Video
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feed
What does "proselytize" really mean?
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?
For many of us, proselytism is a loaded word like "crusade," "righteous," or "conquer" - it has such strong historical and ideological implications that it most often seems to be used in a negative context. It therefore requires a good amount of objectivity to ask ourselves, when speaking of organizations or individuals proselytizing anywhere in the world, at what point and to what extent do those on the receiving end lose in the process of proselytism? Or, conversely, in what cases can we say that the "converted" are truly improved in some way?
Most of us proselytize every day, though we wouldn't consider it as such. Simply defined, the Greek root of proselytize means an attempt to convert others to another way of thinking.
Lobbyists are paid by any number of interests to influence government legislation. Aren't these examples of proselytism? So what's the problem with taking this activity abroad, since it appears to work so effectively at home? In this case, I would say, because this is religion we're talking about.
I think we know that the kind of proselytism we're referring to is not as innocuous as pushing people to take the Pepsi challenge. Religion is serious stuff because it relates to questions not only about our inmost identity, and often has a significant impact on personal standards for human behavior and actions. Millions would testify how their worship of God benefits themselves and others. Religion is also, hopefully, about personal choice. It's our chosen means of fulfilling an innate desire to maintain connection with our spiritual source - "the sustaining Infinite" as Mary Baker Eddy, the discoverer and founder of Christian Science, names it.
As good parents, we raise our children to aspire to be good citizens and to think freely and for themselves. It follows then, that to see any of our children - parents, brothers and sisters for that matter - being pushed to adopt some other religious theology or doctrine feels intrusive at best--especially when initiated by individuals or groups with questionable motives and agendas.
I've always loved the ethics of Christian Science in this regard. To offer "a cup of cold water" to someone in need is a Christian act of love. To push them into the deep end of the pool does not feel Christian or loving. I've always felt the highest ethics come from Jesus' commandment to love God and to love my neighbor as myself.
So how do we know when our actions are beneficial to others? And how do we know if we are being manipulative and coercive? Again, Christian teaching provides us with what has come to be known as "the golden rule," a rule that has its equivalent in all the main religions of the world - "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
Another guiding adage from Jesus is: "By their fruits ye shall know them." I can't think of a better way to convince others of the theology I follow than by showing them what I've actually accomplished with it--who has been blessed, redeemed, healed.
It is such an understatement to say that our world needs help. Millions of people are, right now, being manipulated and coerced by dictatorial and unjust systems. They long for lives that reflect better human standards of dignity, self-respect, equality and social stability. Perhaps what is more needed is spiritual diplomacy, supporting and advocating for religious practices that can practically demonstrate how they benefit people.
But we need to be so respectful in our efforts to benefit others in the world, particularly where religious influence is involved. We need to be certain that those whom we are seeking to benefit, actually desire what we are offering. The Christian's example is in the biblical accounts of Christ Jesus' own work, which so often brought him away from his core community in order to minister to the needs of people elsewhere. By all accounts he was a welcome presence in these places.
Despite the conflicts that occur worldwide in the name of religion, we need to remember that these do not, by any means, represent all of religion. People do need to be converted to better ways of behaving towards one another. My own religion has taught me a great deal about the spirit of selfless service to support, not impose, the growth of freedom of thought throughout the world, and I sincerely believe that most U.S. religious groups are equally well motivated in their efforts.
By
Phil Davis
|
March 5, 2010; 5:00 PM ET
Save & Share:
Previous: A bully in nanny's clothing |
Next: Discrimination: not with my tax dollars
Posted by: sux123 | March 10, 2010 10:15 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The impulse that says "These adults are better off without hearing about other religious beliefs" is the impulse of the tyrant. It was a view that was standard among many churches and nations up until two hundred years ago. The natural diversity of religion in the United States made it politically impossible to create a national church, and led directly to the First Amendment guarantee of religious freedom, alongside freedom of speech. The freedom to speak my mind includes the freedom to tell other people about my religious beliefs, and try to persudae them to freely embrace my views, just as any politician tries to persuade people to support his political views. American democracy allows no government enforced orthodoxy in religion or politics. Ideas compete in a marketplace, in which people are free to accept an idea or reject it, and no one has the right to suppress the competition from other people's ideas. The suppression of religious diversity and speech is not a progressive or liberal idea; it is the idea that motivated persecution of the early Christians by the pagan Romans, and persecution of Jewish Christians by the Spanish Inquisition. It is the idea motivating Muslim suppression of religious freedom, such as seeking the death penalty for converts to Christianity. It is the same old tyranny, and anyone who believes in freedom of conscience should denounce it for what it is.
If someone sends you advertising in the mail, or puts it on TV or the radio, you can avoid it. You have no obligation to give your time to absorb every competing message or plea for your attention. What you find useless or even offensive, others find intriguing and useful. Thus we can have diversity in political views as well as diversity in religious views. Diversity in racial heritage is meaningless if there is no diversity in religion and politics. Much of the culture of Hispanic Americans is rooted in their Roman Catholic worship. Much of the culture of black Americans is rooted in the historical black churches that have been the steady foundation in the midst of social chaos in the inner cities. To suppress religious diversity is to suppress ethnic and racial diversity.
Posted by: coltakashi93 | March 8, 2010 3:15 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Question 1: What is the real problem with proselytism overseas by U.S. religious groups?
Answer 1: The root cause of problem with proselytism overseas by some U.S. religious groups is their genuine belief that target's religion is path to eternal damnation. It is extremely difficult to respect path to hell. Hence, Many proselytisers start walking on tensed and slippery slope of "disrespectful tolerance". Some in their righteous zeal to save slip into unethical verbal violence, immoral manipulation and illegal coercion.
Question 2: Isn't sharing one's faith part of religious freedom?
Answer 2: Yes. Both sharing and practising one's faith is part of religious freedom. Sharing should not inhibit practising and vice versa.
Question 3: When does it cross the line into manipulation and coercion?
Answer 3: When a proselytiser slips from "disrespectful tolerance" to "illegal coercion". Thus, Inhibiting target's right to practise his or her current faith.
Visit: www.uscirf.blogspot.com for details.
Posted by: reformuscirf | March 7, 2010 1:17 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I agree with Phil that proselytism not as innocuous as pushing people to take the Pepsi challenge.
However, There is much to learn from Pepsi Challenge.
Firstly, It is fair and square. It accepts and respects Coke as a beverage.
Secondly, It does not denounce Coke as lethal hellish poison.
Finally, It does not forbid pepsiite from trying Coke.
Since, Proselytism is not as innocuous as Pepsi challenge it should have higher code of conduct and standard.
The root cause of problem with proselytism overseas by some U.S. religious groups is their genuine belief that target's religion is path to eternal damnation. It is extremely difficult to respect path to hell. Hence, Many proselytisers start walking on tensed and slippery slope of "disrespectful tolerance". Some in their righteous zeal to save slip into verbal violence, manipulation and coercion.
What makes matters worse is one-sided omissions and commissions of quasi government group USCIRF. This could lead to compromise with separation of religion and church in foreign affairs.
Visit: www.uscirf.blogspot.com for details.
Posted by: reformuscirf | March 6, 2010 10:54 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
I see a basic contrast in the Buddhist tradition of "getting the word out" and that of Christians. Buddhist give talks, write books, and encourage people to determine if it makes sense for them and to challenge the ideas presented. The Buddhist also do not tell people that they have to give up theri present religion. The Christain tell people to believe in their God and give up theri present beliefs or suffer eternal damnation in a firey hell with no hope of escape. THAT is coercion and despicable and should be criminal.