Missionaries should be banned

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the OP is talking about those who come to her part of the world to "convert us." I don't thinks she's talking about the ones who just duig wells, provide medical services and, you know, spread the love. So to stay on topic the responses should be about those missionaries who try to spread the word, tell the people how to obtain eternal salvation and so forth.

Does “spreading the love” mean encouraging indigenous people to “let go” of traditional beliefs?

you should ask the person who said that. I don't think anyone really believes that's all missionaries do.

Is that ok for any missionaries to do?

It depends on what you believe I guess. The missionaries in Hawaii got the females to cover up their toplessness because the Bible (from the midd-east) deemed it immoral. Is that ok with you?

The missionaries shouldn’t have been there in the first place.
They certainly shouldn’t have have forced any changes to local traditions & customs & religion.

At the same time, some local traditions would have prevented them from catching up to the modern times.
They needed to learn to read and write, do away with the custom of walking topless and the taboo of men and women eating together.
A new century was on their doorstep and they needed the skills to navigate it in order to survive as a people

“Local traditions” in the Hawaiian culture included the abandonment/exposure of infants deemed “defective.” Also the maintenance of a caste system that included a slave caste others considered disgusting. Incestuous marriages among the elite, death penalty inflicted at whim by the ruling class, and human sacrifice were also traditional practices.

In other parts of the world, “traditional practices” to this day include “honor killings,” forcible concubinage, involuntary servitude, and the murder of homosexuals, among other things.

The notion that “traditional practices” represent some sort of divine Eden that must never be interfered with is juvenile and ill-informed at best.

None of that justifies missionaries from forcing themselves and their beliefs on the Hawaiian people.

I wonder how you feel about authorities and governments “forcing themselves and their beliefs” on practitioners of FGM in the modern age.

Local governments have the authority to change their own communities.

Foreign people trying to play "savior" don't.

Especially when they bring their bible with them. And make no mistake, that always comes along with any assistance they provide.

How many people in this thread have told you that’s not always the case, especially today. Please read all the responses, not just the ones from people you already agree with.

If you are merely bringing welcomed assistance with zero religion is that really "missionary" work? Maybe just call it charity work?

A big part of testifying is by example. So giving welcome assistance in itself is missionary work. A few posters above have said that about some Christian missionaries, and a Muslim poster above makes that point very clearly.

Given the nefarious history of "missionary work" it might be worth rebranding. And leave the bibles at home.

Deflection. Try again and address the point.

Since you seem to have a hard time following I’ll recap.
>Providing welcomed assistance without pushing religion or culture is ok.
>Bringing bibles to charity work or forcing anything on anyone is not ok. Even if those people are poor.

Help people, if they actually want the help. Leave the bibles at home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the OP is talking about those who come to her part of the world to "convert us." I don't thinks she's talking about the ones who just duig wells, provide medical services and, you know, spread the love. So to stay on topic the responses should be about those missionaries who try to spread the word, tell the people how to obtain eternal salvation and so forth.

Does “spreading the love” mean encouraging indigenous people to “let go” of traditional beliefs?

you should ask the person who said that. I don't think anyone really believes that's all missionaries do.

Is that ok for any missionaries to do?

It depends on what you believe I guess. The missionaries in Hawaii got the females to cover up their toplessness because the Bible (from the midd-east) deemed it immoral. Is that ok with you?

The missionaries shouldn’t have been there in the first place.
They certainly shouldn’t have have forced any changes to local traditions & customs & religion.

At the same time, some local traditions would have prevented them from catching up to the modern times.
They needed to learn to read and write, do away with the custom of walking topless and the taboo of men and women eating together.
A new century was on their doorstep and they needed the skills to navigate it in order to survive as a people

“Local traditions” in the Hawaiian culture included the abandonment/exposure of infants deemed “defective.” Also the maintenance of a caste system that included a slave caste others considered disgusting. Incestuous marriages among the elite, death penalty inflicted at whim by the ruling class, and human sacrifice were also traditional practices.

In other parts of the world, “traditional practices” to this day include “honor killings,” forcible concubinage, involuntary servitude, and the murder of homosexuals, among other things.

The notion that “traditional practices” represent some sort of divine Eden that must never be interfered with is juvenile and ill-informed at best.

