Amazing Grace…
April 7th, 2007 by 
Caroline Spector
A disclaimer for this post: I’m not a religious person. I think religion is just about the wackiest thing humans ever thought up to excuse behaving badly. And because I was once a believer, I know the religious beast fairly well.
I was never part of the evangelical movement – my parents raised me in The Congregational Church, which is about as close as you can get to being Jewish without actually being Jewish. And maybe that explains the ease with which I converted to Judaism many years after being confirmed. (Although I did start my trip into apostasy during my confirmation. We were given a small card that depicted a cross with “Jesus” written on it. Above the cross was written “God.” Below the cross was written “You.” This was to demonstrate that the path to God was through Jesus. All I could think was, “What, I can’t direct-dial God? Is Jesus just a celestial phone operator?”)
Because I lived in Houston, I was familiar with Southern Baptists and other offshoots of Protestantism. I remember being shocked going into my first Baptist church. It was enormous, gilded at every turn, and the carpeting was red. Hot red. Lipstick red. Blood of Our Savior red. There were stained-glass windows, but modern ones, gaudy as hell. I thought it looked like a bordello.
My school orchestra was hired to play “The Messiah” at Baptist churches throughout Houston during the Christmas holidays. They would have their chorus set up on rickety tiers to make a “living” Christmas tree. Their soloists did the leads. (If you’re familiar with “The Messiah” there are a lot of solo parts.)
The soloists were almost always dreadful. They didn’t know how to keep time. They didn’t know how to sing with full orchestration. Their choral directors had never directed an orchestra before. (And don’t even get me started on how Handel wrote “The Messiah” for Easter, not for Christmas.) They also treated us like slave labor. We were high school kids, but we might as well have been field hands.
Later, when I was in college, there was a 7th Day Adventist who used to come by my apartment and try to convert me. I was smoking loads of pot at the time, and my parents had raised me to be polite, so I usually just let her in and let her do her spiel.
But I’m older and crankier now.
Maybe it was converting to Judaism. The first time someone uses the word “kike” in front of you because they think you’re “one of them” is a big shock. You start to notice the small ways in which people are just remarkably and casually bigoted. I don’t want to say I know what it’s like to grow up Jewish in American society. But it did show me that no matter how evolved I thought I was, I had no idea what it was really like to be a minority. And to live in a society that assumes you must be like them or be something “other.”
And that’s why I say this with all sincerity: If you’re going from door-to-door trying to sell your religion to someone else, you’re, well, rude.
It didn’t occur to me when I was younger just how invasive and presumptuous this kind of thing was, but that’s because of how I was brought up. You were polite to people who came to the door.
Like I said, I’m older and crankier now.
My immortal soul, my belief system, my house — these things are mine. And you, as a stranger, as someone who hasn’t been introduced to me, you have no right to inquire into those matters. You come onto my property without invitation, to arrogantly presume to teach me, someone with whom you have no acquaintance.
Have you no shame?
And that is, to my mind, the greatest sin of modern evangelism. The profound arrogance of it. The presumption that they and they alone are gifted with what’s right. Puffed up by their massive egos, they go out into the world and try to impose these beliefs on individuals who have expressed no interest in same.
They are rude. Ill-mannered. Boorish. This is the behavior of spoilt children.
And from a historical perspective, every religion has believed that they had the direct dial to the godhead. From the Macedonians to The People’s Temple, they ALL thought they knew the mind of divinity. And all are now part of the dust heap of history. Today’s religion is tomorrow’s mythology.
None of us knows what happens beyond the veil. Some believe that that’s it: You’re dead. Some people believe in everlasting life. (Kinda like the Egyptians sans mummies.)
But while we’re here, let’s let each other mind our own immortal whatever. After all, it’s only polite.
Posted in Caroline, Daily Life, History, Religion | 
April 7th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
Here’s a bit from Australian TV that pretty much sums up my attitude.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sV-a1vmZ6y8
April 7th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
Doesn’t that say it all. Bravo!
April 7th, 2007 at 9:12 pm
Once again you are my hero. Well said!
April 7th, 2007 at 10:04 pm
I consider religion the world’s second oldest profession. But unlike the first, you don’t actually get anything for your money.
April 7th, 2007 at 10:31 pm
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. I don’t care what people believe.
I care how they behave.
I’ve had civilized behavior from LDSers and horrid behavior from rational agnostics. And vice-versa.
I’m not even as concerned about the ones who knock on my door. With the exception of certain Jehovah Witnesses, they mostly go away fairly quickly if asked politely. I usually offer ice-water to the ones who need it.
Where I get upset is when religious groups try to influence public policy on the basis of untestable beliefs.
