Proselytism and religious identity theft

twmatthews Part I

You asked, "With all due respect, how do you differentiate your beliefs from knowledge?"

What I know, I know and my beliefs I look at thru the "lens" of God being a Being of Pure Love.

Knowledge that God Is, came to me from God, I believed that God was real but until I met God, I did not know that God Is.

You then wrote, " In reading these posts, how am I to differentiate between your holy spirit-driven knowledge and Spidermeans?"

Read them both and it is up to you, if and how you "differentiate", not me.

You then wrote, "In fact, anyone can say anything about their beliefs without having the burden of proof or evidence to weigh them down."

This is true and I have said that not only won't I but that I can't prove that God Is, only God can do that.

Then you wrote, "Let me ask you a question since I think you spoke about being Catholic. Have you ever thought of the reason why Catholics would want to eat the literal body and blood of Jesus rather than symbolically?"

The most basic would be that Jesus asked us to.

You then asked, "Perhaps it stems from the ancient beliefs around the world, that by feasting on the heart of a courageous enemy, his courage will be added to yours. Is it possible that these early human beliefs have become embedded in our dogma so that some Christians believe that by eating of Christ's body they become more Christ-like?"

I would recommend asking God about that when you meet God.

All of our "food" including cannibalism is eating food that is "natural" but considering the "fact" that Jesus is God-Incarnate, this makes it different, to put it mildly, but why God did this could be for various reasons but one of the things to think about is the fact that Jesus gave us His Body and Blood before Good Friday.

Jesus did mention to some of His original Apostles about "drinking the cup that I drink", remember?

Jesus spoke at a specific portion of history but His comments are not restricted just to those He spoke to at that time, He was also speaking to us.

You then ask, "What could possibly be the reason for wanting to eat of another person's body?"

See above and ponder.

twmatthews Part II

Then you wrote, "By the way, I appreciate the way your posts always seem respectful."

Thank you and I appreciate that you are talking with me rather than to me.

This brings to mind the "Incarnation" whereas with the "Incarnation", God could speak with us, more so in a "horizontal" way, so to speak, rather than in a "vertical" way.

I think that it is quite possible that more people have had an encounter with God than may realize it and may have "missed it" because of their "preconceptions" about God.

It is written, "Be still and know that I Am God", sometimes we look for the spectacular, stupendous, miraculous and miss what God is trying to get across to us.

A lot of people point to the "miracles" performed by Jesus but seem to miss that Who, the "miracles" pointed to, was what the "miracles" were about.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Thomas Baum,

Blaming the victim has always been a great pastime of certain groups, which I have named.
However, since the victim will be blamed regardless, the victim empire is now striking back. (It would seem that you have noticed.)

Fighting fire with cups of water has proven ineffective for us Js. I suggest that if you do not care for my way, you deal with the bigots as they appear.

You are not the first to post to me thus. And I have always said, "Go for it, yourself." Barring that, I will. If you are a betting man, I'd recommend you wager.

“ For those who believe they have access to such a Truth, the desire to offer it to others is both natural and rational.”
By Thomas Farr

Quality of news is never judged by bearer but by recipient.

The news to non-abrahamic recipient is "Your pluralist beliefs and ethos are wrong. You near and dear ones who departed earth are burning in hell. Reject your cherished way of life or else face eternal damnation."

Bad news should be delivered in most sensitive manner. It is insensitive to deliver bad news as good news. Unfortunately, This piece of bad news is sometimes advertised along with verbel violence and other vile tactics.

USCIRF needs structural reforms and process reengineering in order to ensure compliance with IRFA 1998 law and champion freedom of all faiths.
Visit: www.uscirf.blogspot.com for details.

Thomas Baum said; "I happen to KNOW that the Catholic Eucharist is Jesus because the Holy Spirit revealed this to me on 29 Jan 2000 before that tho I believed it to be true."
And you said; "Granted there seem to be many that say they KNOW this or that about God and yet either are full of it or they do not seem to know the difference between knowing and believing, some seem to think that "know and believe" mean the same thing and they don't."

With all due respect, how do you differentiate your beliefs from knowledge? In reading these posts, how am I to differentiate between your holy spirit-driven knowledge and Spidermeans? In fact, anyone can say anything about their beliefs without having the burden of proof or evidence to weigh them down.

Let me ask you a question since I think you spoke about being Catholic. Have you ever thought of the reason why Catholics would want to eat the literal body and blood of Jesus rather than symbolically?

Perhaps it stems from the ancient beliefs around the world, that by feasting on the heart of a courageous enemy, his courage will be added to yours. Is it possible that these early human beliefs have become embedded in our dogma so that some Christians believe that by eating of Christ's body they become more Christ-like?

What could possibly be the reason for wanting to eat of another person's body?

By the way, I appreciate the way your posts always seem respectful.

FarnazMansouri

You wrote, "Been thinking about your long-term moniker.
Now, perhaps, I should change mine. Vaticanispedophilia? Catholicsarenazis? Priestsarekillers?"

You sure do seem to have a way of saying: If some are, all are.

Does this remind you of other people or groups that have said the same thing about "others" throughout history?

Whether one groups all Jews, whites, blacks, Muslims, Christians, or whatever is there any difference between any of them?

Blind hatred and bigotry and prejudice is alive and well, do you think that part of this blindness is the inability to see it in oneself?

Some of those that rail against this "blind hatred and bigotry and prejudice" seem to be practitioners themselves and yet seem to be oblivious, as I said, some not all.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

AIPAC writes:

"Now of course Catholicism is full of bull as much as other religions. But it does not share the foolish dogmatic invention of truth through belief. Catholicism knows truth requires proof, and that faith is rendered meaningless by truth. This is what makes Catholic faith interesting, it stands up to, rather than hides behind, dogma."
-------------------
Hilarious, as always, is Catholic Jew-hating you. And I don't even have time to discuss the 200,000,000 money laundering Vatican Bank has undogmatically done for the MAFIA. That would be the Mafia that infests Italy, murders politicians who try to stem its sick flow.

This, of course, is making the front pages of Italian newspapers every day, makes the pages of newspapers throughout Europe.

Only in this country does the Catholic media keep the story from the public.

The Italians are now very interested in a long-term pet project of many Americans. That would be the No. 2 man in the Vatican, William Cardinal Levada, summoned thither after he had proven himself as a staunch protector of two large pedophile priest rings right here in the US.

Dogmatically, Levada actually walked in on a molestation scene and then walked out. Dogmatically, he lied under oath. Dogmatically, he obstructed justice.

Undogmatically, the San Francisco authorities, who finally broke the Salesian pedophile ring, then the largest in America, referred to the Salesian Pedophile Priests as "Levada's Boys."

His job now, courtesy of your Pope? Why, he oversees CAtholic pedophile priest complaints worldwide. It is to this man who should be in jail that disaffected Anglican priests will apply.

Also, Dogmatically, the Vatican refuses to settle with the survivors and heirs of victims of 200 Franciscan priest nazis who ran and owned concentration camps.

These Dogmatic Franciscans impaled people and then watched them drown, cut them into pieces with scissors. The loot from their slaughter and torture of thousands of Jews, Serbian Orthodox,and Roma, the Dogmatic Franciscans depostited in Vatican Bank.

Where it still resides. A few weeks ago the US denied on Appeal the rights of the claimants to sue the Vatican as it is a FOREIGN NATION. (How then does it claim nonprofit status in the US?)

