Yeah, I was thinking the same thing, but was too busy wiping the spittle off of my glasses. Real compassionate.
If people are going into a country to explicitly and openly advertise for Jesus, and they have the blessing or at least neutrality from the country’s government, it doesn’t bother me that much. Heck, I can forgive them if they sneak across the border and proselytize under the table.
What sticks in my craw, though, are the people who get in on some other pretense–say, teaching English, or humanitarian work–with the understanding that they won’t be spreading the Gospel, and then they “sneak in tracts”. What’s going to happen when those people are caught, as many will be? How easy is that going to make it for the next group of genuine humanitarians that wants to get in?
Sometimes I wonder which is mean spirited and rude, Atheists or Christians? Atheists aren’t doing themselves any favor on this one. :rolleyes:
*formerly Machetero
which is MORE :smack:
The violation of an unjust law, while illegal, isn’t in and of itself unjust, is it, Diogenes? I’ve seen you express admiration on these boards in the past for acts of civil disobedience.
It certainly is a “First Amendment” issue as we’d understand it, not only because of the speech issue, but also because of religion. There are many thousands of Chinese Catholics who are not free to worship according to their conscience since the Catholic Church is officially banned in China, just to use one example. Some of those missionaries arrested have gone in to help this pre-existing population.
I’m saddened to see you treat a fundamental point of human rights so cavalierly.
Suffice to say, many missionaries are quite sincere, and do not teach these things. I know for a fact this is not current Catholic doctrine, which leads me to think this whole paragraph was nothing but a strawman.
How about we blame the repressive government that finds some reason to screw around with freedom of religion, and pressure them to change? Seems like that would be attacking the root of the problem.
Ok Malodorous, here’s your web page cite, I did a search for the name of the charity and this is what came up. This site seems incredibly detailed, so I only skimmed it. Enjoy…
Here’s Amnesty’s report on it (not sure how recent). I live in Hong Kong and visit China fairly often; to my mind, they are opening up in various ways (most obviously in terms of trade, of course) but they still have a long, long way to go. Their human rights record is still pretty abysmal; I was very surprised when they were given the go-ahead to run the Olympics.
Absolutely, but the way to do it is not to misrepresent yourself as a purely humanitarian mission when you’re actually spreading the Gospel. It’s important for such missions to have the presumption of legitimacy. I think of it the same way I would think of delivering ammo to troops in a Red Cross vehicle; as soon as you use one for something other than a medical purpose, you’re turning every single one of them into a target.
China, in all its history, has never been known for accepting outside influences with open arms.
Hostility to missionaries is not new either. My great-grandfather got out one step ahead of a mob a hundred years ago.
Let us say that you believe that the most important act one can do is deliver Bibles to another nation, but it is not permitted. How should one go about it?
Proselytizing doesn’t have the condescending, smarmy “my way or hellfire” thing it’s made out to be. Giving food to a hungry person can also be a way of spreading one’s religious beliefs. (Granted, it can also be something someone does simply because they believe it is good and right to give a hungry person food, and thus the motives are much more ambiguous, but it’s a trade off.)
Make that “Proselytizing doesn’t have to have the condescending…”
Civil disobedience is admirable if it serves some humanitarian purpose. Religious proselytization furthers no worthy cause. It’s purely selfish, pointless, disrespectful and insulting to the people are targeted by it. I would admire anyone who agitated illegally for free speech or social reform, even religious freedom but religious proselytization is not about religious freedom it’s about pushing one religion only.
Help them do what?
Once again, I’m saying be disobedient for the right reasons. Fight for religious freedom but don’t try to dictate what that religion has to be. People who care about religious freedom should be just as willing to import Korans and Talmuds and Tao Te Chings, noy just Bibles.
Missionaries who simply offer humanitarian services without proselytizing are just fine with me…even admirable. But the second they feel the need to make others believe as they do they lose me. If they don’t think Chinese people have to be saved, then there’s no reason to preach at them. If they do think Chinese people have to be saved then they’re idiots.
I also agree with Dr. J that when evangelists lie their way into other countries to serve a selfish religious agenda, they’re scewing it up for the real humanitarians who actually want to do some good there.
Anyone who believes that is a moron.
So, who has been expelled just for feeding people? No one, I expect. They enter the country saying they are going to be feeding people, but have to sneak the Bibles in also. But, the least they can do is to stop whining.
And treating people with a religion a thousand years older than Christianity as if they don’t know anything about the spiritual world is the height of arrogance.
My feelings on the matter differ from those of Diogenes, but the point of civil disobedience is to raise awareness of injustice by openly and publicly disobeying a law, and then accepting the punishment. You make your disagreement with the law a matter of public record and force the government to acknowledge your public dissent by either punishing you or modifying the law. Doing something illegal in secret and trying to avoid getting caught isn’t civil disobedience, no matter how much you disagree with the law.
The situation is similar to those who objected to the draft during the Vietnam war and openly refused to serve, then took their punishment, versus those who simply fled to Canada. The former is civil disobedience, while the latter is merely self-interest.
Furthermore, several branches of Christianity teach that a person need not be damned if s/he was not saved simply because s/he never heard the word of Christ.
By spreading the gospel to people many of whom will not choose to convert, proselytizers are damning countless thousands of souls.
Diogenes, what about the Maryknoll Order? What about missionaries going to the Third World to HELP these people, but spread the Gospel while doing so? Francis of Assisi said, “Preach the Gospel at all times. If necessary, use words.”
Next thing, you’ll be telling us that those four US church women who were raped and murdered in El Salvador in 1981 got what they deserved.
Per usual, Diogenes has helped me clarify my own views by representing his so starkly that I can’t help but see how repugnant they are. (Good thing this thread isn’t political. One more of those and I’ll end up voting republican, God forbid.)
Of course, while Christians are being persecuted in China, they aren’t very high on the list of people suffering over there. I can’t trust the motives of anyone who spends too much time talking about Christians suffering, because worldwide they are the victims in a tiny minority of circumstances. Those truly concerned about human suffering would be focused on Chinese political dissidents, or members of any number of ethnic minorities - Tibetans, Uyghurs, etc. etc. etc.
zetafunction
since when did China’s population boom far beyond one-fifth?
on preview: nevermind. i see what you mean.