Reply to Missionaries should be banned

Forum Index » Religion

Reply to "Missionaries should be banned"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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. [/quote]

But they can “serve” via secular organizations.  [/quote]

But given the way missionaries work today—little pressure—what’s the difference? What is your problem with mission work today?[/quote]

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? 
[/quote]

Jesus healed the sick, fed the hungry.  Why shouldn't missionaries if nobody else steps up to do it.[/quote]

They can do it via secular organizations. 
[/quote]

Can vs. do.  Can doesn't accomplish anything.  It's hypothetical.  In jammies in DC.[/quote]

So only justification for missionaries is that there aren’t enough secular organizations at the moment? 
[/quote]

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. 
[/quote]

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?

[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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

[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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 [i]while[/i] 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.

[/quote]

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?[/quote]

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. 
[/quote]

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.

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

Methinks you doth protest too much. [/quote]

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. 
 
[/quote]

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.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics