Missionaries should be banned

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Religious groups have come to understand that mission schools and the like were bad, and religion should be adopted voluntarily.

You’ve been told multiple times that this [b]doesn’t make them any less religious, just that they conduct their missions in different ways now—through example. Hope the bolding is helpful and you get it now. [/b]

You should be celebrating that instead of trying to make “fetch” happen with this tedious and fake hair-splitting about what “religious” means.

Sorry, but their efforts are undistinguishable from those of secular organizations to me. Regardless of their motives. If the religious folks have given up trying to spread the word of Jesus and God that's a good thing I guess.

Once more with feeling:

Missionaries have not given up their mission of spreading the word, they just do it differently now, through pamphlets and example. This (1) doesn’t make them any less religious, and (2) it doesn’t change the “mission” nature of what they’re doing.

Missionaries have not given up their mission of spreading the word, they just do it differently now, through pamphlets and example. This (1) doesn’t make them any less religious, and (2) it doesn’t change the “mission” nature of what they’re doing.

Missionaries have not given up their mission of spreading the word, they just do it differently now, through pamphlets and example. This (1) doesn’t make them any less religious, and (2) it doesn’t change the “mission” nature of what they’re doing.

Hope that’s helpful. Do you finally understand?

DP. Why should they not be banned?

Asking people to justify why they should be free to practice their religion is a tyrant's way of thinking.

Practicing your religion independently is one thing. Imposing it on others is another.

You can do what you want in your own home and church. Once you step out into the world you need to respect others’ beliefs.

My belief is that sharing my faith is important, why won't you respect that? You're perfectly happy to impose your lack of religion on me and force me to abandon a central part of my faith. You want to "ban" it even so what would you do to people who break your law? Jail? You're a tyrant, like I said.

Because it involves other people. You can’t force yourself on other people.

It's sharing a belief. You're sharing a belief with me right now (missionaries should be banned) should that be illegal? It "involves other people" after all, are you "forcing yourself" on me?

Personally, the idea that you're "forcing yourself" on someone by sharing a belief with them sounds crazy to me, but that's what you're saying. I wouldn't jail you for your belief, as much as you want to jail me for mine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Service is a very real part of many religions. Pp may think writing a check is the universal answer, but for many religions it’s important to serve other people directly. There’s a reason ministers wash the feet of their congregants.

But they can “serve” via secular organizations.

But given the way missionaries work today—little pressure—what’s the difference? What is your problem with mission work today?

There should be zero pressure. Service work done independent of proselytizing.

The doctors in the earlier example should be happy to serve in a secular capacity too, right? No strings attached to their care?

Jesus healed the sick, fed the hungry. Why shouldn't missionaries if nobody else steps up to do it.

They can do it via secular organizations.

Can vs. do. Can doesn't accomplish anything. It's hypothetical. In jammies in DC.

So only justification for missionaries is that there aren’t enough secular organizations at the moment?

Secular orgs and check-writing are no substitute. Missionaries/some religious people seek to perform charity/service to real people as part of their faith. And they seek to testify through example (not coercion). None of this is available through secular organizations. And writing a check from DC doesn’t accomplish any of this.

If you ban mission work in foreign countries under some misapprehension that it’s still coercive, these religious people will focus exclusively on Appalachia and inner cities in the USA. No, they aren’t giving up service, they’d just have to refocus it domestically. And total aid abroad will decline massively.

You sit on your restoration hardware sofa in your jammies and wave your glass of Nebbiolo around, as you talk about taking away services to people in developing countries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Religious groups have come to understand that mission schools and the like were bad, and religion should be adopted voluntarily.

You’ve been told multiple times that this [b]doesn’t make them any less religious, just that they conduct their missions in different ways now—through example. Hope the bolding is helpful and you get it now. [/b]

You should be celebrating that instead of trying to make “fetch” happen with this tedious and fake hair-splitting about what “religious” means.

Sorry, but their efforts are undistinguishable from those of secular organizations to me. Regardless of their motives. If the religious folks have given up trying to spread the word of Jesus and God that's a good thing I guess.

Once more with feeling:

Missionaries have not given up their mission of spreading the word, they just do it differently now, through pamphlets and example. This (1) doesn’t make them any less religious, and (2) it doesn’t change the “mission” nature of what they’re doing.

