Annonymously Mailing Religious Pamphlets To An Atheist - Thoughts?

[cocotaffy]

Sorry to hear about your bad day. Those type of mail can be annoying and frustrating. The reasoning that someone is doing it for your own good is also a notion I don't appreciate much because it's a slippery slope. Your religious views should be no one's business unless it's your choice to share it and you welcome advice.

I hope the rest of your week will be brighter

 

[Nomad]

I would be creeped out by that, too. My mother used to send me copies of The Watchtower, with all the anti-gay passages highlighted. I put them in a copy paper box, and when the box was full, I mailed it back to her. That was 20-odd years ago, but I haven't received a Watchtower since. Not your situation, I know, but religious harassment sucks, period. What I find most offensive about "Christians" hell-bent on converting others is that so few of them use the New Testament and the teachings of Jesus to make their point. It's all "sinners in the hand of an angry God" Old Testament fire and brimstone crap.

 

[GarrAargHrumph]

I find that creepy - not because someone sent religious pamphlets in the mail, but because they sent them anonymously. And it wasn't bulk mail - it was sent to him personally. That's creepy.

IMO, if someone actually cared enough about him to try to get him to "reform his ways", as it were, they'd talk to him personally, not send anonymous pamphlets addressed directly to him. Or at least send the pamphlets with a note. So I'm thinking that perhaps this is someone he doesn't know well. Hopefully, this was the end of it - they feel they've done their "good deed" and move on.

 

[skatesindreams]

Those pamphlets don't look different from those that were distributed on college campuses many years ago, attempting to convert others.
As a Christian, I found - and find - most of them offensive.

 

[PDilemma]

@PeterG I am an active member of a church and I get this nonsense from friends and former co-workers (tracts, book recommendations, invitations to events at their churches, etc...) because they think I am going to hell because it is the wrong church in their opinion. You could be targeted even if you were a member of a faith community. They don't care what you actually believe, they just care that you don't believe the exact same way they do.

As for evangelism being "part of the Christian creed", you can argue that it is a part of Christian belief based on the Great Commission. But interpretations of that are widely different from denomination to denomination. And it is not part of any actual creed in Christianity.

The most common creed in Christianity is the Nicene Creed. Here is the Anglican version:

http://anglicansonline.org/basics/nicene.html

Nothing about evangelizing there. Not at all.

The oldest creed is the Apostle's Creed which also has not a word about evangelizing. The longer Athanasian Creed is much more detailed and also has not one word about evangelizing.

So, no, sending tracts in the mail and other such behavior is not part of the Christian creed.

 

[Scrufflet]

Hard to know if this is someone who has Peter's best interests at heart or a creep. The yucky part for me is that the person dumps this on someone and the recipient has no way to respond! At least when somebody religious comes to my door to sell me their religion, I can tell them off (my husband likes to debate them into submission) but here it is frustrating because you can't do that.
One thing that has happened to me several times is that I have been approached by religious people when very ill or just recovering and therefore, vulnerable. This has happened more than once in hospital and even at my work! The work situation I was able to diffuse but the hospital one was disturbing as these were nurses and responsible for daily care. One asked me if I read the Bible, when I said no, she made my daily blood test as painful as possible (used a straight pin to stab me and said there was no equipment available). She did the same thing to my roommate who was dying of cancer, but that woman was religious. I reported this nurse to the head nurse and she denied the whole thing. At least two other times in hospital I've had nurses approach me, not as bad as the first situation but still with the same goal in mind. It is horrible to think that you are in a place where someone is going to try to shove something down your throat when you are so vulnerable and need all your strength just to survive!
I used to work at a college that had a nursing program. I shared the above experiences with a colleague and she said she had overheard students discussing this topic. They agreed that hospitals were a terrific spot to spread the word because people couldn't get away from them. !!! Anecdotal, I know, but I wonder if this is ever considered in an ethics course.
I'm an agnostic. I don't shove this on anybody. I wish religious people would stop the hard sell; if it is good enough, I'll find it on my own!
Bit of a rant here but to Peter I would say hang in. Maybe it would be a good idea to save the flyers, wait until you know who is doing it and send them back with a "cease and desist". I like that idea! If they stop, I'd say dump them and consider the whole thing benign but if they keep coming, then you might want to show the police.
Hope you future is ant-free and mail-suitable!

