Jodi:I just object to the idea that these people were doing something intentionally nefarious, as opposed to misguided, and to the implication that their idiocy (if indeed idiocy it is) and their arrogance (if indeed etc.) is uniquely “Christian” – an idea supported by the very people who in the same breath say “well, not all Muslims are like that, you shouldn’t generalize about what Muslims do.”
Fair nuf. Not guilty, yer honor.
*I am more interested as an intellectual matter in where the rubber of “respect for local customs” meets the “road of implicitly sanctioning human rights abuses.” *
I agree. And I may be wrong about this, but I think this is where the international community as a whole, and the US in particular, can be doing and should be doing more to try to encourage the spread of basic human rights. I think we tend to have a rather bifurcated policy in this regard, oscillating dramatically between the poles of “you folks cut that out now or we’ll bomb your asses” and “you folks have to handle this yourselves as you see fit.” I think it gets especially difficult when we switch gears fairly suddenly in the same region, as we did in Afghanistan: we provided heavy military support and resources to get the Soviets out, but after that, AFAICT, didn’t provide much in the way of incentives for a peaceful, stable resolution once the “good guys” had “won”. In the Middle East, too, it seems that we are being very “hands-off” with a lot of extremely undemocratic and repressive regimes, largely because they are reasonably compliant on oil issues. That seems to perpetuate popular rsentment of the regimes and hence more demagoguery and religious extremism. Maybe if we leaned on our friends a little more when it comes to human-rights issues—with much more carrot than stick, of coursse—they wouldn’t end up turning into such toxic enemies.
I just don’t think that providing aid was the primary goal because if it was, they failed. They brought all of that material with them just in case someone asked them about their religion? Seems like they could just verbally respond to questions. That would work just as well yet put them and the people that asked in a far less dangerous situation.
What if the Taliban had not released them, and chose instead to use them as human shields? We would have had to send in a covert rescue operation in that would have risked the lives of soldiers to save their asses. While their intentions seem sincere, they didn’t seem to think much about the potential consequences of their actions.
Yes, you did but one problem is that they are Catholic organizations and they are not the one’s that today send out missionaries to proselytize. When Martin Luther broke from the Catholic church he came up with the idea that what you do will not save you from going to hell and that the only way was thru acceptance of Jesus as one’s Savior. Therefore this is protestant and not Catholic Christianity that I’m talking about. Fundies and evangies both believe strongly in this and therefore if they go to distribute aid they do not believe that they have really done any good until they have tried to convert. That is why the video and other materials were taken.
Shelter Now does not seem to be a fundie organization, but that doesn’t mean that there aren’t fundie workers. It is possible that the Australian and the German members did not know what was happening and only the two American girls were involved.
We need to get away from the idea of missionaries, because that is very much like George W. using the word “crusade”. I personally don’t see why they even would call themselves Christian aid workers. Jesus said that you should do good and not call attention to yourself. There is no doubt in my mind that it is asking for trouble when you allow Christian fundies to go work in a country filled with Islamic fundies. They both are mutually exclusive and nothing can come of it but trouble.
Speaking as a non-Christian (mainly sorta and certainly not devout), bleah. I’ll say the same thing I said when they were captured.
If they were spreading the word, they were doing it because they were Christians. That, my friend, is what Christians are called to do. I’m not going to cite chapter and verse here (namely because I don’t know if that’s allowable in the Pit) but if you can find me a single instance of Jesus not taking the opportunity to tell people the word, I’d like to see it. If you can find a single instance of the disciples in the Bible not taking a chance to spread the word, I’d like to see it. If you can find a single instance of Jesus or the disciples saying “If it might be dangerous, keep your mouth shut and let the people live in ignorance until it might one day be safe”, I’d like to see it.
Per the law, render unto God what belongs to God and render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar. In case that’s too hard to decipher: Follow the laws of man until they conflict with the law of God at which point the laws of God take over.
Hey, you don’t have to like it or agree with it. Lots of people in the Bible didn’t like it or agree with it either. But the reason why they don’t just give aid and shut the hell up? Because they’re Christians and that’s not what Jesus did. The reason why they’d go to some potentially life threatening situation to spread the word? Because that’s what Jesus and the disciples did. I know you’d like it if all Christians just ignored the teachings and actions of their saviour and did what you personally thought was shiney-happy, but then they wouldn’t be Christians, now would they?
