Talk:Proselytism

message: How is constantly being told to vote otherwise bad things will happen to you not a forced religion conversion? It's no different than telling people to pray. How is being told to believe in science not a forced religious conversion?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.66.233 (talk) 17:50, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Democracy, politics and science 

message: Shouldn't this page be combined with the page we already have on Religious conversion?  Or should we keep them separate, and make this page specifically refer to Christian attempts to convince others to convert? RK 22:19 26 May 2003 (UTC)
:These pages should not be merged. Religious conversion is the result of successful proselytism but can also be rather spontaneous, like in the case of Saulus who became Paulus. Many people who proselytize failed to convert others. Summarizing, there is some overlap between the concepts but not that much. Andries 10:00, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't merge it it. Conversion is one thing. Actively inviting conversions is another, (quite) lengthy topic. If I may make a crude analogy, it's like the difference between retail and advertising. One thing that should be moved is the Eastern orthodox case study in the 'In Christianity' section. This page should be about general philosophies not obscure incidences. 128.158.14.42 22:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: Originally it would seem that proseltyze was equivalent to evangelize today, and the explanation given is correct but the normal usage of proselytize today is just what the definition says it isn't.  The typical usage today is disapproving and implies forced, inappropriately enticed, involuntary persuasion to adopt a religion.
Need to explain today's modern negative usage of the word.
New:Elsmallwood (talk) 00:51, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thou sayest. ;P That may be the POV of followers of your religion, however, you must understand that from the perspective of peoples of other religious traditions, it is still proselytising: it does not matter to them whether or not you believe that you're onlya messenger doing the bidding of the Holy Ghost and that God the Father is actually the one doing the converting. (And especially when taken with the fact that, in many times and places, Christian proselytising has included the ever-present caveat that, according to them, anyone refusing to convert will, after death, be constantly tormented in a lake of fire forever and ever. If that isn't inappropriate enticement...) Firejuggler86 (talk) 14:58, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing evangelizing and proseltyzing? 

message: I have added Roman Catholic Church as denomination which proselytise, becouse they are accused for proselytism, and proselytism by RCC is mentioned in article regarding "Criticism of Catholic Church"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.198.144.18 (talk) 21:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catholic accused for proselytism too 

message: Great job on all those who have contributed to this article.  It seems to me to be quite balanced between the pros/cons and lovers/haters of proselytism.  Frankly, it's a good article to show to those who say that Wikipedia has a liberal bias, because if it did, I would expect it to be heavily expression opposition.
I have amended the note under the photograph of St. Patrick. He had been termed a Roman Catholic which, of course he was not.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acorn897 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quite balanced! 

message: Shouldn't this article contain some reference to how Hinduism doesn't promote Proselytism and how this conflict has created problems for chrisitan missionaries in India?
A neutral POV would be nice because this is a highly contentious issue.
Extremely unbalanced without any sources cited.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reereetata (talk • contribs) 18:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proselytism India/Hinduism 

message: I've just inserted a link to "When Civilizations Meet: How Joseph Ratzinger Sees Islam", it gives a good thought on reciprocity [or lack of it] when it comes to the dialogue between Christians and Muslims. The article isn't totally about Proselytism, but it provides some very strong insights on it. It would be intersting to see some more specific material on proselytism from both Catholic and Muslim point of views.
Verblyud 14:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catholic Church 

message: The General Consensus on Limits section seems POV to me. Is this really a universal consensus?
Some references would help clear things up. Deepak 19:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, I'm trying to revamp the section a bit to show what bits are limited by law in some countries and the views of various groups.   Note that Christian proselytism history might be better put in the missionary article or in a separate article completely; it  is a huge topic.  Same with Islam and other religions.  This article might be better off dealing with attitudes/laws for and against proselytism. --Erp 19:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: There is a good deal of overlap between this, Evangelism and Missionary. History should probably be kept in one place. Missionary seems to have the best history right now. We should probably make a reference to this here. DJ Clayworth 19:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  General  consensus 

message: The article says "Not all organizations here share the core beliefs of main stream Christianity."  I am trying to think of a way to convey this point without making it sound like a warning.  Any ideas? 66.151.81.244 02:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well self-described Christian groups perhaps.  Note it is not our place to make judgment calls on which groups are or are not Christian nor does it really matter within the context of the article. In general if one self-described Christian group is poaching from another self-described Christian group it probably doesn't consider the other group 'really Christian' and that should be obvious to a careful reader. --Erp 00:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Core beliefs 

message: Where are the reliable sources that use the term dharmic religions in the context of this article? Dharmic religions is a now deleted obscure neologism and should not be used throughout Wikipedia. Andries 15:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliable sources for the term [[dharmic religions]]? 

