Is it moral to prosyletize in refugee camps for tsunami victims?

[BurtWorm]

A member of Antioch Community Church in Texas playing with Sri Lankan children at a relief camp.

My own feeling: it seems to come awfully close to exploiting a tragedy, especially when you're giving aid simultaneously. I'm pessimistic about the evangelists from the Antioch Community Church of Waco, Texas, who are doing exactly this, being able to consider the opposite point of view, despite the anger their actions are provoking among their co-religionists who were in Sri Lanka already.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/22/international/worldspecial4/22preach.html?hp

[AverageJoe]

1. No, it is immoral in the extreme

These people need food, medicine, shelter and human love and compassion. What they don't need is some schmuck telling them they're going to burn in hell if they don't scream out their love for Jesus.

[Az]

2. Thats the question for the age

We on the left embrace tolerance and resist pressing our beliefs on others. But this has not always been the case. There has been a time in society that good and moral was rushing out into the world and assailing others beliefs.

These people believe that they are saving eternal souls. They believe that those they are appealing to are beholden to lies and deceptions. They cannot even begin to see how evangelizing could not be a good thing. They see not doing it as accepting evil.

These are the two positions on a collision course. This is the culture war.

[BurtWorm]

7. This is the same church whose members were arrested by the Taliban

during the war there right after 9/11. I think they may actually have been arrested before the war for illegally prosyletizing. The criticism the church was receiving from other churches for endangering the lives of their converts was lost in the spectacle of those arrests, which of course aroused due sympathy for the young women involved and due anxiety for their safety at the start of the bombing campaign. Mother Jones did a piece about the danger this evangelizing posed to converts in countries like Taliban-ruled Afghanistan--and I think, even, Saudi Arabia!--where converting to Christianity is a crime. It's an interesting question--actually a distressing question, to me: Given that humans, in an allegedly enlightened age, ought to have freedom to believe what they wish, is it moral to spread the belief of eternal salvation via Christ in places where such a belief is against the law? Is it a strike for freedom of thought, or is it a thoughtless endangerment of innocent people?

[Az]

9. It is a weakness of our post modern culture

We no longer even think about it. The idea of attempting to push a belief on another people is met with knee jerk rejections. Just look at the posts here. The very idea is met with revulsion.

But there are people that to their core believe that not spreading their belief is immoral. They simply put are not on the same page with the the social contract we are utilizing.

Consider this story. A person is walking down the street and notice a house on fire. They also see the owner of the house sitting unaware in the front window. The clear moral thing to do is do whatever you can to get them out of the house. Banging on the door does nothing. The person inside ignores them. Eventually they are compelled to bust down the door and tell the person to their face they are in danger.

This is the nature of dilema the evangelists face. They believe these people to be in danger of eternal damnation. To sit by and watch them wander lost and in peril is unacceptable to them. To you and me the proper course is to respect their beliefs. But this is simply not how the evangelists see the matter.

[BurtWorm]

13. I feel like I'm watching evangelists about to burn up in their own houses.

The fire is the danger they're unwittingly causing their converts or their coreligionsists in country's that do not enjoy religious freedom.

Frequently nonreligious people devalue their own sense of moral urgency in comparison to people whose values are their polar opposite. We tell each other that WE must understand THEM, partly because we sense the futility of expecting that THEY will ever even TRY to understand US.

[Az]

16. That is the price of our post modern society

It requires us to retrain our natural desire to correct the percieved errors of others for the purposes of creating a stable society.

[BurtWorm]

24. This is complicated by the transnational nature of this evangelizing.

Is it worth tolerating this arguably immoral behavior of our fellow Americans in other countries for the sake of a stable American society? Do we not owe something--an effort at prevention--to the victims of this immoral behavior even if they are not members of our society?

[Az]

28. I suspect its more social force than legal

This is where our society has failed. Post Modernism relies on dialog between the various positions to maintain a common valuation of the social contract. But we have atrophied. Many groups have let drop the dialog and the resulting loss of communication has given rise to old notions of domonion to rise up once again.

The dialog has to be restablished in society. In this way familiarity can lead to trust and respect.

[BurtWorm]

30. It ain't gonna happen with the Dividing Uniter on the throne.

:evilfrown:

It just ain't.

[Az]

32. Agreed

He is a symptom of the failure. Nothing to do with restablishing the social contract.

[BurtWorm]

34. It's not going to happen as long as "they" have no interest in it.

As far as I can tell, they want to throw out the old contract and draw up a new one vastly more favorable to them and as unfavorable to us as possible. They see this as war. It's getting more difficult not to see it that way no matter which side you're on.

[Az]

35. Exactly

The question is can it be restored or is the only way back to recreate the social chaos and distress that initiated it in the first place. We can know the social forces necissary to restore the contract. But implementing them is problematic.

[kindoki]

178. .

.

[me b zola]

21. AZ, I so like your posts

"But there are people that to their core believe that not spreading their belief is immoral. They simply put are not on the same page with the the social contract we are utilizing."

I see this in our society , as well.

My favorite Prof. used to say a person's rights end were another begins...where is that line?

We certainly want to embrace all members of our society, but when their beliefs become so intrusive on the rest of humanity...what do we do with them?? Right now we fear them because they have taken over our Country. The bigger picture, of course, is to consider how we deal with their...weirdness...in terms of our Constitution.

[FizzFuzz]

85. true they don't see it that way--that doesn't mitigate the immorality of

trading aid for religious inculcation.

Personally, I have no problem with faith organizations spearheading aid, but I do have problems with religions that make it a bartering point. They may not see the matter that way, but I don't think that an opinion grants one supremacey, no matter how fervent they feel about it.

Their particular belief system depends on deconstructing the belief systems and cultures of others. That is not ok.

It's fine to tell someone their house is burning, but if the homeowner determines that their house is in fact, not on fire, the "savior" must respect that, (and in fact ought to consider the possibility that they (the savior) is imagining a fire).

The main problem I have with the fire analogy is that once the person saves someone from a fire, she doesn't then move in and remodel the house.

[Az]

107. That is actually the continuation to the fire story

What happens when the house actually is not on fire? What happens when the matter of the fire is contentious in nature?

And your point about rebuilding is vital to understand as well. Some would simlpy destroy false beliefs and offer nothing in its place. Others wish to replace the beleifs with their own.

[FizzFuzz]

113. really? huh! This is the first time I've ever heard this analogy.

It's a good metaphor, really opens the floor for some discussion.

Sadly, I need to help load up the fire and get to bed now--but hopefully I'll get my brains in working order again tomorrow, for some thoughts here.

[beam me up scottie]

18. If you want to know which culture loses

ask the Native Americans.

[marzipanni]

87. Native American Ten Commandments

The Native American Ten Commandments
1. Treat the Earth and all that dwell thereon with respect.
2. Show great respect for your fellow beings
3. Work together for the benefit of all mankind
4. Give assistance and kindness wherever needed
5. Look after the well being of mind and body
6. Remain close to the Great Spirit
7. Do what you know to be right
8. Dedicate a share of your efforts to the greater good
9. Be truthful and honest at all times
10.Take full responsibility for your actions

Notice how these ten commandments say
"DO good stuff!" Not "do not do bad stuff!"

I'm printing them and sending them to fundie churches around here.

[I_equals_PRT]

155. very nice. very interesting. which tribe? n/t

[NYC]

3. Exploitation is never moral.

[beam me up scottie]

4. Hell yes it's immoral!

It ought to be illegal.
How would all those christians (just the above mentioned mind control freaks-not all christians) feel if Muslims were trying to "save" their children from jesus?

[Az]

5. They would declare all out war

Because they believe the Muslims to be wrong. They believe themself to be correct. And they believe it is their duty to spread the word of God.

This is a problem. It must be dealt with. We must realise what we are dealing with.

[wtmusic]

8. Mostly Buddhism in Sri Lanka

Not that it matters to evangelical Christians.

[wtmusic]

6. In a word, no

What would be really cool: the evangelists let Sri Lankans teach them a little bit about Buddhism or Hinduism. It's about respecting another culture.

[beam me up scottie]

23. That is an excellent suggestion.

But the real point is they would have to ASK Buddhists to teach them.
They don't try to "convert" anyone.

