Evangelists on trains.

[35B]

This is the thing, some of these people seem to have absolutely no awareness that some of their actions are more likely to turn people away from religion than towards it - so in their terms they are actually "doing the work of the devil"!

A cynic might say they are more concerned about racking up "brownie points" for their own salvation than they are about actually "saving the souls" of others, otherwise why would they adopt methods which it's often fairly clear are positively alienating people?

Some groups (JW in particular) do measure by numbers. For others, the "great commission" is deemed so important that all sensitivity to tone and audience is lost. There are then also Bible verses that allow them to take a stance that if they are rejected, God is not at work in that person, so the fault is not their own (a debate that rapidly leads into theological debates about matters like predestination).

 

[Calthrop]

Re the words of you two gentlemen just above -- there are Christian groups whose stance on the faith is essentially traditionalist / orthodox (small "o"); but who nonetheless are to a large extent in agreement with you about "counter-productive procedures".

They consider that aggressive yelling to all-and-sundry about the necessity for people to turn from their wicked ways and be born again, with an eternity of torture the certain consequence of dying unsaved; is indeed apt to alienate more hearers than it attracts. They see as a more effective way, as well as a kinder one: living a Christian life, with love and concern for others and great willingness (expressed in practical terms) to help them -- which has more chance of attracting and impressing non-Christians whom one encounters; and, it is hoped, getting many to feel interested and curious about Christianity and in a lot of cases, to come to faith. This is the position taken by the Baptist church -- a liberal one by the standards of that denomination, I think -- which I attend.

One could perhaps get thoroughly woolly and "facing-all-ways", by opining that in this matter as in many, there are different times and places suited to different methods and approaches ...

 

[bahnause]

It makes sense, to approach someone politely who is unknowingly disturbing fellow passengers. In this case, however, it is done completely deliberately. Politeness would be inappropriate here.

This is especially true when it comes to religion, which has brought more misery to the world than almost anything else. Wicked liars, charlatans, scammers and tin foil hat wearers, all united in one big self entitled club. They don't deserve any slack. They can believe whatever they want in private, but it is completely unacceptable to harass other people with their dangerous fairy tales in public.

The last nutcase who tried this on my train thought I was bluffing when I was calling control. He was removed by the railway police during the next intermediate stop.

 

[35B]

It makes sense, to approach someone politely who is unknowingly disturbing fellow passengers. In this case, however, it is done completely deliberately. Politeness would be inappropriate here.

This is especially true when it comes to religion, which has brought more misery to the world than almost anything else. Wicked liars, charlatans, scammers and tin foil hat wearers, all united in one big self entitled club. They don't deserve any slack. They can believe whatever they want in private, but it is completely unacceptable to harass other people with their dangerous fairy tales in public.

The last nutcase who tried this on my train thought I was bluffing when I was calling control. He was removed by the railway police during the next intermediate stop.

There is such a thing as freedom of speech, and the victims of the 20th century genocides might want a word with you about whether religion is uniquely guilty

 

[bahnause]

There is such a thing as freedom of speech, and the victims of the 20th century genocides might want a word with you about whether religion is uniquely guilty

Neither freedom of speech nor proselytising are unrestricted rights. Without in-depth knowledge of UK law, I would assume that I am not permitted to enter any premises at will to deliver a lecture without the owner's permission.

Unfortunately, religious people have become accustomed to a certain privileged status over the centuries. Consequently, when they are treated equally alongside everyone else, they immediately see themselves as an oppressed minority whose rights are restricted. In any other context, it would not occur to anyone to consider such actions as acceptable to be performed on a train.

 

[35B]

Neither freedom of speech nor proselytising are unrestricted rights. Without in-depth knowledge of UK law, I would assume that I am not permitted to enter any premises at will to deliver a lecture without the owner's permission.

Unfortunately, religious people have become accustomed to a certain privileged status over the centuries. Consequently, when they are treated equally alongside everyone else, they immediately see themselves as an oppressed minority whose rights are restricted. In any other context, it would not occur to anyone to consider such actions as acceptable to be performed on a train.

Agreed, and on train is more restricted. However, those sects that engage in such proselytising tend not to have been the historically privileged denominations.

 

[Krokodil]

Was once engaged by a personanable young lady

Now if an attractive young lady starts talking to me, I will at least try to give the impression of listening!

