Am I glad I’m not going near a theater or nightclub today. According to this morning’s The Fort Worth Star Telegram, 500 street-preachers will “invade” Fort Worth and Dallas today.

As I understand the constitution, these groups have a perfect right to do this as long as they are on public property or a private property owner does not object.

On the other hand, I don’t like to be bothered by evangelicals, even if they are using "nonconfrontational" methods - whatever that means. I know where an abundance of churches are located in this area. If I have a need for religion, it is no problem finding a place to meet that need. Otherwise, my attitude toward the street-preachers is, you can bother anyone else you wish, but not me. In other words, leave me alone.



http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/15759724.htm

Question for debate:

Do you think it intolerant to rebuff unwanted public attempts at proselytizing?

It all depends on the type of rebuff you mean. If you want to challenge these preachers on an intellectual basis and engage them in debate you could probably make many of them look rather silly. But if you are talking about a rebuff in which you criticize them for their religious views it would be seen as intolerance.

Just my 2 cents...

Personal philosophy threads are given to "2 cent" approaches.

Actually, I would probably do neither of the things you suggest. I would most likely tell them "I'm not interested" and keep walking - hoping as I walked that they would drop the matter and not follow me down the street.

From past experience, it doesn't always work that way.

This thread reminds a lot of the Princeton "riot" and Jim Gilchrist thread that we have here. The first option is the correct thing to do, though unfortunately, others will take things in a less than civilized direction. Even then, there isn't an amendment against bad behavior that is just short of physical violence or intimidation. Whether it's "intolerant" or not, it's all fair. If I'm accosted, should I brood about it and be upset myself? Am I to be rewarded in some way for allowing someone to affect me and not react?. to have them experience the same agitation and annoyance that I'm feeling with them? When you are in public and engage people on sensitive matters, you justifiably open yourself up to reaction, both positive and negative.

Do you think it intolerant to rebuff unwanted public attempts at proselytizing?
I say the best thing to do is to shake their hand and tell them "see you in church." If you do that and walk away, the street preachers usually won't force their religion on you and you won't be intolerant for saying no to their religion.

There is only one problem with this approach skeetereses. It's dishonest. I don't do church, so why should I lie to them about it. Further, I don't think rejecting someone else's religion is intolerant, although such as making fun of it, etc. is. It may, however, be intolerant if someone insists on shoving their beliefs down the throat of somoene who doesn't want it.

One of the things that really surprised me about this story is that they are doing this in the middle of the so called Bible Belt. I doubt there is much any of them could tell me (or many other people) that I (we) haven't heard before. Like I said, I don't care what they believe, but I find no compelling reason to listen to the same old broken record again, and again, and again...

But its not dishonest. The expressions "see you in church" or "see you later" are not taken literally. It just means that you'll think about their message later and go to church if you're interested. The street preachers usually take the hint and leave you alone. If you see the preachers on the street, you're not obligated to talk about religion.

It is dishonest if someone doesn't attend church. I will concede that it is a valid approach if someone does indeed attend church. This tactic, however, does not always work. I have seen street evangelicals come back that church attendance has nothing to do with the question at hand or that the person they are tying to convert does not go to the "right" church - theirs, obviously.

I don’t know how to really look at it. On one end of the spectrum I think I am fine with it, actually I think its purely American to be able to do such, though I don’t know if a Satanist could go door to door really. On the other end of the deal I really don’t know if I could put my trust in someone that feels charged by some super natural entity to save the human race in many religious cases. I mean do they have any real ethics to guy by?

I mean when I attended high school, there was an old man handing out bibles at a mini mart close to our school, when he came to me I of course took one simply not wanting to offend this old man and his convictions, but to me in the loop the idea of what’s ok and what’s not in regards to this really has no definition overall, and to me that’s the problem. Overall I preach to people in my family when it comes to stuff like this to simply have and open mind and only follow fact, which basically leaves them open to follow religion, but on that idea it leaves them open to people like this, and personally I do not care to have modern day religions ideas infect my family, and my wife agrees with me on this, but of course we cant follow our children around through the day. Its not an idea if oh wow my child might become a Christian, if they want to its fine, the point being is that its a subjective human institution, similar to a cult in my opinion, and as much as a person may come to follow and idea, they also come under the influence of other being its an organized thing, or religion.