[alarimer]

84. But they wouldn't ask

They are closed-minded and believe all other believe systems are wrong.

[BrklynLiberal]

10. Are these the people who would not give out needed food and water

unless the people said they would convert. I saw that in the paper.
They just drove away with needed supplies when the people would not consent to conversion.
There were "humanitarians" who went into Afghanistan and Iraq and were found to be trying to proselytize for their churches. The locals were not happy.

[BurtWorm]

11. I didn't hear that!

That would be unquestionably evil. Evil!

[Misunderestimator]

14. There was a thread here this week on that... but only one linked source

something about some nuns leaving with their truck full of relief supplies because the villagers refused to listen to their preaching. Shaky resource, and questionable about the nuns, no mention of who they represented... :shrug: I'm sure far worse things have happened that we'll never hear about.

[BurtWorm]

17. I vaguely remember that.

The missionaries in this article are not Catholic, so that should answer the question about whether these people are accused of pulling that kind of shit. (I find it hard to believe that Catholics would pull that kind of shit, either, especially since they're among the most vocal against this bull-headed, culturally insensitive, Texas-style evangelism.)

[China_cat]

157. To SE Asian cultures

religious women are 'nuns', regardless of denomination or religion. And the story came from a local paper in that area.

[wtmusic]

12. Have a link? n/t

[BrklynLiberal]

15. Found one..but this is not the original story I read

http://talkback.lancasteronline.com/index.php?s=1e2405918696f0378410bf5f2f072f55&showtopic=15298&pid=71001&st=0&#entry71001

Sunday January 16, 5:13 PM

Villagers furious with Christian Missionaries

Samanthapettai, Jan 16 (ANI): Rage and fury has gripped this tsunami-hit tiny Hindu village in India's southern Tamil Nadu after a group of Christian missionaries allegedly refused them aid for not agreeing to follow their religion.

Samanthapettai, near the temple town of Madurai, faced near devastation on the December 26 when massive tidal waves wiped it clean of homes and lives.

Most of the 200 people here are homeless or displaced , battling to rebuild lives and locating lost family members besides facing risks of epidemic, disease and trauma.

Jubilant at seeing the relief trucks loaded with food, clothes and the much-needed medicines the villagers, many of who have not had a square meal in days, were shocked when the nuns asked them to convert before distributing biscuits and water.

Heated arguments broke out as the locals forcibly tried to stop the relief trucks from leaving. The missionaries, who rushed into their cars on seeing television reporters and the cameras refusing to comment on the incident and managed to leave the village.

Disappointed and shocked into disbelief the hapless villagers still await aid.

"Many NGOs (volunteer groups) are extending help to us but there in our village the NGO, which was till now helping us is now asking us to follow the Christian religion. We are staunch followers of Hindu religion and refused their request. And after that these people with their aid materials are leaving the village without distributing that to us," Rajni Kumar, a villager said.

The incident is an exception to concerted charity in a catastrophe that has left no one untouched.(ANI)

http://in.news.yahoo.com/050116/139/2j1rp.html

EDIT: I think the YAHOO link goes to the original story I read.

[Misunderestimator]

22. Dang it... I spent five minutes searching for the thread on that...

and there you were posting it already... :crazy: night night :hi:

[BrklynLiberal]

31. But I did not have the thread....

:hi: G'night

[Misunderestimator]

20. I think that this is the story referred to:

http://in.news.yahoo.com/050116/139/2j1rp.html

and this is the thread discussing it...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=1157112

[BurtWorm]

27. Thank you, Misunderestimator!

:hi:

You're a mensch, as usual.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

19. Preaching the Gospel isn't exploitation.

If evangelists are indeed adding their own agenda to the mix, then we're dealing with a different issue, but upfront evangelism is hardly immoral.

[Az]

25. But from the perspective of the targeted culture

It is immoral. Its a dilema.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

44. That is their choice

If the message comes with the food and supplies, then they can reject them both at the same time.

No one is obligating them to accept the relief. But there is nothing wrong with pointing out that the mission is part and parcel to the beliefs that brought the missionaries.

[Az]

47. That is as it seems within the missionaries point of view

But the view from the targetted people is that they are evil incarnate. This may also be the view of those that believe in respecting the right of others to believe what they will. The notion of offering aid only in the case of accepting evangelism will seem extremely predatory to those that do not share their unique perspective. Expect revulsion in that case.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

49. You don't seem to grasp faith

To ask a person of faith to do anything without that faith is an impossibility. When a person of strong faith drives to work, they have that faith in their heart. When they interact with others, that faith is in their heart and on their lips. To expect them to hide it is like expecting a leopard to hide its spots.

[Az]

62. I quite understand faith

Hence my explanation for their actions. I apply no internal sense of malice towards those they evnagelise to. They are doing good in their sense of understanding.

But from the perspective of those they are preying upon (yes preying) their advances can be anything from annoyances to blasphemy. They can be the start of cultural warfare within a community that has long withstood such ingresses. It can lead to conflict and death.

Consider the ramifications of an evangelist turning the daughter of a faithful Muslim. Her conversion would lead to banishment and depending on the culture possibly death. This is by no means advocating their particular code of ethics. But one must recognise the ramifications of some actions.

An evangelist is a culture warrior. Pure and simple. They are fighting to enlighten those that are cut off from the truth they percieve. They are fighting to spread the word. But where they spread the word they smother others beliefs. They crush cultures. They destroy societies.

Its all a matter of perspective. What to you is salvation is to another damnation. Your faith assures you that you are doing good. Their faith assures them that you are evil or deluded.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

73. Societies evolve

People who evangelize often do so about many things, not just religion. I have met techies who have that job title even.

There is nothing wrong with teaching other people about your beliefs -- whether they are religion or atheism. If they choose to adopt those beliefs, it is THEIR CHOICE. I am pro-Choice in that as well.

[Az]

75. There is a difference

Between representing a belief and answering questions when asked and evangelising a belief in exchange for food and charity. This is the critical issue here.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

81. While an issue, we will probably never know

We are forced to rely on media that seldom understands religious nuance.

[Cheswick2.0]

89. What are you talking about relying on media for...you already said it

was okay for them to withhold aid unless they converted. That is your position.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

91. We are relying on the media reporting this event

when the media barely even grasps religion.

And you wildly misstate my position. I said that if people expect them to leave their faith at home, they should tell them in advance so they can opt to stay at home.

[Cheswick2.0]

94. That is not what you said.... and what the media is reporting is

not important because the discussion has gone past what the group in Sri Lanka is doing. You have approved of the worst case scenario, so what is actually happening there is moot.

This is what you said and you can not deny what you meant.

If the message comes with the food and supplies, then they can reject them both at the same time.

No one is obligating them to accept the relief. But there is nothing wrong with pointing out that the mission is part and parcel to the beliefs that brought the missionaries

You said if people don't want to be preached to then they can do with out the aid. That is immoral and unchristian. Jesus would not act that way, he would not tell you to act that way.

I hope you realize Alicia that MOST christians who go on mission do so strictly to help people because it is the right thing to do and out of Agape love.

May I ask what denomination you are?

[AliciaKeyedUp]

96. If they don't want religious people there they should tell them first

And what the media is reporting IS still an issue.

No, I have not approved of the "worst scenario." I have said if they don't want people of faith there, then the people of faith -- all of them -- should consider leaving. And, at the same time, they should consider where they wish their charity to go.

If they are OK with those restrictions, great. If not, that is their choice.

But expecting people to be silent about who they are while they are there is unrealistic.

Yes,, if people don't want to be preached to then they can do with out the aid. That is their choice. There are starving people in the U.S. that don't seek aid from religious groups. If they did, they shouldn't be surprised that those religious people talked about their faith.

And, for the record, Jesus talked about his faith all the time.

Anyone who went to aid the victims did do so to help others.

[BurtWorm]

141. "if people don't want to be preached to...they can do with out the aid."

People are having difficulty understanding this apparently cold-blooded view of yours. You seem to be saying that the evangelists' right to preach in a devastated foreign country with a different religious culture takes precedence over the refugees' basic (material) human rights. Is that what you're saying?

[AliciaKeyedUp]

143. It's not cold-blooded

I can't imagine why some consider people of faith a threat. But if they do, then by all means they need to communicate that up front. Imagine a Red Cross ambulance pulls up to a disaster site, but the victims decry the cross on their ambulance and demand it be removed.

