Another day, another arrogant pontification from the peanut gallery. I recently shared some thoughts on how annoying and intrusive it is to be approached on the streets by religious recruiters. They have no respect for the people they approach. They have not stopped to consider, in any way shape or form, whether or not the person they are harassing in the street has been harmed in some way by religion. These street ‘preachers’ (for want of a better word) aren’t acting out of a place of love, or if they are, it is a twisted form of it. They certainly don’t act out of respect for the people they harass.
Of course, a certain extremist jumped to their blog, to defend this harassment.
While we understand that some street evangelists and other Christians do go a bit too far in their contact with unbelievers, they are not pestering people.. The owner of that website should feel grateful that there is a group of people out there who care about him so much, that they are willing to talk to them about Jesus.
What the fundie fails to understand is, there is a time and a place for this! If someone goes to a Church, thus making the conscious choice to hear the Gospel, that is up to them. Interfering with people on the street is denying them the choice! It’s uninvited solicitation, and I can only imagine how the fundie would feel if he were approached by Muslims, Jews, Hindus or Sikhs, and followed by them (I was once followed nearly halfway home by someone talking about Jesus, who would not take the hint that I was not interested, is that love, or jus creepy?), having them continue to preach, despite the fundie having made it clear he was not interested. Would such behaviour be acceptable then?
You see, it is only the Christian that has a love for the unbeliever. They are willing to put themselves in the way of public humiliation, ridicule, personal attacks, and so on just so that they can show love to a person that does not believe.
I’d say the reason other groups (like the LGBT community, feminists etc) don’t go up to people in the street to ‘convert’ them, is because they know and understand how creepy, intrusive, and awkward it is. They know there are better ways to handle such situations. They prefer to respect others, and live and let live, whereas the Christian fundies are desperate to interfere with others.
It is not pestering the unbeliever but akin to seeing someone drowning and the bystander throwing a lifeline to that potential drowning victim. Does it make sense for the drowning victim to reject the lifeline and call it pestering?
If the ‘victim’ isn’t actually drowning, then it certainly does make sense for them to feel harassed by the unwanted, uninvited approach to their personal space. Would the fundie appreciate it if I wandered up to him on the street, and thrust a pamphlet in his face, to do with a belief system he didn’t abide by, or had any interest in? Would he like a knock on his door from me, to talk about science and evolution?
Bottom line, he conflates love with entitlement.
2
0
20
No, they would not like that knock on their door. I wonder how they would react to ambush proselytism regarding Greek mythological figures. Really no difference. Myths and fables.
It would be interesting to dress up as Thor and Loki, and go around behaving exactly like these intrusive street preachers.
It’s interesting to read all of the flowery words regarding ‘love’, considering how many people around the world have suffered and/or died through being shown the ‘gospel of love’.
Oh definitely. Organised religion as a whole has a lot to answer for. Don’t get me wrong, there are some pleasant aspects to it. My wife and I attended a local Church of England location during the reading of our wedding bands, and our experience with that community was one of kindness. They were incredibly welcoming, and overwhelmingly warm and friendly. I try to remember that the fanatics do not account for the majority. That said, they are the most committed to infiltrating political and social institutions, and they are the most determined to strip away the rights of anyone who does not meet their worldview.
The litmus test for these fanatics is, as I think we have already derived, whether or not they would be as tolerant of followers of other religions, doing exactly the same thing. Would the radical Christian, denouncing same-sex marriage on the street corner, be appreciative of a Muslim preacher taking up on the opposite side of the road, saying the same thing, but filtered through Islam?