A report says that predatory evangelists are going into extended health facilities and working on the sick, frail and elderly. Ironically, the report is made by a group called the AIISSQ – the Association des intervenants et intervenantes en soins spirituels du Québec – who go about offering “legitimate” spiritual aid. A section at the end of this piece describes the activities of these official workers, who are called in to soothe people in crisis. They’re paid by Quebec and are now expected to be open to all faiths rather than to be dispensing only one. But the list of activities at the very end of the piece includes the Catholic sacrament of extreme unction, and communion.
La Presse’s item has already provoked a response from health minister Danielle McCann.
Ephraim 16:16 on 2019-08-17 Permalink
And how does this really differ from the Salvation Army, who go after those who may be at the lowest point of their lives?
But the real reason that people are sent out to try to convert people has nothing to do with actually converting people. There are so few who actually convert and even less who stay, once converted. The real reason is that it keeps those people themselves faithful and not thinking about leaving a religion that really doesn’t hold up well to scrutiny.
Kate 19:55 on 2019-08-17 Permalink
I don’t know what the Salvation Army’s modus operandi is, Ephraim. But there’s a difference between operating a shelter and actively going into CHSLDs and browbeating people who are in no state to resist.
I agree with you about it being done to give people a reason for being religious, but they shouldn’t be dragging helpless, non-consenting people into their religious activities.
Ephraim 20:47 on 2019-08-17 Permalink
The Salvation Army is a protestant evangelical organization, they help people at the lowest point of their life, homeless and needing help. And rather than helping them as Christians, it aims to convert them at that time. (Also their record on LGBT is horrible….They have referred LGBT people for conversion therapy…. and calls on them to be celibate. They walked away from contracts by the city of SF because they have a clause on non-discrimination for same-sex partners. )
To be honest, I think that all proselyting should be illegal. It’s confrontational in nature and quickly devolves into a form of harassment that basically says that your beliefs aren’t worthy of being respected because they aren’t mine.
But the worst part is that it isn’t about actually converting people in any case. It’s really a way to keep people in the fold. Do you think that the JW really gain new membership from standing at the metro stations? Seen a long line of people at 4489 Avenue Papineau waiting to get in? The LDS people growing by new membership or simply because they have lots of children? No, they go out to knock on doors because they need them to meet the people who REFUSE to be converted.
Heck, the LDS involuntarily convert people after their death, in the belief that it is the only way that they will get into heaven…. so no need to follow the religion now anyway… Anne Frank, the Queen Mother and even Hitler! https://www.jewishgen.org/InfoFiles/ldsagree.html
Chris 20:49 on 2019-08-17 Permalink
*If* Evangelicals are right, and not accepting Jesus will result in you burning forever in eternal hell, then these peoples’ behaviour is in the best interest of those hospitalized people.
It’s their sincere derply-held belief, so you have to respect it, right? You don’t want to get branded a Christianophobe! 😉
Bert 21:38 on 2019-08-17 Permalink
Imagine if there was a law about people of authority exerting religious influence in government buildings.
JP 23:57 on 2019-08-17 Permalink
I read the LaPresse article. A lot of these activities amount to abuse and something should be done to stop and prevent it from happening.
When my mom was an inpatient at Sacre Coeur Hospital, there was an elderly volunteer who came by. She definitely seemed religious (Catholic?) and she had a very kind disposition. Due to language barriers and the fact that my mom was tired she simply told my mom she would pray for her and that was that. I think my mom really appreciated the sentiment (our religious heritage is not Christian), and the volunteer moved on. For me, this sort of scenario is generally fine.
On another note, re Ephraim’s comment “I think that all proselyting should be illegal. It’s confrontational in nature and quickly devolves into a form of harassment that basically says that your beliefs aren’t worthy of being respected because they aren’t mine.” I very, very much agree with this, and this is how I feel when I see proselytizers.
There is a lot of proselytizing downtown generally, which is nothing new. But, in the past couple of years or so (maybe longer?), there has been a very vocal and aggressive group at McGill College and Sainte Catherine (near Indigo). I’ve seen/heard a proselytizer spew insults about another religion at a guy passing by who maybe said something that triggered the proselytizer. In any case, I find them very aggressive. They use megaphones too. I’ve observed them enough that I’ve considered options on how to file a complaint, though I’m not sure what the legality of it all is. I guess it would be a matter of calling 311.
