This is proselytizing, and an important distinction needs to be made between freedom of religion and the freedom to actively recruit other people into your religion—especially when that recruitment is presented in a way that does not immediately look like missionary activity.
People are, and should be, free to practise their religion. That includes praying, worshipping, gathering in their own religious spaces, singing their religious songs, celebrating their holidays and living according to their beliefs. But religious freedom does not automatically mean that every form of public religious outreach should be treated as harmless cultural expression.
When expression becomes invitation
When “Hare Krishna, Hare Rama” is repeatedly sung through the streets in the form of a parade—dafka on Erev Shabbat—accompanied by drums, instruments, dancing, pamphlets and active invitations for passersby to participate, this goes beyond simply practising one’s religion privately or celebrating one’s identity publicly.
The people conducting the ceremony are not merely performing for themselves. They are actively bringing outsiders into a religious activity centred on praising and invoking deities from another religious tradition.
Worship and recruitment are different things. A temple is one thing. A public campaign involving religious chanting, literature and invitations is another.
Imagine the same situation with another religion. Suppose a Christian missionary group walked through the streets repeatedly singing the name of Jesus, dancing, handing out religious literature and encouraging Jewish passersby to join the celebration. Most people would immediately understand that there was a missionary element to what was happening. Nobody would seriously argue that it was merely music or dancing.
There is nothing inherently wrong with Christians worshipping Jesus in a church, just as there is nothing inherently wrong with Hare Krishna worshippers chanting in their own temple or religious gathering. The issue is not the existence of another religion. The issue is bringing religious recruitment into the public square and actively inviting Jews to participate in the worship of another faith.
The pamphlet changes the meaning
The pamphlets make this distinction especially important. If this were simply a colourful cultural procession or an expression of religious pride, there would be far less reason to distribute religious material designed to explain the belief system and encourage further involvement. Once literature is being handed out and outsiders are being actively invited into the ceremony, it becomes difficult to pretend that recruitment is not at least part of the purpose.
Missionary activity does not always look like somebody sitting across from you and saying, “I am here to convince you to abandon your beliefs and adopt mine.” Modern religious recruitment can be far softer. It can begin with music, dancing, community, friendliness, curiosity, free literature or an invitation to participate in something that appears joyful and harmless.
The newcomer may experience it simply as fun. They may think, “I am only dancing,” or “I am only enjoying the music.” But the religious organization may understand that participation as the beginning of engagement with its spiritual practice. That difference in perception is exactly why transparency matters.
You can respect another person’s right to believe without participating in their worship.
History makes the boundary matter
In Israel, this subject cannot be separated from Jewish history. For centuries, Jews lived as minorities under societies in which conversion to the dominant religion was encouraged, pressured, incentivized and at times violently imposed. Jewish communities experienced missionary campaigns, forced disputations, conversion efforts aimed at children and vulnerable people, and periods in which abandoning Judaism could become a condition for social acceptance or even survival.
That history does not mean other religions should be suppressed. Israel should protect freedom of worship for Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Hare Krishna devotees and everyone else. Protecting their right to worship is part of protecting religious freedom itself.
But protecting freedom of worship does not require Jews to become indifferent toward missionary activity aimed at them. There should be a clear cultural boundary between “you are free to worship your God” and “you are free to recruit Jews into worshipping your God.” Those are not the same principle.
I understand why people are attracted to these processions. They look upbeat. There is music, dancing, smiling and an atmosphere of celebration. Nothing about it initially feels threatening. In fact, that friendliness is precisely what can make the religious dimension easy to overlook.
But Jews should understand what they are participating in before joining. If you believe Judaism represents Emet, then participating in the ritual worship of another religious tradition should not suddenly become meaningless simply because there are drums, dancing and good vibes around it.
You can defend their temple without dancing in their religious ceremony. You can defend religious freedom while opposing missionary activity.
Those positions are completely compatible. This is not an argument against religious minorities or against freedom of religion in Israel. Quite the opposite: everyone should have the right to worship according to their conscience.
Given Jewish history, Israel is one of the last places where people should be expected to shrug at organized missionary activity simply because the method of recruitment happens to be cheerful.
Respect their right to worship. Respect their right to believe. But Jews have every right to say: we will not participate in the worship of another religion, and we do not want missionary activity directed at our community.