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:So why shouldn't missionaries be banned?

Couldn't their charity work continue via secular organizations?

It’s 2021, there are plenty of secular international aid organizations.

Why do we need missionaries? Couldn’t the “love spreading” happen via the secular orgs?

And crickets.

No rational explanation for why we need missionaries in 2021. We have secular aid orgs that can fill the need.

Oh my, it looks like nobody wants to engage with a bigot whose idea of discourse is to spew hate and ignore what anybody else says. Who could have predicted that?

You are confusing posters.

It’s a very simple question. Why do we need missionaries?

Why shouldn’t they be banned?

There are secular groups providing aid. Couldn’t people easily “spread love” through those organizations?

Dude, it doesn't matter what "we need." They need to do it. See Matthew 28:19. They're on a mission from God.

Sure, it matters. Why do we, as a society, need missionaries?

OP says to ban them. Why shouldn’t we?

What is the benefit?

I see - people in 3rd world countries, including people of color in 3rd world countries, need privileged elitists from DC, on the DCurbanmom forum, sipping champagne in their jammies, dictating what they need or want, right?

Hypothetical: the UN is considering whether they should ban missionaries or not.

What are your reasons for why they should not ban missionaries?

People should be free to practice their religion, which often includes sharing it with others. Also, the burden should be on the person proposing an infringement on people's religious freedom, not the other way around.

But they can share their religion without missionary work.

Missionary work infringes on indigenous people’s beliefs and customs. Their autonomy supersedes others’ religious freedom.

What do you think missionary work is? It's going somewhere and sharing your religion (including often doing service work as well). No one's autonomy is infringed by someone telling them about Christianity. Indigenous people aren't a museum piece that have to keep the same beliefs forever because you've decided you like it that way.

Indigenous people should decide their own future without high-pressure, predatory tactics.

Just because you use words like “high pressure” and “predatory” doesn’t make it true in many of not most cases these days. Please go back and re-read the posters who have tried to answer with explanations of what missionary work actually looks like in the 21st century. Those posters were posting in good faith—you need to show good faith by reading them.

DP. I have done some Googling around the internet and what you say does have some merit. That does seem to be the trend these days. Consistent with observations in the other threads that people these days are down-playing religiousness, or just hiding I guess. Which is fine. People are becoming more "spiritual" and missionary work is becoming more like any other secular aid.

Thanks for the validation.

PS. Nobody wants to engage with your spam about bogus definitions of “religious” and “spiritual.” Take that boring stuff back to one of the other threads you’ve spammed about it. Especially as missionaries would call themselves “religious” even by your ridiculous definition, so your post makes zero sense.

Anonymous wrote:
I see - people in 3rd world countries, including people of color in 3rd world countries, need privileged elitists from DC, on the DCurbanmom forum, sipping champagne in their jammies, dictating what they need or want, right?

This. When privileged DCUMers in their jammies, sipping their cava, can show us that developing countries already have enough wells and health clinics, then they can (maybe) make a case for banning this type of help.

Until that day arrives, it’s pretty high-handed to tell impoverished people in developing countries that they shouldn’t benefit from missionary help. Especially as they’re free to ignore any proselytizing, although some here have said they don’t even do that.

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:So why shouldn't missionaries be banned?

Couldn't their charity work continue via secular organizations?

It’s 2021, there are plenty of secular international aid organizations.

Why do we need missionaries? Couldn’t the “love spreading” happen via the secular orgs?

And crickets.

No rational explanation for why we need missionaries in 2021. We have secular aid orgs that can fill the need.

Oh my, it looks like nobody wants to engage with a bigot whose idea of discourse is to spew hate and ignore what anybody else says. Who could have predicted that?

You are confusing posters.

It’s a very simple question. Why do we need missionaries?

Why shouldn’t they be banned?

There are secular groups providing aid. Couldn’t people easily “spread love” through those organizations?

Dude, it doesn't matter what "we need." They need to do it. See Matthew 28:19. They're on a mission from God.

Sure, it matters. Why do we, as a society, need missionaries?

OP says to ban them. Why shouldn’t we?

What is the benefit?

I see - people in 3rd world countries, including people of color in 3rd world countries, need privileged elitists from DC, on the DCurbanmom forum, sipping champagne in their jammies, dictating what they need or want, right?

Hypothetical: the UN is considering whether they should ban missionaries or not.

What are your reasons for why they should not ban missionaries?

People should be free to practice their religion, which often includes sharing it with others. Also, the burden should be on the person proposing an infringement on people's religious freedom, not the other way around.

