Should Christians be allowed to try to convert non-Christians?

If a Christian truly believes that their faith commands them to try to convert non-Chrisitians to their religion--and they insist that they have to do this to be faithful--then should we respect that? Or should we say no way?

Where do you draw the line? And when does it violate the other person?

ever heard of it?

The first amendment is a secular principle, not a Christian one. As far as I know, Christianity has never been embraced the idea of freedom of speech. It imagines one true God and only one path to Grace.

the fact that christians believe that there is only the one way to God, does not mean that they will interfere with other people's right to be wrong (also known as another religion). And freedom of speech applies to them, too, not just secular people. so they approve of it.

Or perhaps I failed to make myself clear. I didn't mean to imply that Christians as individuals don't respect freedom of speech and choice. I myself am Christian and hold those principles in high regard. What I meant is that freedom of speech is not central to Christianity as a religion. Free will, however, is. We, of our own free will, choose to accept or reject Christ. But as a religion, Christianity does not embrace free speech. The word of God is absolute. Historically, Christianity has been quite rigid in it's teachings. Ideas of free speech in some Christian churches today, I would argue, is due to the influence of secular principles.

say, Islam, was not conceived as a governmental system. This cam centuries later, and is not organic to Christianity. Still, I find no instances of Christians in the Bible stifling the speech of others. There are however, numerous instances of telling others that they are wrong. Saying that the word of God is absolute, anad that you will go to hell if you don't believe, or whatever the particular denomination believes in NO way interferes with other people's right to disagree or fail to convert.

The Church was an extremely powerful political entity for much of it's history. It ruled in concert with the Christian empires, particularly Spain and Portugal. It's power was such that in 1494 it divided the entire world south of equator between Spain and Portugal. The point of the Inquisition was precisely to stifle speech, to eradicate heretical teachings of religion, and to enforce a common popular culture. In Colonial Latin America, all books brought into the colonies had to pass a Church inspector to ensure subversive texts were not read. The Mexican poet Sister Juana Ines de la Cruz lost her library (the largest in the Americas at the time), possessions, and freedom to write because she dared to disagree with Antonio Vieira, the Mexican Archbishop's favored theologian, over his interpretation of Abraham. In the 1750s and 1760s, the Jesuits were expelled from the Americas because they refused to accept the Spanish Church's newly-formed Erastian notion that the Church should submit to the power of the Crown.

Now, you may be correct that the Bible itself does not justify repression of free speech. My knowledge is in history rather than the Bible itself. But there is no question that Christianity as a religion has done so for most of it's history.

To be fair, ideas of free speech emerged with the Enlightenment and the age of Revolution. Christianity has existed much longer than that, yet has managed to survive in a secular world that privileges such values.

think about it. Anything can be corrupted by man. The worst thing that ever happened to Christianity was becoming a state church. However, you are correct that freedom of religion did not develop very soon, anywhere.

As a student of history, you must surely know that the vast majority of mankind has lived under one kind of tyranny, or another. Even the republics of the ancient world limited the franchise to a very small group of people. No where else in the world but the Western democracies have the ideas of equality developed. Although they have spread, there are still vast areas of the world where not all people are equal. And the Western world was culturally Christian. Even the Enlightenment was born in reaction to Christianity.

And there were different enlightenments in different countries. The French Enlightenment, for instance, gave rise to the French Revolution and Napoleon, one of the worst monsters who ever lived, on a scale with Hitler and Stalin.

Nor does the secular world always value 'freedom of speech'. The various speech codes of the campuses, the laws that criminalize 'hate-speech', so-called, whatever else can be said about them, are not examples of the secular world defending free speech. 'Free speech' means just that: the right to offend.

I don't disagree with much of what you have said. The only point I would raise is that organized religion is part of Christianity. The Bible itself is the product of the Church, which chose which gospels to choose and which to exclude based on it's own ideas of religiosity and concern for expanding it's own power. Christianity can and has been understood apart from the teachings of organized religion, but the history of the Catholic and Protestant churches is part of the Christian tradition. They have brought great benefit but also have been responsible for injustice throughout their history.
No where did I say that the secular world always defends free speech. Nor do I suggest it is more moral or better than religious teachings. I instead merely pointed out that ideas of free speech emerged from the Enlightenment and Age of Revolution, both secular phenomena.
I would dispute your point that the French Enlightenment gave rise to (if by this you mean caused or justified) Napoleon. Napoleon's reign was counter-revolutionary, undoing many of the changes brought about during the Revolution.