 

[vesperholly]

It must be that time of year - I received a "Dear Friend" letter that looked like it was from an old lady with Jesus brochures. It was addressed to "Resident" at my address. It went right in the trash. I've gotten them before, fairly infrequently at least. The only thing that angers me is the waste of paper.

 

[agalisgv]

Perhaps @agalisgv would be willing to address this (again), but I also have a book or two (or four or five) that says the existence of Jesus is accepted by virtually all scholars of antiquity, including a number of atheists. Certainly many professors I know accept this, Christian and otherwise.

Yes, there was a whole thread on this topic where I went into detail over why Jesus unequivocally existed, and how ideologically extreme was the attempt at trying to assert otherwise as the academic field is unanimous on this point. But I'll let Bart Ehrman, himself a non-theist New Testament scholar, explain.

It is true that Jesus is not mentioned in any Roman sources of his day. That should hardly count against his existence, however, since these same sources mention scarcely anyone from his time and place. Not even the famous Jewish historian, Josephus, or even more notably, the most powerful and important figure of his day, Pontius Pilate.

It is also true that our best sources about Jesus, the early Gospels, are riddled with problems. These were written decades after Jesus’ life by biased authors who are at odds with one another on details up and down the line. But historians can never dismiss sources simply because they are biased. You may not trust Rush Limbaugh’s views of Sandra Fluke, but he certainly provides evidence that she exists.

The question is not whether sources are biased but whether biased sources can be used to yield historically reliable information, once their biased chaff is separated from the historical kernel. And historians have devised ways of doing just that.

With respect to Jesus, we have numerous, independent accounts of his life in the sources lying behind the Gospels (and the writings of Paul) — sources that originated in Jesus’ native tongue Aramaic and that can be dated to within just a year or two of his life (before the religion moved to convert pagans in droves). Historical sources like that are is pretty astounding for an ancient figure of any kind. Moreover, we have relatively extensive writings from one first-century author, Paul, who acquired his information within a couple of years of Jesus’ life and who actually knew, first hand, Jesus’ closest disciple Peter and his own brother James. If Jesus did not exist, you would think his brother would know it.

Moreover, the claim that Jesus was simply made up falters on every ground. The alleged parallels between Jesus and the “pagan” savior-gods in most instances reside in the modern imagination: We do not have accounts of others who were born to virgin mothers and who died as an atonement for sin and then were raised from the dead (despite what the sensationalists claim ad nauseum in their propagandized versions).

Moreover, aspects of the Jesus story simply would not have been invented by anyone wanting to make up a new Savior. The earliest followers of Jesus declared that he was a crucified messiah. But prior to Christianity, there were no Jews at all, of any kind whatsoever, who thought that there would be a future crucified messiah. The messiah was to be a figure of grandeur and power who overthrew the enemy. Anyone who wanted to make up a messiah would make him like that. Why did the Christians not do so? Because they believed specifically that Jesus was the Messiah. And they knew full well that he was crucified. The Christians did not invent Jesus. They invented the idea that the messiah had to be crucified.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d-ehrman/did-jesus-exist_b_1349544.html

Should also point out that Ehrman says those who believe Jesus didn't exist are on par, from an academic POV, with holocaust deniers and birthers. That's how little credibility there is for such views, and how easily they are to debunk by anyone with actual expertise. Elsewhere, Ehrman mentions mythicists were quite popular in the former Soviet Union where it served to critique the validity of religion (and implicitly critique the dominant political apparatus of Western countries tracing a Christian heritage--ie, capitalism).