So on that note, its the same if some person came up trying to sell an idea to my kids or way to control their minds, I personally just do not trust such really, and I know at some point they will be adults free to leave their lives, but on that note I just want of course responsibility to reflect in that in how i define such, which is simply trying to keep a mind that is capable, I don’t really know how to word past that, such as simply not being a body that some other mind controls I guess, and not being able to view or think for ones self past such. This is where I don’t know about public recruiting in general, just not for religion, but of course you cannot take that angel legally I guess.

Do you think it intolerant to rebuff unwanted public attempts at proselytizing?

rebuff definition


I think that, based on the definition, it could be seen as intolerant, but it is more honest than "See you in church" or another religious equivalent of "Let's do lunch".

I view public proselytizing in much the same light as I do people who stand in busy intersections like band boosters who decide to insert their purposes into your personal space and time. I do not appreciate it. But there are obviously people who decide to support them in their efforts, whether it is for the Big Reds Band or the Kiwanis Club or whatever organization decides to stand in traffic stopped at a traffic light.

If a proselytizer can't handle someone who says, "No, thank you--I just don't see things the same way you do," then there is justification for someone to "reject bluntly" or "disdainfully" their further attempts. Sometimes just avoiding eye contact and walking away, similar to the avoidance of eye contact and driving away as I do at a traffic intersection may not be enough.

It is good to be polite, but I do not feel we are under any obligation to mollify a proselytizer. We need to be true to ourselves, first and foremost. If a person truly feels the need to preach on street corners, then my personal refusal will not dissuade them in any case.

Question for debate:

Do you think it intolerant to rebuff unwanted public attempts at proselytizing?

How do I express my opinion on this...

GOT IT!

I've formed an opinion on this years ago, based largely on some of the nut cases I've had to deal with.

I had a preacher, whose church I attended as a guest once, who used to use a loud speaker to admonish me for not being in church on Sunday every time that he saw me from the time I introduced myself until he left town five years later.

I had co-workers who used to argue about whether the Bible taught them to kill only gays and adulterous wives, or also children who misbehaved... I would argue that killing people based on religious beliefs was against the law of the land. I would hear as a rebuttal, "No jury would convict you for obeying God's laws."

I have found that some of the folks who believe in proselytizing as a regular part of their faith are extremely obnoxious. My personal opinion is that they should be buffed and rebuffed until they are coated in enough wax to put them on exhibit in one of Madame Tussaud's Museums

Just tell them that you have to take the time to read the Bible and their pamplets. The street preachers know that people don't convert overnight to Christianity, or convert because they saw some charismatic preacher on TV. If you converted because some charismatic christian was a better debater, that wouldn't be true christianity. That would simply be playing Pascal's wager, and most christians would see Pascal's wager for what it is.

Do you think it intolerant to rebuff unwanted public attempts at proselytizing?

Intolerant? Not remotely.

Is it intolerant to say "no thank you" and hang up when someone telephones you at home to try to sell you something (whether than somehting is insurance or eternal salvation)?

Is it intolerant to say "no thank you" and move on when someone tries to stop you in the street to talk about the charity they represent in an attempt to get you to contribute (whether that charity is trygin to save the lives of small furry animals, or the souls of godless heathens)?

No, and no. It might be impolite, depending on how the rebuff is done, but I don't think it can be said to be intolerant if the person trying to convert you to their wares (of any description) approaches you first.

If, on the other hand, you refuse to give a job to someone because they wear a crucifix (or a turban, a headscarf, trousers and not a skirt, a yarmulke, etc.) that would be intolerant. It might not always be illegal (for example if the job required face-to-face contact, it might be sensible not to give such a job to someone who insisted that they wear a veil that only left their eyes visible). But it would almost always be intolerant.

I tend to agree with Curmudgeon. Proselytising people of all descriptions, including people who are trying to 'convert' you to the benefits of what they are selling*, tend to obnoxiousness.

*For clarity, I'm talking about the 'classical' hard sell, for produts like insurance, double-glazing, and so on. The sort of sales where cold calling is and always has been the core source of custom (mainly because, mostly, the public doesn't see the point of the product). To be good at cold calling, you have to develop a thick skin, because you have to put up with so much rejection and still want to get out of bed and go to work the next day.

You either have to develop a blinding passion of self-reighteousness about the product - potential customers (or converts) only reject what you have to say because they are ignorant (sinners) and only your help can save them from their ignorance (or sin). Or, you have to develop a kind of contempt for them; they become a barrier between you and your livelihood that has to be battered down and converted into a source of your own income, regardless of what's best for them.

In my experience, spirtual salespeople tend to fit in the former group (though not exclusively) while temporal salespeople tend to fit into the latter group (though again, not exclusively).

In both groups, the (necessary) refusal to engage with the idea that most people just don't WANT what they have to sell, and that if and when they do, THEY will contact the company (or church/mosque/synagogue/temple/stone circle etc.) and ask about their services, translates into what most people outside their industry (or faith) would see as obnoxiousness. for the most part, you have to be obnoxious, or turn into someone who is, to be any good at this sort of activity.

The opinions expressed are my own, and do not represent a definitive description of anyone engaged in a 'classical' sales career.

Though, if you are in 'sales', or proselytising, you might want to read up on the difference between 'sales' and 'marketing' and appreciate that the most successful commercial enterprises operate by meeting a consumer need, whether expressed or unexpressed, And adpating to changing consumer preferences. Not by forcing their existing (for a millennia or more, in the case of most religions) products on the unwilling.

Religions the world over are stuck in 'sales' mode, which does work in unsophisticated markets, while the modern consumer responds much better to marketing; hence the massive snowballing of pick-and-choose 'spirituality' we see today.

'Sales' does still work, but it relies on ignorance and vulnerability (it's no conincidence that the vulnerable or elderly or big sales sectors for home-visiting sales people, or that people turn to religion when their life goes wrong). Scientology, for example, is almost entriely predicted for conversions on the spiritual equivalent of pressure selling.

Do you think it intolerant to rebuff unwanted public attempts at proselytizing?

Yeah, so don't rebuff the street preachers. There are alternatives to this:

1) Walk on by with your iPod plugged into your ears, bobble your head to the music, turn and look at the street preachers like that guy eating crunchy cereal in the TV ads.

2) Bring two sets of cards numbered 1-10 and score each street preacher.

3) Take the literature and hand back a business card that says: My Lion Pride Wants To Visit Your Church.

4) It's near Halloween -- dress appropriately.

5) This is what I'd do: Bring diatonic harmonicas and play blues music along with the preaching. Maybe the National and do gospel tunes? Either way, the tip can too. This is supposed to be in the entertainment district, right?

Overall, this could be a lot of fun. Maybe they'll come to Colorado Springs someday.

Somehow I get the impression that you do not live in the Bible Belt. What was described in The Fort Worth Star Telegram article is all too common place in this part of the country. I remember sitting on the porch of a hangout near TCU in the early 70s. Occasionally someone would come up and want to talk about "the four spiritual laws." I have no desire to live through that again. It is almost impossible to engage in meaningful dialogue with someone who has an agenda to push.

I have more than a passing knowledge of the Bible, but for the most part keep my thoughts and interpretation private. Other than saying that I'm mildly agnostic, I don't divulge my thinking on such matters.

Again, I am not going to tell them I'm going home to read the Bible - been there done that. Neither am I going to read the tracts or pamphlets they are pushing.

