A lot of people take the view that there are certain basic human rights which no government is entitled to deny and that, if a government attempts to deny those rights, we are justified in resisting by methods which would not be morally acceptable for other purposes. The “Anne Frank” example in Shodan’s post illustrates the point.
And a lot of those people would take the view that the right to the free expression of religious belief is a basic human right which no government is entitled to deny. Those people would believe that it is acceptable to lie to a government (or anyone else) if telling the truth would lead to the denial of your right to express your religious beliefs.
You don’t have to share this view to recognise it as being pretty much in the mainstream of liberal and tolerant thinking about human rights.
If we accept that Christians (with others) have the right to express their religious beliefs, and the right to resist by subversion those who would prevent them from doing so, then the only arguments against Christian missionary work which are of any relevance at all are arguments which can be expected to convince Christians.
It is fair to ask whether it is desirable or useful to preach Christianity in Afghanistan just now. However, the notion that missionary work is inappropriate because much of the population is in acute physical need is nonsense; it implies that Christianity is a religion for the prosperous and contented, and can only be preached to them. You don’t have to be a Christian to find this view of Christianity unappealing.
Similarly, elucidator’s view that “They don’t need Jesus. They need something to eat.” assumes the conclusion that he (she?) is arguing for. Obviously, if they don’t need Jesus then, regardless of whether they are hungry or not, preaching Christianity is a best a pointless exercise. I would guess most Christians are of the view that everybody needs Jesus and something to eat, and these two needs are not in conflict.
It seems to me that those who condemn the missionaries who lie to get into Afghanistan must argue either
(a) that there is no universal right to the free expression of religious belief, or
(b) that a Christian should consider it inappropriate to engage in missionary work in Afghanistan at present.
Joe_Cool, no, I don’t think you need to 'splain more. I meant that you seem to be one who would willingly ignore or disobey a law which contradicted Christian teaching, but would also deal with whatever consequences followed as a result, based on your following statements:
and
…but also implied in your statements is the idea that accepting the consequences of “civil disobedience” is not the same as acknowledging the legitimacy of the authority which imposes those consequences. “I don’t accept your authority as rightful and/or God-given, but I can’t stop you from exercising it.”
I completely understand and respect this sort of position; I think where you and I differ is only under what specific circumstances, concerning what specific issues, this approach is supportable. Because I am not an evangelical Christian and do not subscribe to the idea that any one religion is the True Faith, naturally I would not use this approach in spiritual religious matters, while you naturally would.
But if this does somehow miss your point in a big way, then I’d appreciate it if you’d set me straight.
I have searched my small library for a reference concerning proselytizing to Muslims and cannot find a direct statement on the topic to answer the question one way or another. I have a feeling that I read this is a book which I do not own. I’ll look on-line, but this may take a while since it is more difficult to find a site which presents a balanced, not biased, view (on any religious topic).
But until then I will offer this general perspective: historically, in the earliest days of Islam (7th century onward), Jews and Christians who came under Muslim rule were permitted to practice their religion, free from oppression and persecution. Certainly these Jews and Christians enjoyed better lives than Jews and Muslims living under Christian rule in Western Europe. This was certainly true in the Spanish peninsula, most of which came under Muslim rule in the 8th-century; for this place and period I have print references stating that Jews and Christians could practice their religions but were forbidden to proselytize to Muslims. Since the Umayyad rulers of Muslim Spain (from 755 to the early 11th-century) were the dynastic, political and cultural heirs of the same Ummayads who had ruled the world of Islam from Damascus (from the mid-7th to mid-8th centuries), I would assume that their policies towards Jews and Christians in Spain carried on some of the earliest (and thus most basic) Islamic doctrines and attitudes towards “the Peoples of the Book”.
The ban on proselytizing seems rooted, partly, in Islam’s assertion that it is the one, true faith. Thus from this perspective, those who would woo Muslims away from this faith are endangering them spiritually, not saving them. As Hemlock points out, at various times and places in the history of Islam, this policy was taken to the ultimate extreme: those who converted away from Islam were considered traitors and subject to execution. Islam is not unique in this; Christianity has similar practices in its own history.