Missionaries have not given up their mission of spreading the word, they just do it differently now, through pamphlets and example. This (1) doesn’t make them any less religious, and (2) it doesn’t change the “mission” nature of what they’re doing.

Missionaries have not given up their mission of spreading the word, they just do it differently now, through pamphlets and example. This (1) doesn’t make them any less religious, and (2) it doesn’t change the “mission” nature of what they’re doing.

Hope that’s helpful. Do you finally understand?

DP. Why should they not be banned?

Asking people to justify why they should be free to practice their religion is a tyrant's way of thinking.

Practicing your religion independently is one thing. Imposing it on others is another.

You can do what you want in your own home and church. Once you step out into the world you need to respect others’ beliefs.

My belief is that sharing my faith is important, why won't you respect that? You're perfectly happy to impose your lack of religion on me and force me to abandon a central part of my faith. You want to "ban" it even so what would you do to people who break your law? Jail? You're a tyrant, like I said.

Because it involves other people. You can’t force yourself on other people.

It's sharing a belief. You're sharing a belief with me right now (missionaries should be banned) should that be illegal? It "involves other people" after all, are you "forcing yourself" on me?

Personally, the idea that you're "forcing yourself" on someone by sharing a belief with them sounds crazy to me, but that's what you're saying. I wouldn't jail you for your belief, as much as you want to jail me for mine.

Coming from an anonymous person on a mommy website is a little different than coming from a doctor who just performed a life-changing surgery on you. It’s abusing a power imbalance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Service is a very real part of many religions. Pp may think writing a check is the universal answer, but for many religions it’s important to serve other people directly. There’s a reason ministers wash the feet of their congregants.

But they can “serve” via secular organizations.

But given the way missionaries work today—little pressure—what’s the difference? What is your problem with mission work today?

There should be zero pressure. Service work done independent of proselytizing.

The doctors in the earlier example should be happy to serve in a secular capacity too, right? No strings attached to their care?

Jesus healed the sick, fed the hungry. Why shouldn't missionaries if nobody else steps up to do it.

They can do it via secular organizations.

Can vs. do. Can doesn't accomplish anything. It's hypothetical. In jammies in DC.

So only justification for missionaries is that there aren’t enough secular organizations at the moment?

Secular orgs and check-writing are no substitute. Missionaries/some religious people seek to perform charity/service to real people as part of their faith. And they seek to testify through example (not coercion). None of this is available through secular organizations. And writing a check from DC doesn’t accomplish any of this.

If you ban mission work in foreign countries under some misapprehension that it’s still coercive, these religious people will focus exclusively on Appalachia and inner cities in the USA. No, they aren’t giving up service, they’d just have to refocus it domestically. And total aid abroad will decline massively.

You sit on your restoration hardware sofa in your jammies and wave your glass of Nebbiolo around, as you talk about taking away services to people in developing countries.

Believers could still perform charity work through secular organizations.

They aren't just giving out of the kindness of their heart? They need to have strings attached to their aid?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Service is a very real part of many religions. Pp may think writing a check is the universal answer, but for many religions it’s important to serve other people directly. There’s a reason ministers wash the feet of their congregants.

But they can “serve” via secular organizations.

But given the way missionaries work today—little pressure—what’s the difference? What is your problem with mission work today?

There should be zero pressure. Service work done independent of proselytizing.

The doctors in the earlier example should be happy to serve in a secular capacity too, right? No strings attached to their care?

Jesus healed the sick, fed the hungry. Why shouldn't missionaries if nobody else steps up to do it.

They can do it via secular organizations.

Can vs. do. Can doesn't accomplish anything. It's hypothetical. In jammies in DC.

So only justification for missionaries is that there aren’t enough secular organizations at the moment?

Secular orgs and check-writing are no substitute. Missionaries/some religious people seek to perform charity/service to real people as part of their faith. And they seek to testify through example (not coercion). None of this is available through secular organizations. And writing a check from DC doesn’t accomplish any of this.

If you ban mission work in foreign countries under some misapprehension that it’s still coercive, these religious people will focus exclusively on Appalachia and inner cities in the USA. No, they aren’t giving up service, they’d just have to refocus it domestically. And total aid abroad will decline massively.

You sit on your restoration hardware sofa in your jammies and wave your glass of Nebbiolo around, as you talk about taking away services to people in developing countries.