An example: Abstinence vs. contraception for both the prevention of STD’s and teen pregnancies.
Both methods have had substantial study. Abstinence fails miserably for both purposes. In fact, abstinence only education seems to boost the chances of unprotected sex by a great deal.
But contraception is not “compatible” with the beliefs of large portions of the religious right. So we must continue to put kids at risk of AIDS, STDS, and unwanted pregnancies.
Say Amen, Brother.
April 8th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
If I believe something will help you, I *should* come to your door. And if you tell me to get lost, I will, with alacrity. If I think everyone should know about, say, condoms/dental dams, I got no prob with going up to people about it and inquiring if they would like to know about safe procedures and how to acquire the necessaries that may save lives. If I believe you have a soul, why would it be less OK for me to ask if you’d like some info on that?
April 8th, 2007 at 10:04 pm
I get what you’re saying, RB. It’s the soft version of the ‘Brother’s Keeper’ argument. As somebody who worked in social services for 17 years, I can go there very easily.
The other side is that we should have the right to be left alone to go to hell in our own preferred ways.
We’re a society of people with a vast range of interests and things that we believe are vitally important. I can quickly think of several dozen issues I could justify button-holing people about, if I felt that I could justify it at all.
I kinda like the neo-pagan attitude about religion — ‘When the student is ready, the teacher will appear’.
Sorry if I seem a little strident about all this — I’ve been randomly proselytized all of my life. I already know as much about Christianity as I want to.
I’m not quite as grumpy as Caroline and some others are on the subject, but, at my advanced age, I occasionally find it breath-taking that people don’t contemplate the possibility that I’ve kinda sorta maybe already figured out what I believe.
And if I have any questions, I’ll hit the Intenet to get the answers.
April 8th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
For me, at least — not putting words in Caroline’s mouth — I’m tired of being *sold things.* I believe the underlying need to convert someone is motivated by something different than the underlying need to tell someone about a serious health risk.
April 9th, 2007 at 5:46 am
Hmm, Rory. Since my beliefs are constantly evolving in response to, you know, life, I hadn’t considered that someone would behold me and think, “Because that lady’s old, she’s got it figured out.”
“The other side is that we should have the right to be left alone to go to hell in our own preferred ways.”
Is this necessarily true? I, for example, have a spouse and 2 kids, not to mention parents. Saying I have a right to be left alone to go to hell in my own preferred way is like saying I have a right to cause them grief. Can’t buy that.
Hi Morgan. These _can_ both be motivated by concern for the welfare of others, but since it’s rarely purely that and nothing else, should the underlying need be important?
April 9th, 2007 at 7:59 am
If anything, I’m grumpier than Caroline when it comes to religion. I think all religions are a bunch of delusional nonsense.
Proselytizing is just an attempt to infect someone with your own particular brain virus. I prefer to remain vaccinated.
April 9th, 2007 at 8:18 am
RB,
Sorry, but your attitude is the problem. (Rory is far kinder than I on this.)
Your belief system ends at the metaphorical door of my house. And yes, you do have the right to go to hell in your own preferred way. And that’s why your analogy about your wife and kids is weak water. Grief as you use it is a mighty vague word. Do you mean beating them? Then no, you don’t have that right. Do you mean being a pain in the ass with your wacky opinions? Then guess what, you probably already are causing them grief. Welcome to the wonderful world of family.
Your belief in a soul, God, a particular religion is irrelevant to anyone else but yourself. (And dental dams may be a great way to prevent disease, but you won’t find many people going door-to-door pimping them.)
Do I come to *your* door and ask you if you like felching and if you haven’t done it, proceed to regale you with the joys thereof? No. And why is this? Because *your* intimate personal life is NONE OF MY BUSINESS. And would you not agree that a person’s relationship with the Grand Whatever is at least as deeply personal as their sex life?
And, to use your dental dam analogy, there’s a difference between the realm of reality (the prevention of the spread of STDs) and fantasy (i.e., belief in a magical, invisible, sky being). I’m all for public policy to educate people about the spread of disease whether it be for STDs or a possible flu pandemic. I am not for a public policy advocating the embrace of one particular form of magical thinking.
It isn’t as if there is no exposure to faith in this country. You can’t swing a dead cat with out hitting someone who will tell in great and exhausting detail about their relationship with God.
I just don’t get why anyone thinks that they have the right, duty, whatever to come up to complete strangers and try to convert them. You may THINK that you have the answer, but you DON’T KNOW.
It’s faith, remember? By its very nature, faith requires a suspension of disbelief and embrace of the fantastic and unprovable. Bully for you if that works for you. But seriously, stop thinking it’s your duty to tell the world.