Wow. So, are you fine with the boarding schools and the genocide of Native American tribes and the Bible waving justifications for slavery in the US? Perhaps you could address the planks embedded in your own eyes. Everything that you’re railing against as “local traditions” has very clear parallels on Christian European cultures. It seems that you might know quite a bit about being “juvenile and I’ll-informed at best” and even more about being hypocritical. DP

Boarding schools native American genocide was the government, not missionaries

It wasn't just the government.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/us-churches-reckon-traumatic-legacy-native-schools-78994651
https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2021/10/08/methodist-lutheran-episcopal-native-american-residential-schools/

Nobody is saying missionary schools were good—they weren’t.

You’re incapable of staying in the present, though. OP is criticizing present-day missionaries. But all you can come up with is past history. If you’re going to do that, then bringing up secular oppression of groups like the Uighers is absolutely on point and, what’s more, it’s relevant today.

You STILL haven’t condemned China’s role, let alone started a thread about the Uighers. You don’t seem the least concerned about Wahhabi and ISIS proselytizers who are oppressing people TODAY. Why not?

There are multiple people posting.

The oppression of Uyghurs is completely off-topic and a blatant deflection, but since you bring it up I am actually involved in supporting Uyghurs IRL.

Back to the topic of this thread:
Do you think missionaries at any point in history - even today - should be pushing religion on vulnerable people? Forcing them to change their language or culture or traditions?

You really never read other posts, do you? I said the missionary schools were bad in my first sentence above. And others have described clearly how missionaries in their faiths aren’t necessarily “pushing” religion except maybe by example. Did you read any of that?

Back to the topic of this thread: TODAY’s MISSIONARIES. (Sorry for the caps, but in your case it seems to necessary.) Do you really think today’s missionaries are worse than China and the Uighers? If you care about the Uighers so much, where is your thread about them?

Your constant deflection and unwillingness to read anybody else’s posts on are getting tiresome but, maybe what you should care about more, you’re losing credibility.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the OP is talking about those who come to her part of the world to "convert us." I don't thinks she's talking about the ones who just duig wells, provide medical services and, you know, spread the love. So to stay on topic the responses should be about those missionaries who try to spread the word, tell the people how to obtain eternal salvation and so forth.

Does “spreading the love” mean encouraging indigenous people to “let go” of traditional beliefs?

you should ask the person who said that. I don't think anyone really believes that's all missionaries do.

Is that ok for any missionaries to do?

It depends on what you believe I guess. The missionaries in Hawaii got the females to cover up their toplessness because the Bible (from the midd-east) deemed it immoral. Is that ok with you?

The missionaries shouldn’t have been there in the first place.
They certainly shouldn’t have have forced any changes to local traditions & customs & religion.

At the same time, some local traditions would have prevented them from catching up to the modern times.
They needed to learn to read and write, do away with the custom of walking topless and the taboo of men and women eating together.
A new century was on their doorstep and they needed the skills to navigate it in order to survive as a people

“Local traditions” in the Hawaiian culture included the abandonment/exposure of infants deemed “defective.” Also the maintenance of a caste system that included a slave caste others considered disgusting. Incestuous marriages among the elite, death penalty inflicted at whim by the ruling class, and human sacrifice were also traditional practices.

In other parts of the world, “traditional practices” to this day include “honor killings,” forcible concubinage, involuntary servitude, and the murder of homosexuals, among other things.

The notion that “traditional practices” represent some sort of divine Eden that must never be interfered with is juvenile and ill-informed at best.

None of that justifies missionaries from forcing themselves and their beliefs on the Hawaiian people.

I wonder how you feel about authorities and governments “forcing themselves and their beliefs” on practitioners of FGM in the modern age.

Local governments have the authority to change their own communities.

Foreign people trying to play "savior" don't.

Especially when they bring their bible with them. And make no mistake, that always comes along with any assistance they provide.

How many people in this thread have told you that’s not always the case, especially today. Please read all the responses, not just the ones from people you already agree with.

If you are merely bringing welcomed assistance with zero religion is that really "missionary" work? Maybe just call it charity work?

A big part of testifying is by example. So giving welcome assistance in itself is missionary work. A few posters above have said that about some Christian missionaries, and a Muslim poster above makes that point very clearly.

Given the nefarious history of "missionary work" it might be worth rebranding. And leave the bibles at home.

Deflection. Try again and address the point.

