Annoying Door Callers: The Solution

Sefirah

I was sitting at my desk, studying for exams (ie facebooking) when I noticed the usual Jesus brigade dressed in black suits and laden with leaflets calling around to the neighbours. I'm never quite sure how they choose their targets, or if there are certain times of the year in which they get the calling to piss off more people than usual, but many of my friends have been accosted by the same bunch in their homes lately.
Luckily, I managed to fish out a burka from my last trip to the Middle East, and when they came to my door they were so shocked that they forgot to give me a leaflet
How do ye guys deal with these kinds of people?

Close the door

MagicMarker

I never get these people, they probably know better than to walk into my estate. Even I wouldn't want to walk in to my estate!

But tbh I never answer my door to anyone unless I'm expecting someone, so it wouldn't effect me either way.

Galvasean

When I lived in Dundalk we would frequently get Mormons (interesting how they like to bug the college estates, looking for the unfirm). One of my mates used to love talking to them, taking the piss and wasting their time.

Sefirah

I wonder if it would even be possible to make them see sense, or at least question what they're doing. They're a public nuisance- who the fook wants to be annoyed on a Saturday morning by these guys pestering you about something they've been brainwashed with?

Morag

It got so bad with JVH Witness from 2 kingdom halls targeting my house (as they knew we are non christian due to there being JW kids in my kids class) that I sent them bot registered letters asking them to stop calling and if any of their missionaries did call the next letter would be a legal letter re harassment. They stopped calling.

The mormons run away when you are you are pagan and ask about thier magic underwear, did it twice and they stopped calling.

How ever the legion of fecking Mary keep saying all the houses in my estate are 'in the parish' so they won't stop calling.

Zombrex

Kick them in the nuts, then say Jesus feels your suffering.

That seems to work.

Dave!

Last one that called I had a bit of light jousting with them. They had a hot girl with them too, which was nice.

Depends on my mood though I guess, sometimes I'll just nod and smile for a bit and then tell them to PFO.

Marsden

Answer your door with your ball-sack hanging out.

MagicMarker

Marsden wrote: »

Answer your door with your ball-sack hanging out.

Just the sack?

Dave!

Ya can get special trousers for that

blacktalons

nutjobs [...] scum [...] perverts [...] paedophiles [...] child abusers [...] irrational [...] piss [...] morons

Bloody Nipples

blacktalons wrote: »

nutjobs [...] scum [...] perverts [...] paedophiles [...] child abusers [...] irrational [...] piss [...] morons

Now that's just dumb.

philologos

Sefirah wrote: »

I wonder if it would even be possible to make them see sense, or at least question what they're doing. They're a public nuisance- who the fook wants to be annoyed on a Saturday morning by these guys pestering you about something they've been brainwashed with?

If in questioning what they are doing as in the method of evangelism I'd say it's pretty possible. Personally I think there are much better methods than doing door-to-door.

If you mean causing them to reject their core beliefs (as you say "seeing sense") I'd say that's a good deal more difficult.

You don't have to answer this but why you think Judaism makes the most sense? Or that you've "seen sense" in Judaism?

robindch

blacktalons wrote: »

nutjobs [...] scum [...] perverts [...] paedophiles [...] child abusers [...] irrational [...] piss [...] morons

blacktalons is taking a week's holiday to learn some less inflammatory language.

magicbastarder

unfortunately, we never get anyone calling to the door. we do get leaflets from the UCKG though, my favourite was one which told the story of someone who had 'become evolved with heroin'.

Ickle Magoo

Play porn just loud enough that there is no doubting what the noise is and watch them get very uncomfortable and hurry off...just to pray for your soul, I would hope.

*don't try this if you live with parents/grandparents/partner who wouldn't approve of your secret porn stash*

robindch

Sefirah wrote: »

How do ye guys deal with these kinds of people?

Hmm..., if they're mormons, you could ask them about their magic underpants or the Mountain Meadows Massacre ;->

Or if you're in a more mellow frame of mind, explain as cheerfully as possible, as I did one time to a drop-dead gorgeous door-to-door evangelette, that Jesus is dead, that he's not coming back and why not grab a baguette, some Camembert and a small bottle of red from the local Tesco, and head up to the seafront and just feel the sea and the warm breeze for an hour.

philologos

robindch wrote: »

Or if you're in a more mellow frame of mind, explain as cheerfully as possible, as I did one time to a drop-dead gorgeous door-to-door evangelette, that Jesus is dead, that he's not coming back and why not grab a baguette, some Camembert and a small bottle of red from the local Tesco, and head up to the seafront and just feel the sea and the warm breeze for an hour.

