Fred, you’ve probably already seen this but if not, somewhat on topic:  Fenton

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GRSbr0EYYU

the only thing I have to say about this is: He works in mysterious ways…

Well, I work in mysterious ways, too, and no one has ever confused me with God.

So mysterious that every ten cent preacher is able to divine its exact will on gays, guns, immigration, taxes, dancing, oral sex, Halloween, spanking, child bearing, head coverings, dresses, pants, smoking, spitting, and working on the Sabbath.

That said, I do find that certain ways of approaching my life are  much easier to invoke once I’ve tagged them with a short phrase. I’m fond of “It is what it is” in that respect, for example. And I mostly think of prayer as a way of invoking certain ways of approaching my life. So looking for short stand-ins for longer prayers isn’t necessarily absurd.

really can be a kind of shorthand expression of inchoate hopes
or wishes or intercessions. Whether such impulses are expressed formally
as prayers, or whether we’re even able to express them coherently, I think they can function as a kind of prayer.

For linguistic and conceptual clarity, I think we should keep that concept separate from the concept of communication with a deity, because the latter is the generally accepted definition of prayer. I’m not saying that the word “prayer” should only be limited to that communication. I’m arguing instead for Word A to mean that communication and Word B meaning the type of expression that Fred describes. Similarly, Fred defines evangelism as (from my incomplete memory of his post) a way of living rather than an attempt at recruitment. Again, instead of haggling over what constitutes evangelism, I would like two different words to express two different concepts.

Similarly, Fred defines evangelism as (from my incomplete memory of his
post) a way of living rather than an attempt at recruitment.

No. Fred says that the best way of recruitment is by the way one lives. It isn’t that he has a different definition of evangelism, he just has a different method of achieving it.

I work in mysterious ways, too, and I *have* been confused with God.

I’d never watched that Hindenburg clip before, and it’d never struck me before just how fast it happened. Even these many decades later, I ended up staring in horror.

Maybe this is just me, but over the decades, the whole idea of praying in words has become somewhat weird to me.

I use words when praying with others, because we’re trying to open ourselves to each other as well as with God.  But it’s only a shadow of how I pray when I’m alone with the Lord.

What I do in prayer really isn’t that complicated.  If I’m praying about a situation in my life or someone else’s that I know about, I recall what I know about it, and open my heart to that situation, think on the people involved and think of God’s love for them.  Then I lift that situation up to the Lord, who alone knows what’s best for all involved.  There’s a lot of visualization involved in this, but hardly ever words.

I can’t say this would work for everyone, and I’m certainly not saying it’s better; all I can say is it’s just how things have evolved over time in my inner life.

Thanks for the clarification. My point about “evangelism” still holds, where we should have a different word for Fred’s approach versus a direct attempt to convert.

And I remain troubled by the idea that someone might live hir life a certain way just to recruit, which is different from recruitment being a natural outcome. I hope that Fred subscribes to the latter and not the former. But the larger issue is that no one should want another to change hir religion, because an individual’s religion is no one else’s business. I question the doctrines of various religions all the time, but my goal isn’t to get people to leave those religions. There are certain aspects of private life that, as a default, no one else is entitled to have an opinion about, and besides choice of religion, that also includes sexual orientation, choice of marriage partner, or choice of job. If the individual shares these with friends, then these become fair game, but others shouldn’t assume that these are up for debate.

My epiphanous moment came from an episode of Angel. It didn’t happen during that episode, but a while afterwards, but it is, in its simplest form, “Nothing you do matters, so all that matters is what you do.”

I have what I like to think of as macros that are triggered by situations, based on my interpretation of the Scriptures and Jesus’ teachings. For example:

IF ‘someone asks for money at the bus stop’
AND ‘there is a dollar in my pocket’
THEN ‘give dollar to person
ELSE ‘Look person in eye and say, “I’m sorry, I don’t have any.”
;

Acourse, my scripts may not work with other operating systems, but they’re functional for me, so far.

The problem, as I see it, is that people tend to equate evangelism with recruitment.  Evangelism is NOT recruitment.  An evangelist is NOT a recruiter.

An evangelist is simply someone who tells the story.  When we tell the story of Christ, we are evangelists.  If we do this to recruit people, we are not evangelists, we are recruiters.  There’s a difference between telling the story of why we think Christianity is is important and needs to be shared vs. sincerely and earnestly begging and prodding people to come play for my team.

