Prosletyzing

[2952-0-0]

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, and that the freedom of religion includes one's religious beliefs in an atmosphere of respect. Therefore I do believe that governments have the right to restrict or ban missionary activity, and that this doesn't conflict with freedom of speech, or thought, or conscience. Furthermore I think such activity is destructive and disrespectful towards the local community, especially in light of the past and present actions of missionaries worldwide. What do other people here think?

[2952-0-0]

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 don't have an objection if an individual decides to approach a church and ask more about Christianity which results in him becoming Christian. I do have a problem if organized missionaries intend to displace and disrespect the host culture, and lure converts by means of material goods.

May I remind you that in late Qing Dynasty China, missionaries were guaranteed the right to seek converts and were not subject to Chinese laws. They went around desecrating Buddhist and Taoist temples and couldn't be held responsible. When the missionaries were attacked in retaliation, their governments held the Chinese government responsible. These same things happened in Tibet of the time, which is why to this day the Dalai Lama tells his people to support the Chinese government's crackdown on evangelists.

There was one particular incident in 1898 when two German Catholic missionaries were killed by common bandits. Within two weeks the Kaiser (who wasn't entirely friendly to Catholics) sent dreadnoughts to to occupy Qingdao and demand a concession. Shortly after, every European power demanded a concession of their own. So in this case, missionaries weren't serving a religious goal. They were serving a political goal, and hence governments have a right to respond to them. It's also not entirely unjustified to accuse the converts themselves of being tools for a political cause they don't understand.

For those missionaries, I have no objections if governments take action to suppress or expel them. There's the supposed duty to bear witness in Christianity, but all religions have duties and norms which are unacceptable to various extents. If people do actions which negatively affect other people, then society has the right to regulate these actions, regardless what religion is involved.

I dare say if, say, Japan or Thailand or India were sending Buddhist missionaries to the US who were slandering Jesus and desecrating churches while hiding behind the protection of their governments, who used every retaliation against these missionaries as excuses to carve up their sphere of influence, there will be anti-missionary sentiment as well.

[2952-0-0]

All of my bad experiences in this regard have come from Protestants, including one weird, weird Korean guy advocating the addition of "God the Mother" to the Trinity.  He smelled bad and was really insistent about God the Mother.

I don't know how anecdotal this story is, but most of the pushy Korean evangelists I've met seemed rather ignorant about Christianity when I asked them a tricky question.

[2952-0-0]

You cant really have freedom of the religion in any meaningful sense if you dont allow prosletyzing. It is a central element in both Christianity and Islam that you should try to convert "heathens".

But it can be problematic in some contexts. Especially small tribes of nature people, whose entire culture is based around spiritual belief systems. Personally I would also be negative to missionary activities in places like Tibet, Bhutan etc.

I think other monotheists are "fair game" for Christian missionaries and Hindus as well. Given the extremely long histoy of Christianity in India you cant really call it a foreign religion.

Prohibiting proselytism isn't against freedom of religion. After all, it doesn't affect a person's desire to worship, or read holy books, or observe a moral code. It's also a central element in Christianity and Islam to wage wars against unbelievers, kill undesirables such as gays, and subjugate women. Is it against freedom of religion to forbid these practices? Whatever people do in their private life is their matter. Once they start affecting other people, then society has the right to reasonably regulate these actions.

The second point conflicts with the first point. And why do Tibetans and Bhutanese have any more entitlement not to have missionaries harassing their lifestyle? Doesn't this apply to everyone? In my opinion, freedom of religion includes the freedom to practice religion without harassment from those who don't respect them. If that means Christian evangelists aren't allowed to visit remote villages and denigrate the local spiritual belief, then so be it. Honestly I don't have sympathy for missionaries who are killed or kidnapped in around the world, because they knowingly put themselves in danger doing something purely for their greed.

[2952-0-0]

It's definitely true that the noble savage attitude among too many well-meaning western liberals is holding back progress in many parts of the world. But regardless, any changes which should occur in these traditional societies should in general be the task of their own people. Outside intervention against the general will of these societies will only create resentment and create more problems than they solve. What path Tibet and Bhutan (and other such "traditional" societies) should take is generally their own business, and definitely not the business of unwanted Christian evangelicals who travel the world hoping to "save" people. If as a result of these changes, the powerful Lamas lose power and are driven into exile, that is also not anyone else's business (though the current PRC leadership haven't completely let go of their dark past); no one in Ireland or Quebec or Spain miss the days the Catholic Church dictated to politicians.

[2952-0-0]

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?

[2952-0-0]

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.

But if their presence leads to communal tension (especially in countries with a history of religious violence), then banning them could be justified on public safety grounds in a democratic society. Doorknocking around a suburban subdivision is harmless. In parts of India and Africa, these missionaries loudly denigrate the existing beliefs as idolatry which can only lead to eternal damnation. Then they erect a church and demand villagers to attend or fear the wrath of God. And because the often rich, white missionaries are already seen by locals to be more powerful, there's little they could do to refuse them. This creates a power differential which doesn't exist when a Mormon knocks on a door in suburbia.

And besides, municipalities do have the right to ban door to door salespeople on the grounds they're a public nuisance. A Do Not Call registry prohibits telemarketers from selling things over the phone. Why isn't it constitutional to prohibit people from doing the same thing to sell something nebulous? Starting this year, Switzerland has effectively banned Mormon missionaries. This has of course prompted protests by Utah politicians, but what else can they do? Demonize the oppressive Swiss dictatorship?

Finally I'll address the analogy with western hipsters converting to Buddhism. The difference here is that:
1) no power differential between the western hipster and the sangha exists
2) Buddhism doesn't theoretically or practically lead to a disrespect of an existing culture
3) the western hipsters are not converting because a pushy lama accosted them on the street
4) Sanghas aren't being used as agents of Thai, Japanese, Chinese, or Vietnamese foreign policy

If a religious organization wants to provide a service in a community without the intent (explicit or implied) to evangelize to locals, there's no reason to oppose that. But in practice the line is rather fine.

[2952-0-0]

Not to mention the fact that the Ayatollahs can accuse their opponents of being puppets of the Zionists and American Imperialists and therefore easier crack down on any dissent. It's much harder to do so when their opponents are even culturally Muslim atheists.