" Under the guise of "good deeds" they are actively trying to increase the size of their constituency, ..."

Well, 'guise' is not exactly the word I'd use. There's no particular onus in making good deeds part of one's life. IF one does believe in the details of the Christian religion, doing good deeds is part of the manual....as is evangelism. If you do a search for the phrase "fishers of men" it will be obvious just how thoroughly the idea of recruiting is embedded in the history of the church and the practice of the religion.

Some sects do it with more...ummmm...'fervor' than others, including knocking on your door....others, perhaps recognizing the negative reactions to overt evangelism, stick mostly to setting a good example and hoping to attract followers that way..(along with 'educating' their children).

So here we have the dilemma...at least in the US. We have a constitution that allows 'freedom of religion', yet officially does not endorse any particular one...even though a Christian 'God' is stuck into the Pledge of Allegience, onto the money and into prayers at the beginning of meetings and sports events..etc.

We allow freedom of religion, and de facto favor one which exhorts its followers to "fish for men"...while telling folks they are not required to belong....just don't try to run for president UNLESS you belong, no matter how competent and smart you are or how many good deeds you do.

I do not know how to make the point that being religious or not should NOT be a matter of majority rule, and that "freedom OF religion" must include "freedom FROM religion" for those who wish it....This is America, and if there were only 27 Christians in the whole country, they should be allowed to practice and pray freely...and run for office if they wish. But if there were only 27 atheists, THEY should be left alone and not be subject to evangelism, and should be considered for office without regard to their religion of lack therof.
   Do I think any of these ideals are likely? HA! I am a pragmitist, and we tend no to be too optimistic about that kind of thing.

When you give freedom to a religion- one of whose core beliefs is that they are the 'correct' one, and should actively recruit others, you set up the awkward situation we have here.

The ONLY real answer is to convince 'believers' to adopt a personal policy of not pushing the issue, and hope the concept takes hold. Yelling at them and insulting them only hardens their conviction that you ...ummm...'need' saving.

I personally know devout Christians who do NOT attempt to change me...and thus, I am able to respect their practices, whether or not I agree with their beliefs of logic....and many of them DO a lot of good thru their churches.
If asked, I will explain why I am not religious...and if MY lifestyle and non-belief is challenged, I may explain without being asked.

We have to ,at a minimum, co-exist.