Is this proselytising?

[idea]

Why is that trying to "convert from one religion to another"? That's just trying sell a product, like selling the idea of joining a non-for-profit peace movement (if you think monetary exchange makes it different from trying to sell water softeners).

The difference between religious organizations and legitimate non-profits are those who are legitimate actually provide services - like healthcare, schools (that teach career, not religious, lessons), who distribute food and cloths and help people with legal battles, and help people get jobs and legit counseling from educated licensed counselors (not "volunteer" uneducated counseling to join a group - which I have seen do far far more harm than good).

Legit groups are other focused - it is about actually helping someone, NOT about creating a larger church or larger political group. It is completely focused on the other person, NOT spreading propaganda or trying to get an audience for themselves.

Selfless - not wanting anything in return.
Selfish - look at me serve, you owe me, you need to listen to what I have to say.

 

[Kenny]

Why is it wrong to consider proselytizing undesirable? Many people consider organized religion to be a net harm to society, and would do what they could to limit it, including judging those proselytizing as antisocial. I understand that the proselytizing believer thinks he is offering something of value and therefore providing a societal benefit, but many disagree, and are free to express that opinion as I am doing now, even if you consider them wrong for so doing.

Obviously, you can find an opinion with radicals on both end of the spectrum. I have no problem with people disagree and sharing their positions.

If someone feels organized religion a net harm, someone can find organized humanism a net harm.

Why is it wrong to feel like proselytizing undesirable? Because then another person can say "environmentalism" is undesirable, your political party is undesirable, your world view is undesirable.

You have.... dictatorship - think like I want you to think

It's interesting to see how believers explain all the negativity they experience for their religion. Not surprisingly, it's never the religion responsible for any of it. Yesterday, you explained the skeptic's aversion to religion as being some kind of cognitive dissonance caused by knowing that they are resisting a good god. It's their fault for not being interested in your religion, not that they have no interest in a religion that is unappealing to them because it offers them nothing and seems irrelevant in the 21st century, or that it teaches homophobia, or that it rails against science and promotes faith over reason (which later manifests as vaccine hesitancy and climate denial), or that it is trying to take reproductive freedom from women, or that the church doesn't pay it's fair share of taxes, or that it is steeped in sexual crimes and fraud. It can't be that the religion simply isn't interesting to people that are already content without it, or that they have grounds for disapproving of it.

But having a discussion about it to "proselytize" your position... isn't wrong.

Now you want to tell people who consider proselytizing undesirable that they're wrong. It can't be you that is wrong, correct? What you do is good, so those that disapprove or resist must be bad, right? Isn't that basically how all resistance to organized religion is framed - we're good, so they must be bad? We're right, so they must be wrong? That's a pretty unappealing aspect of that religion as well.

Again... but aren't you proselytizing your view? And therefore you are wrong?

Or the believer who is frustrated with the skeptic's rejection of their arguments and evidence for gods, and sees it as the skeptic's fault - he is just too picky, doing whatever he can to dishonestly reject a compelling argument because he's rebellious and wants to go on sinning. It's never that the argument simply isn't convincing. It's never a failure of the religion to entice or convince people, or for their rejection and dislike of the religion.

frustration can be found on both sides... but silencing them in the name of proselytizing is still wrong.

Do you ever think, maybe it's us, not them?

I say let them both speak and not silence them.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why is it wrong to feel like proselytizing undesirable? Because then another person can say "environmentalism" is undesirable, your political party is undesirable, your world view is undesirable.

You have.... dictatorship - think like I want you to think

But dictatorship is what you're asking for.

You've made it clear that you can't handle people who say that you're free to do what you want, but don't particularly like what you're doing. You're the one asking for not only the right to act as you please, but to be thought well of for doing it.

You're the one who's saying, effectively, "think what I want you to think."

 

[Eddi]

Out of curiosity, why did you choose this plan as a way to be "a Christian presence in the community?"

My grandmother's church participated in the Out of the Cold program (a network of churches that would feed and house the homeless in their church basements and parish halls in the winter).

There are churches that run food banks. Some do Habitat for Humanity builds.

Heck - your church could even sign up for a charity 5K run and solicit for donations. You could even wear shirts that loudly proclaim what church you're from.

Just sitting at a booth praying for people strikes me as one of the least beneficial ways of creating "a Christian presence in the community."

We do stuff such as that as well

 

[Kenny]

But dictatorship is what you're asking for.

You've made it clear that you can't handle people who say that you're free to do what you want, but don't particularly like what you're doing. You're the one asking for not only the right to act as you please, but to be thought well of for doing it.

You're the one who's saying, effectively, "think what I want you to think."

???? Where did I say that? You have me confused. Definite disconnect.