Did it work out for you? :pac:

AhSureTisGrand

If they're Mormons, ask them how magnets work

rccaulfield

I Debate them, i find i'm getting better at it and they leave pissed off and not so sure of themselves!

Dades

Only ever had religious folk call once. A polite no thanks was all they got.

Haven't the inclination or time for anything else.

Orion

Got accosted in the street once by two gorgeous blonde mormon girls. They started waffling on about their message and then mentioned that they just wanted to let people know where they're coming from. I quipped back "aren't you all from Utah?" and one of them drawled "oh my god I am from Utah!" I just laughed and walked away.

Coriolanus

Another con of living in the city. We never get them out in the sticks.

dead one

Sefirah wrote: »

I wonder if it would even be possible to make them see sense, or at least question what they're doing. They're a public nuisance- who the fook wants to be annoyed on a Saturday morning by these guys pestering you about something they've been brainwashed with?

Can't you brainwash them?

AhSureTisGrand

A bit OT but can anyone explain why Mormons have the hottest chicks?

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

Did it work out for you? :pac:

She was religious -- wouldn't have worked

sponsoredwalk

This is how it should be dealt with :cool::P

keppler

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

This is how it should be dealt with :cool::P

Damn straight!.........................Its shocking how they can be sent out without any training. Last week three JW ladies came into my estate. I happened to be out fixing my car so I thought i'd spark up a conversation with the one who came to my door by telling her I am non-religious lol. Blaw blaw blaw and five minutes in we ended up raising evolution. I asked her if she knew anything about it and she replied "oh yes I know loads about it I've read lot's of books about it and I think it's a load of nonsense and explains nothing about life.......we came from monkey's hah"

To which I replied "but we didnt come from monkeys, we just share a common ancestor with them......but anyway why do you think evolution explains nothing?"

JW replies "well evolution talks about big bang and the universe and the begining of life and.............":eek:
Keppler drops big spanner on his foot while breaking his balls laughing:pac:
She told me she was going to come back and give me a copy of the book she read on evolution..........she still hasn't dropped by:D

Galvasean

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

A bit OT but can anyone explain why Mormons have the hottest chicks?

They send out the hot ones to try and convert because it's a well known fact that willies men are more receptive to listening to bull from hot women than unattractive ones. This coming from a guy who once dated a homeopathy practicer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iIWCFW8o5A

Sefirah

Jakkass wrote: »

You don't have to answer this but why you think Judaism makes the most sense? Or that you've "seen sense" in Judaism?

Judaism is about eating, singing songs you don't have a clue what they mean but are still rather catchy, learning how to read backwards and making Germans feel guilty. I don't particularly care for the God part, and to be quite honest, I think my rabbi is an atheist himself lol

Marsden wrote: »

Answer your door with your ball-sack hanging out.

Would if I could, man, would if I could...

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

A bit OT but can anyone explain why Mormons have the hottest chicks?

It's how they lure you in I remember there being a bunch of Mormons in my class in secondary school, and if anyone new came they'd be the first to spring on them and invite them to 'fun days out with their church'. They literally target the most vulnerable people, and if I had my way there would be laws against trying to convert people in Ireland like they have in Israel.

philologos

Your post clarified things a lot Sefirah, so thank you for that. I found the following part of your post interesting and I had a few thoughts:

Sefirah wrote: »

They literally target the most vulnerable people, and if I had my way there would be laws against trying to convert people in Ireland like they have in Israel.

I don't see how this is reasonable though.

Think about it this way. You would agree at least on a nominal level that we have both the right to speak freely, and the freedom of religion and conscience. Therefore it follows that one has the freedom to speak freely according to ones beliefs.

What would constitute trying to convert people anyway? Say if I get into a conversation about Christianity, and I tell people about what I believe in even if it is not initiated by me could that be seen as illegal?

Would telling people about the FSM, or about how one should be an atheist be illegal?

Or would it be illegal for people to have a stand out with Islamic material for people to take as they are passing?

It becomes very difficult to draw the line very quickly doesn't it?

Sefirah

The current status over in Israel is that one should not talk to others about a religion which is not theirs in a way which aims to be persuasive - they've had a lot of problems with outsiders coming in and trying to take advantage of people who are poor or have personal problems by offering them benefits if they convert. I really did see that happen with the Mormons in my school, and it was completely unfair- yet what could anyone do about it? After all, what they did in their free time was their business.