The suit against the Dogmatic FRanciscans will continue.
------------------------
Been thinking about your long-term moniker.
Now, perhaps, I should change mine. Vaticanispedophilia? Catholicsarenazis? Priestsarekillers?

We'll see, AIPAC. Because the next time your moniker appears, you may find yourself quite surprised.

ThishowIseeit

You wrote, "Mr. Farr,
sharing your faith should not done to persons that have just lost their
relative(s) or their material possessions. They are too vulnerable then. Must wait few months."

You have just summed up in a few words that is most disheartening about the "sharing your faith" thing.

Sharing one's Faith should be about helping out those who need help and not a word about God need be said, one way or the other.

Something to think about: When the "Good Samaritan" does his thing in the bible is anything said about God or is the help that the person needs, given to him?

I remember a few years ago when the Tsunami hit and a Priest who was connected with the Catholic Relief Services gave a talk explaining how the CRS goes about their helping, this was in connection with the help to be given in Indonesia and he said they avoid proselytizing like the plague.

He also talked about the short and immediate help needed and also the long term help.

"Sharing one's Faith" is living it.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

mwcob

You wrote, "I don't think you can fill a bathtub with Christians who believe that forced conversions in the Middle Ages were a good thing."

I agree.

If any "Christian" thinks forced conversions is a good thing, then they are in complete opposition to what Jesus said and taught.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

AIPACiswar

You wrote, "So whenever you hear some idiot evangelical say that they have faith, yet they also KNOW Jesus is the son of God, you are listening to a self -deluded liar."

I am Catholic and I cherish my Catholic Faith even tho I do not agree with everything about the Catholic "religion".

I happen to KNOW that the Catholic Eucharist is Jesus because the Holy Spirit revealed this to me on 29 Jan 2000 before that tho I believed it to be true.

There are some other things that I KNOW to be true but there is still plenty that I believe but do not know.

As I have said before sometimes God "rewards" one's faith with knowledge and for anyone to say that God can't do this is just trying to put God in a "box" of their own making.

Granted there seem to be many that say they KNOW this or that about God and yet either are full of it or they do not seem to know the difference between knowing and believing, some seem to think that "know and believe" mean the same thing and they don't.

We, humans, have been and still are very adept at constructing a "box" to try to cram God into and this goes for both those that believe in God and those that do not believe in God.

Even tho we use language in speaking about God and in speaking about God how else could we except by language? With this said, sometimes language can get in the way.

God is a Trinity and is referred to as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

When God the Father came into my heart, He did not say a word, He did not have too.

When God the Holy Spirit came into my body, He did not say a word either even when He revealed to me that the Catholic Eucharist is Jesus.

Here is the Trinity.

As I have also said before, even tho God-Incarnate was a Male, God is neither a Male, a Female nor an It but is a Being of Pure Love, I happen to use the male pronoun because pronouns come in handy when speaking even tho it is not accurate.

Not all who say that they KNOW something about God is a "self -deluded liar" as you put it.

God knew that I needed to KNOW some things to even attempt to do the "job" God chose for me, as it says, "I (God) have chosen you, you have not chosen Me.

God's Plan is for All to be in the Kingdom, the new heavens and the new earth or God's Plan would not even be close to "Good News".

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Mr. Farr,
sharing your faith should not done to persons that have just lost their
relative(s) or their material possessions. They are too vulnerable then. Must wait few months.

correction.

As a Local, National and International Professional Sales-Man; As a Cosmic-FEELER of the Holy "IT" I must now confess.

'Try think logically before you make such a sweeping statement, and back up your contention with numbers. Without numbers they are just the fury of an ignorant.'
_________________

Who cares what religions and their snake oil salesmen do on their own time, or where they send their missionary/church delegates? Just make sure it's not backed by government funding........

I personally just boot them off my front porch when they come around. However, religionists are much harder to get rid of when their activities are sponsored by government agencies - which is the issue under discussion here.

That is just not a good idea at all, either at home or abroad. First off, we have a secular form of government that should by all accounts be staying aloof from religious activities/advocacy of any kind.

This government should not be providing funding to sell our brand of religion to countries abroad - and which, by default, would be Christianity in the USA.

Islam would be even less desirable, if possible - but of course the USA is not pushing Islam...for all the obvious reasons.

Whether Catholicism has a presence in Africa or not is neither here nor there - they have a presence throughout Central and South America and elsewhere - given that there are about 1 billion Catholics extant somewhere in the world.

The fact that the Vatican officially advocates strongly against conventional birth control measures is no secret....although I suppose such an unenlightened policy does make some folks furious. And this is only one of a number of church policies that have people fuming.

Infusing politics with religion seems ignorant to me - given that it ignores the principles of separation of church and state. And Ignorance is as ignorance does....

Religion is the child of fear, ignorance, and male dominance. You'd have to end those three things to end proselytizing.

So instead, whenever a religious problem child gets in your face, what you want to do is punch him in his. Lacking that most effective means, tell him to go to hell. He may understand.
Posted by: AIPACiswar
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

AIPAC, it appears to me that you are the fearful and aggressive one. Perhaps you should think about that.

Also, I’m puzzled by your theory that religion is caused by male dominance. Does this include goddess-centered religions as well? How does male dominance (which some believe to be the natural order of things) lead one to worship of a goddess?

AIPACiswar |said:
"Not for Catholics!
Catholics by no means think that they own the truth about God. In fact they KNOW they DON'T know the truth about God!"

Then there is not much point being a Catholic is there?

If you can sell cleaning products or cosmetics directly to one's home, you should be able to talk about the Bible. Your, well, 'target' (intended?) can refuse to see you, in which case you can just go away. When the Jehovahs comes knocking on my door, I just say I'm Catholic and they leave graciously and rapidly. Same with the Mormons.

Re: Catholics can continue to persuade starving, impoverished third world populations that birth control is evil

from persiflage | March 1, 2010 2:35 PM

The nations with the highest total fertility:

1 Niger 7.75

2 Uganda 6.77 2009 est.

3 Mali 6.62 2009 est.

4 Somalia 6.52 2009 est.

5 Burundi 6.33 2009 est.

6 Burkina Faso 6.28 2009 est.

7 Congo, Democratic Republic of the 6.20 2009 est.

8 Angola 6.12 2009 est.

9 Ethiopia 6.12 2009 est.

10 Congo, Republic of the

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html?

Look up their religious persuasions and tell me what % is Catholic. Niger is 80% Muslim, the rest a mixture of indigenous religions and Christianity or Islam. If no one religion dominates, religion cannot be the cause of the high birthrate. Poverty and poorly educated women result in high births. It has nothing to do with Catholic teaching or Protestant or Islamic for that matter.

Try think logically before you make such a sweeping statement, and back up your contention with numbers. Without numbers they are just the fury of an ignorant.

This shouldn't be a controversial subject.
If those engaging in proselytism are otherwise obeying the laws of the country they are in, it comes down to freedom of speech. Take away free speech in one area, and it will disappear in others. Disagreement with a point of view should not be reason enough to silence that point of view.

'On balance, it seems reasonable to conclude that both religion and democracy can benefit if the activity of sharing one's faith is both permitted and conducted with respect. But there is much work to do before such a conclusion is broadly accepted.'
___________________

This seems pretty doubtful, if we're talking about our own government sponsoring religion abroad, in any way, shape, or form. And of course, this would most naturally be Christianity in it's various guises, as the dominant religious form in America.

The US government should under no circumstances subborn overt or covert religious conversion of foreign peoples abroad - nor should religion be a function of government here at home. Practically speaking, I suspect this is very far from our actual overseas policy, however.

