Missionaries should be banned

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All we’ve seen are almost 30 pages of middle school-level invective.

The only name calling and verbal abuse has come from "believers".

[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?

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?

That's what missionary work is all about -- spreading Christianity. Helping people is important, but secondary.

[Anonymous]

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.

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

Thanks, I like a glass when I’m figuring out how to help others 😉

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All we’ve seen are almost 30 pages of middle school-level invective.

The only name calling and verbal abuse has come from "believers".

You must be new to the thread. Go back and read all the lists calling missionaries and mission work “vile” and “absolutely disgusting.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All we’ve seen are almost 30 pages of middle school-level invective.

The only name calling and verbal abuse has come from "believers".

You must be new to the thread. Go back and read all the lists calling missionaries and mission work “vile” and “absolutely disgusting.”

^^ posts not lists

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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?

That's what missionary work is all about -- spreading Christianity. Helping people is important, but secondary.

It seems a little disingenuous on your part that you keep ignoring the many posts that have said:
— what you’re asking for is exactly what most missionaries these days do: people come get the medical care and then they leave, and maybe or maybe not they get offered a pamphlet that they can refuse or throw away down the block; and
— charity and in-person service are key tenets of most faiths and, for many missionaries, this is as, or more, important than winning souls.

I’ve never been on a mission and have no plans to go on one, but all this is obvious from the thread. (Full disclosure: I have however, taught in one of the poorest countries in the hemisphere.)

If you’re not going to read the many earlier posts that said all this, and instead you’re going to keep doubling down on your misconceptions, it’s not worth engaging with you. Especially if you’re the sort of person who thinks people in developing countries lack intelligence and discernment to make their own decisions. We should just leave you on your sofa in your Kate Spade jammies waving your glass of vinho verde around as you fulminate about the stupidity of the third world’s poor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All we’ve seen are almost 30 pages of middle school-level invective.

The only name calling and verbal abuse has come from "believers".

How about that, you continue to ignore the invitation to provide actual evidence of missionary work today being pushy or vile. Instead you go with an ad hominem and you actually cut out the request for proof.

Here’s the full quote you “edited.” Maybe that third glass of Provençal rose was a bad idea, because we’d hate to think you’re just dishonest.

“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:

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 don't think anyone has claimed that missionaries explicitly make their aid conditional. Please share a timestamp if I missed a post.

Again, the unethical aspect of mixing service and religion with vulnerable people is the power imbalance and implicit expectation of conversion. When someone is giving someone critical medical care while preaching, they are exploiting the situation. It's not that anyone is stupid, they are just vulnerable.

Here is an example:
Mongolians parents basically held in captivity to get medical care for their children. The power imbalance here is insane - providing a surgery they couldn't get in their (non-Christian) home country. They were living with these people preaching to them 24x7 for months.
https://video.samaritanspurse.org/new-hearts/

Here they admit that they are intentionally focusing on Hindu and Muslims "who are hurting and those who are in need" because "people's souls would be ripe to hear the gospel truth":
https://video.samaritanspurse.org/critical-care-center-in-bangladesh-opens/

There are a bunch of these videos showing them proudly setting up "platforms" to convert vulnerable people.

[Anonymous]

Another example of missionaries preying on vulnerable is facilitating adoptions for Haitian children (and other countries). These children are the most vulnerable. They are powerless and not given a choice to be removed from their home/culture/language and taken to be raised in a whole different country/religion. Sometimes they are even kidnapped by these religious groups - literally a captive audience:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Life_Children%27s_Refuge_case
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zo%C3%A9%27s_Ark

[Anonymous]

Here is the Bangladesh video where they say that their goal is to set up "platforms" to convert people while they are vulnerable:
"people's souls would be ripe to hear the gospel truth"

[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?

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 don't think anyone has claimed that missionaries explicitly make their aid conditional. Please share a timestamp if I missed a post.

Again, the unethical aspect of mixing service and religion with vulnerable people is the power imbalance and implicit expectation of conversion. When someone is giving someone critical medical care while preaching, they are exploiting the situation. It's not that anyone is stupid, they are just vulnerable.

Here is an example:
Mongolians parents basically held in captivity to get medical care for their children. The power imbalance here is insane - providing a surgery they couldn't get in their (non-Christian) home country. They were living with these people preaching to them 24x7 for months.
https://video.samaritanspurse.org/new-hearts/

Here they admit that they are intentionally focusing on Hindu and Muslims "who are hurting and those who are in need" because "people's souls would be ripe to hear the gospel truth":
https://video.samaritanspurse.org/critical-care-center-in-bangladesh-opens/

There are a bunch of these videos showing them proudly setting up "platforms" to convert vulnerable people.

Your links wiped out my data plan for the month so I couldn’t watch them all.

But I saw enough to see that by “held in captivity” you mean “flown to another country for open heart surgery that isn’t available in their neck of Mongolia.” And there was no evidence of “24/7” proselytizing even from this overtly Christian channel.

Are you kidding us?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Another example of missionaries preying on vulnerable is facilitating adoptions for Haitian children (and other countries). These children are the most vulnerable. They are powerless and not given a choice to be removed from their home/culture/language and taken to be raised in a whole different country/religion. Sometimes they are even kidnapped by these religious groups - literally a captive audience:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Life_Children%27s_Refuge_case
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zo%C3%A9%27s_Ark

I did volunteer work—not missionary work—in Haiti. I actually worked with a group that helped feed Haitian orphans. I speak some Haitian Creole.

