Proselytizing and The Golden Rule

[IdentityCrisisMama]

This thread is to discuss and help me understand something I've been struggling with, which is this idea of proselytizing and the concept of "do unto others" and how those two things go together.

I am a non-religious person and I will admit fully that I know little about proselytizing. From what I understand proselytizing is the desire to convert others to a particular religion and I think that some religions encourage it.

The reason I struggle with proselytizing the way I understand it is because I feel like if something is important enough to a person that they feel like they should try to convert others, aren't they in a way not honoring others views the way they would like their's honored, yk?

This idea of mine is even more clear to me when I think of children. The idea that anyone would want another person's child to convert to their religion seems so wrong to me.

What are your thoughts on this?

[Smokering]

I've usually heard "proselytizing" used as a rather negative synonym for evangelising.

The idea that anyone would want another person's child to convert to their religion seems so wrong to me.

Well, depending on the religion - and most, though not all, proselytizing religions have exclusive truth-claims - those peoply may well believe that if the child doesn't convert, he or she will go to hell/miss out on some kind of pleasant afterlife/otherwise suffer. Which you'll probably find offensive in itself, but it does mean such people usually have the child's best interests at heart, as they see them.

Pretty much everyone finds evangelism obnoxious, so if you view the Golden Rule as "Only evangelise to others if you would have them evangelise to you", there's a disconnect. If you view it as "Offer people the chance to escape from an eternal fiery hell as you would like to be offered the chance to escape from an eternal fiery hell", it makes somewhat more sense.

Religions with exclusive truth-claims don't tend to believe that any religious/spiritual views, regardless of content, should be respected anyway (intellectually, that is: most have social codes that usually involve a modicum of politeness). They don't view religion as "chocolate vs vanilla", an anything-goes choice; but as "right vs wrong", with the "right" having significant, possibly eternal rewards and the wrong having (often) devastating consequences.

[Bluegoat]

Of the big-5 religions, Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism are all proselytizing religions. They all have something in common - they consider themselves to have a universal answer that applies to all humankind: this is how you can be free from suffering; this is how you can achieve union with God, etc.

To offer all people the chance to learn this and take advantage of it is understood to be an act of love and compassion. From the Christian and Muslim perspective, it is one way of saying that God loves all people, and so we should too.

It's like I notice my neighbour putting together his new barbecue, improperly. Maybe he is on the way to blowing himself up, or maybe he'll just have toasty burgers, but in either case, following the golden rule would likely mean offering a hand with the barbecue assembly.

If he says no thanks, well, that's that. Maybe eventually he'll notice your burgers are always perfect, and you've not been blown up.

FWIW, I don't mind if people want to tell me about their religion - the local Mormons come by regularly.

I'm not sure - do you mean minor children? I think it would generally be considered inappropriate to try to convert young kids, and I know a lot of Christian groups won't accept teens as members unless their parents are ok with it - they just tell them to wait until they are of age.

[mammal_mama]

Having made the shift from fundamentalist Christianity to Universalism, I feel like I can understand both perspectives. As a fundamentalist, I thought those who didn't believe like me were headed straight for hell.

From this vantage-point, warning them was similar to what you'd do if you were the one person who knew that a bomb was set to go off in a certain sector of your city.

If, for some reason, it was impossible to find and deactivate the bomb, but you just knew that everyone who moved to another specific location of the city would be saved, then wouldn't you be spreading the word to everyone willing to listen, in the hopes that they'd eventually believe you, while there was still time, and move to safety?

If there were some parents who were totally unwilling to listen to you, but you had the opportunity to move their kids to safety, would you feel like it was your moral responsibility to disregard the parents' wishes in order to save the kids, or would you just mind your own business?

This perspective made tremendous sense to me while I was totally immersed in the fundamentalist teaching. I really think it was having restless babies who had to be walked a lot during church time, and who also caused me to be more interested in reading about Attachment Parenting than about Revelation and so on, that caused my brain to come up for air and led me to start rethinking much of what I'd just assumed for years.