Our government and religious interests seem to have some kind of unspoken contract. Can we imagine foreign diplomats that are outspoken atheists, for example??

Naturally we would agree that religions of all kinds are free to proselytize on their own dime, wherever such activities are permitted.

In that way, Catholics can continue to persuade starving, impoverished third world populations that birth control is evil and a tool of the devil, and Muslims can take their own religiously inspired, male-dominated hegemony further afield. Surely what the world needs is more religious superstition.

You can lead a horse to water and you can make him drink - if he's thirsty...and you can always get people to pray for food if they're hungry, but you have to wonder which religious principles are being employed in such cases.

We need more contrarians in Washington - someone has to play the devil's advocate when it comes to religion in government.

WHO NEEDS COLLEGE!

As a Local, National and International Professional Sales-Man; As a believer of the holy "IT" I must now confess. Besides Supply and Demand, Please Telemarketeers, please Televageliceels forgive me for I know what I'm saying (sorry)

but it used to be (a sales secret) to know that OUT-THERE, even in the Outback, any any given time/place there's

"A Sucker's Born Every Minute" but when I analyzed and resurveyed the current State of the Worlds Public Mentality of 7 Billion Homo/horny-Sapient's, condom users or condom free thinkers, that the "Average MohamJane or MumadJo & BloShmo" today, and considering that Earth, is likened to a Space-Ship, with No Borders? is the Phenomena, or that realization or tendency or trend such THAT

"There's a sucker Born Every 15-Seconds or so" no longer 1 every minute. Today's Financial Tsunami is a good example of "Suckers-Galore". And not to mention the "Religious-Tsunami's" of today. Competition for Suckers is very real, a/k/a "Suckers-Share", not only Market-Share?

Note: Every body has Religion Naturally, only they don't know "IT". Every body has "HOPE" yet they forget "IT". Note: It is Blasphemous to exploit any ones "Natural-SOUL" for profit or for not for Prophets; especially through their superstitions, if any. THANK "IT" I don't peddle Ole-Time-Religion. O' Lord!

so The Salesman's opportunity (Hay, gotta make a livin ya know) comes when SIZING-UP the Gullible, Naive, easy pikins or just plain potential suckereing folks who walk into me store, or answer me Phone or opens their Door or Stops to listen/hear me snaik-oil? Gods Bible pitch?... on "Main-Street" on any PUBLIC bus or Train... "Al Aboard" Choo Choo Chooo Chooo Choooo Coooo.. Enjoy your Journey/LIFE!

So, "Tell Me NO LIES, I'LL TELL YO NO TRUTHS"

- Mark Twain.

Pandering to liar, who think they know about God, is as lame an idea as any every invented by man.

Religion is the child of fear, ignorance, and male dominance. You'd have to end those three things to end proselytizing.

So instead, whenever a religious problem child gets in your face, what you want to do is punch him in his. Lacking that most effective means, tell him to go to hell. He may understand.

The nuttier the idea, the harder its adherents will work to sell it. Since religion is one of the nuttiest, its adherents are probably unstoppable, no matter what laws are passed.

fr comunista:
>...Countries who force people to follow a certain religion, and/or bar evangelists (of any faith) are in the wrong, in my opinion, and doing their constituents a disservice. ...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
No, they're not. FIRST deal with human needs, such as clean water, food, clothing, housing. THEN, IF they want to listen, witness to them.
Posted by: Alex511
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Alex, how is what you have written here a response to what fr comunista wrote? I don’t see any connection.

I think it's completely up to individuals anywhere to decide what they believe and to whom they will listen. As someone who converted from the Episcopal Church to the Catholic Church - I firmly resented a bunch of clergy from New York or England telling the world that the Pope had no right to invite me to become Catholic. It's MY choice, not theirs.

But I make a distinct difference between "inviting" and "threatening" someone. Inviting someone (openly, honestly and in a supportive way) is far different than trying to scare the daylights out of them psychologically or physically. I don't think you can fill a bathtub with Christians who believe that forced conversions in the Middle Ages were a good thing.

We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the same sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart. -H.L. Mencken, writer, editor, and critic (1880-1956)

This is a lie: "For many, including most Muslims and Christians, religion represents an objective and universal Truth...."

Not for Catholics!

Catholics by no means think that they own the truth about God. In fact they KNOW they DON'T know the truth about God!

If you know the truth about something, faith in that something is worse than meaningless, it is oxymoronic! It cheapens faith down to the level of mob preference, and along the way it kills spirituality. This is the case for all the idiotic Born-Agains and other ignorant fundamentalists who think faith CREATES truth. It does not, of course. Hence the lack of honest spirituality in evangelical and born-again practices, and the preponderance of religiosity and cheap commercialism. Dunking, hooting and hollering, faith healing, disgusting TV evangelists, and religion as industry is what you get when you mistake faith for fact.

So whenever you hear some idiot evangelical say that they have faith, yet they also KNOW Jesus is the son of God, you are listening to a self -deluded liar.

Now of course Catholicism is full of bull as much as other religions. But it does not share the foolish dogmatic invention of truth through belief. Catholicism knows truth requires proof, and that faith is rendered meaningless by truth. This is what makes Catholic faith interesting, it stands up to, rather than hides behind, dogma.

fr comunista:

>...Countries who force people to follow a certain religion, and/or bar evangelists (of any faith) are in the wrong, in my opinion, and doing their constituents a disservice. ...

No, they're not. FIRST deal with human needs, such as clean water, food, clothing, housing. THEN, IF they want to listen, witness to them.

To answer whether people should have the right to proselytize, or conversely the right to be sheltered from it, I think REALLY depends on which forms of proselytizing we're talking about. Clearly there's a world of difference between setting up a table at a public gathering area, handing out flyers or going door-to-door, than there is coercing conversion by the sword or through fear.

Everyone has the right to believe what they feel is right. Everyone should also enjoy freedom of expression, including spreading their own ethos to others. But logically I think the line is drawn at harassment and coercion of potential converts in terms of where one's right to proselytize ends and one's right to security and peace begins.

Countries who force people to follow a certain religion, and/or bar evangelists (of any faith) are in the wrong, in my opinion, and doing their constituents a disservice. Diversity of thought is pretty important, and a peaceful coexistence of diverse religions (like in most of the West) brings that to the table.

Its pretty clear that in the absence of free choice there can be no fate, no true sprituality. Without freedom, religion loses all meaning, and becomes just a more dishonest method of controlling the masses. That is why the freedom to take, leave or change the religion of choice is an absolutely vital foundation of all religion.

BTW how on Earth is providing a religious based education using a completely separate funding source from the government oppressing Human Rights? As long as the missionaries are ADDING food, education etc they are not suppressing anyone by requiring people to listen to their pitch to get something of value. Of course, for Christianity and Islam, they are violating their religion to require this of people who are hungary or ignorant, but that is a separate issue.

There is nothing inappropriate about trying to convince others of your opinion - be it about your favorite sports team, best happy hour in DC, or choice of religion. Prohibit that and you prohibit essential, normal discussions.

As you note, certain religions place an obligation on themselves to convert others. As long as these conversion attempts are peaceful and respectful, there is no problem. I would say the same of athiets' and secularists' attempts to convince those of us with faith that their path is the best.

“…attempting to convert individuals from a nation’s majority religion is socially irresponsible. Such actions sow discord and conflict..
Posted by: csintala79 | March 1, 2010 10:25 AM
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

So, lemme get this straight, you appear to be advocating that the US Federal Government pass laws banning Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Mormons, Pagans, etc. from seeking to convert any American to their religions.

