I would say feeding them. But as I understand it(or misunderstand it), souls are more important than bodies to many religious types.
And DMC, a quetsion:
Neither were denied. Maybe because neither were alledged. Do you have a cite for where they were accused of withholding aid from those who would not listen to a pitch?
One thing I think we should all accept is that the aid workers are extremely brave people. That doesn’t necessarily make them good people. Suicide bombers are brave people too. Anyone willing to sacrifice or endanger one’s life for one’s principles is brave. But those who disagree with those principles are going to think such a person stupid and unnecessarily reckless.
News reports here (France) have implied that the aid workers were preaching to the locals. I haven’t heard allegations that they were trading food for conversions or interest in converting. So personally I believe that they kept the distribution of food separate from any proselytism. In that case, they still went to a foreign country and willfully broke the law of that country. So I think they knew what they were getting into and, like cazzle, I don’t have much sympathy for them (primarily because I don’t share the principles for which they did it). But on the other hand, I don’t think they deserved the penalties which happen to be the law in this particular foreign country, so I’m glad they got away.
yosemitebabe, in answer to your questions, I don’t think there is anything wrong with “imposing” one’s religion while helping the poor and needy. If the aid workers did what I think they did in Afghanistan, I don’t think what they did is wrong. I’m not sure what I would think about a Christian charity distributing food only to needy Christians, though. On the one hand, they should have the right to give food to whomever they want. And it’s better for some people to get it than none. But on the other hand, it seems a bit mean-spirited. I know this isn’t really relevant, but what do you think about it?
This I agree with. My problem with cazzle’s statements was not that she didn’t sympathize with them, but that she was condemning (or at least it looked that way to me) them, and then using a broader stroke and condemning the entire religion.
Okay, so these workers are brave and giving. I will not deny that. BUT, it was very foolish of them to even bring the video or any other materials about Christianity to Afghanistan, which has often been described as the most dangerous place in the world. And, when people asked for information about Christ, they should have told them it was not lawful for them to share it. There are places where it would have been relatively safe to do that, but I don’t think Afghanistan is one of them - AND I think that’s something they knew.
Caricci to tell them it’s not lawful for them to do it? As had been mentioned here many times, Christians have a duty to break a law if the law tells them to do something against their conscience.
And the point to that story is that he was willing to die for what he believed. So this post is another case of apples and oranges.
kniz do you have evidence that the aid workers were NOT willing to die for what they believed? Given that they went into such a dangerous situation means that they accepted the risk of death. So no, it’s not comparing apples to oranges.
Hang on. So they’ve admitted to showing people videos about Christ, right?
And presumably these people didn’t all speak English, so they must have been in local languages, right? And this is actually a fact that hasn’t been denied, yes?
So we have here people that have taken videos about Christ that aren’t even in their own language into Afghanistan.
And - let me get this straight - you’re trying to tell me that they weren’t there trying to preach or proseletyze?
It is to laugh!
The appropriate response to “Tell me about your God” certainly was not “Hang on - I’ll fetch the video!”
Wow.
I mean - I feel for them as human beings and all, but they certainly did bring it all on themselves.
And whilst we’re all trying to defend eachother: don’t be mean to Redboss. He’s cuddly.
pan
I think some people are unhappy here - possibly even legitimately unhappy - at a perceived double standard being applied here, to the detriment of Christians. If I might illustrate:-
Taliban destroy unique Buddhist statues. Response: “Taliban SWINE! Such cultural insensitivity!”
Taliban pass oppressive laws on women. Response: “Taliban SCUM! Violating basic human rights!”
Taliban harbour terrorists. Response: “Taliban FILTH! Nuke 'em till they glow!”
Taliban arrest Christian aid workers. Response: “Stupid bloody missionaries were just asking for trouble…”
I wonder, will we see a similar response if and when our military forces in Afghanistan take casualties? After all:
Just asking.
Steve Wright, I don’t think the comparison between destruction of statues, passing oppressive laws, harbouring terrorists and arresting Christian aid workers is valid. Those who say that the Christian aid workers were “asking for trouble” because they broke the law would probably agree that the law in question is nevertheless oppressive. And I doubt destruction of a couple of statues is in the same league as the others. Most people saw that action as an example of the ridiculous narrow-mindedness of the Taliban rather than any kind of cruelty or injustice.
