Conversion's marginalization in America

Rick's post ("Conversion bans in India") is directly relevant to our own legal and intellectual landscape, not just India's. Even in our society, to accuse someone of proselytism packs a powerful pejorative punch. I believe that this stems from our modern tendency to view religious belief as either a facet of one's cultural identity (e.g., "he's Irish-Catholic" or "he was raised as a Southern Baptist") or as a simple lifestyle preference (e.g., see most analyses of the "megachurch" movement). It is the undeniable mark of a fundamentalist to be caught speaking of religious belief in terms of claims as to ultimate truth. If religion is not to be understood as the quest for truth, then what could possibly be the justification for seeking to invade another individual's most private sphere of autonomy in hopes of prompting a switch in culture or lifestyle, especially when the switch concerns a matter that is so potentially divisive and inflammatory?

I devoted one of my law & religion classes to proselytism, and the direction of the discussion was eye-opening. I offered the hypothetical of a classmate approaching them in the cafeteria to invite them to church and talk about Jesus; the class was split between viewing the classmate as a relationally stunted cultural imperalist and as a deluded zealot. When I asked what might motivate such person to "witness" about his faith, it was not until the fifth or sixth possibility that someone suggested, "He might believe his faith is actually true." If we view religious belief as potentially true or false, proselytism takes on a entirely new gloss, but we rarely view religious belief in those terms.

Indeed, even Rick's post included some eyebrow-raising sentiment, as he concedes that:

Many reasonable people, in many religious traditions, have expressed concerns about aggressive and otherwise unworthy "proselytization" efforts. And, many of us might concede that a government could have a common-good interest in taking steps to expose such efforts, in order to protect the freedom-of-conscience of its citizens.

My question is, what exactly is an "aggressive" or "otherwise unworthy" proselytization effort? And who do we trust to identify such efforts? And what should we want the government to do about them? In many countries, I know that materially assisting non-Christians at the same time you tell them the story of Christianity is viewed as an unfair advantage in the contest of religious ideas. But for the witnessing Christian, such a link is non-negotiable. This may be my upbringing as an evangelical coming to the fore, but barring outright fraud or physical coercion, I'm concerned that, if we concede that some proselytizing is legitimate and some is not, we've given up way too much ground.

Admittedly, the American legal system is not on the verge of following India's path on this subject, as our robust tradition of religious liberty will most likely maintain space for the "Jesus freaks" and "moonies" among us. But without a doubt, it is a culturally marginalized -- in many sectors, despised -- space that they occupy.

Rob