No, it doesn't work that way.

Imagine a priest shows up after a flood wearing a crucifix and as he hands people food he blesses them. If they wish to reject these things, then tell the world that they hate religion (or Christianity) so much that they are extreme about what they will take.

If that is the case, many Christians might opt out. It's one thing to help a neighbor in need. It's another to help people who hate you and your beliefs. Since there are many needy in the world, there are plenty of opportunities for your charity.

[Az]

148. Why are people of faith a threat?

Matthew
10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
10:36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

When you change the beliefs of an individual you change their course in life. You take them from what their family and culture have taught them and set them on a road of your design. You remove them from their environment and you are not going to be there in the future for them. You may make them a pariah and turn them against their own people and family.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

149. You can't changes someone's beliefs

Yes, you can help, but it is that person who changes his or her beliefs. If they wish to do it and, yes, even become a pariah, that is free will. That is freedom in fact.

[Az]

150. You do not seem to understand human nature

When a disaster has struck and emotions are run ragged a person's hold on their beliefs is stretched thin. People lose faith in all manner of things at this time. To take advantage of such a thing is deceiptful. It plays to people's weakness and abuses their condition.

There is a character in the Bible that plays to such weakness. And it is not the protagonist.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

164. I think we are talking past one another

To expect religious people to show up and, somehow spontaneously, NOT be religious is outrageous. Let's invite the zoo animals over and expect the leopard to shed its spots.

Neither will occur.

[BurtWorm]

203. No one is expecting missionaries to show up.

They are only hoping human beings will show up. Their material needs now are far greater than their spiritual needs in the alleged afterlife. Missionaries should have the common decency to respect that and not exploit a catastrophe for their own spiritual gain.

[BurtWorm]

151. Alicia, what do you say to the Christians who were already in Sri Lanka

who are saying that this mission is dangerous to the people they're purporting to be helping? Again, should the missionaries' right to preach in a foreign country have greater moral weight than the right of the people of a country to be free of external influences that they perceive to be harmful?

[AliciaKeyedUp]

158. So, even talking about Christianity is jeopardizing them?

Then I would tell them to leave such a place if it's that anti-Christian.

[BurtWorm]

163. It's hard to believe you're not being coy about this. Or maybe just naive?

The local Christians in Sri Lanka are angry with the American missionaries because the latter are insensitive to the political and cultural issues of missionary work in a country in the midst of a decades-long civil war between Buddhists and Hindus. The local Christians are anxious that the American missionaries are thoughtlessly adding another very dangerous element into an already highly volatile mix. Being Christian doesn't excuse anyone from being thoughtful about situations they know nothing about.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

165. So, the locals are afraid

and want Christians to hide who they are? Is that what you are saying?

If that is the case, again I say there are other places more receptive to Christians and in just as much need.

[Misunderestimator]

168. "places more receptive to Christians and in just as much need"

That tells me all I need to know. You are a Christian who is only interested in helping other Christians. That clears a lot of things up for me. Thanks.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

170. Not what I said

But if people are prejudiced against Christians and expect us to hide who we are, then that is not a receptive environment. Since there is chaos around the world at all times, there are always those who accept Christians for who they are. (And no, that doesn't require them to be Christian or even convertable.)

[rockedthevoteinMA]

175. That is what you said, that is what you have been saying.

it is absolutely OUTRAGEOUS - your suggestions blow my mind.

It is not a left or right thing, a christian or atheist thing, it is a matter of life and death for these people!

I don't know what faith you practice, but everything I have been taught about Christianity is to respect all in the world (that means everyone - even those who don't believe as you do), HELP THOSE LESS FORTUNATE - wouldn't that include the tsunami victims?

You sure have a twisted interpretation of Jesus's teachings. It's frightening to hear you justify denying aid to these people.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

182. It isn't a left or right thing

I agree. I am not the one making requirements of the relief workers. Others are doing that. I am simply saying that religious relief workers are going to be religious and to expect otherwise is outrageous. If that is a requirement, then there are a couple billion other people on earth equally desperate for help. Why go into a location where you are unwanted and possibly in danger for your beliefs?

[Misunderestimator]

176. Not a receptive environment? Why did they go in the first place

when they KNEW they were going somewhere that their religion would not be accepted. Since it's clear that that is their ONLY agenda, why did they go?

And what a weird thing to say that perpetual chaos around the world means there will always be people listening to Christians. How presumptuous to assume that all people giving aid in the world are Christians, and that all Christians would be so narrow-minded and immoral as to hold back aid to those who will not "listen" to them.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

183. I doubt that entirely

I doubt they knew they would not be well received. I think they assumed that bringers of aid would be quite welcome. Heck, I would have assumed that.

As for the second point, no perpetual chaos ensure there are always people in need. Many of them are more tolerant of Christians than this.

[Misunderestimator]

187. Then they are fools to think that Muslims and Hindus would welcome

their RELIGION with open arms. Yes, bringers of aid are welcome... bringers of an entirely different religion and qualifying such aid are not.

[BurtWorm]

174. The local Christians do not want American Christians making life

any more dangerous for Sri Lankans and Sri Lankan Christians than it already is. If you have to wear your religion on your sleeve in order to give aid, you might as well stay home and just wear your religion on your sleeve, especially from places where evangelizing your faith is seen as provocative. (You do know that Sri Lanka is in the middle of a protracted civil war in which religion is a central flashpoint, right? You are taking that into the equation, even if the Waco missionaries are not.)

[AliciaKeyedUp]

184. Exactly

Since religion is part of who many of us are, if religion is unwelcome, then they should go elsewhere.

[BurtWorm]

204. The locals do not want the missionaries there if they aren't sensitive

to the cultural problems with missions in non-Christian countries. These Waco missionaries do not seem to get that.

[BurtWorm]

152. Imagine an evangelical Maoist refugee camp

after a disaster in your part of the world. Imagine the Maoists who are caring for you or your loved ones take the exact same tack as the Antioch Church missionaries in Sri Lanka. They feed you and give you medicine, and while they're doing so, they're talking about the inevitability of worldwide revolution.

Or imagine that these camps in Sri Lanka are run by al Qaeda.

Are the standards different for Maoists and Wahaabists than for Christians from Waco, Texas?

[AliciaKeyedUp]

159. Why would they be?

If a Maoist hands me a meal, of course I'd expect him to say something like, "Come the revolution" or something equally pithy.

Would I be offended? No.

There is a gap the size of the Grand Canyon between civil discourse and indoctrination.

[Misunderestimator]

169. And if you were starving and your child was dying and they demanded

that you forsake your own god for theirs, or they were moving on to the next town without giving you aid (which is something you've already said you understand the missionaries doing to these suffering people)... you would do that too... :eyes:

[AliciaKeyedUp]

171. I wouldn't forsake my god

Under any circumstances.

[Misunderestimator]

177. Then why do you think it's ok to ask them to do that?

Why is it ok to tell them to listen to your story if they want to be fed... just listen, you don't have to convert... What fools they would be to accept that. I have a tremendous amount of respect for the ones who refused to listen to your kind in spite of their suffering, not for that price... They apparently have very strong religious convictions themselves.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

185. Good for them

But if I am meeting with people, I would talk to them. Expecting silence is equally ridiculous.

[Misunderestimator]

189. Round and round you go.... I'm done

[BurtWorm]

205. Do you really believe the Waco missionaries are only interested in

chatting about their faith? Is that why they've been having these non-Christian orphans of the tsunami drawing and coloring pictures of Jesus and watching plays about Jesus? Just to chat? Not to indoctrinate?

[RetroLounge]

132. Oh, she'll change her position

since you pointed it out to her.

Watch...

Rl

[RetroLounge]

130. religious nuance

Oxymoron.

RL

[Malva Zebrina]

80. But there is a difference when you get in their face

in complete disregard of their sensitivities and their own beliefs and to further the insult, tell them if they do not like it to get out of the way as has happened many times to me.

That is rude,. and serves only the one seeking to evangelize, not those who are on the receiving end who do not appreciate this invasion of their faith.

In other words, to be blunt, the faith is serving only one person, the one proselytizing.