message: Recently it came to my attention about the sixth grade
textbooks 
In a way that could be proselytizing as well, condescending towards Hinduism...Domsta333 (talk) 11:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  California 6th grade textbooks 

message: What is the purpose of the word "Historically" in this phrase? As in, what does it specifically suggest that would not be captured in the more concise "In the New Testament"? I'm sure readers are perfectly aware that the New Testament was written a long time ago, so I do not see the point of including this word. I know it's a subtle criticism, but it just seemed oddly worded to me. 217.155.61.70 (talk) 15:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Historically in the New Testament" 

message: Is there nothing on criticism of proselytization? Surely there's plenty on this? Lihaas (talk) 20:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: From what the article puts it, to proselytize is simply discussing religion with a friend, co-worker or someone you just met in what's called "small talk". In certain parts of the USA or countries like Canada, the social mores seems to dislike proselytization of any religion, despite the traditional cool or calm toleration of anyones' religious beliefs or faiths. In times, it's unwanted, inappropriate or offensive enough to be considered a form of discrimination and harrassment. One can politely ask the person to seize or desist the religious talk and you have no plans for conversion into another religion or faith. The freedoms of assembly, speech, religion and in Canada, multiculturalism as official policy seems to contradict each other in regards to the issue on ones' right to proselytize and the others' right to freely believe, practice or observe their own religion they want. + 71.102.3.86 (talk) 04:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: Is there a reason why political proselytizing is not included in this article? Proselytizing includes attempts to convert a person's opinion on a religion or a political inclination (according to dictionary.com) - http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/proselytizes - thanks.
Satanstorm (talk) 10:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political conversion 

message: Proselytize is another word for the inability to see commonality.— Preceding unsigned comment added by BenDoGood (talk • contribs) 00:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inability to see a Common Ground 

message: This article needs to be revamped in quite a dramatic way to increase it to Wikipedia's quality standards.  The listing of religions that are "known to proselytize" is incredibly arbitrary.  Proselytism is not a binary operation; some groups do it more than others, true, but it also comes in different forms, different styles throughout history, and feels different to the populace for each group.  I was actually personally shocked the Catholic Church was listed as a religion that "proselytizes."  Certainly the Catholic Church had a huge impact on conversion throughout the early Church, through the reformation, and then during the Colonial Era in the World's South, but lumping a connotatively negative term to a billion people is incredibly offensive and quite inaccurate.  Certainly modern Catholics, nor a majority of non-Catholics would not describe Catholics as "proselytizers."
I don't think that listing a few Christian Churches as "violators" is incredibly scientific.  Is there data to back this up?  The two sources listed are arbitrary as well.  I am going to delete this list and then think about ways to make this a higher quality article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpsteiner (talk • contribs) 07:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: First the article could do with major improvement but perhaps within a larger context of articles on religion.  Second the article is meant to be neutral as regards whether proselytism is good or bad;  I've added a line to that effect in the first paragraph.  Third, listing isn't ideal but I think a discussion first might be an idea before removing.  So first what would improve the article?  First deciding what the article is about and the tone.  I would go with restricting it to attempts to convert people to/from a religion and the tone should be descriptive.  Second how would it relate to other articles such as religious conversion (emphasis more on the person converted than on attempting to convert), forced conversion (a subset of this article), others?.  --Erp (talk) 14:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a Quality Article 

message: I would completely delete those 4 points, they may be relevant for Jewish conversion however New Testament conversions have nothing to do with OT law and conversion and everything to do with entering a relationship with Jesus. 
Something like this would be far more relevant:
Romans 5: 1 Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2 through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we boast in the hope of the glory of God.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.81.110 (talk) 18:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is the 4 dot points for Christian conversion talking about Jewish conversion? 

message: Where is common sense?  This article uses the term "mixed marriage", which can have a variety of different meanings but which originally meant an interreligious marriage, to refer to marriages between a Jew and a non-Jew, but then instead of linking from there to interfaith marriage, it linked to miscegenation.  This sat there for an incredibly long time. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mixed marriages 

message: Proselytizing is downright offensive to those targeted from non-proselytizing faiths.
Even otherwise there are many points that can be said against it AND these need to be brought out in the Article...
1. It presupposes that one religion is superior to the other.
2. It reduces religion to the lowest common denominator - that of increasing "head count".
3. It fractures and splits communities with homogeneous culturo-religious beliefs.
4. It brings about cultural changes in existing cultures.
5. It exploits individual ignorance while not exposing its ideologies to open debate.
6. It is often clandestinely done where the proselytizing religion is in a minority.
7. It is forcefully (direct and indirect) done where the proselytizing religion is in a majority.
8. Proselytizing is often backed by money and political power from other cultures.
9. Disenchanted people who have been proselytized often of no recourse.
10. Proselytizing often involves spreading lies and mis-information about other religions.
11. Proselytizing often involves taking undue advantage of a person's social, economic or mental condition.
12. Supporting proselytizing is like supporting supporting a smoker who who smokes into the face of a non-smoker. 
  