Others may deal with this a different way, but my objective is get away from them as quickly as possible without being rude. You know, though, that shouldn't be too much of a problem for their outsized egos. On a busy sidewalk, someone else will be along shortly - someone perhaps more receptive.

Although I don't live anywhere remotely close to the "Bilble Belt" I have had many experiences with this phenomena. My usual reaction is to politely refuse their services because A.) I do not know how nice/cool of a person they might be and B.) I have learned that there is no point in discussing issues of personal faith, because it is different for each individual. However:

When I feel that I am being rebuffed by the faith monger...well, the claws come out! I used to get frequent visitations at my home and on the streets by members of a particular group and nearly every time I was told that I am, in some way "less than" or inferior to them. One of them was a family member who, to this day, no longer speaks to me. In my opinion, Christians who cast judgement are not very Christian. Shepards are supposed to protect their flock...not whip them.

Well, having both spent a bit of my childhood in the bible belt, and being raised in an "in your face" evangelical fundamentalist sect- I can tell you, these poeple are whack jobs, and you are simply exercising your right not to talk to whack jobs. - Like Curmudgeon says, you have no idea how dangerous these folks can be, if the situation is ripe for thier action. That is why I so often compare them to the Muslim extremists- they are peas in a pod, the difference is, they are not in the same situation just yet. I see the return to this though in politics these days, and the "social conservative" movement- and the evangelicals are a major part of this movement.

Most folks here have no idea what they preach in these churches, or how large the movement really is.

Rebuff them politely, don't make eye contact, and walk away quickly- it is not intolerance, it is good that you stay away from these folks.

Well, half of my family is hardcore Italian Catholic and they certainly aren't whack jobs. They're passionate about what they believe, and I disagree with them a lot, but I respect them enough and know them enough to know they're not whack jobs. People who proselytize are annoying, not dangerous whack jobs CR, and whether or not you'll admit it, if anybody said anything like what you just said about any other group in America it would be called intolerant. Dismissing people because of preconceived notions is by definition intolerance, that having been said, when I'm approached by one of these people I tend to say that I'm happy to see someone do what you're doing, but I'm not interested, thanks. That isn't intolerance, it's a polite way of dismissing something. Proselytizing isn't bad in and of itself, and neither are Christian fundamentalists in and of themselves, but characterizing all Christian fundamentalists as something is extremely intolerant.

CP

CP,

In all the years I've been dealing with this, I've never had a Catholic ring my doorbell or corner me on a public street or in a restaurant.

I personally don't consider Catholics evangelical, although I am aware of a group that proclaims itself evangelical Catholics.

Edited to add:

Tolerance is a two way street. Once the person making the aqdvance has been told 'no," hopefully in a civil tone, then peristence - I'm right and you're wrong - itself becomes intolerance.

Having been around hard core catholics vs protestant fundamentalists- I can tell you there is a HUGE difference. I have been to and part of many of these types of things in my lifetime. Now, there is another HUGE difference between the feel good evangelizing of some of the christian youth groups and the fundamentalists as well. I stand by my "intolerance" if you will of "fundies" - you have no idea how extreme they are, because they hide it when not around other fundamentals, for fear of "persecution"- just go pick up one of those "tracts" that they leave around, especially if you see one from about, oh, 10 years ago or so- pretty hard core stuff. I wish I still had one of the comic books, I had quite a few of the fundamentalist comic books for years, and man, you have no idea how hard core it is. When I broke away from this particular Christian conservative (think of Bob Jones University- that is the typical fundamental approved college, which regularly preached that Catholicism was the "whore of babylon" and claims they are still killing thousands of protestants each day, and that the Jesuits are still running the inquisition, that there is athe 'black pope" - the power behind the "public relations" pope etc) I could not believe that more non-fundamentals didn't know about this stuff, and it is still hard to believe that they don't. I mean, this is stuff I see these guys talk about to this day!

