Now that they are safe. WTF?

The BBQ Pit
61

A couple of things: First, the situation in Afghanistan is hardly the same as the situation was in Hawaii, unless you consider it rank American imperialism to attempt to feed starving people. Missionaries were sent to Hawaii with the primary purpose of converting the natives. Aid workers were sent to Afghanistan to provide humanitarian aid.

Second, I have never said that people must have sympathy for the aid workers’ ordeal. What bugs me is the generalized attack on these people (not merely a withholding of sympathy, but an attack) just because they’re Christian – the assertion that because they’re Christian they shouldn’t have been there in the first place; the assertion that they withheld aid until they could preach to people; the assertion that if they were really CHRISTIAN they would have “kept their mouths shut” – even though there is NO evidence they EVER withheld aid and even though they might well have a religious obligation to discuss their religion if asked. (Many evangelical Christians consider that a duty.)

Third, there is a double standard at work here. Lord yes, let’s criticize the Taliban for oppressing the people of Afghanistan in ways big and small, but by God when it comes to laws forbidding people to talk about their faith – laws significantly more unjust than not allowing people to own a television – well, those are laws that ought to be respected.

These are people who gave up everything to go to Afghanistan to help others. They risked their lives to discuss their faith, knowing they were breaking the law in doing so – a move no less gutsy and no less an act of conscience for being foolhardy. They lived their beliefs to the best of their abilities, and almost lost their lives because of it. To point to such people as examples of what is wrong with Christianity, or to indict the whole religion on the basis of their actions is ridiculous.

62

Well. The aid workers may have acted unwisely - though we don’t know for sure the extent of their alleged perfidy. On the other hand, we do know for sure that the Taliban acted wrongly, denying basic human rights. So, should our bile not be more properly directed against the Taliban? (Yuck.)

I’m reminded of one of the stories of the Mullah Nasrudin here, which I shall reproduce as far as I remember it.

One night, thieves broke into Nasrudin’s house, and took almost everything of value. His neighbours came to look at the damage.

“You should not have left your valuables in plain view,” said one.
“A child could force the locks on that window! What were you thinking of?” said another.
“You should have kept guard, or hired a watchman,” said a third.
“This is your fault, Mullah, you should take better care of your property,” added a fourth.

“Just a moment,” cried Nasrudin. “Surely I am not the only one to blame!”

“Why, who else is there?” asked the neighbours.

“What about the thieves?” said Nasrudin.

63

And I cannot imagine that the Afghanis asking them about their religion didn’t know the risks, either.

Are you implying that the Afghanis who asked them about their religion didn’t know that it was against the law? I suspect that they did. Or are you implying that the missionaries who go to Afghanistan have a responsibility to treat the locals like ignorant children too dumb to be able to calculate risk on their own and decide what risks these people should take?

64

[QUOTE]
*
**

I am not saying that at all and I’m rather amused that you would take that leap, but I am saying that, just because the locals chose to put themselves at risk, does not make it right, humane, moral or helpful for the aid workers to contribute to that risk.
Here in our own country, it is unlawful and immoral to contribute to certain risks, even if the people who wish to take the risks are willing. Why would it be okay elsewhere? Are the lives of those in Afghanistan less valuable than, say, a 17 year old wishing to buy beer?

65

Well, that post doesn’t look like it makes sense, but, trust me, I’m not arguing with myself.

66

Considering that Jesus is the second-holiest person in the Quran, after Mohammed, I’m kinda disinclined to believe that the natives had never heard of him before.

67

I will second that Qagop. I’ve encounted these kinds of folks before. I have no tolerance for them. They don’t show respect and they put others doing straight up work in danger.

All this blather about Universal Rights and whatnot is crap. When you are in a country you can bloody well follow its rules are you suffer the consequences.

68

Lol that’s a pretty specious analogy.

I suppose you have a pretty low opinion of people who snuck slaves out of the South too.

69

Just think. I mean “critically” think. If we all follow this sage advice, there would be peace everywhere.

70

If American blacks had taken that advice 40 years ago, black people would still be sitting in the back of the bus.

71

For the critically thinking impaired, foreigners are not the same as local residents. These fuckheads do not compare with blacks RESIDENTS of the south struggling on their own (and yes with some northern assistance to their cause, THEIR cause.)

Further, I see no real connection between Afghans religious practice and the right of foreigners to come in and proslytize.

If there is some Afghan Xtian community which needs support, I am for its rights.

I am for the rights of the Bhuddist community.

I am for the rights of residents to establish their own laws in regards to religion.

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.

72

According to the Frontline documentary that PBS aired last night, the main reason that there’s been an explosion of whacked out Muslim fundamentalists of late is that they’re the only ones to go into poor areas of Islamic countries and provide aid and educational materials. So some Christians decide to do the same thing and it nearly gets them killed, yeah, it makes me want to question their sanity, but considering what the alternative has been of late (whacked out Muslim fundamentalists doing it), I have to say that they did the right thing. And no, FTR, I am not a Christian.

