Evangelism and Hypocrisy

Wednesday, September 8, 2010
I have a real hard-on for evangelists. Their very presence in my world offends me, and I can't understand how anyone could be so damn arrogant and presumptuous as to really believe they have some sort of exclusive corner on the Capital "T" Truth. Seriously- get over yourself, fucknut. It's not up to you to define someone else's spiritual journey, or to force someone to see a non-material world through your eyes.

The reason I've been thinking about this is because I saw this on one of the Atheist blogs I follow: 


It made me chuckle, of course, but I don't think it goes far enough. I would say BELIEF is like a penis. Including non-belief.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again - I consider belief to be an extremely private matter. Provided your belief doesn't interfere with my Constitutional rights or violate the human rights of others, I really don't give a good goddamn what you believe.

And that's what makes me wonder. Where do you draw the line between building community and evangelism? I have no issue with religious (or non-religious) organizations sharing their ideas in a passive manner through billboards or other forms of advertisement. While I find all those "Jesus is Lord/Jesus is the Reason for the Season/Jesus is Lord Over (Fill in Town Name)" billboards annoying, they're no worse than the recent spate of Atheist billboards, and they serve the same purpose - to build community. Community is a good thing, provided it's not built around some heinous idea like "I know! Let's kill all those dirty, dirty heathens!" and I think most religious and Atheist organizations fulfill that purpose.

But for myself personally, trying to convince others that my lack of belief is the Capital T Truth leaves a bad taste in my mouth and prompts one of those "Hypocrisy, they name is Janiece" moments. If I find it incredibly offensive that evangelical Christians think it's fine and dandy to think they have a corner on the Capital T Truth and they should try and convince me of that, then in order to maintain my intellectual honesty, I must apply the same standard to myself.

21 comments:

Shawn Powers said...

First off, that penis thing is hilarious. :)

What makes the whole "private issue" thing complex, is that if someone truly believes (I'm speaking Christianity here), and they don't try to convert you -- it means they think you're going to Hell. AND that by inaction they are pushing you down that road.

It's like "what I eat is a private matter" -- I agree with that, but if I saw you eating rat poison, it seems I should urge you to stop, no? It's not simply a matter of "which way is best", but rather a Christian believes, by definition, that non-Christians are hellbound. When you care about those people, I think it's clear what the motivation for evangelism is...

I will admit, the way many Christians choose to evangelize is both offensive and ineffective -- but the concept is complex.

Anyway, not arguing. Just adding some food for thought.

Restrat: A refurbished violin of highest quality.

Janiece said...

Shawn, as always, I appreciate your comments.

I've heard the argument you state before, and that's exactly what I find so damn presumptuous. The argument, by definition, assumes that only the evangelical knows "The Truth," and it's their job to educate the rest of us ignoramuses...because obviously we're too damn stupid to realize we're eating rat poison, or dying of thirst, or whatever comparison you choose to use.

It's one thing if I have no knowledge of your faith and I ask you (generic you, not you, Shawn) to tell me about it. It's quite another if I know exactly what your faith's about and I don't choose to follow it.

In either case, the idea that I need "saving" from some unseen, unprovable fate and it's the evangelical's job to "save" me is what I reject. I don't, and it's not. Just as the hypothetical evangelical Christian doesn't need me to "save" them from believing in something I think is bogus.

WendyB_09 said...

A long time ago near a college campus far, far away, a group of friends were walking down the street. As a van approaches them, one of the passengers yells to them "ARE YOU SAVED?"

The whole group instantly yells back: "FROM WHAT?"

The van slows down and turns around in a driveway as the group runs for the safety of a nearby friend's house. We watched (yep, I was in the group) from an upstairs window as the "saviors" searched for us for about 30 minutes. I don't know why they didn't hear us laughing every time they went by the house.

We decided later that apparently we needed to be saved from them!

Yeah, I'm with you. What I believe and how I choose to demonstrate (or not) that belief is my business. I understand that many faiths expect you to evangelize to spread the word. But I'm much more impressed by knowing you're religious and seeing you demonstrating your faith in your daily life than I am by hearing you brag about your good works. (yeah, I know, there's a parable in there somewhere...)

While I generally consider myself a Christian, I no longer attend or belong to an organized church. Sorry, been there, done that, got let down by a whole church during a life-altering crisis many years ago. When they came back later and wanted a donation to the building fund, I politely told the person sitting on my couch why I would never contribute and to not let the door hit him on the way out!

All that was years after I'd chased a trio of Jehovah Witnesses off a condo property by showing them the no soliciting sign by the entrance, informed them they were soliciting their religion and if they didn't leave I'd call security. Their group didn't cross our property for months after that!

Dr. Phil (Physics) said...

