Your voluminous tract stuffed into my letterbox is full of worthy sentiment. I liked the bit about treating others as we would have others treat us. Really, I did.
Let me ask you something, dickhead. If you asked me on reasonable grounds not to do something in relation to your property would you have me obey?
Yes?
Well then. Exactly which part of the prominent “NO UNSOLICITED MAIL” sign on my letterbox did you not think I wanted you to obey?
There are significant amounts of sentiment underlying much religious thought for which I have a great deal of sympathy. It’s the smattering of surprisingly prominent hypocritical wankers those religions contain that bother me.
In the US, it’s illegal for anyone but a postal carrier to put anything in your mailbox. Is that so in Australia? Could you make a complaint to your postmaster (or Aussie postmaster equivalent)?
Sometimes my mailbox is so full of catalogues, pamphlets, giveaways and other crap that the posty has to stuff the letters in as best he/she can. I don’t think they are allowed to pull the junk mail out or I’m sure they would - it would save them time.
I asked my former mail if he could just leave out the obvious junk mail. Sadly, he said they are required to deliver it, even if it ends up going right into the trash can that the apartment complex wisely stashed right next to the mailboxes. I don’t think he liked junk mail any more than the rest of us – it must be a major time-waster for them getting it organized and stuff.
Captain Amazing, if I had some background knowledge of someone which meant that I knew that even though they’d imposed a rule asking people not to do some particular thing in relation to them, they would want me to break that rule in a particular instance, then yes, that would be fine.
But if I had no such background knowledge but just assumed (on the basis of my own priorities and beliefs) that this person didn’t mean their rule to apply in a particular instance, that would not be fine.
The latter is what occurred here. The HPP has no knowledge that I want my soul saved (whatever that means) to an extent that would override the sign on my letterbox. He just assumed that on the basis of his own beliefs.
We can add “presumptuous” to his list of crimes frankly.
The Golden Rule is not “Do unto others as they would have you do unto them,” it’s “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” A fine sentiment, but flawed in that it assumes that everyone has the same values.
The anonymous evangelist is able to justify ignoring your sign to themselves because they are confident that if they hadn’t heard the Good News yet, they would be glad to receive it, and maybe even be glad that it wasn’t some mundane come-on from the local realtor or bill or something.
Aw, don’t you realize, the real reason your pettifogging rule must be ignored? It’s necessary for the tract-stuffer’s salvation to plow right past objections, refusals, do-not-enters, and all other such Satanic oppositions, as he follows the Dictates of a Higher Power. If he wins a soul away from the devil, he gets extra credit in his Godfulness Account, but it’s preaching to the heathen, being persecuted for his religion, and so forth, that’s the important thing. You really ought to put in a moat, with crocodiles, that he’d have to swim – just think of the bonus points he could win!
Those people are working for God. It is the same as if God had put that in your mailbox. Are you saying you wouldn’t let God put something in your mailbox if He wanted to?
I’d say you are skating on some pretty thin ice mister.
Will someone please ask God to stop putting “Free AOL” discs and PTA flyers in my mailbox? No wonder wars break out and planes keep crashing . . . He’s too busy giving us all junk mail.
See, to this individual (I’m going to make the grand assumption that this tract was at least vaguely Christian [as opposed to christian] in nature; I have not heard of Muslims or Jews doing the same manner of witnessing, though for all I know it’s very common), the Wrath of God coming down for violating the sincere religious belief that “thou must shove thy religion in everyone’s face so they can have a chance to go to Heaven too; otherwise, thou shalt have friends and that is sin” is so deeply held that it overrides the “thou shalt not be a jerk” rule that others of us hold to (with varying degrees of success).
We should be glad that the Church no longer supports the ritual cleansing (by which I mean the Spanish Inquisition) of souls nor the monetary remission (by which I mean indulgences) of sins, and especially (on behalf of the children, at least; I think it is objectively not an especially constitutional law, but that’s just my amateur self) a new law passed in Virginia (though this will help you nil over in Oz, Princhester) requiring clergy to report crimes or suspected activity of which they are made aware. I will be wholly unsurprised to see this challenged by anyone, and I would be wholly unsurprised to see the challenge upheld … but that is another thread.