Missionaries should be banned

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m against proselytizing. But you have to admit, DCUM’s hateful anti-religion proselytizers are just as bad.

What? Proselytization by Christian missionaries has resulted in the death of millions over the course of the past few centuries. That is not an exaggeration. It has also resulted in laws which punish homosexuality by death. It has torn apart communities, separated families, imposed foreign rule and white dominance.

DCUM meanwhile is typing feverishly on a website. Hurting your feelings, I guess?

Yup, just as bad.

Atheists in Cambodia and China and elsewhere have killed many more millions. Your point?

If you want to compare the death tolls from colonialism vs. communism, colonialism will win. British imposed famines alone might get you there

The Cultural Revolution in China (talk about eradicating a local culture) led to at least 30 million deaths, some say as many as 80 million.

The potato famine caused 1 million deaths. I’m not aware of other “colonialist imposed” (as opposed to happened-during) famines, but I’m happy to be shown others. Colonialism led to many more deaths by straight-up war and oppression.

The point, though, is that many here are confusing colonialism with missionaries when they talk about millions of deaths. And none seems as bad as something like the atheist-led Cultural Revolution.

You have lost your mind - https://www.se.edu/native-american/wp-content/uploads/sites/49/2019/09/A-NAS-2017-Proceedings-Smith.pdf

You have no ability to reason. Indians were killed in this country for their land, and they were killed for the resources on their land (in South America, that would be copper, silver and gold). Not for religion.

I think Ferdinand and Isabella wanted silver and gold for sure, but sent missionaries on the voyages to convert the native people to Christianity. There's no question the two went hand in hand. Consequently, this religion was imposed on the native peoples at the point of a sword. Of course, the conquistadors were much worse than modern day missionaries, but the OP is talking about what she sees going on today.

The point is, the missionaries weren’t the ones killing people—the killing was being done for secular reasons. I was responding to pp (you?) who claimed missionaries were responsible for millions of deaths. No, that was economically motivated.

This is such a warped view. You cannot separate the mission of conversion from colonialism. They were one in the same. Indigenous were killed not only for being non-Christian heathens, but for not submitting to foreign rule. There was nno separation between Church and State at the time. There were no "secular" reasons. I'm amazed at how deep you have your head in the sand. Do you really believe this? Spanish Inquisition was a question of secularism, too, I suppose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m against proselytizing. But you have to admit, DCUM’s hateful anti-religion proselytizers are just as bad.

What? Proselytization by Christian missionaries has resulted in the death of millions over the course of the past few centuries. That is not an exaggeration. It has also resulted in laws which punish homosexuality by death. It has torn apart communities, separated families, imposed foreign rule and white dominance.

DCUM meanwhile is typing feverishly on a website. Hurting your feelings, I guess?

Yup, just as bad.

Atheists in Cambodia and China and elsewhere have killed many more millions. Your point?

If you want to compare the death tolls from colonialism vs. communism, colonialism will win. British imposed famines alone might get you there

The Cultural Revolution in China (talk about eradicating a local culture) led to at least 30 million deaths, some say as many as 80 million.

The potato famine caused 1 million deaths. I’m not aware of other “colonialist imposed” (as opposed to happened-during) famines, but I’m happy to be shown others. Colonialism led to many more deaths by straight-up war and oppression.

The point, though, is that many here are confusing colonialism with missionaries when they talk about millions of deaths. And none seems as bad as something like the atheist-led Cultural Revolution.

You might want to research Indian history before making those pronouncements

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m against proselytizing. But you have to admit, DCUM’s hateful anti-religion proselytizers are just as bad.

What? Proselytization by Christian missionaries has resulted in the death of millions over the course of the past few centuries. That is not an exaggeration. It has also resulted in laws which punish homosexuality by death. It has torn apart communities, separated families, imposed foreign rule and white dominance.

DCUM meanwhile is typing feverishly on a website. Hurting your feelings, I guess?

Yup, just as bad.

Atheists in Cambodia and China and elsewhere have killed many more millions. Your point?

If you want to compare the death tolls from colonialism vs. communism, colonialism will win. British imposed famines alone might get you there

The Cultural Revolution in China (talk about eradicating a local culture) led to at least 30 million deaths, some say as many as 80 million.

The potato famine caused 1 million deaths. I’m not aware of other “colonialist imposed” (as opposed to happened-during) famines, but I’m happy to be shown others. Colonialism led to many more deaths by straight-up war and oppression.