 

[oldbadger]

Yes.
I don't mind folks flogging faith anywhere as it happens, so answering Yes doesn't have to mean bad thoughts .
But where I live you might get heckled by other folks having their free speech.

 

[Brickjectivity]

The difference between religious organizations and legitimate non-profits are those who are legitimate actually provide services - like healthcare, schools (that teach career, not religious, lessons), who distribute food and cloths and help people with legal battles, and help people get jobs and legit counseling from educated licensed counselors (not "volunteer" uneducated counseling to join a group - which I have seen do far far more harm than good).

Legit groups are other focused - it is about actually helping someone, NOT about creating a larger church or larger political group. It is completely focused on the other person, NOT spreading propaganda or trying to get an audience for themselves.

Selfless - not wanting anything in return.
Selfish - look at me serve, you owe me, you need to listen to what I have to say.

Idea, you have mistakenly put me in for Windwakler. The quoted post is: Is this proselytising? I'm going to get the name changed to theirs.

 

[Windwalker]

Its possible I'm stretching the meaning, however I still think that offering the literature (about becoming a Christian) is proselytizing but that merely having a stall out there talking to people isn't. I think that it would take more than a few minutes of chat. The exception is if you ask for a commitment, such as a commitment to pray for God to reveal Christianity to you or if you suggest that someone make a decision.

I still would put that into the "close the deal" part of the sale. Selling a product isn't necessarily proselytizing, if we take the meaning of proselytizing to get someone to change from their religion to yours. Someone who doesn't have a religion and is looking for what the religious salesperson is selling, they are new customer to the religion business. They are selling to a new potential customer, not trying pull another businesses' customers away from them through pressure tactics.

I remember when I was new to religion in my youth, my father, who was a business owner, referred to that religion as a business selling products. I was really taken aback by that at the time, and didn't agree with him. I do now. There is a truth to that.

The only thing I'm questioning is seeing people take normal sales and advertising for a business, as proselytizing, just because the product is religion. I think there is a difference between that and trying to dissuade someone from their existing religion to buy yours. That shows a disrespect and disregard to that customer's beliefs and values. It's manipulative. Kind of dirty business tactics. Proselytizing is a negative.

I'm not trying to mess with you. Perhaps I got caught up in the spirit of debate. Karate is not a religion, but karate training is a religious experience.

I could be diminishing the meaning of proselytize, however training someone in karate is akin to training them in a religion. I wouldn't think this about all sports such as bowling. A martial art like karate emphasizes attitude and exercise and often comes with some beliefs from a teacher. It is a transformative and formative process, very difficult like a boot camp sometimes. The teacher advises you, guides you both physically and psychologically. Some would say 'spiritually'. The teacher may even teach you to believe in superstitions and could require it, or they might try to get you involved in some side business of theirs. You train hard in karate, you change in karate, and you train regularly -- religiously. Therefore 'Proselytize' is possible.

Here's a good example. I practice the Internal or 'soft' style of martial arts in Tai Chi Chuan. Karate is an External, or 'hard" style of martial arts. If both studios had booths at a county fair, inviting people to free lesson, hand out literature, explain what we were about, and try to sell people on what we offer and why they might want this style over the other style, as each has their own selling points, that's just advertising and basic selling of a product. That's just seeking new members and to expand your community.

However, if I were to stand outside the Karate studio's booth and mock them, saying a hard style is not real martial arts, and that only Tai Chi will lead to Enlightenment, come and join us down the street at our studio instead, don't be a loser with all that hard style stuff, that is proselytizing. I may also be challenged to a fight in doing that.

Additionally this used to be even more the case when different karate styles competed. People believed in them mystically. That is not so much the case sense Bruce Lee, but they still retain the trappings of religiosity.

Personally, I believe there is a mystical level to any highly advanced states of martial arts practices, most certainly in taijiquan, as I'll attest to. The hard styles, the external styles are simply a quicker path to self-defense, such as in the Northern styles of Shaolin Kung Fu, which were training monks to defend the properties of wealthy temples. The Southern, Wudan styles, which I practice take much long to learn, up to 10 years to become a warrior level. But both the external and internal styles do converge at the same place. One just starts internally, the other externally. Enlightenment is the result at the highest levels of each.

Bruce Lee, was a street fighter. So that was his primary focus. Win the fight. But I do believe he too understood the mystical aspects of it.

But the point is, I don't think we can say that we should use the term proselytizing if it's about religion or spirituality, and not advertising in general if they are selling their products. Trying to convert someone away from another religion is a negative. Advertising is not.