I think that’s ridiculous and you are full of doo-doo.

Religious freedom requires freedom of religious speech.

Good article. Allowing proselytization is a necessary component of religious freedom. As long as they aren't committing crimes, the missionaries should be left alone.

If they offer free food or education in exchange for attending services or whatever, there's nothing at all wrong with that.

Gatsby10

You wrote, "Last week, a group of American Evangelicals threw rocks at a crowd participating in a voodoo celebration in Haiti.

Enough said..."

Does this mean that ALL American Evangelicals did this or would?

If one changes "American Evangelicals" to blacks, whites, Asians, whatever, would this be "Enough said..." to mean anything at all?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

For a former diplomat, you are anything but diplomatic.

Your assumption that American's are by default Christian and that Muslim's are by default extremist is the clearest example of faulty sampling I have ever seen.

The question you have posed has been raised in a biased rhetorical fashion.

I'm glad you are a 'Former' diplomat, as you haven't a clue as to the concept of separation of church and state.

Why didn't you ask this question when Bush was in office stating that he was 'The Decider' - tantamount to declaring himself the son of god. Where he was busy appointing early 20's far right wing Christian college graduates without the basic understanding of the fact that paleontology isn't a field of study equal to that of 'coloring in'

When religion is the only qualification for key government appointments and our allies laugh when said appointees attend summits on our behalf, it's time to stop asking, to stop caring what religion people are, and time to start listening, to understand their personal values, rather than to waste our time and efforts preaching.

Your question, in one line, is of the format "Here is what I think. Are you also correct in thinking what I think?"

Religion is personal, you don't have the right to ask, to judge, or pigeon hole other's beliefs into your narrow-minded 'Are they Muslim, therefore radical?' , or, ‘Are the Christian, therefore awesome?” views.

Grow up man - regardless of your age.

From a Christian who believes that god has never given you the right, nor appointed you to a position, where you may probe or judge those around you.

The Bible is not a religious amalgamation of international law and catch 22; The Bible is not a tool to be used on others, it's a means of finding who you are and what your relationship - if any - is with your faith.

Freedom of religion was put in the constitution to prevent persecution of religious adherents not because the founding fathers condoned or embraced religious beliefs. Certainly, Thomas Jefferson was clear that religion and theism represented a lack of rational thought, an inability to analyze ideas, and a refusal to search for truthful explanations about the workings of the world. Little has changed. Believers show no evidence of their beliefs and are no different than the polytheists of ancient Greece and Rome. Religion serves only to impede intellectual progress. If ANYONE can show proof of his/her god, please enlighten me. No one has been able to do so up to now. Freedom of religion is simply the freedom not to think and exporting ignorance does no good.

C Sintala 79 writes that Prosyletizing is forbidden or restricted in Laos, which he lists as being Buddhist. Actually, Laos is officially Communist (atheist), although it is, in practice Buddhist/animist.

However, during the year my daughter was there, she found no evidence that there was any restriction on prosyletizing. She wrote:

"The only problem with this accusation (that there were no evangelicals in Laos) is that they ARE here. In supernumerary plenitude. It’s a regular ecclesiastic orgy, an excrescence of Evangelicals, a froth of the faithful fighting to convert the heathens.

They swarm out of the woodwork come Christmas, bearing freakish plastic trees that spin and shriek tinny pinged carols. Their scheme is simple – buy businesses and force the employees to attend church and listen to preaching and wear elf costumes. Or they’re fired. Sort of the 'my God writes a paycheck better than your God' principle.

The only glitch in this system is that Buddhism inculcates the implicit respect for all other major world religions, which are each seen as another valid view of enlightenment. In Malaysia, the Buddhist residents bow in passage before a mosque, Hindu temple, or church (and hypothetically synagogue if they had any), and here the unmitigated expanse of wats are full of paintings and sculptures of Hindu gods hanging out in Nirvana with the Buddha and Bodhisattvas.

So with good humor the Lao have turned the forced Christmas infusion into a new myth, one of a mad dwarf from Finland named Santa, who has long white braids and brings candy to foreigners once a year. They drink, they feast – for the Lao possess an admirable attitude that there are no bad holidays and having another occasion to celebrate is in itself an occasion to celebrate."

"Evidence against historicity of the Acts of the Apostles

Charles Guignebert

On the other hand, Charles Guignebert, a professor of Church history at the Sorbonne in the early 20th century, asserts that "it has been established that the author of Acts was ignorant of the epistles of Paul, and even formally contradicts them; that he does not understand certain ancient traditions [e.g. glossolalia]; and above all that his narrative of the first years of the history of the Christian Church, whose founders he is supposed to have known intimately, is pitifully inadequate".[8]

"Implausible claims in the Acts of the Apostles

Others have disputed the plausibility of claims of widely observed miracles that lack corroboration. Edward Gibbon wrote with deliberate irony of the 'supine inattention' of great historians such as Seneca and Pliny the Elder who 'in a laborious work, [have] recorded all the great phenomena of Nature, earthquakes, meteors, comets, and eclipses' and would have lived through the three-hour darkness described by Luke. 'Both the one and the other have omitted to mention the greatest phenomenon to which the mortal eye has been witness since the creation of the globe.'[21]"

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_reliability_of_the_Acts_of_the_Apostles

Lately the homilies have been about defending the faith. Yesterday's homily at a church I visited spoke specifically to evangelizing. The rules were clear to me and I suspect to most people in the pews. Coercion isn't conversion.

There are a couple of important aspects of faith that the angry godless ones posting just can't seem to grasp. One is faith in the absence of "proof" and the other is free will.

Being a christian means accepting that Jesus was the messiah. Being a jew means deciding that Jesus was not the messiah. yes we've fought over this and many another thing related to faith over the centuries. But the fact remains, people are free to choose. Of those people who lived contemporaneously with Jesus some accepted, some did not. God hasn't commanded, either way.

Jesus used persuasion and example. But people chose for themselves.

So the modern sense of evangelizing speaks to persuasion and choice. To using life style as well as words to spread a message. We're doing better here in the US with this as we regain our voices and begin to counter the tide of contempt for religion that is so pervasive (and sad).

It wasn't named, "the Acts of the Apostles, just for kicks.

People building housing for the homeless, water systems where there are none, or feeding the hungry, provide powerful testement to the Word.

Preachiness alone, falls flat, or is probably even counter-productive.

Of course any state should allow religious conversions, to do otherwise is to admit a states complete lack faith to the entire world. Religious Missionaries should also be allowed if they behave under the same standards as other NGOs. In other words, the missionaries have to provide some form of aid in poor countries, and not be a drain on richer countries.

The only possible reason to free attempted conversions is a utter lack of faith in your own religion. Its true that the West is not perfect in their religious freedom, and its also true that Muslim countries are not alone in preventing missionaries for religious reasons. Most if not all the forceable resistance to missionaries fo any stripe is due to some feelings of inferiority, though a large number of missionaries are argorant bastards (which is or should be perfectly legal), who do not realize that all true conversions are a result of members of a faith demonstrating its superiority by living up to its highest ideals, not its lowest.

Until the UN Declaration of Human Rights makes it explicit that proselytization by either coercion, intimidation or offer of economic, educational or any other form of enticements is a violation of basic human rights neither the Jihadists nor the Christian proselytizers will stop their evil acts of proselytization which is now producing untold misery in poor countries which have large populations whose religious traditions are based on non-Abrahamic faiths.

