# Now that they are safe. WTF? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 16, 2001, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-that-they-are-safe-wtf/93668 "2001-11-16T04:00:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2001, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-that-they-are-safe-wtf/93668/81 "2001-11-17T01:04:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by kniz \* > First off, I am a Christian, not Muslim, Hindu, Buddist, Shinto, atheist, neo-pagan or wiccan. I am basically a Christian because I live in a predominately Christian society, which is the reason that most of you are Christian. Huh. And I thought most people were Christian because they feel a spiritual connection to the ideas and ideals espoused in the New Testament. I didn’t realize it was just to fit in with the crowd. Well, learn something new everyday. > [@](#): > > In order for us to function in the new global economy, global whatever, we must get over this idea that we know the one and only way to have a relationship with God, Allah, Yahweh or whatever name you want to use for Her/Him. The Afghans have their own religion and have no need for Christians telling them anything about a religion that is no better or no worse than the one they have. My church has sent missionaries to Spain, a highly Catholic country and to Russia which is Greek Orthodox. So we aren’t just interested in non-believers. Christianity is the most exclusionary major religion, besides the Hindu. We need to get over it. You make Islam sound like some sort of delicate flower that needs to protected from being stomped out by the big, bad Christians. Islam is a robust religion, that can hold it’s own against Christianity, thanks. And I don’t think the Afghans need you protecting them from scary new ideas, either. They already have the Taliban to do that for them. > [@](#): > > They say that they have changed since the days of Hawaii. Well back then they called it a mission, run by missionaries. Today, in Christian churches they have their Mission committees, Mission work and they send missionaries on missions to other countries. What has changed so much? They aren’t so agressive, but the **mission** is still the same and the churches, the participants and the people all know what it is all about. Yes. Eight under-funded missionaries stranded in Afghanistan at the beginning of the 21st century is certainly analogous to a concentrated effort by a foreign government to annihilate the native culture of Hawaii in the 19th. I’m not a Christian, myself, but I applaud these people, not just for their aid work, but for their proselytizing, as well. The people in Afghanistan live in a virtual vacuum: the only news of the outside world they get is filtered through the religious zealots that run the country. The only views they get of Christians, of Westerners in general, are the wildly distorted ones put out by the Taliban. I’d say that putting forward an honest portrait of the views and attitudes of Christians is every bit as vital as feeding the hungry. And as impressed as I am with the willingness of the missionaries to teach, even at the risk of their own lives, I am even more impressed at the desire of the Afghanis to learn, especially since they know better than anyone the consequences they faced. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2001, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-that-they-are-safe-wtf/93668/82 "2001-11-17T01:23:51Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by cazzle_ > As a general rule, I like Christians. They’re good people, and nothing in this discussion is directed at Christians in general, rather a specific group of Christians. Yeah? So how do you reconcile this statement with these, which you made at the beginning of the thread? > [@](#): > > Why can’t Christians go and help those in need without spouting off about their religion, especially to people who could be executed for listening to them? > [@](#): > > Can’t Christians do anything for someone else without expecting a renouncing of old ways and embracing of their faith? But you “don’t blame all Christians or all Christianity.” Sure. Hey Thumper, maybe if you can’t say what you mean, you shouldn’t say anything at all. > [@](#): > > This is why I asked - why can’t they help without expecting anything in return? They took conversion materials with them so they were expecting to be able to show them. You wouldn’t risk sneaking that stuff in if you thought you were never going to need it. Where, exactly, is the selfishness of religious conversion? Does God mail them twenty Jesus Dollars for every heathen who converts? Do they get into double-plus extra special heaven? ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2001, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-that-they-are-safe-wtf/93668/83 "2001-11-17T01:45:38Z")
> [@](#): > > Does God mail them twenty Jesus Dollars for every heathen who converts? Do they get into double-plus extra special heaven? Apparently [not](http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0041/0041_01.asp). [sub]PS **ROTFLMAO** about the Jesus Dollars![/sub] ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2001, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-that-they-are-safe-wtf/93668/84 "2001-11-17T01:52:56Z")