I wish a suitable editor can incorporate these points in the Article. The above are "academic" points that support/explain the view AGAINST proselytization... The points itself will be relevant according to the situation.
Please don't ask for references. I don't intend writing or searching for multiple books on the topic. TheOnlyEmperor (talk) 10:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Views against proselytizing 

message: Under "Indian Religions"
"Catholic and Baptist Churches take advantage of this openness and convert millions of Indians in name of compassion by bribing poor people to barter their faith/soul in exchange for elementary education, menial jobs and food rations. Catholics and Baptists are proselytizing zealots."
Zealots is a descriptive word - to claim this is to be impartial, it is not a Wikipedia policy to make a statement that although may be perceived as true, does not mean it is not an opinion.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrConroy (talk • contribs) 19:56, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: Atheism has a religious view and should be included. They put a lot of effort in proselytizing in schools, on TV, radio, and the internet.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.220.88.66 (talk) 15:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atheism 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Proselytism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070213181224/http://urj.org/pr/2005/051119a/ to http://urj.org/pr/2005/051119a/
*Added archive https://archive.is/20070927032705/http://www.irla.org/documents/articles/lerner-proselytism.html to http://www.irla.org/documents/articles/lerner-proselytism.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:24, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The section Proselytism#Indian_religions currently contains the sentence: Proselytisation is alien to Indian religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism although they are largely pluralistic..  To me, the word although in this context implies in spite of the fact that.  It seems to me this would be a better sentence: Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism are largely pluralistic, and proselytisation is alien to these Indian religions.--Guy vandegrift (talk) 18:04, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confused about the word "although"  Proselytism#Indian_religions 

message: I have checked through various references in this and adjusted the text to match the references, as well as providing others. This may no longer reflect the intention of other editors. If so, please provide new references which better support those claims. I have moved one paragraph under 'Limits' which has been tagged for citation since 2013 to the Talk page, as it was essentially an opinion piece which only referenced USA. There might be some value in re-instating a more nuanced version of this with a citation. There are a couple of other uncited statements in this section. I have left them there for now as they are at least formatted as things which are factually checkable. I will look for some citations for them.Martin Turner (talk) 20:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some tidying 

message: The statement "Some [countries] restrict it in various ways such as prohibiting attempts to convert children" needs a citation. I found the Israeli law prohibiting this in a trustworthy (I believe) online source: https://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%97%D7%95%D7%A7_%D7%94%D7%A2%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%9F#%D7%A1%D7%A2%D7%99%D7%A3_368. However, this is in Hebrew - "אדם המשדל קטין, בפניה ישירה אליו, להמיר דתו, דינו – מאסר ששה חדשים".
According to Google translate, it says: "A person who persuades a minor, directly to him, to convert to his religion, is liable to imprisonment for six months״. Can we use this as a citation?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Privman (talk • contribs) 08:33, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation for countries prohibiting proselytism 

message: There seems to be a concerted effort in the lead and the last sentence of the etymology section to give WP:UNDUE weight to certain groups that recognise the word "proselytism" has acquired a negative sense, and therefore try to redefine it to be "something different to what we do".
But this is at variance with the bulk of the article, which takes a much broader view of the term as being the general "policy of [and practice of] attempting to convert people's religious or political beliefs".
In particular, I do not believe the statement that proselytism is "considered to be an opposite to conscious and voluntary forms of conversion" represents a general view -- and it is noticeable that the references cited don't make this claim either. 
At most these claims should be introduced with wording along the lines of "Some assert that ..."  And a counter-view, questioning this, should also be expressed -- for example the current edition of the OED offers no sense limiting proselytism to "unjust means that violate the conscience of the human person", offering only the general senses "1. The fact or condition of becoming or being a proselyte; conversion" and "2. The practice of proselytizing; the making or seeking of converts; proselytizing zeal."
(The references in fact seem more focussed on identifying negative proselytism with "poaching" of believers from one denomination to another; so perhaps should be applied more to the discussion of that aspect, under the Christianity section).
It would be good to clean this up.  Jheald (talk) 21:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious 

message: The source on the legality of proselytizing is obviously biased using explicit double standards. For example, they say that some countries (all non-Protestant) ban or limit proselytism because foreign missionaries need visas or are not above the law, but at the same time they don't use these criteria in Protestant countries. Conveniently they even omit any information about proselytism in the USA.
Brigada is sponsored by the USA and does not defend religious freedom or freedom of expression, and as they themselves admit they only support evangelicals going to non-Protestant countries to convert the local people (and the true intention of this is known to anyone who knows the history of colonialism).
https://brigada.org/about
Honesttangl0 (talk) 16:18, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased source on legality of proselytizing, ties to USA.