We must remember that it is our job to tell the story and live as disciples.  That’s it.
We must remember that conversion is God’s job.

We share.  God calls.  People choose to believe and follow or not.

It takes no small amount of hubris to start basing my evangelism on how many recruits I get, or how many people I convert, or how many souls I save.  That is not my job.  Nor is it true.

If I tell you the story of Christianity, and my own story within that story, and you choose not to believe or not to buy in, that’s your choice — but I must not belittle that choice or condemn you to hell for not going along.  Because, again, that’s not my job.

Our baptismal covenant states that we are to “respect the dignity of every human being.”  That not only means people in the church, it means people who don’t buy into the story, it means people of other faiths, and it means, yes, Republicans.

So, to all my Christian brothers and sisters, go forth, share the story and evangelize.  And then get out of the way and let God get to work.

There’s a difference between telling the story of why we think
Christianity is is important and needs to be shared vs. sincerely and
earnestly begging and prodding people to come play for my team.

Difference in tactics, certainly. But the former still amounts to a desire to want to see others change their religious beliefs. Regardless of the religion involved, that amounts to wanting to see people change a fundamental part of themselves. That comes across like the evangelist believes zie knows what’s best for other people, even when that isn’t actually the case. No religion is objectively important and no religion’s story objectively needs to be told- those are subjective value judgments.

I find it confusing and saddening that more religions don’t follow the example of the Amish in this regard. Although I disagree with most of their religious beliefs, I greatly respect the fact that they’re content to live their lives the way they wish. They don’t even seem to care about the religions that others follow.

In the moment, when we’re dazzled or frightened or suddenly moved to compassion, most of us cannot instantly offer a full articulation of our response.

Hm.  I certainly don’t think it qualifies as a kind of prayer, but I have, over the years, taken note of an odd behavior on my part.
I tend to swear a lot in regular, casual conversation (though the extent to which I do so does, of course, depend on the context and the company I’m keeping at the time), but in times of distress, I tend to start to swear, but then cut myself off.
For example, if I were to stub my toe, I might blurt out, “Son of a – “ or  ”Mother – ” or “God da-” and leave it at that.
(Sometimes I’ll even string together a series of almost curses, like, “Goddasonofamother-!”)
I’ve never really been certain why that is.  I mean, it’s not like I’m bashful about swearing when I’m not in pain, so why is it that I don’t finish what I start when I am?

But the former still amounts to a desire to want to see others change their religious beliefs. Regardless of the religion involved, that amounts to wanting to see people change a fundamental part of themselves.

Yes, but why is that a bad thing? An awful lot of people change their religious beliefs and are quite happy with the results. More generally, people can and do change to a surprising degree, and as long as it’s a positive change, I’m happy to encourage it.

Robyrt, a person changing religious beliefs isn’t a bad thing in and of itself. That’s not the issue. The problem is when someone else wants the person to change beliefs. Obviously such a change can be a positive one, but only the individual is in a position to make an informed judgment as to whether the change is best for hirself.

My point about “evangelism” still holds, where we should have a
different word for Fred’s approach versus a direct attempt to convert.

st
We have different words already.  The word for the latter is “proselytism”.

There are certain aspects of private life that, as a default, no one
else is entitled to have an opinion about, and besides choice of
religion, that also includes sexual orientation, choice of marriage
partner, or choice of job.

Beg to differ.  If your religion requires you to act in ways that hurt me and those I love, I am sure as heck entitled to have an opinion about it.  If your sexual orientation is towards [underage] children, you bet I have an opinion.  If your choice of marriage partner is my (or anyone else’s) current spouse, well, I’m not going to criminalize it, but I expect that I’ll have strong opinions.  If your choice of job is President of the United States (see Fred’s next post), I am legally entitled and morally obligated to have opinions.

If your religion requires you to act in ways that hurt me and those I
love, I am sure as heck entitled to have an opinion about it.

While I agree, my point is about the religion itself, not the actions that it motivates. In part, I’m arguing against Herman Cain’s bigotry in refusing to hire Muslims and in fearing to have a Muslim surgeon operate on him. Ironic that many fundamentalist and many atheists justify that type of bigotry by claiming that Islam turns all adherents into blood-lusting terrorists.

