Missionaries should be banned

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Totally agree that missionary tourism is the worst. My church growing up (southern baptist) was really into this, and even my devout parents rolled their eyes and never encourage me to participate. My favorite was when they went to Mexico (to...convert the already Christian population to a different kind of Christianity?)

There might be a handful of cases though where I'm thinking that converting a local population was a good thing. I'm thinking of those limited times and places where local religions included practices like child sacrifices, etc.

I'm no historian but I would think any incidences of child sacrifices would have been hundreds of years ago when good old Christians were burning people at the stake, torturing etc. And yes, many religions have committed atrocities, wasn't only the christians.

Absolutely correct. Belief that a supreme, invisible supernatural being has given you the right to commit atrocities extends to anyone with such a belief, regardless of religion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There might be a handful of cases though where I'm thinking that converting a local population was a good thing. I'm thinking of those limited times and places where local religions included practices like child sacrifices, etc.

I'm no historian but I would think any incidences of child sacrifices would have been hundreds of years ago when good old Christians were burning people at the stake, torturing etc. And yes, many religions have committed atrocities, wasn't only the christians.

NP here and not to detract from your point PP, but I am aware of instances of child sacrifice that occur currently.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My church hosted missionaries when I was a kid. My understanding was that the goal was to go and serve communities by helping pregnant mothers and babies, educating kids, and building sanitation. The missionaries were there to share their Christianity only through their example, not through proselytizing. They'd host a church session on Sunday and all were welcome, but it's was not required. No knocking on doors. No taking money from the community. Just service and helping those less fortunate. We considered helping others who are less fortunate to be a key part of our faith.

I was shocked when I learned about Morman missionaries and that they are taking money from underprivileged communities.

I’m a former Mormon missionary PP and the tithing issue wasn’t a huge deal for me. Don’t get me wrong, it was a problem, and the church does hand out charity unfairly, but in my area people benefited financially from the church as much as they contributed. The church helped people find jobs, gave people money for medical and dental care, and assisted with with rent, and set up the congregation in a way to be sure everybody had enough food. It certainly wasn’t enough charity and again I don’t agree with the tithing requirements (I could write a lot about how problematic that whole thing is), but the demand for financial contribution isn’t the reason I think missionary work should be restricted. It’s the demand for cultural conformity.

That’s great for all those people who benefited from the charity you’re talking about, and it’s not as bad as what Mormons do sometimes (some Mormon missions are service-only). But let’s get real: those churches have a motive. They want people to be like them, to believe like them, to follow the same rules, to spend time together, to read the same things, etc. People forget that White America, and especially white American Christianity, has its own culture. We are sometimes so steeped in it that it’s hard to see, but it involves values about work, food, socialization, spending money, even punctuality. It impacts everything about somebody’s life. And white religious culture and many other cultures can’t completely coexist in the same person. So you do see a deterioration of cultures even if it’s just from service oriented missions.

I really don't think it was about converting as much as serving. Our church also hosted a local food pantry, soup kitchen, and clothing closet. We did collections for kids in foster care. None of those activities had any pressure to join our church or to become Christian. It was all about serving those less fortunate.

I'm sure they the work done abroad wasn't perfect, but I don't think any less so than other non-religious charitable endeavors from the 80s and 90s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Totally agree that missionary tourism is the worst. My church growing up (southern baptist) was really into this, and even my devout parents rolled their eyes and never encourage me to participate. My favorite was when they went to Mexico (to...convert the already Christian population to a different kind of Christianity?)

There might be a handful of cases though where I'm thinking that converting a local population was a good thing. I'm thinking of those limited times and places where local religions included practices like child sacrifices, etc.

I'm no historian but I would think any incidences of child sacrifices would have been hundreds of years ago when good old Christians were burning people at the stake, torturing etc. And yes, many religions have committed atrocities, wasn't only the christians.

Plus, you don't have to be religious to commit atrocities -- but it helps -- you can say you're doing it in god's name.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see, it’s evil, hateful, wrong, exploitative and every other badness for people to travel to share what they believe is good news, but it’s perfectly OK for you to denounce and defame generations of people from countless denominations because you disagree with them.

IME, people are most often threatened by a message that makes them suspect that what they insist they believe is not true, so they get aggressively defensive. When people think what they’re being told is silly, they more often ignore and/or laugh it off.

When the missionaries leave, should they take their schools, colleges, hospitals, water programs and everything else they brought with them?