DP, but the assertion that a few persons have said they don't even mention Jesus or God - well, for one thing I don't believe them because missionary work includes spreading the gospel. But if you want to push this then give us the name of the church or religious organization that sends out "missionaries" who exclusively do charity work and never mention Jesus, God or the bible. You have a chance to educate some people here.

[Anonymous]

No one should be forced to convert but the idea that a missionary sharing their religion with someone is forcing them to accept those he beliefs, because the person is "vulnerable" is incredibly patronizing. People in developing countries aren't children, they can make their own decisions about what religion they think is right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No one should be forced to convert but the idea that a missionary sharing their religion with someone is forcing them to accept those he beliefs, because the person is "vulnerable" is incredibly patronizing. People in developing countries aren't children, they can make their own decisions about what religion they think is right.

But why don't you stay at home and mind your own business?

Is it because in the book of Matthew, the Lord commanded His people (all Christians) to go into every nation and make disciples?

"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age."

Matthew 28:16

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you guys don’t believe in freedom of speech?
I’m an atheist but I don’t understand why you would favor banning speech.

Going to other countries, using your money and power to exploit people is not Free Speech.

Trying to convert people to your religion is the very definition of free speech. And, like all free speech that needs protection, many people don’t like it. And, like all free speech that needs protection because people don’t like it, the problem with banning it is that it is a slippery slope to banning more speech.

we don't allow religious "free speech" even in America, in the schools or by our government. And since religion is declining in American and Western countries, the missionaries have to prey on the poor countries of the world for converts because people just aren't buying it here.

imma need you to show your work on that one, big boi

??? separation of church and state. Ever heard of it? it's Not allowed.

Hahahahhaaaaa.

Don't you have "In God we trust" on your coins? Doesn't your President get sworn in with his hand on a bible? Your separation is a joke.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the OP is talking about those who come to her part of the world to "convert us." I don't thinks she's talking about the ones who just duig wells, provide medical services and, you know, spread the love. So to stay on topic the responses should be about those missionaries who try to spread the word, tell the people how to obtain eternal salvation and so forth.

Does “spreading the love” mean encouraging indigenous people to “let go” of traditional beliefs?

you should ask the person who said that. I don't think anyone really believes that's all missionaries do.

Is that ok for any missionaries to do?

It depends on what you believe I guess. The missionaries in Hawaii got the females to cover up their toplessness because the Bible (from the midd-east) deemed it immoral. Is that ok with you?

The missionaries shouldn’t have been there in the first place.
They certainly shouldn’t have have forced any changes to local traditions & customs & religion.

At the same time, some local traditions would have prevented them from catching up to the modern times.
They needed to learn to read and write, do away with the custom of walking topless and the taboo of men and women eating together.
A new century was on their doorstep and they needed the skills to navigate it in order to survive as a people

“Local traditions” in the Hawaiian culture included the abandonment/exposure of infants deemed “defective.” Also the maintenance of a caste system that included a slave caste others considered disgusting. Incestuous marriages among the elite, death penalty inflicted at whim by the ruling class, and human sacrifice were also traditional practices.

In other parts of the world, “traditional practices” to this day include “honor killings,” forcible concubinage, involuntary servitude, and the murder of homosexuals, among other things.

The notion that “traditional practices” represent some sort of divine Eden that must never be interfered with is juvenile and ill-informed at best.

Wow. So, are you fine with the boarding schools and the genocide of Native American tribes and the Bible waving justifications for slavery in the US? Perhaps you could address the planks embedded in your own eyes. Everything that you’re railing against as “local traditions” has very clear parallels on Christian European cultures. It seems that you might know quite a bit about being “juvenile and I’ll-informed at best” and even more about being hypocritical. DP

Boarding schools native American genocide was the government, not missionaries

It wasn't just the government.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/us-churches-reckon-traumatic-legacy-native-schools-78994651
https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2021/10/08/methodist-lutheran-episcopal-native-american-residential-schools/

Nobody is saying missionary schools were good—they weren’t.

You’re incapable of staying in the present, though. OP is criticizing present-day missionaries. But all you can come up with is past history. If you’re going to do that, then bringing up secular oppression of groups like the Uighers is absolutely on point and, what’s more, it’s relevant today.

You STILL haven’t condemned China’s role, let alone started a thread about the Uighers. You don’t seem the least concerned about Wahhabi and ISIS proselytizers who are oppressing people TODAY. Why not?

There are multiple people posting.

The oppression of Uyghurs is completely off-topic and a blatant deflection, but since you bring it up I am actually involved in supporting Uyghurs IRL.