 I’ve never really been certain why that is.  I mean, it’s not like I’m bashful about swearing when I’m not in pain, so why is it that I don’t finish what I start when I am?  

Maybe you don’t swear in times of distress precisely because you’re normally not shy about swearing. Swearing is ordinary, times of distress are not ordinary and therefore require a different response?

That could be.
The more I think about it, though, I think it became more of a habit after years of watching The Simpsons.
There’s an episode in which Milhouse is playing a video game that Bart wants (it’s the shoplifting episode, for the record), and in order to get rid of him as Bart tries to take the controller from him, Milhouse yells, “Mom!  Bart’s swearing!”  As Milhouse’s mom is shooing Bart down the stairs, he’s trying to object, saying, “Hey, no, I, sonnuva-”
I think I already had the tendency to do the half swearing thing  before, but after that, it became something that amused me and got reinforced as a habit.
(At another point in the episde, Milhouse uses the same tactic, yelling, “Mom!  Bart’s smoking”
Also, I’m glad to see that I’m not the only one who mistypes “blockquote” in that fashion

 The more I think about it, though, I think it became more of a habit after years of watching The Simpsons.  

Never underestimate the power of The Simpsons. 

 
Also, I’m glad to see that I’m not the only one who mistypes “blockquote” in that fashion  

I mistype “blockquote” in pretty much every possible fashion, but that is the most common. I have no need for a prayer macro, but a “blockquote” macro would be helpful. 

But the former still amounts to a desire to want to see others change
their religious beliefs. Regardless of the religion involved, that
amounts to wanting to see people change a fundamental part of
themselves.

Then maybe I’m a bad evangelist.  I’ve never subscribed to the belief that Muslims or Jews need to convert to Christianity.  Nor, for that matter, do I tell my story to get others to change their beliefs — Muslim, Jew, Wiccan, whatever.  That’s for you to decide.  If I tell you the story and you want to know more, great.  But that’s on you.  And I’m actually interested in why you are a Muslim, Jew, Wiccan, whatever.

Nor do I tell people, “You know, that church you’re going to has some really whacked out theology; you’re too smart for that.  Why don’t you come over and attend St. Swithin’s.”

I tell my story to non-religious for just that reason, to tell the story.  And that goes in context with allowing them to tell me their story and why they don’t believe.  And, if they want to continue the discussion and know more, great.  But again, that’s on them.

Lastly, I tell the story to people who ask me about it.  I don’t need to walk into a bar and proclaim, “Let me tell you about my friend Jeeezus.”

I walk into a bar and wait for them to ask what I do for a living.  “I’m priest.  Really.  And yes, I’m allowed to drink.”  And the conversation usually takes off from there.

Yes, I would like to see more Christians.  Yes, I would certainly like to see more Episcopalians.  But I’m not into “convincing” people to switch religions.  Nor am I into coercing the non-religious into a religious lifestyle.  And I am certainly not into sheep stealing.  I’m into telling the story.

And this is why I wasn’t a good sales person.  “You want this?  No?  Okay, fine.”

Do you talk a lot to yourself ?

Maybe you swear a lot when you’re around other people because you’re having a conversation with them, but when you hurt yourself you’re not talking [i]to[/i] anybody, and maybe you are naturally not inclined to talk to yourself so your brain automatically cuts it off once it remembers you’re not actually talking to someone ?

(okay, that’s total off-the-cuff speculation that I’m not even sure makes sense, but who knows)

Also, both evangelism and proselytism start with the assumption that the religion followed by the evangelist or proselytizer is the only right one to have. In effect, these treat all other religions as though they sanction things like pedophilia or adultery. I’m suggesting a distinction between personal values and interpersonal values. Different religions are ideal for different people based on personality and temperament and circumstance, and on what meanings people find in them.

Sure, we would both be repulsed if someone declared that their religion sanctioned pedophilia, but our only course from an ethical and practical standpoint may be to threaten punishment if the person acts on that belief, and punish accordingly if zie does. Ethical because trying to, say, brainwash the person out of hir religion would seem to cross a line.

both evangelism and proselytism start with the assumption that the
religion followed by the evangelist or proselytizer is the only right
one to have. In effect, these treat all other religions as though they
sanction things like pedophilia or adultery.

Tonio, do you seriously believe these things that you type?

Do you have the slightest notion how reductionist and offensive this statement is?