I sense a complete and utter lack of compassion for the one who is the victim of this self serving faith.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

82. If you don't want to hear them

Don't listen. Don't go near them. Don't deal with them. Etc.

[Malva Zebrina]

86. actually they get in my face and not the opposite

I go about my business as usual--it is they who are infringing upon my space in the rudest manner.

I do not buy the notion that if I don't like it, get out of the way of those who would seek to run over it. We all have a space and we all, generally respect the space of others in social contacts. Christian proselytizers do not respect the space of others, and constantly infringe upon that until they exasperate their victim.they seem to think their priority to spread some word takes precedence over the space of others in this world.

It does not. No one is required to respect those who abuse the space of others and no one is required to respect anyone's god who recommends the same.

Then, they seem to like to charge or claim martyrdom, or they claim they are not allowed to practice their religion and they claim that they are being perscuted. For invading the space of others! I find that somewhat amusing.

Sorry, I do not give my space away to anyone, it is mine and it belongs to me, and I will stand on it, protect it and demand that others do not infringe upon it . It is up to the one who approaches that space, or anyone else's space, to be aware of what the social ammenities are required and evangelisitic proselytizers ignore that in utter disrespect of others; that is rude, arrogant and not acceptable in this society. Keep out of my space, and I will respond with politeness.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

97. Public space is PUBLIC space

If I ride the Metro I can talk out loud about Jesus if I so choose. As long as I am not being loud and disruptive, then that is my choice. If I follow and harass you, you may call the police.

[RetroLounge]

133. follow and harass you...

one would get bitch-slapped.

RL

[AliciaKeyedUp]

137. That's a crime as far as I can tell

[Malva Zebrina]

156. I have seen this happen and I am not surprised you would want to do that

I have seen these types in the subway more than once--and mostly others avoid that rambling person who is claiming to save their souls, or that he/she is the virgin Mary or St. Peter. Some may even have pity on them, but most are wary since that guy shot up twelve or thirteen people in a subway car.

I have also seen these poor people in mental hospitals.

Who exactly do you think would listen to you while you are preaching in the subway, or on a streetcorner? Surely you would approach someone and not just ramble on speaking into space, right? Surely you would not just proselytize to yourself. Of course you have a right to talk to yourself in any public place of your choosing.

When you do approach someone to proselytize and they tell you to f***k off, do you feel pleasure that you have upset someone? Do you feel persecuted and proud of it because somewhere in that person you have angered, is Satan speaking and you have challenged Beelzebub? Are you self satisfied to know that you have done as commanded, even though you have been rude to another person, shown disrespect to their space?

What? I am curious as to the process that goes on in your mind.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

160. So have I and they have free speech

And no, I'm not one of them.

However, nice and prejudiced to link such people to potential threats.

I haven't spent any time visiting mental hospitals. I have met people who are religious and who are not when visiting prisons.

You sort of get the point, but only sort of. I have a right to free speech in a public place. THAt is the point.

Nothing else.

[Malva Zebrina]

162. Yes, but you missed my point

do you exercise your free speech by talking to yourself?

In other words, you do approach people in the pursuit of your exercise of free speech in those instances where you proselytize. It is not just a matter of talking where you feel like talking to no one, as in your subway example that you gave in defense of your "free speech" to say what you like, when you like.

It is a matter of talking TO or AT those persons you arbitrarily pick and choose with whom to proselytize. Some actually have index cards and files on those they choose, as in nursing home patients where they exercise their free speech on Alzheimer patients.

Most do not go places uninvited either except for those not about to follow the rules of society.

I wonder who taught you that an unwanted or an uninvited approach is not subject to the rules and that if people do not like it, they should get out of your way, move from their own space,

, hold their hands over their ears to avoid the person, who uninvited and unwanted invades their space. That is really a control issue for the proselytizer who believes they are practicing their religion by barging in and over those in their way telling them to move if they do not like it.

about my question of what is in your mind when the space of others is invaded, who are angry at you for doing so, and who tell you to f**** off? I sense you are avoiding that. What is it you feel when so many are pissed off at the intrusion?

[AliciaKeyedUp]

167. Free speech

I know lots of people who talk to themselves. While not a regular habit, I have been known to make off-handed remarks to no one in particular.

I also talk to people on the subway fairly often. No one has attacked me for it. If someone wanted to talk about news of the day, weather, religion or anything, I would be happy to discuss it in a civil manner.

A person who attests to their faith believes they are helping you. That doesn't bother me.

I have a pretty relaxed definition of space. Maybe it comes from riding the Metro. People bump into you all the time. People talk to you all the time. It just goes with the territory.

[Misunderestimator]

172. This post has convinced me that you are only posting this nonsense

to be contrary... what is your real agenda? I've seen many persuasive posts from intelligent people here that would have made any thinking person contemplate their position. There's a Grand Canyon of difference between your ridiculous comparison scenarios of riding the subway or walking around a public street and flying en masse to Indonesia and holding aid as a reward for conversion, or even as a reward simply for listening. Either way, you know full well that it is NOT the same thing.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

173. Contrary to your post

I am posting because so few are taking the side of religious people, a group to which I belong.

I am not advocating holding aid for conversion. I am saying to expect religious people to withhold who they are and to hide their beliefs is beyond silly. If they show up with aid, those beliefs show up as well.

[Misunderestimator]

179. You are not saying that.... you have agreed that it's understandable

for them to withhold aid, because you are defending them. And I believe you just offended a lot of religious DUers with that little stab in the back "so few are taking the side of religious people, a group to which I belong." Your posts have been less religious and Christian than the atheists' and pagans' posts have been.

[Malva Zebrina]

195. Alica, you are avoiding my questions

are you ashamed of your emotions?

How do you feel when someone you proselytize tells you to f***** off?

Ask yourself that question if you ever feel the need to reflect or examine your actions from within yourself, because I am ending this conversation with this post.

and while you are at it, you may choose to ask yourself how that other person feels also, if you are capable of any ability to put yourself in another's shoes.

I wonder how old you are.

I have had experience with young, very young people working out of their bible school, early teens for example, going on to talk forums anonymously to proselytize and argue as part of their "training" to run over other persons space and insult them when they "grow up"

The point was about proselytzing and you said that you will do so anywhere anyway you like, in effect---because you have free speech and that somehow in your mind, translates to running freely over the sensibilities of others who btw are NOT trying to prevent you from practicing your religion, and are NOT trying to limit your free speech, and are NOT persecuting you by any means of the imagination. That they must suffer an onslaught of someone approaching them with doctrines that to them are an abomination, (Satan to you, right? You did not answer that question either)a person they have not invited in, is NOT unreasonable for any thinking person to imagine and is deserving of respect also, and that seems absent from persons such as yourself.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

198. People don't tell me to f*** off

First off, no I am not ashamed of my emotions.

I guess I don't proslytize in an offensive way.

As for my age, I am a divorced mother of two. That should give you enough info without also including my birth date or Social Security number.

While I strongly oppose Satan, I wouldn't be offended by someone who wanted to promote him in my presence. I would likely be amused.

[Malva Zebrina]

201. But you are defending those who do

that is obvious. And if you are not like them, as you seem to be saying, there must be something weird about them and not you. That is the message I am getting. Indeed, your own kind seem to be dragging you down, and the religion along with it, by these practices. Perhaps you could teach them the proper way? Are you ready to tell them to stop it for the sake of saving evangelistic proselytizing for indeed, they are a blight upon it.

I hope you meet a nice Christian man who would love you unconditionally. Really.

[Misunderestimator]

202. LMAO... No one told you to f*** off... amazing how you twist things.

[DrWeird]

206. What part of the Bible does Jesus promote extortion?

Funny, I can't find that part.

Frankly, you're corruption and distortion of Christianity from Jesus's teachings is so profound you ought to be ashamed.

Fucking savages.

[tx_dem41]

95. You know what's funny...

I'm an Atheist and I live in the Bible Belt (all my life). I never have this problem of people proselytizing to (or at) me.

I wonder what the difference is between our two experiences?

[RetroLounge]

129. "Societies evolve"

What? Societies evolve? Aren't they created by their maker?

:wtf:

RL

[AliciaKeyedUp]

138. We are given free will

And we create the societies as a result of that.

