Missionaries should be banned

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It has been said on this thread, but I don’t have the interest to go through 30 pages to dig it out.

Again, you keep talking about “pushing religion” but you can’t say what that means. As others have told you (including a Muslim a while back on this thread), modelling their religion’s values is the way most go about it these days. And maybe there’s a cross or crescent on the wall, or a Bible or Quran lying on a table.

Take another sip of carmenere (my personal favorite, although I’ve been holding back because it’s not well recognized or easy to find around here), roll up the sleeves of your spa robe with the microfiber lining, and tell us why this is so objectionable to you. And while you’re at it, explain why you think poor people are incapable of making their own choices so this type of aid should be banned.

PP who worked in Haiti here. This is what I saw. The health clinic in the small town where I worked was on the bottom floor of a priest’s house (the church was a few blocks away). There was a cross on the wall and that was it. Healthcare was very professional—people came in, got diagnosed and treated, and were sent on their way. No proselytizing except they had to look at that cross on the wall or avert their eyes. The Haitian government had zero presence, so thank goodness for these religious workers.

Some of you are so separated from reality, and are coming at this from 10,000 feet, and your outrage looks a little ridiculous.

You are really trying to say that one clinic is representative of all mission work in Haiti? You don't think there is any proselytizing?

https://www.samaritanspurse.org/operation-christmas-child-countries/haiti/
A woman who "accepted God" after the earthquake: "The chaplains told me there was no need to worry and asked if I believed in God."

Watch the whole thing. Near the end, a volunteer shares what they tell people. You don't think that's proselytizing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pp who worked in Haiti, here again. I should clarify that I’m the same poster with the wine recommendations. I just wanted to separate my points and avoid a super-long post.

My larger point is, some of you have no clue what missionary or religious volunteer work actually looks like on the ground today. You also have no clue about how it’s filling huge gaps that secular orgs and governments/NGOs can’t fill alone. And yet you’re so gosh-darn arrogant that you think this work should be banned because poor people can’t make their own choices.

I'm not saying that the work should be banned. Just the co-mingling of work and proselytizing - particularly when people are in vulnerable positions.

[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:

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?

Watch the whole video. It's <3 minutes.

These families were in the middle of a huge health crisis with no other treatment available. They left their homes/families/support and lived with these host families who called them "part of the family". They ended stuck with them for an extra 5+ months because of the pandemic which the SP people said was positive because they had more time to "hear more about Jesus Christ".

They were exploiting the vulnerable position of these families.

People may have different perspectives on this, but requiring somebody move near a hospital that can perform needed heart surgery seems pretty logical. You want the doctors to do the surgery in a yurt? Similarly, providing a “host family” who treats them like “part of the family” doesn’t exactly sound nefarious, quite the opposite. You think the kids should have traveled alone to the city, far from their families, and their parents should have found a way to pay for a hotel? Similarly, the fact that COVID interrupted their return home isn’t anybody’s fault.

You haven’t shown anybody was denied surgery because they wouldn’t attend services or convert. And once again, you show your scorn for poor peoples’ ability to make their own choices.

Methinks you doth protest too much.

No one on this thread - including me - has made this claim. Not sure why you keep pushing that strawman.

The issue isn't that they provided critical healthcare for the kids or even found compassionate host families for them. The issue is that while those moms were in such a vulnerable position they pushed religion in an attempt to convert them.

It is unethical to seek out people in vulnerable situations with the intent to convert them.

It has been said on this thread, but I don’t have the interest to go through 30 pages to dig it out.

Again, you keep talking about “pushing religion” but you can’t say what that means. As others have told you (including a Muslim a while back on this thread), modelling their religion’s values is the way most go about it these days. And maybe there’s a cross or crescent on the wall, or a Bible or Quran lying on a table.

Take another sip of carmenere (my personal favorite, although I’ve been holding back because it’s not well recognized or easy to find around here), roll up the sleeves of your spa robe with the microfiber lining, and tell us why this is so objectionable to you. And while you’re at it, explain why you think poor people are incapable of making their own choices so this type of aid should be banned.

It's unethical to proselytize during critical care.

Here is an example of "pushing religion".
https://video.samaritanspurse.org/sharing-christs-love-in-waverly/

You don't think he feels some obligation to these people after they did all of that work for him? You don't think there was any pressure for him there at all?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It has been said on this thread, but I don’t have the interest to go through 30 pages to dig it out.

