Proselytizing should certainly be allowed as a matter of freedom of expression, but the idea that there are no situations in which it's undesirable or culturally damaging strikes me as a little suspect. Then again, I'm completely obsessed with memory, diversity, and identity, so I would think that. I'm realizing more and more by the day that my views on the subjects of cultural history and (real or perceived) protection or assimilation are...uh, most other people would probably consider them really strange, and I'm starting to despair of ever finding a school of social theory that doesn't seem somehow, either definably or indefinably, wrong to me on this.
Nathan, I understand where you're coming from, but there's serious conflicts between cultural preservation and individual autonomy IMO. Even without proselytizing, you'll have cases where people flat-out reject the culture and faith of their people and turn to an alternative, whether a foreign religion or something like Communism that has a similar function of leading people to renounce their traditional religion and join an international community opposed to it. Should these people be denied that autonomy? I really don't see how unless we go with an Afghan-style "apostasy=death" line.