The problem with the rat poison analogy is that both parties can agree that eating rat poison could be harmful -- assuming that you were about to eat rat poison by accident or ignorance. It's a fact.

One side deciding they need to help you not be hellbound is not necessarily a mutually agreed upon danger. And the two sides are neither automatically "right". That's the difference between a fact and a belief.

Dr. Phil

unfaug -- a clear day in London

Eric said...

One side deciding they need to help you not be hellbound is not necessarily a mutually agreed upon danger. And the two sides are neither automatically "right". That's the difference between a fact and a belief.

The problem there being that one side views the necessity of accepting Jesus as savior to avoid damnation as being a much of a fact as the toxicity of rat poison while the other views the issue as being a matter of personal opinion.

I'm afraid the real issue is that the viewpoints in question are fundamentally incompatible, not that one side or the other "ought" to give or show tolerance or whatever. If it's presumption for an evangelical [insert faith] to try to save as many souls as he or she can, it's only as much presumption as it's presumptuous to assume that someone eating rat poison would rather not be eating it (one might argue, of course, that the person eating poison is entitled to harm themselves for whatever reason, but notice that a lot of fair-minded people would reject that line, retorting that there's no right to suicide or that a desire to harm oneself reflects mental illness and demands intervention; the thing is, the evangelical can make the same argument about the person who "suicidally" rejects salvation or "seeks harm" due to what amounts to a kind of insanity).

Those who see the question as a matter of opinion--whether they're agnostics, atheists, or adherents to an ecumenical faith that recognizes most-or-all religions as having some validity--are actually making a very powerful concrete statement: "Salvation does not depend on embracing the evangelicals' faith," but one that may be as objectively unprovable as the evangelicals' statement to the contrary since the proof or disproof depends entirely on unmeasurable claims; if we could objectively say the soul exists and (if it does) is saved or damned by certain conditions, things would obviously be different.

As an atheist, I find any evangelicals' claim worthless in the absence of objective evidence offered by the proponent. However, I understand that from the evangelicals' point of view, he or she has an absolute, love-driven duty to show me the error of my ways and lead me from the tumbling wreckage of my godless life and the inevitable eternity of suffering that must follow from it. As long as life brings me into contact with evangelicals, I will have to suffer this inconvenience; my options are (I don't think I'm overlooking any) to move away, convert them away from their beliefs, or put up with it to whatever degree my own tolerance and patience permits. The kicker is that I may disagree with the evangelicals' fundamental premises, but I cannot dispute the conclusion that logically follows from this premise: i.e. I may dispute that their deity exists, that I have a soul, etc., however I must concede that if their premises are accepted as being true, they have a moral obligation to save me and therefore it's utterly pointless to argue with their conclusion to that effect.

(Note that a religious non-evangelical (RNE) might dispute part of an evangelical's premise--i.e. he might say, "I believe in the same God, but God does not require what you say he does"; still, it's as pointless for the RNE to dispute the conclusion from the evangelical's premise as it is for me to do so. Further, it might be said that the RNE's premises are themselves questionable: if the evangelical believes in a deity that requires conversion and the RNE doesn't, do they really believe in the same deity notwithstanding the fact that the evangelical and RNE may call their deity by the same name or self-identify by reference to the same sect?)

On a lighter note, as Shawn said: that penis thing is hilarious.

Eric said...

Looking back on my response, I apologize for various subject and verb disagreements that occurred as I rush-edited. I hope my meaning was clear. Might not've been.

Eric said...

Good grief. Was my response typed by a native English-speaker? I'm tempted to delete it, but I'll leave it.

Not my best work, I'm afraid.

-----

jihyd: why does this captcha seem uncanny?

Janiece said...

Eric, I understand what you're saying, and I have to agree - if the evangelical in question truly believes I'm going to burn, then it naturally follows that they're going to try and "save" my sorry non-believing ass from that horrid fate.

But I'd really just rather they minded their business instead of mine. As the bumper sticker says, "Focus on your OWN damn family."

Nathan said...

Setting aside his self-professed grammatical errors, Eric, basically said the first thing that occurred to me...only, ya'know, thought out and expressed well. Unfortunately, it's a lot more complicated. Eric assumes pure motives on the part of the prostlytizer, and in that case, he's correct. There are, however, plenty of people who aren't trying to convert you for your sake, but are after "scoring points" with their peers or with God -- both of which, ironically, rate as sins in their own ethos.

I tend to excuse (or get all stabby), based on the manner in which I'm approached. Obnoxious and persistent receives whatever annoying, dismissive or rude response I can come up with on the spot. Sincerity and a light touch gets a "No thank you" and I'm done.