Another aspect to the ban on proselytizing is the high regard in which Muslims hold the Prophet, Muhammed. Defamation of the name of the Prophet and his work is considered a grave offense. (Actually, I came across an on-line article about this last night; I will find it again later this morning and link it in.) From the Muslim perspective, the very nature of Christian proselytizing is to defame the Prophet – proclaiming that Jesus Christ is the Son of God renders Muhammed’s Revelation (the Qu’ran) meaningless and names him a false prophet – and therefore the principles and traditions of Islam cannot allow active proselytizing.
(Incidentally, if you like I can try to find on-line references about Islamic doctrine on Jesus, whom Muslims regard as a great prophet but not the Son of God.)
Now, in modern times I imagine that many of the attitudes of Islam towards Christianity, and vice versa, have been shaped as much by a long and often contentious history between the two faiths, as by inherent principles and teaching, making the whole issue even more complex.
One more thing to consider in this whole debate: in the West, we have a long, long tradition of separation between temporal and spiritual, secular and religious authorities. Sometimes there has been overlap and the divisions fuzzy or diffuse, but by and large some kind of distinction can be made between secular authority and religious authority. In this USA, this distinction has been crystallized into our Constitutional principle of the separation of Church and State. On the other hand, almost from its inception Islam was linked to secular authority and become intricately inter-twined with it (a common feature of civilizations in the ancient Eastern world). This has carried over, in various ways, to the present day, and the distinction we make between secular and religious authority in the West often does not translate directly in the world of Islam because the Islamic world has developed along very different lines. Not backward or regressive, just different. So it is not always quite as simple as saying, “These people do not have freedom of religion”; that concept springs, in part, from the history of and a long-standing distinction between secular and religious matters in the West.
Which is not to say that any actual religious oppression in the East (or anywhere) is justified. I’m just suggesting that, before we leap to conclusions about what’s going on, we ought to strive to understand what “others” believe, and why, on their terms, before we decide that what they do is wrong. My personal feeling is that the best way to convert someone is to offer mutual understanding and respect; one doesn’t win any friends by flagrant disregard and disrespect for their long-standing traditions and dearly-held beliefs.
Just food for thought. More later, if I have time.
Of all the problems that Afghanistan has, Christianity is the least of them.
Some, such as clairobscur, actually have the gall (or lack of sense) to blame Christianity for adding to Afghanistans problems. Forget the Taliban. Forget the Islamists. Forget the recent Soviet war. Forget the rampaging warlords. Forget the drought. Forget all that, IT MUST BE THE CHRISTIANS!
Joe_Cool, here are some links on the basic doctrines of Islam towards Christianity and/or non-Muslim faiths. One is a Muslim source which purports to give a balanced view of these doctrines; the other seems to be a pro-Christian source, perhaps a bit slanted but understandably so, from the perspective of Western culture and concepts of human rights. These may not be the best sources on the topic (I am no expert, to judge) but they do point to a recognition that, as a matter of tradition and principle, Islam discourages proselytization by other religions. Though perhaps in some places, Christianity as a whole is subject to unfair and excessive suspicion rather than merely careful scrutiny, because of the often difficult history between Islam and Christianity.
Here I draw your attention in particular to the short paragraph, right before the “Conclusion” section, which addresses the issue of Christian proselytization vs. defamation of Muhammed and the Qu’ran.
The problem being, at least some of the time, what should happen when the hungry guy asks, “Why are you doing this for me?”
What Christians do is deny the right of the government, or anybody else, to stop us from answering the question honestly.
Nobody else gets to set the agenda for us. Nobody. That has already been taken care of by a higher authority than anyone on earth.
The same question seems to get asked a hundred million times a year. “What do you do with someone who disagrees with you on religion?” The Christians try to convince you. If you agree with them, they welcome you. If you don’t, they still feed and shelter and try to help you. The Afghan government tries to silence you, and threatens you and your listeners with death if they agree with you.
Seems to me that proselytising to people in such vulnerable condition as many Afghans now undoubtedly are (ie. hungry & desperate, and likely uneducated too), especially when you come with a big bag of food in the other hand, is rather immoral.
