To some, spiritual beliefs are very intimate. To others, their beliefs focus
                   on outward joy. Both ways of beliefs are acceptable; who am I to judge
                   how or what one believes?

                   There is one aspect common to some belief systems that is entirely
                   unnerving: evangelization. Because it directly offends me, this I must
                   judge. While it's always healthy to inform and be informed about other
                   ways of living and the beliefs of those around you, is it really sane to
                   incessantly nag someone's conscience into believing what you do, just
                   because your religion demands it?

                   I am constantly bombarded by door-to-door would-be-saints, e-mail
                   forwards, and easy-answer church invites, not because all people
                   necessarily care about the Lord, but because some care specifically about
                   forcing me to know their Lord's love.

                   Like many, I am extremely turned off by many aspects of Christianity due
                   to persistent evangelists. While freedom of speech and practice does and
                   should remain a key element of modern American life, there are also rules
                   and laws protecting citizens from harrassment. I consider certain people in
                   my life to be harrassing me into a religion that they are turning me
                   against.

                   While I see that religion is important to some people, and that it has
                   positively influenced their lives, I still can't understand the concept of
                   evangelization. I find it extremely intrusive. Not only that, I believe it
                   contradicts what Jesus felt was right.

                   Did Jesus really want an army of people parading around in a zombie-like
                   fashion, millenia after he thought of and professed new ways to live life? I
                   doubt it. When it comes down to it, I really dig Jesus. He was the first
                   recorded professor of a lot of ideologies that I hold dear. I respect all new
                   ways of thought. I admire him as a radical, challenging the status quo of
                   Rome: although we still use Latin as a basis of expression, who doesn't
                   know the basics of Christianity? Jesus grew his hair out, and while seen as
                   pure, probably showered infrequently. Drinking wine was alright with him,
                   and he, like his Jewish contemporaries, followed ten basic guidelines to
                   healthy living. Jesus was a pesce vegetarian (fish was the only meat he
                   ate) and he was persecuted for (what were at the time) unpopular
                   beliefs. Hey- I respect Paul McCartney for many of the same reasons. I
                   guess interpretation got Jesus into a lot of trouble, though.

                   Here we are, many centuries later, stewing over what Jesus meant. While
                   in fact Jesus did probably say somewhere to essentially spread the love of
                   his new way of thought, I sincerely doubt he meant the literal
                   evangelization tactics in which many of his followers trust.

                   I was at a retreat: a priest went into detail about the ways in which to
                   invite and convert friends. One of the things he said was "Explain how you
                   can't know the Lord until you have become one of His children." In
                   essence, the priest is explaining a no-lose situation for the newbie
                   evangelist: if the sinner to whom they are speaking refuses to convert,
                   then they simply 'don't understand.' Much they way others 'didn't
                   understand' the bright prospects of Christianity when Jesus was crucified.
                   You try explaining that view to a convert-crazy Christian.

                   When I deny an invitation to be converted, an evangelist will often
                   express sorrow or regret that I cannot share in their Heaven. While I try
                   and take a minute to explain my own views on post-death experience, the
                   evangelist will usually just express sorrow. He or she will promise to pray
                   for my eternally damned soul. I don't want this pity- I want someone else
                   to listen to my views as I have listened to his or her view. Isn't that due
                   respect? Isn't that the Golden Rule? No, this is the real world.

                   In the real world, views are often unchangeable. This is sometimes for the
                   better, but it is a sure shame that while a Christian can pity my soul for
                   remaining unsaved despite hearing the word of their interpretation of God
                   (which I believe to be merely a different face of the same deity that I
                   worship, but you try explaining that to an evangelist), they seem to lack
                   the understanding that I might want to remain set in my ways as well.

                   It's been difficult for me not to resent Christianity as a whole, due to the
                   fact that religious views have completely divided a once-treasured
                   friendship. Everytime I begin to regain some amount of trust toward
                   religious figures, an evangelist always steps up, turning me away from
                   their interpretation of Christianity.

                   To politely decline and say that I respect an evangelist's views should be
                   enough. I hide the anger that I feel toward their infringement upon my
                   rights to worship as I wish, particularly when the evangelist is aware that
                   I have been previously approached by another member of their masses.
                   To ask audience of another in recompense for the gift of my own listening
                   should be acceptable. No, I'm just going to hell, they say, and they are
                   trying to save me.

                   I still think about Jesus a lot. The real pity, I think, is what others have
                   made him. The real pity is what the vocal majority of Christians have
                   become today. No argument can be made without the words of Jesus. No
                   friendship can be spared until all accept his mercy.

                   Jesus wasn't about mass evangelization; Jesus was about respecting
                   others, forgiving others, and allowing that others may be different, but
                   they are still equals. He was not about holier-than-thou warfare-like
                   conversion methods. He wasn't about mass mailings, or even a droning
                   mass. Jesus was about the freedom to do as one wishes, in hopes that a
                   world would arise one day where one would not be crucified for doing
                   such.

                   Unfortunately, because of the evangelistic beliefs of many of his
                   followers, we must still await this day, no matter what kind of peace we
                   believe in.

                   An appeal to all evangelists: Please stop invading the lives of others until
                   you are ready to accept that they do and will often believe differently
                   than you. Don't offer so much advice unless you are willing to receive the
                   same. Isn't humbleness often holiest?
 

Writing Main

All writing is copyright its author, 2002.