Can evangelical religion be given the same respect in a free society?

[BloodyWilliam]

We all can agree (okay, most of us, ideally) that religion is a personal choice that should be respected among individuals. At the very least, individuals should have their own choice, and their right to choose and express those religious views and tenets should not be infringed upon.

Ideally, we can all live together in a world where our beliefs, our prayers, our gods (if we have them) can exist in harmony together. But what about evangelical religions?

One of the main tenets of evangelical Christianity is that it is a worshipper's mission to convert others, to "save" them. That is not just an issue of dogma, but a fundamental of worship in that sort of religious sect. For them to be allowed to worship freely, they must be allowed to infringe upon our own free worship.

Is there any way we can resolve this issue? It seems like a pretty big quandary- how can we all allow free religious worship when one of those religions is focused on the conversion of other religions?

Note: I realize this does not apply to all Christianity. I am speaking only of evangelical sects.

[ozarkvet]

1. Water off a ducks back

Attempts at conversion bother me not.

I thank them (for most are genuinely seeking converts because they are concerned about my eternal damnation, which is a nice thing to be worried about, I suppose), then tell them my level of interest.

I do not argue.

I am polite.

They go away.

[BloodyWilliam]

4. You are a far better man than I.

I try to be as polite as I can with these people, just because I don't like starting beef unless they're complete assholes. Hell, I've been a telemarketer, I know it's not a pleasant job (heh).

On a personal level though, I am troubled because I find the entire concept morally repugnant. How could any god that requires salvation by faith alone, who sees our personal decisions as irrelevant unless they are explicitly and spiritually about him, be considered a good and loving god?

[ozarkvet]

12. I didn't say I didn't get annoyed!

I just TRY to remember where they are coming from, which is a noble and selfless goal, whether I agree with it or not.

It does take some balls to go to strangers houses --- for the benefit of strangers and not you --- and face repeated rejection.

I couldn't even sell carwash tickets for the cub scouts when I was a kid, I hated going door-to-door so bad. And that was to get to go to the cool jamboree thing.

That and I have a number of holy roller family members (I am black, you know!), so I have practice keeping family peace.

"How could any god that requires salvation by faith alone, who sees our personal decisions as irrelevant unless they are explicitly and spiritually about him, be considered a good and loving god?"

I have actually asked much the same question. The answer was that I had a faulty premise --- that God does consider our personal decisions as relevant, and, if fact often times considers them repugnant --- but is more than willing to forgive (but not necissarily forget, as in there very well will be consequences for bad actions or omissions) everything, if we simply ask.

That, or I would get a blank stare.

Tricky theology, which is above my head, so I would probably stare, too.

[OnionPatch]

34. Good point!

This has always been my main problem with Christianity. It's all supposed to be about love, good works and selflessness, etc. but then there's this primitive "You MUST worship ME!!" aspect of it that doesn't make sense to me. A perfect, all-loving God would not have an ego that requires everyone to "worship" him/her. This led me to assume long ago that someone way back twisted the words of Jesus. I believe he was talking about accepting *his message* (of love), not about accepting *him*, but they were too into "worship" in those days to understand this. If you switch the words "me" to the words "my message" in his teachings then the so-called "Christian" concepts can encompass ANYONE who lives a life of peace and love and giving, regardless of what God they believe in or even if they don't believe in any god. This just makes so much more sense to me. Of course the Robertson's of the world would want to burn me at the stake for saying this! :)

[Pirate Smile]

9. I first encountered this in Lawrence, KS. I was in law school. Three

people knocked on my apartment door asking what religion I was and if I was satisfied (I can't remember exactly). I was polite, said I was Catholic and happy with that, not interested in changing. They left.

They came back 2 more times - getting more and more aggressive and less and less interested in anything I said.

I, of course, became more and more insulted, outraged and rude to get them to leave me the hell alone.

I was rather shocked by the encounters since this was my first time dealing with this type of thing.

I found the way they treated people who practice other religions or no religion VERY INSULTING AND OFFENSIVE.

That is just my personal story.

[ozarkvet]

16. There are some advantages

In being an almost 6'6 black man who still wears an Army uniform. With a side arm.

