Evangelical Group Aims to Convert Children as Young as Five

[Snarkoleptic]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/child-evangelism-fellowship-portland

An evangelical Christian group plans to try to convert children as young as 5 at Portland apartment pools, public parks and dozens of other gathering spots this summer — a campaign that's got some residents upset.

They've banded together in recent weeks to warn parents about the Child Evangelism Fellowship's Good News Club, buying a full-page ad in the local alternative weekly to highlight the group's tactics.

"They pretend to be a mainstream Christian Bible study when in fact they're a very old school fundamentalist sect," said Kaye Schmitt, an organizer with Protect Portland Children, which takes issue with the group's message and the way it's delivering it.

Mia Marceau, a mother of two in the Portland suburb of Vancouver, Washington, said she was intrigued when the group approached her apartment complex pool last week. She said she, too, believes in Jesus Christ.

Within a few hours, however, she didn't like what the group was telling her 8-year-old son and his friends: They were headed to hell, needed to convert their friends and were duty-bound to raise money for the organization.

"I raised a free thinker," she said. "He didn't buy in. All of a sudden, he's having arguments with his friends over salvation."

[edhopper]

1. Evangelizing is bad whoever does it.

Whether it's Christians targeting small children in public places, or atheists writing books and giving lectures. All the same.

pure snark by the way.

[Snarkoleptic]

2. I agree with the first sentence you wrote, but...

writing books and giving lectures requires the recipient of the message to reach out and take/buy the book or consciously attend the lecture.
Kids playing at a public park and then being told they're sinners who need to repent and raise funds for the church is reprehensible.

"We do teach that children are sinners, but we're not nasty about it," Esteves said. "If we were nasty about it, the kids wouldn't come back." He said that they don't try to coerce the children, as "coercion leads to false conversion."

[edhopper]

4. My comments

alluded to conversations on another thread about atheist evangelizing.
For my there isn't really a parity and this story brings that home.
Thus my snarly remark.

[trotsky]

6. As ed noted, his post was tongue in cheek.

Though we do have some in this forum who insist that both of those kinds of "proselytizing" are the same and equally offensive.

[gtar100]

5. Targeting small children in public places compared to writing books and giving lectures is quite a

stretch. In fact, writing books and giving lectures is exactly where "evangelism" - or simply making one's argument - belongs. At least you have to convince people to buy the book or go to the lecture of their own accord. Approaching children playing in a park like this is not the same thing - it's creepy and deviant.

Your snark bait got me hooked.

[cbayer]

8. The fact that this is extreme and clearly objectionable does not mean

that there are not atheist evangelizers.

Is everything black and white for you, or are you able to see gradations of grey?

[edhopper]

9. I wonder who found them equally offensive.

"I find evangelizers from either side objectionable.
I think those that think they have found the way, the right answer, when it comes to religion to be equally offensive."

False equivalency all the way down.

I don't see any gray there.

[cbayer]

10. Let's take this apart as you so like to do.

In the first sentence, I say that I find evangelizers from either side offensive I make no comment as to the degree of offense or the nature of the evangelizing or whether there is any equality.

In the second sentence, I say that I find individuals who claim to know the truth equally offensive. I make no comment about whether they evangelize or not, or how they might express this. In others words, I find people who say that they know there is a god as offensive as people who say they know there is not a god.

You get so wound up in seeing what you want to see, that you end up seeing nothing, my friend.

This is my position in the clearest possible language. You can continue to try and twist it into something else, but I remain puzzled as why you feel the need to do that.

[edhopper]

11. Okay

Fair enough.
You offense of people who challenge others beliefs is noted.

But in terms of degree, how do you feel about what is in this article compared to say, giving a friend some facts about biblical stories?

[cbayer]

13. Again you restate incorrectly what I have said.

I take offense to evangelizing. I take offense at those who think they have the answer and want to convert (or deconvert) others.

This group's behavior is reprehensible, imo. Having a discussion with a friend who may hold some beliefs for which there is contradictory evidence (like creationism or no global climate change) is an entirely different thing.

Challenging others beliefs with data is something that should be done. But if there is no data, just belief or lack or belief, the challenge is likely to step into the ring of prostelytizing.