The point, though, is that many here are confusing colonialism with missionaries when they talk about millions of deaths. And none seems as bad as something like the atheist-led Cultural Revolution.

You have lost your mind - https://www.se.edu/native-american/wp-content/uploads/sites/49/2019/09/A-NAS-2017-Proceedings-Smith.pdf

You have no ability to reason. Indians were killed in this country for their land, and they were killed for the resources on their land (in South America, that would be copper, silver and gold). Not for religion.

I think Ferdinand and Isabella wanted silver and gold for sure, but sent missionaries on the voyages to convert the native people to Christianity. There's no question the two went hand in hand. Consequently, this religion was imposed on the native peoples at the point of a sword. Of course, the conquistadors were much worse than modern day missionaries, but the OP is talking about what she sees going on today.

The point is, the missionaries weren’t the ones killing people—the killing was being done for secular reasons. I was responding to pp (you?) who claimed missionaries were responsible for millions of deaths. No, that was economically motivated.

That's a good way to whitewash history. I bet you also say that the Civil War was primarily about the economies, right? Same same.

Way to go with ad hominems when you have no good response. DCUM never disappoints.

And thanks for the gratuitous insults—of course the Civil War was about slavery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m against proselytizing. But you have to admit, DCUM’s hateful anti-religion proselytizers are just as bad.

What? Proselytization by Christian missionaries has resulted in the death of millions over the course of the past few centuries. That is not an exaggeration. It has also resulted in laws which punish homosexuality by death. It has torn apart communities, separated families, imposed foreign rule and white dominance.

DCUM meanwhile is typing feverishly on a website. Hurting your feelings, I guess?

Yup, just as bad.

Atheists in Cambodia and China and elsewhere have killed many more millions. Your point?

If you want to compare the death tolls from colonialism vs. communism, colonialism will win. British imposed famines alone might get you there

The Cultural Revolution in China (talk about eradicating a local culture) led to at least 30 million deaths, some say as many as 80 million.

The potato famine caused 1 million deaths. I’m not aware of other “colonialist imposed” (as opposed to happened-during) famines, but I’m happy to be shown others. Colonialism led to many more deaths by straight-up war and oppression.

The point, though, is that many here are confusing colonialism with missionaries when they talk about millions of deaths. And none seems as bad as something like the atheist-led Cultural Revolution.

You might want to research Indian history before making those pronouncements

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943

You just don’t get it, do you?

From the link: British "denial policies" for rice and boats (a "scorched earth" response to the occupation). The Bengal Chamber of Commerce (composed mainly of British-owned firms),[16] with the approval of the Government of Bengal, devised a Foodstuffs Scheme to provide preferential distribution of goods and services to workers in high-priority roles such as armed forces, war industries, civil servants and other "priority classes", to prevent them from leaving their positions.[17] These factors were compounded by restricted access to grain: domestic sources were constrained by emergency inter-provincial trade barriers, while aid from Churchill's War Cabinet was limited, ostensibly due to a wartime shortage of shipping.[18]

Yes, that was terrible. But tell us how missionaries were responsible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m against proselytizing. But you have to admit, DCUM’s hateful anti-religion proselytizers are just as bad.

What? Proselytization by Christian missionaries has resulted in the death of millions over the course of the past few centuries. That is not an exaggeration. It has also resulted in laws which punish homosexuality by death. It has torn apart communities, separated families, imposed foreign rule and white dominance.

DCUM meanwhile is typing feverishly on a website. Hurting your feelings, I guess?

Yup, just as bad.

Atheists in Cambodia and China and elsewhere have killed many more millions. Your point?

If you want to compare the death tolls from colonialism vs. communism, colonialism will win. British imposed famines alone might get you there

The Cultural Revolution in China (talk about eradicating a local culture) led to at least 30 million deaths, some say as many as 80 million.

The potato famine caused 1 million deaths. I’m not aware of other “colonialist imposed” (as opposed to happened-during) famines, but I’m happy to be shown others. Colonialism led to many more deaths by straight-up war and oppression.

The point, though, is that many here are confusing colonialism with missionaries when they talk about millions of deaths. And none seems as bad as something like the atheist-led Cultural Revolution.

You might want to research Indian history before making those pronouncements

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943

You just don’t get it, do you?