Blork 09:38 on 2019-08-18 Permalink
@Bert: these predatory evangelicals don’t wear any visible signs of their faith that I’m aware of (and even if they wear a cross it isn’t a requirement of their faith). And as for those who do wear visible signs, I, for one, have never been even remotely proselytized by someone in a kippa, turban, or hijab. Point being, the wearing of such signs has little to do with religious proselytizing.
Michael Black 10:17 on 2019-08-18 Permalink
Yes. One time I was on the train and the guy sitting next to me brought up religion, I shrugged and he stopped. But it coukd have been bad.
But the people I’ve known most dedicated to religion, Philip Berrigan, Buddhist monks, Catholic Workers, Sisters of Mercy,, even church ministers, have never said anything about religion. I figure they try to lead by example. There are just some very specific groups who feel an obligation to talk.about their religion.
Michael
Chris 18:26 on 2019-08-18 Permalink
Ephraim & JP: some religions require proselyting, so if we ban it, are we not taking away their religious freedom? Why would taking away that freedom be ok, but taking away the freedom to wear silly hats be wrong? Would you ban non-religious proselyting too? ex: loud climate change activists with megaphones on St Cat? Or would you ban it only because of its religious nature?
Ian 18:51 on 2019-08-18 Permalink
I always find it interesting how little nuance we allow for people whose views oppose our own. Chris will allow for no hypocrisy or wiggle room when religion is concerned, but in the fight against cars he is as reactionary as the most orthodox faithful.
A simpler, more secular humanist approach is that you should be allowed to do whatever you want as long as it doesn’t interfere with anyone else’s right to do the same. The devil is in the details, of course.
Ephraim 19:06 on 2019-08-18 Permalink
Chris – I have a right to not be harassed as well. When does your religious right to harass me and my right to not be harassed start and end?
A religious Jewish family is enjoying their quiet sabbath, no electricity, having a lovely festive lunch. A Mormon is going door to door ringing doorbells, disturbing their sabbath. Who’s religion has a higher value, those who have decided that they should disturb people on their sabbath because they don’t believe in the Jewish sabbath or those who are quietly enjoying family time as require by Jewish law?
You can proselyte without having to harass people or to disturb people. Even if your religion requires it, it doesn’t require you to RING a doorbell or YELL at someone haranguing them. You can stand there with a quiet sign that says “Ask me about Dianetics.”
Chris 19:14 on 2019-08-18 Permalink
Ephraim, uh, how does that square with you saying above “To be honest, I think that *all* proselyting should be illegal.”
Ephraim 19:56 on 2019-08-18 Permalink
Verb versus passive… actively seeking to convert someone versus their choosing to find out more and open to the idea. Doing “Christian” work with the aim that others will see and ask, versus making someone pray for their food and a place to lay their head…. or you can’t have it. Or in the case of the Salvation Army, actually asking people to prove that they are in need by requesting them to bring a note from BS to prove their are destitute.
Bert 11:24 on 2019-08-19 Permalink
@Blork – I said “exerting religious influence” . Sort of my way of saying kippahs / turbans / burkas / crucifixes don’t try to convert people. People do.
Yet another useless law that does absolutely nothing to address the “problem”.
Still a real shame that people are being preyed on when they are vulnerable.
Ian 20:41 on 2019-08-20 Permalink
@Ephraim
“A religious Jewish family is enjoying their quiet sabbath, no electricity, having a lovely festive lunch. A Mormon is going door to door ringing doorbells, disturbing their sabbath. Who’s religion has a higher value, those who have decided that they should disturb people on their sabbath because they don’t believe in the Jewish sabbath or those who are quietly enjoying family time as require by Jewish law?”
Yeah on my street I get little girls knocking on my door all morning when I’m trying to sleep in to get me to be the shabbas goy for their mom who needs the stove turned on or the fridge reset to the shabbas mode so the light stays on. Your gang might not proselytize but let’s not pretend for a second that they don’t impose their worldview on others, this is but one small example. That said, I like my neighbours and am quite happy to help them out even if I live next to a very conservative synagogue and their kids aren’t even allowed to play with mine.