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!