From the link: British "denial policies" for rice and boats (a "scorched earth" response to the occupation). The Bengal Chamber of Commerce (composed mainly of British-owned firms),[16] with the approval of the Government of Bengal, devised a Foodstuffs Scheme to provide preferential distribution of goods and services to workers in high-priority roles such as armed forces, war industries, civil servants and other "priority classes", to prevent them from leaving their positions.[17] These factors were compounded by restricted access to grain: domestic sources were constrained by emergency inter-provincial trade barriers, while aid from Churchill's War Cabinet was limited, ostensibly due to a wartime shortage of shipping.[18]

Yes, that was terrible. But tell us how missionaries were responsible.

I'm a DP, and I don't know anything about that particular incident. However, when it comes to European colonizers, you have to ask why they felt entitled to enter other countries, decimate their economies, forbid cultural practices, etc. The reasons are complex, but the British empire *always* entwined their colonialism with christianity. I didn't know anything about this, but I just googled "Winston Churchill colonialism christianity" and found this:

"Churchill's detractors point to his well-documented bigotry, articulated often with shocking callousness and contempt. "I hate Indians," he once trumpeted. "They are a beastly people with a beastly religion."" Link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/02/03/the-dark-side-of-winston-churchills-legacy-no-one-should-forget/

And there is so much more about it.

You can argue that I'm just looking for sources to support my point instead of trying to get an accurate picture of what is going on. But the thing is that when Europeans do this, it's so predictable. There is an almost banal pattern of Europeans destroying non-christian cultures in the name of christianity (yes it satisfied their greed too, but based on writings of christian colonizers they did have sincere beliefs and were doing what they thought was best).

I'm not particularly interested in the debate about what has done more damage: religion or atheist governments. Whatever, they have both done horrible things. But you cannot say that European colonizers did something for greed or political gain and not for religion. it's just impossible to separate European colonialism from christianity.

What does that have to do with missionaries? Missionaries usually paved the way for colonists. Missionaries acted as a conduit between colonialists and indigenous cultures. Missionaries told colonists about these indigenous cultures, their practices, their resources, etc. Also many explorers, like Vasco da Gama himself, sought to spread christianity the same way a missionary would. And I think you can argue the same about Churchill. the Bible basically says that every good Christian should spread the good word and encourage others to get baptized, and that's basically missionary work.

So yeah, you can split hairs, but I can't buy that European colonialism was ever not about christianity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m against proselytizing. But you have to admit, DCUM’s hateful anti-religion proselytizers are just as bad.

What? Proselytization by Christian missionaries has resulted in the death of millions over the course of the past few centuries. That is not an exaggeration. It has also resulted in laws which punish homosexuality by death. It has torn apart communities, separated families, imposed foreign rule and white dominance.

DCUM meanwhile is typing feverishly on a website. Hurting your feelings, I guess?

Yup, just as bad.

Atheists in Cambodia and China and elsewhere have killed many more millions. Your point?

If you want to compare the death tolls from colonialism vs. communism, colonialism will win. British imposed famines alone might get you there

The Cultural Revolution in China (talk about eradicating a local culture) led to at least 30 million deaths, some say as many as 80 million.

The potato famine caused 1 million deaths. I’m not aware of other “colonialist imposed” (as opposed to happened-during) famines, but I’m happy to be shown others. Colonialism led to many more deaths by straight-up war and oppression.

The point, though, is that many here are confusing colonialism with missionaries when they talk about millions of deaths. And none seems as bad as something like the atheist-led Cultural Revolution.

You might want to research Indian history before making those pronouncements

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943

You just don’t get it, do you?

From the link: British "denial policies" for rice and boats (a "scorched earth" response to the occupation). The Bengal Chamber of Commerce (composed mainly of British-owned firms),[16] with the approval of the Government of Bengal, devised a Foodstuffs Scheme to provide preferential distribution of goods and services to workers in high-priority roles such as armed forces, war industries, civil servants and other "priority classes", to prevent them from leaving their positions.[17] These factors were compounded by restricted access to grain: domestic sources were constrained by emergency inter-provincial trade barriers, while aid from Churchill's War Cabinet was limited, ostensibly due to a wartime shortage of shipping.[18]

Yes, that was terrible. But tell us how missionaries were responsible.