Plus, of course, I realized that Attachment Parenting is based on a pretty positive view of human nature and a pretty negative view of punishment, and yet it was making such tremendous sense to me, so I really felt a need to reexamine my belief in a God who was soooo loving, and yet literally could not stop Himself from casting people into hell if they did not believe the "right stuff" about Him.

It was like a lightbulb came on, and I saw that it was kind of silly to think that an all-powerful God was powerless to deactivate the bomb. And why would He even set the bomb in the first place?

So, now I am experiencing proseletyzing from the other side, in that an uncle of one of dd's friends just reminded me today about a Bible club that a lot of kids in our neighborhood are going to.

I just want to be friendly with these people, but I really don't want to subject my daughters to any kind of fear-based teaching, so when he reminded me I just said, "Thanks, I'll keep it in mind." I know it's a cop-out, but I guess I just don't feel ready to expound on my universalist beliefs to just anyone and everyone.

At this point in my life, I really want to connect with people and build a caring community, based not on having the exact same belief-system but on our shared humanity. And I really find the attempts at proseletyzing to be just one of those annoying things that I have to deal with if I want to build community in our Midwestern Bible Belt community.

I understand where it's coming from, of course, so I do empathize with those who might be concerned about me and my family -- but, all the same, I just wish it didn't have to be this way.

And, yeah, I'd want you to tell me if my grill were about to blow up.

[IdentityCrisisMama]

Thank you for all your replies. I guess if I imagine that people are trying to rescue others from bombs/fire & brimstone/exploding BBQs and stuff it makes more sense ethically.

It's hard for me because up until now we've been teaching DC a broad description of various religions and telling her what we think is unique, different and interesting about each. We've become close to a family that is teaching that their religion is the one way and they share some of this belief with DC. Their child (4 years) talks about her religion like a 4 year old would if they were being taught that this was the truth and the only truth.

At times it is challenging to balance that for DC as well as respond to this little 4 year old child in a way that honors their family's belief but models to DC how to react to this kind of discussion.

Thanks for listening and sharing!!

Oh, I also wanted to express some suspicion and see how you feel about this crazy idea. When I was reading that proselytizing seemed more acceptable when it was about saving another person's soul (so to speak) I had this skeptical feeling that this idea would be a good idea for MAN to create in order to encourage the growth of the religion.

[mammal_mama]

Originally Posted by IdentityCrisisMama

Oh, I also wanted to express some suspicion and see how you feel about this crazy idea. When I was reading that proselytizing seemed more acceptable when it was about saving another person's soul (so to speak) I had this skeptical feeling that this idea would be a good idea for MAN to create in order to encourage the growth of the religion.

This is an excellent point.

I also now believe that the hell-teaching developed as a way for the power-hungry to increase their control over the masses, by manipulating them through fear.

[Liquesce]

I would just like to point out that a great many people who belong to proselytizing faiths do not agree with a door-to-door, pamphleteering, "hey, have you ever considered joining ..." kind of activity, and even believe that sort of behavior to be counter-productive. Many people instead believe in living their own lives ethically, living lives of service, and generally setting a good example, only "spreading the word" doctrinally if asked. That it's not so much "go out and seek converts" as it is "strive to live a life admirable enough as to encourage others to see a value in emulating you."

[blessedwithboys]

Originally Posted by mammal_mama

I also now believe that the hell-teaching developed as a way for the power-hungry to increase their control over the masses, by manipulating them through fear.

You are correct. Hellfire is not a bible teaching.



However, house to house preaching is :

Originally Posted by Liquesce

I would just like to point out that a great many people who belong to proselytizing faiths do not agree with a door-to-door, pamphleteering, "hey, have you ever considered joining ..." kind of activity, and even believe that sort of behavior to be counter-productive. Many people instead believe in living their own lives ethically, living lives of service, and generally setting a good example, only "spreading the word" doctrinally if asked. That it's not so much "go out and seek converts" as it is "strive to live a life admirable enough as to encourage others to see a value in emulating you."

[Liquesce]

Originally Posted by blessedwithboys

However, house to house preaching is :

Good thing I don't follow the Bible then.