>>We, of our own free will, choose to accept or reject Christ.

Doesn't this contradict "Many are called, but few are chosen"?

Although I don't think it really matters why one believes and another doesn't, I recall being taught in the Lutheran church the opposite of what you're saying.

"Many are called but few are chosen" calls to mind the Protestant notion of predestination. Some protestants, such as Calvinists, believe that whether we receive grace is determined before our birth. We cannot affect the outcome, regardless of the good works we do on earth. Catholics, conversely, believe all who accept Christ receive his grace.

A theologian or religious historian might be able to offer a better interpretation.

Some historians have argued that protestantism and notions of predestination, along with the idea of purgatory, emerged in the early modern era as a religious and moral foundation to justify capitalism (Jacques Le Goffe, _Your Money or Your Live_) is a book on the subject I read many years ago.

the King shall not answer it; neither may the King be judge betwixt God and man. Let them be heretics, Turks, Jews, or whatever. It appertains not to the earthly power to punish them in the least measure."

-- Thomas Helwys, 1612

http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj0408&article=040810

rather than Christianity itself, wouldn't you agree? The Church sees itself as God, or God's representative, in that scenario.

that one person cannot try to convert or persuade another.

people of other faiths can go to heaven, as long as they are good people and true to their faiths. Response? I'm waiting.

Do you want a response from me? I'm not sure what you want me to say. I think it's great the Vatican said that. Salvation and grace, however, are not the same as freedom of speech.

Your statement does not align well with "Dominus Iesus" issued on 9/05/2000

"Certainly, the various religious traditions contain and offer religious elements which come from God,85 and which are part of what "the Spirit brings about in human hearts and in the history of peoples, in cultures, and religions."86 Indeed, some prayers and rituals of the other religions may assume a role of preparation for the Gospel, in that they are occasions or pedagogical helps in which the human heart is prompted to be open to the action of God.87 One cannot attribute to these, however, a divine origin or an ex opere operato salvific efficacy, which is proper to the Christian sacraments.88 Furthermore, it cannot be overlooked that other rituals, insofar as they depend on superstitions or other errors (cf. 1 Cor 10:20-21), constitute an obstacle to salvation.89 "

"22. With the coming of the Saviour Jesus Christ, God has willed that the Church founded by him be the instrument for the salvation of all humanity (cf. Acts 17:30-30.)90 This truth of faith does not lessen the sincere respect which the Church has for the religions of the world, but at the same time, it rules out, in a radical way, that mentality of indifferentism "characterized by a religious relativism which leads to the belief that 'one religion is as good as another.'"91 If it is true that the followers of other religions can receive divine grace, it is also certain that objectively speaking they are in a gravely deficient situation in comparison with those who, in the Church, have the fullness of the means of salvation.92"


Edit: I forgot to post the link
http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=3022#VI

Vatican II Council. :)

By the way Catbert, I consider your uninformative response to be poor form.

rude or invasive, but the "target" of the attempted conversion also has an equal right to tell them to take a hike.

although it may not help them with their goal

Unless of course it's at work or the other person's property, but in public they can be as rude as they wish

they have to realise this is the real world and there are real people that believe that their beliefs are really offensive. Thus they must be prepared for the reaction to their efforts. They are not the only one's trying to spread their ideas.

I am reminded of the woman that followed me into a parking lot because of my bumperstickers. She left with a different understanding of the bible than she had before entering that parking lot. When you open the door to religious discussion you are taking a chance of having your beliefs and faith tested or destroyed. This is not a pleasant thing.

They leave me alone these days. I think I look too intimidating or something. :shrug:

:evilgrin:

or the druidic robes?

:7

It might not be pleasant, but to me that sounds like a good thing.

But I would not wish the distress of losing one's faith on anyone. This despite the fact that I do hope that no one continues to be beholden to a lie (whatever that lie may be).

which is why the Jehovah's and other such religions that rely on "in your face" tactics aren't well-received.

I'm Catholic, and I've been told I'm not a true Christian and that I'm going to hell by these so-called "Christians".

I was prosletyzed on a flight from Atlanta to Boston, and when my row mate asked me about my relationship with Jesus, I replied that it was none of her business. It's like discussing bodily functions of family secrets. It IS an invasion of privacy. I suggest you don't try selling Jesus in the Northeast.