Poeple want to GASP and say " oh gee, that is not the way Christians are"- and probably, for the most part, non-fundamentalists are much different, just like sects of Islam and such- but, I challenge you to actually GO to a Falwell sermon or stay a week at Bob Jones University- and get a little of this "flavor".

I joined the army to prevent from having to go to Bob Jones University. I grew up in this movement, I heard Falwell say, right here in Anchorage Baptist Temple (who, by the way, is the leading power for the republican party in my state, and a delegate and elector, attends every republican convention, and an original member of the moral majority- his name is Jerry Prevo) I heard them say "You need to be very careful of gays, they will just as soon kill you as look at you".

I think most Americans really have no idea of the snakes in thier midst to this day, and I often wonder about the same in Islamic societies and thier ideals of the "religion of peace".

Maybe I am intolerant to fundamentals- and I couldn't care less quite frankly, because they are a very, very bad part of the Christian religion.

What you have posted is a positive way to deflect proselytizers and to do so in a respectful manner. On that account, you are correct. A few years ago, the wife and I had a Jehovah's Witness man come to our door. He gave me his whole speel and because I'm respectful to a fault, I let him continue on and on. My wife then stepped into the doorway and said: "My husband is too nice, but I'll be more direct-we're not interested and you should try another door." He then graciously left and that was that. What a person should do is give the answer that they feel is best. If BoF is one of those more "direct" people, then that's what works for him. No one is entitled to be listened to entirely or to be shielded from scolds, shouting, or "in your face" behavior when they choose to open themselves up in public to others. G. Gordon Liddy wrote once that as a G-man, he would have people complain to him about the behavior of others. He reminded them that there is no federal s.o.b. law. Same things goes for here.

CR. what you said in your last post is perfectly fine, but it is very rare that you distinguish between the wackos and everyone else. You throw the word "Christian" around a lot, and that lumps a LOT of people into a generalization. My only point is keep things specific so it doesn't sound like you are intolerant, because I don't think you are.

You're exactly right BOF, but again, my point was that when someone says the word "Christian" that means everyone, including Catholics and mainstream religious types. That's the only point in my bringing that up.


CP

Well, in this post I think I was pretty clear that I was identifying the sects of christianity that practice this kind of evangelical behavior- "onward christian soldiers " and all that. Did I even say "christian" in the post?

so'kay though- stil got nothin' but love for ya!

I would have to agree with CR's post with what we have been seeing over the years with the TV evangelists and the evangelist in general, while not all are fundamentalist the majority that I have seen are whether on TV (mainly) or in everyday. What is sad is when there is a religious discussion on a talk show they only seem to have evangelic fundamentalists like James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, Tony Perkins etc. as the voice of the religious side, which to me they might as well have the fundementalist extremist from the middle east because I really don't hear a different message coming out from either side quite frankly. Just take for example the documentary Jesus Camp that is at theatres now.

This is actually is what has turned me away from religion more then anything, all though I have not been a practicing presbyterian for about 25 years anyways. I came to the conclusion a few years back that I am an agnostic because I can have my own believes in a god and don't need a religion to make those distinctions for me. As well my morals haven't suffered any without someone telling me I am a sinner at every turn, but I am forgiven at the next turn.

I find it funny when Democrats, proponents of free speech and freedom for all make comments like these:


My opinion is that frankly that I don't believe street preaching to be the most effective way to get your point across. However, these folks believe in their cause, and think this is a way to get the message out. Good for them.

Our constitution allows us to make just these statements, and these people aren't impeding anything other than one's possibility of remaining atheist/agnostic. If they were passing out flyers for being pro-choice, I'm sure this debate wouldn't exist.

It's not intolerant to walk away from "street preachers", as that's really probably the best defense. I generally find that even I do just that... no harm/no foul.

Aevans, none of the free speach stuff you mentioned has absolutely nothing to do with the topic.


No, our Constitution allows us to make just these statements without government intervention. Not listening to someone, or not liking them, or telling them to [<insert expletive laden statement here>] has nothing to do with free speech or the Constitution at all. There is no liberal hypocrisy here at all, nor is there a free speech issue.