Believers could still perform charity work through secular organizations.

They aren't just giving out of the kindness of their heart? They need to have strings attached to their aid?

Did you read the first para? No?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Religious groups have come to understand that mission schools and the like were bad, and religion should be adopted voluntarily.

You’ve been told multiple times that this [b]doesn’t make them any less religious, just that they conduct their missions in different ways now—through example. Hope the bolding is helpful and you get it now. [/b]

You should be celebrating that instead of trying to make “fetch” happen with this tedious and fake hair-splitting about what “religious” means.

Sorry, but their efforts are undistinguishable from those of secular organizations to me. Regardless of their motives. If the religious folks have given up trying to spread the word of Jesus and God that's a good thing I guess.

Once more with feeling:

Missionaries have not given up their mission of spreading the word, they just do it differently now, through pamphlets and example. This (1) doesn’t make them any less religious, and (2) it doesn’t change the “mission” nature of what they’re doing.

Missionaries have not given up their mission of spreading the word, they just do it differently now, through pamphlets and example. This (1) doesn’t make them any less religious, and (2) it doesn’t change the “mission” nature of what they’re doing.

Missionaries have not given up their mission of spreading the word, they just do it differently now, through pamphlets and example. This (1) doesn’t make them any less religious, and (2) it doesn’t change the “mission” nature of what they’re doing.

Hope that’s helpful. Do you finally understand?

DP. Why should they not be banned?

Asking people to justify why they should be free to practice their religion is a tyrant's way of thinking.

Practicing your religion independently is one thing. Imposing it on others is another.

You can do what you want in your own home and church. Once you step out into the world you need to respect others’ beliefs.

My belief is that sharing my faith is important, why won't you respect that? You're perfectly happy to impose your lack of religion on me and force me to abandon a central part of my faith. You want to "ban" it even so what would you do to people who break your law? Jail? You're a tyrant, like I said.

Because it involves other people. You can’t force yourself on other people.

It's sharing a belief. You're sharing a belief with me right now (missionaries should be banned) should that be illegal? It "involves other people" after all, are you "forcing yourself" on me?

Personally, the idea that you're "forcing yourself" on someone by sharing a belief with them sounds crazy to me, but that's what you're saying. I wouldn't jail you for your belief, as much as you want to jail me for mine.

Coming from an anonymous person on a mommy website is a little different than coming from a doctor who just performed a life-changing surgery on you. It’s abusing a power imbalance.

DP. Pp’s point is that you exemplify the power imbalance when you insist that your views (as a privileged and probably white DCUMer) trump her views and the views of poor people who are on the receiving end of the mission charity you want to take away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Service is a very real part of many religions. Pp may think writing a check is the universal answer, but for many religions it’s important to serve other people directly. There’s a reason ministers wash the feet of their congregants.

But they can “serve” via secular organizations.

But given the way missionaries work today—little pressure—what’s the difference? What is your problem with mission work today?

There should be zero pressure. Service work done independent of proselytizing.

The doctors in the earlier example should be happy to serve in a secular capacity too, right? No strings attached to their care?

Jesus healed the sick, fed the hungry. Why shouldn't missionaries if nobody else steps up to do it.

They can do it via secular organizations.

Can vs. do. Can doesn't accomplish anything. It's hypothetical. In jammies in DC.

So only justification for missionaries is that there aren’t enough secular organizations at the moment?

Secular orgs and check-writing are no substitute. Missionaries/some religious people seek to perform charity/service to real people as part of their faith. And they seek to testify through example (not coercion). None of this is available through secular organizations. And writing a check from DC doesn’t accomplish any of this.

If you ban mission work in foreign countries under some misapprehension that it’s still coercive, these religious people will focus exclusively on Appalachia and inner cities in the USA. No, they aren’t giving up service, they’d just have to refocus it domestically. And total aid abroad will decline massively.

You sit on your restoration hardware sofa in your jammies and wave your glass of Nebbiolo around, as you talk about taking away services to people in developing countries.

Believers could still perform charity work through secular organizations.

They aren't just giving out of the kindness of their heart? They need to have strings attached to their aid?

Did you read the first para? No?

Yes, that is why I asked about them giving out of the kindness of their heart. Sounds like their help has strings attached if they would refuse to donate/volunteer via a secular organization.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Religious groups have come to understand that mission schools and the like were bad, and religion should be adopted voluntarily.