Because, like you, everyone else has their own opinion about what’s right. The only way to keep everyone from killing each other over this stuff is to mind our own freaking business. (Do you really need me to remind you of lovely events like The Crusades, the forced conversions of Jews by the Spanish, and what’s happening right now in Iraq with the Shi’ites and the Sunnis? And that’s just a drop in the bucket of religious fanaticism run amuck.)
If you want to believe in Fuzzy Bunny Men, the Flying Spaghetti monster (bless his noodley appendages), or the resurrection of Christ, by all means, knock yourself out. But don’t think that you’re in possession of “the truth” or that your belief confers the right on you to force your belief on anyone else. As I said before, that’s just rude and presumptuous on your part.
April 9th, 2007 at 8:26 am
Morgan,
You may put words in my mouth anytime, sweetie.
April 9th, 2007 at 9:02 am
“I just don’t get why anyone thinks that they have the right, duty, whatever to come up to complete strangers and try to convert them. You may THINK that you have the answer, but you DON’T KNOW.”
Of course I don’t know. Duh. No one knows. I have an experience. You also have an experience. Because I find experience X to be good, I can offer, you can refuse, and I can skedaddle. That doesn’t sound like a toxic transaction.
April 9th, 2007 at 9:40 am
>>Of course I don’t know. Duh. No one knows. I have an experience. You also have an experience. Because I find experience X to be good, I can offer, you can refuse, and I can skedaddle. That doesn’t sound like a toxic transaction.<<
Sigh. I just don’t know of any way to further explain why it’s just not appropriate. The issue isn’t its toxicity — it is its invasiveness.
April 9th, 2007 at 9:42 am
Hey, RB — We may have some conceptual difficulties in this discussion. Or we may have to agree to disagree.
A lot of this, I think, is about boundary issues. Where do your rights and duties toward me end, and where does my autonomy begin?
Here’s how it works out for me in practice — My friends and loved ones, who are part of my life, are allowed to get in closer to me and offer unasked-for advice and info. If it bugs me, I’ll let them know. We care about each other, so it’s okay.
If it happens too much and they can’t seem to figure out that they’re just picking at scabs, rather than being of help to me in living my difficult, puzzling life, and it annoys me enough, then they may cease being my friends and loved ones.
Strangers have none of those rights and privileges. We all have stuff that we think is really, Really, REALLY important for others to know about. I personally feel that my boundaries are being violated when I’m being evangelized about such personal matters as my spiritual beliefs, my financial practices, or my sex life. There are quite a few other issues that I’d just as soon not be approached about, also, but I hope you get the idea.
I don’t want to have people constantly coming at me and lovingly telling me about their revelations. Even briefly. The inside of my head is none of their damn business unless they’re first invited in there by me.
Leave the strangers alone. If they want to find out stuff, respect them enough to trust that they’ll figure out who to ask.
April 9th, 2007 at 9:56 am
In theory, of course, we’d be living such lives of kindness and joy that people would be asking _us_, instead of vice versa.
You can see what a bang-up job we’re doing with that…
April 9th, 2007 at 5:35 pm
I can see both sides of this issue. In my mis-spent youth, i was a Baptist. Very Baptist. We’re talking youth choir, summers in Glorieta, the whole thing. I even did a one-week intensive training with the man who wrote a book about Witnessing for Jesus. So i know that mindset. All part of the Great Comission, to spread the Gospel. The sincere belief that this information is paramount to share, that people must be led to God so they don’t burn in hell for eternity.
It all sounds so good and sincere, that we don’t think about the logical extension of it. It was called the Inquisition, and how people were tortured and killed to “save their soul.” It didn’t matter what happened to their corporeal body as long as the soul was saved.
But I moved on, religion wise. Gave up Baptistry as well as Xianity. And now I see from that other side, how it is so intrusive and rude for someone who doesn’t know me from Adam think it’s ok to come up and start discussing something as personal and intimate as religion. Personally, i would rather hear about your preference for felching than hear about how you think I should worship any gods.
I know I should look upon the proselytutes kindly, as someone who cares about my spiritual condition and wants to help, even if they are misguided and don’t realize how rude and offensive they are. But I admit, I’m usually having too many buttons pushed when they do that, and it’s so much easier to blow them off. Or argue with them using all my church history and theology i learned under blessed Dr. Kosztolnyik in college.
I am curious about Caroline’s Houston Baptist Church that looked like a bordello. Can’t have been southern Baptist. Everyone knows they look just like banks.
April 10th, 2007 at 5:43 am
What about civil disobedience? That’s all about being intrusively, obnoxiously, “in the face”. Breaking the law is permitted, but violence is not;d hard core activists are willing to push even on the last point. The justification in both cases is morality: bearing witness, having the courage to stand up and challenge that which is wrong, and support that which is right.