Do you realize that you have just told me and Referend Ref and Fred Clark that that we explicitly say that we are not doing (assuming that our religion is the only right one to have) is exactly what we are doing, that we are badly self-deceived or bald-faced liars, and that we are accusing our Muslim and Jewish and Hindu and Pagan and atheist friends of being pedophiles and adulterers every time we publicly comment about our faith and values and how we try to live by them?

You’ve completely lost me, Tonio.  Evangelism and proselytism do not require that Belief X is the *only* correct belief.  Some people do that, and they’re called jerks.  Even if large portions of evangelicals advocate for asshole proselytism, it’s still not necessary.  Reverend Ref had a pretty good account of how sharing the faith happen naturally.  He has a standard joke for when his career comes up in conversation, and then if the other person doesn’t want to talk about religion, they can say, “Oh, that’s nice.  Say, how ’bout that local sports team?”

Or to put it in non-religion terms, I like a number of obscure anime.  If I’m talking about anime with interested people, and they seem to like similar shows, I might say, “You know, have you ever seen Princess Tutu?  I know the magical ballerina premise sounds weird, but it’s fantastic.”  I say that because I still bawl my eyes out after multiple rewatches, not because I think that every other anime is a steaming pile.  And if they tried it and it didn’t work for them… no big deal.

My apologies. Obviously I know that most people who want others to join their religion don’t view belonging to other religions as immoral, and I wasn’t suggesting otherwise. I’m trying to describe how that interest often feels from the other side, like you’re being told that something is wrong with you. I don’t doubt that Reverend Ref’s interest in why people belong to other religions is honest and benign. But I can’t imagine myself asking that question of anyone, even family members, because that’s a subject that is intensely private. Not necessarily the beliefs themselves but why people hold them. I suppose I don’t want people to be interested in what I believe or why I believe it.

Evangelism and proselytism do not require that Belief X is the *only* correct belief.

True. I was talking about how the evangelism might look from the other side.

And while I appreciate your anime analogy, an individual’s religious beliefs tend to be a huge part of hir identity. So when an evangelist suggests to the person that zie give up an entire belief set and replace it with a different one, it can feel like the person’s entire identity is in jeopardy. This probably wouldn’t be the case if the person is already dissatisfied with hir religion.

I’m trying to describe how that interest often feels from the other
side, like you’re being told that something is wrong with you.

Tonio, with all due respect, you often seem to feel that ANY personal interest is judgmental and condemning.  I’m pretty introverted and suffer from an advanced case of Midwestern MindYourOwnBusinitis, and yet even I accept that normal social interaction often involves sharing personal information, opinions, experiences, and beliefs. 

Just because somebody expresses opinions, experiences, and beliefs that are different from mine, it doesn’t mean that they think they have the power to shoot out invisible mind catapults to batter at my Citadel of Self. 

(I mean, I sorta wish that I *did* have that power, because Invisible Mind Catapults = AWESOME!, but seriously Tonio, you’re perfectly safe from that.  I promise.)

But I can’t imagine myself asking that question of anyone, even family
members, because that’s a subject that is intensely private. Not
necessarily the beliefs themselves but why people hold them. I suppose I
don’t want people to be interested in what I believe or why I believe
it.

And that is a perfectly valid way to feel.  I see people (here and at the old site, forex) cheerfully discussing their sexual proclivities in a tasteful fashion, but in far more detail than I am comfortable with. 

I can’t imagine any of those lovely folks saying, “So, hapax, what’s YOUR opinion of the Reverse Flying Cowgirl?”  And if for some unfathomable reasoned I was wrong about that, and I responded, “Y’know, that’s something I’d prefer to discuss only with my spouse and my chiropractor”, I’m sure that we all agree that anyone who continued to press me on the topic would be in criminal violation of Wheaton’s Law.

But I can’t imagine myself asking that question of anyone, even family
members, because that’s a subject that is intensely private. Not
necessarily the beliefs themselves but why people hold them.

Which, actually, is why I think good evangelism is really hard for most people.  I really am a strong introvert and would much rather be anywhere alone than with a bunch of people.  But God seems to have an offbeat sense of humor and thought it would be funny if I grew up to wear a collar.  However, that collar has made evangelism easier because, if anything, it’s a natural ice breaker.  Seriously, how many priests have you seen in a bar?

Seriously, how many priests have you seen in a bar?