CP

I personally believe that this does have free-speech undertones, but won't argue that point.

Is it intolerant to be aggravated by street preachers? Is that the real question?

I'd say probably. Frankly, I go to NYC a few times/year and people hand out all kinds of weird stuff. I generally take it to read on the plane. It doesn't really hurt so long as they don't harass you or follow you down the street (I had an experience with a Muslim in a Falafel place near Times Square once.. oh, and of course some nutty people always go to Mardi Gras and bother people... )

Well, I'm not sure how things are in Dallas, but here in Boston you cannot leave you're house without running into someone trying to get your attention for something, and quite frankly I don't have time to be polite and explain myself to all of them. It isn't intolerance to the religion, it's intolerance toward an interruption or an annoyance. I don't think of what religion is being peddled when I decline, I think "I've got somewhere to go and this guy is slowing me down."

As to free speech, I see it as very simple. Did Congress enact a law prohibiting free speech or religion in this instance...The answer is no, so it seems to me that that is clear enough.

CP

Ah, I knew someone would fall flan on their face on this one. I just did’ know who it would be.

Democrats? Wow, you play this "game" on a vast array of issues. If you will read closely, I didn’t say anything about removing the preachers from the street. Personally, I’ll grant their right to initiate the conversation, if I’m given the right to terminate it after a nanosecond or two. That said, I'm sure there are many Republicans in my neighborhood, who are equally annoyed at having their space invaded by over zealous evangelicals. This is not a party issue.



I’m pretty comfortable in the agnostic zone. They can talk until they are blue in the face or the previously mentioned nanosecond. The end results would be the same – nada. Actually, by pulling the parachute cord rather early in the “game,” I’m saving their time as well as mine. Just think, my lack of cooperation frees them to plow more fertile ground.



On some threads a “good” defense is to blame Bill Clinton or one of the Kennedys for doing something as bad or worse

On this one, it’s the Muslims. Aevans176, you desperately need to develop some new strategies. – some we can’t guess before you deploy them and some where one size doesn't fit all. New Coke; New Evans?

I fully support the evangelicals right to street preaching- I will say that here and now. I don't think Voltaire actually said it- but it is atributed to him "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it"-

That being said, intolerance has gotten a bad rap as a word IMHO. I am intolerant of Fundamentalists, pedophiles, crooked politicians and folks who buy foreign cars

I am predjudiced and biased against criminals that commit fraud or steal outright or hurt others physically or economically.

As a former fat person, I am biased and predjudiced against fat poeple, and thier lack of ambition to stop the gluttony.

I don't mind being it told to my face when folks call me intolerant, predjudiced, biased or bigoted against the folks I mentioned- because I am and I am not sorry or repentant about it.

I mean- what is the problem with being intolerant against in your face whack jobs? I just don't see the problem here.

Please attempt to provide constructive debate as opposed to launching personal attacks. It neither proves your point nor makes for change in anyone's mind. Being an angry liberal doesn't do it.

I wasn't blaming anyone or even pointing fingers. It was really just an anecdote. I have no problem with people preaching on the street in any fashion. The falafel anecdote (ironically followed by a statement about Mardi Gras, funny how you just picked one) was really just about the notion that it's not good to be followed at length.

They're legally allowed to do it. It doesn't hurt anyone. Funny how you chose not to address my notion that if it was a "pro-choice" preacher in Fort Worth that you probably wouldn't have started a debate.... hmm....

I'm not aware of any pro-choice rallies that have occurred in Fort Worth.

A few weeks ago there was a "pro-life" rally that stretched for several blocks down Hulen Street. They stood with signs and they didn't block traffic. I don't agree with their position, but I think they were within their Constitutional rights to hold the rally, just as "pro-choice" people would have that right , if they chose to exercise it.

