Indigenous Tribes Push Back Against Evangelical Missionaries

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One thing you have to keep in mind is that while the caste system is outlawed in India, the prejudices against the lowest level castes, particularly the Dalits, continue. Many Hindus still believe in reincarnation and believe that people are born Dalit because they were thoroughly evil in a past life.

A lot of the people Mother Theresa helped were Dalits. Some Indians believe that helping them is wrong. I may not phrase this correctly but basically they believe that Mother Theresa was interfering with karma. Those people dying in the gutter deserve that.

A disproportionate percentage of modern day converts to Catholicism in India are Dalits. Obviously, people who know that Hinduism teaches that they shouldn't dream of a job with more status than cleaning toilets because they were evil in a past life are more likely to reject that faith than are Brahmins who believe their exalted status was earned.

Many high caste Indians in the US share those prejudices and they discriminate against Dalits. It is a major problem in the tech industry which has a lot of Indians.

See https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/big-techs-big-problem-also-best-kept-secret-caste-discrimination-rcna33692

Because they are the most vulnerable to conversion?

DP. Vulnerable seems like the wrong word. You're implying they were better off believing they deserved their low status.

I didn’t imply that at all. You can help people without converting them while they are under duress. It’s the exploitation of their situation that is the issue.

Being the only aid group that's willing to provide hospice care to dying Dalits is hardly "exploitation."

If they denied treatment for treatable conditions, yes, they exploited those people. You can’t let people die of treatable conditions and call that “helping.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One thing you have to keep in mind is that while the caste system is outlawed in India, the prejudices against the lowest level castes, particularly the Dalits, continue. Many Hindus still believe in reincarnation and believe that people are born Dalit because they were thoroughly evil in a past life.

A lot of the people Mother Theresa helped were Dalits. Some Indians believe that helping them is wrong. I may not phrase this correctly but basically they believe that Mother Theresa was interfering with karma. Those people dying in the gutter deserve that.

A disproportionate percentage of modern day converts to Catholicism in India are Dalits. Obviously, people who know that Hinduism teaches that they shouldn't dream of a job with more status than cleaning toilets because they were evil in a past life are more likely to reject that faith than are Brahmins who believe their exalted status was earned.

Many high caste Indians in the US share those prejudices and they discriminate against Dalits. It is a major problem in the tech industry which has a lot of Indians.

See https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/big-techs-big-problem-also-best-kept-secret-caste-discrimination-rcna33692

Because they are the most vulnerable to conversion?

DP. Vulnerable seems like the wrong word. You're implying they were better off believing they deserved their low status.

I didn’t imply that at all. You can help people without converting them while they are under duress. It’s the exploitation of their situation that is the issue.

Being the only aid group that's willing to provide hospice care to dying Dalits is hardly "exploitation."

If they denied treatment for treatable conditions, yes, they exploited those people. You can’t let people die of treatable conditions and call that “helping.”

Again, they weren't a medical clinic. They were a hospice. The only hospice serving these desperately poor people. Not a medical clinic. There are other medical clinics run by religious and secular groups, and presumably they sent treatable people there 99% of the time (nor did Hitchens document the cases of denial he claims).

I don't know why this is so hard to understand.

[Anonymous]

Mother Theresa won the Nobel peace prize in 1979. How can her work be considered “violent?”

Mother Teresa singled out abortion as "the greatest destroyer of peace today. Because if a mother can kill her own child – what is left for me to kill you and you kill me – there is nothing between."

Barbara Smoker of the secular humanist magazine The Freethinker criticised Mother Teresa after the Peace Prize award, saying that her promotion of Catholic moral teachings on abortion and contraception diverted funds from effective methods to solve India's problems. At the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, Mother Teresa said: "Yet we can destroy this gift of motherhood, especially by the evil of abortion, but also by thinking that other things like jobs or positions are more important than loving."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Teresa

I think her view on abortion is earning her the animus of many here. You can disagree with her, but the good she’s done in over 100 countries for poverty stricken men, women, ad children is undeniable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Missionary "work" should be criminal. If you're providing *requested* humanitarian aid without ANY proselytizing, that's one thing. But "mission trips" are sickening and a form of violence, imho.

Religious freedom is not a given in many parts of the world. According to the Pew Research Center, more than 80% of the world's governments interfered with their citizens' religious worship in some way in 2019. Furthermore, although Christianity is the world's largest religion, Christians are in no way immune to persecution. For example, Islamic countries often view other religions as heretical, an affront to Allah, which is considered an extremely serious crime. Communist countries, by comparison, often outlaw all religion—which Karl Marx famously deemed the "opiate of the masses"—preferring that the government be the only authority guiding people's concept of fairness and one's role in society.