But they can share their religion without missionary work.

Missionary work infringes on indigenous people’s beliefs and customs. Their autonomy supersedes others’ religious freedom.

What do you think missionary work is? It's going somewhere and sharing your religion (including often doing service work as well). No one's autonomy is infringed by someone telling them about Christianity. Indigenous people aren't a museum piece that have to keep the same beliefs forever because you've decided you like it that way.

Indigenous people should decide their own future without high-pressure, predatory tactics.

Just because you use words like “high pressure” and “predatory” doesn’t make it true in many of not most cases these days. Please go back and re-read the posters who have tried to answer with explanations of what missionary work actually looks like in the 21st century. Those posters were posting in good faith—you need to show good faith by reading them.

DP. I have done some Googling around the internet and what you say does have some merit. That does seem to be the trend these days. Consistent with observations in the other threads that people these days are down-playing religiousness, or just hiding I guess. Which is fine. People are becoming more "spiritual" and missionary work is becoming more like any other secular aid.

^ This is a good trend to be encouraged!

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:So why shouldn't missionaries be banned?

Couldn't their charity work continue via secular organizations?

It’s 2021, there are plenty of secular international aid organizations.

Why do we need missionaries? Couldn’t the “love spreading” happen via the secular orgs?

And crickets.

No rational explanation for why we need missionaries in 2021. We have secular aid orgs that can fill the need.

Oh my, it looks like nobody wants to engage with a bigot whose idea of discourse is to spew hate and ignore what anybody else says. Who could have predicted that?

You are confusing posters.

It’s a very simple question. Why do we need missionaries?

Why shouldn’t they be banned?

There are secular groups providing aid. Couldn’t people easily “spread love” through those organizations?

Dude, it doesn't matter what "we need." They need to do it. See Matthew 28:19. They're on a mission from God.

Sure, it matters. Why do we, as a society, need missionaries?

OP says to ban them. Why shouldn’t we?

What is the benefit?

I see - people in 3rd world countries, including people of color in 3rd world countries, need privileged elitists from DC, on the DCurbanmom forum, sipping champagne in their jammies, dictating what they need or want, right?

Hypothetical: the UN is considering whether they should ban missionaries or not.

What are your reasons for why they should not ban missionaries?

People should be free to practice their religion, which often includes sharing it with others. Also, the burden should be on the person proposing an infringement on people's religious freedom, not the other way around.

But they can share their religion without missionary work.

Missionary work infringes on indigenous people’s beliefs and customs. Their autonomy supersedes others’ religious freedom.

What do you think missionary work is? It's going somewhere and sharing your religion (including often doing service work as well). No one's autonomy is infringed by someone telling them about Christianity. Indigenous people aren't a museum piece that have to keep the same beliefs forever because you've decided you like it that way.

Indigenous people should decide their own future without high-pressure, predatory tactics.

Just because you use words like “high pressure” and “predatory” doesn’t make it true in many of not most cases these days. Please go back and re-read the posters who have tried to answer with explanations of what missionary work actually looks like in the 21st century. Those posters were posting in good faith—you need to show good faith by reading them.

DP. I have done some Googling around the internet and what you say does have some merit. That does seem to be the trend these days. Consistent with observations in the other threads that people these days are down-playing religiousness, or just hiding I guess. Which is fine. People are becoming more "spiritual" and missionary work is becoming more like any other secular aid.

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:So why shouldn't missionaries be banned?

Couldn't their charity work continue via secular organizations?

It’s 2021, there are plenty of secular international aid organizations.

Why do we need missionaries? Couldn’t the “love spreading” happen via the secular orgs?

And crickets.

No rational explanation for why we need missionaries in 2021. We have secular aid orgs that can fill the need.

Oh my, it looks like nobody wants to engage with a bigot whose idea of discourse is to spew hate and ignore what anybody else says. Who could have predicted that?

You are confusing posters.

It’s a very simple question. Why do we need missionaries?

Why shouldn’t they be banned?

There are secular groups providing aid. Couldn’t people easily “spread love” through those organizations?

Dude, it doesn't matter what "we need." They need to do it. See Matthew 28:19. They're on a mission from God.

Sure, it matters. Why do we, as a society, need missionaries?

OP says to ban them. Why shouldn’t we?

What is the benefit?

I see - people in 3rd world countries, including people of color in 3rd world countries, need privileged elitists from DC, on the DCurbanmom forum, sipping champagne in their jammies, dictating what they need or want, right?

Hypothetical: the UN is considering whether they should ban missionaries or not.

What are your reasons for why they should not ban missionaries?

