. . . "Jesus" has come to be viewed by many evangelical Christians as a singularly modern tool for spreading the Gospel. It speaks, though without special effects or quick editing, to a populace fluent in Hollywood. It comes in multiple languages on one disc. It concludes with a "salvation prayer" the viewer can recite with the narrator. Its local distributors consider it so effective that millions of dollars have already been spent toward the goal of delivering a copy to every household in the United States, as if it were free trial software from America Online. [Emphasis mine.]If I found a copy of this video in my mailbox, I would go ballistic. Fucking ballistic. I detest proselytizing. And in this case, I wouldn't even have the chance to make a snarky comment and shut the door in someone's face!
The ministry overseeing this operation, the Jesus Video Project America, calls the mass mailings "saturation evangelism." Since 1992, 20 million copies have been sent out on DVD and videotape, blanketing Alabama, Hawaii and South Carolina and large swaths of Ohio and Texas, with smatterings in the rest of the states. County-by-county distribution in North Carolina is well under way. If the current rate continues, it might take until 2040 or beyond to reach every home.
I recently ordered some supplements from the Vitamin Shoppe. When my order arrived, it included a free "gift": a religious diet book. Double whammy!! Why do you assume I am dieting, and get your god the fuck outta my house. I wrote to the company to voice my displeasure and to note how stupid they were to send anything with religious overtones. It's sure to offend many customers, and best kept out of any business, I would think. Naturally I told them I'm no longer shopping with them. Along with their apology and explanation, they sent a $25 gift certificate - which I promptly used, making that my last Vitamin Shoppe order. Call me a hypocrite, but I'm not throwing $25 worth of vitamins away.
Back to Jesus In Your Mailbox.
A turning point came when a doctor in Birmingham, Ala., Robert Cosby, bought 1.7 million copies and mailed them in 1998 to every household in Alabama, although he "wasn't very impressed" when he saw the film.Cool!
"I mean, it was a nice film," Mr. Cosby recalled the other day, speaking by telephone from his home. "I would say it was moderately good."
The mailing included Mr. Cosby's home address and telephone number. One day, he said, he found a copy of the video in his front yard with a note that said, "Jesus has returned."
That has not been the only rejection. Over the years, the effort, which began using direct mail after Alabama, has been criticized by people who objected to Jesus' being played by a white actor, or who said the money could be better spent on the poor, or who felt that the mailings were unwelcome proselytizing. Perhaps the most vigorous objections came in 2000, when a mailing was done in Palm Beach County, Fla. Thousands of videos in heavily Jewish West Palm Beach were returned, some taped to bricks in hopes that the sender would have to pay the postage, according to news reports.
Of course the organizers of this stupid project say the video is "simply a gift that the recipients can choose to view or not" - just as evangelicals say they're not trying to convince you, they're just "talking about their faith".
To that I say, what do you take me for? If you were not trying to convince anyone of anything, you'd go about your worship without ever talking about it. But you are talking about it, because you believe your faith is better than mine. That is, you believe you are better than me, and I should become more like you! Can you even for one minute imagine how galling that is?
The arrogance of evangelism astounds me. I cannot imagine trying to convince anyone that their religious beliefs are wrong. What right do I have? What business is it of mine? But these people believe it is their right (their duty?) to do the same to me.
Grrrr.
Oh yeah, New York Times story here.
17 comments:
evangelicals say they're not trying to convince you, they're just "talking about their faith".
And what do people generally think of strangers who walk up to them and start blathering about their personal business without an invitation, eh? Myself, I consider it extremely rude...
Can't agree with you on this one, LK. You're letting personal feelings blind you to the bigger picture. It's a free speech issue. Sure, for you, and me, and most people, it amounts to junk mail. But these folks still have a right to exercise their freedom of speech. They're not obliging us to pay for it, or even to view it/read it/listen to it; nothing more than drop it in the round file along with the fliers from Pizza Hut and Pier One Imports. They have something they feel is important to say, and I stand by their right to do so. Whether you listen or not is your right. The right to be heard, and the right not to (have to) listen, aren't mutually exclusive. I think in a free society, they're opposite sides of the same coin, and if you lose one, sooner or later you'll lose the other. If we stop these people from saying what's important to them just because we don't agree, what right do we have to express our views when they object? But if we tolerate their free expression, we can remind them of this when they try to silence us.
James: sometimes the expression of ideas can be rude, but it doesn't invalidate it as a right. So long as we are permitted to reply, rebut, or disengage (and I think there's a difference between walking away from a dissertation and proscribing it), these are the little risks we run living in a society that values new ideas and the possibility of rising about the hidebound. There was a time when Jesus's message and Moses's message were new. Generally speaking, we in the West feel we're the better for having heard them. Who knows where the next good news comes from?
But these folks still have a right to exercise their freedom of speech.