FWIW, I believe there ARE Christian missionaries that don’t deliberately set out to convert people-the Maryknoll order, and the Franciscans. I believe they simply try to provide a model in case people wish to convert, but I don’t believe they force it on people. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2001, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-that-they-are-safe-wtf/93668/85 "2001-11-17T02:08:05Z")
Well, gee, Jodi; didn’t those missionaries, er, aid workers, promise to the Taliban that they would obey the Taliban’s laws whilst they’re in Afghanistan? Guess telling little fibs isn’t a bad thing for some Christians. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2001, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-that-they-are-safe-wtf/93668/86 "2001-11-17T02:28:42Z")
I can think of almost no circumstance where it would be wrong to lie to the Taliban. Or do you think the Christians who sheltered Jews in WWII should have been totally honest about who they were hiding in their attic? Hey, does comparing the Taliban to the Nazis violate Godwins Law? ---
**Author:** ![Yondan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/278dde/32.png) [@Yondan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yondan)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2001, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-that-they-are-safe-wtf/93668/87 "2001-11-17T04:07:28Z")
I know that what the aide workers/missionaries told the government is a key point in the issue over their arrest, but it seems to me that another concern is being entirely overlooked; what about the idea of respecting a people’s faith regardless of what “government” is in place? I know the Taliban has placed itself in power and declared spirtual and moral authority over the Afghan people, but doesn’t the individual have any right to be respected in himself? I mean, suppose someone came to your home and started trying to convert your family while they were starving? Doesn’t that show a terrible lack of respect, not for the government, but for you and your family? On another hand, if what has been reported about the Afghani people is true, and they were both curious and interested in what the AW/M’s had to say, then perhaps that may be taken as an indication that they are much stronger than the Taliban thinks: the people can be interested and curious about another faith without having their own be shaken. In my heart I would love to believe that what was happening was a wonderful discovery of harmony between faiths, that both the AW/M’s and the Afghani people were discovering marvelous, horizon-broadening things in the exploration of different beliefs. ::sigh:: Sometimes I wonder why we make life so hard for ourselves…Even in this thread, it seems to me that both sides have the best intentions: One wants to be able to justify feeding the hungry and helping the needy. The other wants to support the right to believe without interference and to respect the integrity of cultures and individuality. Isn’t there a way to do them together? ::sits quietly and closes eyes to keep from crying:: ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2001, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-that-they-are-safe-wtf/93668/88 "2001-11-17T04:07:36Z")
MONTY – > [@](#): > > Well, gee, Jodi; didn’t those missionaries, er, aid workers, promise to the Taliban that they would obey the Taliban’s laws whilst they’re in Afghanistan? I don’t know what they said to the Taliban. > [@](#): > > Guess telling little fibs isn’t a bad thing for some Christians. Guess it ain’t. And I guess to some the “sin” of telling little fibs means that these aid workers are (trying to feed people) are worse than the Taliban (wantonly starving people) and therefore deserve whatever they get. ---
**Author:** ![kniz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/c37758/32.png) [@kniz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kniz)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2001, 6:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-that-they-are-safe-wtf/93668/89 "2001-11-17T06:44:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Yondan \* > \*\*::sigh:: > > Sometimes I wonder why we make life so hard for ourselves…Even in this thread, it seems to me that both sides have the best intentions: One wants to be able to justify feeding the hungry and helping the needy. The other wants to support the right to believe without interference and to respect the integrity of cultures and individuality. > > Isn’t there a way to do them together? > > ::sits quietly and closes eyes to keep from crying:: \*\* **Yondan** says it best. I have no problem with what the 8 workers did in helping supply food to the hungry. I really have no problem with them, but more with the system that sent them, and its intended purpose. I honestly do not think