Looking at it another way, all of the arguments against proselytization are readily adaptable into arguments for apartheid and segregation. For example, the south fought because the north was willing to rudely tread upon southern sensibilities. Gun control is another topic amenable to cross-over arguments. So are weed, tobacco, sexual intercourse with barnyard animals, and refusal to transfuse one’s offspring.
In the end, it’s all just words, sparkly words. When the time comes, the righteous shall arise and the unbelievers shall be smitten. The thing about any religion worth its salt, is that sooner or later words and arguments become beside the point. When and if that time comes, I plan to be on the roof, smoking a cigarette (just one) and writing in my journal.
April 10th, 2007 at 8:48 am
It seems to me we are trying to find toward a societal set of boundaries for appropriate behavior, and under what conditions they apply.
In a multi-cultural, poly- and non-religious melting pot (if you’ll ’scuse the trope), tolerance of different beliefs is important. In that setting, no one can lay sole claim to having The Answer that will have any standing among people of a different belief system.
Tolerance of systems that propagate prejudice, inequality and unfairness, otoh, is a whole different kettle of carp. Unlike the supernatural aspects of different religions, discrimination is observable and provable. A person arguing that they should have the same rights as others who were born with, e.g., lighter skin, or more money, or a different gender identity, has much stronger moral standing.
April 16th, 2007 at 5:17 am
I’m sure everyone was really anxious for me to weigh in on this, but I’ve been Net-free for the last nine days (Sweet Italy, sitting on the beach.
Calling BS, folks. I’ll point out the logical inconsistency that separates propaganda vis-à-vis the immortal soul from other forms of information flow. If there is no such thing as your Immortal Soul, then it’s a sales pitch like any other. If you care so darned much, get your congressman to implement a Do-Not-Knock list to warn off Mormons and JWs. I’ve been on the business end of this, and I’d have really appreciated a list of “don’t waste your time here” addresses.
You all suck propaganda and advertising down in a steady stream from sunup to sundown. You have BS filters in place. You don’t scream and jump up and down when a Bayer commercial interrupts 24, or whatever. Why is the God thing so irritating? Do you howl at a political ad? Maybe, if it’s a Republican shilling - but is there really something wrong with passing my meme? Most of you do that commercially, and expect to be paid for it.
If there really is something to this God business (in the christian sense), then not only is it my job to tell you about it, it is also my business because you’re a brother or sister, and family matters. Whether you’re feeling pissy about it or not. ‘Course, I do have to try and be tactful and patient, but being disconnected is blameworthy action on my part.
See, here’s the thing - your solipsistic view that somehow I’m coming to your house to convert YOU is crap. You do what you want.
I’m looking for people that need what I have, and giving it to them. The only way I can find out who those people are is through the long, thankless, miserable and unpaid task of knocking on unfriendly doors and occasionally getting cussed out, having shotguns pointed at me, doggs sicced, etc. This is done because all mythology to the contrary, teacher and student don’t find each other if both sit at home.
The sweetest experiences of my life pre-marriage and fatherhood derive from finding those people among the tens of thousands who were not ready or able to hear what I had to say, and giving them something that worked.
It’s also fallacious (in my extensive experience) that the strangers will find what they’re looking for. Talked with a fair number of strangers in my time, and was impressed with how many were looking for what I had and knew not where to find it.
Haven’t made a red cent off of any of them, by the way, and comments equating good-faith prostelyting with sales are in fact the boors in this particular exchange.
People lay claim to the Truth all the time. Most are wrong. People who think all viewpoints have equal merit are foolish. Get used to it. The universe is as it is, and there is an Answer. I don’t know it, and neither do you… but I can claim that I’m right and you’re wrong, based on my experience, and I have every right to do so. I’ve proven many people wrong about many things in my days, and it’s fun to be cocky about it.
It’s this fixation with being right all the time that gets innumerable panties in twists. Accept the fact that you’re probably wrong about 90% of what you believe, and keep your eyes open. See, while at any given instant I think I’m right about what I think (I attempt not to lie to myself about important issues), I have a long history of being wrong about things and making corrections. When someone comes along and tells you something right, it’s not a personal affront. If they tell you something wrong, but that they really believe, it’s not a sin.
No man is an island, guys. In a real way, you’re the sum of your communications. This nonsense about slicing off one segment of that communication, because you went to church in a bordello some time ago… that’s intellectual and moral laziness, an arrogance of its own that far outstrips the hubris of the poor fellow knocking at your door.
By all means, send him off - but stating that his or her presence at your door, on your property is an insult to you and all you know? A bit of a reach.
I sympathize about the discrimination issue. Been there, too.