73

I read therefore that that foreigners who espouse ideas contrary to despotic laws have only themselves to blame for enduring consequences courtesy of the regime? To extrapolate on this absurd concept, one would have to question the United Nations efforts on promoting human rights throughout the world, including the freedom of religion.

That usually translates to the rights of whatever subgroup is in power or in the majority. So much for the concept of separation of Church and State.

And I have every respect for those who risk their lives for what they believe in. All people can take responsibility for there own risks and to subject some Christian workers to take responsibility for the risks that Afghans take by association is paternalistic at best.

74

COLLOUNSBURY –

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.

Given that the only allowable religion is Islam, what “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?

And, one assumes, human rights? And those laws must all be respected, right?

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.

75

They were accused (and did deny) trading food for conversion, as you can see here. I don’t have a cite stating that they were accused of withholding aid for not listening, nor was I trying to make that statement. I only stated the evidence that caused me to come to the conclusion that they were “doing a little bit of preaching”, as in providing a meal with a dash of Jesus. I’m sure they still fed the ones who ignored them.

Here’s another vague answer from the website that leads me even further down that path:

For the record, a large number of charitable organizations have Christians who work/volunteer for them, but don’t find it necessary to do any proselytizing. While their religious beliefs may be what motivates them to help (and that’s just peachy by me), they leave the “materials in the local languages” at home. I’ve never had a Red Cross volunteer tell me that Jesus is smiling on me when I give blood, even though a fair number of them have likely been Christian.

76

This whole situation makes me think of a visit I had not too long ago from a couple of very nice, polite young men who wanted to come into my home and talk to my family and me about God.

I told them this would be fine, if they were willing to have a real conversation, in that they would promise to be as open to listening to our ideas and beliefs as they were asking us to be.

I don’t think they had ever gotten a response like that before, because they were quiet for a moment, and then asked, “well, what would that mean?”

And I said, “well, what do you want to talk about?”

“Prayer, for one thing, and how you talk to God.”

“Well,” I said, “right there we have an issue. As Taoists, we don’t use the word ‘god,’ nor do we pray. Would you be willing to consider talking about that?”

“No, because that would mean denying God. We couldn’t do that.”

“But you expect us to set aside what we believe and redefine how we see the world as wrong. I believe that you are both good men with kind hearts, but I am not going to allow you to come into my home and tell my family that the beliefs and world view we have grown up with are wrong. This is offensive and intolerable. Can you see this?”

They didn’t have answer for that, and decided to try the house up the street.

Now, I know that the situation with Afghanistan is vastly more complicated, but it seems to me that the issue here in this thread hinges on the principle illustrated in my little story; it is not just that many Christian organizations do good work (for which they should be lauded), it is that conversion and proselytizing are basic, historical elements of Christian faiths. GrimSpectreof Death nailed it right away; it’s because they have a firm hold on the truth. In my experience, this has too often translated as having the only truth, and being unwilling to entertain the notion that other paths are equally valid.

If we take Steve Wright’s ideas:

and add

Christian missionaries seek to undermine local beliefs by converting Muslims to Christianity in their own country.

Maybe that demonstrates that there isn’t really a double standard, so much as exposing a deeply disquieting notion that no one is really blameless in this whole bloody situation.

Now, is Christian missionary work as profound an offense as those ascribed to the Taliban? I would say no, of course not, but if my family had been starving, and the only way to feed them was to let those two young men in, and, after promising they would not try to convert my family, found them to be doing so, I would be very, very angry. In addition, I do not believe that it would be up to them to decide what is offensive in my own house. That is my prerogative and my family’s.

I am inclined to believe that the aid workers went there to help, but that “help” probably included a mission to convert non-Christians to the “truth.” Even if they never did anything without being asked, the offensive nature of their actions is not theirs to define. SO, I am inclined to agree with Cazzle et al’s point, that it would have been a far better thing to have offered help and kept silent.

Note: I am not trying to say that the recent missionary work is a direct cause of any terrorist attacks, or that those attacks were in any way justifiable.

77

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. 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.

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.

78

(a) several times this thread, there has been a conversation kind of like this:
Person A: the aid workers went into a foreign country and defied the laws. They knew what they were getting into
Person B: what? why should they respect those laws? if people had respected the laws in the 60’s, there would have been no civil rights movement, blah blah blah

The point, if I may speak for Person A, is not that the law is fair, and is not that one should not protest or be outraged by unfair laws. The point is that being arrested snd prosecuted is a predictable outcome from defying unfair laws, and the fact that it occurred should not shock or horrify anyone, including the aid workers themselves. I don’t think anyone in this thread has said, or even implied, that those laws are OK.
(b) No one seems to have any remotely solid information about the extent to which the proselytizing/preaching/converting was tied to the distribution of aid. The Taliban says one thing. The aid workers themselves say something else. Neither of those two sources is impartial.
© To reiterate a point many other people have already made, it is entirely possible to respect the bravery and fundamental goodness (risking their lives for a cause they believed to be humanitarian) of the aid workers, while simultaneously believe they acted somewhat foolishly and/or had skewed priorities
(d) To those of you who are most strongly defending the aid workers, if you were in their situation, and an Afghan family asked you about Jesus, would you tell them about Jesus? What if you thought that it was highly likely that this would result in them being killed? What if they had 10 children?