I'm a DP, and I don't know anything about that particular incident. However, when it comes to European colonizers, you have to ask why they felt entitled to enter other countries, decimate their economies, forbid cultural practices, etc. The reasons are complex, but the British empire *always* entwined their colonialism with christianity. I didn't know anything about this, but I just googled "Winston Churchill colonialism christianity" and found this:

"Churchill's detractors point to his well-documented bigotry, articulated often with shocking callousness and contempt. "I hate Indians," he once trumpeted. "They are a beastly people with a beastly religion."" Link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/02/03/the-dark-side-of-winston-churchills-legacy-no-one-should-forget/

And there is so much more about it.

You can argue that I'm just looking for sources to support my point instead of trying to get an accurate picture of what is going on. But the thing is that when Europeans do this, it's so predictable. There is an almost banal pattern of Europeans destroying non-christian cultures in the name of christianity (yes it satisfied their greed too, but based on writings of christian colonizers they did have sincere beliefs and were doing what they thought was best).

I'm not particularly interested in the debate about what has done more damage: religion or atheist governments. Whatever, they have both done horrible things. But you cannot say that European colonizers did something for greed or political gain and not for religion. it's just impossible to separate European colonialism from christianity.

What does that have to do with missionaries? Missionaries usually paved the way for colonists. Missionaries acted as a conduit between colonialists and indigenous cultures. Missionaries told colonists about these indigenous cultures, their practices, their resources, etc. Also many explorers, like Vasco da Gama himself, sought to spread christianity the same way a missionary would. And I think you can argue the same about Churchill. the Bible basically says that every good Christian should spread the good word and encourage others to get baptized, and that's basically missionary work.

So yeah, you can split hairs, but I can't buy that European colonialism was ever not about christianity.

Churchill was a bigot so he was a missionary? Do you even listen to yourself?

[Anonymous]

What started out as a claim that “missionaries killed millions” has turned into a claim that “missionaries killed millions because they arrived along with the East India Company and Churchill.” And the claim has been further extended to such stretches as “Churchill was a missionary.”

DCUM, you never fail to disappoint.

The missionaries weren’t there to make their fortunes from land or copper—that’s pretty much antithetical to their religion.

And you can blow a lot of smoke about how missionaries were the only reason the imperialists knew where natural resources were located. But that doesn’t stand up to history (Columbus was looking for a passage to India, not to convert souls, just for starters) let alone common sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What started out as a claim that “missionaries killed millions” has turned into a claim that “missionaries killed millions because they arrived along with the East India Company and Churchill.” And the claim has been further extended to such stretches as “Churchill was a missionary.”

DCUM, you never fail to disappoint.

The missionaries weren’t there to make their fortunes from land or copper—that’s pretty much antithetical to their religion.

And you can blow a lot of smoke about how missionaries were the only reason the imperialists knew where natural resources were located. But that doesn’t stand up to history (Columbus was looking for a passage to India, not to convert souls, just for starters) let alone common sense.

Oh come on. I learned in elementary school that he made natives convert to christianity.

I'm the PP who wrote the thing about Churchill and missionary work and I was just responding to the PP ahead of me, not trying to say that missionaries killed millions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What started out as a claim that “missionaries killed millions” has turned into a claim that “missionaries killed millions because they arrived along with the East India Company and Churchill.” And the claim has been further extended to such stretches as “Churchill was a missionary.”

DCUM, you never fail to disappoint.

The missionaries weren’t there to make their fortunes from land or copper—that’s pretty much antithetical to their religion.

And you can blow a lot of smoke about how missionaries were the only reason the imperialists knew where natural resources were located. But that doesn’t stand up to history (Columbus was looking for a passage to India, not to convert souls, just for starters) let alone common sense.

Oh come on. I learned in elementary school that he made natives convert to christianity.

I'm the PP who wrote the thing about Churchill and missionary work and I was just responding to the PP ahead of me, not trying to say that missionaries killed millions.

You think Columbus set out for the India passage expecting to run into natives, do you? He didn’t even realize there were whole continents full of people in his way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What started out as a claim that “missionaries killed millions” has turned into a claim that “missionaries killed millions because they arrived along with the East India Company and Churchill.” And the claim has been further extended to such stretches as “Churchill was a missionary.”

DCUM, you never fail to disappoint.

The missionaries weren’t there to make their fortunes from land or copper—that’s pretty much antithetical to their religion.

And you can blow a lot of smoke about how missionaries were the only reason the imperialists knew where natural resources were located. But that doesn’t stand up to history (Columbus was looking for a passage to India, not to convert souls, just for starters) let alone common sense.