[Thao]

At times it is challenging to balance that for DC as well as respond to this little 4 year old child in a way that honors their family's belief but models to DC how to react to this kind of discussion.

I hear ya. We identify as Buddhists and are raising our dd in a rural, mainly Christian area.

I think the most important thing is to not make the issue out to be more than it is. When our dd's friends say something about what their family believes, we listen respectfully and then say something like, "that's lovely [interesting, whatever], in our family we believe XYZ." It is not being disrespectful to the other family to simply let it be known that not everyone believes the same.

Once in school our 8-year-old dd mentioned (in the context of a conversation with friends) that she doesn't believe in God. Her friend, shocked, said "that means you follow satan!" Dd came home somewhat upset (understandably) and my first reaction was I wanted to call the parents of the child and let them have it. But then I realized this kid was simply saying what they'd been taught. I explained to dd that we believe strongly that it is not true, but there is no point arguing; just continue being kind and loving and let the kid wonder how a satanist could have such fine qualities . I also instructed dd to pay attention to how the kid treated her in the future; if she was mean, we'd deal with it, but if she just kept playing with dd as usual it meant that she was just parroting a belief she had been taught but it didn't have to affect their school friendship. And you know what? They continued to be friends.

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by IdentityCrisisMama

Oh, I also wanted to express some suspicion and see how you feel about this crazy idea. When I was reading that proselytizing seemed more acceptable when it was about saving another person's soul (so to speak) I had this skeptical feeling that this idea would be a good idea for MAN to create in order to encourage the growth of the religion.

I don't think that you really need to think about this in terms of saving souls for it to make sense. It more about sharing truth. Although some fundementalists like to let on that hell is the issue, as Christians we really have no idea what happens to non-Christians (or really any individual!)

But why would we not want to share what with think is true with our friends and neighbours, or tell people things about God - just for the thing in itself? Or with other issues for that matter? What kind of public discourse would that be. Should people stop being politically involved, or writing letters to the editor, because some people might not like the POV expressed?

Religion, or any worldview, be it humanism, communism, or some sort of scientific materialism, not only directly affects the way we think and behave as individuals and our views on how we should live as social beings; it speaks to what we believe to be the fundamental nature of the universe and human kind. Surly this is the kind of thing we should be talking about.

I also find it suspicious that those who want to make religion an entirely private matter feel that secular worldviews do not need to be private - they can even be a basis for public political discourse!

I wish that people wouldn't teach their kids that all non-Christians would go to Hell. I wish that people wouldn't teach their kids that all religion was anti-intellectual and silly. But I don't think those are ideas that should be addressed by saying they belong only to the realm of the personal and private.

[merpk]

Originally Posted by IdentityCrisisMama

This thread is to discuss and help me understand something I've been struggling with, which is this idea of proselytizing and the concept of "do unto others" and how those two things go together.

I am a non-religious person and I will admit fully that I know little about proselytizing. From what I understand proselytizing is the desire to convert others to a particular religion and I think that some religions encourage it.

The reason I struggle with proselytizing the way I understand it is because I feel like if something is important enough to a person that they feel like they should try to convert others, aren't they in a way not honoring others views the way they would like their's honored, yk?

This idea of mine is even more clear to me when I think of children. The idea that anyone would want another person's child to convert to their religion seems so wrong to me.

What are your thoughts on this?

My thoughts are that you are working from the starting point of the Christian "golden rule."

The Jewish version of it is actually the opposite: Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you.

Which fits very neatly with the fact that Judaism is a nonproselytizing religion.




And the fact that all that "wanting to share the good news" has generally resulted in convert-or-die scenarios for Jews through the last 2,000 years throughout the Christian and (to a lesser degree) the Islamic world, well, it's safe to say that Jews generally don't look at proselytizing as comparable to "helping with the barbecue."

More like "let's put the Jews in the barbecue."









Sorry, I know, that was crass. But sometimes I just can't help m'self.

