Which is worse : Ebola or Religion ?

[pErvinalia]

How exactly does a lack of belief in something lead someone to kill?? Seriously, that's so retarded it's even strange hearing it from you.

[Seth]

Marx didn't kill anyone.

You sure? Anyway, he doesn't escape moral responsibility because he was the principle agitator and instigator.

Stalin and Mao etc weren't Marxists.

Yes, they were.

Anyway, I'm sure some top level religious were killed by the dictators. But the key point is that they killed anyone who was politically opposed to them. POLITICALLY. That's the key point. The same with all authoritarians of all political stripes.

Yes, they killed political dissidents, and they also killed people of religion and destroyed their houses of worship and made it unlawful for them to practice their religion because the victims believed in God and the authorities didn't.

Just because the Marxist dictators also had other agendas in play and other groups they chose to liquidate doesn't mean that they didn't have an active atheism-based antipathy specifically towards religion, theism and any manifestations thereof.

[pErvinalia]

Marx didn't kill anyone.

You sure? Anyway, he doesn't escape moral responsibility because he was the principle agitator and instigator.

Stalin and Mao etc weren't Marxists.

Yes, they were.

No they weren't. You really should educate yourself about socialism one of these days. They deviated from Marx significantly.

Anyway, I'm sure some top level religious were killed by the dictators. But the key point is that they killed anyone who was politically opposed to them. POLITICALLY. That's the key point. The same with all authoritarians of all political stripes.

Yes, they killed political dissidents, and they also killed people of religion and destroyed their houses of worship and made it unlawful for them to practice their religion because the victims believed in God and the authorities didn't.

They killed them because they were a threat to the regime. Just the same as everyone who was killed. You desperately wanting it to be because of religion doesn't make it so. How do you explain them killing all the non-religious (or non-pious; non-practising; non-vocal)??

Just because the Marxist dictators also had other agendas in play and other groups they chose to liquidate doesn't mean that they didn't have an active atheism-based antipathy specifically towards religion, theism and any manifestations thereof.

Just because you desperately want it to be about atheism doesn't mean it is. Occam's Razor, Seth. No need to invent bollocks when a simple explanation will do. They eliminated threats to the regime. Doesn't matter one bit whether they were religious or not. It was the perceived threat that was important.

[Seth]

How exactly does a lack of belief in something lead someone to kill?? Seriously, that's so retarded it's even strange hearing it from you.

Are you serious?

Why does your lack of belief cause you to revile and insult religion and people of faith?

Why do Atheists object to public displays of religion?

As to how, exactly that works, just ask any atheistic Marxist murderer, like, oh, Che Guevara.

A lack of belief in God does not axiomatically mean that the individual has no moral scruples, but the absence of belief in a higher power that will ultimately hold you responsible for your actions even if you escape temporal punishment makes it far easier to rationalize all manner of evil acts under the rubric of "if nobody knows I did it, then it's okay to do it."

Atheism does not cause a lack of or faulty moral foundation, but it certainly facilitates the exercise of situational ethics and moral relativism.

The purpose of religion in trying to make people "God-fearing" is to use the possibility of eternal punishment for sinning as a motivator for good behavior.

Now, you may disagree with the premise that people need to be coerced and frightened into obedience and good behavior, but there is plenty of contemporary evidence that a lack of moral consequence for immoral behavior leads to a degradation of the society as the social glue that holds societies together is rotted away by moral relativism, which conveniently allows people to rationalize their evil, self-destructive, cruel and selfish behavior as being "normal" when it's anything but.

Religion is and has always been a way to guide and control the behavior of large groups of people into pathways that lead to cultural stability and success rather than cultural and moral decay and instability, such as we see today in most modern cultures.

[Seth]

Marx didn't kill anyone.

You sure? Anyway, he doesn't escape moral responsibility because he was the principle agitator and instigator.

Stalin and Mao etc weren't Marxists.

Yes, they were.

No they weren't. You really should educate yourself about socialism one of these days. They deviated from Marx significantly.

That doesn't mean that they are not Marxists. You might think of them as Marxists Plus if you like. But the core beliefs are clearly and unequivocally Marx's ideas and philosophy. It's simply intellectually dishonest to try to dismiss the Marxist dialectic and it's status as the foundation of Communism and Socialism of every stripe.

