proselytizers vs 'I'm Jewish' now 1:1 & a week later I'm still fuming with rage.

[cimorene]

I thought "No, I'm Jewish" in Finnish would be a good phrase to get rid of various Christian proselytizers when I learned it a few years ago. The first time I tried it, it worked, I think perhaps mainly for shock value - they'd probably never encountered a real Jewish person and hadn't considered what their stance should be.

But last Monday I was in the mall and a lady came up to me and said something in Finnish that I didn't catch all of. [Actually, I thought she said "jacket", which was why I said "What?" in reflexive confusion, which was all the encouragement she wanted.]

Anyway, when I realized she was trying to talk to me about Jesus I instantly interrupted, holding up my hand palm out in the recognizable gesture for STOP, and said clearly,

"Ah! No, I'm Jewish. Thanks," and with that turned on my heel and walked away from her without making eye contact or waiting for a response. I thought I did a good job of adopting a firm and final tone.

I didn't leave the store, because I still needed to find a present for my wife there. I was a few displays away from her seething when like 20 seconds later she popped up again like a whack-a-mole and said,

"But can't I ask" (no pause to find out if she could ask) "What does that mean to you?"

What the - I mean, WHAT THE FUCK?

I was so offended on so many different fronts that I just kind of opened and closed my mouth, blinking, and automatically tried to answer the question. (When I'm angry my language skills deteriorate, so don't straight-up judge me on this!)

"Uhhh, it means that I AM JEWISH! ...And Christi-something... thingy... doesn't... listen" [I meant to say 'apply to', kuuluu, but I accidentally said kuule, which is the command 'listen [to this]'] "...to me... uh."

So then the bitch was like "DO you really speak Finnish?" and although I generally try to speak Finnish, and can manage conversations on most subjects as long as I am allowed plenty of grammatical errors, I happily took the out with

"Yeah, probably not sufficiently" and then I walked away again even more briskly and hid on the other side of the store until I thought she was gone before venturing back into the teacup section.

And okay, I know that being nosy is the essence of proselytization, but I'm pretty sure that "What does your religion mean to you" is a personal question that most people whose religion DOES mean something to them could be quite easily offended by, since by definition those are people who value their religion. (In fact, Jewishness does mean a lot to me, so the question is still rather offensive there; it just has only a secondary relationship to the reasons that I detest Christian proselytization, the most salient being my supernatural-free worldview.)

In fact, after someone gives a firm "NO", they have no obligation to explain themselves whatever. But trying to argue is even MORE offensive when the firm 'no' is connected to explicitly laying claim to a different, MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE religion. It's pretty self-evident that someone who does have a real attachment to one is not going to be open to you, no matter how superior YOU think yours is.

I kind of feel that a non-Christian religion is both a stronger 'no' and a case where it's even more offensive to try to press forward, because the philosophical divisions are greater in the first case, and because of Christianity's >millenium of oft-violent oppression and discrimination on the other.

Anyway, if it's not going to work anyway, there's no reason to give an off-point defense like "I'm Jewish"; and most Finnish people won't really catch the layers of implication because, as I have discovered, they tend to be under-informed about Judaism and its history, unaware of modern Jews, and actively misinformed in state-sponsored Bible school [flocked].

So maybe I should go back to Atheism. I obviously need a more strongly formulated response than just "I'm Atheist", though. (My BIL's "I worship Satan" would probably work better actually, but... I don't. The Spaghetti Monster would only work if the person knows what it is; otherwise they'd probably think they'd misheard.)

Basically I'm just trying to think of true or true-ish statements that are likely to successfully get them to leave me alone instantaneously without saying "Fuck you", because even though proselytization DOES piss me off enough that I could really mean it, it's not really their fault and they generally mean well.

• No, I'm a Jewish Atheist lesbian. - This one might confuse them enough to make them stop where the individual labels wouldn't. But it seems iffy, it might just encourage them?



• No, I only believe in things with scientific proof / No, I only believe in science and reason - Maybe?



• Did you know that the more intelligent a person is, the less likely they are to believe in the supernatural? - Probably no more effective than basic claims of Atheism on reflection. But when I'm angry responses that involve calling people stupid appeal to me.



• To a Jew, Christianity is just fanfic of Judaism. - Alas, this only makes sense if you know what fanfic is.


