Ever heard that one egg say: "Stop forcing your beliefs on me"? Exposing A Self Refuting Criticism

In Translation: "Stop Evangelism".

In reality, if the belief had already been forced upon the subject, then how would they be objecting to such a belief from the Proselytizer, since they already must possess the very belief that has been imposed on them? 

Firstly I ponder the content of the objection. Is the word "force" applicable? Synonyms that might belong here are impose or rape or to a lesser degree push and pressure .Intuitively speaking, no one can force any belief on any other human, perhaps the two exceptions I can think of are in raising an infant, and using psychological/sales techniques to manipulate others into having false beliefs, but neither of these methods are infallible or work completely wholesale.

In general no one can force a belief on another. For example if my house is red, and someone attempts to persuade me to believe my house is not red, can I knowingly believe this is true?  What I know to be false?

In this case then knowledge (or beliefs we hold to be certain), override externally imposed or pressured beliefs. Even if someone were capable of putting a gun at your head, you maybe able to falsely profess the house is not red, but internally you know the house is red. 

So what exactly is the question really meant to denote then?

The objection could be rephrased in several ways: 

"Do you mind, would you be kind enough as to please stop pushing your beliefs upon me?"

Pushing here may imply persistence on the part of the Proselytizer. However that is not necessarily so.

Most people who bring up this objection, do not wish to object to the repeated persistence of the Proselytizer but wish for the Proselytizer to completely stop in his or her evangelism because of the damage or harm it is doing to the individual, group or some portion of the society. 

The objection then could be more adequately be summarized in general as:

"Could you please stop preaching your beliefs to me?

But, does preaching imply force? Not unless someone is tangibly or physically restrained and/or arrested and forcibly pushed into listening to a message and/or sermon.

So what is the difference between the above and this:

 "Could you please stop sharing your beliefs with me?

By substituting the word: preaching as sharing and to as with, the sentence now seems less hostile and more realistic.

Preaching beliefs "to" could mean "at" someone  and may imply some sort of unwanted resistance but no one here in the West is under compulsion to obey or listen to Christians and other Proselytizers.

Unfortunately in some nations there are many people who must endure oppression and persecution and the plight of hearing an unwanted dark message, yet here in the West, generally speaking we do not fit that category and therefore the sentence "Stop forcing your beliefs on me" or in reality "Stop forcing me to listen to your beliefs" is not suitable for our circumstances.

And God forbid! there are actually even some circumstances where it may even be moral to share or preach to someone when the message is highly unwanted (such as a disobedient child, alcoholic, prisoner etc), and therefore in the eyes of many world views it is completely acceptable to even attempt to preach to those who may not agree or those who may not necessarily like everything the evangelist might have to say.

For some peculiar reason some sections from the uncritical, leftist, Jewish, Atheist and hippie segment(s) of society think that Religion should have a special exception, that everything else is honky dora, but religion is off limits. This is again, self refuting. It is religions like Judaism (who have this sort of) anti-proselytizing polemic embedded in the religion itself that end up preaching against evangelism as a command from religion itself! But this is itself a form of evangelism to outsiders of their faith, the very thing many Jews complain about. They don't want other faiths witnessing to them but they are quite pleasantly happy to witness to other faiths that they should not preach, which happens to be a very tenant of their faith! Total irony.

Some anti-Theists take this a little further and imply that they don't want religious teaching, symbolism, vacation days and iconography and gestures in the presence of public schools and government. 

When they say: "Stop forcing your beliefs on everyone else". What they really seem to mean is:

"Please stop voting and therefore imposing for your own personal beliefs that effect me "

The same could be argued in return very easily. If to vote for one's own position is an imposition on all other sides, then every one who votes is imposing their beliefs and policies on others including those who vote against Christians who desire prayer in schools, science in classrooms etc. 

In the general case and in the political arena, I shall make palpable the self-refuting content that exists:

A= Atheists

B= Believers

Group A wants group B to stop telling group A what to do. Group A is telling group B what to do in the process. Therefore in order for group A to be consistent, A must also stop telling group B what to do. 

One could object and say:

A man believes he has the right to rape a certain woman but she doesn't believe he has that right, nor does she want him forcing himself on her. By your logic she is wrong for pushing her beliefs that she shouldn't be raped, so she should just accept it. Your beliefs and actions should not be imposed on others.

Of course we have a clear false analogy here since the Believer is being equated with a rapist and a perpetrator and the Atheist is being equated with a female rape victim. 

But doesn't this at least illustrate a coherent point? At-least that Atheists are like a rape-victim, that by requesting the perpetrator stop (the Believer), they are merely being sensible and rational, and shouldn't have to tolerate listening to the obnoxious view of the Believer? who is "pushing" themselves on to the Atheist? In other words, the atheist is merely making a reasonable request, right? 

However comparing "rape" to both sides having an equal opportunity to present their own perspective is rather disturbing. Every home-owner is entitled to close their doors to evangelists. Freedom of religious expression (or lack of religious freedom) is a given right in our pro-human right societies, otherwise of course, it should be against the Law. I haven't notice atheists or anti-Theists rallying together any time presently or in the past to protest specifically against evangelism in general of course, because that would be self incriminating. 

I am also not saying its wrong to preach a view to someone, or share a view with someone. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of atheists calling for Christians to stop doing it all the while they are doing it. They are guilty of the very act they accuse Christians of. 

Obviously it's not always wrong to tell people what to do or preach to them. If everyone was allowed to do anything it would be anarchy. Rules have to be set in place.

I believe it's true to say the religious try to sway the public, individuals or government to do what they believe is right and the non religious try to do the same exact thing. The difference is the non-religious deny that they do this.

In Translation the message really being argued is "Stop Evangelism", usually specifically Christian Evangelism. Yet this will never happen to Christians, as the faith commands them to preach and witness the Gospel (you are therefore asking them to relinquish freedom of religious expression and practice), nor will it happen to the western world in the wider community sense. Lets face it whether Jewish, Atheist, Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist or Christian, or none of the above, or just a sales-person, I have one message for you:

Everyone is trying to sell something to somebody.

Oh by the way, to negate this statement is to confirm it