You’ve been told multiple times that this [b]doesn’t make them any less religious, just that they conduct their missions in different ways now—through example. Hope the bolding is helpful and you get it now. [/b]

You should be celebrating that instead of trying to make “fetch” happen with this tedious and fake hair-splitting about what “religious” means.

Sorry, but their efforts are undistinguishable from those of secular organizations to me. Regardless of their motives. If the religious folks have given up trying to spread the word of Jesus and God that's a good thing I guess.

Once more with feeling:

Missionaries have not given up their mission of spreading the word, they just do it differently now, through pamphlets and example. This (1) doesn’t make them any less religious, and (2) it doesn’t change the “mission” nature of what they’re doing.

Missionaries have not given up their mission of spreading the word, they just do it differently now, through pamphlets and example. This (1) doesn’t make them any less religious, and (2) it doesn’t change the “mission” nature of what they’re doing.

Missionaries have not given up their mission of spreading the word, they just do it differently now, through pamphlets and example. This (1) doesn’t make them any less religious, and (2) it doesn’t change the “mission” nature of what they’re doing.

Hope that’s helpful. Do you finally understand?

DP. Why should they not be banned?

Asking people to justify why they should be free to practice their religion is a tyrant's way of thinking.

Practicing your religion independently is one thing. Imposing it on others is another.

You can do what you want in your own home and church. Once you step out into the world you need to respect others’ beliefs.

My belief is that sharing my faith is important, why won't you respect that? You're perfectly happy to impose your lack of religion on me and force me to abandon a central part of my faith. You want to "ban" it even so what would you do to people who break your law? Jail? You're a tyrant, like I said.

Because it involves other people. You can’t force yourself on other people.

It's sharing a belief. You're sharing a belief with me right now (missionaries should be banned) should that be illegal? It "involves other people" after all, are you "forcing yourself" on me?

Personally, the idea that you're "forcing yourself" on someone by sharing a belief with them sounds crazy to me, but that's what you're saying. I wouldn't jail you for your belief, as much as you want to jail me for mine.

Coming from an anonymous person on a mommy website is a little different than coming from a doctor who just performed a life-changing surgery on you. It’s abusing a power imbalance.

DP. Pp’s point is that you exemplify the power imbalance when you insist that your views (as a privileged and probably white DCUMer) trump her views and the views of poor people who are on the receiving end of the mission charity you want to take away.

Are the people in need insisting on having religious assistance vs. secular assistance? Or do they want assistance with no strings attached.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I am from South East Asia and was born into one of the eastern religions. It absolutely enrages me to see western Christians come to third-world countries to convert us, trying to destroy our local practices, languages because they think they know better than us. The absolute disdain they have towards us brown people is disgusting. I think they should just be banned by all governments. Want to do humanitarian work - enroll with non-religious AID organizations. Keep your bible and your prejudice to yourself.

Are you okay with Eastern Christians coming to those areas, because there are some of us? We don't mind brown people; they look like us. And no, all of us didn't get converted because we were preached to by whites.

If you are referring to India, it's on a dangerous track. One religion being promoted at the expense of all the other ones is not the way to democracy. Shutting down free speech and the people's right to choose their religion (because of course anyone who would convert, must have been fooled because they are so uneducated.)

Those of you who aren't from that area. Those who are doing the biggest complaining (like OP) are usually the ones who are highest on the pecking order.

OP here. Two wrongs don't make a right - there's is no denying that India is on a dangerous path. Hindutva ideology is taking reigns in everyday life - it is heartbreaking and terrifying to watch this descent!

Where did I say all Christians are forced to convert? Christianity came to India via the coasts of Kerala and has thousands of years of history in the sub-continent. I just think the western Christian missionary organizations that use their money and power to exploit people should be banned. They pretend to do humanitarian work when they are literally using food and shelter to force people to "accept Jesus". Case in point - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/feb/03/john-chau-christian-missionary-death-sentinelese

Actually, not at all true. The media are absolutely trying to be liberal loons all in the name of secularism. As someone from Kerala, I can say with first first hand knowledge that Hindus are being forced to give up many of their rights to worship. Mosques blare prayers at the exact time of Hindu evening and "quiet" worship. Money is taken from temples to aid humanitarian efforts while churches have declined to do so. These are just a couple of examples. I would argue that all religions are at strife in India, but we hear only about the scary majority.

