Now, considering our mildly confrontational Facebook exchanges in the past, I felt chided and I admit I got a bit defensive in the conversation that unfolded.
I won't bore you with the whole exchange, but here is the key point she made:
Rachel: ..."It basically says that changing the beliefs of others and judging the Life Path of others is not your duty or responsibility, just as it is no one's duty or responsibility to change YOUR beliefs or judge YOUR Life Path. When one makes a mission out of converting others to their way of thinking, they become a missionary... an extremist. And no one likes an extremist. Live and let live!"
Now, I certainly felt she was accusing me of being a missionary for atheism, and therefore an extremist. Which of course, is faulty logic. (I believe that's the slippery slope) In other words, she's saying if I talk about my atheism to try to change another's beliefs, I am an atheist missionary which means I am automatically an extremist. It's excluding the middle and saying if you do it at all, you go to the Extreme! (you have to shout the word extreme like you are in a commercial for the WWE)
I'm glad she posted this picture and said that to me because it helped me to clarify how I go about interacting with people. First, I do not go onto the walls of other people on Facebook and foist my worldview onto them. I do not engage with people unless they come to me first and start the conversation.