This is the thing, some of these people seem to have absolutely no awareness that some of their actions are more likely to turn people away from religion than towards it - so in their terms they are actually "doing the work of the devil"!

A cynic might say they are more concerned about racking up "brownie points" for their own salvation than they are about actually "saving the souls" of others, otherwise why would they adopt methods which it's often fairly clear are positively alienating people?

I do wonder whether this is a deliberate ploy by community leaders. You send people out knocking on doors and they get abuse back. This gives the leaders a way to persuade the followers that they are their only true friends and they can reel them into the cult.

 

[Lewisham2221]

I do wonder whether this is a deliberate ploy by community leaders. You send people out knocking on doors and they get abuse back. This gives the leaders a way to persuade the followers that they are their only true friends and they can reel them into the cult.

That's exactly how Reform et al work isn't it? Spread some misinformation and convince people to put and act like absolute weapons. They then, quite rightly, get rebuked by the authorities and anybody with half an ounce of decency - which then 'reinforces' the nonsense about two-tier policing/justice and people being offended by flags (ironically by people who seem to spend an awful amount of time being offended by certain other flags and thinking that certain laws shouldn't apply to them).

Anyway....

Dragging this back to religious matters...

Mormons tend to do this sort of thing quite a lot on buses in my area. Always travelling in pairs (and easily identified by their conservative dress and name badge) they'll board the bus and seemingly scope out someone to engage. Usually pleasant enough in their manner, rather than the more vocal preaching by some other denominations, but still annoying nonetheless.

 

[35B]

I do wonder whether this is a deliberate ploy by community leaders. You send people out knocking on doors and they get abuse back. This gives the leaders a way to persuade the followers that they are their only true friends and they can reel them into the cult.

I don't think even the likes of Jesus Army were that cynical. To those with the theology that supports this kind of street evangelism, the logic is more that "God is not in" those who tell them to go forth and multiply, and therefore they are blameless for the reaction that they've provoked.

 

[dgl]

Maybe carry around a pamphlet on cults and how to spot the signs you're in one.
These followers are duped in to giving their lives (and money) for these religions and will agree to some pretty creepy stuff because they are made to believe "that's what God wants".

In reality they need to be shown that it's better on the outside and people being mean to them shows the opposite.

There's a woman on YouTube called Alyssa Grenfell that got out of being a Mormon and has documented some of the crazy things she had to do as a Mormon that she thought was normal but now realises was incredibly dodgy.

 

[Purple Train]

I suspect I am in the extreme minority with regard to faith in this thread, so I'll do the best I can to provide a better view "from the other side" than I gave in my earlier post, and then leave everyone else to it. In my experience the particularly vocal, pushy, or aggressive street preachers are usually doing it of or by themselves, and there's really no excuse for that sort of behaviour. Without encountering any I have no idea whether those who do it on trains are from a similar background or standpoint, but, as I said upthread, if you're talking at people in a sealed metal tube who can't just walk on by, you're not going to give them much of a flavour of the love of God. My mantra, as someone who's often the lone Christian in a social circle, and as someone who is very passionate about evangelism, is that consideration and kindness will do far more than any sermon in terms of inviting people to experience faith, as street preaching is all about; you can't just force a faith argument onto someone and expect them to take it well, similarly to how nobody reacts well to being forced to listen to someone's doctoral thesis. Kindness costs nothing, whether one believes in God or not.

 

[35B]

I suspect I am in the extreme minority with regard to faith in this thread, so I'll do the best I can to provide a better view "from the other side" than I gave in my earlier post, and then leave everyone else to it. In my experience the particularly vocal, pushy, or aggressive street preachers are usually doing it of or by themselves, and there's really no excuse for that sort of behaviour. Without encountering any I have no idea whether those who do it on trains are from a similar background or standpoint, but, as I said upthread, if you're talking at people in a sealed metal tube who can't just walk on by, you're not going to give them much of a flavour of the love of God. My mantra, as someone who's often the lone Christian in a social circle, and as someone who is very passionate about evangelism, is that consideration and kindness will do far more than any sermon in terms of inviting people to experience faith, as street preaching is all about; you can't just force a faith argument onto someone and expect them to take it well, similarly to how nobody reacts well to being forced to listen to someone's doctoral thesis. Kindness costs nothing, whether one believes in God or not.

Well said. This practicing Christian, a less passionate evangelist, feels similarly about how to engage people.