Back to the topic of this thread:
Do you think missionaries at any point in history - even today - should be pushing religion on vulnerable people? Forcing them to change their language or culture or traditions?

You really never read other posts, do you? I said the missionary schools were bad in my first sentence above. And others have described clearly how missionaries in their faiths aren’t necessarily “pushing” religion except maybe by example. Did you read any of that?

Back to the topic of this thread: TODAY’s MISSIONARIES. (Sorry for the caps, but in your case it seems to necessary.) Do you really think today’s missionaries are worse than China and the Uighers? If you care about the Uighers so much, where is your thread about them?

Your constant deflection and unwillingness to read anybody else’s posts on are getting tiresome but, maybe what you should care about more, you’re losing credibility.

You are still confusing posters - and the topic of this thread. Maybe if you weren’t so belligerent you’d recognize that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No one should be forced to convert but the idea that a missionary sharing their religion with someone is forcing them to accept those he beliefs, because the person is "vulnerable" is incredibly patronizing. People in developing countries aren't children, they can make their own decisions about what religion they think is right.

It’s manipulative power play.

You want this well? Gotta listen to my opinions. Quid pro quo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the OP is talking about those who come to her part of the world to "convert us." I don't thinks she's talking about the ones who just duig wells, provide medical services and, you know, spread the love. So to stay on topic the responses should be about those missionaries who try to spread the word, tell the people how to obtain eternal salvation and so forth.

Does “spreading the love” mean encouraging indigenous people to “let go” of traditional beliefs?

you should ask the person who said that. I don't think anyone really believes that's all missionaries do.

Is that ok for any missionaries to do?

It depends on what you believe I guess. The missionaries in Hawaii got the females to cover up their toplessness because the Bible (from the midd-east) deemed it immoral. Is that ok with you?

The missionaries shouldn’t have been there in the first place.
They certainly shouldn’t have have forced any changes to local traditions & customs & religion.

At the same time, some local traditions would have prevented them from catching up to the modern times.
They needed to learn to read and write, do away with the custom of walking topless and the taboo of men and women eating together.
A new century was on their doorstep and they needed the skills to navigate it in order to survive as a people

“Local traditions” in the Hawaiian culture included the abandonment/exposure of infants deemed “defective.” Also the maintenance of a caste system that included a slave caste others considered disgusting. Incestuous marriages among the elite, death penalty inflicted at whim by the ruling class, and human sacrifice were also traditional practices.

In other parts of the world, “traditional practices” to this day include “honor killings,” forcible concubinage, involuntary servitude, and the murder of homosexuals, among other things.

The notion that “traditional practices” represent some sort of divine Eden that must never be interfered with is juvenile and ill-informed at best.

Wow. So, are you fine with the boarding schools and the genocide of Native American tribes and the Bible waving justifications for slavery in the US? Perhaps you could address the planks embedded in your own eyes. Everything that you’re railing against as “local traditions” has very clear parallels on Christian European cultures. It seems that you might know quite a bit about being “juvenile and I’ll-informed at best” and even more about being hypocritical. DP

Boarding schools native American genocide was the government, not missionaries

It wasn't just the government.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/us-churches-reckon-traumatic-legacy-native-schools-78994651
https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2021/10/08/methodist-lutheran-episcopal-native-american-residential-schools/

Nobody is saying missionary schools were good—they weren’t.

You’re incapable of staying in the present, though. OP is criticizing present-day missionaries. But all you can come up with is past history. If you’re going to do that, then bringing up secular oppression of groups like the Uighers is absolutely on point and, what’s more, it’s relevant today.

You STILL haven’t condemned China’s role, let alone started a thread about the Uighers. You don’t seem the least concerned about Wahhabi and ISIS proselytizers who are oppressing people TODAY. Why not?

More than one person commenting here old chap. I’m the one still trying to untangle the horrors that my own ancestors dealt with — and the apparent certainty of some that it should be ignored — ‘cause: past — even as the self-serving beliefs that underlie missionary efforts persist.

Are you holding the position that the religious tenets that underlie religious missionary traditions sprang fully formed at some particular “modern” point, and are politically , spiritually, socially, and culturally completely disconnected from earlier missionary efforts?

If so, then, what or when exactly was that point?

