Prosletyzing

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Positive.

I admit I have my biases, but I do believe that prosletyzing (especially if it seeks to displace an existing tradition) is an act of aggression

LOL, who cares? Why should the "existing tradition" get a monopoly and any competitors not allowed in? Especially when it's used in oppression, see the the caste system in India and how many Christian converts did so specifically to escape it, oh and now the BJP wants to ban conversion altogether. Plus this mindset leads to the idea it's OK to ostracize and persecute converts, take a look at the death penalty for apostasy in Muslim countries.

I should point out the ridiculous double standard here, what Christian country prohibits proselytizing to Christians? No one flips out over western converts to Buddhism.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

There's quite a bit of absurdity going on here, first starting off with the idea that some events from over a century ago reflect greatly on today and that it's common for missionaries in a modern context to desecrate Buddhist and Taoist temples, that many people would object to governments treating any who would do so any more harshly than locals doing so, and that their own governments would protect them in an instance. Even if it did happen today, it's more of an argument against desecrating other religions' temples than against missionary activity in general. And of course the even more absurd premise is what was described as a "central element" of Christianity. It's safe to say the central elements of Christianity is what Jesus advocated, so to say so is basically to say that Jesus advocated waging wars against unbelievers, killing "undesirables" and subjugating women.

Now the idea that some religions and practices get some type of special status is a pet peeve of mine, though one that applies moreso to local issues, and has come up on this forum before. For example take the many people who weren't Jewish, much less Hasidic Jews, who got all bothered by me suggesting that NY Jew accept Christ, yet when jmfcst told non-believers like opebo to do so all the time everyone just laughed it off as jmfcst being jmfcst. Similarly I once got in a debate with patrick1, who isn't Jewish, over whether it's OK for Jewish families to get offended by their kids becoming Christian converts (not even referring to the Messianic Jews who I understand are seen as dishonest, just vanilla conversions who would likely be ostracized by the people being discussed, who are a very small percentage of Jews.) Now while I'm not fond of targeted conversion efforts toward non-Hasidic Jews (like Jews for Jesus), I fail to see how someone from a Jewish background joining some Christian church is anymore offensive than someone from a different Christian or non-religious background.

Here's another example, let's imagine some gay rights activists pamphleteering and protesting the following places of worship and making an effort to encourage people to leave, assuming that all of the specific examples are vocally anti-gay:

-A conservative evangelical church
-A Catholic church
-An LDS Temple
-An Orthodox synagogue
-A mosque

The first one would probably receive nothing but acclaim in liberal circles, the next two probably mostly positive but would have some accusations of how they sound just like general bigotry or saying they should just go after the conservative evangelicals exclusively even if the latter two are just as vocally anti-gay, and the last two probably would be just as condemned and praised. But if all five are equally vocally anti-gay, what is the difference? I just can't stand any double standards. So in a nutshell, I see absolutely no reason why evangelizing to people in remote Buddhist or traditional religion villages is different than the streets of some secular or mostly other Christian denominations city.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

So Nathan do you think there are undesirable circumstances in which one would convert to Episcopalianism? (Ignoring obvious cases of sham conversions for reasons of personal gain, but rather simply due it to being "culturally damaging".)

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

As I noted in another thread, one of the pastors at my church (co-lead pastor with her husband) was raised Buddhist (and converted her sister as well.) Now is it "OK" for her to convert? I doubt many would disagree, particularly not in the US and would just say things like "Well yeah we have freedom of religion, etc." But to hold someone in a remote Asian village to a different standard than someone in an immigrant family in the US seems pretty inane to me, then you have more borderline cases, what about someone in a Chinatown community for example, or a Buddhist in a Koreatown one, would it be somehow more acceptable if they were evangalized by Korean Christians instead of white ones? So as Mikado noted, creating a standard where basically it's more acceptable for some people to convert than others creates hordes of issues and is pretty restrictive on the same people it's supposedly trying to protect.

One could also make a good case that someone from an immigrant family converting (since that's being considered the more "acceptable" type of conversion) is more "culturally destructive" than someone in an area where that remains the predominant culture, but since I don't even care about that premise to begin with I wouldn't consider it worth.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

For a good example of how this can be quite positive when invading on "local culture", consider that illegal evangelists in Iran have made it so that many people in the younger generation are closeted Christians, it's spreading exponentially amongst the youth, and subsequently weakening the regime.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Have you ever lived in Iran? If not then the Iranians you know must be ex-pats and thus not representative of the situation in Iran.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Have you ever lived in Iran? If not then the Iranians you know must be ex-pats and thus not representative of the situation in Iran.

Given that you made the claim I might ask you the same thing.

http://www.elam.com/articles/The-Church-In-Iran/

Remember that "exponential" doesn't mean a large percentage if it starts out small. But if as estimated in 1979 there were only 500 Christians in Iran that converted from Islam, and even if it's only 0.5-1% of the population today, in a country of 79 million, that's a huge growth.

And what happens when the majority of the host society, including those who don't like the particular regime in power, doesn't like missionaries? Even the Dalai Lama tells his people (without ever telling westerners) to support the Chinese government cracking down on covert missionaries. Is the will of the people more important or is a rather nebulous "right" more important?

Then they don't convert. I have no intention of ever becoming a Mormon or Jehova's Witness, but I don't need to ban them from doorknocking or visiting me to ensure this doesn't happen.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I'm referring to Christians from a Muslim background, aka converts, not the Armenian ones who were already there, who of course have mostly already left. There are far more of those than there was in 1979, and even if one can't legally register as an atheist/agnostic one can't legally change their registration from Muslim to Christian either making both quite difficult to register. I should point out that any surge in growth is very well likely tied to the regime's existence. It should surprise no one that the regime turns people off to Islam and makes them far more likely to turn to any alternative offered. So basically saying we should just respect "local cultures" or whatever is basically appeasing the regime.

As for "Why would people who oppose the regime dispense with their faith given that until 1979 their faith was compatible with a modern, increasingly secular capitalist economy?", they don't necessarily have to, I just wish they would. Of course I'd prefer that they oppose the regime and not then support the regime and not.