Prosletyzing

[politicus]

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.

[politicus]

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.

First point is the overall principled argument.

Second point are my personal feelings regarding what is desirable and what isnt.

There are several problems with your line of reasoning, but I am too tired to go into that right now.
The fact that you can even suggest, that it is a central element of Christianity to wage wars against unbelievers and kill undesirables shows that you are either ignorant about Christianity or are an extremely biased atheist. I suspect the latter. So it might not be worth it debating you on this subject.

[politicus]

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.

The difference is that in some cases you would destroy an entire culture or way of life. Thats why I am sceptical when we are talking about, say, kastom villages in Melanesia or Bhutan.
If you believe in human diversity as a valuable thing in itself (which I do) leaving some highly original and fragile aboriginal cultures to develop without missionary activity makes sense.
Otherwise I generally agree with your points about double standards.