How to win friends and influence people
Q: Is there a problem with proselytism overseas by U.S. religious groups? Isn't sharing one's faith part of religious freedom? When does it cross the line into manipulation and coercion?
Here is the easy part. No individual or group should be engaged in religious proselytizing, whether at home or abroad, while acting as a representative of the United States government in any capacity. Here are the hard parts. When, if ever, should the freedoms of speech and religion guaranteed to private citizens in this country be applied in countries where such freedoms may be against the law? And when does religious proselytizing become cultural imperialism?
I do empathize with religious groups whose mission is to convert everyone in the world, since I happen to think the world would be a far better place if everyone "saw the light" of secular humanism. The issue is how to go about achieving your goals. Whether religious or secular, I believe the best form of proselytizing is to lead by example. (Wasn't it Jesus who said, "By their works you shall know them?")
People might wish to follow your lead if they see you are concerned with: securing justice and fairness in an open, pluralistic, and democratic society; eliminating discrimination and intolerance based on race, religion, gender, nationality, or sexual orientation; protecting the earth, to preserve it for future generations; encouraging negotiation to resolve differences and achieve mutual understanding. You also believe in guiding your life by reason and compassion, and that you can pursue knowledge, find meaning, and derive responsible ethical codes free from reference to supernatural forces.
Oops! There I go again, trying to "convert" everyone to secular humanism. My excuse in this instance is that both the question and the forum present panelists with an opportunity to express and promote our worldviews. But secular humanism is most definitely not a religion. We would like to help people live better in this life, which makes us less passionate about our approach than some religionists who feel called to bring a better afterlife to the uninitiated. That's why we're less likely to push our views on those not interested in hearing them, and why we would never think of using force or coercion for conversion.
What can or should religious and secular groups do when they see obvious human rights violations condoned abroad. I think we need to work carefully to help make life better for the least fortunate. Sometimes, however, religious and secular groups will disagree about what constitutes a better life.
Here's an example of what I mean. One of my most memorable experiences was as a Visiting Mathematics Professor for a semester in 1987 at the University of Papua New Guinea. It was a country teaming with missionaries of all kinds. Most tried to improve the lives of the inhabitants, usually accompanied by religious conversion. Women there were treated unbelievably poorly. Village men typically resided in a house, while women and pigs (yes, pigs!) lived in a shack behind the house. Both women and pigs were sold or used for barter, the woman/pig ratio depending on the quality of both the women and the pigs. Further, wife beating was perfectly legal and common.
I hope missionaries have become more humanistic than when I was there. At the time, I asked one why he deplored the practice of bare-breasted women, but said nothing about wife beating. He told me they couldn't change everything that was wrong in the country, and bare breasts were a good place to start. Shortly thereafter, the university held a beauty pageant with five participants, four of whom were bare breasted. When I saw that the primary judge was this same missionary, I confidently predicted the winner to my colleagues (resisting the temptation to place large bets). After the breast-covered woman won, my colleagues showed an undeserved respect for my powers of judging beauty.
By
Herb Silverman
|
March 1, 2010; 6:18 PM ET
Save & Share:
Previous: The ethics of proselytizing |
Next: Proselytism is a dangerous religious idea
Posted by: ZZim | March 4, 2010 2:03 PM
Report Offensive Comment
As a university student in the 70's studying to be a secondary teacher, certain professors were known to be Christian haters. If you made a seemingly religious statement in their classes, ridicule and mocking were sure to come. This was especially true in the philosphy department, where only one would claim to teach theism. My textbooks for Philosophy of Education were "Secular Humanism," "Existentialism," and "Values Clarification," that taught us not only what to teach but how to teach it.
To my regret, and for the desire to be considered among the academic elite, I succumbed to this dogmatic instruction to the point of being agnostic. I returned to Christ almost 20 years later. But if I was ever religiously indoctrinated, it was at the university and not the church.
Perhaps, that is why you don't want Christians to proselytize outside of churches. It is because you know that you already have a near monopoly on the best proselytization process in the world. And you use it very effectively.
Posted by: DouginMoz | March 4, 2010 8:58 AM
Report Offensive Comment
When I travel to El Salvador, I notice that the only other gringos heading down there are either surfers or missionaries. I asked one group (all wearing the same T-shirt with a religious slogan) what they were doing. They explained that they were coming down to help paint a church in some community. I wanted to tell them to stay home and send the money to El Salvador. For the price of 15 round trip tickets and food and lodging for a week for these "vacationaries" they could have painted every church in the country twice!