Oh come on. I learned in elementary school that he made natives convert to christianity.

I'm the PP who wrote the thing about Churchill and missionary work and I was just responding to the PP ahead of me, not trying to say that missionaries killed millions.

You think Columbus set out for the India passage expecting to run into natives, do you? He didn’t even realize there were whole continents full of people in his way.

You think he wasn't expecting to run into the "natives" of India? How do you think he got the funding from the very religious monarchy to go ahead with his mission?

https://www.christianitytoday.com/history/issues/issue-35/columbus-and-christianity-did-you-know.html

https://www.grin.com/document/300739
Here's a blurp:
"Columbus kept a journal of his travels to bring back to Queen Isabel and Ferdinand. In it he states his motivation for seeking India, "you thought of sending me, Christobal Colon, to the said regions of India to see the said princes and the peoples…to see how their conversion to our Holy Faith might be undertaken. And you commanded that I should not go to the East by land (because of the blockade by the Ottoman empire)…but by the route to the West, by which route we do not know for certain that anyone previously has passed."4 The message couldn't be any clearer, but Columbus continues to restate how conversion to Christianity is his main undertaking once he arrives to what he believes to be India. "I hold most serene Princes, that if devout religious persons were here, knowing the language, they would turn Christians."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
So yeah, you can split hairs, but I can't buy that European colonialism was ever not about christianity.

The East India company and the Opium Wars weren’t about mission work, and that’s not splitting hairs. Churchill being a bigot doesn’t make it about mission work either. Sure, maybe some missionaries entered under the political shelter created by these events—but to claim they were the cause of these events is ludicrous and ahistorical.

You might as well say the US invaded Iraq in 1991 and 2003 to make everybody Christian. Maybe some missionaries entered, but the invasions weren’t about that.

And where’s your outrage about the Muslim conquest of North Africa, Pakistan and northern India? Or do you just reserve your hate for Christians?

[Anonymous]

"Just as the first millennium saw the cross firmly planted in the soil of Europe, and the second in that of America and Africa, so may the third Christian millennium witness a great harvest of faith on this vast and vital continent," he told a crowd in a New Delhi sports stadium.

-Pope John Paul II while he was treated as an honored guest in India, November 1999

Disgusting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"Just as the first millennium saw the cross firmly planted in the soil of Europe, and the second in that of America and Africa, so may the third Christian millennium witness a great harvest of faith on this vast and vital continent," he told a crowd in a New Delhi sports stadium.

-Pope John Paul II while he was treated as an honored guest in India, November 1999

Disgusting.

Lots of people convert on their own. In fact, they do it despite the threat of death in many middle eastern countries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"Just as the first millennium saw the cross firmly planted in the soil of Europe, and the second in that of America and Africa, so may the third Christian millennium witness a great harvest of faith on this vast and vital continent," he told a crowd in a New Delhi sports stadium.

-Pope John Paul II while he was treated as an honored guest in India, November 1999

Disgusting.

Was anybody in that stadium against their will? Was the pope forcibly converting anyone there? I’m not Catholic but even I can see your outrage is faux.

Your hatred is sort of appalling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m against proselytizing. But you have to admit, DCUM’s hateful anti-religion proselytizers are just as bad.

What? Proselytization by Christian missionaries has resulted in the death of millions over the course of the past few centuries. That is not an exaggeration. It has also resulted in laws which punish homosexuality by death. It has torn apart communities, separated families, imposed foreign rule and white dominance.

DCUM meanwhile is typing feverishly on a website. Hurting your feelings, I guess?

Yup, just as bad.

Atheists in Cambodia and China and elsewhere have killed many more millions. Your point?

If you want to compare the death tolls from colonialism vs. communism, colonialism will win. British imposed famines alone might get you there

The Cultural Revolution in China (talk about eradicating a local culture) led to at least 30 million deaths, some say as many as 80 million.

The potato famine caused 1 million deaths. I’m not aware of other “colonialist imposed” (as opposed to happened-during) famines, but I’m happy to be shown others. Colonialism led to many more deaths by straight-up war and oppression.

The point, though, is that many here are confusing colonialism with missionaries when they talk about millions of deaths. And none seems as bad as something like the atheist-led Cultural Revolution.

You might want to research Indian history before making those pronouncements

The Indian Wars and the Trail of Tears were about territory not religion.

And the residential schools? And the justifications for slavery in the US? NP