Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version nyu B notes v1.5 12/10/84; site csd2.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxb!mhuxn!mhuxm!mhuxj!houxm!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!cmcl2!csd2!dimitrov
From: dimitrov@csd2.UUCP (Isaac Dimitrovsky)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Dinsdale Piranha on the evils of Proselytizing
Message-ID: <3790001@csd2.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 7-Feb-85 23:07:00 EST
Article-I.D.: csd2.3790001
Posted: Thu Feb  7 23:07:00 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 10-Feb-85 05:31:42 EST
References: <3075@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Organization: New York University
Lines: 32

[]
Charley Wingate writes:

>Maybe I'm exceptionally dense, but I don't see what the problem is with
>believing that your opinion is correct, and with trying to convince others
>of it.  And your cries of "manipulative proselytizing!" simply do not
>correspond to reality.  What is so coercive about giving out leaflets (which
>is all that those evil Baptist have been accused of so far)?

Well, there's nothing wrong with trying to convince others of your opinion.
But there is something wrong with doing it in a deceptive way, i.e. by
misrepresenting what your opinion really is. For example, the original posting
by Ari Gross said that there was an incident in which leaflets were handed out
which had pictures of `great Jewish prophets', the last of which was Jesus.

Now, you can claim that this was not meant as a deception, or that the people
who handed out the pamphlet honestly believed that Jesus was a great Jewish
prophet. I think that a better test of whether or not a deception is involved
is to consider how the pamphlets would be interpreted by the average reader,
i.e. as a claim that belief in Jesus' prophecy is consistent with the Jewish
religion, and that they were handed out by a Jewish group.

To put it another way, how do you feel about groups such as the Moonies who
have been known to represent themselves as mainstream Christian groups when
they look for new members?

I don't know if it's necessary for me to say this, but of course I don't
think violence is justified here. I also don't think think we can,
in a free society, pass a law against something like this,
just as I don't think we can pass a law against the New York Post
being published. That doesn't mean that I think
either of those things is very admirable (except for the sports pages).