Yes, I get annoyed women with rushing off, presumably thinking I am a rapist lurking in the parking lot as I wander looking for the POS I drive.

But this almost makes up for it.

[Pirate Smile]

40. LOL. I think I was probably too nice the first time but I wasn't by the

end.

You must be a "glass half-full" type of person. :)

Welcome to DU.:hi:

[JVS]

64. Same here.

The way you hear some people descibe the Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons here, you'd think they had torn a page from Saint Olaf's book and told them "Convert, or I will sacrifice you to your Gods!"

I've taken the copy of the Watchtower, talked for a brief time (The topic was once, "What do you think God would have to say about the economic inequality in our society?") offered some water, then they went away. It isn't traumatic.

[expatriot]

2. Most social movements are "evangelical" to some degree or another.

While "evangelicals" tend to get my back up I do not think they present a categorically different problem to a free society than any social movement that is driven with a passion to "convert" the population into their mode of thinking. Abolitionists were notorious for being annoyingly "in your face" and doggedly persistent in trying to convert adherents into the cause. The same can be said about the animal rights movement. Most every "cause" is driven by the "evangelical spirit" to attract adherents.

[Bridget Burke]

3. Everyone's trying to sell you something.

Don't be afraid, learn to resist them. Or ignore them. Do you think the Evangelicals should be forced to shut up? Members of many mainline denominations practice Evangelism.

Who else should be made to shut up? Anyone who might bother you? Who else gets the right to shut people up? Aside from outright hate speech, people are allowed to express their opinions here.

Trying to force religion on the country by political means is another matter entirely.

[BloodyWilliam]

5. I'm not saying anyone should shut up.

I'm just not sure if such things can be truly compatible. Some of you might be able to ignore it, but a lot of us (okay, me) cringe when we put up with that preachy shit. We're the ones giving them leeway, because that's their belief.

Of course, I probably wouldn't feel nearly as antagonistic if the extreme factions of those I have issue with didn't have a stranglehold on the perception of "values" and "morality" in this country.

[Bridget Burke]

7. What if somebody preached to end the war in Iraq?

What about those who "preached" for Civil Rights?

Since when are we "giving them leeway" to use their Constitutional rights?

How often do you have to put up with the preaching? On TV? Change the channel.

If this is happening in your family or circle of friends, sincere sympathy. Have you tried to speak up yourself?

[triguy46]

14. part of the challenge of having civil rights...

We cannot have "free speech for me but not for thee." Its all or none. If we act to shut them up, then we lose. That doesn't mean we give them the time of day, don't call them assholes or whatever. But there is no prior restraint on their free speech. Even if we hate it, loathe it, find it maddening, etc.

[ozarkvet]

18. Freedom of Speech

Does not guarantee anyone has to listen to you.

[triguy46]

25. absolutey, nor does it prevent you from calling them creative names!!

[zanne]

6. When Evangelism IS politics...

It's a huge problem. It's one thing to go door to door to try to convert people. It's another thing completely when you're giving billions of dollars to the Republican Party so you can outlaw any behavior your religion prohibits. That's the kind of in-your-face religious activism that should be avoided at all costs.

[bryant69]

13. That's the problem

Some evangelicals are fundamentalist politically involved christians. Some fundamentalist politically involved christians are evangelical. But there are fundamentalist politically involved christians (let's calle them dominionists, shorter) who aren't evangelical and there are vangelicals who aren't particularly political.

This message seems to be mostly about how Evangelicals trying to share their beliefs infringes on others religious practices. I'd say it does not in general, with one caveat.

If a person is trying to share something that is special to them, they might be annoying and they might lack tact, but generally it won't be too big a deal.

On the other hand if a person is evangelizing because they believe America is going to hell and only repenting and accepting their philosophy can save it, well that is problemattic. If it's only about sharing or about serving God, well, than you are free to let the people you talk to make up their own mind. YOu've presented the message, if they refuse it, that's their choice.

If, however, it's about saving America and causing repentance, you can't take this laid back attitude. Rather you have a responsibility to see that they accept your message and change their wicked ways (because it's the only way to save America). And that can lead to coercion and worse.