It is indeed sad that Obama for whom I voted for has not only expanded Bush's faith-based initiatives office but has also shown insensitivity to the people in this country who do not belong to non-Abrahamic faiths. A case in point is the composition of the US Commission on International Religious Freedom. It has only Jewish, Christian and Muslim members. There is no Buddhist, no Hindu, but only those of Abrahamic faiths!

The Western Christian and Middle Eastern Arab countries have for long used their respective faiths as levers of power to advance their imperialistic ambitions.

It is tragic that the US which prides in the separation of church and state continues to show great partiality towards Abrahamic faiths. Even Farrar's forthcoming Seminar advertised on this site has no representation for the faiths of nearly 46% of the world's population who are of non-Abrahmic faiths! 14 million Jews have representation, but not a nearly one billion Hindus or 400 million Buddhists!!

I hope someday in the 21st Century, the UN will amend its charter to deny full membership status to theocracies and seat them as full members only after they adopt a secular constitution and guarantee freedom of religion while banning proselytization. The havoc created by proselytizers is humongous. They contribute nothing more than the perpetuation of human misery, violence and less of love and kindness towards one's neighbor regardless of his or her religious differences.

The reality is there is always an open marketplace of ideas.

While governments, institutions, philosophies and/or personalities try to control, coerce, close, and/or bias this marketplace, it outlives them and emerges again.

We, in the privacy of our soul, 'shop' for the ideas that best meet our needs, usually because they offer the 'best fit' understanding and insight for the Reality we all live in.

As much as we might dislike it, or even fight against it, Reality is objective and out of our control. We must come to terms with it: human nature (ours and others)and the unfolding stream of history around us.

The cumulative, even revealed, wisdom in the marketplace of ideas will outlive our opinions, politics and anger to serve us, our children and grandchildren.

The rise in belief in God today is one indicator of where the human soul is looking - and finding answers that satisfy.

One would gather from this article that only Muslim nations prohibit proselytism. This is not the cse. The foremost example of a predominately Christian nation forbidding "unethical" proselytizing or proselytizing of member of the majority religion is Greece. However, this is not the only example: the Ukraine and Byelorussia also officially restrict proselytizing. Nations with other majority religions than Islam and Christianity also restrict or forbid proselytizing: Bhutan (Buddhist); Laos (Buddhist), Nepal (Buddhist and Hindu); Eritrea (Muslim, Roman and Oriental Orthodox Catholicism and Lutheranism) are a few examples. Also, currently anti-proselytizing laws are being considered in Sri Lanka and India due to the majority Buddhist and Hindu nations reacting to what is perceived as predatory and "unethical" proselytizing by Christians. Regardless of the faithful seeing belief in their dogma as theologically necessary, attempting to convert individuals from a nation’s majority religion is socially irresponsible. Such actions sow discord and conflict. However, Christians stand on scripture in which Christ encourages those that wish to follow him to leave their families (Matthew 19:29 and Mark 10:29) and to "hate" them (Luke 14:26). A Christian might say that Christ didn't really mean this, and that there is a hidden meaning, as in the parables, but the non-sophisticated take the gospels at face value. This socially irresponsible stance is one of the reasons the Romans viewed Christians as disruptive for a few hundred years, until Constantine co-opted them. From and unbiased perspective, as much, if not more, evil has been done to cultures and societies by Christian proselytizing through the centuries than good. Indigenous cultures are just beginning to recover their feeling of self-worth and identity damaged by Christian missionaries, e.g., Inuit peoples are resurrecting tribal dancing which was prohibited 100 years ago by Quaker missionaries.

Some religious people do seem a bit pushy with their desire to convert people and can be dogmatic by interpreting even slinght differemces as major issues. So do some:
Dems
Republicans
Environmentalists (definitlely a substitute religion for many people)
Red Sox fans
Evolutionists
Atheists
Dogmatism and the desire to convert others seems more a part of human nature than of religion or any of the many "isms." Some people can't resist sharing, even when it becomes annoying to others.

To me, it all seems so hubristic, the idea you have a right to speak for God. Maybe the need to proselytize says more about human pride than it does about God.

Do you really think you are welcome in a Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu or other community with your religious nonsense?

That's what your religion is to their religion - nonsense.

It only stirs up hatred and resentment leading to violence at all levels.

But then that has been the capping achievement of most religions over the past thousands of years.

Mr. Farr,
sharing one's faith should not be done to a minor, without his/her parents (both) consent. Minor being under 21 years of age.
Sharing should not be done to any person mentally impaired, including person with head trauma by earthquake or persons starving.

momof20yo said: "Want to know one reason why Christianity is getting a bad name around the world? Last night at a Christian singer's concert, people were videotaping the concert..."

As a Christian musician myself, I can appreciate this sentiment. However, as always, there are two sides to this question.

While I respect the copyright laws, I personally choose to place my music in the public domain rather than profit one penny from it. That way, everyone (including performers, congregations and choirs) is free to use it in any way they wish, and also I don't feed the mercenary media machines (production companies, ASCAP, etc.) or have anything to do with them. This, to me, is in line with the spiritual principle "Freely have you received; freely give."

If there are artists who give "100%" of their proceeds to good works (I put it in quotes because these machines must still be fed), they should so state. I certainly respect that approach, but find it rare. (Mostly you might get them to say "I tithe", in other words, it's like any other day job.)

Otherwise, it seems more to me like "proselytizing for profit" and just as spiritually questionable as concert-goers who record an artist who insists on compensation for same.

The truth is found or revealed. It is not indoctrinated. Proseltyzing is the epitome of hypocrisy.

So, religious zealouts prey upon the wounded, the hungry, the victims of some mass tragedy....

What else is new?

Freewill. That's the message of evangelical Christianity. Salvation is a gift. It cannot be coerced. One just tells the message of Jesus and it is up to the Holy Spirit to enlighten the person or not.

"The wind blows where it wants, and you hear the sound thereof, but can not tell from where it comes, and where it goes: so is every one that is born of the Spirit." (Jn 3:8)

When does conversion become cohersion? When evangelicals convince desperate women in Haiti that their children will be better off being adopted by white, Christian Americans.

How utterly evil to take children instead of helping mothers keep their children.

aartmann112004, rather than getting angry at the spamming scumbags, I think it's appropriate to get mad at the WaPo for not policing their boards better. How hard can it be?

I saw a news article about a company that hires people who just sit at home and evaluate posts. Maybe the WaPo should contact them.

"Open the wardrobe is not yet found love after another the right clothes?"

What the hell is wrong with you spamming jerkovs? You can't post one comment without trying to sell bullsheit garbage knockoffs to gullible idiots? Take your spam and shove it up yer keister you scumbag.

Open the wardrobe is not yet found love after another the right clothes? So, also waiting for? Immediate action bar! Welcome to { http://www.itemtolive.com } sure you will find what you need. Moreover, the company has a good reputation, product quality standards, at reasonable prices. Over the years, has been well received by overseas friends for their support. Therefore, please rest assured purchase.

===== http://www.itemtolive.com ====

Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33

Handbags(Coach l v f e n d i d&g) $35

Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16

Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30

Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,A r m a i n i) $16

New era cap $15

Bikini (Ed hardy,polo) $25

FREE sHIPPING

====== http://www.itemtolive.com ====

Open the wardrobe is not yet found love after another the right clothes? So, also waiting for? Immediate action bar! Welcome to { http://www.itemtolive.com } sure you will find what you need. Moreover, the company has a good reputation, product quality standards, at reasonable prices. Over the years, has been well received by overseas friends for their support. Therefore, please rest assured purchase.