Anyway, I'm sure some top level religious were killed by the dictators. But the key point is that they killed anyone who was politically opposed to them. POLITICALLY. That's the key point. The same with all authoritarians of all political stripes.

Yes, they killed political dissidents, and they also killed people of religion and destroyed their houses of worship and made it unlawful for them to practice their religion because the victims believed in God and the authorities didn't.

They killed them because they were a threat to the regime.

And they were a threat to the regime because they believed in God, not Marx. QED.

Just the same as everyone who was killed.

No, sorry, there were many different reasons why Stalin and Mao and the others liquidated entire groups of people that had little to do with their "threat" to the regime and much to do with their unwillingness to bow to Marxist authority.

You desperately wanting it to be because of religion doesn't make it so. How do you explain them killing all the non-religious (or non-pious; non-practising; non-vocal)??

Do you really think that murderous Marxist dictators need have but one reason to liquidate people? Really?

Just because the Marxist dictators also had other agendas in play and other groups they chose to liquidate doesn't mean that they didn't have an active atheism-based antipathy specifically towards religion, theism and any manifestations thereof.

Just because you desperately want it to be about atheism doesn't mean it is.

True, however since it is about atheism, insofar as Marxist attacks on religion, your statement is non-sequitur.

Occam's Razor, Seth.

Oh please. Clearly you don't understand the concept.

No need to invent bollocks when a simple explanation will do. They eliminated threats to the regime. Doesn't matter one bit whether they were religious or not. It was the perceived threat that was important.

As I said above, despots and tyrants are not required to have a single unified theory of liquidation, they are free to liquidate people for many reasons, including because they are hot for someone's wife, girlfriend or child. Atheism is but one of the motivations involved in Marxist genocide. The important point is that it is in fact one of the motivations.

[pErvinalia]

How exactly does a lack of belief in something lead someone to kill?? Seriously, that's so retarded it's even strange hearing it from you.

Are you serious?

Why does your lack of belief cause you to revile and insult religion and people of faith?

Why do Atheists object to public displays of religion?

Atheists only object when it affects them. i.e. OTHER PEOPLE imposing THEIR BELIEFS. As I said, lacking belief doesn't lead to anything.

A lack of belief in God does not axiomatically mean that the individual has no moral scruples, but the absence of belief in a higher power that will ultimately hold you responsible for your actions even if you escape temporal punishment makes it far easier to rationalize all manner of evil acts under the rubric of "if nobody knows I did it, then it's okay to do it."

Or alternatively, believing in a higher power who will excuse any and all acts of horror if you just say sorry could be said to encourage all manner of evil acts.

Atheism does not cause a lack of or faulty moral foundation, but it certainly facilitates the exercise of situational ethics and moral relativism.

It only facilitates it if you are of weak character. Same as evil religious people.

The purpose of religion in trying to make people "God-fearing" is to use the possibility of eternal punishment for sinning as a motivator for good behavior.

Except you can just say sorry to God and you will be forgiven.

Now, you may disagree with the premise that people need to be coerced and frightened into obedience and good behavior, but there is plenty of contemporary evidence that a lack of moral consequence for immoral behavior leads to a degradation of the society as the social glue that holds societies together is rotted away by moral relativism, which conveniently allows people to rationalize their evil, self-destructive, cruel and selfish behavior as being "normal" when it's anything but.

We've seen how religious mass murderers legitimise their evil. It's written in their holy books. D'oh!

Religion is and has always been a way to guide and control the behavior of large groups of people into pathways that lead to cultural stability and success rather than cultural and moral decay and instability, such as we see today in most modern cultures.

Well what the fuck was going wrong a couple of hundred years ago when the religious mass murderers were killing everyone left right and centre?? You really have drunk the Kool-Aid.

[Animavore]

Funnily enough, atheists were banned from the SS because their lack of a belief in a higher power was considered problematic and they were considered untrustworthy.

[Animavore]

Kir says, "Religion. We'll find a cure for Ebola and/or be able to contain it, given sufficient time and resources. Religion is a lot harder to deal with, and has killed a lot more people."

I said, "Irreligion, however, has killed more people than ebola and religion combined and is coming close to matching the Black Plague in it's lethality."

MM asks, "Who exactly was driven by a lack of religion to kill people?"

I responded, "Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and every other Marxist dictator on earth."

rEv said, "But they didn't kill people out of a lack of belief in God. They did it for the same reason Hitler did it. They were just cunts."