That's my take on it anyway.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[triguy46]

19. So they aren't to be allowed their exercise of free speech?

They are to be prevented from making contributions? Of course we could argue the issues related to an organizations 501(c)3 status, but there are no restraints upon individuals, whether we agree or not. The risk of "coercion and worse" could certainly be ascribed by them to us in our exercise of free speech. There shall be no prior restraint of free speech.

[bryant69]

20. I'd agree with that

I may have phrased myself unclearly. There's no way to know why someone goes door to door until after they have done it.

On the other hand if they harrass people and won't take no for an answer, well, then that's a different situation.

[Ready4Change]

8. Others freedoms stop at my door.

I don't want people knocking on my door to proselytize, just as they don't want me stealing their babies to sacrifice to Knupchek the Well of Souls. (Or whatever.)

And "my door" represents any manifestation of my personal space. Ie: any contact outside of business or social requirements.

And no, we are not a Christian society, so it is not exempt. Impose Jesus on me and I might just impose Thors Hammer on you.

There are forums and avenues through which seekers can, well, seek out such information. That is the proper place for evangelical action. If I walk into your church, have at me. That's why I'm there. But I don't walk into a Starbucks seeking salvation. There I'm seeking caffiene. If you aren't proselytizing the virtues of mocha java, I ain't listening.

My .02

[erinlough]

63. I love this reply

and if you are evangelizing you should expect this. We are not all Christians and the constitution was developed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority, so it doesn't matter that most Americans claim to be Christians.

I am persosnally not listening to it anymore.

[triguy46]

10. Evangelism is their mantra...

But even the Southern Baptist Convention admits that on the average SBC member's lifetime, they will share the gospel with no other individual. So we have what they purport to be about, and the reality that even among the most rabid, very very few do. I'm referring to the actual 'witness' event, sharing ones faith one on one with another individual. What is NOT witnessing is standing on a street with a poster decrying pro life propaganda. That is well within their rights, but should not be confused with personal evangelizing.

Many here perceive that evangelism is directly affecting their life in a negative manner, and to the extent that they the fundies are wholly owned by the GOP, that has truth. However, Christian evangelicals witnessing, say door to door, pales when compared to Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons, neither of whom are 'Christian evangelicals.' And how that is negative in ones life, to me, IMHO, is just another one of those irritants in life, like cell phones in the movies, people not covering their mouths when they cough, etc.

Can they be respected? If what you mean is respecting their rights to speak freely, assemble, petition the govt, etc, why not? Unless we want to start blacklisting groups by our perception of their beliefs. In that case, get a piece of paper, make 4 columns and number 1 - 100, and we can start. If by respect you mean 'respect' like someone you trust, can turn to, gives sage advice? Thats an individual decision.

[triguy46]

11. On a more sinister note...

We have what is going on at the Air Force Academy, a situation of evangelism gone mad, endoresed by a power structure that has been co-opted and is complicit in the practice, the bigotry and harassment of those seen to be different.

With the rape situation, now this, I wonder if the AFA is not a toxic site that needs to be evacuated. My daughter was recruited to play Volleyball there, and we basically said, not a snowballs chance in hell.

[Angry Girl]

15. How do the evangelicals reconcile themselves with the fact

that Jesus was against public proclamations of faith? And how can one proselytize without publically proclaming one's faith?

And how do all those so-called good christians figure they're following their savoior's teachings if they're running around with those damned fish and other religious bumper stickers on their cars?

That stuff really annoys me and I'm not even religious in that organized way. It's just so hypocritical. I've never met a church-goer I liked. I kid you not.

[ozarkvet]

21. All that forced Bible training

My mom made me go to as kid is paying off. I never thought it would.

"that Jesus was against public proclamations of faith?"

Not a totally correct of his position. He was against the "White Washed Tomb" religious people --- those who were very publically religious as an end to itself --- donating money in a very showy manner, acting all pious, etc., in public while being a scum bag in private."

It's callled the "white washed tomb" because he compared the pharasees to the white washed tombs of the Jews of that day --- all pretty and clean and white on the outside, but full of corruption and rottenness on the inside.

It was a lesson on hypocrisy.

[Angry Girl]

32. Thank you for that lesson... although I still think the bible training

Thank you for that lesson... although I still think the bible training

was a waste of time...but no offense intended toward your mom! :-)

And, wow, you just described the Whitehouse with that white-washed tomb analogy!