Thank you, Musicguy. These were the points I was going to cover next.
So what if they have an obligation to speak about their religion if they are asked? They do not have an obligation to provide the handy video cassette, conveniently dubbed into the local language. They can tell the story of Christ in their own words, can’t they? Because these people were arrested not just for spreading the word, but for smuggling in banned materials. And before we get started on “Maybe they weren’t good speakers”, I’d like to know why an organisation like Shelter Now would send aid workers off to a hostile place like Afghanistan without first covering “What to say if you are asked about religion, considering our obligation to speak of it when asked”. Surely this is something that they should be trained to face, rather than saying “Oh, just show them this video tape, which by the way is banned in their country, so hide it well in your suitcase because they’ll execute you if they find it”.
How about YOU show the rest of us a single instance int escriptures where the Lord says “Go ahead and preach the message even if it’ll only get you deported from the country in which you preach it but it will end up getting the people to whom you preached killed.”
I’d be fascinated to see that, especially after you contrast it with “Thou shalt not kill.”
While most of you feel it neccessary to bash these beautiful young Christian aid workers for not obeying Taliban rules and providing opportunity for risk to Afghan locals, remember that these workers will be more than welcome to return to Afghanistan following the liberation wheras I cannot presume the same for their Taleban captors.
“Therefore, go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.” - Matthew 28:19 [NIV]
“Remember Jesus Christ, raised from the dead, descended from David. This is my gospel, for which I am suffering even to the point of being chained like a criminal. but God’s word is not chained. Therefore, I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they too may obtain the salvation that is Christ Jesus with eternal glory.” - II Timothy 2:10 [NIV]
There ya go. One command to spread the word in all nations (not just the friendly ones) and one example of the disciples doing so despite being chained as criminals for it yet saying that it is God’s wil lthat they do so. I’d find more, but if you really care for what the Bible says, you can open it yourself.
And, incidentally, Jesus says multiple times that those who listen his word will be persecuted. I suppose you think in the Book of Acts and beyond that the Romans just smiled and waved to the people listening to the Gospel? Don’t blame it on God that the government is killing people. Well, you can if you want, but the Bible doesn’t support your thinking and obviously these women were more concerned with what the Bible said than with what Monty says.
So, I did my half. You have the “Don’t preach if the government says no?” scripture yet?
I sincerely apologize for the triple post, but found one other thing I might as well toss out before Monty says “Yeah, but…”
“When you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is yet to come. Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be earthquakes in various places and famines. these are the beginning of birth pains.
You must be on your guard. You will be handed over to the local councils and flogged in the synagogues. On account of me you will stand before governers and kings as witnesses to them. And the gospel must first be preached to all nations.” - Mark 13:7-11 [NIV]
Again, please find for me where, in “the gospel must be preached in all nations”, you find the theory that “all nations” means only the friendly ones. Please find for me where, in “all nations”, you can read “only if no one gets in trouble or killed.” See, I read “all nations” and that says to me… well, “all nations.” Totally inclusive of every nation on the globe, including those under the Taliban. Please show me where it doesn’t say this because otherwise I’ll have to go on thinking that those Christian women, if they were indeed preaching, were doing exactly what Jesus commanded them to do.
Let me state again for the record that I am not a Christian. I am not trying to convert anyone because I’d be converting them to something I don’t follow anyway. But anyone who says that these women had no Christian duty or business to be in the country is ignoring the scriptures by which these women base their spiritual existance. You can call them foolish or irresponsible for following this particular faith, but don’t say that they were following their faith incorrectly because the results were hard to swallow.
a) The disciples in the Bible didn’t sneak around and tell the message in whispers; they went out and proclaimed it loud and clear.
b) They accepted the charge that they were preaching that message, and consequently accepted the consequences which befell them and not on those who listened to them regardless if said listners agreed with the message or not.
Now back to the missionaries:
They obviously weren’t aid workers, they were missionaries and they not only jeopardized their aid work, they brought their involvement in it to a screeching halt.