My problem is not with people preaching on the streets, unless they are using an amplifier that violates a noise ordinance or something of that nature. What bothers me is people with yet another "come to Jesus" message that they are so sure is "the answer" that they think they can invade the personal space of other, even after they have been told no.

I have tried to take a moderate position on this thread, something you apparently missed.

I have to agree in general with cruisingram... and would like to add a few more tidbits.

I grew up with the Fundamentalist "in your face", "believe as I believe or your going to hell", "the bible was written by God", "the bible must be taken literally" Christian doctrine.
In comparison the fundamentalist Catholics are tame.
I see no real difference in the Fundamentalist Christian and the Fundamentalist Muslim methodology. Both believe that any means justifies the end. Whatever it takes to get you to their line of thinking is ok. In their way of thinking, all their actions are not just mandated, but directly controlled by the hand of God.
That in itself scares me beyond belief.
I spent more time as a child restricted to my room, condemned to reading one passage or another in the Bible because I dared to question the reasoning to something. Or just didn't understand why so many contradictions existed.
In adult life I have given up on discussing religion in general with such individuals (if that term applies because very few actually think for themselves) as it is pointless. There is no reverse respect for my beliefs as I try to respect theirs.
Most of my family (I have a Father, Uncles, a Brother and Cousins that are all Preachers in these Churches) pray for me every night because I have rejected their line of thinking. To them, I am going straight to hell, and there is absolutely no chance for me unless I come back into the fold. Truthfully I have not rejected a belief in God, or Christianity perse, I just find too many holes in the reasoning. So, I follow my own heart and mind. I firmly and steadfastly believe anothers point of view is between them and whomever or whatever they recognize as God.
Maybe if they spent more time helping people instead of thumping them on the head with their Bibles, they would get a more positive result!

So, to answer the original question: No, it is not intolerant to rebuff their advances. But, I can not, nor will not be hostile or degrading to them in the process. Even though I don't really have the highest respect for their line of thinking, they do have that right, and I support that right. So, a simple no, no thanks, or just keep walking suffices quite well. When one does try to follow through, a simple "I don't have time right now" works really well.
Straight, honest, to the point, and nothing more needs to be said.

Do you think it intolerant to rebuff unwanted public attempts at proselytizing?
I'd say a rebuff would be a bit strong, there's no need for that. A rebuff would demonstrate intolerance, while a courteous no thank you would not. However, you could go "Praise Jesus" as you walk by and they probably wouldn't say another word. Praising Jesus isn't wrong even if you're an atheist, because he never hurt anyone.

According to New Oxford American Dictionary, 2004 “rebuff" is a more complex word than you suggest.

.

Many of the responses on this thread have advocated “abrupt” – whether “no thank you,” “no,” “un-uh,” shaking the head, or walking ahead making no verbal or physical reply. None of this is “ungracious.” Should the street preacher persist after an abrupt [b]no, then a bit of ungraciousness might be appropriate. I chose the word carefully.

Perhaps you have confused “rebuff” and “rebuke.”





I could, but I wouldn’t. I’m not a talking bird that someone has trained to parrot phrses like “Praise Jesus.”



That sounds nice, but to the best of my knowledge Jesus has never stopped me or anyone else on a busy street, rang my doorbell or shoved a Bible or tract in my face.

I looked up the word rebuff before I replied, thank you. I think I said exactly what I meant. As for your opinion on praising Jesus, it was way of ending the "confrontational" feeling that might arise in that moment. Frankly I don't care what you do, it was a suggestion that really didn't need to be dissected and criticized. Apparently some people have difficulty overlooking anything.

We went through some similar ideas earlier in this thread. See posts #s 5 and 7.

I think I would lose all remnants of integrity if I said something like "Praise the Lord" or "Praise Jesus." That's not how I talk or think. I don't wish to be overtly rude to people like this, but I don't want to encourage them, either. If your suggestion works for someone else, that's fine.

BTW: There were two elements to rebuff as I pointed out. You interpret it your way, I'll interpret it mine - afterall. I composed the thread and know what I meant.