Chick publications is one of the most bigoted publishing companies out there if you ask me. Their tracts that are geared towards Catholics are published out of pure hatred for the Catholic Church and Catholics. As another poster said, there is no excuse for such hatred. It disgusts me that such hatred exists. I wonder if there are any groups out there that are worse?
That said, I know of a few websites that are geared entirely towards evangelizing Catholics. I find this to be disgusting as well because again, it is published out of pure hatred for the Catholic Church and Catholics. Some of these groups claim that they love Catholics but I honestly don’t buy that.
I buy it. I actually have a lot of trouble understanding how worrying that someone may go to hell can constitute hate.

I used to be Pentecostal, not that long ago, and I thought that whatever contained Scripture was a message straight from God to the heart of the reader, doing unseen wonders even if unconsciously. It actually never occurred to me that anyone might see WOTM, Chick publications, or Four Spiritual Laws materials e.g. as anything but love. It took a lot of time to understand that some people, even other Christians, really did think we didn’t like them. We interpreted any criticism as persecution for the sake of the Gospel. Remember that the people who run up on the street shouting urgings to get saved, and such activities, are battered at all times except in church by all kinds of people who never say what their problem with the evangelists really is. It thickens the skin and perhaps the head too.
A good approach is to do just what they do, right back: establish the common ground, then slowly seek out the weak points in their beliefs (the ones that differ from your own, of course). Address these until they ask what you believe. Then, and I can’t overstate the importance of this to the whole conversation, answer the question. Start backing it up right away. Work on their weak areas, without anger or disdain, as they would do to you. Then as they are working out a response, either get comfortable so you feel no pressure as you reply in turn, or if hurried, invite them to your own turf to continue the debate.
This works infinitely, literally infinitely, better than assuming the worst motives and getting angry and inarticulate and vague. Actually, when I was facing opposition in those days, if any of a number of people had just calmed down and explained their issue, I would have gotten it immediately. But saying vague things like, “Well, I don’t believe in hate (neither did I)” or “Hypocrite!

confused

” or “What does it mean? What is the truth? (A lot of things are true; how about an example?)” does a lot more harm than good. So does attributing the worst possible motives to people instead of taking them at their word as to their motivation. Had someone just said, “I take issue with this material because it’s not the only interpretation of this passage there is. Were you aware of that?” Anyone I hung out with would have listened and spent the day in fascination if anything.