 

[Windwalker]

The difference between religious organizations and legitimate non-profits are those who are legitimate actually provide services - like healthcare, schools (that teach career, not religious, lessons), who distribute food and cloths and help people with legal battles, and help people get jobs and legit counseling from educated licensed counselors (not "volunteer" uneducated counseling to join a group - which I have seen do far far more harm than good).

Many legitimate church organizations do exact those things. Some are just using charity as an excuse to evangelize. I consider them to be acting in bad faith.

Legit groups are other focused - it is about actually helping someone, NOT about creating a larger church or larger political group. It is completely focused on the other person, NOT spreading propaganda or trying to get an audience for themselves.

Again, there are legitimate religious organization, and illegitimate, or bad faith religious organization. "By their fruits you shall know them", taught Jesus to discern between sheep, and wolves in sheeps clothing, This is as old as religion itself. But you don't judge all of religion by frauds like Pat Robertson, and the like. They spread hate and fear, not love. They do good, only if it's good for themselves.

Selfless - not wanting anything in return.
Selfish - look at me serve, you owe me, you need to listen to what I have to say.

Yep. You have to look at who is doing what within religion, not just dismiss all of it as bad-faith. Because there is dirty bathwater, does not mean there is not a clean baby to be found.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I'd say that the person who approached our stall and engaged us would have "crossed the line"

How would you feel about an equivalent stall setup across from yours for Scientology? The people sitting there are only offering to give advice to those who seek it, and they have literature, but do not push it on anyone. Perhaps you would think it just dandy. Just answer honestly.

 

[Eddi]

How would you feel about an equivalent stall setup across from yours for Scientology? The people sitting there are only offering to give advice to those who seek it, and they have literature, but do not push it on anyone. Perhaps you would think it just dandy. Just answer honestly.

I don't know what the best thing to do would be were that to happen, I have many competing feelings and thoughts

I think just ignore them? Or relocate on to another patch?

I can't help but feel that this is a trick question, designed to trip me up no matter what I say

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Is this proselytising?

• Set up a stall on a relatively busy pedestrianised street
• Have a sign offering prayers to people who are interested - offering to either pray for them or pray with them (or both)
• Just sit there, waiting for people to approach
• Have reading material available for those who approach us and engage us in conversation

I have designed this to be as un-intrusive and inoffensive as possible

I want my freedom to religious expression to be respected and in turn I want to respect peoples' freedom from religion as I recognise that respect is a two-way street

I seriously doubt that the only thing this booth would do would be to offer up prayers. People would ask questions, and those in the booth would try to convince them of the faith.

 

[idea]

Many legitimate church organizations do exact those things. Some are just using charity as an excuse to evangelize. I consider them to be acting in bad faith.


Again, there are legitimate religious organization, and illegitimate, or bad faith religious organization. "By their fruits you shall know them", taught Jesus to discern between sheep, and wolves in sheeps clothing, This is as old as religion itself. But you don't judge all of religion by frauds like Pat Robertson, and the like. They spread hate and fear, not love. They do good, only if it's good for themselves.


Yep. You have to look at who is doing what within religion, not just dismiss all of it as bad-faith. Because there is dirty bathwater, does not mean there is not a clean baby to be found.

Non-denominational groups tend to embrace more freedom for personal thought in members, and to be better with charity in my experience. Yes, Yin/Yang in everything. Some good posts in this thread - food for thought to anyone who seeks to be a missionary.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I can't help but feel that this is a trick question, designed to trip me up no matter what I say

Basically, yes... you caught me. It is a question designed to make you look at what might be your own action in another light.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Is this proselytising?

• Set up a stall on a relatively busy pedestrianised street
• Have a sign offering prayers to people who are interested - offering to either pray for them or pray with them (or both)
• Just sit there, waiting for people to approach
• Have reading material available for those who approach us and engage us in conversation

I have designed this to be as un-intrusive and inoffensive as possible

I want my freedom to religious expression to be respected and in turn I want to respect peoples' freedom from religion as I recognise that respect is a two-way street

Yes - I believe this would be considered proselytizing.

I don't believe that to be a bad or intrusive thing though.

There is nothing wrong with proselytizing.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The only thing I'm questioning is seeing people take normal sales and advertising for a business, as proselytizing, just because the product is religion. I think there is a difference between that and trying to dissuade someone from their existing religion to buy yours. That shows a disrespect and disregard to that customer's beliefs and values. It's manipulative. Kind of dirty business tactics. Proselytizing is a negative.

But aren't you describing two sides of the same coin?

I mean, trying to persuade someone to join a religion (that frowns on its members still belonging to other religions), aren't you effectively trying to dissuading them from their existing religion?

 

[Windwalker]

But aren't you describing two sides of the same coin?