===== http://www.itemtolive.com ====

Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33

Handbags(Coach l v f e n d i d&g) $35

Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16

Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30

Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,A r m a i n i) $16

New era cap $15

Bikini (Ed hardy,polo) $25

FREE sHIPPING

====== http://www.itemtolive.com ====

Open the wardrobe is not yet found love after another the right clothes? So, also waiting for? Immediate action bar! Welcome to { http://www.itemtolive.com } sure you will find what you need. Moreover, the company has a good reputation, product quality standards, at reasonable prices. Over the years, has been well received by overseas friends for their support. Therefore, please rest assured purchase.

===== http://www.itemtolive.com ====

Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33

Handbags(Coach l v f e n d i d&g) $35

Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16

Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30

Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,A r m a i n i) $16

New era cap $15

Bikini (Ed hardy,polo) $25

FREE sHIPPING

====== http://www.itemtolive.com ====

Religion has and does cause many, many problems. It always has and it always will. Going to foreign countries to "spread the word" just spreads the delusion. The "do gooders" are anything but doing good. Stay at home and mind your own business.

Open the wardrobe is not yet found love after another the right clothes? So, also waiting for? Immediate action bar! Welcome to { http://www.itemtolive.com } sure you will find what you need. Moreover, the company has a good reputation, product quality standards, at reasonable prices. Over the years, has been well received by overseas friends for their support. Therefore, please rest assured purchase.

===== http://www.itemtolive.com ====

Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33

Handbags(Coach l v f e n d i d&g) $35

Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16

Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30

Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,A r m a i n i) $16

New era cap $15

Bikini (Ed hardy,polo) $25

FREE sHIPPING

====== http://www.itemtolive.com ====

"Second: if proselytism is outlawed then foreign missionaries will simply break the law because our mandate supersedes any law, and time spent in jail is worth the ability to reach someone who is lost with the Truth that leads to salvation. How many of us would break the law to save a person's life? The answer is clear."

What if the victim's family is equally sure you are condemning their children's soul to hell by converting them with your so-called 'truth'? Is that person entitled to 'save' them from an arrogant arse like you? If that is the case then the family should be allowed to prevent you from doing so using any and all means.

How do you like those apples, you arrogant piece of crap dirtbag?

People have to Freedom to read the bible as much as they want. However, reading the bible without 'someone to guide the interpretation' leads to Atheism. Nowadays, it's illegal for the Church to burn people at the stake for reading the bible (it makes you wonder what is in the bible that they didn't want you to read, huh?). So the religion will destroy itself eventually.

I wish religions were more "open." Science does not proceed in the "My way or the highway" method. Neither does philosophy. Religions seem to be investigating important questions, but they do not seem to show an inquiring mind. The Eastern religions, Buddhism and Hinduism seem to be a bit different - they never went in for burning heretics.

When I was an undergraduate, I read the book Varieties of Religious Experience by William James and found it useful. There also seem to be many Christians with open minds. Father Thomas Merton fostered the development of Zen Buddhist influence in the US and I have found that many people who study comparative religion are associated with Catholic colleges and universities. There is a book Mankind's Search for God which some Jehovah's Witnesses once gave me, it is quite respectful to other religions,

Either there is no religious truth or there is. If the first, there is no subject to discuss. If the second, then the subject needs to be studied in cooperation rather than dogma. While feeling a great deal of respect for Jesus or Muhammad, I simply cannot accept the absurd thought that they are the "last word" or even the "first word" in religious truth. Religion is not the property of any man or woman or any small group.

Those Muslims and Christians who want to convert others should first ask, "Do I have an open mind? And if not, how can I find the truth?"

That is not the same as embracing atheism. It just means that religious inquiry should be taken SERIOUSLY.

When "missionaries" from any religious group knock on my door, I try to be courteous and polite - but if they continue to visit after I have told them I am not interested, then the conversation gets (on my part) a little ornery.

NO MEANS NO!! Can't these people understand the word? Offering information is fine, but pushing it on someone who is not interested, does not want to listen and has said so is enough to make a saint blow his/her top.

I feel about religion the same way I feel about political preference - it is very personal and please don't push your beliefs of either subject onto me. I give you the same courtesy.

AND - I don't want my tax dollars supporting religions and churches in their proselytizing and "missions". If the members are sincere, then let them pay for those things themselves.

Well as a pastor, and as a foreign missionary I can say two things with the utmost certainty.

First: I don't proselytize with a gun in my hand, but instead Christian proselytism is defined by love, mercy and compassion. It is the evidence of those things in our lives that is the most convincing argument for many converts around the world, especially when the predominant religions of their regions either ignore them or institutionalize them into poverty.

Second: if proselytism is outlawed then foreign missionaries will simply break the law because our mandate supersedes any law, and time spent in jail is worth the ability to reach someone who is lost with the Truth that leads to salvation. How many of us would break the law to save a person's life? The answer is clear.

What's more is that the article mentions the upheaval that proselytism causes to some cultures, and this is true because many cultures and religions institutionalize their poor through their religion; i.e. the caste system. The transformation of families and culture has always been a part of evangelism, it was even this way in 1st century Judaism when the Christians were kicked out of the synagogues and families were torn apart because of the person that we consider the Messiah who saves us, and the relationship with that Messiah takes precedence of any existing structure and rightfully so. This is exactly what Jesus is talking about in the following passage.

Matthew 10:35-37 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; 36 and one's foes will be members of one's own household. 37 Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me;

Finally, I think its intellectually dishonest to equate evangelism at the tip of a spear to Biblically sound evangelism and to use the abuses in the past as some sort of proof that evangelism should be illegal. That would be the same as saying "US foreign policy has brought about a lot of hurt, therefore the US should not have anything to do with foreign policy". That's simply a false conclusion, its not the fact that the idea of foreign policy is wrong but how it was done, the same holds true for evangelism.

"We elected a born-again Christian president, and he got us into two major wars against muslims. Coincidence?"

Yes, as we continue to fight our war against terror and aggression with an agnostic or is he a Christian president!!

"Last week, a group of American Evangelicals threw rocks at a crowd participating in a voodoo celebration in Haiti.

Enough said..."

Not without supporting references!

Momof20yo,

Are you sure they were Christians stealing these songs? Maybe they were Muslims and atheists who can't get good music by any other means?

Momof20yo,

Are you sure they were Christians stealing these songs? Maybe they were Muslims and atheits who can't get good music by any other means?

Want to know one reason why Christianity is getting a bad name around the world?

Last night at a Christian singer's concert, people were videotaping the concert on what was supposed to be simple digital 'cameras' (it's hard to distinguish a camera from a video camera, until you watch from behind how long it's on--it doesn't take three or more minutes to take a simple picture), their cell phones, and conducting illegal I-phone recordings of the singer's songs---despite being told not to do so at the beginning of the concert, despite knowing that it is stealing and stealing is wrong. Christians were breaking the law, and were knowingly being disrespectful to the singer, when they did what he had asked them not to do.

Surely the better approach is to allow passive proselytizing - that is, make information available, but don't push it at people. I can say that that works best for me as a vegan - I'm open about it, and if people ask, I tell them. But I don't walk up to strangers and tell them that their hamburger is a product of pain and death, nor that if they become vegans, all will be happiness and light. I've had more "success" with this passive approach than I've seen the proactive have.