[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:Service is a very real part of many religions. Pp may think writing a check is the universal answer, but for many religions it’s important to serve other people directly. There’s a reason ministers wash the feet of their congregants.

But they can “serve” via secular organizations.

But given the way missionaries work today—little pressure—what’s the difference? What is your problem with mission work today?

There should be zero pressure. Service work done independent of proselytizing.

The doctors in the earlier example should be happy to serve in a secular capacity too, right? No strings attached to their care?

Jesus healed the sick, fed the hungry. Why shouldn't missionaries if nobody else steps up to do it.

They can do it via secular organizations.

Can vs. do. Can doesn't accomplish anything. It's hypothetical. In jammies in DC.

So only justification for missionaries is that there aren’t enough secular organizations at the moment?

Secular orgs and check-writing are no substitute. Missionaries/some religious people seek to perform charity/service to real people as part of their faith. And they seek to testify through example (not coercion). None of this is available through secular organizations. And writing a check from DC doesn’t accomplish any of this.

If you ban mission work in foreign countries under some misapprehension that it’s still coercive, these religious people will focus exclusively on Appalachia and inner cities in the USA. No, they aren’t giving up service, they’d just have to refocus it domestically. And total aid abroad will decline massively.

You sit on your restoration hardware sofa in your jammies and wave your glass of Nebbiolo around, as you talk about taking away services to people in developing countries.

Believers could still perform charity work through secular organizations.

They aren't just giving out of the kindness of their heart? They need to have strings attached to their aid?

Did you read the first para? No?

Yes, that is why I asked about them giving out of the kindness of their heart. Sounds like their help has strings attached if they would refuse to donate/volunteer via a secular organization.

Sounds like you have the same objection to Christians volunteering through secular organizations. If they attend local services, or set up their own, bam, they’re banned.

Your goal in both cases would be to reduce aid in both countries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Service is a very real part of many religions. Pp may think writing a check is the universal answer, but for many religions it’s important to serve other people directly. There’s a reason ministers wash the feet of their congregants.

But they can “serve” via secular organizations.

But given the way missionaries work today—little pressure—what’s the difference? What is your problem with mission work today?

There should be zero pressure. Service work done independent of proselytizing.

The doctors in the earlier example should be happy to serve in a secular capacity too, right? No strings attached to their care?

Jesus healed the sick, fed the hungry. Why shouldn't missionaries if nobody else steps up to do it.

They can do it via secular organizations.

Can vs. do. Can doesn't accomplish anything. It's hypothetical. In jammies in DC.

So only justification for missionaries is that there aren’t enough secular organizations at the moment?

Secular orgs and check-writing are no substitute. Missionaries/some religious people seek to perform charity/service to real people as part of their faith. And they seek to testify through example (not coercion). None of this is available through secular organizations. And writing a check from DC doesn’t accomplish any of this.

If you ban mission work in foreign countries under some misapprehension that it’s still coercive, these religious people will focus exclusively on Appalachia and inner cities in the USA. No, they aren’t giving up service, they’d just have to refocus it domestically. And total aid abroad will decline massively.

You sit on your restoration hardware sofa in your jammies and wave your glass of Nebbiolo around, as you talk about taking away services to people in developing countries.

Believers could still perform charity work through secular organizations.

They aren't just giving out of the kindness of their heart? They need to have strings attached to their aid?

What strings? You’ve been asked for examples of missionaries today who turn away nonbelievers from food or medical care, and you haven’t given a single example.

Your only objection seems to be that the organization itself is religious. And you haven’t explained why that’s bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
… I just think the western Christian missionary organizations that use their money and power to exploit people should be banned. They pretend to do humanitarian work when they are literally using food and shelter to force people to "accept Jesus". Case in point - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/feb/03/john-chau-christian-missionary-death-sentinelese

Help us out. Where in that article does it say the kid used food and shelter to force people to accept Jesus? It doesn’t. His attitude towards the islanders was dismissive and generally bad. But he didn’t even speak their language and only lasted a few days before they killed him.

In fact, the article undermines your point about the locals having no choice in the matter. They killed the missionary pretty quickly, before he even got around to offering them anything like conditional food.