And if you want to go back to the discussion about earthquakes in Israel, it is not the exchange of information that I objected to. It was the claim of victory because the individual presumably abandoned all his beliefs and faith when given this information (which I find highly doubtful).

[AtheistCrusader]

14. It was about challenging a belief that underpinned his religious position, with physical evidence.

In an area where physical evidence is available.

[cbayer]

15. That's fine and I don't have a problem with it.

It was your crowing about toppling his entire religious foundation and his abandoning his belief and faith as a result of this.

Frankly, I don't buy it. He may have abandoned his belief system, but I suspect it was much more complicated than his just learning about fault lines in Israel.

And if it was that simplistic, there was very little there to begin with.

[AtheistCrusader]

16. It wasn't crowing.

You interpreted it that way I guess. But there was no victory dance. You made an assertion. I challenged it with an example. That is hardly crowing.

You don't get to make assertions like that and then immediately, and with no details, ascribe all sorts of nefarious intent to every counter-example if you want to be taken seriously.

[cbayer]

17. I'm sure it was a very solemn event.

[AtheistCrusader]

18. It took months, actually.

And at no point did I say anything like 'hey you should try atheism'.

Of more concern to me was helping him understand how anti-abortion advocacy harms women directly.

[cbayer]

19. Exactly! It took months and was not due to a single explanation of how their were

faults in Israel, right?

Whether you were evangelizing or not, I really don't know. However, based on many past posts of yours, I do think you see yourself as having a mission to deconvert. If I am wrong about that, then I have misunderstood, but I don't think I am.

[AtheistCrusader]

20. The faults one seemed to resonate with him the most.

There were other examples.

I don't tend to think of it as evangelizing, for the same reason I offered you earlier; they come to me. I don't go to them. It's usually in the process of them proselytizing to me that I start disassembling their faith, or the claims it is built upon.

Kind of a defense mechanism, really.

[cbayer]

21. Ok, this i think we can agree on.

If someone is proselytizing to you, then you responding in kind seems like it could be an appropriate response.

They are trying to assemble your faith while you try to disassemble theirs.

May the best one win, I guess, though I think there is really ever a win either way.

Not sure how that's a defense mechanism in the technical sense of the term, but I can see how you might use it to defend yourself from an evangelical.

[AtheistCrusader]

22. I could just tell them to fuck off, I suppose, instead of engaging them in dialogue.

That doesn't seem like the neighborly thing to do, however.

I suppose, since I do not 'deconvert' everyone I encounter, it is possible individuals have walked away from an exchange with me with a deeper understanding of their own faith. I don't see that as a bad thing either, necessarily.

[cbayer]

23. I don't tell them to fuck off, but I do not engage them at all.

As long as you are engaging in a respectful way that does not start from the premise that they are somehow defective for believing what they believe, it might end up with both of our gaining a deeper understanding of your own position and perspective.

And if you gain a deeper understanding of each other's perspective, then that's a real win-win, imo.

[AtheistCrusader]

12. In that instance, 'the truth' was that Israel does indeed have fault lines.

Which shouldn't be confused with 'The Truth(TM)' as divinely inspired revelation nonsense.

After all, there are a number of ways to detect and even image those fault lines. So that was pretty lame 'moral equivalency'.

[Warpy]

26. "writing books and giving lectures" is the same as TARGETING CHILDREN

Wow. Just wow.

You can avoid buying books and you can avoid attending lectures you don't think you'll like.

It's getting hard to avoid religious zealotss giving little kids the hard sell on some screwball religion that is not one's own wherever children assemble: pools, parks, outside schools.

One is voluntary. The other is not.

There is no equivalence here and you are DEAD WRONG to suggest there is.

wow.

[cbayer]

27. Lol, was he unclear about his intent with this post?

The reactions to it are pretty hilarious. But that is how knee jerk reactions go.

[cbayer]

28. Uh oh, edhopper. People are now thinking you are one of those people!!!

This is not going to go well with the initiation tribunal.

[edhopper]

29. Huh?

I am not sure what you're saying?