Again, you keep talking about “pushing religion” but you can’t say what that means. As others have told you (including a Muslim a while back on this thread), modelling their religion’s values is the way most go about it these days. And maybe there’s a cross or crescent on the wall, or a Bible or Quran lying on a table.

Take another sip of carmenere (my personal favorite, although I’ve been holding back because it’s not well recognized or easy to find around here), roll up the sleeves of your spa robe with the microfiber lining, and tell us why this is so objectionable to you. And while you’re at it, explain why you think poor people are incapable of making their own choices so this type of aid should be banned.

PP who worked in Haiti here. This is what I saw. The health clinic in the small town where I worked was on the bottom floor of a priest’s house (the church was a few blocks away). There was a cross on the wall and that was it. Healthcare was very professional—people came in, got diagnosed and treated, and were sent on their way. No proselytizing except they had to look at that cross on the wall or avert their eyes. The Haitian government had zero presence, so thank goodness for these religious workers.

Some of you are so separated from reality, and are coming at this from 10,000 feet, and your outrage looks a little ridiculous.

You are really trying to say that one clinic is representative of all mission work in Haiti? You don't think there is any proselytizing?

https://www.samaritanspurse.org/operation-christmas-child-countries/haiti/
A woman who "accepted God" after the earthquake: "The chaplains told me there was no need to worry and asked if I believed in God."

Watch the whole thing. Near the end, a volunteer shares what they tell people. You don't think that's proselytizing?

I clicked on the link… and saw a kid who sought out a church group after he had tried 19 voodoo priests?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pp who worked in Haiti, here again. I should clarify that I’m the same poster with the wine recommendations. I just wanted to separate my points and avoid a super-long post.

My larger point is, some of you have no clue what missionary or religious volunteer work actually looks like on the ground today. You also have no clue about how it’s filling huge gaps that secular orgs and governments/NGOs can’t fill alone. And yet you’re so gosh-darn arrogant that you think this work should be banned because poor people can’t make their own choices.

I'm not saying that the work should be banned. Just the co-mingling of work and proselytizing - particularly when people are in vulnerable positions.

Ok - let us know when our U.S. public schools stop forcing their anti-Christian, anti-biblical views and their humanism or relativism on kids. It's a belief system, just not Christian **at all**.

At least missionaries don't use economic blackmail and threaten to "cancel" people if they refuse to adhere to their beliefs.

If you all want to cry foul about freedom of beliefs, look in the freaking mirror

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It has been said on this thread, but I don’t have the interest to go through 30 pages to dig it out.

Again, you keep talking about “pushing religion” but you can’t say what that means. As others have told you (including a Muslim a while back on this thread), modelling their religion’s values is the way most go about it these days. And maybe there’s a cross or crescent on the wall, or a Bible or Quran lying on a table.

Take another sip of carmenere (my personal favorite, although I’ve been holding back because it’s not well recognized or easy to find around here), roll up the sleeves of your spa robe with the microfiber lining, and tell us why this is so objectionable to you. And while you’re at it, explain why you think poor people are incapable of making their own choices so this type of aid should be banned.

PP who worked in Haiti here. This is what I saw. The health clinic in the small town where I worked was on the bottom floor of a priest’s house (the church was a few blocks away). There was a cross on the wall and that was it. Healthcare was very professional—people came in, got diagnosed and treated, and were sent on their way. No proselytizing except they had to look at that cross on the wall or avert their eyes. The Haitian government had zero presence, so thank goodness for these religious workers.

Some of you are so separated from reality, and are coming at this from 10,000 feet, and your outrage looks a little ridiculous.

You are really trying to say that one clinic is representative of all mission work in Haiti? You don't think there is any proselytizing?

https://www.samaritanspurse.org/operation-christmas-child-countries/haiti/
A woman who "accepted God" after the earthquake: "The chaplains told me there was no need to worry and asked if I believed in God."

Watch the whole thing. Near the end, a volunteer shares what they tell people. You don't think that's proselytizing?

I clicked on the link… and saw a kid who sought out a church group after he had tried 19 voodoo priests?