You'll be rude?? People have been willing to die for their Christian faith. But you are perfectly within your rights to tell them to take a hike.

then we wouldn't have to tell them to f*ck off.

read the part about evangelizing being a duty of their religion?? Besides, they are under no obligation not to offend you, nor should they be. go ahead, tell them to f*ck off. You're under no obligation not to offend them.

That's the beauty of living in America. Bascially, there is a 'freedom to offend', and a parallel 'freedom to be offended'

I grew up Catholic and we never evangelized. Why do these so-called Christians think it's OK to impose their dogma on someone else?

First, sure they have a duty to evangelize.

Matthew 28:
18And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.


Amazingly to me, many Catholics are unaware of what the Bible actually says. Of course, the same thing can be said of many Protestants. Also, nothing that the Catholic Church teaches, or fails to teach, is binding on other denominations.

Second mistake: What imposing are you talking about? We are here talking about sharing their religion, not their political views which you do not like. They're trying to talk to you. They have a right to do that; you have a right not to listen. Or maybe liberals shouldn't be allowed to impose their 'dogma' on anybody else?? How do you change minds, which is what they are trying to do, without verbal persuasion? Is your faith so small that it cannot withstand examination??

that line right there says it all.

It assumes Catholics aren't real Christians who know the Bible. We're just some ancient cult, you know.

"nothing that the Catholic Church teaches, or fails to teach, is binding on other denominations."

please explain.

read the entire post? I said the same thing about Protestants. Your assumption that I think Catholics are not "real" Christians is erroneous, and shows a certain shallowness of thinking.

Explain what?? Protestants do not accept the authority of the Pope. Hell, lots of Catholics don't seem to. Catholics have certain beliefs that are not shared by Protestants. Protestants have certain beliefs that are not shared between the various Protestant denominations. Then there are the Mormons, who have beliefs shared by few or no other Christian organizations. Same for Jehovah's Witnesses, who actually do not believe in the Divinity of Christ.

You do not have to accept the beliefs of other churches. But they certainly have the right to talk about them. What is hard to understand about this concept??

should be a fundamental right, especially when it barely masks anti-Catholic bigotry.

"shows a certain shallowness of thinking."

There's nothing shallow about my thinking. Maybe there's a cultural/regional difference at work here? You're pretty insulting.

approach you with offers of insurance, skin cream, and religion. It is only an invasion of privacy if they don't go away when asked. As for whether it is anti-Catholic bigotry or not, I assume you don't mean disagreeing with Catholicism. Thinking that the ideas of the Catholic church are wrong is not bigotry. Assuming other people are bigots before they have shown they are is. IMO.

I can't speak to the general depth of your thinking, but in this case, calling something that you do not want to hear 'bigotry', I don't know how else to describe it.

Look, I get annoyed by Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons, too. But as I can generally hold my own in an argument with them, I don't get all defensive. If I'm willing to talk, I'll do it. If I'm not, I tell them I'm not interested, and they've always gone away. Who cares whether they are bigoted against Catholicism, or in my case Baptist, or not. As long as they don't interfere with your rights, and go away when they are told, it seems to me that you have the problem, not them.

I don't mean to offend you, but I don't mean to lie to you, either.

they respond with a bigoted comment: I'm not a real Christian, I'm going to hell, Catholicism is a cult, and worse.

Thankfully up here I've never run into prosletyzing, as New Englanders generally have an MYOB (mind your own business) attitude toward religion. No one discusses religion in the workplace or other public places; it is discussed with family and friends. It is considered personal. By not discussing religion, it also levels the playing field because no one can be discriminated against due to religious belief. I have no idea what my coworkers believe or if they believe at all, and I really don't care. I thank God I live up here.

"calling something that you do not want to hear 'bigotry', I don't know how else to describe it."

It's a shame that you can't respect others opinions and have to insult their intelligence. I really don't understand why you have to resort to patronizing behavior. It takes away the power of your argument.

you are going to Hell, they have the right to say so. This is not, in my opinion, bigotry. But suppose that it is. SO WHAT?? Walk away. don't try to suppress their rights to free speech or freedom of religion.

It's a shame that you seem to think that saying someone else's opinion is wrong is 'disrespect'. All it is is having a different opinion. Everybody, and I now say this in the most literal way, is entitled to go to Hell in their own way.

Of course, they could be wrong, and Catholics don't go to Hell. My own opinion is that Catholics are Christians, too. In any event, it is not for me to judge, nor for you. That's God's job. But I, you, and they are all entitled to express our opinions, and whether or not any of us, including you, is offended by the opinion is totally irrelevant.