that there would have been enough support given to get them there if _spreading the word_ hadn’t been included. We need to help the needy and it is good if everyone becomes more aware of the beliefs of others, but missionary work uses the first in order to push the second onto others. **Miller** Why are there more Catholics in New Jersey than in Georgia? Why are there more Southern Baptists in Mississippi than in Oregon? Why are there more Hindus in India than in Peru? None are because of a spiritual connection. Also be sure you read the cite that **Tuckerfan** posted. What it comes down to is that you are going to hell (you are not a Christian); I am going to hell (I do not accept Jesus as my Savior). It doesn’t matter what you do and who you help, because what you do doesn’t matter. Therefore the good things those 8 people were doing doesn’t matter in Christianity. Until they got the Afghans to accept Jesus as their Savior, they were not helping them. The food was a means and not the end of the mission. That I do not consider to be enlightened, accepting of your fellow man or anything else that to me is Christian (but you see I am not a _good Christian_). ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2001, 9:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-that-they-are-safe-wtf/93668/90 "2001-11-17T09:04:19Z")
Obviously this topic touches some nerves. Including mine. I’ve met enough self-righteous fucks who’ve come over from the USA to convert the benighted darkie Muslims that I have little to no reservoir of trust. Further, frankly, I don’t respect much of the empty posturing and concern here. 6 months ago few people gave a fuck about the Afghanis. 6 months how many folks invested jack in understanding Islam or the region or whatever. Now it is all the rage, the easy outrage about cultures, lands and people not a handlful of people here have ever actually known. Easy motherfucking outrage. History and personal experience tell me this is cheap coinage for bad things. And the same tells me a year from now the bitching will be about paying taxes to help the bastards. (a) A ban on proslytizing is extent in every Middle East nation that I know of. This is a seperate event from any of the abuses of the Taleban. The question in play then is about proslytizing, not any of the other abuses by the Taleban. Claro? (b) Freedom of religion is not the law of the land in most of the region,nor do I see much local agitation for allowing Western Xtians to come and proslytize. Nor do I see this as the right of foreigners to come to another country and culture and presume to tell the locals what their rules on religion should be. It is counter-productive and far down on my totem pole for things that need to be changed. I direct those comments towards the concept that Xtian missionaries should be allowed in countries without Xtian minorities, or indeed to proslytize local Xtians. (Just ask a Copt in Cairo what he thinks about Baptists working to convert Copts.) The rights of locals vis-a-vis locals should of course be as equal as possible. Respect for locals, respect for their traditions and long term engagement with them produces improvements. Some shallow fucks on mission to spread their word, I have no respect for that. > [@](#): > > So we respect oppression wherever we find it, so long as it’s legal in the country in which it’s occurring? Those “local mores” about women being beaten to death if their husbands think they are acting immodestly – > gotta respect them, right? Do nothing about them? No, wait! If the women have a problem with it, they can fix it themselves, without outside help! After all, it’s THEIR cause. So, do Jodi, in your American law schooling did they teach you well how to ask when you stopped beating your wife or is that knee-jerk reaction? Or perhaps you simply believe Islam means beating women, eh? I’ll just say, Jodi, my on the ground real life experience tells me that there are good and bad ways to do things. Ways that satisfy oneself and ways which set up the path for long term change. Your women example is a different issue. There are ways to do things that satisfy the easy, comfortable outrage of middle-class white people and there are ways to achieve long-lasting change. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > > [@](#): > > > > > > If there is some Afghan Xtian community which needs support, I am for its rights. > > > > Given that the only allowable religion is Islam, that “Aghan Xtian community” would that be? Even if one exists – way, way underground – how can it help itself, given that locals failing to follow Islam are subject to > > being put to death? As a point of fact, if we can allow such things to get in the way of our easy Western outrage that some of our delicate sensibilities may have been violated when the nice white people were imprisoned, there are other religions “allowed” even under the Taleban. There is not an Afghani Xtian community, to my knowledge but certainly there are Bhuddists. The death sentance is not for Xtianity, its for proslytizing. Two different things. I don’t see a problem of \*\* failing\*\* to follow Islam, I see a problem of presumptous Westerners coming in and not respecting local norms. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > I am for the rights of residents to establish their own laws in regards to religion. > > And, one assumes, human rights? And those laws must all be respected, right? When you are a guest in a country, you fucking obey the laws. That’s it. Otherwise you pay the price. If you have good things to do, you do not indulge your personal cultural predicilictions if you want to do real good. I leave it to the locals to generate their own understandings and standards over time. That is the only thing that lasts, after the comfortable westerners move on to the new mediatized cause. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > I don’t have respect for Xtian missionaries coming in, proslytizing under the cover of more worthy actions, endangering the lives and activities of other Xtian workers who are respecting local mores and rules. > > There is no indication that they were proslytizing “under the cover” of more worthy actions, to the extent that this implies that one was a pretext for the other. You have your religious head up your ass. ---
**Author:** ![Spiny\_Norman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9de0a6/32.png) [@Spiny\_Norman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiny_Norman)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2001, 11:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-that-they-are-safe-wtf/93668/91 "2001-11-17T11:19:02Z")
**Miller** says: > [@](#): > > The people in Afghanistan live in a virtual vacuum: the only news of the outside world they get is filtered through the religious zealots that run the country. The only views they get of Christians, of Westerners in general, are the wildly distorted ones put out by the Taliban. Well - in that case, wouldn’t it make more sense to smuggle in a few back issues of Time or whatever than to smuggle in bibles and christian videotapes ? It sounds to me as if these missionaries were out to convert, not to enlighten. > [@](#): > > I’d say that putting forward an honest portrait of the views and attitudes of Christians is every bit as vital as feeding the hungry. It’s not an honest portrait and it’s certainly not “every bit as vital”. Have you ever been hungry ? These people **screwed up** feeding the hungry. They didn’t feed the hungry, because their own dumb actions got them in jail. Through their own misguided priorities, they placed themselves in a position of not feeding the hungry. If you’re an aid worker, you distribute aid. If whatever actions you take outside that makes you incapable of distributing aid, you’ve failed. These people blew it. Not through lack of courage, but through lack of proper priorities and common sense. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2001, 11:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-that-they-are-safe-wtf/93668/92 "2001-11-17T11:52:08Z")
I can think of two circumstances easily when it’s wrong to lie to the Taliban: [list=1][li]When you want the Taliban to issue you a visa to enter the area the Taliban control and thus want the Taliban’s permission to enter said area. Since, as with all visas, one agrees to follow the rules of the issuing agency, then telling a lie on that issue (or about your actual purpose for entering the area) is illegal.[/li][li]For someone saying they’re gong to be following their religion (i.e., one that follows the Decalogue, said Decalogue presumably including the prohibition against telling lies), then one should follow that religion. And yes, I realize that’s considered an extremist viewpoint–I certainly don’t hold that it’s wise to say “Hey, Taliban dudes, the person you’re looking for is hiding behind that secret door to your left,” but rather it’s more appropriate to say, “Yo, Taliban dudes, I haven’t seen the person you’re looking for.” But there are those who actually think the former method is the divinely sanctioned modus operandi.[/list=1][/li] I’m just saying I can easily think of two circumstances. The first one is, IMHO, a valid critique of the missionaries in question; the second one is my comment on extremists. ---
**Author:** ![kniz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/c37758/32.png) [@kniz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kniz)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2001, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-that-they-are-safe-wtf/93668/93 "2001-11-17T17:28:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Spiny Norman \* > \*\*These people **screwed up** feeding the hungry. They didn’t feed the hungry, because their own dumb actions got them in jail. Through their own misguided priorities, they placed themselves in a position of not feeding the hungry. > > If you’re an aid worker, you distribute aid. > > If whatever actions you take outside that makes you incapable of distributing aid, you’ve failed. These people blew it. Not through lack of courage, but through lack of proper priorities and common