Posted by: jonesm2 | March 3, 2010 1:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Some Asian countries have enacted laws against so-called "unethical conversions" not because THEY are intolerant. Indeed, some of them are among the most tolerant societies on the planet. Rather, they have reacted to the unethical, deceptive, and aggressive tactics of evangelical Christian missionaries, particularly from the United States, who, all too often, take advantage of poverty and natural disasters to spread their particular brand of insanity among the local population when that population is most vulnerable. No one should have to tolerate the intolerable, and, indeed, it is not being intolerant to restrict the unethical tactics used by these misssionaries.
Posted by: bomhard | March 3, 2010 2:44 AM
Report Offensive Comment
With the recent earthquakes in Haiti and Chile, Christian missionaries have been mobilizing to those nations. With devastation, pain, and grief comes an opportunity to proselytize and spread the “Good News” about Jesus.
Missionary apologists will often sing the praises of the good work that missionaries do. They feed the hungry, build shelters, teach the illiterate how to read, etc. These are all great things but they can all be done just as effectively if not more so by leaving religion at home. People in third world nations or nations which have been devastated by a natural disaster are in a vulnerable position. They are at a disadvantage economically, scientifically, and often emotionally (due to the losses suffered by natural disasters).
You can read the rest of my response to this topic:
http://tinyurl.com/yfkg47u
I will be responding to every issue posted in the 'On Faith' section. If you would like to be notified when my new response is up, please subscribe.
-Staks
http://www.DangerousTalk.net
Posted by: dangeroustalk | March 3, 2010 12:01 AM
Report Offensive Comment
PROSELYTIZATION is a manifestation of the SUPREMACIST foundation of Christianity & Islam.
No one else has this serious flaw that Christians and Muslims have in their "religions" or spiritual systems. Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Zoroastrians, Jews, Wiccans, Animists, etc.. are all trying to make themselves better, not trying to undermine others.
Conversion has caused some of the biggest problems in third world countries.
The "charity" and "kind deeds" are insincere and deceptive actions, and therefore, are acts of evil.
Muslims & Christians don't seem to get the basics of goodness and spirituality. Pretending to be good while having and ulterior motive fools no one and is an act of evil. This can lead to crusades and suicide terrorism.
REMEMBER: Almost all religious conflicts in the world involve Muslims or Christians on one side or both.
Sneakiness, deception, conversion, undermining other cultures, etc... is offensive and nonspiritual.
You really feel the urge to do charity? Go to the inner city in America and help those in need. Look in your own family and help those who are depressed or drunk or angry.
Stop going to 3rd world countries and causing problems & hurting others.
Posted by: clearthinking1 | March 2, 2010 7:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment
PROSELYTIZATION is a manifestation of the SUPREMACIST foundation of Christianity & Islam.
No one else has this serious flaw that Christians and Muslims have in their "religions" or spiritual systems. Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Zoroastrians, Jews, Wiccans, Animists, etc.. are all trying to make themselves better, not trying to undermine others.
Conversion has caused some of the biggest problems in third world countries.
The "charity" and "kind deeds" are insincere and deceptive actions, and therefore, are acts of evil.
Muslims & Christians don't seem to get the basics of goodness and spirituality. Pretending to be good while having and ulterior motive fools no one and is an act of evil. This can lead to crusades and suicide terrorism.
REMEMBER: Almost all religious conflicts in the world involve Muslims or Christians on one side or both.
Sneakiness, deception, conversion, undermining other cultures, etc... is offensive and nonspiritual.
You really feel the urge to do charity? Go to the inner city in America and help those in need. Look in your own family and help those who are depressed or drunk or angry.
Stop going to 3rd world countries and causing problems & hurting others.
Posted by: clearthinking1 | March 2, 2010 7:22 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Sharing one's faith may be part of religious freedom, but doing so in a quasi-colonialist way is what makes much proselytizing by US groups wrong. Approaching the poor with material benefits, only to be accompanied by religious preaching, is just wrong.
Posted by: DAN46 | March 2, 2010 1:03 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Again, government and it's agencies represent all of us regardless of our beliefs theist or nontheist. It is paramount that our military forces and our national representatives understand and practice a secular approach that reinforces all of our views and rights and not just those of the religious conservatives in our country.
Posted by: veginpost | March 2, 2010 12:28 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.

Twitter










It appears we have uncovered the new Leftist Boogeyman - missionaries.