As Ehrman goes on to say:

Why then is the mythicist movement growing, with advocates so confident of their views and vocal — even articulate — in their denunciation of the radical idea that Jesus actually existed? It is, in no small part, because these deniers of Jesus are at the same time denouncers of religion — a breed of human now very much in vogue. And what better way to malign the religious views of the vast majority of religious persons in the western world, which remains, despite everything, overwhelmingly Christian, than to claim that the historical founder of their religion was in fact the figment of his followers’ imagination?

...One may well choose to resonate with the concerns of our modern and post-modern cultural despisers of established religion (or not). But surely the best way to promote any such agenda is not to deny what virtually every sane historian on the planet — Christian, Jewish, Muslim, pagan, agnostic, atheist, what have you — has come to conclude based on a range of compelling historical evidence.

Whether we like it or not, Jesus certainly existed.

 

[Prancer]

What I find most offensive about "Christians" hell-bent on converting others is that so few of them use the New Testament and the teachings of Jesus to make their point. It's all "sinners in the hand of an angry God" Old Testament fire and brimstone crap.

Except that the whole "born again" focus of those pamphlets is New Testament.

As for evangelism being "part of the Christian creed", you can argue that it is a part of Christian belief based on the Great Commission. But interpretations of that are widely different from denomination to denomination. And it is not part of any actual creed in Christianity.

Christianity is a converting religion. I can't believe this is even questioned. How people think they should go about converting others might differ, but Christianity is absolutely a converting religion

 

[Nomad]

Except that the whole "born again" focus of those pamphlets is New Testament.
...

Not the copies of the Watchtower I got. I had many a biblical throw-down with my mother on her so-called "Christianity."

 

[dewey]

Peter, I've had stuff like that handed to me on the street, and I think it is random. Don't know where they got the address lists, but I'd bet some religious group has a bunch of people (little old ladies) stuffing and addressing envelopes without any idea who the addressees really are.

 

[Prancer]

Not the copies of the Watchtower I got. I had many a biblical throw-down with my mother on her so-called "Christianity."

Yes, I am familiar with The Watchtower and how it talks about homosexuality (although it usually references Paul quite a bit, which is also New Testament but not Jesus' teachings). But the reason that Christianity if a conversion religion is because of Jesus' teachings. And most of the people I have run into who are hell-bent on converting others are of the "born again" persuasion, which is also New Testament. So I wasn't disagreeing with you about The Watchtower, but about the reliance on the Old Testament among those who want to convert others.

Witnesses don't believe in being born again, so that's not something that would come up in The Watchtower--unless it was to argue that other Christians misinterpret the "born again" thing.

I learned in a class that Witnesses are Puritans (there was more to it than that, but that was the essence of it). I cannot tell you how much that clarified things for me.

 

[skatesindreams]

Prancer, are you familiar with Jonathan Edwards' "Sinners In the Hands of an Angry God"?
Also, a revelation.

 

[MacMadame]

We do not have accounts of others who were born to virgin mothers and who died as an atonement for sin and then were raised from the dead (despite what the sensationalists claim ad nauseum in their propagandized versions).

Now this is something that bothers me. I studied mythology in college and there absolutely are other religions and mythologies that have certain heroes and/or gods who were born of a virgin birth. It's a common mythology. The same with resurrection.

It's true that the whole "died for our sins" aspect isn't as popular but that seems to me to be splitting hairs.

 

[manhn]

I think it would be really rude and creepy if someone you knew gave this "gift" to you anonymously. Who gives gifts anonymously? And stoopid gifts, at that.

Generally, given this wonderful piece of generosity, I would imagine you would already know who sent this to you. If not, I would agree with dewey that some group got your address along with a list of random addresses.

 

[Johnny_Fever]

..........The yucky part for me is that the person dumps this on someone and the recipient has no way to respond!..........