sense. \*\* This point made by **Spiny Norman** is a very good one, but it also emphasizes the point I made up above. The problem is that they were not aid workers, they were missionaries. To a Christian missionary the _acts_ are not important. What is important is conversion of the native people. As **Spiny** points out they failed at distributing aid. Their _failure_ was because they never took their eyes off the prime goal of converting. **Collounsbury** made a weighty, extended post to which I wish to give two thumbs up. ---
**Author:** ![musicguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ba0ec/32.png) [@musicguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/musicguy)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2001, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-that-they-are-safe-wtf/93668/94 "2001-11-17T20:10:32Z")
It seems that if these missionaries sole purpose was to feed the starving people, then there was absolutely no need to bring in the Christian materials with them. By doing so, they put their “mission” in jeopardy. They also could have put U.S. soldiers in harms way by having to rescue them. I have a hard time believing that any of these Afghan citizens were that interested in learning about Christianity. They were Muslims long before the missionaries ever got there. That doesn’t mean they were in agreement with the Talibans skewed view of Islam, but they already had a belief system in place. These missionaries believed that theirs was a “better” religion or they wouldn’t have brought that material with them. It just seems very arrogant to say “Well, sure you belong to one of the largest religions in the world, but we think you would be happier if you dropped that silly Muslim thing and became Christians”. Sorry, but if feeding starving people was of prime importance to them, they would have been careful not to risk that objective by breaking the local law. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2001, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-that-they-are-safe-wtf/93668/95 "2001-11-17T20:38:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Collounsbury \* > I’ve met enough self-righteous fucks who’ve come over from the USA to convert the benighted darkie Muslims that I have little to no reservoir of trust. Oh yea, lets play the race card again. I haven’t seen one ‘dark’ muslim on TV in Afghanistan, and lately I’ve seen plenty of video coverage. > [@](#): > > Further, frankly, I don’t respect much of the empty posturing and concern here. 6 months ago few people gave a fuck about the Afghanis. Speak for yourself. The Christian aid workers in question and others like Jay Leno’s wife have long been working for the cause of Afghan women and children. > [@](#): > > 6 months how many folks invested jack in understanding Islam or the region or whatever. Now it is all the rage, the easy outrage about cultures, lands and people not a handlful of people here have ever actually known. Easy motherfucking outrage. History and personal experience tell me this is cheap coinage for bad things. And the same tells me a year from now the bitching will be about paying taxes to help the bastards. And that means what? > [@](#): > > (a) A ban on proslytizing is extent in every Middle East nation that I know of. This is a seperate event from any of the abuses of the Taleban. The question in play then is about proslytizing, not any of the other abuses by > the Taleban. Claro? Any curtailment of freedom of speech should be challenged What happenned to Islam the tolerant religion? > [@](#): > > (b) Freedom of religion is not the law of the land in most of the region,nor do I see much local agitation for allowing Western Xtians to come and proslytize. Nor do I see this as the right of foreigners to come to another country and culture and presume to tell the locals what their rules on religion should be. It seems to me that is exactly what the Taleban was all about. Apparently the Taleban included many Pakistanis, Chechyns and Arabs who are now the recipients of much hatred by the liberated population. I don’t see the Christian aid workers recieving that kind of send off. > [@](#): > > I leave it to the locals to generate their own understandings and standards over time. That is the only thing that lasts, after the comfortable westerners move on to the new mediatized cause. I guess I need to point out that these christian aid workers were on the ground before September 11. To suggest that these people are motivated by media attention is utterly false. It is incomprehensible to me that you spend so much more vitriolic ink on these two young ladies than Obl or the Taleban. After watching these two brave and caring women interviewed on TV I can only say they represent the highest order of humanity . Mother Teresa rocks ! ---
