Hereís the difference between you and I Tainted.
I am tolerant and respectful. You are not.
I am secure enough in my beliefs that I do not feel the need to ridicule someone else for theirs or for practicing what they believe (which witnessing is something Christians believe in). I am compassionate enough that I do not want to hurt those around me just because of their beliefs. I find no pleasure in ridiculing others. I find no joy in other peopleís embarrassment/pain/suffering.
I actually believe in being not only friendly to those of opposing beliefs but in being hospitable to them. I find that being kind goes a lot farther than being immature, nasty and rude.
Maybe I am missing something, but to me this sounds rather unnecessary if not mean. At the least, it's turning into a retort of "Oh, but I'm really offended at what you did! So I must be right about the whole, original issue!" Are you really trying to say that calling someone worse than "immature, nasty, and rude" is an example of how you are morally required to be "friendly" to everyone of different beliefs, whatever stripe? That is how that post comes off to me, and you know, I'm not feeling it. Now moving on already , what of the reasons you claim for your offense? You just said hospitality requires you to deal with everyone nicely. Okay, whatever does that mean
then? That defends on how you define civil and hospitable. Wherever is there a border between being reasonably civil and getting on with living your life and pursuing your own private goals, space, and time? I'll argue that if in fact there is a border, then hey, people are going to pick some fun at things that get in their way.
The assumption that picking fun at a person's platform automatically means personal insecurity does not weigh up for me. People do not only make light of things because those things disturb a core belief somehow; they also sometimes make light of things they cannot easily change but find to be impractical, and detrimental to a good life. If you say planting hedge rows on my lawn is something you believe is morally imperative and
I can do nothing to stop you without assaulting you (or some other act either illegal or against my standards), then it's your problem if you're offended by my dry humor about that situation... I'm doing the best I can, under the circumstances. Are you suggesting that just to be civil, I should instead stand quietly "observing" and perhaps trying to learn from your position all afternoon, while you go on taking over my lawn?
...Likewise, we may not be able to push the Mormons away from our doorsteps immediately without hurting them or saying very threatening things to them (they stand as far inside as possible, the ones that have visited me -- a case of give a civil inch, lose a private mile). We can't stop them from repeating the same line day in day out, no. They can walk through public space (unless we live in gated communities -- and I wonder how many Mormons prefer to?) and knock on people's doors. But we can poke fun at it and try to make it more interesting, since they're placing demands upon our time and attention anyway. It's our time too, and they wanted to talk to us
If you want to toss around that whoever complained must be intolerant by default, then why aren't they "tolerant" enough to take a joke? Is their religion, or their
public dignity really so fragile that one dry joke from someone who is bombarded with their messages as a matter of course, is all it takes that you're offended? Why, in that regard I would say that organized, "Of the Book" sort religions have a whole lot of political capital in the US, whereas private citizens -- particularly those living in rented apartments with easy public access in densely populated areas, where it is simple and efficient for the evangelists to go door to door -- have very little weight with big political outfits, tax breaks, etc. at all. It's much easier for them to impose upon me (at least in the US or Japan), than the other way around.
We're talking about the Mormon church, whose proselytizers are sometimes known for returning again and again, on a regular basis -- regardless of whether it is breakfast or dinner hour (and here it might just be regardless of a public place where people need
to wait for the sake of getting home), regardless of whether others have taken their literature already or not, often regardless of others saying "Thank you, that will be enough for today now please leave."
What would "hospitality" require then? What if I say, okay, if you do not let every campaigner who shows up at your door day in and day out in for an hour's hearing, then you are being rude and intolerant and I can't stand it? Or, if the same campaign keeps reappearing all around you, maybe 3 or 4 times a week when you have told them "thank you, no" more than once, are you still obligated to thank them for coming and wait until they finally move back far enough that you don't catch their nose with the closing door? You know, they often don't
move back until you have listened to them for at least 15 minutes yet again
As far as the attempt to play "what if" with more liberal and fact-based, or social issue causes (which I do think is an important difference in itself
, but anyway): Perhaps it's historical coincidence that evangelizing religions have gained some political standing and causes such as gay rights do not have the standing to feel comfortable bothering anyone quite this regularly -- or maybe it's more that gay rights champions know they are not likely to convince people in certain demographics and they pick their battles (more often favoring public demonstrations or at least more fence-sitting areas to canvas, etc.) so they don't end up so infamous on that score.
In any case, I don't think gay rights on the whole is a movement with a similar reputation for persistently attempting to indoctrinate people on their own doorsteps, and particularly when those people have already said more or less directly, "No thank you, now I've noticed you were here and heard why, your turn now, please go away and don't come again. And if you can't manage that, then certainly not three times in a week." However, the Mormons to some extent do
have the reputation for very persistent advances on private residences, and I believe they have done a good deal to earn it.