You misunderstand me. Of course they have the right to freedom of speech. I am not advocating taking that away or curtailing in any form.
I am merely expressing my great displeasure at having to listen to them.
sometimes the expression of ideas can be rude, but it doesn't invalidate it as a right.
And I'd never say otherwise. People have every right to be rude, to alienate their neighbours, and to make general nusances of themselves. They don't have a right to expect me to be sympathetic to their message while they're being rude to me, though.
The right to be heard, and the right not to (have to) listen, aren't mutually exclusive.
Ah, but there is no "right to be heard" -- just a right to speak. A right to be heard would indeed be mutually exclusive witha right not to have to listen. If Fred has a right to be heard, than at least one person other than Fred must hear him, must listen to him. And if no-one is listening to Fred, Fred's right to be heard would require that at someone be forced to listen to him.
Fred can say what he likes, but no-one owes him an audience.
L-Girl,
I agree that this is a pretty evasive form of "marketing God" that thankfully hasn't reached up here yet. I am a catholic, or at least a Christmas and Easter one ;) But I don't generally like to spread the good word to everyone I meet. If someone is really interested then sure I will discuss it but there is a big difference with your story.
The key difference is the company in question is using the personal information it collected from you to send you information you didn't want and information completely unrelated to it's business.
Here in Canada free speech in this case would actually be trumped by our privacy laws which state that parties in a financial transaction must provide clear guidlines for how personal information is stored and used; only collecting information necessary for reasonable business processes. I don't think spreading the good word is considered to be reasonable... at least not for a vitamin store.
A lot of people complain about how our privacy laws cause so many problems but in general I think they do a pretty good job of keeping people on their toes about protecting your information (At least they keep my on mine, I am the privacy officer for my company).
Peter
Ah, but there is no "right to be heard" -- just a right to speak. A right to be heard would indeed be mutually exclusive witha right not to have to listen.
Well, this is obvious sophistry. A right to speak implies a right to address an audience; it is utterly hollow otherwise. Without it, the most cynical of dictatorships could secure "the right to free speech" simply by locking a dissident in solitary confinement and encouraging him to chatter away to his heart's content.
There's a difference between being heard and being listened to. Any five-year-old can tell you the difference between hearing his mother calling him on the one hand and actually listening to her when she does so on the other. The exercise of free speech, by its very nature, requires an audience -- those you wish to reach, alert, persuade; people who will hear, at least potentially. Whether or not they are persuaded -- that is, if they will listen with an open mind -- is another matter, where the speaker's rights end and the listener's rights begin. In this particular case, the evangelists are heard by the recipient's act of retrieving their CD from the mailbox and recognizing the content of the message. Listening -- entertaining the content of the message and weighing it in the mind -- is the perview of the audience. It's a fine distinction but one that bears noting.
Well, this is obvious sophistry. A right to speak implies a right to address an audience; it is utterly hollow otherwise.
The right to address an audience is not the same thing as the right to have an audience. The former means that no-one can prevent people from listening to you; the second would mean that people could be forced to listen to you. The distinction is important.
Without it, the most cynical of dictatorships could secure "the right to free speech" simply by locking a dissident in solitary confinement and encouraging him to chatter away to his heart's content.
Not at all. Doing so would violate the right to address an audience. It is up to the potential audience (not the government) whether they will listen or not. The government cannot deny the speaker an audience, but it also cannot mandate an audience either.
If I stand the corner of Yonge & Dundas going on about how Freemasons are behind the worldwide Jewish / Moslem / Nazi / Communist conspiracy (as one fellow used to, about 15 years ago), I have the right to do that. But I do not have the right to ensure that my rant is heard by anyone. It is up to those *other* people whether I will be heard or not. They are all free to ignore me.
The right to address an audience is not the same thing as the right to have an audience.
That's not at issue here; the denial of an audience is the issue. Again, it's a fine distinction. There's also the distinction between being compelled to be an audience and being invited to be one. Placing a CD in a mailbox -- to which I do understand, Laura, you do not in and of itself object -- is quite obviously the latter and not the former (for an example of the former, see A Clockwork Orange). And so again, the matter of free speech implies an audience: the right to identify one and address it. Again, the members of the prospective audience may participate or not as it suits them.
Doing so would violate the right to address an audience.
How can there be a "right" to address something (an audience) if you're correct in asserting you have no right to that something in the first place? You have the right to address an audience, but not the right to an audience? Your initial argument was that there is no right to be heard. How is this different from the right to address an audience, which you now champion? These positions are logically inconsistent.
But I do not have the right to ensure that my rant is heard by anyone. It is up to those *other* people whether I will be heard or not. They are all free to ignore me.
Here you're confusing the meanings of "hear" and "listen". Fundamentally, to hear is to perceive a sound; to listen, to pay attention to it. The first is passive and incidental, where the second implies a choice based on a value judgment. There is a right to be heard (that is, not to have your attempts to reach an audience, formed or as yet unformed, unduly impeded), but not a right to be heeded (to compel others to entertain your message once they're aware of it). Again, these are not mutually exclusive rights.