Now, as a technical point, I made no comment on your intelligence, of which I know nothing; simply an observation that your thinking, at least on this subject, is rather shallow. One is a matter of genetics, the other of education. If the shoe fits.

Freedom of speech and religion is not about protecting YOU, or anybody, from being offended. And my argument is simple: Christians (and everybody else) have a right to evangelize; YOU have a right not to listen. Nothing I can do can take away the power of that argument.

For instance, there is no need for you to read my replies if they offend you. There is no reason to reply. You can ignore me, or even put me on IGNORE. All these options are available to you. Or, you could examine what I am saying and provide me with a reason, other than your personal feelings of being offended, why you should be allowed to interfere with the Constitutional rights guaranteed all citizens.

;-)

That is a big difference between the Catholic religion and Southern Baptists. T

doesn't mean you should, though.

When Christians try and evangelise me, I may a point of being pointedly civil and friendly, and get a lovely superior feeling as a result, especially if they don't. (well, except for the guy who knocked on my door when I was trying to have a siesta, but he doesn't count!).

And that's good. I have to say that the LDS boys who come by a few times a year are unfailingly polite. The JWs, though -- sheesh, you've got to push them out the door and shut it in their face! Do they really think that's going to be effective?

a right to resist. Often, they are trying to convert someone who is already Christian,
it's not just a matter of Christians proselytizing nonChristians.

so that conversion is central to it's beliefs. Historically, disputes centered around whether all conversions should be voluntary or whether forcible conversion was permissible. Today, few would argue for forced conversion, though different groups are far more zealous than others. To expect Christians to abandon missionary activities is unrealistic, since it's part of the religion's core belief structure.
As you probably know, Islam is also a religion premised on conversion, while Judaism is not.

We all have some belief system - most think theirs is better that the other for some reason or other. The desire to persuade others to see things in a different way is only natural.

I sure as hell don't.

But I get annoyed when religious people try to sell me their soft soap.

As you well know.

Some Christians feel it is their duty to try and convert others and regularly get into conversations with non-believers for the sole purpose of telling them that they see the world wrong and need to change.

Some atheists feel it is their duty to try and discredit religion and regularly get into conversations with believers for the sole purpose of telling them that they see the world wrong and need to change.

"well when a religious fundamentalist does it is wrong because its harassing and unsolicited and an offensive infringement on my right to live my life and make my own choices. But of course, when I engage in the same harassing, unsolicited offensive infringement on the right of a believer to live his/her life and make his/her choices, that's different because I'm right!"

Two sides of the same coin. Certainly not all religious people nor all non-believers are this way. But too many are.

It's an absolute part of their religion. As long as they don't use force, or create a public disturbance, they are within their rights. If you don't want to hear them, turn off the radio or TV, leave the worship service, tell them you're not interested, walk on. Your options are endless,as long as they are non-violent. You have an absolute right not to listen.

Being offended from time-to-time is part of the price we pay to live in a free society.

Do people have the right o proselytize? Yes.

If your aqcuaintance is trying to convert you, you have the right to listen intently, ignore them, simply leave, or tell them to fuck off.

I just leave.

and I make no attempt to convert non-Christians. I have had fundies bitch me out for that, but I cannot and will not be forced to do so. While the people who feel compelled to do so can have at it (freedom of speech and all), I cannot take part in it as I feel it is making an assumption that the person isn't happy believing what they believe now. I just find it incredibly arrogant and presumptuous.

And I won't do it.

prosletyzing isn't true concern for the other's soul at all. it's saying how much better their belief system is han any other. As a Catholic, I've been on the receiving end of this bullshit many times.

Evangicals believe that they live in a pagan, godless, gay ruled nation. By converting others, they bring god in again and we'll be happy as the fires burn Catholics, pagans, Buddhists, Hindus, and others. They are scared of non-Evangicals since that shows they may either be wrong, people can think for themselves, or people create a backlash against their crap.

Catholics are Christians. First denomination thus first Christian sect.

Do you believe that as an atheist I am going to suffer in Hell for all eternity? If I was walking by your house and I noticed it was on fire I would do everything possible to try to save you. Why do you not wish to do the same for me?

This is the paradox of the liberal/moderate Christian that eludes me. If you believe that lack of belief leads to damnation (not all believe this), then your lack of concern suggests callousness. But this is not exemplified in behaviour of most liberal Christians. They typically seem to be very warm and compassionate individuals. How they stave off their natural tendency to try to save nonbelievers from eternal damnation is simply beyond my understanding.

