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: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.

I’ve explained multiple times. When you push your beliefs on a vulnerable population it’s abusing a power imbalance.

[Anonymous]

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

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

There is no reason it has to be missionaries who provide that healthcare.

Wouldn’t those doctors and nurses still volunteer to help those people 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:

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.

DP: You seem to think that in sharing / foisting your religion on other people, you are offering them a valuable gift. Some of us see that as an imposition, and see it in the context of a history, where missionary work has been used as a selfish justification for many harmful things, including the destruction of cultural traditions. Why can’t you understand this? Or, do you actually understand this, but believe that your “freedom “ to exercise your own religious beliefs supersedes the freedom of others to NOT be exposed to your religious beliefs?
I’m curious. If people in a given community are genuinely attracted by your example, why do you have to evangelize? Wouldn’t they seek you out?

[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: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.

DP: You seem to think that in sharing / foisting your religion on other people, you are offering them a valuable gift. Some of us see that as an imposition, and see it in the context of a history, where missionary work has been used as a selfish justification for many harmful things, including the destruction of cultural traditions. Why can’t you understand this? Or, do you actually understand this, but believe that your “freedom “ to exercise your own religious beliefs supersedes the freedom of others to NOT be exposed to your religious beliefs?
I’m curious. If people in a given community are genuinely attracted by your example, why do you have to evangelize? Wouldn’t they seek you out?

It’s been explained to you multiple times: there’s no “foisting” going on these days. Missionaries don’t do that in the 21st century. You’ve been asked multiple times to provide examples of said “foisting” and you failed to provide anything.

At the same time, you can’t explain why foist-less missionary aid is worse than secular aid.

Why can’t you back up any of your claims?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

There is no reason it has to be missionaries who provide that healthcare.

Wouldn’t those doctors and nurses still volunteer to help those people via a secular organization?

Apparently not, or the missionaries wouldn’t be the ones doing it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

There is no reason it has to be missionaries who provide that healthcare.

Wouldn’t those doctors and nurses still volunteer to help those people via a secular organization?

Apparently not, or the missionaries wouldn’t be the ones doing it.

You don’t think those medical professionals would seek out secular options to serve vulnerable people?

[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: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.

DP: You seem to think that in sharing / foisting your religion on other people, you are offering them a valuable gift. Some of us see that as an imposition, and see it in the context of a history, where missionary work has been used as a selfish justification for many harmful things, including the destruction of cultural traditions. Why can’t you understand this? Or, do you actually understand this, but believe that your “freedom “ to exercise your own religious beliefs supersedes the freedom of others to NOT be exposed to your religious beliefs?
I’m curious. If people in a given community are genuinely attracted by your example, why do you have to evangelize? Wouldn’t they seek you out?

It’s been explained to you multiple times: there’s no “foisting” going on these days. Missionaries don’t do that in the 21st century. You’ve been asked multiple times to provide examples of said “foisting” and you failed to provide anything.

At the same time, you can’t explain why foist-less missionary aid is worse than secular aid.

Why can’t you back up any of your claims?

Because I’m not the one that made those claims? “ Foisting” as I’m using it, means anything other than allowing the recipients of your chastity to actively seek out more information or involvement. If that truly isn’t happening, then, I, for one, am cool with it.

I’m glad to learn that white people bearing guitars and forcing kids to sing Kumbayah are no longer a thing.

[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:

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.

DP: You seem to think that in sharing / foisting your religion on other people, you are offering them a valuable gift. Some of us see that as an imposition, and see it in the context of a history, where missionary work has been used as a selfish justification for many harmful things, including the destruction of cultural traditions. Why can’t you understand this? Or, do you actually understand this, but believe that your “freedom “ to exercise your own religious beliefs supersedes the freedom of others to NOT be exposed to your religious beliefs?
I’m curious. If people in a given community are genuinely attracted by your example, why do you have to evangelize? Wouldn’t they seek you out?

It’s been explained to you multiple times: there’s no “foisting” going on these days. Missionaries don’t do that in the 21st century. You’ve been asked multiple times to provide examples of said “foisting” and you failed to provide anything.