[cbayer]

32. Apparently your lack of the sarcasm thingy has led people to think

that this was what you really meant.

You've got some 'splaining to do now.

[edhopper]

35. It was 'splained' to them

And the regulars got it.
You should keep up.

[cbayer]

49. I should keep up?

How could I possibly keep up with the brilliant minds that I am talking with here.

Surely you jest!

[Arkansas Granny]

3. They've been doing this for years in these parts. They send the buses out on Saturday

to invite/lure the kids to come to church by passing out candy and promising entertainment at church. The figure that if they can indoctrinate them when they are young, they have a good chance of keeping some of them to swell church memeberships when they are grown.

[cbayer]

7. This is downright creepy.

Aren't there some laws about approaching children without their parents consent?

[muriel_volestrangler]

24. I thought that being unable to tell fantasy from reality was fine and healthy below 7

Are you saying it's fine, healthy and creepy?

[cbayer]

25. Yes, because proselytizing to little children is the same thing as allowing them some

healthy fantasies.

Does someone need a nap?

[edhopper]

30. Wouldn't you agree some of the fantasies religion tells them

Aren't healthy?

[cbayer]

31. Like which ones exactly?

I was raised in the church. I don't think the stories I was told were unhealthy at all.

[edhopper]

33. Eternal damnation in hell

God judging them for things kids usually do.
Obvious myths in the Bible as true.
Fear of the Devil and demons.

Stuff like that

[cbayer]

34. Maybe. I didn't grow up with any of that, but I know that some do.

It's important to realize that a lot of mainstream protestant denominations don't preach that sort of thing.

If you assume they are all the same, then you can end up kind of prejudiced or something.

You know what I mean?

[edhopper]

36. Who said they were all the same

Why do you put words in my mouth.
I was pointing out some religious fantasies that aren't healthy.
Did I say they were all unhealthy? No.
I don't know nor care what you grew up with, there are many ways children are taught religion, just because yours was fine, doesn't mean others weren't harmful.

[cbayer]

48. Sorry, meant that as a generic "you", as in "one", not you specifically.

You should care what I grew up with because it is representative of a religious upbringing that you may not be familiar with. You often state that you really want to understand believers in one way or another, and looking at different experiences would be helpful in that regard.

Otherwise, one might just see the harm instead of the good.

[muriel_volestrangler]

38. No, you said it was healthy to be unable to *tell the difference* between reality and fantasy

How are you going to get children into that state without proselytizing? Those who didn't have religious stories told them at church or school didn't confuse reality and fantasy so much. So these park proselytizers will be helping kids have a healthy confusion between reality and fantasy.

[Warren Stupidity]

40. She can't possibly explain the contradiction in her positions here.

So apparently you need to take a nap. WTF?

[cbayer]

47. Well, sort of, though you are twisting my words a bit.

Children are naturally unable to tell the difference between fantasy and reality. It is something they learn over time. There is no definitive age or stage in which should hope to see it fully extinguished. It's a process. Children at 5 or 6 will still not always be able to make the distinction, and there is nothing wrong with that.

I guess if you want little automatons who are unable to embrace fantasies as realities, you could work towards that, but it's not a world I would want.

Now, you make the leap that all religious teaching is about fantasy, and I don't agree with that. Those stories are often use as allegorical tales and the basis for discussion about things in their own lives.

The people described in this article aren't' doing that, are they?

The link you draw is absurd, and again, has no rational justification except your own fantasy, I guess.

[Warren Stupidity]

39. Really? "Does someone need a nap"?

[trotsky]

41. "Does someone need a nap?"

WTF, cbayer?

[Warren Stupidity]

37. I've learned here that this is fine because children should be taught to believe nonsense is real.

[trotsky]

42. If you don't allow that then you are an evil demon, apparently. n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

43. Plus we should all take a nap.

Part of the "oh those emotional atheists" campaign.

[trotsky]

44. So disrespectful and uncivil! n/t

[Snarkoleptic]

45. I posted this thread and had to run off to work.

All I can say is...

[AtheistCrusader]

46. Any asshole that bellies up to my kid and tries to convince him he was born defective

is going to have an unpleasant day.