Is this supposed to be the self-righteous part?
Well, I am not a fan of missionaries, but the more I thought about this the more I feel Eve’s premise is stupid.
The world is full of risks. I live in Cairo. Do business in the Middle East and get exposed to all kinds of whack shit. Hell, trips to certain areas require armed escort. Never mind the health conditions here and in the region generally.
As it happens I don’t have kids, but if I did, should I keep them in some nice, pleasant insulated from the reality of the world cocoon in ever so fucking comfortable USAlalalaland where we know nothing bad could ever happen? Or do I take them with me where although they might be exposed to more dangers, certainly greater health risks, they can learn (a) another language well (b) another culture well © grow up without the typical first-worlder navel gazing problem (d) generally live in world which will challange the typical self-absorbed and congratulatory world of the comfortable.
Frankly, I think I go with that. Although on reflection if something bad happened, I suppose our OP would simply say it was deserved.
sniffling Cranky & bdgr said it too! Damnit, I don’t get any credit around here!
I am SUCH a loser for noticing and caring, BTW. LOL
Eve, you opened this topic in the Pit and, by doing so, opened yourself up to much more abuse than you actually got. Count yourself as lucky. All people are doing is disagreeing with you.
You deserve worse. You have, in cliche New Yorker style, characterized 95% of the surface of the planet as a place unfit to raise children. You have insulted people who have done nothing to hurt you, missionaries, who often do good and provide a service that some people appreciate. You have also insulted ANYBODY who, by choice or by circumstance, raises his children in any environment other than one in which you feel comfortable.
I know people raised by missionary parents in places you would find distasteful, and they are among the most cosmopolitan and worldly people I know. They don’t cram ANYTHING down people’s throats. They are far more open to other people and cultures than the typical person raised in an American suburb or city.
I don’t believe you are only good for drive-by wisecracks. You are a wise woman, full of insights and knowledge. I appreciate your remarks more than those of nearly anybody here. However, you sometimes should try to open your mind a bit. [non-New Yorker cliche] The world only STARTS at the tip of Manhattan. [/non-New Yorker cliche]
How is this situation different than a husband and wife research team spending several years studying the Peru area? They wouldn’t want to leave their kids behind. The parents still had adequate medical supplies on their boat and transportation if the child gets sick. The dangers would be the same but so are the rewards of cultural experience.
If the main problem is with the parents being missionaries, then that is a whole other discussion. If the problem is parents bringing their children into a dangerous place, then I feel it is the parents choice. More than likely it will be a selfish choice, but I can’t say their decision is wrong. There rewards often outweigh the risks.
That’s Ok, I said it first, and apparently no one even read my post (sniff sniff). And the little petty part in all of us will always notice being overlooked.
I, myself, would have loved to be raised by, well, by scientists, though missionaries would have done, in the wilds of Peru. I would be so much more fun at parties.
I hereby apologize to CrankyAsAnOldMan, bdgr and Manda JO for failing to cite their cogent, insightful arguments.
I cited goboy because he was the farthest down in the thread so I could read his argument without scrolling up. That’s unbelievably lazy of me, but I hope you can find it in your hearts to accept my shortcomings. It’s just that, growing up as the child of missionaries in Peru, I never mastered the use of a mouse so I often take shortcuts. People like me ought to get shot out of the sky.
My god, you lick boots masterfully AND you’re funny? Color me suitably impressed and add me to your fan club. By the way Eve, I’m still in yours even if I’m lining up on the other side of this issue.
Manda Jo, I too am sorry. I didn’t at first associate climbing rocks with getting one’s ass shot off in the inner city, but you’re essentially making the same point. Point taken.
On the other hand, 7 of 9’s parents probably should not have taken her on that survey trip to study the Borg.
As for the pilot, no, he didn’t screw-up. He filed a flight plan (copy available on the church’s website), and he was in contact with ground control, even as he was being shot down: They’ve got voice recordings of his cries for help. The Peruvian pilot, on the other hand, strafed the misionaries even after they’d landed (a masterful, maybe even Miraculous, feat: He accomplished a complex water landing with his legs and feet shot-up). The Airforce pilot was on military frequencies, while the missionaries were on civil freqs. The Fighter either didn’t, or couldn’t, change freqs.