[Malva Zebrina]

78. and when that faith includes exploitation of the weak and vulenerable

it is a false and self serving faith.

[knitter4democracy]

51. Now wait a minute

As someone called to the mission field who has done mission work in some pretty hard-off places, I believe that it is immoral to show people food, water, and other needed supplies and then attach their acceptance to also accepting a belief.

Did Jesus ever do that? Yes, he fed people, but there obviously were people there who didn't accept his teachings, as they then turned around and called for his crucifixion. Jesus told us that whatever we do unto the least of these, we do unto Him, and I don't think he meant to stand and preach at hungry people before letting them eat. How can you advocate making someone choose to be a Christian under that kind of duress? Would it be a real conversion or just something of convenience?

It's okay to go to people and try to help them because one's a Christian--you're right, our faith is part of everything we do and are--but not to go to people and make them choose between becoming a Christian and living another day or refusing the faith and dying that night.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

53. I don't see anyone mandating acceptance

I see people spreading the word. Hearing the word is not acceptance. I hear about atheism here all the time and I am not converting.

[knitter4democracy]

58. The women who took away the supplies did.

Those supplies were needed by people in real need--hadn't eaten well in weeks. They left when they were told that no one wanted to be converted or hear the Message. That implies that the women were only interested in converting that village, not actually helping them.

If you were hurting because a horrible thing happened, like your house burning down with family members inside, would you want an aid worker to walk up with blankets and food, hold them so you could see them, but tell you that you have to listen to how atheism is the only way to believe first? Would you listen so you could get the supplies? Would you feel beholden to him in some way?

I agree that they weren't necessarily mandating acceptance, but we Christians cannot act like our two thousand year history doesn't matter. People have been forcibly converted over and over again, and that makes people today leary of us. We need to listen to them and foster relationships before we preach.

[NashVegas]

98. "Angel or devil I was thirsty and you wet my lips"

Alicia, no one ever asked you drop your faith and become an atheist in order to post on DU.

Back to the subject at hand, do you not perceive that coming to these villagers with relief from hunger and thirst in one hand and a bible in the other can be very similar to enslavement, especially in the circumstance where the missionaries have no interest in helping those who would not wish to be proselytized to?

[AliciaKeyedUp]

103. Hyperbole

It is hyperbolic to claim that bringing a bible with you to aid others is enslavement.

[NashVegas]

104. No, It's Metaphor

When getting life-needed aid is dependent upon listening to a message, and possibly necessitating conversion, to go with it I believe that is a form of enslavement.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

110. No conversion necessary

But hearing people talk isn't harmful.

[NashVegas]

112. Is It Or Is It Not Okay

to walk up to a person and offer live-saving supplies, but only if they agree to listen to an evangelist?

[AliciaKeyedUp]

114. If I were an evangelist and I walked up to them

That would be who they would be getting.

[RetroLounge]

121. and I hope they shove the bible up their nose

take the supplies, and kick their pathetic asses out of their country.

_!_

RL

[AliciaKeyedUp]

123. Lots of anger there for people giving charity

Nice.

[Az]

127. Charity with a price is not charity

It is marketting. It is as devoid of human compassion as a Corporation. It matters not that the price is not in dollars. The price is higher than that. The price is their culture and their beliefs.

You are missing the issue here. They come to these people not out of concern for their immediate welfare. They are there to peddle their beliefs. They take advantage of the emotional trama to try to slip their belief system in place of the existing belief system. It is exploitation.

It is true that to their thinking they are doing good work. They are saving souls. But to any outside view it is nothing less than cultural warfare. And in a time of need it is dispicable to those not of the predatory faith.

[Name removed]

128. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

139. The string in this case is that the person is a person of faith

If they don't want to take charity from people of faith, then by all means they should say no.

[RetroLounge]

135. Didn't answer ther question

as usual.

RL

[RetroLounge]

134. Neither is telling them to shut the fuck up.

RL

[AliciaKeyedUp]

140. No, but it is rude

[Rose Siding]

181. "It is rude" What a joke that is.

You support denying food to destitute *children*, but rudeness offends you?

If you believe that Jesus of the New Testament would turn away hungry children, say it plainly here.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

186. No, I support aiding destitute children

In places where we are not persecuted not places where we are not wanted.

Several posters have said religious aid workers would inflame the situation. If that is the case, then we should not go there. Don't you agree?

[Rose Siding]

194. You support it conditionally

That is some messed up theology.

What of unconditional love? What of the servant's heart? Not aiding in "places where we are not wanted" is prideful and smug.

I don't see anyone faulting aid offered by the religious. The fault is placed rightly on those selfish and callous few who require payment of one's soul for help. And so I do agree that those few should stay where they can do the least harm.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

196. Not conditionally

You can't force help on people. If they don't want help from Christians, that is their choice.

There is NO requirement someone pay with their soul. I wouldn't pay and they shouldn't either.

[Az]

100. Trust me, we have not turned on the pressure to convert you to atheism

We may see religious belief as faulty but we hold back out of respect of each person's right to believe what they will. There is a world of difference between speaking positively about a thing and evangelizing it.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

119. I'm open to either

I am firm in my beliefs and I'm not worried about slipping.

[Az]

122. It was not meant as a challenge

I have no desire to try to strip you of your beliefs. I cannot replace them with my understanding of the world and taking your beliefs from you would leave you helpless and defensless. This in my opinion is immoral. My methodology for representing my beliefs is to provide examples of my positions and be strong in representing it. I make myself open to those who are ready to begin questioning their beliefs and will guide them in whatever way I may lend them strength.

In the end it is their life. I cannot be the foundation upon which they live. Their views and understanding of the world must be theirs. I can only offer my views as a fellow traveler in this world and the occaisional shoulder to bear some of their burden when they lose their way.

[BurtWorm]

126. It's when it enters a social context that the trouble starts.

Individuals can believe what they want to believe. They can say what they want to say about their beliefs. But when they act on a belief that they are "commanded" to bring others to the belief--which is what evangelical Christians are commanded to do, not just to bring the belief to others, isn't that true?--*then* the problems start. *Then* the religion crosses the line from an individual matter to a social "problem."

[BurtWorm]

59. A lot of humanists have problems with this:

"But there is nothing wrong with pointing out that the mission is part and parcel to the beliefs that brought the missionaries."

Does this mean that those on the mission would not be on it if it weren't to evangelize? What about pure fellow feeling for the suffering of those on earth now, whether they're Christian or not? How is it that non-Christians can bring aid and comfort to suffering people without Christian salvation entering into the picture at all? Do Christians really need to the concept of saving souls to motivate them to help others? Isn't there something wrong with that?

[AliciaKeyedUp]

74. You completely misunderstand

They do good works because good works should be done -- both because of religious and moral beliefs. But when they do them, they do them as people of faith and that faith comes along with them. If they talk to villagers, they express that faith. If they pray, they celebrate that faith.

[BurtWorm]

142. No. These missionaries are going with the purpose mainly of saving souls.

Isn't that true? Isn't that their first priority in LIFE, let alone in Sri Lanka? The material aid is just a pretext, isn't it?

[AliciaKeyedUp]

145. How do you know what's in their hearts?

Certainly, saving a person's soul is important. But that can happen many ways, most are not instantaneous.

[BurtWorm]

154. Isn't saving souls priority number 1 for a Christian mission?

I don't know because I've never been on one. But you don't go on a Christian mission to see the world and meet people, do you? That's not what it's supposed to be about, is it?

[AliciaKeyedUp]

161. It is ONE of the priorities

How souls are saved in beyond the knowledge of mankind. Will one great act or a serious of small acts help bring a person to god? Heck if I know. Some groups focus on one more than the other and fall into both camps. Personally, I think I would do what I came there for, but I wouldn't hide my religion or my faith and my actions would be an expression of that.

[Malva Zebrina]

77. a starving person that has just come through a terrible crisis

losing perhaps their whole family, indeed, is the vulnerable and weakest person and the one these pushy evangelists exploit.

I don't care what the rational as far as religious conviction in spreading the word goes--to take advantage of a weak and suffering person, who is in no condition to resist this type of abuse, is immoral, and unethical.

[Cheswick2.0]

88. That's disgusting

people like you make me ashamed to admit that we share the same religion.

[ulysses]

106. "No one is obligating them to accept the relief."