Of course, I mean all this in the nicest possible way. You’re all great folks, and not prone to mental apathy, which is why it’s all the more a shame to see you falling down on this one.
And to Steve - I sure appreciated the people who offered me water when the milk of human kindness seemed to be all dried up.
As far as influencing public policy based on untestable beliefs - you’ve got to remember that the creation of public policy is the fliimsiest endeavor, evidence-wise, that has ever been perpetrated. All the evidence is shoddy and perforated from its proximity to the political fever swamp. The great experiments are just that - and when the evidence comes down that the experiment failed, it takes another decade to fight back the now-entrenched bureaucracy wrapped around it. To choose a nonvolatile example, the French government decided that teaching reading phonetcally was not as good as teaching it syllabically, and changed over all the public schools. Twenty years ago, it was demonstrated, using this great statistical sample (all the children in France) that the technique was inferior.
My son is learning French syllabically.
April 16th, 2007 at 9:03 am
Alden, I hate advertising, period. I don’t watch broadcast TV anymore, because I hate people selling me things all the time. It’s not that I don’t want to know it’s out there (whatever “it” is), in case I do want it — but I don’t want people shoving it in my face.
Otoh, I’ve been a consultant in a very competitive field — no other way to support my family, so by God I had better learn to sell my skills — and I did. And sometimes people welcomed me, and sometimes people were incredibly rude. So it goes.
By evangelizing, you are choosing to insert yourself into the personal space of, and to take time from, people, regardless of what their own beliefs are and how they might feel about your particular brand of religion.
You might well feel that your beliefs are important enough for you to take that risk and impose on people that way, and I honor your dedication to your own beliefs. But it doesn’t mean you aren’t imposing. So if people resent it, with all due respect, I don’t feel you have a right to complain about that.
April 16th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
Life is a series of personal impositions. Our politesse makes the process as painless as possible.
You spend some nonzero time on the net, and the sell here is different. You are up on current events, so you suck in the sell from whatever news source(s) you consume, and devouring wholesale the beliefs of those who wrote it. You are also actively BS-filtering, which is good.
You even read some part of my diatribe, and did some filtering on that.
Politesse, in this case, consists of not pressing an intrusion. Simple communication with anyone (stranger, family, colleague) is an “intrusion”, and protocols differ by relationship in how to accept or reject the communication. The 4 seconds necessary to say “No, thank you” are part of a tax we pay to not be hermits - the demands of polite society.
If a telemarketer presses further into a hard sell, at that point a hangup is in order. If the missionary puts his foot in the door and insists, it’s time to kick it out and lock up - that steps well beyond his bounds.
Not being telepathic, I can’t assess a stranger’s beliefs and how they feel about my personal brand of religion. After a brief interaction, I am suddenly much better equipped to gauge the interest level, which is usually minimal, for a multitude of reasons. For the minimal time it takes me to test this, I am not in their personal space - I am in their public realm for a very short period (they did, after all, answer the door, another conditional demand of politesse), and usually I depart quickly. Perhaps they may resent the intrusion - it is their right to resent.
I also have a right to complain about resentment, but there is little point in that. I heard this quote a few weeks ago: “No misfortune is so bad that whining about it won’t make it worse.”
My broadside above addresses the tendency people in general have to think that religion is some sort of untouchable subject. Folks who will have political conversations with folks on the Web, who will discuss the personal details of their marriage in full voice in a bus with the stranger next to them, get very touchy all of a sudden when Big Bad Faith shows up.
Where does this discomfort come from? Why do you feel it, really? I watch TV and movies, and am told, both implicitly and explicitly, that things I consider deeply wrong are fine… and I roll with the punches, as long as things don’t pass a certain point. I’m being proselyted out of my faith and into another as surely as anyone. Why is my message so specially repugnant?
I think one of Caroline’s initial statements captures the fallacy:
I think religion is just about the wackiest thing humans ever thought up to excuse behaving badly.
I’ll submit that it is this propaganda most responsible for the reactions I see in some quarters. It’s just being passed along, in this case, and is a sort of bigotry that is still winked at. It’s also logically and historically falsifiable - the statement would have to be broken down by specific instance to be useful at all, and most recent instances would tend to disprove the point. The most destructive “religions” of recent history have been secular.
I have no brief for people who are interested in monetary transactions as a part of proselyting. I have seen it abused in impressive ways. This is my personal feeling, however.
Now, Caroline has made it clear that she does not feel comfortable discussing her spirituality with anyone except the Intarweb :), and three words should suffice to send any interlopers packing. She resents them tremendously, and perceives them to be boorish and arrogant. This is her right.