**Author:** ![TeaElle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8491ac/32.png) [@TeaElle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TeaElle)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2001, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-that-they-are-safe-wtf/93668/96 "2001-11-17T22:29:47Z")
Let me make sure I get it: These women were wrong because they: a. Violated an onerous, prohibitive law that violates the basic rights of free speech and free exploration of ideas to everyone within that nation, natives and foreigners alike. The questions to this point – Is it wrong to violate a law which disregards the fundamental freedoms of human beings? Is it not a form of civil disobedience to do so? Is it not the best way to stand up and defy any regime the power to oppress?) b. They were wrong because they went to Afghanistan with more than one purpose - prepared to distribute aid, but also prepared to present information about their driving principle – their faith – to those who asked. (More has been alleged, but absolutely **cannot** be proven.) Questions: Is it wrong for aid workers to have more than one goal? Is it wrong for them to be prepared to meet both of those goals in sufficient fashion? To those who fall back on “but the materiel was illegal” refer to point a. c. They were wrong because they did not believe that Afghanistanis who asked about their religion should be ignored because of the aforementioned onerous and unjust law. Questions – are the Afghanistanis not as aware, if not more aware, of the penalties for discussion of other religions as the aid workers were? If they were willing to go out on the limb to ask about Christianity, risking their own safety, it might have been politically smart for the aid workers to say ‘We can’t talk about that’ but would that response not have been selfish in light of the Afghanistanis willingness to skirt the law? And would that response have been the correct one in light of the teachings of the aid workers own faith? d. Lastly, they were wrong because they did not believe that there is anything wrong about talking about their beliefs with someone of a different faith, especially if asked, and being prepared to do so in a way that those people would be able to understand. Questions – Should religious speech fall under the same protection as any other non-threatening speech? Should discussions of potentially contentious issues be automatically avoided if it is known ahead of time that the parties are of differing viewpoints, even when there is an earnest desire on one’s behalf to share their viewpoint persuasively (therefore non-offensively) and an equal desire on the other’s behalf to hear the other’s viewpoint? Is there anything inherently wrong with having material which is tailored to your audience? ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2001, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-that-they-are-safe-wtf/93668/97 "2001-11-17T23:31:11Z")
**Jodi:** \*“The Australian aid workers deny all the charges, despite the evidence against them (granted, it was supplied by the Taliban, not the most trustworthy regime ever, but some of the other aid workers have admitted that the stuff did belong to them).” That’s right. They deny it. But you believe the fucking Taliban before you’ll believe a Christian, because the Taliban are such upright truthtellers.\* Actually, **Jodi** , although I agree with you that the claims of the Taliban are pretty suspect, I think you may have missed the part where it says that some other aid workers **did** admit to bringing in these proselytizing\* materials. So it’s just not the word of the missionaries against that of the Taliban. Nice points, **Tracey**! Too good for a Pit thread, but let’s talk about 'em anyway: _The questions to this point – Is it wrong to violate a law which disregards the fundamental freedoms of human beings? Is it not a form of civil disobedience to do so? Is it not the best way to stand up and defy any regime the power to oppress?_ I agree that civil disobedience is an important mechanism for change, but—without being as contemptuous as **Collounsbury** is for the concept of universal human rights—I do see a difference between attempting civil disobedience in one’s own country and doing so in someone else’s. For one thing, the latter is much more liable to create a touchy international incident and make a lot of trouble for a lot of people. It’s one thing (and a very brave thing indeed) to risk your own life or liberty in defying an oppressive and unjust law; it’s not quite the same thing to endanger other people in doing so. _Questions: Is it wrong for aid workers to have more than one goal? Is it wrong for them to be prepared to meet both of those goals in sufficient fashion? To those who fall back on “but the materiel was illegal” refer to point a._ Depends what the goal is. As an atheist, I don’t personally object to missionaries trying to convert people—you gotta be true to your conscience—but I think it’s unreasonable of anybody to espouse the religious conversion of others as an explicit goal, and expect **not** to be accused of arrogance or insensitivity. Many people do consider other people’s efforts to convert them, or even just a desire to convert them, as a direct insult to their own religion. Moreover, aid workers in a foreign country are often tolerated where other