Wow. Just wow.

[cags]

108. I am utterly disgusted by all your posts to this thread. Frankly its

not christian to deny aid to starving children, unless they accept your doctrine.

What would be christian is to feed, clothe and help them and then talk with them about your faith if they choose to listen.

If you really believe this bull, then you are not a real christian, just another fake christian who doesn't practice what they preach, and you make god sad.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

188. They don't have to accept anything

But they need to tolerate people talking about religion.

[cags]

192. Why, because you said so

That's ridiculous

You do not represent God, if anything you dissapoint him, and I think you need to look to your God for forgiveness, for making him look bad and evil, and misrepresenting everything he stands for.

If you believe in the devil, you are making him smile.

[RetroLounge]

125. "No one is obligating them to accept the relief."

Wow. Just Wow.

Bush couldn't have said it better himself.

RL

[oldcoot]

131. Desperate people do not have a lot of options

How would you feel if you were the victim of some horrible natural disaster and the only group offering immediate aid in your area was a religious group that either required you to reject your own religious beliefs and accept theirs' or openly mocked your beliefs? Would you accept the food and supplies necessary to save your life and the lives of your family members or would you reject this aid and risk the lives of those you love?

When refusing supplies might mean your death or the death of a loved one, it is pretty hard to say "no." For this reason, it is a form of extortion to tell hungry people that they must convert or listen to a speech about Jesus before they will get any food. Indeed, many people may agree to to tell the missionaries what ever they want to hear just to save themselves and their families but then, as soon as the crises is over, return to their previous beliefs.

If missionaries truly want to make a lasting good impression, they will provide the aid without any strings attached.

[Cobalt Violet]

136. "No one is obligating them to accept the relief."

Wow! Just Wow!.

There is your compassionate conservatism people.

[Misunderestimator]

166. It amazes me that you keep repeating the same schlock...

on this issue. I want no part of your christianity or theirs. Give me Jimmy Carter's anyday. Do you think he would hold back the keys to a new house built through charity from a poor family if they did not listen to him spew the gospel?

It's such an incredibly sad thing to me that there any other people besides you who would think that this tragedy in Indonesia warrants anything other than love, compassion, and charity.

Jesus did not force his beliefs (which were part and parcel to his entire life) onto anyone. He offered his love and compassion and charity to anyone who needed it or wanted it. I think you need to go back and read the new testament to understand these simple things. Reading DU doesn't seem to be helping that process.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

190. If Jimmy was told to be silent

I have my doubts he would visit either.

Love and compassion come hand in hand with faith. To expect one without the other is not going to happen. I don't advocate forcing anyone's religion on anyone else.

[Misunderestimator]

193. Then you don't know anything about Jimmy Carter, and you obviously

do not practice the same religion. For YOU love and compassion go hand in hand with proselytizing, for others faith means something entirely different.

[TWiley]

199. There is everything wrong with it.

It simply cannot be explained to those who do not understand. It is like trying to explain to a child molestor why they should not do it.

For some reason, I think you believe that it is proper to torture people into a confession as well. This water is drawn from the same well.

[BurtWorm]

26. In every context? Even in contexts where it's illegal to convert?

Even in contexts where the local Christians do not want evangelizing?

[AliciaKeyedUp]

45. There is a huge difference between converting and teaching

The conversion is always up to the individual.

[knitter4democracy]

52. Is it?

There are many examples in Christian history of forced conversions (Russia comes to mind). I think what people are upset about is that the missionaries showed everyone the supplies and then left without giving them out at all when told that people didn't want a lesson with their meal.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

54. There are many examples in history

of just about anything. That is history, not current events.

If people told me I wasn't welcome, I might leave as well. But since we only have distant accounts, we don't know exactly what happened. I laugh at so many here who criticize the MSM and then swallow it hook, line and sinker when it suits them.

[knitter4democracy]

61. That's true about hearing what we want to hear, but . . .

The decisions we make today are based on history. We cannot ignore that.

I once talked with a Hopi woman when I was in college (went to an evangelical Christian college), and she'd been taken from her family by soldiers and made to go to a Christian school for eleven years without being able to even speak her own language, let alone visit her family or practice her own faith. It happened not too long ago--people who lived it are still around. We can't act like it's so long ago it doesn't matter. Understandably, she didn't really like Christians and wasn't interested in hearing anything of our faith (not that we would've--we were there to listen to her story). She was still angry all those years later at what Christians had done to her in the name of the Faith.

[BurtWorm]

144. So the missionary who has "introduced" Christianity to a Muslim

or a Hindu or a Buddhist in the midst of a crisis or disaster has no responsibility to the person when they're through with the "teaching?" If, after they've returned to Waco, their disciple happens to convert and happens to be arrested, tortured, imprisoned for the conversion, the missionary has no responsibility to the convert or the convert's family?

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

93. That's a different issue I guess.

I'm sure evngelists who were serious about helping people, wouldn't jeopardize lives. I guess one would have to work within the legal confines, and try to change things.

[Deja Q]

68. Preaching is one thing. Forcing those being 'helped' BEFORE helping is

another. And disgusting, right down to the core. And shows how phony the religion being preached is.

Period.

[The Straight Story]

29. Define immoral. Who makes morals moral anyway?

If you are giving something to someone, how does it hurt to send a message along with it? Your in a jam and need money from the folks, chances are you will have to listen to a lecture somewhere along the line.

If I donate 10% of my money, that is 10% of my time in life - if I want to give it and do, and you need it, what harm is there in mentioning that I have feelings which I want to pass along about life? You still get the help you wanted, and I get to say my peace. A win-win - even if you don't take it to heart.

Put another way - suppose you are helping a 'red' person out and you mention your feelings on bush - is there anything wrong with trying to help them out money wise and otherwise? You think (as a dem/green/et al) that you are helping them by telling them the 'truth' as you see it. bush is killing people, he is hurting you, take my money, get what you need, but since you and I are meeting in this way the least I can do is tell you what I feel - because I think in the long run it will help you as much as the aid.

[BurtWorm]

33. That's not how "blues" operate. Or even how "reds" do, in my experience.

Imagine if there were a red state tragedy of some kind, and blues were needed to go rebuild or rescue. Would we really go expecting or hoping or turn reds blue? Would that really be acceptable? Did red staters try that in NYC after 9/11? In my experience, not at all, and if they did, they would have had their "aid" shoved right down their throats.

[The Straight Story]

36. The idea though is

If you have an oppurtunity to talk to someone, in this case due to a disaster, would you or wouldn't you also try to help them in a mental way by passing on things which are relevant outside the disaster?

To wit - you're sitting with them and giving them coffee and food, would you mention to them also that * is a problem and had someone else been in power they could have been helped more? Or let's say that they live in an oppressive area and they are gay - and the regime there thinks that gay is wrong - would you tell them it is ok really and that by your belief they are a decent person - would you use that time with someone to pass along what you saw as a good thing, or simply ignore it?

The good news, whether christian or humanism, people like to communicate because they feel it helps them on a level that simple aid cannot - long term. If the person you were helping was gay and oppressed (by your reckoning) would you just help and move on or pass along that there is good news in the world and that their sexual orientation is accepted elsewhere and that they were ok?

Personally, I would give aid period - but if I felt I could help them in other ways I would - and many christian orgs feel the same, that they have something positive to tell and they do so.

[BurtWorm]

38. But as I say, what you're describing and the way missionaries operate

are two very different approaches to aid. One starts with material aid, the other starts with ulterior motive, with wanting something inm return for what you're proposing to give. When you're called into action in an emergency--say, coming to the assistance of someone who's fallen on the street or whose car has collided with a tree--you're not thinking, hey, if I get a chance, I'm going to see if this person wants to register as a Democrat. (Or do you?)

Well, that's not how the missionaries are behaving in the tsunami situation. They're more like the ambulance chaser who runs three blocks to press a business card into the hand of a person who's just been hit by a bus. These people are professional ambulance chasers of the soul. Not to be too judgmental, but it's a fact. They're ready to rush around the world with aid and Bibles. That's how they operate.

See the difference?

PS: Where most people see emergency, missionaries see opportunity. Big difference.