Is it even *legal* to start a joke-swap session without at least one “So, a priest, a duck, and an unconfirmed sighting of a faster-than-light particle walk into a bar…”

I’m fairly certain it’s legal to begin a joke-swap session without the priest, duck and whatever third particle/being comes up.  But I’m also fairly certain that a priest-in-bar joke is mandated to be within the first five.

In other words, okay to start without it, but it darn-well better be part of the session.

Which reminds me . . . when I was in the bar tonight I was told the one about the mangled lumber jack, blind man, back brace and Jesus. 

Seriously.

You should have seen me when I was an officer in an anime club–it was a *huge* part of my social identity.  I can only hope that I was a charming, hopeless dweeb.

Otherwise, pretty much what hapax said.  I like hearing about what other people believe and why, because I want to learn.  But it’s nearly always freely shared as part of a conversation.  There’s no harm in that, so long as both people involved have the right to say, “Sorry, I’m not comfortable with this any more.”

Ooh, I don’t know that one.  You don’t mind sharing, do you?

The problem is when someone else wants the person to change beliefs. Obviously such a change can be a positive one, but only the individual is in a position to make an informed judgment as to whether the change is best for himself.

That’s hardly true in general.  We have mandatory schooling for children, and public education initiatives for adults, precisely because sometimes people need to change their beliefs but aren’t in the best position to realize that fact.  Of course, in the sphere of religion, society has generally agreed to give up on trying to collectively decide what it’s best for people to believe.  But that doesn’t mean that each of us can’t have an informed opinion on the subject.

Also, both evangelism and proselytism start with the assumption that the religion followed by the evangelist or proselytizer is the only right one to have. In effect, these treat all other religions as though they sanction things like pedophilia or adultery.

Er, no they don’t, not even if they do start with that assumption.  (Which, as many posters have pointed out, is often not the case.)  I mean, I was a professional evangelist of evolutionary theory for a while (now I’m back to being an amateur).  I  think that it’s the only correct explanation of how humans and other organisms got here, or at least that it’s significantly more accurate than any widely-held competitor.  And I think that it’s good for other people to accept it, both because it’s good to believe things that are true, and because a scientifically literate populace makes better political and personal decisions.

But that doesn’t mean I think that creationists and others who reject evolution are adulterous child molesters, or idiots, or generally ignorant.  They’re usually nice, normal people who happen to be wrong about this one thing–but it’s an important thing, so I’d like to change some minds if I could.

If I were religious, and if I thought that there were rational arguments favoring my religion over others, and that my religion was a net benefit to the world, I’d probably feel similarly about nonbelievers as I do about creationists.

I’m suggesting a distinction between personal values and interpersonal values. Different religions are ideal for different people based on personality and temperament and circumstance, and on what meanings people find in them.

I’d agree, personally, but that distinction is only valid if you have a particular sort of religious viewpoint in the first place.  Lots of people have religious beliefs which imply that one particular religion really is the best for everyone, in terms of both their psychological health and their spiritual salvation.  It’s certainly conceivable that they’re right…and maybe those beliefs are ideal for them!

Sure, we would both be repulsed if someone declared that their religion sanctioned pedophilia, but our only course from an ethical and practical standpoint may be to threaten punishment if the person acts on that belief, and punish accordingly if zie does. Ethical because trying to, say, brainwash the person out of hir religion would seem to cross a line.

I don’t see why.  We have this issue all the time with, say, gay rights.  Someone declares that their religion requires them to oppose gay rights.  Nonbelievers reply that their religious assumptions are unjustified, fellow believers reply that they’re misinterpreting the commands of their faith, and both groups reply that denying rights to gays is unethical and unconstitutional, whatever your belief system.  All three of these responses seem acceptable to me.

So when an evangelist suggests to the person that zie give up an entire belief set and replace it with a different one, it can feel like the person’s entire identity is in jeopardy.

Could be, but that’s kind of that person’s problem.  No one deserves to be harassed or pestered, but if the simple question “Hey, ever thought about not being Zoroastrian?” fills you with paralyzing existential dread, you should probably either try to get over it or plan to never talk to anyone outside your religion. Life’s going to be pretty tough otherwise.  (That said, “No, and fuck off” is a perfectly legitimate answer.)