I debunked that specious claim that's always heard when someone points out that atheism is in fact responsible for more deaths than theism.

That's so fucking what.

No. Communism is responsible for more deaths than thesim (if that's even true, I see no citation). It is the Communist part you should be underlining, not the atheist part. It is a complete red herring to point out they were atheists. Being an atheist isn't even a prerequisite for being a Communist. There are plenty of Christian Communists.

Yes, I'm an atheist by virtue of not believing in any gods, but first and foremost I'm an epiricist, I seek evidence for claims. As far as I'm concerned, when it comes to Communism, the experiment has been done. The evdence is in. Communism is an abysmal failure and frankly a disgrace to mankind. And therefore I reject it outright. So please don't try lump me in with those totalitarian scumbags by disingenuously underling the atheist part of Communism.

I'm not defensive, I'm offensive.

When I hear the idiotic arguments about how many people religion is alleged to have killed, I find it worthwhile to point out that irreligion has killed many, many times as many people, therefore the implied moral superiority of atheism and of Atheists in deriding religion is, well, complete bullshit and that's what I'm calling it.

I agree talking about who killed who and how many in the past is an idiotic argument (and, I believe, your so-called "Way Back" fallacy). So why are you making it?

You mean Atheists?

Well, they annoy me and my religious friends by interfering with their right to freely practice their religion, so it has a fuck of a lot to do with me.

This is where your prejudice is clearly showing. At least prejudice is the only reason I can see for singling out atheists when, as far as I can tell, other religious groups, recently satanists, and even in some cases Christians themselves have brought forward cases in breach of separation of church and state in America.

Now, that said, you're also being quite narrow-minded here. You're speaking from an American stand-point and extrapolating that to the rest of the World. You don't see the same carry-on over in Europe that you do in America. You won't find atheists over here trying to have Nativities removed and what have you. I'm not even sure there'd be any constitutional backing for that. If I were to guess, I'd say the reason American atheists seem loud, pushy and in-your-face is because many American religious are loud, pushy and in-your-face. The America form of religion with the big huge mega-churches and the like seems completely obnoxious to European sensibilites. Our religious are generally a lot more subtle, and so are our atheists.

[Seth]

How exactly does a lack of belief in something lead someone to kill?? Seriously, that's so retarded it's even strange hearing it from you.

Are you serious?

Why does your lack of belief cause you to revile and insult religion and people of faith?

Why do Atheists object to public displays of religion?

Atheists only object when it affects them. i.e. OTHER PEOPLE imposing THEIR BELIEFS. As I said, lacking belief doesn't lead to anything.

And how, exactly, does a public display of a religious celebration on public property "impose" beliefs on anyone? You're not forced to look at the display, and you're not forced to believe anything you don't already believe. Moreover, if you want to erect a display of YOUR belief, you have the same right to do so as anyone else.

A lack of belief in God does not axiomatically mean that the individual has no moral scruples, but the absence of belief in a higher power that will ultimately hold you responsible for your actions even if you escape temporal punishment makes it far easier to rationalize all manner of evil acts under the rubric of "if nobody knows I did it, then it's okay to do it."

Or alternatively, believing in a higher power who will excuse any and all acts of horror if you just say sorry could be said to encourage all manner of evil acts.

Indeed. But then just as atheism does not axiomatically lead to immoral behavior, religion does not axiomatically lead to immoral behavior, which makes an analysis of the morality of either an entirely individualized examination.

Atheism does not cause a lack of or faulty moral foundation, but it certainly facilitates the exercise of situational ethics and moral relativism.

It only facilitates it if you are of weak character. Same as evil religious people.

Indeed. But people are human, and therefore flawed and in many cases have "weak character" in one or another aspect of their lives. Religion offers solace, support and guidance for those of weak character to help keep them on the straight and narrow path of socially acceptable moral behavior.

Atheism, on the other hand, offers nothing whatever to anyone except the platitudinous and unsupported assertion that "reason" (something sorely lacking in many Atheists) is better than "faith."

The purpose of religion in trying to make people "God-fearing" is to use the possibility of eternal punishment for sinning as a motivator for good behavior.

Except you can just say sorry to God and you will be forgiven.

Depends on the God. And what you say is not, in fact true of Christianity, which you would know if you had any real knowledge of the tenets of the faith.