[IdentityCrisisMama]

Thanks again, All!! It's helpful to hash it out with you. It seems from your posts that perhaps I've been needlessly timid about talking to this other family about what we believe (or don't believe).

BTW, I'm not really talking about the door-to-door types - or at least not only about them. Even the act of "living a good life in part so that perhaps others will join your religion" is very foreign to me. I'm a "variety is the spice of life" type and I truly can't relate to wanting people to believe what I believe when it comes to religion.

And, yea, the to unto others thing still has me feeling that the desire to change someone is still a tad problematic. I feel like behaving a particular way in part to change someone is wrong to do *myself*. I feel like it's wrong to wish on any level that my friends change their mind, leave their religion, and start thinking the way I do.

I'm still stuck there a bit.

[IdentityCrisisMama]

Cross-post Merpk

Originally Posted by merpk

The Jewish version of it is actually the opposite: Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you.

Yes, Merpk.

I did a little research before posting this thread and found a really interesting blog post. This person's thoughts were that religions that used the Golden Rule in the "DO phrasing" were the proselytizing religions and those that used the rule in the "DO NOT phrasing" were the non-proselytizing religions.

[2xy]

Originally Posted by Bluegoat

I don't think that you really need to think about this in terms of saving souls for it to make sense. It more about sharing truth. Although some fundementalists like to let on that hell is the issue, as Christians we really have no idea what happens to non-Christians (or really any individual!)

But why would we not want to share what with think is true with our friends and neighbours, or tell people things about God - just for the thing in itself? Or with other issues for that matter? What kind of public discourse would that be. Should people stop being politically involved, or writing letters to the editor, because some people might not like the POV expressed?

I think the difference is because there is nothing factual about religion. If you (general "you") subscribe to a particular "truth," it's based purely on faith and not evidence. Your truth is no more legitimate than my truth. You are free to tell me your version of the truth, and I am free to scoff. I am also free to not associate with you anymore if you can't respect that my truth is as valid to me as yours is to you, and simply agree to disagree.

[IdentityCrisisMama]

BTW, I don't think religion should be private. I LOVE other people's religions and all the interesting culture that goes along with it. I just don't think it should be used to try to change someone's mind -- and, yes, in part because that seems like it would be disrespecting what the other person believes.

[Thao]

I think there is a big difference between adults (or children) talking about their religious beliefs in the context of a conversation, where it absolutely should not be avoided or suppressed, and starting out a conversation with the express purpose to win the other person to their view (like "did you know jesus died for your sins?), in which case it is appropriate to politely decline to talk. Which sort of vibe do you get from your dc's friend's family?

I agree that this kind of proselytizing is inherently disrespectful of the other person's beliefs. While it may be motivated by a kind heart, the fact is they think your beliefs are the equivalent of an exploding barbecue. But there's nothing to be done about it, so I prefer to focus on the fact that they mean well.

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by 2xy

I think the difference is because there is nothing factual about religion. If you (general "you") subscribe to a particular "truth," it's based purely on faith and not evidence. Your truth is no more legitimate than my truth. You are free to tell me your version of the truth, and I am free to scoff. I am also free to not associate with you anymore if you can't respect that my truth is as valid to me as yours is to you, and simply agree to disagree.

Theism, deism, pantheism, Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, et al have just as serious and in-depth philosophical under-pinnings as secular humanism, or scientific materialism. It is a rather narrow band of religious individuals who understand faith as something outside of or opposed to evidence.

[Liquesce]

IME ideological pluralism is itself something of a proselytizing position, though it is not often described as such. The belief that divergent views are all equal is correct and the world would be better off if everyone could just see that. The belief in universal truth is incorrect. Unless the universal truth is pluralism itself, and the divergent view is universalism. Then all bets are off.

[Smokering]

Theism, deism, pantheism, Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, et al have just as serious and in-depth philosophical under-pinnings as secular humanism, or scientific materialism. It is a rather narrow band of religious individuals who understand faith as something outside of or opposed to evidence.

Thank you.

"Nothing factual about religion" is a very bizarre view indeed. It sounds to me like a philosophical belief based on the kind of faith that precludes evidence.