Note that this is my opinion as an atheist, so it’s unaffected by the brand of Magical Sky Pixie that is being offered. Doesn’t give a very good showing of that Pixie’s followers, though…
I would reject the notion that humans have no spiritual needs, only material ones.
I would further propose that even destitute people have those needs.
I do agree that it’s important to make sure that there isn’t the faintest whiff of an implication that material aid is contingent on openness to the Christian witness. As long as that’s so, I suspect that people who have been through famine and oppression are skeptical enough to not accept Christ just because His witnesses show up with food as well as the Gospel.
BTW, assorted stuff in Jerevan’s links caused my respect for Islam to take a hit:
IOW, “heads we win, tails you lose”.
When so-called Christians try to get American public schools to give them a much more slight advantage than that, I give 'em what for. And they’re supposedly my co-religionists. I certainly can’t cut Islam any slack for enshrining this gory one-way trapdoor as dogma and institutional policy.
Truth shouldn’t be a hothouse flower. IMHO, if your adherents typically need to be sheltered from exposure to other beliefs, you’ve got a pretty weak religion.
I don’t see where I’m under a moral obligation to respect such attitudes and practices simply because they originate from a foreign culture.
RTFirefly: It’s clear that you don’t, and of course you’re free and entitled to think so. But my point is and has been: don’t be surprised when you receive similar treatment in return.
And when an American Christian goes to Afghanistan, it is his/her attitudes and practices which “originate from a foreign culture”, not the other way around. By your own logic, they are under no obligation to respect your practices.
As far the links I provided: my only purpose was to support my earlier assertion that Islam discourages proselytization by other religions, and that this doctrine appears to be consistent with Islamic doctrine as a whole. I can’t speak to whether, where, or to what degree, any or all of the doctrines described in my first link are actually and literally carried out in practice. Like Christianity with its own Scriptures, Islam is internally divided on the notion of how to put the teachings of the Qu’ran and other sources into practice. That is, for instance, why there are four separate schools of Islamic jurisprudence.
Re: the basis for discouraging proselytizing. One man’s flower of Truth can be another man’s weed. As an evangelical Christian, would you support visible, active Muslim proselytizing of Christians (though you will have noted that Islam discourages this as well) in your town? If the answer is “no”, does that necessarily mean that your objections result from fear or weakness of faith, or might it be because you find the activity, and the words used in pursuing it, offensive? I’m asking because I’m truly curious; these are not rhetorical questions.
"That has already been taken care of by a higher authority than anyone on earth. "
Hmmm… where have I heard that before, and why does it make me so nervous?
To continue Jerevan’s question- Yes, would any Christians have a problem with, say, Muslims from Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan noticing the horrible problems Americans have with starving and abused children in their own backyards, coming in, setting up shop in city and town community centres, and organizing programs that promote the Koran each morning with breakfast to everyone, regardless if they’re Catholics, Orthodox Jews or atheists?
No argument there. But it is heartless and absurd to discuss the subtlety of Trinitarian doctrine with a man who has just sold one of his children in order to feed the others.
Hunger annihilates dignity, morality, and yes, even spirituality. It leaves nothing but desperation and pain. Feed them, bind thier wounds, clothe their nakedness. When that is done, perhaps you will have a receptive audience, perhaps not.
But you will have done good. You will have shown that in a world of cruel darkness, yet men still walk in the light, and do good for no other reason than that it is good. There is no more sincere form of “witnessing”.
To paraphrase Ghandi, God has no right to appear to a hungry man in any other form but bread.
I think most Christians would have no problem with this. Why would they?
By the way, it’s probably worth making the point that most Christian missionary endeavour does not take the form of standing on street corners and bellowing through a loudspeaker about salvation. Missionaries run hospitals, schools, clinics, work projects and the like. That is evangelism and witness in and of itself. It is not just an excuse to get close to people so that you can talk to them about Christianity. Of course, they will also conduct religious services, but usually separately from their other activities. They will generally respect local law in doing this. And, of course, they will talk about their beliefs to anyone who is interested.
I think that, as a matter of freedom of expression, they should be entitled to do the street-corner bit. But they don’t, partly because it may get them into trouble and so prevent them from carrying on the other areas of their missionary work, but mainly (I suspect) because it’s an ineffective, if not actually counterproductive, form of evangelism.