13 Countries Where Bibles Can Only Be Delivered by Illegal Covert Operations:

Afghanistan Mauritania Tajikistan
Iran North Korea Turkmenistan
Kazakhstan Saudi Arabia Uzbekistan
Kyrgyzstan Somalia Yemen
Maldives

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-where-christianity-is-illegal

pp, if you moved to one of those countries, you would be in good compan! What an illustrious group.

Wow. According to the link you provided, Christianity is illegal in Mexico! Who knew?!

I spent a lot of time in the Central Asia and other parts of the former Soviet Union in the mid-90s. I don't blame the government for cracking down on attempts to spread Christianity. The Russian dominated Soviet government did all they could to crush local culture and Russify all that they could. While I believe people should have religious freedom, I understand that when one group has done all they could to erase the differences of another group, there will be backlash when roles are reversed.

[Anonymous]

If you're a Christian missionary and you're prioritizing your culture over Jesus Christ, you should get out of the field.

Hudson Taylor, the 19th century Chinese missionary, was sensitive to Chinese culture, learned several dialects of Chinese and even wore Chinese native clothing. Modern missionaries could learn from that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Mother Theresa won the Nobel peace prize in 1979. How can her work be considered “violent?”

Mother Teresa singled out abortion as "the greatest destroyer of peace today. Because if a mother can kill her own child – what is left for me to kill you and you kill me – there is nothing between."

Barbara Smoker of the secular humanist magazine The Freethinker criticised Mother Teresa after the Peace Prize award, saying that her promotion of Catholic moral teachings on abortion and contraception diverted funds from effective methods to solve India's problems. At the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, Mother Teresa said: "Yet we can destroy this gift of motherhood, especially by the evil of abortion, but also by thinking that other things like jobs or positions are more important than loving."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Teresa

I think her view on abortion is earning her the animus of many here. You can disagree with her, but the good she’s done in over 100 countries for poverty stricken men, women, ad children is undeniable.

No, my dislike of her is based in the fact that denying medical treatment for treatable conditions is akin to murder. And her running a “hospice” doesn’t make that better. If people do not have fatal conditions, they are not suitable patients for hospice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mother Theresa won the Nobel peace prize in 1979. How can her work be considered “violent?”

Mother Teresa singled out abortion as "the greatest destroyer of peace today. Because if a mother can kill her own child – what is left for me to kill you and you kill me – there is nothing between."

Barbara Smoker of the secular humanist magazine The Freethinker criticised Mother Teresa after the Peace Prize award, saying that her promotion of Catholic moral teachings on abortion and contraception diverted funds from effective methods to solve India's problems. At the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, Mother Teresa said: "Yet we can destroy this gift of motherhood, especially by the evil of abortion, but also by thinking that other things like jobs or positions are more important than loving."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Teresa

I think her view on abortion is earning her the animus of many here. You can disagree with her, but the good she’s done in over 100 countries for poverty stricken men, women, ad children is undeniable.

No, my dislike of her is based in the fact that denying medical treatment for treatable conditions is akin to murder. And her running a “hospice” doesn’t make that better. If people do not have fatal conditions, they are not suitable patients for hospice.

You bumped this because?

If Hitchens had documented his claim I'd be more impressed.

A hospice isn't set up like a medical clinic, it doesn't have the medications and surgery. Hospice is about keeping people comfortable, as you probably know. Presumably she referred people with treatable conditions to other clinics, of which there were many more than her hospice. And what's treatable in desperately poor India, anyway? It's not like any clinics were giving cancer patients the latest chemo or radiation therapy, for example.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you're a Christian missionary and you're prioritizing your culture over Jesus Christ, you should get out of the field.

Hudson Taylor, the 19th century Chinese missionary, was sensitive to Chinese culture, learned several dialects of Chinese and even wore Chinese native clothing. Modern missionaries could learn from that.

Some missionaries in India dress in saffron robes with red tilak on their foreheads, which are usually worn by Hindu and Jain priests and monks, and add architecture to churches that mimic traditional temple architecture. They use these techniques to deceive and convert.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Having lived in Haiti, I can say the missionaries are the only ones digging wells and running health clinics and schools in some rural parts of the country.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mother Theresa won the Nobel peace prize in 1979. How can her work be considered “violent?”

Mother Teresa singled out abortion as "the greatest destroyer of peace today. Because if a mother can kill her own child – what is left for me to kill you and you kill me – there is nothing between."

Barbara Smoker of the secular humanist magazine The Freethinker criticised Mother Teresa after the Peace Prize award, saying that her promotion of Catholic moral teachings on abortion and contraception diverted funds from effective methods to solve India's problems. At the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, Mother Teresa said: "Yet we can destroy this gift of motherhood, especially by the evil of abortion, but also by thinking that other things like jobs or positions are more important than loving."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Teresa

I think her view on abortion is earning her the animus of many here. You can disagree with her, but the good she’s done in over 100 countries for poverty stricken men, women, ad children is undeniable.