This doesn’t make them at all boorish or arrogant. That does not make their simple query an imposition as a general thing (though you and Caroline certainly feel it keenly). Their message, at worst, is no worse than a magazine ad. They, however, consider the information critical, and brave the slings and arrows. My point is to plead their case, and demostrate their civility and politesse when they act properly (no hard sell). They might even be considered exemplary.
April 16th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
Just curious, and not trying to be smarmy, but — Does anyone else beside religious proselytizers feel they have the right and duty to come knocking on my door unasked?
Door-to-door sales seems to have died off, for reasons that I don’t know. I don’t ever get charity solicitations that way anymore. None of those for years now. Who else?
It may be that we’ve so physically disconnected from each other, our castles so ‘drawbridge-up’ that this sort of intrusion is now becoming culturally unacceptable.
My basic operating paradigm is that you better have an invitation before you cross my border. Frankly, this generally holds for my closest friends also, and I offer that courtesy to them, too, when visiting. Nobody just shows up without advance notice. Ever.
It’s entirely possible that I’m annoyed not because of the religious context, but by the arrogance of anyone thinking that their message is so damn important that they get to violate my space without permission.
But, after all these years, I’m also likely over-sensitized to being hit on by evangelizers.
Being asked politely once or twice is manageable. When it happens over and over again throughout my life, the charm wears off.
At least, these days, it doesn’t seem to be happening at my home, and is much rarer in toto than it used to be. The last time was almost two weeks ago.
April 16th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
>>See, here’s the thing - your solipsistic view that somehow I’m coming to your house to convert YOU is crap. You do what you want. <<
Alden, how adorable that statement is. Why else would a Christain proselytizer be at my house, uninvited, were it not to convert me? How fabulously disingenuous. What? Are you really only interested in having a chat over milk and cookies? (By way of example: Is that why Mormons do a two-year missionary program? I’m sorry, am I confused about the meaning of the word missionary?)
As for my posting my beliefs on the Internet, well, that was my choice — as opposed to having someone not of my acquaintance coming to my front door and asking me about them. I didn’t come into your living room, Alden, and shove them down your throat. You could have stopped reading my post AT ANY TIME. Your choice and all that.
I never said I wouldn’t talk about my beliefs, just that they were my business and no one else’s. When and where I choose to discuss them is my business. Sorry if this was confusing to you.
And by the way, thanks for making my point again for me.
April 17th, 2007 at 1:53 am
Rory - sure. Politcal candidates and their minions do it all the time. Door to door sales are far more expensive than internet and direct mailing, now - man-hours are expensive, and the decline will continue.
The best way to solve the invasion problem is a “No Solicitors” sign. Not universally effective, but a great indicator for people who are looking for useful information about the now-unknown inhabitants.
I’ll address the motivation of the proselyter in the next installment. I’d say, though, that there are messages of tantamount importance, justifying a slight invasion. It depends on the importance of the message (both perceived and real).
April 17th, 2007 at 3:13 am
Caroline - I’m giving you a bit of first-hand information. Please hear me out.
When I stated things in such strong terms, I was hoping to get your attention. It really isn’t about you, individually for a missionary, unless you already happen to be a personal friend. It can’t be. He simply doesn’t know you. He won’t refuse milk and cookies, though.
In a perfect world, Mormon missionaries would go from prearranged appointment to prearranged appointment with people who have already expressed interest and want to hear about it. Their job is to teach some specific principles, and help people make and keep commitments, not do the triage necessary to find these folks.
Some places, it works like that. In most others, there are enormous gaps of empty hours to fill, and a burden of duty. You’re not there on your own time, and burning daylight is galling. So, you go and do the very least effective method of finding the folks you’re looking for - cold contact. It’s all you have.
What a missionary is looking for is someone that responds to the message. There is no “cultivation” going on - if you’re not ready, you’re not - and any good missionary will decamp as soon as that has been ascertained. They know that harassing you will damage your future ability to hear them out if, at some point in the future, you do decide you need what they have. Diligent missionaries note where they’ve been, and extreme negative reactions, so that when they are transferred out in a month or three, their replacements will know what’s been done and who not to hassle. This is not universally effective, of course, but a sign (as previously mentioned) helps. Annoying you is also a waste of precious time - there are people waiting for this, I have determined from extensive experiment.
Mormons do a two-year mission to get the kids to grow up. You find out in the fire whether what you believe works in practice. You get to spend all day in the service of others for a couple of years, because for darned sure you are wearing yourself out doing it.
If the point were to convert every house we came to, don’t you think we’d send their moms and dads? They wouldn’t be able to do it, but they’d have a better chance. 19-year-olds are ill-behaved, callow, rambunctious, sensitive, hormone-laden and irresponsible, by and large. Sending one to Norway to learn the language and just to convert folks seems foolhardy, from a practicality POV.