People should be free to practice their religion, which often includes sharing it with others. Also, the burden should be on the person proposing an infringement on people's religious freedom, not the other way around.

But they can share their religion without missionary work.

Missionary work infringes on indigenous people’s beliefs and customs. Their autonomy supersedes others’ religious freedom.

What do you think missionary work is? It's going somewhere and sharing your religion (including often doing service work as well). No one's autonomy is infringed by someone telling them about Christianity. Indigenous people aren't a museum piece that have to keep the same beliefs forever because you've decided you like it that way.

Indigenous people should decide their own future without high-pressure, predatory tactics.

Just because you use words like “high pressure” and “predatory” doesn’t make it true in many of not most cases these days. Please go back and re-read the posters who have tried to answer with explanations of what missionary work actually looks like in the 21st century. Those posters were posting in good faith—you need to show good faith by reading them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So why shouldn't missionaries be banned?

Couldn't their charity work continue via secular organizations?

It’s 2021, there are plenty of secular international aid organizations.

Why do we need missionaries? Couldn’t the “love spreading” happen via the secular orgs?

And crickets.

No rational explanation for why we need missionaries in 2021. We have secular aid orgs that can fill the need.

Oh my, it looks like nobody wants to engage with a bigot whose idea of discourse is to spew hate and ignore what anybody else says. Who could have predicted that?

You are confusing posters.

It’s a very simple question. Why do we need missionaries?

Why shouldn’t they be banned?

There are secular groups providing aid. Couldn’t people easily “spread love” through those organizations?

Dude, it doesn't matter what "we need." They need to do it. See Matthew 28:19. They're on a mission from God.

Sure, it matters. Why do we, as a society, need missionaries?

OP says to ban them. Why shouldn’t we?

What is the benefit?

I see - people in 3rd world countries, including people of color in 3rd world countries, need privileged elitists from DC, on the DCurbanmom forum, sipping champagne in their jammies, dictating what they need or want, right?

Hypothetical: the UN is considering whether they should ban missionaries or not.

What are your reasons for why they should not ban missionaries?

People should be free to practice their religion, which often includes sharing it with others. Also, the burden should be on the person proposing an infringement on people's religious freedom, not the other way around.

Is proselytizing protected as part of “religious freedom”?

Is predatory proselytizing protected?

Why would it be ok for foreign beliefs/religions to infringe on local/indigenous beliefs/religions?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Hypothetical: the UN is considering whether they should ban missionaries or not.

What are your reasons for why they should not ban missionaries?

You mean like, hypothetically, the book of Revelation . . . comes true? And the world unites against the remnant seed church spreading God's message?

Throw in there taking away people's ability to buy and sell without a mark of the beast for good measure if you like.

Translation?

Start by reading some of Revelations

12:17
13:5-7
13:15-17
14:6-7

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So why shouldn't missionaries be banned?

Couldn't their charity work continue via secular organizations?

It’s 2021, there are plenty of secular international aid organizations.

Why do we need missionaries? Couldn’t the “love spreading” happen via the secular orgs?

And crickets.

No rational explanation for why we need missionaries in 2021. We have secular aid orgs that can fill the need.

Oh my, it looks like nobody wants to engage with a bigot whose idea of discourse is to spew hate and ignore what anybody else says. Who could have predicted that?

You are confusing posters.

It’s a very simple question. Why do we need missionaries?

Why shouldn’t they be banned?

There are secular groups providing aid. Couldn’t people easily “spread love” through those organizations?

Dude, it doesn't matter what "we need." They need to do it. See Matthew 28:19. They're on a mission from God.

Sure, it matters. Why do we, as a society, need missionaries?

OP says to ban them. Why shouldn’t we?

What is the benefit?

I see - people in 3rd world countries, including people of color in 3rd world countries, need privileged elitists from DC, on the DCurbanmom forum, sipping champagne in their jammies, dictating what they need or want, right?

Hypothetical: the UN is considering whether they should ban missionaries or not.

What are your reasons for why they should not ban missionaries?

People should be free to practice their religion, which often includes sharing it with others. Also, the burden should be on the person proposing an infringement on people's religious freedom, not the other way around.

But they can share their religion without missionary work.

Missionary work infringes on indigenous people’s beliefs and customs. Their autonomy supersedes others’ religious freedom.

What do you think missionary work is? It's going somewhere and sharing your religion (including often doing service work as well). No one's autonomy is infringed by someone telling them about Christianity. Indigenous people aren't a museum piece that have to keep the same beliefs forever because you've decided you like it that way.