Okay . . . but you asked (and remembering that this is a religious joke in a bar)
========

So Jesus and St. Peter walk into a bar.  They find a quiet table in the back and sit down.  As they make their way to the table, they pass a lumberjack with a seriously mangled arm, a blind man and a guy in a back brace.

The three guys turn to the bartender and ask, “Was that Jesus and St. Peter?”

“Yep.”

The lumberjack says, “Well, then, I need to buy them a drink.  Send them over a stein of your finest tap.”

The bartender draws up two, ice cold glasses of the most expensive beer, delivers them and says, “These are from the lumberjack there.  He was hurt in a logging accident last year and spends all his time here now.”

After a bit, the blind guy says, “When they’re done with those beers, would you send them over a shot of your best rum on me.”

So she pours out two shots of her finest rum and takes them over.  “These are from Phil.  He’s been blind from birth, hasn’t ever had a job, so the town sort of looks out for him.  This is all the family he’s ever really had.”

Not to be outdone, the guy in the back brace says, “Hey, send them a couple glasses of your best wine.”

She pulls down two glasses, pours the wine and takes them over.  “These are from Sam.  He worked in construction but fell off a ladder six months ago and ruined his back.  He’s trying to figure out what to do now that he can’t work.”

Finally Jesus and St. Peter get up to leave.  As they’re walking out, they stop at the lumberjack.  “Did you buy us the beers?”

“Yes.”

Jesus spits on his hands, rubbed them together and then touched his arm.  Immediately the arm was healed.

“It’s a miracle!” says the lumberjack.  “Thanks so much!!”

Then Jesus turns to Phil.  “Did you buy us the shots?”

“Yes.”

Jesus spits on his hands, rubbed them together and then touched his eyes.  Immediately his eyes were opened and he could see.

“It’s a miracle!” said Phil.  “Thank you so much!”

Just then Sam says, “Don’t touch me!  I just started collecting full disability.”

Yuh. I have a lot of trouble doing group intercessory prayers where there’s a generally accepted formula that you follow. For one thing, I get self conscious cos the stuff I say when I do say stuff praying alone is too intimate for an audience, who I can’t block out of my mind. But also most of my ‘best’ praying involves extended periods of “…”

At times I pray with a fair bit of swearing and “oh come on“s which might scandalise the stricter members of my congregation, too. I remember after the earthquake in Haiti we had prayers for the victims at mass, and while they were being read out my personal version was along the lines of “what the fuck are you playing at?”

Speaking of which, I’d like to thank Fred to introducing me to Anne Lamott

Also, both evangelism and proselytism start with the assumption that the religion followed by the evangelist or proselytizer is the only right one to have. In effect, these treat all other religions as though they sanction things like pedophilia or adultery.

Whoa! What?

Sorry to be blunt, but as someone who doesn’t evangelise how do you know the mindset with which evangelists consider other religions?

Seriously, how many priests have you seen in a bar?

Stacks, but they’re Catholic priests and this is Australia, so…

A few friends of mine are Catholic priests. Within 3 minutes of your icebreaker they are usually being asked whether they really mind not having sex. Seriously, no one goes from meeting a stranger to being asked about their sex lives faster than these guys*.

*Cept sex workers, maybe

you often seem to feel that ANY personal interest is judgmental and
condemning.

Not quite. I’ve experienced judgmental and condemning interest before, and probably everyone else has as well. But in my case, when someone shows any type of personal interest in me, I wait for the interest to turn judgmental. Out of habit I try to steer the conversation away from myself to avoid any negative consequences.

No one deserves to be harassed or pestered, but if the simple question “Hey, ever thought about not
being Zoroastrian?” fills you with paralyzing existential dread, you
should probably either try to get over it or plan to never talk to
anyone outside your religion.

While you have a valid point, I wasn’t referring to myself. In my own case, I don’t want the interest in my own religious stance because I don’t want to give others a reason to dislike me. I don’t expect everyone who dislikes me to mistreat me, but it’s happened often enough that I still try to avoid it.

Or to put it in non-religion terms, I like a number of obscure anime.  If I’m talking about anime with interested people, and they seem to like similar shows, I might say, “You know, have you ever seen Princess Tutu?  I know the magical ballerina premise sounds weird, but it’s fantastic.”  I say that because I still bawl my eyes out after multiple rewatches, not because I think that every other anime is a steaming pile.  And if they tried it and it didn’t work for them… no big deal.

