Not aggression, but definitely a micro-aggression!
No, your emphasis in the OP was that “I disagree”/“I absolutely reject” (italics added) the idea that it’s a form of aggression.
Falling back on the defense that “mainstream culture” agrees with you is a form of argumentum ad populum. I hope you have better arguments to make.
Meh, I’ll withdraw the part about what Bricker was emphasizing in the OP.
I do hope he has something to offer beyond personal belief as to how our culture views missionary work, Catholic or otherwise.
I realize that Catholic missionaries in certain projects have done some pretty bad things, but overall, Catholic charity services–as they’re practiced within the country, at least–are offered with zero proselytizing or doctrine, compared to fundamentalist Christian sects. It’s a very different “style,” (for lack of a better word). If you ever have the chance to observe any of the Catholic Charities agencies (they’re administered by diocese) across the country at work, you will see that. In fact, in the field of refugee resettlement, much of the Catholic Charities staff are actually Muslims, because they work with so many people from Muslim areas. I’ve never observed Catholic missionaries abroad, but the charitable workers within the U.S. are anything but aggressive, so I can see the OP’s point.
OK
But “Mother” Theresa was definitely proselytizing, right?
Catholic missionary work specifically, or missionary work in general? If there’s a distinction, what is its basis?
I totally disagree. Leading “the poor” in prayer is not innocuous at all. Pray or you don’t eat? Acknowledge a Greater Power to qualify for medical care? Not coercive? I guess you’ve never been proselytized at while being fed or cared for. I have. It’s always coercive. Don’t expect me to cooperate with being lead in prayer for any reason.
You can argue morality till the cows come home, but trying to replace their society with your screwed up alien culture is colonialist thinking. The poor dears, they just don’t know any better.
Really?
I think doing the right thing, helping people, is a self contained activity. I don’t think it is “screwed up colonial thinking” to help people.
I find it quite odd that anyone would make statements such as the ones you made.
I’m of two minds. On the one hand, the White Man’s Burden tradition of thinking you understand someone’s culture better than they do and that you’re in the perfect position to come in and fix all their problems for them is pretty gross and has led to some pretty fucked up situations that are too well-known for me to bother recounting.
On the other hand, when the matter comes up, I think about Charles James Napier, a major general in the British army occupying India, in response to the custom of suttee:
which you gotta admit is a pretty badass response.
I’m not saying their is a first world mindset that that is ignorant (at best) or patronizing (even worse) of 3rd world problems. I don’t think my posting history would indicate I did think in such a manner…
Unfortunately helping people is not a self contained activity. It has repercussions.
OP may or may not be correct in the view of the majority of the US for now.
50 years ago, there would not be any question.
Long term, this trend is not looking good for the OP’s position.
For me:
It is one thing to require the folks at a soup kitchen to listen to a sermon before being fed.
It is another thing to require conversion to a completely foreign religion as a pre-condition of receiving life-saving drugs.
You are in error.
If I respond to a claim that the death penalty is unpopular by saying that the majority of Americans favor the death penalty, and I support that claim by citing a poll showing that a majority of Americans favor the death penalty, mine is not argumentum ad populum.
Do you understand why?
Helping people? I thought the thread was about proselytizing.
I said Western culture/religion is screwed up and alien, not that colonial thinking is screwed up. I don’t think colonial thinking is inherently a part of Western culture, but one could certainly make an argument.
Proselytizing is marketing. I find it distasteful in general, just like a lot of product marketing, but also in the same way easy to ignore. Some proselytizing is aggressive and very offensive but I wouldn’t characterize all of it that way
How easy would it be to ignore if you didn’t have the strength to get up and move from your bed? (even if it was a nun praying at the cot next to you, not at your cot)
That’s just words. It’s still easy to ignore. There are a lot of annoying things in the world that I have to ignore every day. I don’t like proselytizing, but when it’s nothing but words it’s no different than the rest of the useless noise in the world. The harm from proselytizing comes when it’s taken past words.
We (I) am talking about people beat down and demoralized, both figuratively and literally, on deaths door. I’m not sure I agree with you that it is just “words” at that point. It would seem to me, to be more annoying than hearing someone’s opinion standing at the busstop.
If you are talking about people literally being beaten, Robert163, then I absolutely agree it’s aggressive.
I also believe that this is not missionary work “per se,” which is why I made certain to make clear in the OP that I was discussing missionary work itself, and not physical beatings, even though it’s true that in history there have been instances in which missionary work was combined with physical beating.