Maybe just
• My beliefs are none of your business / I believe people's beliefs are their own business and proselytizing is futile and rude.

On the bus on the way home, though, I was really regretful that I didn't know how to say "How fucking dare you ask me that?" in Finnish, which was the response I wanted to produce immediately upon being asked what Judaism 'means' to me.

Comments

[bluesbell]

That woman was probably involved in the local "Mahdollisuus muutokseen" campaign that currently has posters all over town. It's an annoying ecumenical conversion campaign by some (not all!) of the Lutheran congregations as well as the Catholic and Orthodox congregations.

The type of folks involved wouldn't be deterred by someone being Jewish, because even "Actually, I'm a priest in the Lutheran church" elicits the response "But are you a BELIEVER?" So...

[cimorene]

I thought so too, although I hadn't realized they had facers as well as a ton of advertising...

[bluesbell]

P.S. For reasons you probably understand, I'm somewhat offended by your repeated insinuations that religious people are less intelligent than you. Just...had to say that.

[cimorene]

I'm aware that people can find it so and I'm sorry that you feel that way, but since it is not unsupported by studies, as well as being a personal impression which many irreligious people have separately formed as a result of a lifetime of contact with the people who choose to argue with them about it, I don't intend to remove it from my vocabulary. Irreligious people are in the minority, and I've got a lifetime of experience, including very real legal oppression, to add to the angry pressure cooker. Some of it is even current in Finland, to say nothing of the state of things Alabama. I go as far as not bringing it up directly to someone I know to believe in the supernatural when I remember that that's the case, but no further.

[bluesbell]

Well, I'm going to continue to view your stance as personally insulting as well as ignorant.

a lifetime of contact with the people who choose to argue with them about it

Perhaps you shouldn't judge the entire category of religious people by those representatives who are the most likely to be loud and belligerent about their beliefs? I happen to be acquainted with numerous individuals who are extremely clever as well as religious.

(My husband: "Oh well, I don't have to be intelligent as long as I'm this pretty!")

[cimorene]

My statement that there is a correlation between intelligence and atheism is based on quantitative research. Obviously the link doesn't indicate a causal or predictive relationship and does not preclude anecdotal counter-examples. There is some discussion about it to be found in this wikipedia article on the subject: Religiosity and intelligence

I don't judge all people who believe in the supernatural based on that quality alone, but neither do I discount it, just as I judge a man more likely to be sexist or a Southerner more likely to be a Republican. Certainly my understanding of Christianity is not wholly formed by my encounters with schoolyard evangelicals, even if the seeds of resentment were planted there. However, resenting Christianity doesn't imply individually resenting all Christians, sight unseen, any more than deploring the invasion of Iraq implies individually resenting all members of the US armed forces. On the other hand, if those people choose to be offended on behalf of those institutions, they're free to do so. If they consider organized religion to be a more positive than negative thing, then we definitely do disagree. The difference is that my view has never been so much as an inconvenience to them, while Christianity has been making my life difficult for a long time.

[bluesbell]

I don't want to get into the debate wrt IQ/atheism, but will merely point out that some of the research indicated in the article has been criticised for simplifying complex matters and failing to take into account a whole range of historical, social and economic factors. (Also, it's Wikipedia.) Anyway, I personally tend to not consider intelligence to be the most valuable of human qualities or any kind of measuring point for human dignity, but that's another issue altogether. (I know I wouldn't score very highly on a test that measured mathematical abilities, which is what IQ testing is mostly about.)

My hurt feelings were never about you being critical of organised religion; that I have no reason to take personally. It was about your insensitivity in repeatedly implying that being Christian correlates with stupidity (an assumption, I might add, I've never heard you make about, say, Hinduism or Islam).

[viggorlijah]

How about "You are very rude. That is a rude question to ask a stranger. Be polite and leave me alone." because there is a world of difference between a thoughtful and respectful discussion between two friends about faith, science and religion and being accosted by a stranger and pestered. Someone that daft won't understand the religious part, but social mistakes could sting.

[cimorene]

That actually sounds like maybe the most effective response I've considered.

[mecurtin]

I agree with this one.

[syderia]

I'm a fan of the last one, personally, or of "I'm sorry, I don't have time to discuss this with you".

[cimorene]

That might work, but I feel it is more apologetic and kind than proselytization deserves. I mean, I am sorry to interrupt them or sorry to disappoint them, sure, as long as they haven't done anything actively offensive, but I'm definitely not sorry that I don't have time for them.