79

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.

The group in specific seem good. They give aid, both physical and spiritual. They give of themselves to people in need. They take time out of their lives to travel to unpleasant and dangerous places to assist those who can’t assist themselves. What special people they must be.

However, all the good images that the previous paragraph brings to mind are undone by the events we’ve been discussing here. They entered a country that they knew was dangerous. They were given permission to be there to assist the starving, and to hand out food, but were forbidden to bring materials to aid conversion under the threat of the death penalty. So they agreed to these terms, but smuggled the forbidden material in anyway, violating the law of the country they were visiting and living a lie about their purpose. If their true goal was to distribute food, they wouldn’t have jeopardized their situation by smuggling conversion materials in. When arrested, they would have admitted telling others of their beliefs. 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).

This includes traveling to the country in order to break the law? This law wasn’t forced upon them - they weren’t residents of Afghanistan. They traveled there, they chose to enter the country in order to break the law.

I don’t blame all Christians or all Christianity. I blame the Christians that use Christianity as an excuse for their actions.

Spooje, call me naive, but isn’t the whole idea of charity to give, and not expect to receive? When I give charity, I don’t expect anything in return.

Ok, so you people have me busted. I’m not a saint or a matyr. I don’t travel to war-torn countries and put myself in danger to help those who are needier than I. I don’t do anything to help my fellow man. I am a waste of space upon this planet. A taker, not a giver.

But I’ve never gone to another country and
a. Lied about why I’m there (if they were truthful, they would have said they were there to feed the hungry and spread the word as they had been commanded to - their omission is tantamount to a lie)
b. Smuggled in contraband, no matter how innocent it may seem to me, or how unfair the local laws may seem to me
c. Broken local laws once I’m in.
d. Passed the blame for my disobedience on to others, putting their lives at risk - they “asked to see it” doesn’t get the aid workers off the hook, but it does make the locals eligable for the similar punishments.

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.

80

MAX –

But that is NOT the point regarding the law, since no one has said they were “shocked” or “horrified” by the arrest. The point regarding the law is that the statement “they should obey the law” is oversimplistic when the law is unjust. So the mere fact that what they were accused of doing was illegal doesn’t mean it wasn’t nevertheless the right thing to do, at least in their eyes.

Certainly. But that’s not what the OP said. The OP said:

If you can find either respect for their bravery, their fundamental goodness, or their religious beliefs in that mess, you’re a better reader than I.

If I had a religious obligation to do so, which evangelical Christians believe they do, then yes. I would.

Are they aware of the risks in asking? Are they adults? Why is it my obligation to keep them free of knowledge about a subject they have asked about? Isn’t that the worst kind of paternalism? Where is there any recognition that Afghans, like the Americans, knew what the law was and knew the potential penalties of violating it?

CAZZLE –

Then you should not take it upon yourself to declare that evangelical Christians, with a duty to witness when asked, are being unChristian to do just that.

In your mind, you mean. The fact that the gave up everything to go to a country you admit was dangerous, to feed the hungry natives at no benefit to themselves – all the good they did as humanitarians – is totally cancelled out by the fact that they brought in religious materials in defiance of law that any reasonable person must admit is unjust.

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.

What utter bullshit They TRAVELLED there as AID WORKERS who happen to be Christian. Why does the secondary goal (if indeed it was a secondary goal) of spreading their faith in your mind entirely cancel out the primary goal?

You need to bone up on the difference between a reason and an excuse.

Do you have any evidence that these aid workers asked for or demanded anything as a prerequisite for giving aid? Do you have any evidence that they ever expected anything in return? Or are you just talking out of your ass in your zeal to cast these people’s actions in the worst light possible?

Then maybe you should shut up about people who have the generosity and the courage of convictions that you apparently lack.

b. Smuggled in contraband, no matter how innocent it may seem to me, or how unfair the local laws may seem to me
c. Broken local laws once I’m in.
d. Passed the blame for my disobedience on to others, putting their lives at risk - they “asked to see it” doesn’t get the aid workers off the hook, but it does make the locals eligable for the similar punishments.
[/quote]

All of which in your mind is ever so much worse than bringing food in and feeding the starving. Should have just left them to starve, huh?

It seems to me that you expect Christians to just leave their beliefs at home – even if it is those very beliefs that prompt them to go out into the world to try to do good in the first place. I fail to see why you cannot see the contradiction in that. If they didn’t have the depth of faith that required them to answer honestly when asked about their beliefs, they probalby wouldn’t have had the depth of faith to be compelled in the first place.

You may think they were deeply misguided. But to paint them as nefarious liars who withheld food until they could preach their subversive message is total idiocy.