Your last analogy was better - will people feel sorry if American soldiers die during the current war in Afghanistan? They are knowingly endangering their lives because a higher power has ordered it of them. Personally, I wouldn’t have as much sympathy for them as I would for ordinary civilians who don’t put themselves in harm’s way. But it does largely depend on the degree to which one believes in the principles behind the actions. I think the air strikes are justified and will have at least one positive outcome (the overthrow of the Taliban). So I would feel more sympathy for those who die in the line of this particular duty as I would for missionaries who (from my irreligious perspective) are not accomplishing anything worthwhile.
Ah yes, I forgot that giving aid to the needy is not worthwhile :rolleyes:
Certainly I feel that Christians who choose to put themselves in harms way, knowing that they face Bad Things if they are found out are somewhat less deserving of my sympathy than women born into a regime that keeps them surpressed with no hope of change.
Of course I don’t condemn the missionaries. I condemn those who pass the rules forbidding free religious choice. But the missionaries knew the score before they went there. Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time.
YMMV, of course.
pan
Neurotik, I mentioned in my previous post that I believe the aid workers kept proselytisation separate from distribution of food to the needy. In which case, they got into trouble not for distribution of food, but for attempting to spread the word of Christ. That is not a worthwhile goal to me. I don’t think it is evil or insensitive or wrong, but I don’t think it is worth endangering one’s life.
However, if it turns out that the aid workers did not actually make any effort to convert the locals, then they got into trouble for merely being Christian aid workers distributing food to the needy. In that case, I think that the principle for which they endangered their lives is very worthwhile indeed.
Hmmm. I don’t think I’m claiming that the four examples I quoted are all equal in magnitude. What I am suggesting, though, is that in all four cases it is the Taliban who have acted wrongly, but only in the case of the Christian missionaries is there an element of blaming the victims of their actions. Freedom of religious belief and freedom of expression are considered basic human rights (and ones which I respect - you don’t see me going around telling atheists to shut up).
(It does seem, though, as more actual facts emerge, that the aid workers involved were actively preaching. Well, this shouldn’t be a crime - but I feel obliged to reiterate: this is not typical of Christian aid agencies, which normally do not engage in such activity.)
pennylane - so, talking to Afghans about Jesus is not considered worthwhile, but sending them home to Him with cluster bombs is? In this fallen world of ours, I think you might be right :(.
Well, from my perspective, there is no real difference between Christianity and Islam (but let’s not get into an argument about this here) so offering Muslims the possibility to become Christians doesn’t seem to me to be very worthwhile.
Sadly, if killing some of them off is what it takes to rid them (and the rest of us - missionaries included) of an oppressive and cruel regime, then it does have some worth to me. A worth that is offset by many negative consequences, of course.
But they were, they said they showed a video and furnished other material. You even say they did.
Note the title of thread is Now that they are safe
Maybe it would help if you’d read about the missionaries in Hawaii. Their rationalization was that they were helping those poor people, who ran around half nude and didn’t know there was only one correct way to copulate.
kniz:
My favourite quote about the missionaries to Hawaii is:
Although many people want to think of it differently, we in the U.S. live in a Christian community. So if I am down on my luck and go to a church for a meal, I know what that church stands for and can take or leave whatever they have hanging on the wall or what they say before the meal. I wonder what would happen though if a Muslim mosque set up a soup kitchen in a Christian community.
I might be wrong but I believe that the reason the Muslims don’t do this is because they accept the Jewish and Christian religions as being of the book** and therefore there is no reason to attempt to convert members of the Christian faith.
My problem is that these people were sent into a Moslem country in an attempt to introduce Christianity. They took a video with them, how many bags of wheat did they take? What was it exactly that they were doing? And it isn’t really those 8 people, it was the ones that sent them. If you want to say “Why don’t you go?” say it to the people that sent them and stayed behind in their safe places.
**contrary to bin Laden perversion of Islam.
Even if it’s putting the people they are supposed to be helping at risk? Forget the risk to the aid workers, what about the risk to the people to whom they showed the Christian materials. I don’t know if those people suffered consequences, but certainly they could have.
I can not imagine the aid workers didn’t know the risks in general.
It would appear that these people went to Afghanistan with two purposes:
A: To help the needy, feed the hungry, etc.
B: To persuade people to convert to Christianity.
Unfortunately, in attempting B they messed up their chances of doing A. Their proselytizing effectively prevented them from doing any further aid work. Ressources spent on bringing them to Afghanistan didn’t fully benefit the Afghans.
IMHO, jeopardizing an aid mission in that desperately poor country in order to further one’s religion demonstrates some rather unsound priorities.
I do not question their courage. But I do consider them severely lacking in common sense.
Does anyone know what happened to the Afghans they were trying to convert ?