First let me apologize for not responding sooner. I said I was going to be back on Monday but as soon as I walked in to the office Monday morning, I was hit with a budget meeting that kept me away from my desk most of the day. I sure did not expect it. Talk about hating Mondays.
Second, let me apologize if I disrupted everyone's weekend. I certainly did not expect this level of response and I am humbled and appreciate every comment made. Both for or against it.
With that said, I was hoping I would make it clear that I don't necessarily disagree with the views of some who feel truth should take precedence above any other concern. I don't disagree with those who voice an honest concern, for example, against religion but then get challenged by fanatics. But one thing is to respond to a challenge, another completely different is to ridicule someone who did not challenge you, engage you or attacked you in any way. If the belief of others threatens you or your ideals to the point you feel a need to counter, then they may not have solid foundation, or, if they do have a solid foundation, then there is another bias behind the perceived threat. Such that we may never know what it is. The same happens with both, the offended one as well as the offender.
I do not agree with anti-vaxxers or any of the other things Viviane mentioned. In fact, I agree with most of it and many other things that Viviane says. I may not agree with the way she said it, but I agree with the fact. You see, I am not necessarily saying you should not campaign for accurate information or truth. Do I mean you need to sugar coat things? Some may say so but sometimes doing it does not negate the fact, and indeed it allows the other party to be more receptive to the truth you bring forth. Is funny that in a forum such as this we may not understand that, since we know that pushing/disrespecting a cult member out only causes them to get deeper into the cult.
As far as one thing Simon mentioned, regarding making ridicule of certain belief because of the context of the forum. Well, you might be right and at the end this is your site, isn't it?. However, I would like for everyone to consider this. Some here may have already woken up to TTATT but their loves one don't. Some here may have also quit believing in God but they realize that coming out of the WT with your family intact is difficult enough. Attempting to wake up a loved one out of the WT may be easier if you still believe in God (or claim to do so. I know that would be dishonest but is not my case and not for me to pass judgement). It would not be as easy if you flat out told your loved ones that God doesn't exist. Some would like to discuss topics in that light, in order to find ways to reason with loved ones and I am sure those people would like to do so undisrupted. Just like it was mentioned here, lives are at stake. May be we can have a section for believers if one is not already there?.
I clearly recall a great post by Cofty on the subject of blood. He certainly was right when he said that the apostles stroke a deal when they spoke of "abstaining from blood". Wasn't that about respecting someone else's belief? Sure things have changed since then, since now such abstinence may mean death for some. Sure we don't want to be quite about it, especially among our loved ones. But does ridiculing their belief helps our cause? My experience says absolutely not.
So just because I disagree with anti-vaxxers, that does not entitle me to ridicule them (unless of course they get pushy like the airline employee I mentioned in my opening post). If I want to help spread the truth about vaccines, well, I don't know, I can start my own preaching campaign about it. I can knock on a door and leave a leaflet behind. If the homeowner rejects it. What can I do? if he challenges me to show him proof? Do I owe to my cause to respond? If they try to ridicule me, I may do the same back. If none of the above happens, I would calmly and peacefully walk away.
I don't know how else it can be said. I believe there is proof out there. Wether the ideal was real and had a good cause behind it or was mean and evil, the most successful campaigns are the ones where respect for the belief of the other person is shown. Look at gay marriage. Wether you agree with it or not, generally I believe that the LGBT movement used the political channels and respectful way of engaging discussion and by doing so, everyone become more receptive and we evolved as a society that ultimately accepted the idea. The WT, with its evil intent, carried out a pretty good campaign as well. True, the ideal being spread is not real and the means are evil. But the fact they engage the homeowner in a respectful manner is what made it relatively successful. I understand they can be pushy, but those are hardly ever successful. In the other hands, ideals that where held to no contest and no willingness to come to a respectful discussion have almost always end up in conflict. A conflict in which brute force, not reason, wins.
So if you think religion is BS. Go ahead, say it. But may be if you say it respectfully you will actually help your cause.