[ozarkvet]

36. Whitehouse

And every building in Washington or any state or national capital in the world.

I am very cynical. They all suck.

After college, I am thinking about hanging out with suvivalists in the wilderness of Montana, but they tend to be white supremecists, in addition to hermits, which is a bit of a personal issue for me.

[Angry Girl]

38. I hear you! And Welcome to DU, btw!

Yeah, I like the northern forests of British Columbia, personally. Lots of room for everybody!

:hi:

[triguy46]

22. Not sure this is what you are referring to...

Jesus decried public displays of prayer ("...I tell you they have recieved their reward on earth..). Public profession of faith goes back to peter's confession of Christ and has been around since day one. Certainly Paul made his living by his personal testimony, and that is how the early church grew, what with the absence of TV, 'family life centers' and youth retreats.

2. One's Christian witness can be by acts of charity, love, forgiveness, etc. It does not have to be knocking on your door. unfortunately, we don't always see too much of this, and ironically, most of it is done by those denominations that put little emphasis on personal evangelism.

3. Ya got me on the fish deal, it was originally tied to the feeding of the multitude, but now is seems to be an argument against evolution. I find more annoying the window stickers that rip off Calvin and Hobbes by showing a Calvin clone pissing on (fill in the blank).

4. Life is full of annoyances. They have the right to be annoying constitutionally. We don't have to like it, be we have to allow it.

[Angry Girl]

30. I still think it's creepy and hypocritical

1. If so-and-so is so devout, why does he/she have to tell it to everybody? Sounds insecure to mem frankly.

2. Now acts of charity, love, forgiveness and that stuff, THAT should be the real deal taught by the christians.

3. The fish thing is sad. But again, it bugs me because I really don't give a crap about your religion or your sexual proclivities, so don't advertise them, please!

And I always wondered why that Calvin & Hobbes thing wasn't a copyright violation...I guess it is!

4. Yeah, they have a right to be annoying. That they do.... And I don't mind as long as they don't hijack the country I'm living in....

[eos3fan]

37. "How do the evangelicals reconcile themselves with the fact"

He wasn't against all public proclamations of faith but certainly against those that are done for their own aggrandizement.

In that regard, they can't reconcile themselves.

How would you say they're going against his teachings with fish & bumper stickers (ok, some of them really are goofy!)?

I think many people, especially the ones that have pissed you off, are guilty of confusing religion with following God, cuz if you do the latter, you're going to be humble, and tolerant, and a good listener, not a blowhard.

[Angry Girl]

39. Your very first post! Welcome to DU too!

I totally agree with your last statement, that they are confusing religion for God. Sort of like confusing lust for love - and in both cases it's impossible to enlighten the person.

It still amazes me that televangelists are able to summon such large audiences. Scary, really....

[newyawker99]

60. Hi eos3fan!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Armstead]

17. Yes. As long as they don't use government to do it

Everyone is evangelizing about something. That's the nature of society.

We at DU are evangelists for whatever political worldview we believe in. People in business are evangelizing to sell their product.

Religious evangelism fits right into that. The problem arises when they try to infiltrate the political system to try and force society to bend to their set of beliefs through goverment policy.

So, IMO, I'd abswer "tes" as long as they can accept that the rest of us have a choice to buy into their beliefs or not, and as loonmg as they accept the boundaries.

[triguy46]

26. Like at the Air Force Academy... n/t

[wtbymark]

23. infringing....

i used to entertain some light philosophical conversation with a couple of women from the Jahova's (sp?). Then these two boys (late teens early 20's) came to my door and when I started to logically debate them, they got rude. I got in one's face and said "if you don't get off my porch, right now, I'm going to kick your fucking ass", haven't seen them since. I'm all good with an intelligent conversation (even if I'm debating something I view as absurd)but I refuse to put up with anybody that tries to push an ideology on me. Debating and selling are two different things.

[mcg]

24. Can evangelical anything be given the same respect in a free society?

"For them to be allowed to worship freely, they must be allowed to infringe upon our own free worship"

I don't think someone simply trying to convert another to their viewpoint is in itself an infringement. It really depends on how it's done.