The reason is, I simply refuse to believe that God sends people to hell for all of eternity for simply choosing the "wrong" religion. And since I don't think you're going to hell simply for picking the wrong religion (or no religion, in your case) I don't have to bother trying to convert you to my beliefs.

But I do think you'll go to hell if you vote Republican. (Just kidding :-))

Seriously, if you believe that any path (or none) leads to Heaven, why are you even bothering with a faith at all? I find this line of thought simply incomprehensible.

And I'm not Christian. Progressive Christianity is your path. Religious Science and Unitarian-Universalism is mine.

Doesn't mean that there aren't other paths for other people. To the contrary, I honor all paths (providing that they are not designed to cause serious physical harm to others).

has a path that serves him or her well. No conflict there for me.

It seems to me that by saying "all roads lead to heaven" you're also saying that there is no particular truth contained in your beliefs. After all, any other path will do just as well. This seems (to me) no different than a belief in lucky rabbit's feet and not walking under ladders.

In GOPBasher's particular case though I'm even more confused by his or her claim to be a Christian while rejecting Christ's statement in John 14:6, "...I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.' If in fact one is a Christian how do you reconcile believing in the truth contained in the teachings of Christ while at the same time believing those teachings to hold no particular truth?

no matter what the topic... :thumbsup:

or some say sinners if the person has no religious faith. IMO the only One who can actually convert people is God, if a person desires answers and asks me I will tell them to pray first and foremost. Then if they want me to help them find things in the Bible or asks my belief on things I don't mind talking to them, but God does the converting. Just MHO.

I really don't like the Churches that say you have to dedicate X amount of your time going around to others houses trying to convert people, they just come off as bugging me.

initiating a discussion with me about his/her beliefs. I simply tell them I'm not interested. As long as they don't keep pestering me, particularly if they are co-workers, there is no problem. I'm very concerned about any efforts to incorporate evangelicism into the government. These faith-based initiatives really freak me out. I'm really worried that the government social safety net will be disbanded and replaced by religious programs. If I become disabled or impoverished in the future, I am screwed.

being a pain in the ass about it, harassing, or assaulting, or using government to force conversion, or observance on anyone.

initiates a discussion. I just tell them what I believe. If things get too bothersome, I just end the discussion. I want people to bring up topics with me. That's how I become more educated.

So, I agree with many posters on this thread.

it's illegal to try to convert a Muslim to any other religion, sure, Christians have the right to proselytize. Anyone who is not interested has the right to tell said Christians to bug off.

Personally, I don't proselytize, because I'm sensitive about being lumped together with the people who yell on street corners or go door to door with tracts. However, I answer questions that people ask and try to correct misconceptions.

The people I know who have converted to a new religion as adults did so for one of four reasons: 1) personal study and reflection, 2) initial attraction to or curiosity about a group of people practicing that religion, 3) marriage to a person of that religion, 4) an indefinable feeling of being drawn toward that religion. I don't think the aggressive approach is very effective.

but they should not be allowed to force conversions.

Any person of any belief whether religious or non religious has the right to try and convert others to their beliefs or way of thinking..as long as their is no force involved in the conversion (example..the US had the right to try and convert Iraq to democracy...it did not have the right to try and force the conversion to democracy on Iraq)

a door to door evangelist, "A lot of damn gall you have, telling me my God is better'n"your God".

If that's what they want to do, I really could care less. I'm a Christian, but I don't try to convert people. I personally think it's a waste of time.

too lazy to explain why at the moment but I don't believe its quite the same. I am willing to hear why you think it is no different though. :hi:

I give you permission.

I'm against them using government to try to convert people. On their own time, witnessing people whereever they go, that's perfectly fine. It's freedom of speech.

than to others.

As someone raised R. Catholic, my point of view is that the faith of some American Christians appears SHAKY and seems to need the confirmation (conversion?)of others to maintain itself.

Do they have the right to try to impose their religious ideas on others? I suppose so. But then I suppose I have the right to tell them to get a life and grow a faith and get into contact with their Redeemer to see how they can best and truly bring his Word into the world.

They have a constitutional right to express themselves. However, there is an appropriate time and place. What I find distasteful is they will talk about it all the time, no matter where they are. Work is not an appropriate place to discuss this, unless at lunch. I wonder, though, how some would feel if they had to encounter the same behavior in Muslims, Jews, pagans, or Buddhists? Would these people who think it is their 'charge' to 'spread the word' be offended if these groups did the same?

