I disagree, however, that it’s irrelevant to the point you were making. Drooling over construction workers has nothing to do with baking cakes for orphans; not only are the two acts separate, they can be judged separately. I doubt anyone ever baked cakes because they were drooling over construction workers.
But that’s not the case with proselytizing and arrogance. If a proselytizer comes up to me not to have a dialogue but to present me with his Holy Writ, brooking no argument and offering no dialogue, then not only is that arrogant but it is reasonable to assume that that arrogance is part of his motivation for proselytizing. The attitude and the act may be separate, but I cannot judge them separately because the one very likely informs the other.
Fair enough. Let’s take a more recognizable example. Certain (caucasian) politicians decide caucasian Americans have unfair advantages in the workplace, and based on the feeling that their race is better-off, enact legislation to even the field. Called, let’s say, Affirmative Action. Arrogant? Eh, probably. Good-intentioned? Definitely. Moral? Sure.
Proseletyzing in and of itself is neither moral or immoral. It is simply sharing one’s beliefs with others and attempting to persuade them to share your beliefs. The methods employed in proseletyzing are what place it on the moral scale. Any element of coersion tips it toward immoral. The more explicit the coersion, the more immoral it is. Knocking on your door unsolicited? Annoying maybe but so long as you take no for an answer not immoral. Convert or I’ll kill/persecute you? Highly immoral. The problem is that historically a lot of proselytizing was done by coersive means and that poisons a lot of people’s view of missionaries. This is especially true when we’re talking about sending missionaries to other countries. People seem to automatically think of the conquistadores in South America and similar instances. I think the same rules of morality in missionary work apply no matter where you are in the world.
I’ve heard the argument before that proseletyzing is arrogant and there’s an element of truth to that. But it’s no more arrogant than advocating any ideology. All belief systems that I’m aware of, whether they be political, religious or whatever, have an assumption that you’re right and they’re wrong.
Thinking you’re right is one thing. It’s another to be so sure you’re right, and to consider it so important that everyone agree with you, that you are honor-bound to try and win them over to your way of thinking.
Let’s not be disengenuious here. How did we suddenly jump from persuasion to coercion? I see nothing wrong with attempts at conversion while providing schools, better methods of farming, or other forms of aid. Provided such aid isn’t dependent on conversion I don’t see how coercion or bribery comes into play.
The OP takes a general stance that proselytizing is wrong under any circumstance. I disagree with that assesment though I can certainly agree that it depends on how one goes about it. Based on general principles I think it’s perfectly acceptable for someone to attempt to covert someone over to their way of thinking.
But we do this all the time in contexts other than religion, politics being the most obvious example. For instance, I believe that it is wrong to discriminate against people based on their sexual orientation. I realize that other people disagree with this position. My position is based on my moral and ethical beliefs, not religion. Yet I consider it my moral duty to try and convince society at large to adopt my beliefs about this issue. Is this arrogant? You could argue that it is. After all I am trying to impose my beliefs on others. Essentially I am proseletyzing, only the ideology is political rather than religious.
WHERE have I ever posted “missionaries considered good people for coming into a foreign country, changing the rules, telling people they have to worship a certain god, and alienating them from their culture & traditions of thousands of years?” Am I not a Doper? I’m an agnostic. I just challenge local people to be skeptical and use logic. And I’ve actually prayed at a local Mosque.
I don’t think a discussion is the same thing as proselytizing.
I’m confused by your use of the phrase “impose my beliefs.” It doesn’t fit with the rest of what you’re saying. If you are having a straightforward discussion with someone, you’re not imposing your beliefs. It could be said you’re exchanging ideas. On the other hand if you actually have that “I have to convince everybody that I’m right” attitude, yes, that’s arrogant.
Discussion is how the proselytizing I’m familiar with is normally done. You try to engage someone in conversation about your religion, and discuss it with them in the hopes of stimulating their interest and eventually converting them. That’s why missionaries knock on your door or hand out flyers on street corners. They’re trying to find people interested in having a discussion with them.
Maybe “impose” was too strong. Try push my beliefs or advocate for my beliefs. And I know it’s somewhat arrogant. That’s my whole point about this. Whenevery you have debate on an issue each side is trying to convince the other that they’re right. The inherent assumption is that you’re right and they’re wrong. Some people are more obnoxious about it than others but anyone advocating a belief system to others has that little bit of arrogance. You seldom see a serious discussion of an issue that people feel strongly about that is merely an exchange of ideas without intent to persuade others.
For me it’s a question of how much respect you have for somebody else’s views. If you only talk to people so you can push your agenda, that’s ultimately an exercise in proselytizing and arrogance.