Now to the motivation. What could possibly balance my concern that people are irritated by my message, and might perceive me as o’erweeningly arrogant, so terribly puffed-up as to presume to teach them anything about something so personal as their soul and spirituality?
I’m looking for those who are willing to crack their minds and hearts open just a bit to hear what I have to say. Some do so because they see that it’s important enough to me to be out in the rain/sun/snow to tell it to them. Others do it out of pity, or sheer stonedness. Of those, most are uninterested. Some are interested enough that I spend some time with them.
Others drink it in like water on sand, and cannot get enough. These are the ones I am looking for. They are not converted by my efforts (there are instances in Brazil where I barely spoke enough portuguese to find the bathroom, but it was enough), but by their own. This is what I’m looking for.
The motivation of the proselyter is this - finding these people and giving them something they hunger for. It’s like searching for survivors after an earthquake - finding the dead is heartrending, but you have to go on - and the thrill of rescuing a living person is what you live for. This makes the whole exercise worthwhile.
This means that I am a slight irritant to a large number of folks. I can live with that because the benefit is so great.
This is the thing you folks really have no frame of reference for, I guess - the rewards of this particular work, having never had them.
There is no cash bonus, and no feather in your cap. Nobody asks you how many people you taught on your mission, and you get no special position or awards for it. It’s just you, your companion, and the folks you taught who know, and that more than suffices to heal the wounds and weariness.
Oh, Caroline, I sure chose to read your post. It was well-written and clear, and illustrated some cognitive dissonances that could be cleared up with a little information. You chose to read mine as well. It made you a bit testy, which is always bad for rationality.
Please feel justified and clear in expressing persistent disinterest to any proselyters. That’s your right and feeling. It IS your choice where and when to discuss your beliefs, and I’m even a little bit sorry for tweaking you on the irony of broadcasting your belief that broadcasting beliefs of a certain stripe is arrogant.
It might be interesting to note that both the law and rules of common decency in Western countries are wide open to this kind of information exchange.
In places they are not, there are still missionaries - who are forbidden in some places to teach people who don’t come to them, and in others are forbidden to teach at all, because anyone actidentally converted will be killed. What is their purpose? Serving their fellow beings, however they can.
Fortunately, Article I, Bill of Rights, gives us freedom of religious action, and freedom of speech, one right after the other. Aren’t you glad you live in an environment where the petty annoyances of Mormons and JWs coming to your door are the worst of that article’s consequences you have to fear?
April 17th, 2007 at 3:19 am
In response to the video above - it was all pretty familiar. I saw lots of doors do just that. I thought the old guy with the rake was hilarious.
Mormon missionaries don’t leave the house before 10:30, even on Saturdays. They have a lot of study to do between 6:30 and then. Even then, it usually takes some time to reach their area, so you’re generally safe until 11. Later, if you have a sign.
April 17th, 2007 at 8:37 am
Ladeeeees and gentlethings.
Presented for your reading pleasure: the inaugural
BELIEF-SYSTEM-SMACKDOWN (TM)
Today’s pugilists:
Up on the bully pulpit, the reigning champion of upstart religions
with a wacky belief system, PREEEESENTING the LDS. Otherwise known as
the church of Mormon, this powerhouse with an entire US state to call
its own (take that the Vatican!) has been kicking ass since the 19th
century. With a front-rank cadre of black-clad teenage boys hellbent
on salvation (hot Hot HOT!) this is one religion to make the gullible
and the unenlightened the world over TRRRRREMBLE.
In the sideways corner, we present today challenger: the QLF. The
QUEER LIBERATION FRONT may be a recent upstart, but it would be a
serious mistake to underestimate this radical, but stylish, and
largely fictional grab-bag of social deviants. With a mission to OUT
practicing homosexuals wherever and whoever they may be, these
RAMPAGING BAD BOYS ON A MISSION bring a whole new meaning to “in your
face activism”. Was Jesus gay? They say YES! Their motto: what’s
the point of looking for salvation, when you can discover your “inner
fag” (TM).
Yes, its going to be bibles vs blue boy porn in the ring today as our
two contestants do what it takes to gain cultural and political
ascendancy. Court challenges and talk show encounters? Too lame by a
parsec. We are talking the door-to-door-brimstone-and-eternity-slog
and the word of GOD VERSUS displays of public fellatio on
the lawns of cowardly queers, and PDA up the yingyang.
And its all going down on the sweaty canvas tonight, Tonight, TONIGHT!
Take that social norms (*POW*). Bring it on: God Boys vs. the Queers
(with best of friends in the showers afterwards)! Tonight, the good
fight, is going to be a HELLAVU FIGHT!