[Anonymous]

OP, I fear what you hope for is futile. The missionaries are everywhere, like mosquitoes. You can try to swat them away, but they're not going to give up. They're on a mission from God afterall and know better than you do what your society should be like, and what you should believe.

[Anonymous]

Hehehe. I was just looking at the College forum and there is a thread about average extra-curriculars for college applications. Sure enough, "mission trips" came up. You can't overlook the value and importance to some of these kids of doing them to have an edge on their college apps!

[Anonymous]

So why shouldn't missionaries be banned?

Couldn't their charity work continue via secular organizations?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So why shouldn't missionaries be banned?

Couldn't their charity work continue via secular organizations?

Of course, secular groups can also to charity work - but then no one gets the promise of eternal life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hehehe. I was just looking at the College forum and there is a thread about average extra-curriculars for college applications. Sure enough, "mission trips" came up. You can't overlook the value and importance to some of these kids of doing them to have an edge on their college apps!

Whoever said that is dead wrong. In fact colleges look askance at sone kid’s essay about how they held Fouad’s hand and looked into his eyes as they gave him sneakers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the OP is talking about those who come to her part of the world to "convert us." I don't thinks she's talking about the ones who just duig wells, provide medical services and, you know, spread the love. So to stay on topic the responses should be about those missionaries who try to spread the word, tell the people how to obtain eternal salvation and so forth.

Does “spreading the love” mean encouraging indigenous people to “let go” of traditional beliefs?

you should ask the person who said that. I don't think anyone really believes that's all missionaries do.

Is that ok for any missionaries to do?

It depends on what you believe I guess. The missionaries in Hawaii got the females to cover up their toplessness because the Bible (from the midd-east) deemed it immoral. Is that ok with you?

The missionaries shouldn’t have been there in the first place.
They certainly shouldn’t have have forced any changes to local traditions & customs & religion.

At the same time, some local traditions would have prevented them from catching up to the modern times.
They needed to learn to read and write, do away with the custom of walking topless and the taboo of men and women eating together.
A new century was on their doorstep and they needed the skills to navigate it in order to survive as a people

“Local traditions” in the Hawaiian culture included the abandonment/exposure of infants deemed “defective.” Also the maintenance of a caste system that included a slave caste others considered disgusting. Incestuous marriages among the elite, death penalty inflicted at whim by the ruling class, and human sacrifice were also traditional practices.

In other parts of the world, “traditional practices” to this day include “honor killings,” forcible concubinage, involuntary servitude, and the murder of homosexuals, among other things.

The notion that “traditional practices” represent some sort of divine Eden that must never be interfered with is juvenile and ill-informed at best.

Wow. So, are you fine with the boarding schools and the genocide of Native American tribes and the Bible waving justifications for slavery in the US? Perhaps you could address the planks embedded in your own eyes. Everything that you’re railing against as “local traditions” has very clear parallels on Christian European cultures. It seems that you might know quite a bit about being “juvenile and I’ll-informed at best” and even more about being hypocritical. DP

Boarding schools native American genocide was the government, not missionaries

It wasn't just the government.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/us-churches-reckon-traumatic-legacy-native-schools-78994651
https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2021/10/08/methodist-lutheran-episcopal-native-american-residential-schools/

Nobody is saying missionary schools were good—they weren’t.

You’re incapable of staying in the present, though. OP is criticizing present-day missionaries. But all you can come up with is past history. If you’re going to do that, then bringing up secular oppression of groups like the Uighers is absolutely on point and, what’s more, it’s relevant today.

You STILL haven’t condemned China’s role, let alone started a thread about the Uighers. You don’t seem the least concerned about Wahhabi and ISIS proselytizers who are oppressing people TODAY. Why not?

More than one person commenting here old chap. I’m the one still trying to untangle the horrors that my own ancestors dealt with — and the apparent certainty of some that it should be ignored — ‘cause: past — even as the self-serving beliefs that underlie missionary efforts persist.

Are you holding the position that the religious tenets that underlie religious missionary traditions sprang fully formed at some particular “modern” point, and are politically , spiritually, socially, and culturally completely disconnected from earlier missionary efforts?

If so, then, what or when exactly was that point?

I already said missionary schools were bad. What else do you want? Oh wait, either you never read that or you’re just ignoring it.

What is the point if you won’t READ what people write before you respond? Which you obviously don’t do. You just want to spew insults, without letting other peoples’ posts get in your way.

Bye. Not going to join you in the gutter.