And while I thoroughly dislike the practices of some, I respect absolutely their belief that their religion offers something truly valuable, and that needs to be shared - however different our expressions of that faith, that unites us. It also applies to those of other faiths.

 

[Purple Train]

Well said. This practicing Christian, a less passionate evangelist, feels similarly about how to engage people.

And while I thoroughly dislike the practices of some, I respect absolutely their belief that their religion offers something truly valuable, and that needs to be shared - however different our expressions of that faith, that unites us. It also applies to those of other faiths.

Amen to that

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Interesting stuff and very good comments.

Not a new issue - the noted author A H L Ahrons in the 19thC (the O S Nock of the day , but probably more accurate) , describes a journey on the Brecon to Merthyr line , where their compartment was shared with a very solid and voluble evangelist who put everybody off with no escape. The locomotive , pounding up the serious gradient got into some mechanical problem , and there was a very real fear it would not just stall , but even run back down back down the gradient and meet a very catastrophic end.

This had a sobering effect on the gentleman , who clearly felt very unhappy at meeting his possible end - but all ended well. The line had a very unfortunate record of "runaways" , and no doubt the Armagh accident of 1889 was in the minds of some of the passengers.

 

[43096]

It makes sense, to approach someone politely who is unknowingly disturbing fellow passengers. In this case, however, it is done completely deliberately. Politeness would be inappropriate here.

This is especially true when it comes to religion, which has brought more misery to the world than almost anything else. Wicked liars, charlatans, scammers and tin foil hat wearers, all united in one big self entitled club. They don't deserve any slack. They can believe whatever they want in private, but it is completely unacceptable to harass other people with their dangerous fairy tales in public.

The last nutcase who tried this on my train thought I was bluffing when I was calling control. He was removed by the railway police during the next intermediate stop.

Religion is nothing short of the biggest marketing scam ever enacted on the population. It has been for centuries, and governments of every type have been complicit in it.

 

[alex397]

I find it difficult to deal with these people, as they are usually so kind and polite. I have no issue in politely telling them I’m an atheist or I’m not interested etc. Although, saying that, I did once tell someone I was already religious and we have a brief conversation where I pretended to be a believer because I didn’t want to hurt their feelings!

While I haven’t seen this on a train, I have learnt to avoid anyone hanging around town in a suit. Generally speaking, no one wears suits in average towns any more unless they are very religious or on their way to court.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

While I haven’t seen this on a train, I have learnt to avoid anyone hanging around town in a suit. Generally speaking, no one wears suits in average towns any more unless they are very religious or on their way to court.

Very amusing - got stuck on a delayed Thameslink back in the day , and a well dressed passenger with well polished shoes spoke to me as I went through the train doing "customer service duties" as the driver was engaged in trying to coax this 319 back to life. (he did eventually) Turned out he was on the way to a hearing at Southwark Crown Court , so I managed to get a message to them saying he was delayed and not his fault , did not engage further ! ......

 

[High Dyke]

Life was so much better when it was just a person leaving a pack of tissues on the seat next to you.

 

[styles]

Life was so much better when it was just a person leaving a pack of tissues on the seat next to you.

Still see that on the DLR! Bottles of water in summer too.

 

[High Dyke]

Still see that on the DLR! Bottles of water in summer too.

Ah right. Don't travel on the DLR that often. Thanks

 

[Jimini]

Ah right. Don't travel on the DLR that often. Thanks

Life was so much better when it was just a person leaving a pack of tissues on the seat next to you.

Still see that on the DLR! Bottles of water in summer too.

Anywhere between London Bridge and East Croydon as well.

 

[Calthrop]

Interesting stuff and very good comments.

Not a new issue - the noted author A H L Ahrons in the 19thC (the O S Nock of the day , but probably more accurate) , describes a journey on the Brecon to Merthyr line , where their compartment was shared with a very solid and voluble evangelist who put everybody off with no escape. The locomotive , pounding up the serious gradient got into some mechanical problem , and there was a very real fear it would not just stall , but even run back down back down the gradient and meet a very catastrophic end.

This had a sobering effect on the gentleman , who clearly felt very unhappy at meeting his possible end - but all ended well. The line had a very unfortunate record of "runaways" , and no doubt the Armagh accident of 1889 was in the minds of some of the passengers.