Sure he does. He can line his bird cage with it. At least the lady's not all up in his face giving him a sales pitch.

 

[MacMadame]

There used to be a scam where someone would send you what appeared to be a newspaper clipping about weight loss with a "hand-written" comment about "I thought you'd be interested in this." It was supposed to seem like it came from a friend, perhaps someone who had used the program to good results, but it wasn't signed and, if you looked closely, the "handwriting" was actually produced by a printing press.

So I can believe that some church would stuff envelopes with pamphlets and hand address them to make it seem like it came from someone you know. However, if that were the case, there would be some call to action -- a meeting at the church or a number to call for more info.

If there wasn't anything like that, I'd say it's a neighbor who decided you needed saving, which I find to be arrogant and judgmental but not particularly surprising.

 

[PeterG]

If there wasn't anything like that, I'd say it's a neighbor who decided you needed saving, which I find to be arrogant and judgmental but not particularly surprising.

So what is it about me that doesn't surprise you that someone feels I'm in need saving?

 

[Nomad]

Yes, I am familiar with The Watchtower and how it talks about homosexuality (although it usually references Paul quite a bit, which is also New Testament but not Jesus' teachings). But the reason that Christianity if a conversion religion is because of Jesus' teachings. And most of the people I have run into who are hell-bent on converting others are of the "born again" persuasion, which is also New Testament. So I wasn't disagreeing with you about The Watchtower, but about the reliance on the Old Testament among those who want to convert others.

Witnesses don't believe in being born again, so that's not something that would come up in The Watchtower--unless it was to argue that other Christians misinterpret the "born again" thing.

I learned in a class that Witnesses are Puritans (there was more to it than that, but that was the essence of it). I cannot tell you how much that clarified things for me.

My mother is a very selective Jehovah's Witness. For whatever reason, she chooses to believe in the angry, vengeful, Old Testament God. Jesus and the New Testament might as well not exist for her, sorry to say. Apparently the pastor at Kingdom Hall where she lives is in agreement. She complains constantly about how nobody wants to hear the Word of Jehovah when she goes door to door trying to convert people. I keep telling her that nobody likes being told they'll go to Hell (which JW's supposedly don't believe in) if they don't.

 

[Reuven]

For whatever reason, she chooses to believe in the angry, vengeful, Old Testament God. Jesus and the New Testament might as well not exist for her, sorry to say. Apparently the pastor at Kingdom Hall where she lives is in agreement.

Hmmm, does she enjoy shrimp, lobster, oysters or clams? No. no. no-not allowed. Does she mix fabrics? Nope-not allowed. Or that rasher of bacon? Nooooooooooo! Seems to me, if one is gonna use the Hebrew Bible, then use the whole thing.

 

[Johnny_Fever]

........and here I am thinking that The Watchtower is just a really cool Jimi Hendrix song. Heck, if it wasn't for Indiana Jones I wouldn't know what the Ark of the Covenant was. Clearly, my folks were not churchgoers.

 

[MacMadame]

So what is it about me that doesn't surprise you that someone feels I'm in need saving?

It's more that I'm not surprised that there are people in this world who are so totally convinced of the righteousness of what they believe that they are willing to tell others how to live their lives. After all, isn't that why Social Media was invented?

 

[Nomad]

Hmmm, does she enjoy shrimp, lobster, oysters or clams? No. no. no-not allowed. Does she mix fabrics? Nope-not allowed. Or that rasher of bacon? Nooooooooooo! Seems to me, if one is gonna use the Hebrew Bible, then use the whole thing.

She does like shellfish. And she mixes fabrics. We've had the "cherry-picking the Bible" debate many a time. But she is my mother so of course I always "lose".

 

[maatTheViking]

To me, junk mail and a personal letter (or what was sent to me looking exactly like a personal letter) are two different things.

And as far as junk mail goes, I'm not sure I have ever received a piece of junk mail that had any kind of religious theme or message to it.