Now, you may disagree with the premise that people need to be coerced and frightened into obedience and good behavior, but there is plenty of contemporary evidence that a lack of moral consequence for immoral behavior leads to a degradation of the society as the social glue that holds societies together is rotted away by moral relativism, which conveniently allows people to rationalize their evil, self-destructive, cruel and selfish behavior as being "normal" when it's anything but.

We've seen how religious mass murderers legitimise their evil. It's written in their holy books. D'oh!

"Everybody else was doing it" fallacy I'm afraid.

Religion is and has always been a way to guide and control the behavior of large groups of people into pathways that lead to cultural stability and success rather than cultural and moral decay and instability, such as we see today in most modern cultures.

Well what the fuck was going wrong a couple of hundred years ago when the religious mass murderers were killing everyone left right and centre?? You really have drunk the Kool-Aid.

Which "religious mass murders" and what "everyone?" This is a "Wayback Machine" fallacy I'm afraid.

[pErvinalia]

You're making up fallacies now? Ok.

[Seth]

Kir says, "Religion. We'll find a cure for Ebola and/or be able to contain it, given sufficient time and resources. Religion is a lot harder to deal with, and has killed a lot more people."

I said, "Irreligion, however, has killed more people than ebola and religion combined and is coming close to matching the Black Plague in it's lethality."

MM asks, "Who exactly was driven by a lack of religion to kill people?"

I responded, "Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and every other Marxist dictator on earth."

rEv said, "But they didn't kill people out of a lack of belief in God. They did it for the same reason Hitler did it. They were just cunts."

I debunked that specious claim that's always heard when someone points out that atheism is in fact responsible for more deaths than theism.

That's so fucking what.

No. Communism is responsible for more deaths than thesim (if that's even true, I see no citation). It is the Communist part you should be underlining, not the atheist part. It is a complete red herring to point out they were atheists. Being an atheist isn't even a prerequisite for being a Communist. There are plenty of Christian Communists.

That's why I didn't specify "Communism," I specified Marxism, which contains the core principles upon which Communism, and Socialism are founded. One must hold principles of "communism" separate from Marxist Communism. Monks and nuns for example live in "community" using principles of "communistic" sharing of labor and resources. But they are definitely not Marxists.

Marxism is a specific brand of communal societal ideology, and as practiced by the mentioned despots, is entirely atheistic, entirely hostile to religion and religious practice, and actively works to destroy religious practice and belief, often by killing the participants, because as Marx opined, religion is the "opiate of the people" and it distracts and diverts "man" the individual from his proper place in "Man" the collective society. Atheism is a foundational principle of Marxist Communism.

Yes, I'm an atheist by virtue of not believing in any gods, but first and foremost I'm an epiricist, I seek evidence for claims.

Good for you. Perhaps your seeking should go deeper than superficial religious belief in the religion of "Science."

As far as I'm concerned, when it comes to Communism, the experiment has been done. The evdence is in. Communism is an abysmal failure and frankly a disgrace to mankind. And therefore I reject it outright. So please don't try lump me in with those totalitarian scumbags by disingenuously underling the atheist part of Communism.

I'm not lumping you in with anyone, I'm merely supporting my argument that atheism is a fundamental functional component of Marxist Communism and that atheism is therefore at least partly culpable for the 100 million or so people slaughtered by Marxism in the last century.

I'm not defensive, I'm offensive.

When I hear the idiotic arguments about how many people religion is alleged to have killed, I find it worthwhile to point out that irreligion has killed many, many times as many people, therefore the implied moral superiority of atheism and of Atheists in deriding religion is, well, complete bullshit and that's what I'm calling it.

I agree talking about who killed who and how many in the past is an idiotic argument (and, I believe, your so-called "Way Back" fallacy). So why are you making it?

Because the fallacious assertion was made that atheism had nothing to do with those deaths when in fact atheism was central to the slaughter.

You mean Atheists?

Well, they annoy me and my religious friends by interfering with their right to freely practice their religion, so it has a fuck of a lot to do with me.

This is where your prejudice is clearly showing. At least prejudice is the only reason I can see for singling out atheists when, as far as I can tell, other religious groups, recently satanists, and even in some cases Christians themselves have brought forward cases in breach of separation of church and state in America.

This is an Atheist forum, therefore I am addressing atheist topics.

Now, that said, you're also being quite narrow-minded here. You're speaking from an American stand-point and extrapolating that to the rest of the World. You don't see the same carry-on over in Europe that you do in America. You won't find atheists over here trying to have Nativities removed and what have you.