I recall reading of this episode involving Ahrons on the Brecon & Merthyr. If I remember rightly -- as per your second paragraph -- a bit of quiet amusement for AHLA, over the inconsistency on the part of the evangelising gentleman: should he not have, rather, been ecstatic at the likelihood of his very shortly being "with Christ, which is far better"?

 

[bahnause]

I find it difficult to deal with these people, as they are usually so kind and polite. I have no issue in politely telling them I’m an atheist or I’m not interested etc. Although, saying that, I did once tell someone I was already religious and we have a brief conversation where I pretended to be a believer because I didn’t want to hurt their feelings!

I don't understand how such behavior can be considered polite or appropriate. Such an approach would be unacceptable in any other area of life. People who try to convince others of the merits of their religion often give the impression that they are something special or omniscient. This can quickly come across as patronising or condescending, especially if there is no genuine interest in dialogue, only the desire to 'convert' someone. The goal of this is after all not conversation, but conversion.

Religious claims, such as those about supernatural beings, miracles, or life after death, are generally beyond empirical verification. They are based on faith, not on verifiable facts. World religions refer to different sacred texts, some of which make contradictory statements about God, morality, and the universe. If every religion claims to possess the “absolute truth” but excludes each other, the question arises: Which one is true? Or are they all just cultural constructs? Religious dogmas change over time (if you are lucky), whether through new interpretations, reform movements, or social pressure. (If not, good luck to you...). An “eternal truth” that constantly adapts loses credibility as an objective constant, but so does an eternal truth that doesn't change and gets refuted by evidence. Many religious statements contradict established scientific theories. For example, on evolution, cosmology, or neuroscience. When religions deny or ignore scientific facts, their claim to truth becomes questionable. Not only do I see no value in spreading such views, I see it as a real danger, especially when children are involved. A geography lesson with Dr. Brown followed by a creationism lesson with Dr. White? No, thank you. According to long-term surveys conducted by the Gallup Institute, approximately 40 to 47 percent of Americans hold a creationist view, i.e., the belief that God created humans in their present form around 10,000 years ago. How can that be a good thing?

The impact of the rise of the religious movement and its empowerment can be seen in the United States. The notion that the United States is a 'chosen nation' is deeply rooted in certain evangelical circles. This religious glorification of the nation state provides a foundation for Christian-influenced authoritarianism. Religion is quick to claim the right for itself to be protected. However, don't expect religion to protect your rights, when it's in a position of power. It is about the legitimization of authority, social control, using fear as a tool, and monopolizing truth.

When French astronomer and mathematician Pierre-Simon Laplace presented his emperor Napoleon with a physical model for the creation of the universe, Napoleon asked in astonishment where God had gone in this model. Laplace replied that the hypothesis of a creator god was no longer necessary. At the beginning of the 19th century, this was still a bold statement, even for physics, and one that was not entirely without cultural and political risk. He was right after all. And since Darwin, this knowledge has been undisputed. Scientific curiosity encourages us to ask questions, even uncomfortable ones. It is a tool for intellectual emancipation. Religion will restrict this freedom when it makes certain questions or ways of life taboo. Science begins with questions, not answers. It allows us to marvel at the universe, from the structure of an atom to the birth of a star. All without preconceived explanations. This wonder is free, unbound by dogma. When complex phenomena are explained by simple, clear principles, such as the theory of relativity or the structure of DNA. The result is an almost artistic beauty. Science is not only useful, but also aesthetically impressive as well.

 

[35B]

I have been accosted in public places by people wishing to convince me of religion, of political views, of specific campaigns, to give money to charities, and to sell me stuff.

I do not accept that any one of these is uniquely and specifically disqualified from the public sphere, or should not be allowed to make approaches. I also consider that any of these, where they proclaim a monopolistic claim on truth, to be dangerous. I regard the atheist scientist views expressed by @bahnause as being as much in this continuum as any adherents of any religious creed.

 

[styles]

After visiting a country like India, walking down a British high street and having the odd approach is bliss.

 

[bahnause]

I have been accosted in public places by people wishing to convince me of religion, of political views, of specific campaigns, to give money to charities, and to sell me stuff.

I do not accept that any one of these is uniquely and specifically disqualified from the public sphere, or should not be allowed to make approaches. I also consider that any of these, where they proclaim a monopolistic claim on truth, to be dangerous. I regard the atheist scientist views expressed by @bahnause as being as much in this continuum as any adherents of any religious creed.

