Proselytizing

Proselytism is the zeal to win supporters (proselytes) for a cause.

Etymology

The term comes from the ecclesiastical Latin prosélytus, which in turn comes from the Greek προσήλυτος /prosêlütos/ 'new come (in a foreign country)', and by extension 'new come (in a religion)'. Thus, originally, the term was linked to conversion only in a secondary way.

Although the word proselytism was originally linked to Christianity, it is also used to refer to the preaching of other religions, to convert people to their beliefs or another point of view, religious or not.

Today, the connotations of proselytizing are often negative, but this article will use the word neutral to refer to any attempt to convert one or more people to another faith.

Political proselytizing

It is that proselytism that is dedicated to convincing new followers for some political cause, such as an election, a rebellion, or any other type of political movement. In electoral campaigns this term is used to describe attempts to induce people to change their political preference in favor of another. Despite the fact that strictly speaking it is a neutral term that only describes an event of normal occurrence, it is commonly used to reproach conduct considered negative for political coexistence, in the sense that it is assumed that those who practice it they would be breaking the rules of a fair political campaign by forcing others to change their minds through deceit or demagogic offers.

Religious proselytizing

In Christianity

Many Christians consider it their obligation to follow what is often called the Great Commission of Jesus, recorded in the closing verses of the Gospel of Matthew: "And Jesus He approached and spoke to them, saying: All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore, go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit; teaching them to observe all the things that I have commanded you; and behold, I am with you always, until the end of the world. Amen."

Some Christians make a distinction between (illegitimate) proselytizing and (legitimate) evangelism. An Eastern Orthodox writer, Stephen Methodius Hayes, has written: 'If people speak of the need for evangelism, they meet with the reply, 'The Orthodox Church does not win proselytes'; as if evangelizing and proselytizing were the same thing."^{[citation needed]}

Some Eastern Orthodox objections to proselytizing are far from constant. Patriarchal Moscow has strongly condemned on several occasions what it describes as "Catholic proselytism" and opposes a prominent Catholic construction project in an area of Russia where there is a small Catholic community. But attempts are currently being made to push forward with some similar building projects in a predominantly Catholic country, where the first Russian Orthodox Church took shape in 2003.

Limits

Limits on proselytizing are a combination of what is considered legal (and this varies from country to country) and what is considered moral (and this varies from person to person).

Some countries such as Greece prohibit all proselytizing, some such as Morocco prohibit it except for particular religion. Some restrict it in various ways such as by prohibiting attempts to convert children or by prohibiting the offering of physical benefits to new converts.

Religious groups also draw lines between which they are willing to act to convert people. For example, the Catholic Church indicates: "The Church strictly forbids forcing anyone to embrace the faith, or to tempt people through fascination or through worrying cunning." (Note the proselytism seen in the document only in the negative sense)

The World Council of Churches says:

Proselytism as described in this document is based on opposition to all ecumenical effort. It excludes certain activities that aim to change people's opinion and influence it to join the church, for example:

• Making unjust or incompatible references to the beliefs and practices of other churches or making them ridiculous.
• By comparing two Christian communities by emphasizing the achievements and ideals of one, and the weaknesses and practical problems of the other.
• Using any kind of physical violence, moral obligation and psychological pressure, or the use of certain media advertising techniques that could bring undue pressure on readers/specters;
• Using political, social and economic power as means of winning new members for the church.
• Extend explicit or implicit offers of education, medical or material stimuli or use financial resources with the intent to manufacture converts;
• Attitudes and practices that exploit the needs, weaknesses or lack of education of people, especially in situations of danger, or manipulate them without respecting their freedom and human dignity.

In Islam, the phrase: "The Qur'an states there is no obligation in religion: The straight path is surely distinctly different from the crooked one." (Al-Baqarah, 2:256) is taken by the majority of Muslims, who believe that force should not be used to convert someone to Islam.

Opinions on the acceptance or not of various types of proselytism differ radically. Some feel that free speech should have no limits and that virtually anyone, anywhere should have the right to speak on whatever subject they see fit.

Others see all kinds of proselytizing as a nuisance and intrusive and would prefer to see it restricted (in whole or in part).

Professor Natan Lerner of Tel Aviv University observes that at the heart of the discussion is a clash of rights: that of a person to express his or her vision, against the right of a person not to be exposed to the opinions that he or she does not want to hear.

Opinions on religious proselytism

The barrier between legitimate and illegitimate proselytizing is not very clear. What one person considers legitimate, another may consider incorrect or even illegal. Proselytizing can include:

• Tentative to convert other people, unless they specifically ask for their religion.
• Prediction.
• Provide physical advantages only to those who want to listen.
• Provide physical advantages only to proselytes.
• Force others to be proselytes.

This excerpt from an article by Dr. C. Davis, published in the Cleveland State University Journal of Law and Health, illustrates the problems these subjective views can cause:

According to the union of American Hebrew congregations, the Jews by Jesus and the Hebrew Christians constitute two of the most dangerous sects, and their members are able to be deprogrammed. The evangelicals of the Contra-Secta (...) protest that “aggressivity and proselytism (...) are basic characteristics of authentic Christianity,” and that the “Jews for Jesus” and the “Cruzada del Campus para Cristo” should not be labeled as sects. In addition, some jasydic groups that physically attacked a meeting of the "secta" of the Hebrew Christians have called themselves "sectas" and have equated the followers of Reverend Moon, for nothing less than the President of the Central Conference of American Rabbis.

Legal point of view

From a legal point of view, there are certain criteria to distinguish legal proselytism from illegal proselytism:

The international agreement on civil and political states of article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

1. Each shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include the freedom to have or adopt a religion or belief in its selection, and freedom, individually or in community, with others and in public or private, to manifest its religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.
2. No one shall be subject to coercion that prevents his freedom to have or adopt a desired religion or belief.
3. Freedom to manifest their religion or belief may be subject only to limitations such as those prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or fundamental rights and freedoms of others.
4. The parties of the states to the present convention undertake to respect the freedom of parents and, where applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in accordance with their own convictions.

United States

In the United States, the First Amendment to the Constitution provides that all human beings have:

• The right to have, or not, religious belief (religious freedom);
• The right to form organizations for the purpose of worship, as well as to promote its cause (freedom of association); and
• The right to speak to others about their convictions, with the purpose of influencing them (freedom of expression).

In the same way, these same rights exert a limiting influence on the liberties of others. For example, the right to hold your religious belief probably includes the right not to be forced to change this belief by threats, discrimination, slavery, or similar encouragement.