Really? Doesn't look that way to me.

The National Secular Society has demanded that employers should be permitted to declare their workplaces secular spaces if they want to, without penalty. Attempts by employers to accommodate everyone have turned many workplaces into religious battlegrounds. It should now be OK to say: "Leave your religion at the door, please. And if you won't and your religion doesn't permit you to work in the way that this jobs demands you do, then please find another job that will." http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... NTCMP=SRCH

Religious Freedom

Secularism seeks to defend the absolute freedom of religious and other belief, and protect the right to manifest religious belief insofar as it does not impinge disproportionately on the rights and freedoms of others. Secularism ensures that the right of individuals to freedom of religion is always balanced by the right to be free from religion. (italics in original)

And right there is the key point which demonstrates that "secularism" has little to do with freedom of expression and everything to do with suppressing religious expression on the atheistic notion that people have a right to be free from the religious expressions of others, particularly in the workplace, as mentioned above.

I'm not even sure there'd be any constitutional backing for that. If I were to guess, I'd say the reason American atheists seem loud, pushy and in-your-face is because many American religious are loud, pushy and in-your-face. The America form of religion with the big huge mega-churches and the like seems completely obnoxious to European sensibilites. Our religious are generally a lot more subtle, and so are our atheists.

Ah, yes, you'll tolerate religion only if it keeps itself quiet and hidden away so you don't have to endure the horrible fate of having to view and hear public expressions of religious faith. How magnanimous of you.

Religious expression is censored and suppressed in Europe to an alarming degree precisely because Socialist (which is Marxist in its roots) doctrine is willing to tolerate religious expression only so long as it's not "pushy and in-your-face." That's not freedom of anything and it's gross hypocrisy to say it is.

Freedom happens to mean the right to be obnoxious in freedom of speech and expression. Socialism welcomes obnoxious expression to no end when that expression is supportive of Marxist Socialist and Communist principles and ideals, but it reviles religious expression and holds its nose and allows some religious expression so that it can hypocritically pretend to be diverse and inclusive of "free speech" when it's anything but.

Thanks for proving my point so aptly.

[Seth]

You're making up fallacies now? Ok.

Hell, rEv, I created the Wayback Machine fallacy more than ten years ago as I recall, after people of your ilk on RDF kept trying to disparage modern-day religion by dragging out two-thousand year old examples of bad behavior as a lame attempt to win anti-theist points.

[Animavore]

Good for you. Perhaps your seeking should go deeper than superficial religious belief in the religion of "Science."

Been there. Done that. Do you think I was an atheist all my life?

Really? Doesn't look that way to me.

What do you mean "it doens't look that way"? If you know of an example of atheists in Europe trying to ban nativities and the like point it out and I'll happily concede.

And right there is the key point which demonstrates that "secularism" has little to do with freedom of expression and everything to do with suppressing religious expression on the atheistic notion that people have a right to be free from the religious expressions of others, particularly in the workplace, as mentioned above.

So you disagree with above that companies should have the right to declare their workplaces "secular spaces if they want to"?

Ah, yes, you'll tolerate religion only if it keeps itself quiet and hidden away so you don't have to endure the horrible fate of having to view and hear public expressions of religious faith. How magnanimous of you.

Actually that's not what I said at all. I gave reasons why American atheists might be loud as a push-back against the religious. Thanks once again for trying to put a position onto me I don't hold. I'm starting to wonder why I even bother replying to you. The rest of your post continues erronsously from this initial mistake (as well as being full of lies) and isn't worth responding to.

[Seth]

Good for you. Perhaps your seeking should go deeper than superficial religious belief in the religion of "Science."

Been there. Done that. Do you think I was an atheist all my life?

Well, there you go. You're just like me then. Been there, done that, got the tee-shirt, decided not to play.

Really? Doesn't look that way to me.

What do you mean "it doens't look that way"? If you know of an example of atheists in Europe trying to ban nativities and the like point it out and I'll happily concede.

Nativities is merely a place-holder for the many types of anti-religious discrimination and oppression going on all over the world, including Europe.

And right there is the key point which demonstrates that "secularism" has little to do with freedom of expression and everything to do with suppressing religious expression on the atheistic notion that people have a right to be free from the religious expressions of others, particularly in the workplace, as mentioned above.

So you disagree with above that companies should have the right to declare their workplaces "secular spaces if they want to"?