At the same time, you can’t explain why foist-less missionary aid is worse than secular aid.

Why can’t you back up any of your claims?

Because I’m not the one that made those claims? “ Foisting” as I’m using it, means anything other than allowing the recipients of your chastity to actively seek out more information or involvement. If that truly isn’t happening, then, I, for one, am cool with it.

I’m glad to learn that white people bearing guitars and forcing kids to sing Kumbayah are no longer a thing.

Oops: CHARITY not chastity. Sorry for the very weird autocorrect.

[Anonymous]

Anyone who proselytizes to me ends up regretting it. They leave frustrated and offended, never once considering that they’re being offensive.

[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?

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.

I’ve explained multiple times. When you push your beliefs on a vulnerable population it’s abusing a power imbalance.

So, by definition, you think poor people are too stupid to listen to new ideas and determine which religion is most meaningful to them? I think it is more likely that they are smart enough to accept charitable aid and continue to believe whatever they want.

[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?

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.

I’ve explained multiple times. When you push your beliefs on a vulnerable population it’s abusing a power imbalance.

So, by definition, you think poor people are too stupid to listen to new ideas and determine which religion is most meaningful to them? I think it is more likely that they are smart enough to accept charitable aid and continue to believe whatever they want.

This. Also, pp’s whole premise is flawed. For almost 30 pages, posters have asked repeatedly for examples of 21st century missionaries “pushing” their religion on anybody—or foisting it or making their aid conditional in any way. Nobody can give examples, because that’s not how missionary aid works today. All we’ve seen are almost 30 pages of middle school-level invective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I’ve explained multiple times. When you push your beliefs on a vulnerable population it’s abusing a power imbalance.

So, by definition, you think poor people are too stupid to listen to new ideas and determine which religion is most meaningful to them? I think it is more likely that they are smart enough to accept charitable aid and continue to believe whatever they want.

Exactly. Poor people are stupid, so let’s ban this kind of aid to them entirely and they can wait until USAID gets around to setting up clinics in another couple of decades. Said waving a glass of riesling from her perch on her mid-century modern sofa.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I’ve explained multiple times. When you push your beliefs on a vulnerable population it’s abusing a power imbalance.

So, by definition, you think poor people are too stupid to listen to new ideas and determine which religion is most meaningful to them? I think it is more likely that they are smart enough to accept charitable aid and continue to believe whatever they want.

Exactly. Poor people are stupid, so let’s ban this kind of aid to them entirely and they can wait until USAID gets around to setting up clinics in another couple of decades. Said waving a glass of riesling from her perch on her mid-century modern sofa.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I’ve explained multiple times. When you push your beliefs on a vulnerable population it’s abusing a power imbalance.

So, by definition, you think poor people are too stupid to listen to new ideas and determine which religion is most meaningful to them? I think it is more likely that they are smart enough to accept charitable aid and continue to believe whatever they want.

Exactly. Poor people are stupid, so let’s ban this kind of aid to them entirely and they can wait until USAID gets around to setting up clinics in another couple of decades. Said waving a glass of riesling from her perch on her mid-century modern sofa.

Man, you really know your wines. First it was Chablis, then Nebbiolo and now Reisling

[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?

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.

I’ve explained multiple times. When you push your beliefs on a vulnerable population it’s abusing a power imbalance.

So, by definition, you think poor people are too stupid to listen to new ideas and determine which religion is most meaningful to them? I think it is more likely that they are smart enough to accept charitable aid and continue to believe whatever they want.

This. Also, pp’s whole premise is flawed. For almost 30 pages, posters have asked repeatedly for examples of 21st century missionaries “pushing” their religion on anybody—or foisting it or making their aid conditional in any way. Nobody can give examples, because that’s not how missionary aid works today. All we’ve seen are almost 30 pages of middle school-level invective.

I'm confused. Which is it? Modern missionaries don't try to push their religion on anyone, or "you think poor people are too stupid to listen to new ideas and determine which religion is most meaningful to them? You can't have it both ways. Either you're just rendering aid or your aid comes with making them "listen to new ideas to determine which religion is most meaningful to them? Why not just render the aid and leave your religion out if it? What's the impulse here to spread the word?