I mean, trying to persuade someone to join a religion (that frowns on its members still belonging to other religions), aren't you effectively trying to dissuading them from their existing religion?

Why is it assumed they belong to another religion? My point was the OP has a booth advertising religion to those who are interested. Chance are pretty high that if they have their own religion, they aren't going to come up for free prayers and religious literature.

The assumption is that they don't have one and may be interested in one. In which case, it's just advertising and technically not trying to dissuade them from something they already have. I don't think we would call advertizing water softeners to those who don't have one and may be interested in one, as proselytizing. If they aggressively targeted another businesses customers to buy theirs instead, trying to convert them away from the other guy's business, that's more what proselytizing is, according to the dictionary definition.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why is it assumed they belong to another religion?

Because most people are religious and because most religious conversion involves "brand switching" from one religion to another and not turning irreligious people into religious adherents.

My point was the OP has a booth advertising religion to those who are interested. Chance are pretty high that if they have their own religion, they aren't going to come up for free prayers and religious literature.

Interesting. I assumed that the only people interested in free prayers would be people who would value being prayed for (i.e. devout, prayerful religious people).

The assumption is that they don't have one and may be interested in one. In which case, it's just advertising and technically not trying to dissuade them from something they already have. I don't think we would call advertizing water softeners to those who don't have one and may be interested in one, as proselytizing.

No, because water softeners aren't religion.

IMO, proselytizing is any act of selling where the product being sold is a religion.

If they aggressively targeted another businesses customers to buy theirs instead, trying to convert them away from the other guy's business, that's more what proselytizing is, according to the dictionary definition.

I guess I don't see anything at the OP that would be focused on reaching irreligious people. In fact, by offering prayers, it seems like it's actively focused on the religious... kinda like how offering free palm readings would be focused on people who were already into fortune telling.

When your public offering is prayer, you're going to mostly attract people who are really into prayer.

 

[Windwalker]

Because most people are religious and because most religious conversion involves "brand switching" from one religion to another and not turning irreligious people into religious adherents.

Why would you say that? I wasn't religious when I turned to religion in my early 20s. There are certainly plenty of non-religious people that turn to religion to find meaning in their lives. In fact, when I was part of it, most folks who joined did not come from another group. Those were far and few between. It was usually the down and outs, rather than converts from other faiths.

Interesting. I assumed that the only people interested in free prayers would be people who would value being prayed for (i.e. devout, prayerful religious people).

In my experience, those who showed an interest were those who felt something was missing from their lives and didn't have religion. Those they had one, would turn to their own religion for things like prayer, not someone outside their own church.

No, because water softeners aren't religion.

IMO, proselytizing is any act of selling where the product being sold is a religion.

But that's not the dictionary definition of proselytizing:

1. the action of attempting to convert someone from one religion, belief, or opinion to another.
   "no amount of proselytizing was going to change their minds"

Simply selling religion to someone who doesn't have one is not "from one religion to another". In reality, religion is a product for sale, just like water softeners are. My dad, who was a business owner, said to me when I came to him all on fire for my religious beliefs, that religion was a business. I was taken aback by that, but now I really do agree with him. It's selling a product, just like any other product. You advertize. You seek a customer base, brand loyalty, etc.

So, I don't think it's accurate to say just because the product for sale is religion, that means it's proselytizing whereas selling water softeners is not. We don't use a different term for selling tacos, because the product is tacos, for instance. But if you were to target taco bells customers and tell them their going to go to hell, or the hospital from eating those tacos, and only your taco truck was on the one true taco truck, that might qualify as proselytizing.

I guess I don't see anything at the OP that would be focused on reaching irreligious people. In fact, by offering prayers, it seems like it's actively focused on the religious... kinda like how offering free palm readings would be focused on people who were already into fortune telling.

The audience would be those who have considered religion or faith in God as something they would want, or perhaps had once and were considering returning to it. As I said, it's highly doubtful an active Lutheran or Catholic would go to them, rather than to their own faith community. But beyond that, if it were a sincere religion that just saw that faith transcends denominational, or 'brand loyalty', a prayer is just a gesture of compassion.

Trying to get them to leave their religion for yours under the guise of offering prayers however, is disingenuously, sleazy, and snake oil sales tactics, or proselytizing. "Free meals," but you have to endure some fundamentalist preaching hellfire and brimstone, for instance, is sleazy and insincere faith. I would call that proselytizing.

I think it really has to do with the intent. Is it just a gimmick to make converts? Then it's proselytizing. Bait and switch. That stuff is gross, and falls far short of genuine faith. That's just that group's immortality projects, and not really about the actual person. Look how they act when the person decides against them, as a key indicator of the sincerity of faith, i.e, shunning members who doubt them. That's not about love. That's about ego.