[The Straight Story]

40. Yes and No

I see and understand the difference, I just think the motivation is deeper on all levels. If you see the body as all there is then that is one thing, but if you see the soul as eternal then the picture is different.

The body is here for a mere 70 years average perhaps, so saving that is one thing - but the soul is forever and if you see that as such then delivering aid to both at the same time is beneficial to the person you are helping in more than one way.

Save life and you give a person a few more years, save a soul and you give them an eternity. And if you feel that your belief is true and is able to help a person in the long run, why not use that oppurtunity to do both at the same time?

From a humanist point of view - if you can deliver aid they need (food, etc) why not also deliver mental aid to the person? Myself I had to deal with this of late. The winter storm, power was out, wife and daughter 2000 miles away, mom went back in hospital and died, and I needed more than just heat and food - I needed mental help as well. I needed to hear something positive and good about the world and life.

To some, these people need more than a plate with some food on it, and they think they can give more. A positive message, hope for life and the future, more than they can fit into a tent. It is their way of telling them it will be ok in a broader sense, so they want to share that message.

We may not see that message, or agree with it - but I think, myself, that their desires are more genuine than we often give credit for. Some people have found peace and happiness with something, and they want to share that to aid others while giving them other aid they need. A message they see as peace, forgiveness, and eternal life - something for the soul whilst they feed the body which will pass in due time anyway.

I would like to think if I were there that I would try to pass along something more than food, something that might help them deal with things (and I myself have dealt with a lot over the last month, not just losing mom).

We all have a message we want others to hear, which we think will help them - ala the red states, we think we can help the people there more than bush can. If we can get that message to them we feel it might help them in the long run. To some helping out in disaster areas they think they have a message as well that serves the same purpose - to help.

[knitter4democracy]

55. That's a good point.

I do know that whenever I've done mission work, it's really been something I've left up to the Holy Spirit--if I feel moved to say something, I do, but if not, I don't. I hope and pray that's what happened in this case. People don't take too kindly to anything being shoved down their throats--look at how many people are angry at evangelical Christian prison programs that say they don't require conversion but reward those who do.

[BurtWorm]

147. Yes, of course they need mental support.

But is it mental support to be told, essentially, believe or die (not literally, of course)?

[beam me up scottie]

70. "These people are professional ambulance chasers of the soul"

Word-meister, way to go man!
ROFLMAO!
Did you just make that up?
:yourock:

[Fleurs du Mal]

37. Makes me want to vomit

[Rhiannon12866]

39. Those in Indonesia, who want us out by March 26th, have made it plain

They see us as hostile to the Muslim religion, and who can blame them, given Bush*'s actions in the world?! Sending in those will proselytize, and not just provide aid, will make us more enemies, and they will not welcome our help, no matter how much they need it or how well-intentioned it is. This would just make it worse.:-(

[REP]

41. HELL NO

It's worse than immoral. It's close to evil.

[Solly Mack]

42. When you help people, you help them with no strings attached

You help them with no personal agenda in mind. At least that's my philosophy.

I'm turned off by the other. I find it immoral whether anyone else does or not.

I don't look at tragedy as a chance to spread my beliefs. If there is a tragedy and I can help, then I help without thinking here's my chance to show people my beliefs in actions. I act (money & time) because I see another human in need. No other reason. No other agenda. No other goal in mind. Freely given without explaining why I do so.

You give because you care.

A long time ago when I volunteered as a camp counselor for underprivileged kids, a little girl in my cabin was a victim of rape. Repeated rape by her mothers boyfriend.

I found this out one day merely by accident. She was 9, already menstruating, and didn't want to go swimming. She was afraid her pad would float out. She explained how she couldn't wear a tampon because they kept "falling" out. The look on my face prompted her to explain more. She then told me about the 35 year old boyfriend "having sex" with her.

I told the adults at the camp. I was only 16 at the time. They told me, and I'll never forget "Just as long as she has Jesus, everything will be alright. It's her soul that needs the help."

They had offered the little girl summer camp every year, gave her food and attention while she was there, and most importantly talked to her about Jesus. That was their thinking. In their eyes they had helped the girl. To their thinking bringing "the message" was their duty first.

But it wasn't her soul that needed help. It was her little body. She needed protection and no God or Jesus was going to keep her from being raped again. No God or Jesus was going to change her circumstances. They weren't going to somehow magically make it right again.

It wasn't the first time I had heard such ignorance expressed. I'm 41 in a few days, and it hasn't been the last time I've heard it either.

But that event shaped my life and my thinking.

You help the person. You meet their needs on earth. You give them shelter, food, love, clothing, a friend in yourself.

Whether or not they believe in Jesus or have even heard about Jesus is nowhere on my list of things to do. I don't worry about a heaven when their life is a hell on earth. I'm not about to tell someone suffering that some next life is better when I could be helping to make life on earth better.

[oneighty]

43. You are known for the deeds you do

not by the words you speak.

Indeed you are correct.

180

[AliciaKeyedUp]

46. Not looking at charity to spread the word

Spreading the word is part of everyday life for many people. Everything they do, from walking down the street to work is an act of faith for them. To ask them to not proclaim it so is asking the impossible.

[Az]

48. They live in the world with the rest of us

Yes their motivation is understandable. But their shock and dismay at being seen as pariah is false. They are disrespecting other peoples beliefs. They are using the apparent charity that is being expressed by millions of others with no expectation of conversion to cover their predation on another's beliefs. To many they will seem as monsters.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

50. There is no disrespect

I can believe otherwise and have no disrespect for those beliefs. I don't believe as you do, but I respect your right to believe as you do. That said, it doesn't stop me from saying what I think, what I believe.

[RetroLounge]

124. Yawn

They proclaim it at my door they get a boot in their ass.

Being a fucking bore hypocrite is also part of their daily lives.

Fuck 'em.

RL

[AliciaKeyedUp]

146. The classic tolerance of the left? I don't think so

[knitter4democracy]

56. No, God put them there to help her, and they let him down.

I can cite so many passages that would say they're wrong. They were wrong. End of story. That kind of sick mentality is not what Jesus preached. How disgusting. I hope God kept putting people in her path to help her until someone finally did.

[Solly Mack]

63. She got help. I left camp that day and went straight to my mother

who called the police. She also called the camp director and "let her have it."

I just wanted you to know. The child was removed from her home; her mother and the boyfriend were charged.

[knitter4democracy]

64. Good.

See--you were where you needed to be to help someone in need. That's a hell of a lot more than I can say for the others . . . I hope that girl was able to heal in some way and have a full and wonderful life.

[roguevalley]

57. of course its immoral. I am DAMNED SICK of evangelicals

assuming that you have no religion. As far as they are concerned, if you don't pray like them, you're an atheist. Personally, they are all going to burn in hell for taking advantage of these people. Bastards. This girl in the picture is a bastard.

[yella_dawg]

60. Its immoral to prosyletize

anywhere, anytime.

Who are you, you arrogant bastard, to solicit my soul? My religion is just fine, thank you, and so is the religion of those poor disaster victims.

[Az]

65. No, your religion is not just fine

Or at least there are those that believe it is not just fine. Telling them it is will not convince them otherwise. If they embrace the ideas of their faith over the notion embracing diversity then they will not respect your religion and consider it a destructive force in their society.

PS, Your religion is just fine for you in my book. I may disagree with some aspects of it but then we each walk our own paths. We can discuss it and advise each other of what we have gleened from our paths and in this way we can learn.

[yella_dawg]

67. Some may believe that my religion somehow deficient.

But no matter how fervently someone believes the moon is made of cheese, it won't affect the price of dairy products.

My only point is that proselytizing is arrogant and intrusive. As such, it is immoral. Those that express an interest in a certain faith are fair game. Those in supermarket parking lots (or devastated villages) are individuals with free will and no expressed desire to have their beliefs defamed.

[Az]

69. The trick is the balance

Acceptance of diversity over faith in a particular religion. As long as society on whole embraces tolerance things work. Once it begins to slide the other way chaos begins. It is the breaking of the social contract.

[SoCalDem]

66. Belly first...soul ...maybe later

I have no problem with "missionaries" handing out food to the tsunami victims, BUT BUT BUT

as missionaries and good christians, they should be WILLING and EAGER to help the poorest and most afflicted of God's children, BECAUSE the Bible says it's the decent thing to do..