Indigenous people should decide their own future without high-pressure, predatory tactics.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So why shouldn't missionaries be banned?

Couldn't their charity work continue via secular organizations?

It’s 2021, there are plenty of secular international aid organizations.

Why do we need missionaries? Couldn’t the “love spreading” happen via the secular orgs?

And crickets.

No rational explanation for why we need missionaries in 2021. We have secular aid orgs that can fill the need.

Oh my, it looks like nobody wants to engage with a bigot whose idea of discourse is to spew hate and ignore what anybody else says. Who could have predicted that?

You are confusing posters.

It’s a very simple question. Why do we need missionaries?

Why shouldn’t they be banned?

There are secular groups providing aid. Couldn’t people easily “spread love” through those organizations?

Dude, it doesn't matter what "we need." They need to do it. See Matthew 28:19. They're on a mission from God.

Sure, it matters. Why do we, as a society, need missionaries?

OP says to ban them. Why shouldn’t we?

What is the benefit?

I see - people in 3rd world countries, including people of color in 3rd world countries, need privileged elitists from DC, on the DCurbanmom forum, sipping champagne in their jammies, dictating what they need or want, right?

Hypothetical: the UN is considering whether they should ban missionaries or not.

What are your reasons for why they should not ban missionaries?

People should be free to practice their religion, which often includes sharing it with others. Also, the burden should be on the person proposing an infringement on people's religious freedom, not the other way around.

But they can share their religion without missionary work.

Missionary work infringes on indigenous people’s beliefs and customs. Their autonomy supersedes others’ religious freedom.

What do you think missionary work is? It's going somewhere and sharing your religion (including often doing service work as well). No one's autonomy is infringed by someone telling them about Christianity. Indigenous people aren't a museum piece that have to keep the same beliefs forever because you've decided you like it that way.

Tell me how you’ve ever been to 3rd world countries without telling you’ve never been to 3rd world countries.

op was privileged and it shows.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So why shouldn't missionaries be banned?

Couldn't their charity work continue via secular organizations?

It’s 2021, there are plenty of secular international aid organizations.

Why do we need missionaries? Couldn’t the “love spreading” happen via the secular orgs?

And crickets.

No rational explanation for why we need missionaries in 2021. We have secular aid orgs that can fill the need.

Oh my, it looks like nobody wants to engage with a bigot whose idea of discourse is to spew hate and ignore what anybody else says. Who could have predicted that?

You are confusing posters.

It’s a very simple question. Why do we need missionaries?

Why shouldn’t they be banned?

There are secular groups providing aid. Couldn’t people easily “spread love” through those organizations?

Dude, it doesn't matter what "we need." They need to do it. See Matthew 28:19. They're on a mission from God.

Sure, it matters. Why do we, as a society, need missionaries?

OP says to ban them. Why shouldn’t we?

What is the benefit?

I see - people in 3rd world countries, including people of color in 3rd world countries, need privileged elitists from DC, on the DCurbanmom forum, sipping champagne in their jammies, dictating what they need or want, right?

Hypothetical: the UN is considering whether they should ban missionaries or not.

What are your reasons for why they should not ban missionaries?

You mean like, hypothetically, the book of Revelation . . . comes true? And the world unites against the remnant seed church spreading God's message?

Throw in there taking away people's ability to buy and sell without a mark of the beast for good measure if you like.

Translation?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So why shouldn't missionaries be banned?

Couldn't their charity work continue via secular organizations?

It’s 2021, there are plenty of secular international aid organizations.

Why do we need missionaries? Couldn’t the “love spreading” happen via the secular orgs?

And crickets.

No rational explanation for why we need missionaries in 2021. We have secular aid orgs that can fill the need.

Oh my, it looks like nobody wants to engage with a bigot whose idea of discourse is to spew hate and ignore what anybody else says. Who could have predicted that?

You are confusing posters.

It’s a very simple question. Why do we need missionaries?

Why shouldn’t they be banned?

There are secular groups providing aid. Couldn’t people easily “spread love” through those organizations?

Dude, it doesn't matter what "we need." They need to do it. See Matthew 28:19. They're on a mission from God.

Sure, it matters. Why do we, as a society, need missionaries?

OP says to ban them. Why shouldn’t we?

What is the benefit?

I see - people in 3rd world countries, including people of color in 3rd world countries, need privileged elitists from DC, on the DCurbanmom forum, sipping champagne in their jammies, dictating what they need or want, right?

Hypothetical: the UN is considering whether they should ban missionaries or not.

What are your reasons for why they should not ban missionaries?