Peter I am sorry someone made a bad day seem worse. I get addressed junk mail, though usually its says 'current resident' and the sender is clear. It isn't religious though. it might still be that the senders have purchased your name/address from some bulk mailing list. At one time I got these amazing mail order catalogs (for you know, self collapsing storage units and hand crafted fairy statuettes) with my name on, even if I never purchased anything quite like it. I think a company that sold me some horse gear might have shared my name address. I also know that some charities have a little box that says they will not share commercially, but with other charities you might be interested in. Maybe something like that happened and 'what you might be interested in' is a very broad definition - at least 3 or 4 steps removed. I know I sometimes forget to uncheck those boxes.

as for religious mail, a couple of mega churches nearby send mailings... come to our new sermon series on Family and Marriage! Child Care! Sunday School! NO WEIRD STUFF! (yes, the most frequent mailer's tagline is 'no weird stuff').

 

[agalisgv]

Now this is something that bothers me. I studied mythology in college and there absolutely are other religions and mythologies that have certain heroes and/or gods who were born of a virgin birth. It's a common mythology. The same with resurrection.

It's true that the whole "died for our sins" aspect isn't as popular but that seems to me to be splitting hairs.

It's not splitting hairs as that is a central tenet of the Jesus narrative, and the allegation by mythicists is Jesus simply represents a recap of pagan myths when such a narrative is not present. And to clarify, the virgin birth is seen as part of the atonement theme. So they are very much connected, and represent a departure from other mythological tropes.

 

[once_upon]

I suspect the level of creepiness depends on how you view the subject being sent to you and if you have a general idea of who might have sent it.

I would just toss the stuff recognizing that in my viewpoint all religions or atheists want to covert. However, I can see if religion has been used to "change" you from who you are (like gay) it is creepy because you are wary of the intent of the information.

 

[Laney]

I think I wouldn´t take it personal. I also sometimes get mails like that. I throw it in the garbage where it belongs.
I work in a library (in Germany) and we often get bibles or letters from Utah, USA. These kind of gifts are for free... We also throw it away. So it just seems they search for new members...
I hope you have a better day tomorrow

 

[Aussie Willy]

Seriously, at the end of the day, I wouldn't read too much into religious stuff being dropped in my letterbox as no different from regular junkmail, even if it is addressed to you. It only bothers you if you let it bother you.

When they knock on your door that is a different matter. I am quite happy to talk to religious groups. But then I also like to raise the topic of gay marriage (which is still illegal here) and for some strange reason they think I am a horrible person and walk away.

 

[Tinami Amori]

One item in my mailbox was an envelope with no return address. It piqued my interest as the writing looked like it came from a little old lady and I thought maybe someone in my building sent me a card or something as next month is the two year anniversary of my Mom's passing away.

Instead, the envelope had five religious pamphlets in it. Nothing else.

So I get into my apartment, check my clothing for ants, throw all the clothing in a bathtub full of water and take a shower. I still feel dirty. Strangely, not from having ants all over me, but the anonymous religious literature. I don't feel good. Have this awful feeling in the pit of my stomach. Like I'm being watched/monitored.

Just wondering if people had thoughts on this. I'm not really vocal about being an atheist, or gay for that matter. But if the subject comes up, I will be honest. I just find this anonymous mail to be both weird and rather upsetting.

I am with you!

I had a sign on my front door for a long time, it stated “No Soliciting: Religious, Commercial, Political”. When people ignored them, I took out water hose, and used it few times. They stopped. I now took the signs down.

- If you’re worried about privacy/identity, don’t! Many firms and institutions buy mailing lists and data bases from other companies, based on what they consider “target audience”. Then they hire people or use bunch of volunteers to hand-address each envelop. They think it is better marketing and looks more personal and people are more likely to respond or at least open the envelope. It often backfires, for same reasons as it did with you. But they do it anyway. Don’t worry! It looks “personalized” but it probably is not.

