outside of a university with objective discussions about religious perspectives (and no, a monastery or madrassa is not an appropriate answer).

          It should not be a place to proselytise but to have objective rational debates about topics (religion included).

          As someone who was very much belonged to a minority religon at the uni I went to… I understand the fervor that certain religious groups can bring to Uni, but as long as it's limited to a rational and/or personal level, it's fine.

      • KnifeEnthusiastBoi on 15/08/2015 - 21:49
        +4

        In University you are encouraged and even molded to think critically, increase your understanding of the world, prepare you for the working world, and become more open minded. That by association would include testing your knowledge against people of different genders, ethnicity, and religion.

        While you might find their 'message' of love, peace, and hope annoying, others may find it encouraging and be interested to find out more. Just because you dont agree/appreciate it, doesnt mean others will not.

        • This Guy on 16/08/2015 - 01:31

          I have no idea why you feel persecuted. financialwar didn't say any of that. Nor did Dan_.

          It's not the message of love, peace, and hope that people find annoying.

          Many people feel awful when they say no to an extremely nice person. It doesn’t matter if the nice person is right or wrong, it still makes many people feel bad.

          In this case, the nice person thinks they are doing good by sharing their positive message of hope and love, but in reality they are kicking the person in the emotional guts by presenting an offensive* idea while being extremely nice.

          Many effective sales people use the same techniques to upsell customers.

          *some arguments like, ‘this is the only way to be happy’ or ‘someone did this for you so you must…’ are offensive to many people.

        • KnifeEnthusiastBoi on 17/08/2015 - 03:29
          +1

          @This Guy: Actually on the contrary i dont feel persecuted at all. financialwar has his right to express his opinion, and i encourage him to seek the opinions of what others think on the topic too.

          You are definitely correct, but these people are not harassing others. They are making a public display of what they stand for, and that is to share good news, and a message of hope to all.

          I am a postgraduate student in psychology, and I have also been trained in sales techniques. I am well aware of the tactics sales people use, however sales people have something to gain. Christians raise the awareness of a free gift, one that they have benefited from and wish to share with other people. Unfortunately it sounds like you have had some experience or know of someone who have been a target of "religious sales techniques". I am not sure if this is the case, but i can assure you that not all Christians act this way, and i apologise if some minorities or 'extremists' in the christian faith has tried to force you to accept something you are not comfortable with.

          what i suppose pushes my buttons is that financialwar is of the opinion that Christianity is annoying and irrelevant, and "should not be allowed in an institution of secular learning". This is scratching the border of something akin to religious discrimination.

        • This Guy on 17/08/2015 - 23:41

          @nairdajun:

          Christians gain satisfaction from saving another sole.

        • KnifeEnthusiastBoi on 17/08/2015 - 23:43
          +1

          @This Guy: I think thats attributable by Joy…the actualized christian should understand that they didnt actually do any saving. They merely participated in a process. Just like one of the sales people at apple who 'participates' in the sale of an iphone to someone who already decided they wanted to buy an iphone.

          Then again i cant speak on behalf of other denominations and sects who emphasize that in order to get a bigger house in heaven you need to go out and save people. Frankly i dont agree with that stuff.

        • Forfiet on 20/08/2015 - 06:43
          +1

          @This Guy: Are you sure that ain't a cobbler? saving a sole….. :P

      • KnifeEnthusiastBoi on 17/08/2015 - 03:38
        +1

        The Islamic State is using all forms of social media, indiscriminately using any events or locations where young people gather to "proselytize" people to join their cause. Would you rather read that "You can go to heaven and have lots of virgins if you choose to fight with ISIS"?

        On this basis, why should Christians be discriminated against for promoting a positive message in the university space?

        Or on the contrary…there is something called ignore?

        Your eyes are being bombarded by more than 200 marketing ads a day, and your ears probably eavesdrop on more than 20 conversations a day. Your brain has learned to unconsciously tune out of these things. You are telling me you cant tune out from a small group of Christians with a booth and a microphone?

    • victorwilson on 14/08/2015 - 17:38
      +3

      The "Socialist Alternative" are an obnoxious bunch.

  • inherentchoice on 11/08/2015 - 20:14
    +6

    Why don't you talk to them?

    • alizzan on 15/08/2015 - 19:19
      +4

      I just had an image of OP yelling at the chalk on the footpath.

  • bargainslut on 11/08/2015 - 20:22
    +14

    I don't mind it to be honest. What really gets my goat is people selling pulled beef, bloody mongrels!

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join