foreigners wouldn’t be, precisely because they are perceived to be serving the very un-arrogant and altruistic goal of helping other people at their own personal risk. Using that perception as a screen for the goal of religious conversion—which missionaries may perceive as purely altruistic and unselfish, but which, as I said, many others see as arrogant—is likely to provoke resentment. Then there’s the issue of whether the missionary organization in question was actually “grandstanding”—going in with some level of expectation or even hope of encountering just such an inflammable situation, in order to create a dramatic incident that would draw public attention and sympathy to their cause. I **really** would not like to believe that any caring and compassionate people would be led astray by spiritual pride and ambition to this extent, and I don’t see any reason to conclude that this is what was going on. But on the other hand, some fundamentalist groups and some missionaries **are** kind of self-serving in this respect, and therefore many people are likely to question their motives. _Questions – are the Afghanistanis not as aware, if not more aware, of the penalties for discussion of other religions as the aid workers were? If they were willing to go out on the limb to ask about Christianity, risking their own safety, it might have been politically smart for the aid workers to say ‘We can’t talk about that’ but would that response not have been selfish in light of the Afghanistanis willingness to skirt the law? And would that response have been the correct one in light of the teachings of the aid workers own faith?_ I think this could go either way. On the one hand, it’s not very reasonable to demand that everybody avoid dangerous religious topics even to the point of answering direct questions about their own beliefs. On the other hand, there **are** , I believe, Christian-affiliated aid agencies whose policies don’t permit their workers to violate local “gag laws” on religious discussion, and they don’t seem to feel that this is hypocritical of them as Christians or invalidates their efforts to serve others. _Questions – Should religious speech fall under the same protection as any other non-threatening speech? Should discussions of potentially contentious issues be automatically avoided if it is known ahead of time that the parties are of differing viewpoints, even when there is an earnest desire on one’s behalf to share their viewpoint persuasively (therefore non-offensively) and an equal desire on the other’s behalf to hear the other’s viewpoint? Is there anything inherently wrong with having material which is tailored to your audience?_ Definitely, all of these are fine things, from the point of view of religious tolerance and respect for freedom of speech! But none of them really addresses the issue of whether or how one should modify one’s behavior in an alien society that explicitly repudiates religious tolerance and/or the principle of free speech. - Everybody else who has occasional problems with this word: I looked up the correct spelling, and there it is! 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2001, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-that-they-are-safe-wtf/93668/98 "2001-11-17T23:34:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by kniz \* > To a Christian missionary the _acts_ are not important. What is important is conversion of the native people. For crissakes, clean our your ears! It is not ALL CHRISTIAN MISSIONARIES!!! I pointed out several aid organizations that do NOT aim to convert! ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2001, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-that-they-are-safe-wtf/93668/99 "2001-11-18T00:30:32Z")
COLLOUSBURY – > [@](#): > > Obviously, this topic touches some nerves. Including mine. I’ve met enough self-righteous fucks who’ve come over from the USA to convert the benighted darkie Muslims that I have little to no reservoir of trust. Oh, right it’s all racism, right? :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > Further, frankly, I don’t respect much of the empty posturing and concern here. 6 months ago few people gave a fuck about the Afghanis. AFAIK, the aid workers in question were in Afghanistan attempted to help the Afghanis six months ago, and before. So you might argue that those of us here on a message board have no right to talk about these issues (and good luck with that argument) but you can hardly argue that the fact that Afghanistan is no center stage and en vogue has anything to do with the aid workers presence there. > [@](#): > > (a) A ban on proslytizing is extent in every Middle East nation that I know of. This is a seperate event from any of the abuses of the Taleban. The question in play then is about proslytizing, not any of the other abuses by > the Taleban. Claro? No. Because the argument is that if the ban in place is unreasonable, then perhaps one does not have an obligation to respect it. The argument further is that if the ban is in place by a regime that itself engages in human rights outrages against