Read on Twitter
People are (rightfully) focusing on the tweet in which I RTed @bonniekristian's article and addressed her directly, but in some ways the comments are more telling.
Tonight's the first night of Hanukkah, so in the spirit of resisting tyranny & lighting shit on fire...
(Thread) https://twitter.com/C_Stroop/status/1337098135194124288
Tonight's the first night of Hanukkah, so in the spirit of resisting tyranny & lighting shit on fire...
(Thread) https://twitter.com/C_Stroop/status/1337098135194124288
If you recall, or in case you don't, Kristian's article called Jewish objections to being specifically targeted for Christian conversion as "fundamentally unserious."
As if, you know, that focus wasn't the legacy of 2000 years of attempted genocide.
As if, you know, that focus wasn't the legacy of 2000 years of attempted genocide.
First there was this, and the idea that Christianity is somehow an unknown minority faith that has to be explained to non-Christians.
As if it weren't a hegemonic power that dominates every facet of American culture. https://twitter.com/bonniekristian/status/1334140926164422656
As if it weren't a hegemonic power that dominates every facet of American culture. https://twitter.com/bonniekristian/status/1334140926164422656
Then there was the implication that the only truly "religious" people are Christians. https://twitter.com/bonniekristian/status/1334140997408788482
Then there was the condescending reassurance that an actual Nazi wannabe actually *loves* Jews. https://twitter.com/bonniekristian/status/1334141179210969090
Then there was the insistence that only REPEATED proselytizing can possibly be a violation of consent. https://twitter.com/bonniekristian/status/1334144777101717506
Then, there was this, after she wrote
AN ENTIRE FUCKING ARTICLE ABOUT HOW OUR SAYING "NO" SHOULDN'T BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY https://twitter.com/bonniekristian/status/1334145040482971649
AN ENTIRE FUCKING ARTICLE ABOUT HOW OUR SAYING "NO" SHOULDN'T BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY https://twitter.com/bonniekristian/status/1334145040482971649
But more telling was the silence. She avoided answering the central question here: https://twitter.com/Delafina777/status/1334243176672940033
And to be clear, that question was an olive branch, because any "no" should be enough. Better yet is *asking* and backing off unless they get an enthusiastic "yes." Better YET is letting people who are curious come to them.
As I keep saying, Christianity has a consent problem.
And people have objected to comparing the logic of proselytizing to the logic of rape, but there are very clear parallels:
Unless a "no" is phrased in exactly the way the *perpetrator* considers legitimate, it doesn't count.
Unless a "no" is phrased in exactly the way the *perpetrator* considers legitimate, it doesn't count.
And they can pretend to not know that you're having to CONSTANTLY say no. If you are angry, because you've had to say no to the 5000 Christians, and you're tired, they can dismiss you as "unserious" or "easily offended" because it's the first time THEY, individually, have asked.
And to be clear, they DO know.
But as I've said about propaganda, the purpose isn't to convince, it's to exhaust.
But as I've said about propaganda, the purpose isn't to convince, it's to exhaust.
Much like sexual harassment isn't usually born out of genuine desire, constant proselytizing of non-Christians isn't about sincere attempts to convert.
It's about making sure that we never forget that we are allowed to be different only at their sufferance.
It's about making sure that we never forget that we are allowed to be different only at their sufferance.
It is a de-normalization of our existence, a way to mark us as Other, and to remind everyone that we insist on living outside what they consider acceptable.
And these techniques are similar to propaganda, similar to what rape culture does to women, etc. because they are all the strategies of hegemonic power operating in a society where it is, in theory, not allowed to use open force to eliminate minorities and/or marginalized groups.
Or, in which, in theory, it is not allowed to use force to relegate us to second-class status.
Hence the attempts to exhaust, so they can coerce and then gaslight anyone who identifies it as coercion.
Hence the attempts to exhaust, so they can coerce and then gaslight anyone who identifies it as coercion.
It's very easy to claim that Christians choosing to target a particular group for intensified proselytizing efforts isn't the same as holding a knife to the targets' throats.
And that's true. It's not.
And that's true. It's not.
However, there are reasons we have, for example, legal protections against retaliation without firing as well as retaliatory firing for whistleblowers, people who report sexual harassment, etc.
Because in that case, the law recognizes that making an environment untenable for someone without actually forcing them to leave is still coercive.
And as a society, we should be treating uninvited proselytization as the attempt at making the existence of non-Christians uncomfortable as an exhaustion technique the same way.
And that's something with which we can all help support each other.
If someone at your workplace won't stop talking about Jesus to coworkers who haven't asked, report them to HR. It's harassment.
If someone at your workplace won't stop talking about Jesus to coworkers who haven't asked, report them to HR. It's harassment.
If it happens at a social event, tell the proselytizer to stop. Ask the person they're targeting if they're okay.
Make it socially unacceptable. Shame the fuckers.
Make it socially unacceptable. Shame the fuckers.
Because just like sexual harassers, they're relying on everyone's fear of being rude--and the idea that anything touching on religion has to be respected in polite society--to keep us all silent and let them have their way.
Be. rude. if. necessary.
They are.
Be. rude. if. necessary.
They are.
