I’ve been a party to a few conversations at work regarding Atheism and Religion. I’ve also been fortunate enough to speak to some Muslims and Sikhs, so I have a little perspective now on those faiths. We have quite a mix of faiths (or lack of faith) at work, though I am the only Buddhist there. There are a number of Jehovah’s Witnesses there and some are very militant and will not even read an email that might cause them to question their faith (I know this through read receipts). What interests me is the constant drive they, and other faiths, have for converts.
My thoughts recently, especially as I have been making secular arguments in a number of areas, have been really more towards the ethics of conversion. When does proselytizing and converting someone become wrong? Yes, I appreciate that a given Atheist or Agnostic might have lots of answers and ammunition to fire. The same it true for a door knocking Theist, but at what point does it become unethical to fire it, no matter how right you think you are?
I was pondering my own secular arguments, as a Buddhist I feel I can make secular agnostic arguments quite comfortably, as I find that Buddhism is a very agnostic thing at its root. But I must also make the effort to observe the first precept, “I undertake to refrain from harming living beings”. It’s not just physical harm, but emotional and mental hurt as well. This left me wondering if was there a point at which I would have to tactfully remain silent.
Let me give an example of what I was pondering. What happens when someones faith is all that is allowing them to cope with a personal tragedy? Yes we may discuss things, but once I learn this is it right for me to continue arguing when I know it will cause suffering? Does there come a time when, because of the high ethical cost, it’s not worth winning or being proved right?
On reflection, I think at this point I would have to try to suggest that we simply agree to disagree and simply respect one another’s views.