[Anonymous]

Missionaries provide some peoples' only access to quality healthcare in many countries.

(I'm ambivalent about proselytization in non-majority Christian countries).

[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:Service is a very real part of many religions. Pp may think writing a check is the universal answer, but for many religions it’s important to serve other people directly. There’s a reason ministers wash the feet of their congregants.

But they can “serve” via secular organizations.

But given the way missionaries work today—little pressure—what’s the difference? What is your problem with mission work today?

There should be zero pressure. Service work done independent of proselytizing.

The doctors in the earlier example should be happy to serve in a secular capacity too, right? No strings attached to their care?

Jesus healed the sick, fed the hungry. Why shouldn't missionaries if nobody else steps up to do it.

They can do it via secular organizations.

Can vs. do. Can doesn't accomplish anything. It's hypothetical. In jammies in DC.

So only justification for missionaries is that there aren’t enough secular organizations at the moment?

Secular orgs and check-writing are no substitute. Missionaries/some religious people seek to perform charity/service to real people as part of their faith. And they seek to testify through example (not coercion). None of this is available through secular organizations. And writing a check from DC doesn’t accomplish any of this.

If you ban mission work in foreign countries under some misapprehension that it’s still coercive, these religious people will focus exclusively on Appalachia and inner cities in the USA. No, they aren’t giving up service, they’d just have to refocus it domestically. And total aid abroad will decline massively.

You sit on your restoration hardware sofa in your jammies and wave your glass of Nebbiolo around, as you talk about taking away services to people in developing countries.

Believers could still perform charity work through secular organizations.

They aren't just giving out of the kindness of their heart? They need to have strings attached to their aid?

Did you read the first para? No?

Yes, that is why I asked about them giving out of the kindness of their heart. Sounds like their help has strings attached if they would refuse to donate/volunteer via a secular organization.

Sounds like you have the same objection to Christians volunteering through secular organizations. If they attend local services, or set up their own, bam, they’re banned.

Your goal in both cases would be to reduce aid in both countries.

The goal is to not intermingle aid and religion.

There is no reason why believers couldn't provide aid without religion. Unless they are only volunteering for personal reasons, not the benefit of those they are helping.

[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:Service is a very real part of many religions. Pp may think writing a check is the universal answer, but for many religions it’s important to serve other people directly. There’s a reason ministers wash the feet of their congregants.

But they can “serve” via secular organizations.

But given the way missionaries work today—little pressure—what’s the difference? What is your problem with mission work today?

There should be zero pressure. Service work done independent of proselytizing.

The doctors in the earlier example should be happy to serve in a secular capacity too, right? No strings attached to their care?

Jesus healed the sick, fed the hungry. Why shouldn't missionaries if nobody else steps up to do it.

They can do it via secular organizations.

Can vs. do. Can doesn't accomplish anything. It's hypothetical. In jammies in DC.

So only justification for missionaries is that there aren’t enough secular organizations at the moment?

Secular orgs and check-writing are no substitute. Missionaries/some religious people seek to perform charity/service to real people as part of their faith. And they seek to testify through example (not coercion). None of this is available through secular organizations. And writing a check from DC doesn’t accomplish any of this.

If you ban mission work in foreign countries under some misapprehension that it’s still coercive, these religious people will focus exclusively on Appalachia and inner cities in the USA. No, they aren’t giving up service, they’d just have to refocus it domestically. And total aid abroad will decline massively.

You sit on your restoration hardware sofa in your jammies and wave your glass of Nebbiolo around, as you talk about taking away services to people in developing countries.

Believers could still perform charity work through secular organizations.

They aren't just giving out of the kindness of their heart? They need to have strings attached to their aid?

Did you read the first para? No?

Yes, that is why I asked about them giving out of the kindness of their heart. Sounds like their help has strings attached if they would refuse to donate/volunteer via a secular organization.

Sounds like you have the same objection to Christians volunteering through secular organizations. If they attend local services, or set up their own, bam, they’re banned.

Your goal in both cases would be to reduce aid in both countries.

The goal is to not intermingle aid and religion.

There is no reason why believers couldn't provide aid without religion. Unless they are only volunteering for personal reasons, not the benefit of those they are helping.

It can be both. Why can’t you understand this?

And whose goal, and why? You don’t seem to be able to explain any of this.