But that's not the case. Neither charities nor political or other campaigns operate in isolation from the real world. Your donation to a charity will have a measurable impact, and voting for a particular party will influence the future. Charities and political parties do not expect you to align your moral views with theirs. Nor do they expect you to control your own or others' sexuality, or dictate which animals you may or may not eat on which days. What is particularly disturbing is that religious morality often justifies terrible crimes. Would you really want to live according to the Bible's moral rules?

Religion does not offer this. It requires belief in things that, with a little goodwill, could be described as ambitious but which have often been disproved. This contradicts other religious claims, even within a single religion. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and religion falls far short from this evidence.
Atheism is not a religion or a belief system; it is a position of non-belief. There are no dogmas, sacred scriptures or rituals.

Do you believe in the sun god Athen? What about the Finnish sky god Ukko or the ancient Egyptian demon god Bes? If not, then congratulations — you are an atheist with regard to all of these gods.

 

[m0ffy]

About 10 years ago I was doing radio surveys for an electricity company in a rural village. Being the new boy, I was left with the portable base station, complete with antenna bungeed to the Land Rover. I was half expecting questions/abuse about smart meters, but found myself having a pleasant conversation with a young Jehovah’s Witness about our respective religions. Neither was sold on the other, but I’d like to think we’re both found it informative.

 

[davews]

As a practising Christian I take a mixed view on this. I have never encountered the sort of event which started this thread, ie open evangelism on a train and would have thought it would have been improper to do so. There are a couple of Jehovah Witnesses who set up their stand handing out leaflets outside Martins Heron station - they used to do it outside Tesco but guess they were asked to leave. I have come to know these chaps quite well and they know my Methodist roots so never mention that but are always asking about the walks I am heading off to on the train. Quite nice chaps in the right situation. But JH knocking on doors is another thing and I haven't quite got the knack of getting rid of them politely.

A couple of months ago there was a large group in Reading town centre which I think was an event organised by Reading Churches Together. They had music and a chap talking in a microphone but it did not seem too intrusive and the passing shoppers seemed to be not bothered. I assume in this case it was an organised event with council permission rather than just stand up wherever. A woman approached me and asked if I wanted her to pray for anybody. As it happened I was on my way for a hospital appointment at Royal Berks so mentioned this and she gave a short prayer, quite friendly.

These things are fine in the right circumstances but doing it impromptu in a busy train carriage certainly doesn't seem right.

 

[35B]

But that's not the case. Neither charities nor political or other campaigns operate in isolation from the real world. Your donation to a charity will have a measurable impact, and voting for a particular party will influence the future. Charities and political parties do not expect you to align your moral views with theirs. Nor do they expect you to control your own or others' sexuality, or dictate which animals you may or may not eat on which days. What is particularly disturbing is that religious morality often justifies terrible crimes. Would you really want to live according to the Bible's moral rules?

Religion does not offer this. It requires belief in things that, with a little goodwill, could be described as ambitious but which have often been disproved. This contradicts other religious claims, even within a single religion. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and religion falls far short from this evidence.
Atheism is not a religion or a belief system; it is a position of non-belief. There are no dogmas, sacred scriptures or rituals.

Do you believe in the sun god Athen? What about the Finnish sky god Ukko or the ancient Egyptian demon god Bes? If not, then congratulations — you are an atheist with regard to all of these gods.

As you say, an atheist is one who believes that no deity exists. That is not a position of non-belief, but of positive disbelief. My Christian beliefs preclude belief in the deities you mention - by definition, I cannot be an atheist or indeed an agnostic in respect of them. As someone who also considers himself a liberal, I regard the ability of both beliefs to exist, and to organise and communicate their views, as fundamental parts of a liberal society

I also disagree strongly with your caricature of Christian belief, and the impact that religions have had - and note that you have not responded to comment on secular beliefs and the harm that they have caused. Under English and Welsh law, religions are legally protected and provided with charitable status. Also, political parties can and do require adherence to certain beliefs and behaviours from their members.

You may well disagree with that - and you have every right so to do. But I suggest that you do not do your credibility any favours by conflating a position that you would like to see with statements of fact.

 

[Krokodil]

charities nor political or other campaigns

When going about my daily business, I prefer not to be accosted by anyone. Not charities, political campaigners, beggars, advertising people or of course religious nutters (that's not a slur against people who practice their religion quietly, just the ones being a pain in the neck). I fix eyes forward and walk with purpose straight past them.