The proselytizers sincerely believe it is their duty to help other people get to heaven, and I understand and respect that. "Therefore 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 have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” It's great that Christians are prepared to answer questions and "witness" to what they call the "unchurched," but I find it really offensive when they interfere with people of other faiths who are perfectly happy with some other pantheon or atheism. I work with a surprising number of ex-missionaries (2), one who plans to go into the mission field, one who is a pastor of a nondenominational Christian church and also teaches at a Bible college (what the hell he's doing working a 40-hour week with me is a mystery), and a LOT of just plain garden variety Christians. I wear my pentacle and they leave me alone.

they just shouldn't be shocked when I tell them to get the f*** out of my face.

As a Christian, I believe it is our suty to share the Gospel with love. As far as I'm concerned, I cannot for the life of me conceive why any open-minded person would have a problem sharing the Gospel.

I do think there is a right way and a wrong way. Obviously violence, or even hate is a no-no. I believe as long as we approach nonbelievers ina peaceful way, yet not compromise the message, then all is well.

BTW, there is that whole First Amendment, and free speech thing. I'm sure you've heard of it. :)

I have the right to tell you NO I'm not interested, and then let it go. I do not like people who "spread the word" because they seem to not know the meaning of the word NO. I view it as a form of spiritual assault anyways.

Free speech is great. But why go door to door telling people their going to hell if they don't go this a specific church and believe since the minister needs a new BMW. That is what I see here. They come by, tell of the religion and is fine by the First Admendment but they get pissy when I ask them if they gave Buddhism a try since it will liberate them from going door to door. Suddenly I can't say that. It's a 2 way street. If they don't like, Iran is very religious....

Not a hit on all Christians but I live in a town in KY were most people are Christian, uneducated, and mindless in that they do whatever someone on TV tells them. The ban on cousin marriage came to late.

Should atheists be allowed to try to convert believers?

Now add children to the mix. Should atheists be allowed to try to convert Christian children? This is the inverse of what some fundamentalist groups are pushing for.

<<Should atheists be allowed to try to convert Christian children?>>

I would think that should be left up to the parents. There's a Bible verse that says "Always be prepared to give an explanation for the hope that is within you," or something like that. It's not a bad thing for older kids (I'm not talking 5-year-olds) to be able to discuss why they believe as they do and be exposed to a different perspective. IMO if a parent isn't secure enough in their spirituality to allow their kids to be aware that not everyone thinks the same way, they're doing their kids a disservice and need to hone their own religious belief system.

I think the children should have the oppertunity to choose their own religion reguardless of their parents.

P.S.:Is there any quick way to shrink the size of linked images?

if you had a way to host it, you could take it to your computer and shrink it. but other than that, nope.

To spread the good news of Jesus Christ. Spread the word......to me this implies discussion, not force

What of those preachers who personally attack people just bc of what they look like? Or automatically condem a person just for not listening to their speech?

automatically condem a person just for not listening to their speech?

Then again I was snoring.

how,exactly?

people with respect of their cultures and try to do so in a polite manner.

and do we respect that are two different questions, I think.

Of course, it should be allowed. It's entirely protected free speech.

Is it always polite? Do we have to listen? Should proselytizers harrass people who don't care to hear them?

I think it comes down to questions of tolerance and consideration. Shouldn't come to "allowed".

, but personally I'm against the whole door to door bit. Much better enlighten others by leading a good life and loving neighbors. Note to Christians: EVERYONE WILL BE SAVED EVENTUALLY, SO DON'T GET SO STUCK UP!

:D

and if you attempt to push your way in my door, my usual politeness is likely to go away quickly. I'm not buying that crap. Actions DO speak far louder than words.

I'm also quite offended by those who think they need to "save" me. I also agree with you that we will all be "saved". A loyalty oath is something the GOP requires, not God.

Yeah, it's obnoxious, but so is a lot of other speech. (GOP convention anyone?) But protecting their right is protecting all of our rights to speak.

If someone comes to me and asks about my religion I will more than happily explain to them what I believe, why I believe it and where I differ from my church. But it isn't my place to force belief on someone else

Or I may be mistaking your response.

The question was should Christians be allowed to try to convert others. Not should they.

I must read things more carefully!