"how can we all allow free religious worship when one of those religions is focused on the conversion of other religions?"

What are you claiming here? That doesn't really sound like a question.

If they are simply trying to convert people, that should be allowed.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=evangelical

Evangelical can also mean 'characterized by ardent or crusading enthusiasm'. Given this meaning, there are all kinds of evangelical people. Should all of them be made to shut up?

[triguy46]

27. The girl scouts selling cookies at my house...

so seemingly innocent, so persistent, I fall victim to their promises, I give them money and they disappear, only to return with addictive cookies. They SAY its for a good cause, all I know is I need another box of those peanut butter ones...

[Hamlette]

28. why single out evangelicals? Most religious believe in conversion

the Catholics in 3rd world countries last century and before? Mormons today (and always)? Jehova's Witnesses? 7th Day Adventests? Islam?

The Jewish faith is the only faith I know of that doesn't encourage conversion and all faiths believe that theirs is THE true faith.

That is what is more inconsistent with democracy. One group believing their religion is the only true religion.

[triguy46]

29. Ah yes, the very effective "Repent or Die" approach.

Nothing like kneeling and confessing with a sword at your neck! I'll share this technique in church next week!!

[mcg]

33. as do some atheists

There are also some evangelical atheists who want to persuade others to adopt their worldview. Sometimes this is done rather aggressively.

[Pirate Smile]

50. That sounds like Bill Maher.

[Cults4Bush]

35. I think that that might be to linear of an approach.

Many spiritual faiths do not encourage proselytizing and some are dead set against it. Even within certain Christian sects they have relented on this aspect.

You are also very wrong about all faiths think theirs is the one true faith. Maybe within Judeo/Christian/Moslem factions but somehow I dont think it is anywhere near "all".

I think some serious issues could be eased if people would bother to learn more about the other big and not so big spiritual paths the worlds' myriad cultures have to offer.

[Solon]

51. Very true...

Hell I know of some religions that actually have fierce debates within them as to whether it is ethical to raise your own kid within the faith, or expose them to all or none till they can choose on their own. If people of such faiths can't even agree to that, and have tenets against "spreading the faith" through intrusive means, like door to door knocking, then I doubt anyone could consider them as evangelical.

[Cults4Bush]

54. That would be a beautiful thing indeed to have interfaith tenets

agreeing to cut the proselytizing out but leave exposure open.

People who sell their faith like a commodity, come off as bad as any other sales person dedicated or employed by one single brand. You will never get an unbiased truth or unbent fact out of them. Thus in my world they deserve no more respect than any other sales person and a bit more scorn may even be levied against their respective organizations for being tax exempt whilst still trying to recruit/convert to enrich their own coffers.

[tx_dem41]

31. Easy to resolve...their focus on evangelism is part of their allowed..

free religious worship as long as it does not violate the separation of church and state.

[Skidmore]

41. Prosyletize, fine, but when I tell you get out of my face, do it.

And stay out. And while you are at it, keep your zealotry out of government.

I was raised in an evangelical church, too. The bottom line is that teaching doesn't necessarily mean that the person has to convert. That is the individual's choice and is between him and his conscious and his diety. It is the individual's choice to be "saved".

[Cults4Bush]

42. If you are seeking an end to proselytizing than you need to make it

a cultural taboo. It's not easy but it is possible, Europe is a fair representation of this. Which is partly why so many fundies and evangelicals and bushies hate Europe.

We can't and shouldn't take away any rights in regards to religions, faith, spiritual paths, etc... We can urge our society to look down on those that do such things as try to convert by word alone. We would also have a variety of obvious reasoning and arguments to nurture such sentiments.

Until then t'is best to firmly let them know to get the hell away from you with their conversion process (which for me personally I take as bordering on extremism) and continue on your side to espouse the negative impact of such policies...

