*shudder* twitch twitch

I try to respect Christianity. I do try. I'll get myself all convinced that it is a fine religion, serving the needs of so many people. I think of the Christians I know who are lit up inside, glowing with love. I think of them and say, "See, Christianity is good." I love seeing people who have found a path.

You know you're on your path when you don't need to convince anyone to walk your path with you. I've been saying that for years. It doesn't mean religion is lonely, and it doesn't mean everyone should be solitary. It means when you've found the religion that fits, you're happy. When you haven't, you try to justify the rightness of your religion by making everyone else join.

I know, this seems to single out Christians, because they proselytize as part of their faith. And I've had pagans try to convince me that their path is right, and my own is wrong. I've noticed that if I have stepped off my path, I get all huffy and insulted. When I'm being my path, nothing they say offends me. I listen with interest. I feel happy for them, for finding what works... what fits their lives and lights them up.

Whenever a new church opens in my neighborhood, people knock on my door and invite me to attend. I always tell them, "Thank you! I have a church that I attend, but thanks for letting me know you're here." I generally add, "Welcome to the neighborhood." I don't tell them I'm Pagan, and they don't ask me if I've found Jesus. It works out quite well. I don't mind invitations. I do mind being told that I'm broken, lost or needy. Which brings me to today's point.

I was looking at some St. Louis Bloggers, and clicked on one described as, "A blog on my thoughts and such, and an ongoing photographic essay of St. Louis and various travels..." I'm an absolute nut for St. Louis architecture, of course I went to read the blog. Not as described, would be an understatement. (Yeah, when was the last time you read something here about fine arts, I know) The blog is pretty Christian, and completely inoffensive... except for this one bit. So I'm taking the one negative post out of context, from an otherwise decent blog, and copying it here for all to see.

"January 5, 2004 - 3:32:01 PM
I'm not sure weather to be happy or offended by this article on how fundamental Christian groups are working in foreign countries. Apparently we use all sorts of insidious tactics like humnitarian aid, education, and medical help to further our prosylitization program.
There was one quote in particular that gave me pause. I was reminded of the early objections of the Roman Empire against Christianity. The writer of the article said,

'What is objectionable in this fundamentalist campaign is not its desire to gain adherents, but in its determination to totally alienate their converts from all their traditions and all 'non-believers'. '

During the first few hundred years of the Christian church, Christians were murdered, not because we believed in a different God than anyone else. You see, the Romans allowed for all sorts of diverse pagan deities, but we were murdered because we had the audacity to declare that our God is the only true God. We survived then, prospered even. And we will prosper in Nepal too. I know. I've read the ending. We win."

See? I was all OK with this guy's opinion, until that last bit. The smug assurance of "we win".

I read the entire article about fundamentalist groups, and had no problem with it. Not once does the article encourage "murder". Toward the end, it mentions the legal battle between a women's group and a group of Christians.
here it is:
"Foreign funded fundamentalists are increasingly aware of the rising opposition by tradition-centred groups. (Buddhists and Hindus in Sri Lanka) to their activities and endeavour to camouflage their activities with a cloak of legitimacy. In Sri Lanka this has taken two forms. One is the presentation in Parliament of Acts to incorporate assorted fundamentalist groups so that they can pursue their subtle proselytization as a legal activity. The other is to use the 'carte blanche' given by the open economy to register their organisations as commercial enterprises.

The All Ceylon Women's Buddhist Congress (ACWBC) decided to face the legal challenge head on.

Two such Christian groups, based in Norway and Austria respectively, attempted to get their organisations incorporated in the laws of the country.

The ACWBC contested both cases in the Supreme Court and won landmark decisions rejecting their applications. It should be understood that this was no mere reliance on the duty of the State to protect Buddhism.

The point made by the Supreme Court was that while it upheld the freedom of worship of all citizens it could not countenance the establishment of bodies that would extend material and other benefits to those who converted to their set of beliefs. " thanks to the Daily News for the article.