I don't think you can force them NOT to try to convert people, but I think that Christians should move within their churches to respect people's right to chose their own religion. As misguided as many of the evangelicals are allowing them to speak their minds is the right thing to do.

--------------------------------------
Would Jesus love a liberal? You bet!
http://timeforachange.bluelemur.com/

Provided they're trying to convince, rather than to coerce, it's perfectly legitimate.

Trying to convert children without the parent's consent is wrong, though, although it probably shouldn't be banned, just condemned.

We do not force others to join us. Nor do we go around advertising our religion to get other to join. And we don't hit people on the head with bibles. :) That last one is from personal experience. lol

There was a Wiccan organization on my campus. They held public rituals. One year, one of them went around to differnt dorms to talk about her religion (It was an advertised event). My Wiccan friends talked to me several times about their religion and why they believed what they believed.
Some people would call these actions attempts to convert others.

However, I will say that many Wiccan groups do not try to "spread the word" to save others, simply because, according to the Core beliefs, Christians and others aren't wrong either. Kind of hard to try to convert someone from their religion when even you think they are correct, for that person, as well. That's the thing, the key difference between some of these religions, Wiccans will say that your religion is wrong for them, but would never say that your religion is wrong for you. Of course, not everyone is perfect, and Wiccans are no exceptions, so your individual mileage will vary, but that is life anyways.

Also, Wiccans have the "fluff bunny" syndrom, which is basically about teenagers reading about it in one book, and proclaiming themselves experts, and becoming "Wiccan Fundies" overnight, and want to proclaim it from the rooftops. These types either mellow out with education or age, or return to their old religious practices or move on in other ways, but they are annoying, believe me when I tell you that. They are the ones who talk about the "Olde Religion" and the "Burning Times" as if those horrid actions were taken against Wiccans and not Christians accused of Witchcraft, two very different things. Kinda like "Conversion Syndrom" from Christian Fundies of the same type, who annoy the shit out of everyone around them.

Now as far as the actions of groups like the one you talk about, as far as I can tell from you post, they are an outreach group, similar to outreach groups from other religions such as Hinduism or Buddhism. I've seen those types of things in college too, doesn't surprise me a bit. The thing is that Wicca as a religion is attacked quite a bit by churches and politicians. As a result, many have formed educational groups that try to educate the populace at large, not to convert, but to say they don't eat babies and stupid shit like that. Many times their rituals and holidays are open to the public at large, and they will advertise that so as to educate people as to what their religion means, and how it is harmless to society. The only exception to that are some traditions that are more traditional and practice "Skyclad", boy those rituals are fun! ;)

On an individual level, depending on where you live, your best friend could be Wiccan and you wouldn't know it till you attend their funeral. That is the "Broom Closet" syndrom, and unlike Christian persecution, it can be very real depending on where you live. In places that are more Blue, like the Northeast, this would be less of an issue, but in some places, Wiccans who have been public about their beliefs have been harrassed, lost custody of children, and other things that make many of them stay firmly in the closet with the door closed. Not to mention that most Wiccans have probably never met another for years, most are solitary practitioners for sheer practical reasons, because there is no social structure for them to go to. When was the last time you seen a Wiccan temple or church building?

Wicca is mostly spread through book publications, and if you are lucky, a Wiccan teacher and/or coven. Most of them are pretty strict as to how they go about it too, wanting to know if you are serious about it or not. Many Wiccans will not preach to a group of people just on the off chance that some will possibly convert. But if someone takes an interest in the religion, they won't shy away from telling you everything about it, but it is your call, not theirs, so if you say you aren't interested, then they just shrug their shoulders and think its no big deal. Wiccans prefer seekers over converts, people who express open interest in the religion, the burden falls on them to learn about it, rather than having to rely on someone else to push the beliefs on them.

To give an example in my life, I have been a Wiccan for 7 years, in all that time, I have met one other Wiccan IRL that I know about. A few years ago I was driving an Ice Cream truck during the summer. Anyways, one day a girl about my age ran out of her house to stop me, and when she went up to the window, I notice the Pentacle around her neck(honestly, I was looking at the Pentacle, not what it was resting on, I swear!!!!!!:)) Anyways, I wasn't wearing mine for obvious reasons, customers get scared off by that type of stuff after all. But anyways, so I figured I had to say something, so I said, "Merry Meet.", hell she was a surprised as me, I was apparently the first Wiccan she ever met IRL as well, and as the Ice Cream Man no less! The thing that is mostly displayed in my mind was the anxiety she first displayed when she realized she forgot to take the pentacle off in the house. Think about that for a moment, she was afraid to wear the symbol of her faith in public, it was simple dumb luck that no one else was around at the time, and that I happened to be Wiccan as well. And people have the audacity to proclaim us the land of freedom, where is hers, where is mine?