I think the question is whether what some individuals view as a personal moral imperative gives them a right to override someone else’s personal desire not to be harrassed. It’s especially bad when people want to go into other countries with the specific intent of pissing on the native culture and insulting the people who live there by telling them their sacred traditions are false. It’s not even like they have any better evidence, just an arrogant assumption that their God is bigger.
I don’t even think the moral imperative holds up logically. Let’s take Bricker’s waterfall analogy, for instance. I would argue that if there is a “waterfall” then God is an asshole. Since God cannot logically be an asshole, then there is no waterfall and nothing to warn anyone about.
I would also make the point that any assertion of moral obligation is completely self-derived and self-declared and can theoretically be used to defend virtually anything. Some people think they have moral obligations to drown their own children in the bathtub and they have just as much evidence to back them up as any missionary.
(i’m obviolusly not comparing proselytization to murder, I’m just trying to use an extreme case to make a point about the speciousness of annointing oneself with moral imperatives)
Arrogant? Probably, if this hypothetical legislation is motivated solely by this feeling that their race is better-off. Good-intentioned? Definitely. Moral…
…well, that depends.
Let’s be very careful to distinguish your hypothetical Affirmative Action program from such programs that actually exist. Your hypothetical AA program was enacted based on the feelings of certain hypothetical caucasian politicians. What if those hypothetical politicians are wrong? What if, in their hypothetical world, caucasian Americans are not better off? Then their AA program is unjustly penalizing other caucasian Americans, isn’t it?
I think your new analogy illustrates my point better than yours. Your hypothetical politicians, if they are acting out of a baseless conviction that they are correct and nothing else, may actually be doing harm, which is immoral. Just as proselytizers who act solely out of a baseless conviction that they are correct–who just want to beat their listeners over the head with holy writ–are immoral due to their arrogance. On the other hand, if your hypothetical politicians are acting based on evidence that caucasian Americans are better off, and are willing not only to share that evidence but also entertain other evidence that goes against their convictions, then there’s nothing immoral about their actions. Just as if a proselytizer is willing to engage in a dialogue–not only persuade, but be open to the possibility of being persuaded in turn–then there’s nothing immoral about their actions either.
Bricker’s waterfall analogy doesn’t, um, hold water.
To make it more relevant, it would go like this: There’s a guy standing on the bank of a river. I approach in a kayak. He says, “Don’t go down the river, there’s a waterfall ahead.” I say, How do you know, have you been there? He says, “No, I just know.” I say, Do you know someone who has been there? He says, “No, I just know.” I say, Do you have a picture or something to prove that there’s a waterfall there? He takes out a pad of paper and draws a waterfall on it and shows it to me.
I decide the guy’s a nutter and paddle on. There may or may not be a waterfall later, but it has nothing to do with the guy’s opinion.
Warning someone about a waterfall, real or imaginary, also does not involve a personal moral judgement about the person being warned. In order to be ,ore precisely anlalogous, the he waterfall warning would have to carry an implication that the person headed for the waterall is immoral and will deserve to go over if he does not listen.
I disagree; it’s possible to believe that someone is not following the correct religion and is doomed (or whatever) but that they’re still a moral person. Thinking someone elses religion false does not necessarily entail thinking them immoral.
This thread is going to be pretty useless about what exactly we are debating. Thus far, many of the people objecting to proselytization have done it in terms that confuse whether their problem with proselytization per se or with aggressive, rude proselytization. One does not logically entail the other (nor does it in my personal experience).
In another thread, I pointed out that
I think the OP needs to make it clear if proselytization from that sort of person is equally a problem.
If so, then you are indeed debating proselytization, and I’d argue that there is nothing inherently wrong about trying to change someone’s mind.
If not, then you’re debating whether or not people should be assholes, and I vote no.
How is it possible to believe that an omnibenevolent God would punish moral people? Do those people deserve to be “doomed” or don’t they? If so, how can they be called moral. If not, then how can God?
If you are driving a schoolbus down a steep mountain road, and the brakes fail, and a little girl is playing in the road, you can run over the child or drive the off the mountain, killing many children.
Whichever you chose, someone will be left with the impression that you chose to kill for no reason: the crash investigators have no way of knowing about the girl, and the hit-and-run investigators have no way of knowing about the bad brakes.
Your characterization of God’s actions are similarly uninformed. There is a reason for the temporal suffering of moral people. But as a human, you lack the perspective to understand it. You are the hit-and-run investigator before the bus’ situation is understood; all you can conclude is that the bus driver deliberately hit the girl. Or you are the crash scene investigator, concluding that the driver deliberately steered off the mountain to kill himself and all his passengers.
You demand an explanation that fits your human perspective, and conclude that when none is forthcoming, none exists. Just like Mr. A. Square, of Flatland, you insist that what you can conceive as motive or logic is all that can possibly exist.