[syderia]

You have a point. I have to admit that I'm lucky that proselytization isn't part of the culture here (in France) and I was raised in my country's dominant religion, so adding the "I'm sorry" as a conversational lubricant is something I'd do without thinking too much about it.
Just "I don't have time" then ? (Or "I don't speak Finnish", in your case, might work too.)

[cimorene]

LOL, yeah, laziness definitely supports the latter. I actually DID apologize reflexively in the moment but later I regretted it. BITTERLY.

[torachan]

I agree with your final parenthetical. This might just be the best time to pretend not to understand Finnish!

Obviously it's good to have the other options thought out ahead of time, in case you are accosted by someone who knows you do speak Finnish, but for perfect strangers, it seems like feigning incomprehension would be the best bet.

[anatsuno]

I think viggorlijah is right and the social angle might work better. I know for sure that
"No, I only believe in things with scientific proof / No, I only believe in science and reason" and
"Did you know that the more intelligent a person is, the less likely they are to believe in the supernatural?" don't work at all - the first tends to elicit a comeback of fake science about miracles or angry-making "but can your science explain this/that thing?", and the second, by virtue of being a question if nothing else, calls for an answer. The best way to shut down a dialog is to say something that doesn't call for an answer (apart from "removing yourself from the situation" which is really the most efficient way - but that's easy on the phone, you just hang up, and not so easy or desirable when it means IRL that you have to step away from what you were doing).

I think it might be interesting to try the first, bc "No, I'm a Jewish Atheist lesbian." probably has the power to stop them dead in their tracks. But it probably wouldn't hurt to add "also you're being rude, now step away and leave me alone."

[cimorene]

I might try that one next time actually. If it doesn't work at least I won't have lost anything, since I also haven't found anything that DOES work...

[vass]

I've never tried this, but now that I've thought of it, I want to:

"I'm so sorry they're making you do this. Do you need help? I'm so sorry they lied to you and told you I'd go to hell if you didn't harass strangers and you'd go to hell if youd didn't try to save me. They're doing it to isolate you further and make you fear outsiders, but it doesn't have to work like that. Do you want to come have coffee and talk about anything other than Jesus and your church? We can just chat about TV and video games, and you can tell them you were trying to convert me the whole time."

Edited to add: this should be EXTRA annoying if they're totally sincere and not under coercion.

[cimorene]

That would certainly be amusing, but I would not attempt it until my Finnish was like 5 years better!

[phosfate]

We're missing the obvious here. "I'M SORRY, I DO NOT SPEAK FINNISH."

[krait]

Heh, if I ever go back out West, I should try that on the Mormons. :D

[vass]

PS: here's a post I really love by Fred Clark, an evangelical Christian who also hates that sort of thing. From that post: "When I’m asked if I can recommend a good book on evangelism, I sometimes jokingly suggest Emily Post’s etiquette manual. Except I’m not really joking."

[brownbetty]

I'm pretty appalled by this behaviour, of course, but also, it's bizarre to me that proselytizing is so much a part of their culture when Christianity is seemingly such a juggernaut. No wonder they glom onto you and won't let you leave; it's really hard for them to proselytize if they never find anyone who isn't a Christian. They must feel like a birder who's found the last dodo, or something.

(Not that you're a dodo, but uh, that metaphor doesn't bear close examinations on several levels, I hope it is not offensive.)

[msilverstar]

After a lot of attempts, I've finally come up with, "I'm sorry, I'm not interested." It's true, reasonably polite, and difficult to argue with.

If they are not being rude, I add that I thank them for their concern (because many of them honestly believe that I'll go to Hell unless they can Save me). So I try to acknowledge them emotionally while rejecting their attempts to discuss anything.

[krait]

I think something along the lines of your last option is probably best, possibly with a white lie to go along with it: "I'm not interested in discussing my beliefs. Excuse me, I'm running late/have an appointment/need to go now." or "My beliefs are none of your business, and I don't have time right now to discuss them."

[phosfate]

I go with "No, thank you," repeated for as long as it takes to make them go away. It usually works on the first try, when accompanied by a (forced) polite nod, because it triggers their automanners reflex.

"Please do not make me phone the police" might be a good phrase to learn, too. :D