You mean like, hypothetically, the book of Revelation . . . comes true? And the world unites against the remnant seed church spreading God's message?

Throw in there taking away people's ability to buy and sell without a mark of the beast for good measure if you like.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So why shouldn't missionaries be banned?

Couldn't their charity work continue via secular organizations?

It’s 2021, there are plenty of secular international aid organizations.

Why do we need missionaries? Couldn’t the “love spreading” happen via the secular orgs?

And crickets.

No rational explanation for why we need missionaries in 2021. We have secular aid orgs that can fill the need.

Oh my, it looks like nobody wants to engage with a bigot whose idea of discourse is to spew hate and ignore what anybody else says. Who could have predicted that?

You are confusing posters.

It’s a very simple question. Why do we need missionaries?

Why shouldn’t they be banned?

There are secular groups providing aid. Couldn’t people easily “spread love” through those organizations?

Dude, it doesn't matter what "we need." They need to do it. See Matthew 28:19. They're on a mission from God.

Sure, it matters. Why do we, as a society, need missionaries?

OP says to ban them. Why shouldn’t we?

What is the benefit?

I see - people in 3rd world countries, including people of color in 3rd world countries, need privileged elitists from DC, on the DCurbanmom forum, sipping champagne in their jammies, dictating what they need or want, right?

Hypothetical: the UN is considering whether they should ban missionaries or not.

What are your reasons for why they should not ban missionaries?

People should be free to practice their religion, which often includes sharing it with others. Also, the burden should be on the person proposing an infringement on people's religious freedom, not the other way around.

But they can share their religion without missionary work.

Missionary work infringes on indigenous people’s beliefs and customs. Their autonomy supersedes others’ religious freedom.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So why shouldn't missionaries be banned?

Couldn't their charity work continue via secular organizations?

It’s 2021, there are plenty of secular international aid organizations.

Why do we need missionaries? Couldn’t the “love spreading” happen via the secular orgs?

And crickets.

No rational explanation for why we need missionaries in 2021. We have secular aid orgs that can fill the need.

Oh my, it looks like nobody wants to engage with a bigot whose idea of discourse is to spew hate and ignore what anybody else says. Who could have predicted that?

You are confusing posters.

It’s a very simple question. Why do we need missionaries?

Why shouldn’t they be banned?

There are secular groups providing aid. Couldn’t people easily “spread love” through those organizations?

Dude, it doesn't matter what "we need." They need to do it. See Matthew 28:19. They're on a mission from God.

Sure, it matters. Why do we, as a society, need missionaries?

OP says to ban them. Why shouldn’t we?

What is the benefit?

I see - people in 3rd world countries, including people of color in 3rd world countries, need privileged elitists from DC, on the DCurbanmom forum, sipping champagne in their jammies, dictating what they need or want, right?

Hypothetical: the UN is considering whether they should ban missionaries or not.
What are your reasons for why they should not ban missionaries?

Your hypothetical question is playing with the freedom of religion
That could be interpreted as a ban on one congregation helping another through anything, teaching materials, hymn books, building construction

Is one congregation helping another congregation in the same church really considered “missionary” work?

How about missionary work that isn’t affiliated with an existing congregation? Why should that not be banned?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So why shouldn't missionaries be banned?

Couldn't their charity work continue via secular organizations?

It’s 2021, there are plenty of secular international aid organizations.

Why do we need missionaries? Couldn’t the “love spreading” happen via the secular orgs?

And crickets.

No rational explanation for why we need missionaries in 2021. We have secular aid orgs that can fill the need.

Oh my, it looks like nobody wants to engage with a bigot whose idea of discourse is to spew hate and ignore what anybody else says. Who could have predicted that?

You are confusing posters.

It’s a very simple question. Why do we need missionaries?

Why shouldn’t they be banned?

There are secular groups providing aid. Couldn’t people easily “spread love” through those organizations?

Dude, it doesn't matter what "we need." They need to do it. See Matthew 28:19. They're on a mission from God.

Sure, it matters. Why do we, as a society, need missionaries?

OP says to ban them. Why shouldn’t we?

What is the benefit?

I see - people in 3rd world countries, including people of color in 3rd world countries, need privileged elitists from DC, on the DCurbanmom forum, sipping champagne in their jammies, dictating what they need or want, right?

Hypothetical: the UN is considering whether they should ban missionaries or not.

What are your reasons for why they should not ban missionaries?

People should be free to practice their religion, which often includes sharing it with others. Also, the burden should be on the person proposing an infringement on people's religious freedom, not the other way around.