Eoghan said: "The problem, Laboo, with the distinction you make between evangelism and proselytizing is that while it sounds nice on paper, in practice it usually feels like Potato-Potahto to most of us on the receiving end. No, this whole discussion sounds like a self-serving defense of worst practice to me."

If you were the one lying by the side of the road, beaten and robbed, the distinction between the two would be as abundantly clear as the different reactions of the Levite, the merchant and the good Samaritan. That you fail to see this, indicates to me that (a) you most likely haven't been in such a position -- e.g., poor, jobless, homeless, sick without insurance, hungry, etc. -- and (b) even if so, you evidently have encountered only proselytes and not evangelists.

This scarcely surprises me, since proselytizing requires only a big mouth and evangelizing requires a big heart. The latter is much less common these days.

The distinction between the two is not a matter of what we discuss, but how we choose to live. It is, indeed, precisely the difference between worst and best practices.

No special laws or regulations are required to protect or defend against religion, provided there is freedom of speech.

If someone strikes up a conversation about religion, the right thing to do is to interact politely, as you would with any conversation. If you don't want them to talk to you, say, "no thank you, I'm not interested in talking about that right now" and go about your business. However, if you stop and engage, you might learn something from them, and teach something in return.

It's your choice.

bobmoses: "When did liberals become such an opponent of free speech?"

Offtopic, patently false, and ungrammatical to boot. Yet, all things considered, a prima facie example of political proselytizing.

The simplest answer is get rid of religion. It is the source of all the trouble.

The problem, Laboo, with the distinction you make between evangelism and proselytizing is that while it sounds nice on paper, in practice it usually feels like Potato-Potahto to most of us on the receiving end. No, this whole discussion sounds like a self-serving defense of worst practice to me.

Based on the below statement by a previous responder, I find it unsettling that as recent as last week in Haiti, people of the Voodoo religion were interrupted during a religious ceremony. Their sacred objects were trampled to pieces, and urinated upon. This done by "evangelicals." This type of violence by evangelicals against persons of other religions and spiritual beliefs is not uncommon in this county either, especially to those whose religions are not monotheist. Surely this cannot be a valid "demonstration by life example" that we wish our children and young adults to learn and adhere to?

"Evangelism", by contrast, is a demonstration by life example. Evangelists may be strangers in a hostile society -- like the Good Samaritan -- and yet they are the "good neighbors" because their actions are motivated by, and filled with, compassion and charity. The true evangelist ministers to others by serving them, not browbeating them. The true evangelist embodies the unconditional love which is the essence of the Divine."

Last week, a group of American Evangelicals threw rocks at a crowd participating in a voodoo celebration in Haiti.

Enough said...

When did liberals become such an opponent of free speech?

What goes unstated in the above article is that we have a clear choice between fundamentally different approaches. One epitomized by our choice of terms: "Proselytism" or "Evangelism". The distinction is crucial.

"Proselytism" bears the unavoidable connotation of inducement, coercion, arm-twisting. "Our beliefs are the ONLY true beliefs, our way is the ONLY true way." It is the method that naturally suits the temperament of extremists, and which naturally stimulates intolerance on both sides.

"Evangelism", by contrast, is a demonstration by life example. Evangelists may be strangers in a hostile society -- like the Good Samaritan -- and yet they are the "good neighbors" because their actions are motivated by, and filled with, compassion and charity. The true evangelist ministers to others by serving them, not browbeating them. The true evangelist embodies the unconditional love which is the essence of the Divine.

Oh divine Spirit, make me always an evangelist and save me from the false glory of proselytism.

Most of the time, proselytizing is fairly benign (if annoying...) but it's an unfortunate fact that it's not UNcommon for groups to hold charity and aid hostage. We've all heard of drug treatment programs that require the addicts to attend services. We've all heard of prison rehab programs that require the convicts to worship...in return for which they get perks and considerations from the prison leadership.

We've all heard about groups withholding charitable funds from doctors who provide desperately needed medical care like treatments for malaria, dengue fever, tuberculosis, and AIDS, as well as fistula repair, pre-natal care, contraception...because they also provide abortions when necessary.

proselyzing is all well and good...until they start using people's desperation as a pass-through into it.

"You need to see the doctor? Here's a pamphlet about Jesus to read while you wait."

"Your children are hungry? Here. Look at this pamphlet while I get you some rice. ==

And then there's the sheer wrong-headed moralizing that harms instead of helps...

"Condoms don't help prevent AIDS."

"Homosexuals are abomination. The Bible says they should be stoned to death!"

"You're 12-years-old and pregnant by gang rape? What a blessing from God! Bet you're exicited to be a mama..." ===

it happens far too often.

Stealing Native American children's birthrights was common in the 1950s when Christian adoption groups went on reservations to "save" children from their parents. My friend remembers her mother handing her through the car window to her adoptive mother, who later abused her.
Now there are many Christian groups like the New Tribes Mission at work on their Great Commission of wiping out idigenous people's cultural identities to deliver them to Jesus. Go to New Tribe's Web site and read the pathetic "quotes" from Asians praising Jesus.

Usually, churches will try their best to keep their sheeple ignorant of other beliefs in order to protect their interests and financial sources. It's about the money, after all. If a church only was happy with a few members, they could not hope to have a Megachurch with millions of dollars flowing in from the masses who are afraid of a nonexistant Hell. Do the churches have the right to 'protect' their idiots from other churches by suing other churches and even go to the extreme of killing their own people in order to save their business? Excuse me, but what was that "Free Choice" baloney they were talking about? So what if it undermines their busines. It's FREE CHOICE, right? If they all go out of business because of it, good riddance and they cannot complain because of it.

douglaslbarber asks for a definition of "religion" -- in the late 19th century Edward Tylor offered a simple definition: religion is a belief in the supernatural. That definition works pretty well for historians and social scientists studying religion, and should allow most of us to distinguish the political from the religious, even if both often have the form of ideology.

The southern half of Sudan was considered by the Muslim Arabs of the Northern half simply as a hunting ground for slaves. If it were not for Christian missionaries, mostly Catholics, there would have not been a single literate person in that whole region which is the size of France. There would not have been a single school or a single clinic. In fact the first thing the rulers in the North did to punish the people of the South for having the audacity to ask for some sort of self rule was to deport all the missionaries. This characteristically stupid act further provoked those people to wage a war for independence which they will formally get within few months.

Above all, we must keep religion out of the Pentagon!

We elected a born-again Christian president, and he got us into two major wars against muslims. Coincidence?

Why is it that all this foreign proselytizing seems to emanate from the United States? I don't see any Italian or Brazilian carriers off anybody's coasts. Why are we patrolling the world while allowing self-righteous missionaries to go rubble-rousing around the world? Why can't we just mind our own business in peace?

Why do we go to Haiti to "adopt" children, when there are so many children right here to adopt?

There is a historical connection between aggression and religion, but it seems we haven't learned anything in school.

Which means we must also keep religion out of our schools...

Spidermean, no self-respecting religion could be lacking Swiss guards in puffy uniforms, and yours is lacking in that very respect. Back to the drawing board for you!

Just for fun, let me ask: "Define religion". How shall we determine the difference between a person advocating a political position and one advocating a religious position?

Also, true evangelical Christians don't allow women to preach. You've included women in your list.

The fact that you don't understand what is a true evangelical Christian means that the list you've given can even be trimmed down to a few.

In any organization, there are bad apples. What is important is these bad apples are weeded out. It's another story if a church allows the stupidity to continue.

Also with the hundred of thousands of preachers, they are a very small percentage.