You have no clue. There are tons of orphans in Haiti, especially after the earthquakes. The word “orphan” in creole often extends to kids with a single parent who have been displaced by natural disasters. These kids are either on their own, or they’re with relatives who told us they can’t support them, so we fed the kids and they wandered the streets during the day instead of going to school.

Have you ever seen the effect of starvation? It looks like reddish hair and an extended belly. We had those kids show up.

One Haitian actually offered me a kid to take back to the US. I declined. I’ve always wondered if I did the right thing. Did I?

Church groups are a godsend down there. Hundreds or thousands of religious people are working with Haitians to feed kids, run schools, and rebuild. I can’t condone kidnapping, but from your link it looks like the charge was reduced to illegally transporting kids to an orphanage in the DR. Put that way, it’s hard to know what happened.

You also need to know that a U.S. education is highly coveted in Haiti. I know a couple where the husband is in Haiti while the wife cleans houses (illegally) in Boston so their kid can go to US public schools.

But sure, wave that glass of Chardonnay around from the comfort of your sofa and tell these desperate or ambitious Haitians they’re wrong and you’re cutting it all off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another example of missionaries preying on vulnerable is facilitating adoptions for Haitian children (and other countries). These children are the most vulnerable. They are powerless and not given a choice to be removed from their home/culture/language and taken to be raised in a whole different country/religion. Sometimes they are even kidnapped by these religious groups - literally a captive audience:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Life_Children%27s_Refuge_case
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zo%C3%A9%27s_Ark

I did volunteer work—not missionary work—in Haiti. I actually worked with a group that helped feed Haitian orphans. I speak some Haitian Creole.

You have no clue. There are tons of orphans in Haiti, especially after the earthquakes. The word “orphan” in creole often extends to kids with a single parent who have been displaced by natural disasters. These kids are either on their own, or they’re with relatives who told us they can’t support them, so we fed the kids and they wandered the streets during the day instead of going to school.

Have you ever seen the effect of starvation? It looks like reddish hair and an extended belly. We had those kids show up.

One Haitian actually offered me a kid to take back to the US. I declined. I’ve always wondered if I did the right thing. Did I?

Church groups are a godsend down there. Hundreds or thousands of religious people are working with Haitians to feed kids, run schools, and rebuild. I can’t condone kidnapping, but from your link it looks like the charge was reduced to illegally transporting kids to an orphanage in the DR. Put that way, it’s hard to know what happened.

You also need to know that a U.S. education is highly coveted in Haiti. I know a couple where the husband is in Haiti while the wife cleans houses (illegally) in Boston so their kid can go to US public schools.

But sure, wave that glass of Chardonnay around from the comfort of your sofa and tell these desperate or ambitious Haitians they’re wrong and you’re cutting it all off.

Maybe you've been hitting the Chardonnay a bit too hard. Sorry, I'm just getting thirsty reading your posts. Chablis, Nebbiolo, Vinho Verde and now Chardonnay. And I've probably left a couple out. You must have one heckuva wine rack.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here is the Bangladesh video where they say that their goal is to set up "platforms" to convert people while they are vulnerable:
"people's souls would be ripe to hear the gospel truth"

So much good that they're doing -- and then they have to go and admit that while the patients are recovering, flat on their back, they tell them the "Truth" of Jesus Christ. It seems very disrespectful to me to do that in a Hindu and Muslim nation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another example of missionaries preying on vulnerable is facilitating adoptions for Haitian children (and other countries). These children are the most vulnerable. They are powerless and not given a choice to be removed from their home/culture/language and taken to be raised in a whole different country/religion. Sometimes they are even kidnapped by these religious groups - literally a captive audience:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Life_Children%27s_Refuge_case
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zo%C3%A9%27s_Ark

I did volunteer work—not missionary work—in Haiti. I actually worked with a group that helped feed Haitian orphans. I speak some Haitian Creole.

You have no clue. There are tons of orphans in Haiti, especially after the earthquakes. The word “orphan” in creole often extends to kids with a single parent who have been displaced by natural disasters. These kids are either on their own, or they’re with relatives who told us they can’t support them, so we fed the kids and they wandered the streets during the day instead of going to school.

Have you ever seen the effect of starvation? It looks like reddish hair and an extended belly. We had those kids show up.

One Haitian actually offered me a kid to take back to the US. I declined. I’ve always wondered if I did the right thing. Did I?

Church groups are a godsend down there. Hundreds or thousands of religious people are working with Haitians to feed kids, run schools, and rebuild. I can’t condone kidnapping, but from your link it looks like the charge was reduced to illegally transporting kids to an orphanage in the DR. Put that way, it’s hard to know what happened.

You also need to know that a U.S. education is highly coveted in Haiti. I know a couple where the husband is in Haiti while the wife cleans houses (illegally) in Boston so their kid can go to US public schools.

But sure, wave that glass of Chardonnay around from the comfort of your sofa and tell these desperate or ambitious Haitians they’re wrong and you’re cutting it all off.

I should have mentioned, secular groups, although many are great, are not up to the task on their own. An aid worker wrote a book about how badly the UN performed in Port au Prince after the earthquake. In the remote town where I worked, and where a lot of refugees from Port au Prince streamed, the UN had some trailer where they did “reconciliation” work. The people who were rolling up their sleeves and actually doing something were us, the missionaries, and the religiously-affiliated volunteers.