The interesting thing, (to me), is that the committed Christian does have some obligation to "spread the word", and is only acting according to his ideals when he does so, but I fail to understand what the Athiest's moral obligation is when it comes to erecting retaliatory(?) billboards. Instead of fulfilling a divinely inspired obligation, the Atheist's answer (in many, but not all cases), seems to be a childish "Nyah, nyah...yer stoopid and I'm not!" I see a value in Atheists fighting for their right to "not believe", but I'm not sure why they need to go advertising for converts.

(And yes, I'm aware of some arguments in favor of Atheists panning for converts. Like I said, "It's complicated.)

(And the Penis thing is great!)

Juan Federico said...

The “penis” poster is hilarious. Thank you.

The rat poison thing is another story, allow me to give you mine.

When I was a boy, we had nothing, absolutely nothing. We lived on government handouts from the local Civil Defense Emergency Shelter. Every two weeks we were allotted what was supposed to be two weeks’ worth of food. 5 pound blocks of cheese, powdered eggs, powdered milk, pressed meat in 3 pound cans, 3 pound cans of grape jelly and peanut butter and more. The list was fairly extensive. However it was not designed to feed a family of three, it was designed to be used in case the Russians attacked and the multitudes of survivors had to be fed. So, the problem was that once you opened this stuff it would start to go bad. So we would run out of ‘food’ about 2 to 3 days before we could go get our next allotment.

It was during one of these periods of time that my younger brother Gino and I got really, really, hungry and we could not wait for mom to bring home what she could get from the rest of the family. We started looking for something to eat. At the very top of the shelves in our cupboard we found a box of rat poison. I was not quite 5 and I couldn’t read much more than “See Dick run. Run Dick run!” (I was quite proud of that by the way. I was learning to read!) “Mr. Yuck!” had yet to be introduced to children and there were no pictures on the box. So what the hell, right? Gino and I each ate part of a block of this stuff. Only a bite mind you and the stuff was pretty bland and not easy to swallow, I can still feel the gritty waxy way the poison felt going down my throat. (to this day I avoid Butterfinger bars like the plague)

Mom got home a while later and after finding the box on the counter followed by a quick interrogation she got the gist of our experience that afternoon. Gino and I survived the ass beating that we received at her hands and also the poison that we ate.

My point is, sometimes through ignorance or desperation you eat the rat poison. Sometimes you have to take it on the chin to learn what’s what.

Very few people are born atheists; most atheists in my experience are converts. As converts they tend to be pretty zealous in their belief of ‘no god’ although not a religion because atheism eschews the supernatural. It does have and espouse its own doctrine or (dare I say it?) dogma.

Which brings me to Janiece’s last sentence,” If I find it incredibly offensive that evangelical Christians think it's fine and dandy to think they have a corner on the Capital T Truth and they should try and convince me of that, then in order to maintain my intellectual honesty, I must apply the same standard to myself.”

Good on you sweetie.  Me too. No shit.

Juan Federico said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Juan Federico said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Juan Federico said...

I deleted two copies of my post because I was getting the weirdest errors on my end of the 'net. Sorry about that...

Janiece said...

Nathan, I think the purpose of the Atheist billboards is not to make converts - after all, what kind of numbskull is going to abandon their beliefs based on a billboard? The purpose is to build community. Recent polls in the United States show that almost 15% of the population are either disbelievers ("there is no god") or unbelievers ("I don't believe there's a god"), and as such, that 15% often miss out on aspects of community that church-goers enjoy. The billboards are typically paid for by local not-for-profit Atheist organizations who are simply attempting to build a community. I don't have a problem with that, although I don't choose to participate in that community. Just as I don't have a problem with local religious organizations building their community.

Evangelical Atheists have a different agenda, of course. One that I clearly don't agree with.

Juan Federico, you claim that very few people are "born Atheists." I would heartily disagree - I think that no one is born religious. Religion, by definition, is a human construct, and as such must be taught, just like language. So while recent neurological experiments have shown a biological propensity towards belief, which might support a contention that most people are born with a tendency toward spirituality. From my perspective, however, it's just more evidence that "it's all your head."

Tom said...

I go with Janiece. I think we're born without religion, and it's taught, in many cases starting very early in life.

I think it's trying to explain things you don't understand. The more I understand, the less I need religion. But I still don't understand it all, so there are still niches for questions. Many times those niches are candidates for belief.

WendyB_09 said...

From one extreme to another- here's what were getting in Atlanta for the next month. The billboards actually look quite nice, they showed several of them on the news last night, and I had to laugh.

Billboards Shunning Religion To Be Put Up

ATLANTA -- A Wisconsin-based group plans to put up billboards advocating the separation of church and state all over metro Atlanta.

The Freedom from Religion Foundation said the 50 billboards shunning religion will stay up for a month. They include messages such as "Imagine No Religion" and "Sleep In On Sundays."