...or if you are like me do everything you can to make those who seek to convert you, know that you will corrupt even the most pure parts of their soul with vile hedonistic pleasures of the flesh and mind, and that you will do your best to infect whichever church they are trying to convert you into with the same as well. Some take it as a challenge and try to redouble their efforts which is easy to defeat as they always use the same ammo, their bible. To which you have every other spiritual path that ever was to draw on including not having one at all. Any debate they try to have with you is a game of one upsmanship due to the very nature of their attempt. People who engage in one upsmanship are the easiest to bait and ambush. Sometimes they are also the easiest to counter convert (my absolute favorite thing to do regarding people who proselytize), yes I have soiled many a puritanical soul but those souls were never pure anyway, and its always the unackowledged hypocrisy that leads people to evil (or just being jerks in my world view).

My take on the matter anyways... that's 7/8s' of a cent you owe me! lol!

[KnowerOfLogic]

43. Fundmentalist, evangelical religions are not compatible with free societi

societies; one or the other must be subordinated.

[markus]

44. I think it is reasonable to draw a line

when they demand the government compel people, especially children, be submitted to their evangelism. This is true whether is Intelligent Design/Creationism, or the sort of "character building" presentations offered last year in the Fargo, N.D. schools that end in an invitation to a weekend evangelical event.

I don't kill spiders in my yard. Once theys step into my house, *squish/crunch*.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

45. yes so long as they dont blur the line

between state and church

and if they leave kids out of this

[Az]

46. Tolerance of Intolerance

Its the fundamental problem with a society based on tolerance. Eventually there will develop a group of people that do not embrace the tolerance a progressive free society embraces. They will for their own reasons stick on certain points and they will refuse to tolerate the things society learns to tolerate. Thus a split will develop.

Because a tolerant society does not have the mechanism to force a group to be tolerant other than cajoling and ridicule those that are intolerant will see society as intolerant to them. And they will do what any group of people that believe they are being oppressed will do. They will fight for their position and rights. Their rights in this case happen to be striking down the progress the society has made and placing their morallity at the head of the society.

In an ideal world all beliefs and all ways would be able to work together. This is not an ideal world. The hatred of certain believes is so disuptive to our society that we expell them without a second thought. But there are other beliefs that straddle the boarder and due to their clout and numbers are not so readily expelled. Unfortunately they do not play by our rules and have no issue with expelling those they disapprove of. Instead they are joyous at the prospect of ridding the world of the corruption they see. Tolerance is not a virtue in their eyes. Particularly tolerance of what they believe to be evil.

[Corgigal]

52. I just read a great book

that talks about everything you posted above. The book goes further and says that IF we allow this to continue we will destroy mankind.
The book is called The End Of Faith. I think, unfortunately, this author might be correct.

Here's a website to the book.

http://www.samharris.org/

[Perky]

47. I would agree it is the mission of evangelicals to evangelize but..

simply becuase it is a credal mission does not mean that:

We beat people over the heads with our Bibles:
That we are not respectful of otheres
That we must witness to evryone we meet


ALl GOd asks of us is that we be open to hearing His voice and responding only when he prompts ut to witness. ANd that certainly is not to every one and cerainly is not constant. If we do anything more than that, my view is that we are operating in a manner contrary to what Jesus taught.


We do not betray our calling if we do not preach to everyone we meet.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

48. Non-evangelicals have the right to say whatever they say when

someone tries to sell them something they don't want, everything from "No thank you" to "fuck off."

Evangelicals should not be allowed to use the public schools or government facilities to evangelize, however.

[BiggJawn]

49. I don't think so.

I think you answered your own question:
"For them to be allowed to worship freely, they must be allowed to infringe upon our own free worship."

Would YOU want someone getting in your face all the time saying "If you don't go to MY church, you're going to HELL!"?

Me neither.

Perhaps if they had the "right" to bombard me with that kind of talk only as long as I had the "right" to wear out an axe handle on their asses.....

[Bridget Burke]

56. Do you really let people get in your face?

If I don't like them on TV--I'll change the channel.

If they come to my door--I don't open it.

If someone cornered me at work, at the bus stop, etc.--I'd handle it. With anything from a gentle shake of the head to full bore sarcasm.

[beam me up scottie]

57. What if it was your mother-in-law?

And your lousy husband wouldn't take up for you?
Trust me, sarcasm was wasted on this woman, and I tried.

Non-confrontational means are always preferable but I learned the hard way how to deal with the bullies.