Well, it seems that they already don’t. That was what came to me as a surprise. For instance, all four schools of Islamic jurisprudence agree that death is the appropriate punishment for Muslims who convert to Christianity (or anything else).
I do not desire that we Westerners discriminate against Islam in return, but I think that when its representatives protest against yahoos like the minister at the Baptist convention yesterday, it’s fair to remind them that on their home turf, they don’t extend the sort of tolerance that they seem to expect here.
No argument there. But no matter what one believes the truth to be, I have problems with the notion that its flower is at a disadvantage with respect to the weeds. I expect truth to be hardy.
I wouldn’t support the proselytizing itself, but I’d certainly support the right of proselytizers to proselytize, be they Muslims or Moonies, and I would fight any efforts to suppress it. I think that was your real question.
As I think I mentioned earlier in the thread, I don’t think evangelization should be directed at young children, beneath the age at which most religions say you are ready to make an adult commitment. (I.e. the age of bar-mitzvahs, confirmations, etc.)
Other than that, I’ve got no problem with the idea. Let 'em feed the hungry of all ages, and proselytize the adults and teenagers.
I can understand that it’s surprising, but that was why I pointed out earlier today that there is a quite different mentalite about the rights we take as “given”, within Islam. I think it’s worth trying to fathom before rushing in, or dismissing it outright. And, the fact that they don’t respect your practices isn’t sufficient justification (to my way of thinking) for disparaging theirs. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
I’m sorry, I don’t follow the reference. Can you link me to an article?
OK. But to carry the metaphor a little further: when I weed my garden, it is not because the established plants are threatened by the weeds, but rather because the weeds did not fit the aesthetic plan which I have in mind. And to beat the metaphor to death: Islam does not advocate pulling up the weeds, it just doesn’t want them to self-seed.
Yes, and I think you’ve answered it. But keep in mind that Islam does not advocate active proselytization of its own faith, either. AS elucidator points out, the flower of Truth will grow out of the soil of good works, without anyone saying a word.
People have the right to decide who comes into their country.
You’re the one with the arrogant attitude.
UDS
There is a big difference between the right to express religious beliefs, and the right to express them wherever you want. You have the right to preach the gospel in a church. You do not have the right to break into my house to preach the gospel. Or lie to get into my house.
RTFirefly: Yes, that’ll do. I got to the article via The Pit.
Yes, you’re right; that is fair. While what Rev. Vines said seems unnecessarily inflammatory, in this country he is certainly free to say it on the grounds of both free speech and freedom of religious belief. I can understand why his remarks were so upsetting, but the Islamic group in question (presumably the Council on American-Islamic Relations) went too far in demanding that Vines be chastised for his remarks. If Vines wants to open his mouth and prove himself a bigot (which in my opinion he does), he’s perfectly free to do so. If other Southern Baptist leaders back him up, they are also free to do so. And Muslims are free, then, to take whatever dim view of Southern Baptists they like. But in this country, they can’t force someone to recant, or be punished for, that kind of statement.
As an aside, I would point out that these are the sort of defamatory remarks which Muslims do find particularly offensive (as a matter of ingrained faith/culture/tradition), and which, in an Islamic state, non-Muslim residents and visitors are expected to avoid. Outside of an Islamic state, however, I am afraid they do just have to live with it.
I, too, find Vines’ remarks reprehensible and non-conducive to peace and harmony. He could have made his points about Islam without being quite so derogatory, and I’d bet dollars-to-donuts that he knows less about Islam than any of us here, but what can I do except hope that he is not taken as representative of all Americans? Unfortunately, the fact that some vocal evangelical Christians make such bigoted remarks (present company excluded) may be what leads some Muslim nations to be even more severe and suspicious in their attitudes towards all Christian missionaries. And then these Muslim attitudes trigger additional negativity on the Christian side. It’s not fair, because most Christians aren’t like Vines and most Muslims aren’t like the Taliban, but it’s what happens. As we all know, it’s the loud and spectacularly negative people, Christians or Muslims, who are most likely to make the news and just perpetuate the cycle of ignorance, hatred and suspicion on both sides.