As for taking one’s kids along on a year’s long mission, well, excuse me, but I think it’d been a damn-site more irresponsible to leave an infant behind. Peruvian’s have kids, too, you know, and they grow-up fine, yes? I see nada wrong with the child having been there.
Perhaps we should place all children in bubbles until they reach their majority? Is it that everywhere else, outside your little world, is some festering cess-pit? Or are you just the quintessential Ugly American, smugly convinced that only your poorly formed opinion counts? Maybe we should fault the missionaries for not being psychic, and knowing they were to have their asses shot-off by supposedly competent Gov’t types? Yeah, that sounds about your speed…
Blame the victims. Huh, I thought better of you. Too bad I was wrong.
Eve, I’m surprised. Why shouldn’t parents take their kids to foreign countries? I’ve known many MK’s (that’s Missionary Kids) who’ve loved the experience. After all, the number of people killed while on Missionary work over seas is small, compared to say, one night in New York city.
And I’d bet one night in New York city is more deadly for some children than a plane flight anywhere.
How do you propose to stop them from taking them? I’d really love to hear how a Christian orginization is supposed to discriminate in the name of humanity. Boy wouldn’t that look great to the villagers in other countries! “No, Chief, I left my children at home with their Aunt and Uncle because the Missionary Board won’t let me bring them here cause it’s too dangerous! Heck, they could be killed here!”
Eve, kids can get killed anyplace. Some kids got killed at Columbine, recall? They were in school. Should we keep kids from going to school? Kids get killed in accidents each day, should we keep them from driving? Kids get killed riding bicycles, should we keep them off bikes?
Kids get killed everywhere, Eve.
Well… actually I’m not certain of that. I think the military guy DID get way over the top gonzo, but I’m not entirely sure Mr. Missionary didn’t contribute to the situation.
Uh-huh. It’s not enough to just file a flight plan, you have to activate it, too. Meaning, after you file you take off, then call air traffic and say “hey, I’ve actually taken off at this-and-such-a-time and I’m actually on my way”. Here in the States flight plans aren’t always required, and even when filed aren’t always activated. I’m not famillar with Peruvian regs, they may or may not be simillar. Anyhow - if you don’t activate it within a certain time after filing it gets tossed and it’s pretty much the same as if you didn’t file in the first place.
In any case, the flight plan did not (as I understand it) show a course entering Peruvian airspace. So, when the pilot did enter the airspace he was, in fact, screwing up. Does that justify shooting at him? No, I don’t think so, but he did make a mistake.
Not the same as having a valid flight plan and not violating airspace. The air traffic controllers don’t ask “by the way, you’re not smuggling drugs, are you?” The mere fact a pilot is talking to a controller doesn’t make him legit.
Now that, to my mind, IS over the top. Shooting the wreckage of a crash just seems so… so… excessive. After all, this was not a KNOWN threat but just a suspicious flight.
Now, that’s a bizarro thing, too - even if radio communications can’t be established there are internationally defined plane-to-plane signals. SOME sort of communication should have been achieved prior to shooting. Which makes me wonder if the Peruvian pilot just went in shooting.
Definately, the missionary was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Even more unfortunate for the two aboard his plane that were killed.
Well, Eve, if it makes you feel any better, my reaction was the same as yours when I first heard about the situation. After thinking about it for a while, I did realize that there are far more dangerous places for people to take kids and the parents aren’t really the bad guys here for the plane accident.
However, I still maintain that it is stupid to take your children to exotic parts of the world, rich in culture and differences only to teach them that their mission in life is to teach those interesting people to think just like them.
“Oooh! Look at these interesting people here! They are so different and unusual! They are so unique! Let’s make them more like us!”
**Yes, it IS the missionaries’ damn fault for putting their kids into dangerous and—yes—primitive conditions. **
[/QUOTE]
Goddamn right. They should have chosen an airplane that had force fields. Silly missionaries!
Now stop that. You know that isn’t even close to true.