It's true that it's a thin line, and greatly differs from case to case, and it's a really hard thing to enforce. When I was in Jerusalem I had 2 Muslim dudes corner me wanting to talk about Islam, and when I was like "whuuuut, I don't wanna be a Muslim- they kill you if you try to leave" and the older guy was like "*random angry Arabic* THIS IS NOT TRUE!!! BEEEEEACH!" and if not for police walking past, he would have completely lost the plot :S But at the very least it would stop these annoying missionaries from proselytising on our doorsteps

philologos

I find the idea of the State policing conversations to be a bit draconian. I've had atheists try to convince me that Christianity is wrong in conversation before. I've also explained what I believe in conversation in the hope that people would think about it more. It seems that anti-evangelism laws would mean that the State would be sticking its trunk right into peoples personal lives and I believe that that is wrong.

I believe that some evangelism is invasive, and I would be the first to say so. I believe that other types aren't however, and I don't think there is wrong about people discussing their faith with other people, or indeed lack of faith.

The freedom to do this is part of what makes Western society great for the most part. Perhaps we could ask for more wisdom as to how we communicate about atheism or Christianity amongst other creeds?

Sefirah

I think that if people feel drawn towards a religion, they'll do it by themselves, and that having people marching around 'spreading the word' really isn't right at all. I'd say that the vast majority of people would rather not have anyone butting into their religious preferences, and if they were interested in religion or spirituality, they'd be well able to seek out the information themselves.

At the end of the day, the law is in place to protect vulnerable people- rather like anyone who's brainwashed into a cult. It also probably has something to do with religion being such a divisive issue over there- they really can't deal with people going about spouting their dogma and pissing people off. Although one thing I found particularly offensive was a sign a Muslim group had put up in front of a Church in Nazareth, which basically was telling Christians that they were screwed. http://www.flickr.com/photos/andylehto/4270998945/ That said, Jews are free to piss off their fellow Jews in order to make them more extreme in their religion (ie the black and white Orthodox brigade). I had one of them tell me that I need to wear more clothes, and that my dad probably frequents prostitutes, which was quite amusing.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

I find the idea of the State policing conversations to be a bit draconian.

Ireland doesn't. But where religious people assume the right to invade other people's privacy with their unwanted religious ideas, I can certainly see why the state might reserve the right to intervene.

It's perhaps a bit like the burka debate -- normally people have the commonsense and decency not to force their beliefs onto other people, but that's not always the case, and when they do, the state sometimes does have to restrict a more general freedom in order to preserve the general peace or to guarantee a freedom denied.

Galvasean

I agree with Jakkass so far as I don't like the idea of a state stopping people from discussing their religions (even if it is with a view to conversion). However, I would not be opposed to a law which stopped door to door religious recruitment (or salespeople for that matter).

philologos

Sefirah wrote: »

I think that if people feel drawn towards a religion, they'll do it by themselves, and that having people marching around 'spreading the word' really isn't right at all. I'd say that the vast majority of people would rather not have anyone butting into their religious preferences, and if they were interested in religion or spirituality, they'd be well able to seek out the information themselves.

The fact that the State should have any role in conversations people have with each other is pretty absurd. So you're in effect saying that an atheist and a Christian can't get into a decent well mannered conversation with eachother if either desires for the other to know what they perceive to be true?

You're saying in effect that people shouldn't have the liberty to say what's actually on their mind. You're also saying that people should have the right to express any form of belief in public. That's unnerving, if such a law came in here I think I would have to violate it. The idea that the State would do this seems more akin to a totalitarian Government rather than to a free democracy.

Sefirah wrote: »

At the end of the day, the law is in place to protect vulnerable people- rather like anyone who's brainwashed into a cult. It also probably has something to do with religion being such a divisive issue over there- they really can't deal with people going about spouting their dogma and pissing people off. Although one thing I found particularly offensive was a sign a Muslim group had put up in front of a Church in Nazareth, which basically was telling Christians that they were screwed. http://www.flickr.com/photos/andylehto/4270998945/ That said, Jews are free to piss off their fellow Jews in order to make them more extreme in their religion (ie the black and white Orthodox brigade). I had one of them tell me that I need to wear more clothes, and that my dad probably frequents prostitutes, which was quite amusing.

What is their definition of cult? This definition can change between people. What is the definition of brainwashed? Indeed, is it possible that people can come to know God and be passionate about it without being brainwashed? Can atheists be brainwashed? The questions are more and more as one thinks about it! :pac:

As for the billboard that is near the church in Nazareth, personally I don't find that all that offensive. People can decide whether or not they wish to heed the sign or not. Although, in the Qur'an it is mentioned that Christians are people of the Book and that they will be saved at the Judgement. This link analyses the verse I am thinking of (2:62) with the one that is on the billboard, which is interesting.