Do the missionaries understand how un-Christlike their conditional so-called charity actually is? What would Jesus think of: Love thy neighbor as thy self — as long as you can first force thy neighbors to celebrate every twisted conditions that have been attached to this mockery of “Love”?

If the missionaries were simply decent people, they'd leave all their good things behind for the locals to operate with no strings attached

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's what Jesus wanted. Matthew 28:

And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

I hope you understand Jesus did not encourage quid pro quo.

It's not:

"And go forth to the poor and starving of this world, and show unto them the good food and the solar well pump, but not until they've prayed with you and agreed to convert."

IDIOT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My church hosted missionaries when I was a kid. My understanding was that the goal was to go and serve communities by helping pregnant mothers and babies, educating kids, and building sanitation. The missionaries were there to share their Christianity only through their example, not through proselytizing. They'd host a church session on Sunday and all were welcome, but it's was not required. No knocking on doors. No taking money from the community. Just service and helping those less fortunate. We considered helping others who are less fortunate to be a key part of our faith.

I was shocked when I learned about Morman missionaries and that they are taking money from underprivileged communities.

I’m a former Mormon missionary PP and the tithing issue wasn’t a huge deal for me. Don’t get me wrong, it was a problem, and the church does hand out charity unfairly, but in my area people benefited financially from the church as much as they contributed. The church helped people find jobs, gave people money for medical and dental care, and assisted with with rent, and set up the congregation in a way to be sure everybody had enough food. It certainly wasn’t enough charity and again I don’t agree with the tithing requirements (I could write a lot about how problematic that whole thing is), but the demand for financial contribution isn’t the reason I think missionary work should be restricted. It’s the demand for cultural conformity.

That’s great for all those people who benefited from the charity you’re talking about, and it’s not as bad as what Mormons do sometimes (some Mormon missions are service-only). But let’s get real: those churches have a motive. They want people to be like them, to believe like them, to follow the same rules, to spend time together, to read the same things, etc. People forget that White America, and especially white American Christianity, has its own culture. We are sometimes so steeped in it that it’s hard to see, but it involves values about work, food, socialization, spending money, even punctuality. It impacts everything about somebody’s life. And white religious culture and many other cultures can’t completely coexist in the same person. So you do see a deterioration of cultures even if it’s just from service oriented missions.

I really don't think it was about converting as much as serving. Our church also hosted a local food pantry, soup kitchen, and clothing closet. We did collections for kids in foster care. None of those activities had any pressure to join our church or to become Christian. It was all about serving those less fortunate.

I'm sure they the work done abroad wasn't perfect, but I don't think any less so than other non-religious charitable endeavors from the 80s and 90s.

It's so complex. Local food pantries are wonderful. I also love the focus on families. My aunt and uncle raised 5 children who are all very active in the church, and they have a close family and none of their kids appear to have had any real challenges in life. They're all beautiful and educated and financially successful. They had their kids in their 20s and early 30s, and the women all have graduate degrees but stay home to raise the kids while the men make plenty of money. But man, I just couldn't drink the Kool-Aid, and maybe I'm worse off for it. I disliked the missionary work, and that's all described by others in this thread, but even the LDS subculture here in the US was too much for me. Specifically, I could never get passed all the patriarchy. But on the other hand, am I really any more enlightened than my cousins? They have objectively beautiful lives, at least on IG, and I've struggled at different periods in my young adult life. There are times when I wish I just drank the Kool-Aid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My church hosted missionaries when I was a kid. My understanding was that the goal was to go and serve communities by helping pregnant mothers and babies, educating kids, and building sanitation. The missionaries were there to share their Christianity only through their example, not through proselytizing. They'd host a church session on Sunday and all were welcome, but it's was not required. No knocking on doors. No taking money from the community. Just service and helping those less fortunate. We considered helping others who are less fortunate to be a key part of our faith.

I was shocked when I learned about Morman missionaries and that they are taking money from underprivileged communities.

I’m a former Mormon missionary PP and the tithing issue wasn’t a huge deal for me. Don’t get me wrong, it was a problem, and the church does hand out charity unfairly, but in my area people benefited financially from the church as much as they contributed. The church helped people find jobs, gave people money for medical and dental care, and assisted with with rent, and set up the congregation in a way to be sure everybody had enough food. It certainly wasn’t enough charity and again I don’t agree with the tithing requirements (I could write a lot about how problematic that whole thing is), but the demand for financial contribution isn’t the reason I think missionary work should be restricted. It’s the demand for cultural conformity.