It depends on what you mean by "secular spaces." It's one thing to prohibit full-gospel revival meetings in the lunchroom twice a week. It's something else entirely to prohibit the open wearing of religious jewelry. It also depends on the degree of protection for religious expression offered by the country's foundational documents. The things that makes it violative of the religious individual's rights are a) that the regulation applies only to religious expression, and only religion-related items are prohibited.

Therefore, absent a company policy requiring an identical work uniform and a complete absence of any and all jewelry or adornment worn on or inserted into the body, banning a Christian cross, crucifix or Jewish star or other symbol of religion while allowing non-religious adornment is not a matter of either workplace safety or workplace uniformity, it's demonstrable hostility to religion and religious expression, which like refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple, is illegal discrimination.

Ah, yes, you'll tolerate religion only if it keeps itself quiet and hidden away so you don't have to endure the horrible fate of having to view and hear public expressions of religious faith. How magnanimous of you.

Actually that's not what I said at all. I gave reasons why American atheists might be loud as a push-back against the religious. Thanks once again for trying to put a position onto me I don't hold. I'm starting to wonder why I even bother replying to you. The rest of your post continues erronsously from this initial mistake (as well as being full of lies) and isn't worth responding to.

The approval of the European model is perfectly obvious in your statement based on the specific language and tone you used and I believe my analysis is correct. That I amplified the point is merely a rhetorical tool to, well, amplify the point. You did say, after all, "The America form of religion with the big huge mega-churches and the like seems completely obnoxious to European sensibilites. Our religious are generally a lot more subtle, and so are our atheists." This clearly indicates an antipathy towards American religion and a favoring of "more subtle" displays of religion.

As to why you bother, I'd say it's because I'm the very best at what I do: stimulating debate.

[Animavore]

It depends on what you mean by "secular spaces." It's one thing to prohibit full-gospel revival meetings in the lunchroom twice a week. It's something else entirely to prohibit the open wearing of religious jewelry. It also depends on the degree of protection for religious expression offered by the country's foundational documents. The things that makes it violative of the religious individual's rights are a) that the regulation applies only to religious expression, and only religion-related items are prohibited.

Therefore, absent a company policy requiring an identical work uniform and a complete absence of any and all jewelry or adornment worn on or inserted into the body, banning a Christian cross, crucifix or Jewish star or other symbol of religion while allowing non-religious adornment is not a matter of either workplace safety or workplace uniformity, it's demonstrable hostility to religion and religious expression, which like refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple, is illegal discrimination.

I presume you're referring to the British Airways case where a woman was told she couldn't wear a necklace as part of company safety policy and she wanted to wear a necklace with a crucifix and wasn't allowed. The company told her she could wear a badge with a cross if she wanted. They did not outright ban religious symbols. This was a very reasonable request, I thought, and I think that woman was being stubborn and unreasonable.

I haven't come across a place yet that doesn't allow people outright to wear anything of religious identity. It's quite the opposite in fact. Most companies I've worked for have prayer rooms, kosher foods in the canteen and the like. What's generally not allowed is prostelytising, which is fair game I think.

You did say, after all, "The America form of religion with the big huge mega-churches and the like seems completely obnoxious to European sensibilites. Our religious are generally a lot more subtle, and so are our atheists." This clearly indicates an antipathy towards American religion and a favoring of "more subtle" displays of religion.

No. It indicates no such thing. I don't favour either of them. I find Catholic Mass to be very, very boring. It's at the opposite end of the scale, though I did used to enjoy meditation when I was a Buddhist, which was far more intropsect.

Of course my opinion on various religious services says nothing on whether I think they should be quiet and out of the way (which is what you tried to claim), although churches, even mega ones, are generally already are quiet and out of the way, it's not like I have to go into them except for the odd wedding or funeral. As for the rest, I can easily walk by the guy on Henry Street in Dublin blasting people with his megaphone, damning them all to hell, or the Mormons sitting quietly on the footpath with a table piled with books, or the Scientology guys with their personality test, just like I walk by the buskers, street performers, human statues and charity campaigners. Actually I'd say the latter of that bunch are by far the most intrusive because they will actively try wave you down or pull you aside.

The only ones who bother me are Jehovah's Witness calling to my door early on a Sunday morning. I usually talk to them and ask them lots of difficult questions until they go away. In this case it is them who came to me, so I think they're fair game.