Oops - wrong link. Here you go:
https://samaritanspurse.org/article/restoring-health-and-hope-in-haiti/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It's unethical to proselytize during critical care.

Here is an example of "pushing religion".
https://video.samaritanspurse.org/sharing-christs-love-in-waverly/

You don't think he feels some obligation to these people after they did all of that work for him? You don't think there was any pressure for him there at all?

If your standard is that helping someone creates a sense of “obligation” and “pressure,” then you might as well call for banning ALL aid, including NGOs. You could equally argue that USAID is out to win hearts and minds for America, which they partially are. Or that the IMF exists to prop up the international banking system, currencies, and western bank loans to developing countries, which it partially does. All of this is mixed into secular help. Put down your Belgian brown ale and tell us how any of this is different.

If that guy had to look at a cross on the wall or a Bible on a table, then no, I don’t think there was pressure. You continue to dismiss peoples’ ability to make their own choices.

(Also, I’m not clicking on any more questionable links or spending any more of my time watching your minutes-long videos. After you accused missionary groups of “kidnapping” a kid to, gasp, take him to a hospital where Christian hosts, horrors, treated him “like family” (quotes from your post above), your outrage doesn’t carry enough credibility to warrant me spending much time. If you think there’s something objectionable, you need to write it down in a post.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It's unethical to proselytize during critical care.

Here is an example of "pushing religion".
https://video.samaritanspurse.org/sharing-christs-love-in-waverly/

You don't think he feels some obligation to these people after they did all of that work for him? You don't think there was any pressure for him there at all?

If your standard is that helping someone creates a sense of “obligation” and “pressure,” then you might as well call for banning ALL aid, including NGOs. You could equally argue that USAID is out to win hearts and minds for America, which they partially are. Or that the IMF exists to prop up the international banking system, currencies, and western bank loans to developing countries, which it partially does. All of this is mixed into secular help. Put down your Belgian brown ale and tell us how any of this is different.

If that guy had to look at a cross on the wall or a Bible on a table, then no, I don’t think there was pressure. You continue to dismiss peoples’ ability to make their own choices.

(Also, I’m not clicking on any more questionable links or spending any more of my time watching your minutes-long videos. After you accused missionary groups of “kidnapping” a kid to, gasp, take him to a hospital where Christian hosts, horrors, treated him “like family” (quotes from your post above), your outrage doesn’t carry enough credibility to warrant me spending much time. If you think there’s something objectionable, you need to write it down in a post.)

They did much more than help this guy and have a bible on a table. Did you even watch it?

I didn't say they kidnapped him. More strawman.

Questionable links? It's Samaritans Purse. Listen to what the volunteer in Haiti says. You don't think that's proselytizing?
https://samaritanspurse.org/article/restoring-health-and-hope-in-haiti/

[Anonymous]

^ she starts at 2:20

[Anonymous]

Samaritans Purse isn't afraid to come out and say it.

(1:38) Doctor: It’s incredibly amazing to see the interaction of Gospel and medicine together. Just to be able to meet someone at a vulnerable place that just gives us a window of opportunity to be able to share about god and his love.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Samaritans Purse isn't afraid to come out and say it.

(1:38) Doctor: It’s incredibly amazing to see the interaction of Gospel and medicine together. Just to be able to meet someone at a vulnerable place that just gives us a window of opportunity to be able to share about god and his love.

Do you say this is evil?

[Anonymous]

OP, Do you feel bad about recommending your book club, workout, or favorite restaurant? When faith is a part of your life you speak about it and recommend it to others.

As long as no one is forced to listen or denied access to what the missionaries are offering, I have no problem with mission work in the US or other countries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hahahahhaaaaa.

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

“In God we trust” was added in 1955 for clear political reasons. As an educated adult, you should already know all about it. If not, feel free to educate yourself.

There is zero requirement to swear “on a bible” to be sworn in as president.

Next!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

It doesn’t matter if it’s “all” they do. They need to not be doing it, period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Samaritans Purse isn't afraid to come out and say it.

(1:38) Doctor: It’s incredibly amazing to see the interaction of Gospel and medicine together. Just to be able to meet someone at a vulnerable place that just gives us a window of opportunity to be able to share about god and his love.

Do you say this is evil?

It’s unethical.

Proselytize. Or provide critical care.

Don’t do both at the same time because it’s exploiting vulnerability.