- I am very happy to know that people are free to practice their religions in the privacy of their homes, clubs, religious institutions and private locations. Hooray for freedom of religion. But also Hooray for the right not be part of any religion!

- I accept the fact that in public spaces, given there is freedom of speech, which is a good thing, one can stand on a “soap box” and offer products, goods, services, ideas, philosophies, politics, etc…. and hand out materials, religious, commercial, political, etc. AS LONG as they don’t shove it in my face, insist that I take it, or chase after me.

- What I do NOT accept is when some-one’s desire to sell me a product, to influence my political or religious beliefs enters MY PRIVATE SPACE without my consent!

- When I turn on commercial TV, I expect advertisements of all sorts! I am provided a service of an interesting programme, and my payment is to watch advertisements. Same for commercial publications. I open newspaper/magazine, I get information, I pay by looking at the adverts. It is part of the deal. I can turn off TV and close the printed material. I “enter” such “realms” willingly.

- But when “such mail” (religious, political, commercial) is put through the hole in my mail box, falls into my corridor, or worst yet, a canvasser walks up my entry way and knocks on my door, that is INVASION OF PRIVACY!

- Also, while I am annoyed with commercial materials, such are far less offensive to me than religious and political materials. Commercial materials are very straight forward – we offer you goods/services, we want you to get the benefit of them and to get paid for it. They get the money and I get the benefit of goods or services. There is a real “consideration” at hand.

- I don’t like to receive ANY political information in the mail, from ANY party. What ever I need to know, I will find myself. But I do understand why people want to influence your vote; in many cases their finances and personal safety depends on elections.

- I absolutely do NOT accept any attempts to influence me through religion or my involvement with religion. I see it as “trying to get into my head and mind”! and that is not acceptable. My choice of religion or rejection of religion is of NO financial or physical consequences to the messenger! All they want to do is “make me think and live like them” and to share “same values” in the PRIVACY OF MY OWN HEAD, LIFE AND TERRITORY. It has NO practical affect on their lives other than their selfish satisfaction of knowing "the other person lives like me and has the same values".

That is not their business how I think and live in the privacy of my head and territory, GIVEN we all act civilized and respectful in common and public places.

- I understand and know that active proselytisation is part of Islam and Christianity. All such activities should be confined to their private territories, public/common areas in an non-abusive form, or to paid media where audience know in advance that with “benefit of using this media” they will get advertisements, perhaps about religion.

- Just because some activity is “part of someone’s religion” does not mean “this activity” should infringe on my private space and territory.

What if I revoke ancient pagan religious rites and start soliciting and inciting public orgies in the local park, and claim it is part of my religion?

That said, if i had my "rathers", i rather get "christian mail" which i can dump into the garbage can, then see cases when Muslims insisting to implement Sharia law into general law of the western countries.

 

[PRlady]

Leaving aside that last Tinami-ism (since there are plenty of Muslims who don't confuse sharia law with civil law, and plenty of Christians, and in Israel Jews, who do) I would agree in a somewhat more mildmannered way.

I do know that proselytizers often feel that they MUST save their neighbors and coworkers or even strangers from certain hellfire and a few slammed doors will not deter them. The problem with believing in a revealed truth is that there is no starting place for logical argument; they start with an unquestionable assumption.

@MacMadame you're not wrong. There are plenty of myths about gods who died or suffered to help humanity, Osiris, Odin and Prometheus off the top of my head, so that part of the Jesus story is not sui generis. And the "prediction" of the virgin birth in the Old Testament was a mistranslation, since the Hebrew word used indicated that there will be born to a young woman, not a virgin, who descended from David a savior.

Anyway, @Nomad, I'm sorry your mother poisoned the Old Testament for you. Someday read the prophets for their universal sense of justice, Ecclesiastes for his proto-existentialism and Psalms and Song of Songs for the beautiful poetry. There's a lot more there than the vengeful stuff she chose to quote.