Sefirah

Jakkass wrote: »

The fact that the State should have any role in conversations people have with each other is pretty absurd. So you're in effect saying that an atheist and a Christian can't get into a decent well mannered conversation with eachother if either desires for the other to know what they perceive to be true?

These aren't mere 'discussions' - it would have to be outright proselytising, and practically every time they come in missionary groups and do so as their sole purpose for coming to Israel (particularly 'Jews for Jesus' which really stir up trouble). It isn't like 'neighbourly chats' it's more organisations which are hell bent on converting a LOT of people.

Jakkass wrote: »

You're saying in effect that people shouldn't have the liberty to say what's actually on their mind. You're also saying that people should have the right to express any form of belief in public. That's unnerving, if such a law came in here I think I would have to violate it. The idea that the State would do this seems more akin to a totalitarian Government rather than to a free democracy.

People can say what's on their mind- they just don't have any business telling other people what should be on their minds too. People are free to practice their own religion, wear signs of their religious faith, have meetings etc, but they are not allowed to specifically target those who are not their religion and force their beliefs on them. It's not totalitarian- it's sheltering people from a lot of weirdos. I've come across quite a number of wacko extreme Christians who are trying to convert Jews to Messianic 'Judaism' and they're extremely irritating. Why should a country allow people like this into the state in their droves to piss off their people? It's a public nuisance

Jakkass wrote: »

What is their definition of cult? This definition can change between people. What is the definition of brainwashed? Indeed, is it possible that people can come to know God and be passionate about it without being brainwashed? Can atheists be brainwashed? The questions are more and more as one thinks about it! :pac:

I didn't say it was their definition- cult is my way of explaining it. Brainwashing is indeed a tricky thing to define- my word again, not theirs- I would say convincing people of something to a point where they lose their common human values.

Jakkass wrote: »

As for the billboard that is near the church in Nazareth, personally I don't find that all that offensive. People can decide whether or not they wish to heed the sign or not. Although, in the Qur'an it is mentioned that Christians are people of the Book and that they will be saved at the Judgement. This link analyses the verse I am thinking of (2:62) with the one that is on the billboard, which is interesting.

I do find it offensive. What would a Muslim say if a load of Christians erected a sign in front of a mosque in Saudi with a quote from the bible which basically said that if they continued being Muslims, they're fooked and not getting to heaven? They'd be blown to shít.

Anyways, I have an exam at 9am tomorrow, but will get back to you if you have anything else to say on the subject

philologos

robindch wrote: »

Ireland doesn't. But where religious people assume the right to invade other people's privacy with their unwanted religious ideas, I can certainly see why the state might reserve the right to intervene.

I can full on acknowledge that some methods of evangelism aren't the best. What I can't acknowledge is that if it comes up in conversation that I shouldn't use this opportunity to tell people about what I believe. Indeed, am I meant to hide something as significant as to who I am as my Christianity? If someone asks me what I did over the weekend am I meant to pretend that I didn't go to church? An example which tends to bring more questions. Or what am I reading, if I am reading a book about Christianity am I meant to hide this?

Why should I be ashamed of what I believe in seems the most logical question to ask next?

robindch wrote: »

It's perhaps a bit like the burka debate -- normally people have the commonsense and decency not to force their beliefs onto other people, but that's not always the case, and when they do, the state sometimes does have to restrict a more general freedom in order to preserve the general peace or to guarantee a freedom denied.

Forcing isn't the same thing as talking about in many cases. I agree with you that there is a distinction between coercion and a general conversation.

strobe

I agree with Jakkass. I find the idea that the state would legislate against peoples conversations or against them simply expressing their views in a convincing manor to be absolutely abhorrent. Whether they are political, religious or social in nature shouldn't come into it.

Ickle Magoo

It would be completely impractical if not impossible to police what people say in shared conversation as well, surely?

Evangelising by knocking on doors tho - I'd have no issue with legislation against that.

philologos

Ickle Magoo - I think the Gards should just wiretap peoples bodies while they are sleeping to stop all the pesky Jakkass' (not implying that there is more than one person using this login :pac:) in the world who might tell their friends what church was like on Sunday :pac:

Ickle Magoo

There is one guy on here called [Jackass] who gave me a bit of a start making a very crude comment on AH once! :pac:

philologos

^^ He was around before me as well, so I'm happy to defer to him as the original.