I'm not addressing every point, 'cause this would run too long and get a little redundant (and pedantic)...
There's also the distinction between being compelled to be an audience and being invited to be one. Placing a CD in a mailbox is quite obviously the latter and not the former.
Oh, I quite agree. I'm not saying that the people distributing the video are doing anything wrong (other than being rude). I'm only addressing phrase "the right to be heard".
How can there be a "right" to address something (an audience) if you're correct in asserting you have no right to that something in the first place?
If you can get an audience, you have every right to address them.
If you can't get an audience, you have no right to force anyone to join one.
Your right to address an audience extends only as far as the willingness of the audience to be addressed.
There is a right to be heard (that is, not to have your attempts to reach an audience, formed or as yet unformed, unduly impeded), but not a right to be heeded (to compel others to entertain your message once they're aware of it).
But, others are not only not required to entertain your message, they are not required to even notice it. You cannot force anyone to even look your way. Everyone in the world may ignore you utterly, never even knowing of your exitence, without violating your right to free speech.
Your right to free speech is violated if you are prevented from attempting to gather a willing audience, or addressing a willing audience once gathered. But if there is no audience willing to pay attention to you, you're out of luck.
I am very tempted to quote the Dead Milkmen's "I dream of Jesus", where we learn that Jesus is not in the mailbox but in fact in a bottle.
Oh wait, it's right here
If you can get an audience, you have every right to address them.
In order to acquire an audience -- in other words, to exercise free speech -- one must, by definition, be able to make other people aware one has a message one is attempting to communicate. Put another way, in order to garner an audience to address in the first place, you must be heard. That right to initiate a dialogue is implicit in free speech. Whether those who hear will ultimately agree with your message, or even consent to entertain it, is a separate matter -- but they cannot even consent or refuse to consent if they are not first aware of the fact that there is message. Anything less essentially consigns the exercise of free speech to writing down one's ideas on a notepad and then locking it up in one's desk drawer, rendering freedom of speech meaningless. For it to be a meaningful act, it requires an audience; to acquire an audience requires first that one be heard.
But, others are not only not required to entertain your message, they are not required to even notice it. You cannot force anyone to even look your way.
I've been saying the same thing; however, one has the right to attempt to engage the attention of others in the first place. It's not enough that you can say whatever you like into the void; that's a meaningless act. The promulgation of ideas requires their communication, and that necessitates being heard in the first place (you can't depend on the hope that people will guess that you have something to say and show up). Implicit in free speech is the right to engage others: to be heard. Acknowledged? Different matter altogether. I maintain that a right to be heard (to put up a flyer, to mail a letter, to hand out a CD)is implicit in the right to speak; there is no right to be listened to (to require that CD be played), which is a wholly different thing.
To put a fine point on it: I have no problem with people hurrying past the guy on the street corner telling people about Jesus. I have a problem with them sending the cops around to shut him up.
Peter: The US has those privacy laws, too. They've proliferated hugely in recent years.
However, every so often a company is caught (by a hacker or a computer glitch) mis-using the information, using info they said they were only collecting for one purpose. MasterCard was recently caught misusing millions of customer's files. They got a miniscule slap on the wrist and were sent merrily on their way.
One would hope privacy laws mean more in Canada.
To put a fine point on it: I have no problem with people hurrying past the guy on the street corner telling people about Jesus. I have a problem with them sending the cops around to shut him up.
I agree with this, despite my rant that started this discussion. I am very sensitive to free speech issues. (When you're on the margins philosophically or religiously, you should be.)
I think there's a difference between the guy on the street corner, in public space, and the person ringing my doorbell, my private space. But I'm not prepared to say I want that codified into law.
However much I feel like ripping their heads off when they ring my doorbell, I don't want the JWs hauled away.
Allan does, but that's because they ruined his childhood. ;-)
Wrye, I haven't thought about the Dead Milkmen in a long time! Thanks for that. :)
I would go ballistic . Fucking ballistic. I detest proselytizing.
Me, too. Don't make me go all agnostic on your ass, fundie.
These people are doing Jesus a disservice, anyway. If the "product" is good, it sells itself. If you start hard-selling Jesus, sure, you'll increase market share for a time, but you then run the risk of saturation and eventual boredom. Americans are fickle. Remember the Cabbage Patch doll?
BTW, I was not comparing Jesus to a Cabbage Patch doll, but trying to make a point about the shallowness of some people's spirituality. I'm irreverent, but not totally disrespectful.
>Call me a hypocrite, but I'm not throwing $25 worth of vitamins away.
Haha... and you're a smart hypocrite:) However, I do think the company shows some integrity by actually giving you that gift certificate.
Post a Comment