Should they try to convert religious believers to religious non-belief?

I'm surprised - the atheists I've known have always avoided discussion of this. In fact, they seem to be more tolerant of differing beliefs than people of other groups I've met.

I think that promoting the positive aspects of one's religion rather than taking a negative spin like "All unbelievers are going to hell." is most respective and more likely to be effective. I think that people trying to do this in public should limit their activity to a limited area and not chase people who walk away. People are part of other people's lives should be attentive to others reactions if they start talking about their faith. If someone is offended, it is impolite to continue. I don't think any of this should be regulated by law.

since Christianity is essentially evangelical and we are more or less commanded to spread The Word. Just as Muslims are.

The question is not whether Christians should be allowed to evangelize, but just what limits are acceptable.

We no longer convert people at the point of the sword, or by changing state religions, but other than that there is little uniformity among Christians about just how far we should go in this conversion thing.

The extreme evangelists and missionaries are out to save everyone's soul, and some have themselves been killed for their efforts. Most of the rest of us might be content to offer an invite to our church of choice, if the occasion ever arises.

I have some real problems with the soul-savers, but I can't really think of anything to do about them but ignore them. I can't imagine shutting them up, or worse, for their beliefs.

the word. However, if they get too aggressive, it is just counter productive. It's like a really pushy car salesman. The people the Christians are trying to convert DO have right to tell them to stick the book where the sun don't shine.

I just let my dogs out and scare the shit out of them. I have a Great Dane and 2 mixed breeds that love to scare people. That usualy solves the problem.

My dog's wouldnt ever bit anyone, but they dont know that.

If someone asks me about my beliefs I'll be glad to discuss them, but I refuse to approach people and "sell" religion. To me, it's just an invasion of privacy, personal space, whatever. I feel kind of the same way toward people who do this as I feel toward telemarketers, and door-to-door salespeople. I avoid them all! My philosophy is, "Don't call me, I'll call you" IF I decide I'm interested in what you're selling. Chances are, if you knock on my door or call me too many times (Often, once is too many), I'll NEVER be interested. Since I feel this way, I assume that others do as well, and I try to treat others as I would like to be treated.

Besides, it seems to me that if you approach a person of a different faith, or no faith, and try to sell (for lack of a better word) Christianity to them, you are in effect saying, "This belief system is better than whatever you have, therefore, I am better than you." I don't know ANYONE who would react well to that kind of assumption.

I believe in leading by example. If a person leads their life in a Christian way, and exhibits Christianity at its best, no further advertisement is needed.

Once I was grocery shopping, and looking over some produce. A woman looking at the same produce caught my eye and said, "Have you found Jesus Christ?" I was so surprised, I couldn't come up with a good response, but later my friend suggested that I should have said, "No, I didn't realize He was lost!" hee hee

No means no. :)

Forcibly? Or simply tell others their beliefs and hope to encourage others to convert? Either way, a person has a right to evangelize. To me, scare tactics (which I have had used on me) are not the practice of a considerate and well-living person. But I will never say that forceful evangelism--or passive evangelism--is not one's right and is inherently immoral. After all, it isn't to them.

Are you saying that FORCED CONVERSIONS are acceptable???

I don't think they're acceptable. I'm simply pointing out that people who do force conversions view it differently. I don't agree with it, but I won't deny them their right to think about forced conversion that way.

NT!

Proselytizing is bad manners and should be made illegal.

or would any attempt to persuade strangers to your point of view be outlawed?

and religion can become a drug that is used as a control mechanism by the ruling class to keep the workers oppressed.

There is a line spoken by Al Pacino in the film "Angels Over America." Pacino plays the dying Roy Cohn. The line is this: "I love Black people! They could have chosen Marx, but they chose Jesus instead."

"We must save them or kill them.... there's no two ways about it."

Sure it's exaggerated parody and characatures... but it certainly does help to illustrate how many people perceive this egotistical and sanctimonious practice.

>> then should we respect that? <<

No. Why should anyone "respect that" when it's clear that people who insist on doing such things obviously have NO RESPECT for the faith (or non-faith) of those they are trying to convert.

-- Allen