it’s own people, perhaps there is again reason not to respect it. Claro? > [@](#): > > (b) Freedom of religion is not the law of the land in most of the region,nor do I see much local agitation for allowing Western Xtians to come and proslytize. Do you see much local agitation for the idea of religous freedom whatsoever? If the people in the region are only allowed to hear about or learn about one religion – and not encouraged to think for themselves – on what basis would they agitate for the right to hear other viewpoints? Out of curiosity, where do you stand on the idea of freedom of ideas? > [@](#): > > So, do Jodi, in your American law schooling did they teach you well how to ask when you stopped beating your wife or is that knee-jerk reaction? This is totally nonresponsive to what I said, which was, in effect, that the argument “we must respect local laws, customs, and mores!” is a weak argument when the local laws, customs, and mores are indefensible and unjust. The argument is one of analogy: “The law told the aid workers they could not talk about religion, and the local law should have been respected.” Well, the local law is that women cannot hold jobs – not even if destitute – but may beg for food if they have no man to support them. If local law should be respected, should we respect that one as well? I trust it is clear why this analogy, agree with it or not, is not the same as the old “when did you stop beating your wife” chestnut. > [@](#): > > Or perhaps you simply believe Islam means beating women, eh? By God, that’s it! :rolleyes: I was not talking about Islam at all; I was talking about the law under the Taliban. (Though AFAIK the law is similar in other fundamentalist Islamic countries, such as Saudi Arabia.) > [@](#): > > Your women example is a different issue. There are ways to do things that satisfy the easy, comfortable outrage of middle-class white people and there are ways to achieve long-lasting change. Actually, I don’t think it is a different issue, at least not to the extent I raised it, which – again – was merely to illustrate that the assertion “local laws must be respected” is implicitly premised on the assumption that the local laws are worthy of respect, and that one does not actively violate one’s own beliefs and principles by respecting them. > [@](#): > > As a point of fact, if we can allow such things to get in the way of our easy Western outrage that some of our delicate sensibilities may have been violated when the nice white people were imprisoned, there are other religions “allowed” even under the Taleban. Really, if you don’t wish to open yourself up to accusations of intentionally distorting the issue, kindly leave out the implicit accusations of racism. I never said that no other religions are allowed under the Taliban. In responding to _your_ comment about “local X-tian communities,” I merely pointed out that there _isn’t_ one, because they do not _allow_ one – which you now admit. > [@](#): > > I don’t see a problem of failing to follow Islam, I see a problem of presumptous Westerners coming in and not respecting local norms. Again, this begs the (actually very interesting) question if, when the “local norms” are unjust, whetheer there is an obligation to respect them – to the extent of not attempting to do anything to subvert them, not even surreptitiously. > [@](#): > > When you are a guest in a country, you fucking obey the laws. That’s it. Otherwise you pay the price. If you have good things to do, you do not indulge your personal cultural predicilictions if you want to do real good. I leave it to the locals to generate their own understandings and standards over time. That is the only thing that lasts, after the comfortable westerners move on to the new mediatized cause. Out of curiousity, where does this leave you with regard to such local customs as cliterodectomies, wives being thrown on their husband’s burial pyres, children being sold into slavery, and homosexuals being put to death? I realize that this exceeds the question in this thread, but your response interests me, and I’d like to know: What is the limit of respect for local laws and mores? How does that respect jibe with the idea of universal human rights? I said “There is no indication that they were proslytizing “under the cover” of more worthy actions, to the extent that this implies that one was a pretext for the other,” to which you reply > [@](#): > > You have your religious head up your ass. This is so obviously nonresponsive that I will assume you couldn’t think of a responsive reply. But I would remind you that you don’t _have_ to be a prick to me just because you don’t agree with me. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2001, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-that-they-are-safe-wtf/93668/100 "2001-11-18T00:33:58Z")
And my apologies for having misspelled your name; I realize that’s one of your (minor) pet peeves. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-that-they-are-safe-wtf/93668.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-that-they-are-safe-wtf/93668.md?page=6)