Zoroastrianism was once a proselytizing religion. When a significant portion of their community was forced to flee Muslim oppresion in Iran once the latter had siezed control there, the Zoroastrians went to India. There they became known as Parsees and Parsees refuse to accept non-Zoroastrians as converts. The Hindu community which allowed them to settle there forbid proselytizing and hence this became accepted practise among Parsees and they developed some interesting and convoluted ideas to explain this prohibition, none of which really makes sense from the persepctive of original Zoroastrian practise. It was merely a response to pressure from the surrounding non-Zoroastrian community. Zoroastrians which remained in Iran, and are closer to their historical roots, do welcome converts.
I think the situation with Judaism may be similar.
To reinforce my theory, in eastern Europe in the early Middle Ages, there was no reluctance on the part of Jews to convert the Khazars and these non-Semitic people adopetd Judaism as their state religion. But in that situation there was no Christian presence and resultant anti-Semitic feeling.
Why shouldn't a religious faith seek to proselytyze? As long as they are not COMPELLING anyone or making themselves obnoxious, I view it as a form of free speech.
...in eastern Europe in the early Middle Ages, there was no reluctance on the part of Jews to convert the Khazars and these non-Semitic people adopted Judaism as their state religion. But in that situation there was no Christian presence and resultant anti-Semitic feeling. I think this is great point (which you are developing further after giving the example of Zoroastrians). It may indeed be something of a Helsinki syndrome: as you recall, it refers to the hostages developing some identification with and empathy to the abductors. It well may be that after sustained pressure from the outside, the community develops some kind of justification for that situation. I never thought in these terms in this context. Having heard your idea, I think it must be pretty widely applicable indeed.
May I just mention that in the case of Khazars the situation was somewhat different from what I usually visualize as proselytizing. The Hun called for the representatives of the three major religions and requested an explanation of the essence of their faiths. This is different from these representatives initiating the contact and persuading the Hun that their own religion is "best." To me, proselytizing implies these two factors: initiation of contact; and, more importantly, persuasion.
Why shouldn't a religious faith seek to proselytize? As long as they are not COMPELLING anyone or making themselves obnoxious, I view it as a form of free speech.
As you stated this, I would not have a problem with proselytizing either. The problem, unfortunately, is that most of the people doing it will not be like you. The leaders of any movement usually have thought out the pros and cons, the limits, the costs, etc., of what they advocate and do. (I have to admit that many of the original communists, although I disagree with them as a matter of principle, were at least idealist). The problem usually comes with the second echelon, with those who succeed the revolutionaries (witness, for instance, how Jesse Jackson gets away with corporate shakedown under the slogans of civil rights; recall also how Stalin who succeeded Lenin was not even a communist but just a power-grabber much like today’s Saddam Hussein, whatever the ideology). Thus, I doubt I would find it problematic when proselytizing is done by a highly moral person like you, who has thought out the dangers of that process and understands the differences with compelling someone to convert. The problem is that, once you start, you will be succeeded by people who do not have your education, who have not thought things out, and who will go to far --- perhaps, out of goodness of their hearts. The second echelon may even include mere scoundrels.
Is sum, the proselytizing that you envision is not sustainable. It will, as one can see all too clearly from the past, deteriorate into violence. While I am here to answer questions and be of any other help, I would rather prefer my neighbors and friends to decide on their own where their path to salvation lies.