For what it’s worth, I agree with the OP. In MY OPINION (this is my opinion only), travelling to places in the world that are dangerous (I am assuming Peru is, since they shoot down unidentified planes in their airspace) is taking a calculated risk. In other words, the “mission” (as it were) has to outweigh the risk to the traveller. In this case, people were heading to Peru to spread the word of God and ended up with two of them dead. Was it worth it to them? Evidentially it was, or they would not have been travelling there. Do I think it was irresponsible? Yes, absolutely. Those kids couldn’t give consent to travelling to an area of heightened risk and were only there because their parents were preparing to spread the word. Since I am not religious, I PERSONALLY think this was a foolish choice.
I feel the same about parents who take their children on dangerous trips for pleasure. I also have reservations about parents who take their kids on motorcycles. These kids can’t make a rational decision about their well being and depend on their parents to make those choices. When a life risk is taken with a child in the name of God or recreation, it seems wrong to me. The parent’s first responsibility should be to the health and welfare of their child, not to spreading the word of God or having a vacation.
This is my opinion, flame away if you wish. I’m not saying that everyone should feel this way, but it is how I feel. Everyone is free to make their own choices, just as I am free to shake my head in sadness when I read about deaths like these.
Zette
I don’t think anybody is saying that you can’t have an opinion about the cost/benefit analysis. I think what most people take issue with is the OP’s assumption that taking a child to Peru is inherently so dangerous that no rational parent would do it, mixed with a contempt for missionary work.
To some extent, you seem to fall into this category as well. You assume Peru is dangerous because a plane is shot down. You are making a rather broad judgment about the safety in an entire nation based on one incident. You’re extrapolating based on a very small data set.
I have no problem with you or Eve or whoever saying that they wouldn’t take their kids to Peru. But the OP’s tone was, I felt, awfully judgmental and somewhat jingoistic to assume Peru is inherently unsafe.
Maybe I’m splitting hairs, here, but it makes a difference (to me) that the family was LIVING in Peru. It wasn’t a jaunt they were taking on a whim. They live there. Other than occasional trips back to the U.S. to see family and talk about their work (and adopt their kids) they live down there. They live on a houseboat, and that’s presumably how they do a lot of travel. This trip, in fact, wasn’t to go spread more word, it was to see about the baby’s visa status.
I guess you could still make the same arguments about choosing to live in a dangerous place (as opposed to choosing dangerous travel) but the fact that they’ve lived down there successfully and without incident for so long suggests that maybe they weren’t taking the risks we’re accusing them of. Is flight by small planes risky? Yes, but it’s the means of travel down there, just as it’s the means of travel for some places in the U.S. (like parts of Alaska).
The husband, by the way, was the son of missionaries. He’s been around the block a few times.
Blame the victim?
It was an out-and-back plan. It was active.
It was a plan filed to start in Peru, land in Peru, and return to it’s point of origin, in Peru.
Now you’re reaching really far to blame the victim. It was an INTERNAL FLIGHT! Airspace violation, Feh. Aparently, in Peru, it’s now a capitol offence to fly internally. ATC didn’t take any measures to have him land where he could be inspected. They didn’t even bother to contact the fighter. It’s possible, but pretty much unlikely, that the tower couldn’t reach the fighter; Far more likely they didn’t even try.
Nice assumption. Bah.
No. They lived there. It’s called being a expatriot, they were living among the people they sought to serve. Do some research before spouting-off, will you?
Nice to know you think religious motivations are foolish. By your statement, and drawing a parallel, a minister, who’s dependants die while on the way to to conduct various legal errands in another city, also made a foolish choice, too. Gad, don’t be so fucking insular! This is how it’s done in the big, bad world out there! You go to where the government is, not the other way around. There are no nice, neat roads, no safe rail lines, no commuter aircraft. You go by the means available to you. Bush plane or slow boat, it’s done every day, by thousands and thousands of people, all around the world. Governments don’t, as a rule, make a practice out of shooting their internal transportation out of the sky. This time, the Gov’t screwed up, and you’re blaming the missionaries, apparently because they were missionaries, and you consider their profession and calling to be some kind of pleasure jaunt.
That is the most egregiously ignorant statement in this thread. The legal status of their infant was the reason they were in the air in the first place! Shame on you.
Consider yourself toasted.
Well, clearly I have my head up my ass. Thanks for pulling it out- I need it for my finals.
Zette