April 17th, 2007 at 9:37 am
Alden,
Trying to make faith seem as if it’s a rational choice is a losing battle. Faith is, by its very nature, an irrational thing. If it weren’t, it wouldn’t be faith would it? The requirement of faith is belief without proof. You may *think* you have proof. You may choose to believe that there’s proof, but at the end of the day, you don’t have proof.
And lest you think I am against faith — I’m not. My family, by and large, are believers. I respect their choice to believe. I respect your choice to believe. It’s when you don’t respect my choice *not* to believe we have a problem. Your entire description of what Mormon missionaries do, only serves to further shore up my point about such activity.
Why send 19 year-olds to do missionary work? Well, if we examine the history of the Mormon Church — pre-polygamy is bad — getting rid of the young studs who might be moving in on the young girls who had been picked to be wife number-whatever for the older gents, I can see a real compelling reason for that choice.
Also, it’s my understanding that women aren’t allowed to do the two-year missionary work. Why is that? I suppose you could say the work is too dangerous for them, but the 7th Day Adventists have no such prohibition. The Mormon Church still holds pre-feminist ideas about women and women’s roles. That is, of course, the prerogative of the church and its members. But as a woman, I find it distasteful.
And what about the fact that blacks weren’t allowed to be a part of the priesthood in the Mormon Church until 1978? They were allowed to join, but were believed to be inferior and would only be allowed to “serve” others in Heaven. I mean, ewwwww.
We will have to agree to disagree. I will never convince you that your faith is irrational and that the attempt to spread is an act of hubris. And you will never convince me that faith is the answer.
April 17th, 2007 at 10:30 am
No interest in convincing you of anything of the sort. I was interested in passing you some information to perhaps soften your irrational bias regarding proselyters, nothing more. Clearly my diplomatic training is only just beginning, if my basic point was so hard to divine.
Your recent posting has convinced me that you are in serious need of further information to alleviate severe ignorance, but makes me suspect that it would be a fruitless gesture on my part. I’m not saying that you’re ignorant in general, of course (that would be incorrect), but you seem to think you’re current on some particular things you know nothing about. Nothing to worry about, though - just making sure you’re aware, so you don’t embarass yourself in another forum.
If you really want point-by-point on the assertions you made above, feel free to ask.
I’m sure you believe what you say, but… dang.
April 17th, 2007 at 10:49 am
Other than that, anyone who wants to take this branch of the discussion further is welcome to email me - but this controversy is already dipping into the realms of unpleasantness. I’d sure hate to pollute this otherwise VERY civil and pleasant forum with the vituperation which often results from the kind of rumbles ranonymous describes.
April 17th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Alden, you bastard! How dare you trail away into politeness and an offer to take the discussion to a back room, in the interests of maintaining a civilized facade at EOB?
As we know, disagreements regarding political and religious differences on the IntarWeb are, by law, required to degenerate into name-calling, obscenity, and vicious ad hominem attacks.
Followed shortly thereafter by somebody either being banned or flouncing away because they’ve been irretrievably damaged by exposure to the thoughts of others.
*******
Yeah, we’re gonna have to agree to disagree, I think, unless we want to chew this one over repetitively. My experience is that the basic premises involved by the various parties are so different that logic and sweet reason are useless. Our core experiences of reality differ too much for us to give weight to the arguments on the other side.
One problem that the irreligious see with your belief structure is that we see it as being frightening rather than merely annoying. You see it as offering enlightenment. We know that evangelizing, whether it be for religious reasons or other, can graduate from polite inquiry to insistence to wholesale slaughter, all for the good of the slaughtered.
The above isn’t meant as a parting shot at your belief system, though I realize it might well come across that way. Just an attempt to illuminate at least one reason why I get a bit grumpy on the subject.
I don’t think this tension will be resolved until we change our natures as humans. Which may be on the horizon….
In the meantime, cranky old man that I’m becoming, when I get my hovel set up in the wastelands, I’ll hammer a sign onto the front gate that says ‘Trespassers will be sacrificed to the Dark Gods’. No one will come to visit me out there anyhow, but, if nothing else, it will offer clarity regarding my feelings about uninvited intrusion.
Which, from what you write, is a good thing as far as you’re concerned, too.
**********
ran — Dammit, I loved your post #28!
April 17th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
To me it’s not about fear, Rory.
Alden, Caroline has made very clear that door to door evangelism for her is an invasion of privacy. It’s not for you to decide whether or not it is, nor to lecture her on why she might find it to be so. That’s for her to decide.
You may disagree, and I can accept that, but for you to imply that she is hypocritical for not being willing to accept your attempts to convert her while she is willing to accept other forms of solicitation is the height of rudeness.
You have stepped over a line of polite discourse already, and you need to stop.