[BiggJawn]

62. No, I don't.

I find it odd that you'd allow proseltyzers to hold you prisoner in your own house while they knock on your door.

But that confuses the original point, doesn't it? The point of whether or not a "religion" should be allowed to exercise one of its tennents which boils down to pretty much making PESTS of themselves.

I still say not.

[DanCa]

53. Actually I agree with your points and I have a question

How come no one on the left pickets fundamentalist churches? Politically speaking we are all on the same side. And the Fundie policy makers - not the people in the pews - are the ones making the rules. I am left christian who takes my faith seriously and sometimes it feels that I am fighting solo against the fundies when I lobby for stem cell research and a cure for parkinson's. Trust me it's such a catharisis when you fight against the policy makers it does your heart good. So I was wondering since we have so many people at DU why can't we launch a massive protest against the Dobson's and the Phelps of the world? I truly believe that they are bullies and bullies are like balloons. If you pop em hard once they'll leave you alone. I mean whatever faith or non faith we at DU practice were all on the same team.

[khashka]

65. There have been protests....

Phelps' protests are very often counter-protested. Just a few months ago there was a protest outside the headquarters of Dobson's Focus on the Family organization. It just doesn't get much attention.

I agree there should be more such protests. I strongly disagree with protesting ouside anybody's church, though. Fundy political or "research" organizations, sure. And we need more of it.

But people should be allowed to worship without harassment, even them.

Khash.

[pitohui]

55. clearly a free society loses when evangelicals are allowed to push

i don't see any way to resolve this issue short of acknowledging that evangelical religions are not, in fact, worthy of our respect

they are silly

we should greet them w. loud laughter and expose their lies & foolishness wherever it is found

our ideal, rationality, is not respected, and this is considered OK because it's the free marketplace of ideas, so holding us up all the time as heathens, cold-hearted, sinners, etc. is considered fair instead of the hate speech that it is

in that case let fair truly be fair and let evangelicals also be scorned in public for the v. great harm they do to this country & to this planet

[beam me up scottie]

58. You are right. They do not deserve special treatment.

Do they respect the beliefs (or non) of others?

I believe in freedom of speech and religion but respect is not guaranteed by the Constitution.

[meow2u3]

59. Right-wing evangelicals don't want to be heard or respected

They want their religion to be the official state religion, and they won't rest until they get their way and every other religion in the US is destroyed and outlawed.

[RevCheesehead]

61. I believe the more apt term is "Fundamentalist."

The public has been mis-using the term "evangelical", erroneously linking it to narrow-minded thinkers like Falwell and Robertson.

They are fundamentalists. And the answer to your question, IMO, is no. Their minds are set, and will not change.

[sweetheart]

66. how else are people to learn about a religion?

If a buddhist master was not once teaching meditation, i never would
have had the opportunity to learn about it. You could call holding
public meditations and advertizing them, as evangelizing, "recruiting"
if you want to think of it that.

It is part of freedom of religion. Just say no if it does not interest
you. But for the person who is interested, their right is that it
not be impeded.

[khashka]

67. I don't have a problem with people evangelizing

A free society requires, by it's very nature, a free marketplace of ideas. Even ones we disagree with.

I have no problem with them knocking on my door. I can choose to answer it or not. I can politely tell them no thank you or yell at them to go fuck themselves. Usually, if I'm in a good mood and am free to talk for awhile, I invite them in. And I evangelize to them :) In my home, we will discuss what I want to discuss or they can leave, pronto. (This is especially fun to do when you're just a little drunk :evilgrin: ) The Mormons are especially polite and well-behaved.

I just don't see a problem with it. I, personally, have never been what I would call harassed by people like that.

Family members, yes. I'm perfectly willing to discuss religion, but I won't be preached at. If they won't take a polite no for an answer and repeatedly do it - I cease having anything to do with them.

The problem I have is when they try to enshrine their religion into law. Then it directly affects me. And that's why we have (or should have) seperation of church and state.

Everybody is trying to convince everybody of something - whether it's a religion, a political philosophy, or the right brand of detergent. That's life in a free society.

Trying to convert people is not really a problem, mandating that they follow your religion or political philosophy or use your brand of detergent is a huge problem. That's where I draw the line.

Khash.