That’s great for all those people who benefited from the charity you’re talking about, and it’s not as bad as what Mormons do sometimes (some Mormon missions are service-only). But let’s get real: those churches have a motive. They want people to be like them, to believe like them, to follow the same rules, to spend time together, to read the same things, etc. People forget that White America, and especially white American Christianity, has its own culture. We are sometimes so steeped in it that it’s hard to see, but it involves values about work, food, socialization, spending money, even punctuality. It impacts everything about somebody’s life. And white religious culture and many other cultures can’t completely coexist in the same person. So you do see a deterioration of cultures even if it’s just from service oriented missions.

I really don't think it was about converting as much as serving. Our church also hosted a local food pantry, soup kitchen, and clothing closet. We did collections for kids in foster care. None of those activities had any pressure to join our church or to become Christian. It was all about serving those less fortunate.

I'm sure they the work done abroad wasn't perfect, but I don't think any less so than other non-religious charitable endeavors from the 80s and 90s.

"Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven." They have good intentions but they aren't going to serve in a way that doesn't make it about them.

Lots of these people who do service missions would be doing far more good by taking all the money they spend on transportation to these areas for themselves and just sending it to those people. But then they wouldn't be getting the fun experience and it wouldn't be as effective at making themselves look good. A few white christians truly don't care if people convert. Maybe they even realize that conversion would be bad for them. But this is the exception, because the present conception of christianity demands expansion.

People in needy communities know what problems they have. They are working on solutions. Sometimes they don't need outside help. Sometimes they do. But usually missionaries don't ask what these people need or even if they want help. And is there really room in the christian conception of charity and missionary work to honor the wishes of a local, non-christian culture?

I do think that charities can have the same problem. It's all part of the whole white savior complex thing.

[Anonymous]

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

Why? Asian priests and monks in the west doing the same thing. All is fair.

[Anonymous]

My good friend's husband, who is wealthy, donates millions to mission work in South America....so they can accept the Lord Jesus Christ as their Saviour. (Yes, please do read that with sarcasm). It seems to be totally lost on him that 99% of the population that they are running around preaching to is Catholic. You know, the original flavor of Christian.


Ugh.

[Anonymous]

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

Agree 100000%. It is the worst form of conceit and narcissism. Missionary work rarely has anything to do with actually helping the local populations. On behalf of my fellow Americans, I apologize, as they likely never will apologize for the atrocities that they have committed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I really don't think it was about converting as much as serving. Our church also hosted a local food pantry, soup kitchen, and clothing closet. We did collections for kids in foster care. None of those activities had any pressure to join our church or to become Christian. It was all about serving those less fortunate.

I'm sure they the work done abroad wasn't perfect, but I don't think any less so than other non-religious charitable endeavors from the 80s and 90s.

"Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven." They have good intentions but they aren't going to serve in a way that doesn't make it about them.

Lots of these people who do service missions would be doing far more good by taking all the money they spend on transportation to these areas for themselves and just sending it to those people. But then they wouldn't be getting the fun experience and it wouldn't be as effective at making themselves look good. A few white christians truly don't care if people convert. Maybe they even realize that conversion would be bad for them. But this is the exception, because the present conception of christianity demands expansion.

People in needy communities know what problems they have. They are working on solutions. Sometimes they don't need outside help. Sometimes they do. But usually missionaries don't ask what these people need or even if they want help. And is there really room in the christian conception of charity and missionary work to honor the wishes of a local, non-christian culture?

I do think that charities can have the same problem. It's all part of the whole white savior complex thing.

I agree with a lot of this, but not all. For many Christians, the “present concept” doesn’t demand expansion, that’s just wrong. I do agree that people should save the money they spend on transportation, and while it’s good for kids to see other cultures that don’t live on TicTok, I don’t think this sort of cultural tourism is necessarily good or justifies spending the money on airplanes.

Boy, this thread has really brought out the dramatic haters. The same could be said of Muslim proselytizers, but where would the fun be in that.

[Anonymous]

I have never met a Muslim proselytizer. Have you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have never met a Muslim proselytizer. Have you?

You probably haven’t been in jail (neither have I). But true, it’s also mostly battles to take over parts of the world where other religions, or Muslims who don’t practice their form of the religion, live and then establish their rules that way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have never met a Muslim proselytizer. Have you?

You probably haven’t been in jail (neither have I). But true, it’s also mostly battles to take over parts of the world where other religions, or Muslims who don’t practice their form of the religion, live and then establish their rules that way.

WTF are you implying?