I’m delurking because my thoughts are relevant to a couple of different threads of this conversation and I hope someone will find it interesting.
I feel exactly like this about (to bring it back to the original post, and poor Fred has posted this exact passage like five times and no one ever seems to comment on it and this always makes me sad) David Foster Wallace. I adore him. He pushes my deepest emotional buttons, he hits me in the gut like nobody else. I want people to read him and I want people to see what I see. I want that deeply. I want to relate to people who see in him what I do and who have their buttons pushed as I do. I understand that for a lot of people he’s impenetrable and unrewarding, and I accept that and it’s ok; he doesn’t push everybody’s buttons (God help me if I wanted everyone to have my same buttons; the world would be insane–more so) (but I can’t say “no big deal”, either; I can’t pretend that I can really relate to you if you don’t get him); but for certain people he just hits them in the gut like he does me; I want to find (or discover) and connect with those people. My husband (who loves him the way I do) and I both literally call this evangelism. 

Does any of this even remotely, in any sense at all, connote that we require that adoration of David Foster Wallace is the only correct belief? Or, for the love of FSM, that we believe non-adorers of David Foster Wallace to be equivalent to pedophiles? Those ideas are both insane. But I think the way I feel about DFW and my desire to expose other people to him (possibly similar to our gracious host’s, it seems), I think can very reasonably be described as evangelism. And I think it may be directly related (albeit with major distinctions) to what our gracious host considers Christian evangelism to be (although, as I am FWIW pretty well a Gnu Atheist, I do not presume to speculate on that, nor do I presume to speculate that I view DFW as he views Christ). 

Sincere apologies if I have misrepresented our gracious host’s beliefs and likewise sincere apologies if I have piled on to you, Tonio. I do not mean to; as a Gnu Atheist I’m quite sympathetic to your views; it is only that this strange idea of “evangelism” has taken on a meaning for me that it never had before, and I think it has given me a new understanding of the Christian version of it. 

I hope this is not totally incoherent. 

Stories like this–and the subject of prayer in general–are one of the reasons that I left Christianity.  Because I was told that stuff like this happens, and–excluding the placebo effect–IT DOESN’T.

Okay . . . but you asked (and remembering that this is a religious joke in a bar)

Sounded more like a Religious Right joke to me: “Disabled people could get cured if they really wanted, but they’d rather just collect disability check. Lazy bums.”

Just then Sam says, “Don’t touch me!  I just started collecting full disability.”

…Nah, I’m just paranoid. No way this could possibly be trying to seed the thought that disabled people are disabled by _choice_ they could and would reverse any moment if you just cut the disability check. Nobody could be _that_ cynically evil. Silly me.

Hi, katemonster–I’m just getting used to commenting here myself.  You did a much better job explaining what was in my head last night, and it makes me a little more comfortable looking past the baggage that I have all tangled up in the word “evangelical.”

Also, um, I was really impressed by your sincere passion for David Foster Wallace.  I think I want to try him out.  There are a number of books on Wikipedia and in the Kindle store; is there one that you would recommend? 

I get where you’re coming from, Mackrimin, but could I ask you to go easy on him about it?  I asked him to tell the joke, so I feel responsible for bringing any criticism down on him.

Hey . . . nobody said bar jokes were any good.  Some are, Superman at the Space Needle is one of my favorites, but most tend to sound like they were written by Archie Bunker.

Context is important here.  As Shallot pointed out, I was asked to repeat it.  If you’ve paid any attention to what I’ve written here in the past, you’d know that I’ve never accused anyone of being lazy in order to reap the benefits of our/my hard-earned money.  And I’m certainly not part of the Religious Right.

Also, my God, I love semicolons.

LOL, you crack me up

Context is important here.  As Shallot pointed out, I was asked to
repeat it.  If you’ve paid any attention to what I’ve written here in
the past, you’d know that I’ve never accused anyone of being lazy in
order to reap the benefits of our/my hard-earned money.  And I’m
certainly not part of the Religious Right.

I didn’t say you are, I simply pointed out – or at least merely meant to point out – that even the seemingly harmless “X and Y walk into a bar” joke fits all too well into a certain ignoble pattern. It’s makes me wonder just what other innocent-looking cultural artifacts are really pushing some nasty agenda, perhaps in a better-hidden manner.

Fair enough.  And a good question to pursue.