It's one thing to enter a "heathen" nation and set up camp, so to speak,getting to know the locals and maybe offering education(along with the preaching).That is just fine. At least the local people have the opportunity to shun the missionaries, accept their offers, or perhaps boil them up for dinner :)

When people are sick, injured, and psychologically destroyed, missionaries who "prey" upon them are lower than low.. It kind of reminds me of the stories we hear of.. The ones where a health aide rapes and impregnates a comatose woman. It probably did not "harm" the comatose woman, but it's a gross violation of human dignity..

Coerced "conversions" in exchange for food is EVIL..

[beam me up scottie]

71. As a "heathen"

I have to ask, do you really think it's fine to enter a "heathen nation" just to proselytize?

[SoCalDem]

72. A fellow heathen here,

If missionaries feel compelled to go to other places, and the countries they enter "allow" it, who am I to say NO.. BUT they must be meeting the people on an "even footing" for it to be "fair"..

They feel they have a calling, and are "offering" a service. The people they plan to "educate" should not be forced to comply with the indoctrination. (Pray or starve..is a bad menu)

[beam me up scottie]

76. I tend to agree with yella_dawg,

if someone seeks out a church or religious individual outside of where they live, work, eat and play, then proselytize away.
Again, how would christians view muslims who set up tents strictly to convert people to islam?
Proselytizing to me says "I believe my way is the right way and yours is the wrong way to believe. I am right and you are wrong."
Isn't that saying that my belief is inferior?
As a lifelong atheist, I must admit, I have never ever said that (or even thought that) to a theist.

[AgadorSparticus]

79. what an affront to human decency. preying on victims is never justified.

people that have to go around proclaiming their faiths are usually those that lack faith.

those that have faith, let their actions speak for themselves.

[oppositionmember]

83. NO. People are extraordinarily vulnerable

following a disaster. It's not cricket to pitch to them at that time. Respect their culture and beliefs and help them get back on their feet. Then if it suits, talk to them about religious matter.

[Azathoth]

90. It all depends.

Generally speaking, using the misfortunes of others as a means to advance your own agenda is immoral, and it is downright evil when that agenda is literally forced on people who are vulnerable and in desperate need of help.

Religion, however, also has benefits. It can provide a strong psychological comfort to people who are suffering. Providing essentials like food, shelter and medical supplies to refugees addresses their physical stress, but not their emotional stress. What do you tell a child who has just lost his entire family? Messages like "Jesus loves you and has taken your family to Heaven" can be very useful in helping someone who has had their life shattered and is stricken with grief to recover. This is one of the fundamental reasons why religion endures, and in some cases thrives, even in this modern age of science.

The bottom line is that it all depends on the motivations of the person doing the proselytizing. If their primary motivation is to help those in need, then I would not consider them immoral. If their reasons are more selfish, then not only are they immoral, but they are most likely doing more damage than good.

[Az]

99. Keep in mind though

These people are not without their own religious beliefs. They are not bringing the social reinforcement of religion. They are seeking to supplant their religion.

Another thing to keep in mind that evangelising at times of disasters is extremely effective. Particularly if your society/culture is stronger than the targetted culture. There is a tremendous impact that comes with this particular combination. As a result most religious structures incorporate a charitible approach to others in a time of need as a means of propogating its own structure. It just makes too much sense from the religion's point of view.

The issue that makes it troublesome is the nature of our society. We have embraced (in theory anyway) the concept of tolerance and respect for other's beliefs. The idea of using such tactics has become a taboo in our society. But taboo's shift and change. The return of a strong conservative religious mindset has caused a resurfacing of strong evangelizing tactics.

[Cheswick2.0]

92. it is not immoral...it is tasteless , it is not what MOST Christians would

do (despite the imagination of many non christian DUers). But it is immoral to refuse aid if people don't listen. It is ammoral to take away the food water and medicine they need because they won't listen to you. Jesus would never have done that.

[McCamy Taylor]

101. Not just immoral. Its STUPID. The Buddhists probably wont care but

Hindus and Muslims will be offended. If the missionaries get killed it will be bad enough since * will probably throw a hissy fit and try to invade. Worse, innocent, nonpreaching Christians may get killed too.

[manic expression]

102. These people are horrible.

They are the epitome of everything wrong and disgusting that we know. They should be deported and barred from ever looking at or communicating with someone from another religion again.

[ulysses]

105. no.

It's exploitation.

[NC_Nurse]

109. I don't understand why

an all powerful, loving God would need so much marketing, advertising and brainwashing to win over followers.

Whatever happened to religion as a PRIVATE, personal conviction come to by communing with the Divine alone in contemplation? Does everything have to be an effin' TESTIMONIAL now? Does God really need constant huckstering and infomercials?

It's not just immoral, it's vulgar and repulsive!

And why is it they always send these young people to do it? Where are all the smiling TV evangelists on the front lines of muddy third world flood zones? No, it's the young indoctrinees that are trooping out like a bunch of freakin' Survivor contestants for Gawd!

It's really absurd to me. <end of rant>

[WoodrowFan]

111. it depends

on how it is done. refusing aid or "turn or burn" in your face preaching by a Bible thumper would certainly be beyond the pale. However, explaining if someone is willing to listen what you believe and why it motivates you to help others would be fine if you still help them with kindness and love if they refuse.

[Moe Levine]

115. Yes, of course, it's called freedom of religion

and your right of free speech permits you to put in your two cents is you believe circumstances are being exploited

[rooboy]

117. Using a right inappropriately doesn't make it moral. n/t

[Deja Q]

118. Yes, but not all countries have a first Amendment like we do.

Not to mention that the US is eroding that amendment...

[rooboy]

116. Did the Good Samaritan proselytize? n/t

[RetroLounge]

120. Please, don't confuse them with true christian ideals.

RL

[TWiley]

200. Where does one find those who have "true"

christian ideals? There is no national voice for such a group, and there is overwhelming evidence that christians support bush, his war, and his agenda.

There may be individuals scattered about who are the "perverted christians who believe in love and charity without obligation". But there is no group with any sizable following. Only a hundred or so here and there.

Maybe your concept of christianity is wrong. Maybe it needs to be updated to properly reflect common usage.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

153. No, and I'm a Christian

The mainline religious bodies figured out long ago that it's spiritually dangerous to give people material rewards for conversion or to require conversion in order to receive charity.

Catholic Charities, Lutheran World Relief, Episcopal Relief and Development, and other mainstream Christian groups provide disaster aid and survival and resettlement aid to refugees without proselytizing and without regard to the recipients' beliefs.

My church in Portland sponsored three Muslim families, one each from Somalia, Bosnia, and Kosovo. We invited them to come and meet the parish. They all chose to come only to coffee hour, which was fine. We never tried to convert them.

[Spazito]

180. The difference between the Christian and the christian, imo, is...

the Christian sells a product using bribery, intimidation, attached strings to their "charity work" where as the christian helps those less fortunate because it is the right thing to do and respects other opinions and beliefs.

I choose the christian over the Christian any day.

[supernova]

191. As a Christian, I find this just sickening

These ladies had absolutely no business going to the tsunami area if all they cared about was just preaching to desperate people in need. This is abuse, not missionary work.

It makes me ashmed to be a Christian to share the lable with these empty-headed people.

And you know what? They just made the jobs of all the western relief workers there that much harder.

:-( :grr:

[TWiley]

197. Christians who do are nasty vulgar people.

Christianity has destroyed a multitude of cultures. It is sickening to me that they use a disaster as the opportunity to spread their bullshit.

Read this before you light the match.

http://in.news.yahoo.com/050116/139/2j1rp.html

[noonwitch]

207. Not if the relief is contingent on the people listening to a sermon

I don't have a problem with christian relief agencies being up front about their religion and responding to questions in kind. They are there doing what their God has told them to do-feed and clothe the poor, help those who are suffering. They should be free to say so.

But the relief should be given to all in need without a sermon.

[noonwitch]

208. Not if the relief is contingent on the people listening to a sermon

I don't have a problem with christian relief agencies being up front about their religion and responding to questions in kind. They are there doing what their God has told them to do-feed and clothe the poor, help those who are suffering. They should be free to say so. Their actions are far more important than their words.

But the relief should be given to all in need without a sermon.