Even with the followers of Jesus, they were not all perfect. There were bad apples too.

And besides, Im not even sure if the list you gave are all true Evangelical (born-again) Christians.

Cont]
1 List of Christian evangelists involved in scandals
1.1 Aimee Semple McPherson, 1920s–40s
1.2 Lonnie Frisbee, 1970s–1980s
1.3 Billy James Hargis, early 1970s
1.4 Marjoe Gortner, early 1970s
1.5 Jim and Tammy Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart, 1986 and 1991
1.6 Peter Popoff, 1987
1.7 Morris Cerullo, 1990s
1.8 Mike Warnke, 1991
1.9 Robert Tilton, 1991
1.10 W. V. Grant, 1996 and 2003
1.11 Roy Clements, 1999
1.12 John Paulk, 2000
1.13 Paul Crouch, 2004
1.14 Douglas Goodman, 2004
1.15 Kent Hovind, 2006
1.16 Ted Haggard, 2006
1.17 Paul Barnes, 2006
1.18 Lonnie Latham, 2006
1.19 Gilbert Deya, 2006
1.20 Richard Roberts, 2007
1.21 Earl Paulk, 2007
1.22 Coy Privette, 2007
1.23 Thomas Wesley Weeks, III, 2007
1.24 Michael Reid, 2008
1.25 Joe Barron, 2008
1.26 Todd Bentley, 2008
1.27 Tony Alamo, 2008

There are two types of religions. First is the one which Jesus spread (truth) while the other is the one which killed Him (false).

It's good for mankind if the truth is spread and bad if the false ones are propagated.

Thru-out history, which religions used force to convert people?

1. Catholicism
2. Islam
3. Buddhism (thru communism)
4. Hinduism
5. Mainstream Protestantism

What has not?

1. Evangelical Christianity - in which freedom of conscience is its primary pillar. In this church, there's no such thing as automatic member as one is born to the church. The child is let to decide once he is old enough to think for himself. Being born-gain means God decides whom he calls to be his child. Noboby else. Not the pastor, not the parents nor any church member. This is the main reason why freedom around the world has spread. This church is the BEARER OF TRUE LIGHT. The church founded by God (Jesus Christ) Himself.

For an offbeat look at churches in America, see, "Churches ad hoc" at
www.efn.org/~hkrieger

The way these and related questions are addressed and answered will have enormous implications for American interests, justice, and world peace in the 21st century. -- Thomas Farr

If any religion places their missionaries in dangerous situations abroad it's on their heads, not mine. If they get locked up for voluntarily going into countries -- with the full knowledge that their missionary efforts are unwelcomed -- then so be it. Isn't that a badge of honor for many of these types anyway -- being persecuted for their faith? Why deprive them?

Any religion wherever on this globe is a lie.
And stealing a lie is the most ridiculous thing I ever heard.
Just listen to Chicks on Speed and you'll find out what sh_itslit you are while stealing an other religious identity.

There are types of proselytizing that I regard as toxic.

However, there's not a person on earth that I'd trust to regulate religious speech with the power to force people to be silent.

I suggest the author read the UN Universal Declaration on Human Rights...which argues that freedom to change one's religion and that freedom to have even offensive conversations designed to persuade one to change religions are a basic foundation of all human rights! I'm with the UN on this one.

Might as well give the exact dates:

Battle of Poitiers: AD 732

Battle of Vienna: 1683.

For almost 1,000 years Muslim armies would intermittently besiege the boundaries of Europe.

The history of Islam and Europe is one of Muslim incursions, not peaceful coexistence. Today there are 20 million Muslims living within Europe's boundaries, the plupart some 5-7,000,000 in France (where BTW the largest # of anti-Semitic incidents take place).

The outlook is not particularly auspicious.

Dear Thomas Farr,
Why do you mention the Crusades and omit the continuous warfare by Muslim armies against Southern and Central Europe?

The history of Islam and Christianity in Europe is fraught. After the death of Mohammed the Arabs burst out of the Arabian Peninsula and conquered all of what we know now as the Middle East (except Anatolia), all of Northern Africa and by AD750 were sovereign in Spain. They would have spread into France were they not turned back in AD782 (?) Battle of Poitiers.

The second onslaught occurred with the rise of the Ottoman Empire.

Although in response to a plea from the then Patriarch of Constantinople Catholic popes authorized successive Crusades, they were ultimately futile. Constantinople fell in 1452 and with it Byzantium ceased, the great church of Hagia Sophia became a mosque. Southeastern Europe became an Islamic fiefdom. The Turks would reach the gates of Vienna (1650?) before finally defeated by the combined forces of Polish Jan Sobieski and the Teutonic Knights.

Currently we should try to live in peace with Islam, and maybe we will have some success. But the historical record is not one of “live and let live.” The historical record is very dark.

Theological Imperative, indeed.
"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28:19).
There doesn't appear to be any wiggle room in that one.
As for FarnazMansouri's concerns, I don't think anyone's asking the US govt to proselytise. Nor should it. And you cannot ban lobbying by religious groups without violating the First Amendment (Freedom of Speech and Freedom to Petition the Government).
As for ending tax-exempt status for churches, I am open to that one, as long as it is done correctly (we don't, after all, want to start taxing charities).

Appears that god, allah and yahweh have a problem making up their minds:

e.g.

"Deu 14:2 For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God, and the LORD hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth.

2Ch 6:6 But I have chosen Jerusalem, that my name might be there; and have chosen David to be over my people Israel.

Isa 43:20 The beast of the field shall honour me, the dragons and the owls: because I give waters in the wilderness, [and] rivers in the desert, to give drink to my people, my chosen

There are others. We, the Gentiles are commanded of God to bless the nation of Israel, the land of His chosen people.

Gen 12:3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.
"

On balance, it seems reasonable to conclude that both religion and democracy can benefit if the activity of sharing one's faith is both permitted and conducted with respect. But there is much work to do before such a conclusion is broadly accepted.
-----------------------------------------
On balance, it is insane and offensive. Keep your proselytizing hands (a) out of the United States government and (b) out of foreign policy.

Be aware of the political significance of religion in countries you visit, of the conflicts, of adherent's self-understandings, etc. Our diplomats, one assumes, already are.

'Nuf said. End faith councils, faith-based funding, tax exempt status for organized religion. Prohibit lobbying by religious groups. Separate church and state.

Only the Catholics/Christians believe they are "God's people." Priests and ministers say this in the media, during services, and probably to themselves in the bathroom.

The OT/Torah and NT are being cleansed of Dark Age theology and proselytizing myths about the followers of Judaism being god's chosen people and Christians/Catholics having the only keys to heaven. See http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20E1EFE35540C7A8CDDAA0894DA404482

and http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

Unfortunately this is not happening with the Koran because of the threat of fanatical Islamic death/riot squads as evidenced by the treatment of Salmon Rusdie after his publication of The Satanic Verses and the riots after the cartoons of Mohammed were published in Denmark. Until Muslims and non-Muslims are free to criticize the Koran, Islam will remain a sham religion.

How exactly does a religious community go about defending itself against attempts to convert its members? How does a particular community even know of attempts to convert members? It's not like the Jehovah's Witnesses come to my UU church to hand out copies of The Watchtower. Proseltyzing os usually a one-on-one endeavor.

When people attempt to "witness" to me, I don't report it to my minister. I deal with it myself. If I wanted to leave my religious community, whether to join another or to fly solo, I am free to do so at any time. The courtesy of notifying the church that I am ersigning my membership is appreciated, but not required.