No, my dislike of her is based in the fact that denying medical treatment for treatable conditions is akin to murder. And her running a “hospice” doesn’t make that better. If people do not have fatal conditions, they are not suitable patients for hospice.

You bumped this because?

If Hitchens had documented his claim I'd be more impressed.

A hospice isn't set up like a medical clinic, it doesn't have the medications and surgery. Hospice is about keeping people comfortable, as you probably know. Presumably she referred people with treatable conditions to other clinics, of which there were many more than her hospice. And what's treatable in desperately poor India, anyway? It's not like any clinics were giving cancer patients the latest chemo or radiation therapy, for example.

You’re clearly unaware of where much of the worlds vaccines and medicines are made.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mother Theresa won the Nobel peace prize in 1979. How can her work be considered “violent?”

Mother Teresa singled out abortion as "the greatest destroyer of peace today. Because if a mother can kill her own child – what is left for me to kill you and you kill me – there is nothing between."

Barbara Smoker of the secular humanist magazine The Freethinker criticised Mother Teresa after the Peace Prize award, saying that her promotion of Catholic moral teachings on abortion and contraception diverted funds from effective methods to solve India's problems. At the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, Mother Teresa said: "Yet we can destroy this gift of motherhood, especially by the evil of abortion, but also by thinking that other things like jobs or positions are more important than loving."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Teresa

I think her view on abortion is earning her the animus of many here. You can disagree with her, but the good she’s done in over 100 countries for poverty stricken men, women, ad children is undeniable.

No, my dislike of her is based in the fact that denying medical treatment for treatable conditions is akin to murder. And her running a “hospice” doesn’t make that better. If people do not have fatal conditions, they are not suitable patients for hospice.

You bumped this because?

If Hitchens had documented his claim I'd be more impressed.

A hospice isn't set up like a medical clinic, it doesn't have the medications and surgery. Hospice is about keeping people comfortable, as you probably know. Presumably she referred people with treatable conditions to other clinics, of which there were many more than her hospice. And what's treatable in desperately poor India, anyway? It's not like any clinics were giving cancer patients the latest chemo or radiation therapy, for example.

You’re clearly unaware of where much of the worlds vaccines and medicines are made.

You're clearly unaware of where these vaccines and meds end up. They're shipped to us, the OECD and the rest of Asia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you're a Christian missionary and you're prioritizing your culture over Jesus Christ, you should get out of the field.

Hudson Taylor, the 19th century Chinese missionary, was sensitive to Chinese culture, learned several dialects of Chinese and even wore Chinese native clothing. Modern missionaries could learn from that.

Some missionaries in India dress in saffron robes with red tilak on their foreheads, which are usually worn by Hindu and Jain priests and monks, and add architecture to churches that mimic traditional temple architecture. They use these techniques to deceive and convert.

first pp: missionaries should embrace local cultures and customs!

second pp: missionaries embracing local customs and cultures are deceptive and evil!

Which is it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you're a Christian missionary and you're prioritizing your culture over Jesus Christ, you should get out of the field.

Hudson Taylor, the 19th century Chinese missionary, was sensitive to Chinese culture, learned several dialects of Chinese and even wore Chinese native clothing. Modern missionaries could learn from that.

Some missionaries in India dress in saffron robes with red tilak on their foreheads, which are usually worn by Hindu and Jain priests and monks, and add architecture to churches that mimic traditional temple architecture. They use these techniques to deceive and convert.

first pp: missionaries should embrace local cultures and customs!

second pp: missionaries embracing local customs and cultures are deceptive and evil!

Which is it?

proselytizing is sh1tty in any outfit

[Anonymous]

Why don't you ask the people?

Mother Teresa was extremely loved by the people she helped.

Don't the people get a say in whether they want help?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you're a Christian missionary and you're prioritizing your culture over Jesus Christ, you should get out of the field.

Hudson Taylor, the 19th century Chinese missionary, was sensitive to Chinese culture, learned several dialects of Chinese and even wore Chinese native clothing. Modern missionaries could learn from that.

Some missionaries in India dress in saffron robes with red tilak on their foreheads, which are usually worn by Hindu and Jain priests and monks, and add architecture to churches that mimic traditional temple architecture. They use these techniques to deceive and convert.

first pp: missionaries should embrace local cultures and customs!

second pp: missionaries embracing local customs and cultures are deceptive and evil!

Which is it?

The first pp is supportive of missionary activity and stating they should all practice ‘inculturation’.

It’s a well known tactic of the church.