Foundation co-president Annie Laurie Gaylor says the group -- which includes atheists, agnostics and skeptics -- hopes to increase its visibility. She says she believes religion causes more harm than good.

Foundation members are paying for the billboards, but Gaylor wouldn't say how much they cost.

The foundation has 270 members in Georgia and more than 16,000 members nationwide.

Shawn Powers said...

Sorry, late back to the game. Busy week. :)

Anyway, Janiece -- like with so many things, I think we respect each other's opinions, even if we don't agree. (Not just agreeing to disagree, I think there's more genuine respect than that.)

I'll take my approach to evangelizing to you. I hope, and suspect, you've never felt I've pushed my agenda on you at all. I never thought you were misinformed, or that you didn't understand my viewpoint. I take your faith/unfaith stance as an informed one. So I don't feel a need, desire, or commitment to "preach" to you.

I contrast that with someone who is searching for "Truth", and genuinely want me to give them what I believe that to be. OR, someone who has no idea what they do or don't believe, and I can give them my beliefs to investigate on their own.

Here's the thing: Christians don't save anyone. Really. It's a God thing. No amount of evangelizing, preaching, or heaven forbid forcing of beliefs helps anything. In this scenario, I'll generalize 3 types of people:

1) You. You are wearing a t-shirt that says I <3 RP, you give Boogie a regular rat-poison-flea-dip, and your email signature is the chemical formula for rat poison. I get it. If I'm evangelizing to you, it's strictly by the way I live, hopefully shining a little light on Christianity.

2) The people sniffing the boxes of white powder, trying to figure out which to eat. I'll tell these people my experience with rat poison. I'll share my personal story, and possibly explain how my story fits into what I understand Christianity to be. I would never pressure, push, or otherwise try to force a person into Christianity -- because that's not how it works. That pesky "Free Will" is a real thing. :)

3) The person licking random white powder off chalkboards, hooker's bellies, and babies' bottoms. This type of person I would also share my experiences with, because while they may not be specifically "looking" for faith, they obviously have no system at all. If they prove me wrong, and their system is just bat crap crazy -- so be it. Again I wouldn't push anyone, because that's just not how I think we're supposed to roll.

Anyway, hopefully that helps with at least what *I* see the Christian responsibility for evangelizing is.

Volath: A viscous bat-winged, venomous reptile with razor sharp teeth, acid drool, and rather unfortunate pink and purple fur.

Eric said...

Part of my response to atheist billboards, Nathan, is what Janiece said, both parts: (a) a major purpose is to build community (by announcing that atheists exist, are public, and unashamed; let me vouch for how wonderful it can feel to realize you're not alone although you're surrounded) and (b) that atheists who try to convert others are obnoxious and tend to annoy me.

That (b) having been said, however, and to borrow your phrase, Nathan, it's actually complicated. I suspect that many of the "evangelical" atheists are motivated by the same principles that motivate debunkers of various kinds of charlatans (e.g. psychics, authors of alien abduction books, conspiranoiacs, etc.): the "evangelical" atheists (EAs) see religion and what they regard as a bunch of superstition as a net evil that produces violence and intolerance, and believe that people would be happier if they embraced what the EA regards as truth and were set free from what the EA regards as a primitive delusion.

If the metaphor for the evangelical believer is saving a child from eating rat poison, the metaphor for the evangelical unbeliever might be teaching a child that there are no monsters under the bed ("that there's no Santa Claus" seems too pat and abused an analogy). The EA believes, rightly or wrongly, that the faithful are held hostage to a fear of death and uncertainty, and would be better off if they weren't.

In a sense, the EA is motivated by a similar ethos to the evangelical believer. And while both might be accused of presumptuousness, there's always a certain presumption in thinking you can help another person, or should try. Perhaps the other person doesn't want or need your help; that's always a possibility, but it seems the world would be poorer if one didn't sometimes act in a presumptuous manner instead of assuming that everybody else would prefer to be left alone (a central thesis of libertarianism, one notes as an aside, and part of the reason extreme libertarianism, e.g. Objectivism, is morally bankrupt). (We're all our brothers' keepers, a lesson that may be found in Genesis and repeated in the Gospels, but is nonetheless true notwithstanding the source.)

Janiece said...

Shawn, I do indeed respect you. Not the objective truth of your beliefs, necessarily, but you as an individual and the way you live your life. I think it's fair to say you can take some amount of pride in being a fine example of what Christians are SUPPOSED to be like.

And I am SO getting a T-shirt that says "I <3 Rat Poison."

Nathan said...

Shawn,

That "s" you included in viScous could make your monster a little too runny to actually be threatening.

:D

(couldn't help myself)

Shawn Powers said...

Yes, darn Blogger an its lack of edit... :)