Do you believe in a heirarchy of groups that it's OK to evangalize to?

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

Sort of discussed in IRC. Basically some people seemed to believe that if you are a Christian then it's very wrong to evangelize to some people who belong to certain groups simply due to belonging to those groups and less wrong for other groups, for example evangelizing to other Christians is the most OK, then non-believers and some non-Christian religions like Islam, then secular Jews and orthodox Jews at the bottom that it's REALLY wrong to even suggest conversion to.

I find the whole thing pretty absurd (as long of course as we're not talking about using force and all that stuff), but I know some real groups do adhere to this, I understand that Mormons have a policy of not sending missionaries to Muslims (even if when they visit the Middle East they just focus only on the Christian communities) and in the case of that guy running for President in Mali they actually initially flat out refused to baptize him even though he himself requested it and wanted to convert, it took awhile for him to convince them that Mali was a country with freedom of religion and it would be OK. Interestingly while this might be politically correct in one way it's actually bigoted and discriminatory if you think about it, the group is basically taking a position that certain people from certain backgrounds are not welcome to join them.

[John Dibble]

I do, but not in the sense you're talking about here. My hierarchy is pretty simple - if you want to evangelize to adults that's fine, but leave children out of it. Children, especially younger ones, are very impressionable and will believe almost anything adults tell them, so they don't really question what is being evangelized to them in the same fashion an adult would.

[DC Al Fine]

The whole idea seems like a pointless exercise in "ranking" religions.

[afleitch]

Well it already destroyed countless cultures in the past. A bit of responsibility today is helpful; I don't think it's appropriate to try and evangelise a native Brazilian tribe or even the Amish.

[Insula Dei]

Actual context was BRTD's prostelyzing towards NYJew. Somehow I doubt a lot of people here would contest it's slightly insensitive to insist that an orthodox jew 'would be a better human being if he let Jesus Christ into his heart.'

[Zioneer]

I'd be wary of evangelizing to Jewish folks or the Amish, but other than that, no. I'd love to talk to a Muslim person about religion, whether he's trying to convert me, I'm trying to convert him, or just talking about religion.

Part of the reason the LDS Church doesn't evangelize to Muslims isn't because we don't find them worthy, but because the countries Muslims predominately live in have factions that would commit acts of violence against the missionary or the convertee. There's actually one "Muslim" country that has about 25-50 Mormons in the entire nation, according to Church statistics; Kazakhstan. From what I understand, all of those Mormons are Russian, so it doesn't really count.

And BRTD is correct; Yeah Samake, the Mormon guy (and mayor of a fairly large city) running for President of Mali (though probably not anymore because of the coup) had to get special permission to be baptized, because the Church leadership was so worried that he'd be killed.

[The Mikado]

The Muslim thing is a special case: apostasy laws in several countries in the Islamic world literally put the convert's life in jeopardy.  I'm not sure you're doing someone a good turn by convincing him to convert to Christianity only for him to be put to death by the Afghan government the next month.

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

The Muslim thing is a special case: apostasy laws in several countries in the Islamic world literally put the convert's life in jeopardy.  I'm not sure you're doing someone a good turn by convincing him to convert to Christianity only for him to be put to death by the Afghan government the next month.

Mali has no such laws. Also that wouldn't justify the LDS specifically excluding a place like Turkey in their missions.

[Zioneer]

The Muslim thing is a special case: apostasy laws in several countries in the Islamic world literally put the convert's life in jeopardy.  I'm not sure you're doing someone a good turn by convincing him to convert to Christianity only for him to be put to death by the Afghan government the next month.

Mali has no such laws. Also that wouldn't justify the LDS specifically excluding a place like Turkey in their missions.

From what I understand, Turkey just didn't let LDS missionaries in. The LDS Church has to have a good relationship with the government of a nation before that nation lets missionaries in, regardless of any fear of attack by governments or individuals.

Of course, that doesn't preclude members in that country, even if there's no missionaries. As I said, Kazkhstan has a few members, and Turkey has almost 300 according to the Church's statistics. Since there's no missionaries, they've all probably been converted while in a different nation.

EDIT: Actually, according to this blog, Turkey is newly open for missionaries this year. Here's a more official source for it (ctr-f Turkey a few times).

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

I do, but not in the sense you're talking about here. My hierarchy is pretty simple - if you want to evangelize to adults that's fine, but leave children out of it. Children, especially younger ones, are very impressionable and will believe almost anything adults tell them, so they don't really question what is being evangelized to them in the same fashion an adult would.

this, but then I guess you couldn't even baptize your own kids.  That's.... slippery.  I guess you describe an ideal, yet wholly unrealistic situation. 

[Oldiesfreak1854]

No.

[All aboard the Carney-val]

I think it's acceptable for a church to evangelize to an individual with a background in that particular denomination to try to "revert" them, but beyond that it's an infringement on others' freedom not to practice. Of course, coercion and deception are definitely unacceptable.

So if the Catholic Church wants to "bring back" cradle Catholics, that's fine. Just as it's fine for Jewish groups to "bring back" cradle Jews.

On that note if a government wants to prevent proselytizing activity in their borders they have every right to do so without being accused of infringing "human rights".

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

I think it's acceptable for a church to evangelize to an individual with a background in that particular denomination to try to "revert" them, but beyond that it's an infringement on others' freedom not to practice. Of course, coercion and deception are definitely unacceptable.

So if the Catholic Church wants to "bring back" cradle Catholics, that's fine. Just as it's fine for Jewish groups to "bring back" cradle Jews.

On that note if a government wants to prevent proselytizing activity in their borders they have every right to do so without being accused of infringing "human rights".

Wouldn't that infringe on the rights of those with such a background not to practice? If anything that'd be far worse.

Like for example I'm fine telling Mormons and Jehova's Witnesses that I don't want to be a Mormon/Jehova's Witness. Fine, at worse they are a minor annoyance. For someone raised in that group and has left it they could have some pretty upsetting and traumatic experiences and thus for them it might not be as minor an issue.

In addition one could argue that perhaps I don't have all the education and knowledge about Mormons and Jehova's Witnesses and can't make a truly informed "rejection" of them. But someone raised that way who has left clearly has made such a decision with full knowledge. Targeting people for "reversion" seems to me to be a total waste of time. I mean if even half of people raised in a Vineyard church leave it, the amount of people converting to the Vineyard is way more than making up for that.