Whilst they were locked up, they maintained their innocence. But once they’re rescued, they admit they were doing what they were charged with!
Now, as for the poster who said that these missionaries will be welcomed back to preach the Gospel now that the Taliban are out of power: Yeah, right! The Taliban aren’t in charge in Pakistan. Once guess what the penalty for converting from Islam is.
My point was that they did as they were called to do, not that they did it infallibly. The statement made was that the women had no right at all to be in the country and attempting to convert others. I showed scripture saying that they are commanded as Christians to do exactly that. Had they gotten there and stood on a street corner and shouted the Gospels (mind you, there’s enough occurances of disciples meeting with a single family) and were arrested, I’m sure people would be bitching about it in the same way. Again, if you have a scripture stating that you’re not supposed to go into a hostile country and spread the Gospel, please share it.
Apologies in advance if this point has already been brought up (as I skimmed far too much of the three pages in an attempt to keep my job), but…
Were these aid workers representatives of a clearly Xtian organization I think the situation could be argued differently, but from my understanding (and correct me if I’m wrong here) the United Nations is not affiliated directly with Xtianity. The Red Cross pretty obviously is at least theoretically linked to Xtianity, and while I would be surprised to find them actively handing out Bibles to the sick and needy of Third World nations (and just as surprised to find them in an Islamic country, traditionally more the Red Crescent’s turf), I would expect the authorities of the local region to at least recognize that they had a Xtian agency on their hands. The United Nations, for all its flaws, is an organization made up of countries whose dominant religions, quite obviously, are more often than not something other than Xtianity. Therefore it seems an abuse of their position as UN representatives to start preaching 'bout Jesus to the locals of Afghanistan, no matter what good they might be doing (in fact, particularly because of the good that they are doing using non-Xtian-UN funds and name recognition). I would make an analogy involving UN workers who happened to be Amway reps, but I don’t think it would apply considering the economic conditions in the region.
I am not arguing whether or not it is good to “teach about the Lord” or anything like that. But these aid workers should in the very least get into trouble with their bosses at the UN for “doing it on company time”. Speaking of doing things on company time…
Jodi - could you please just tell me what the hell a “universal human right” is, beyond some pretty words?
I’ve done this merry-go-round a few times on the SD now and it always seems to boil down a belief that “Universal Human Right = US Constitution”. Well it doesn’t.
Show me a universal human right. Let me touch it. No? Oh? It’s a concept. I see.
How are they secured? What’s that? You can’t secure them? I see.
Then what the fuck are they. Rights mean nothing without the ability to secure them and I’m not seeing that here. Even as a concept, all they do is reflect the mores and customs of the individuals that make them.
Or reflect on this: According to the UN, one “universal human right” is the right to not be executed. That’s right - your precious country is indulging in “universal human rights” abuses.
Well I guess that gives me the right to come to your country and break its laws with impunity, eh?
Sorry, but as Collounsbury is saying, the ONLY way to effect lasting change is from within - the locals have to want it to change. Once they do want it to change, it will - the most despotic government in the world won’t be able to rule without any willingness at all on the part of the people. Foreigners can’t just go in there and make the change for them. It will be resented and it just causes problems.
Ask the African ex-colonies just what the imposition of Western mores has done for them.
Never mind the Africans, what about the native Americans? your argument holds no water when it comes to them. In fact if the morally correct thing to do is to observe the laws of the land, we sons and daughters of immigrants have no right to demonstrate for change anywhere in the world.
But what if it can be demonstrated that these girls in question had ancesters from Afghanistan? Would it be okay to challenge the Talleban then?
Well, to answer 1. What Visa? The Taliban is not and was not the ruling governement of Afghanistan in the eyes of the world. Before the 9-11 crap started, I believe 3 countries recognized them as a government, now I don’t believe anyone except Pakistan see them as a ruling body, and that is pretty shaky. So to picture it as a few people going to a consolate, I doubt it. They probably just went right over the border and went about their business.
To answer 2. Do you have any proof the ever lied about what they did. To say the lied about sharing their beliefs implies someone actually asked them. So, where is the site of the Taliban member coming up and asking, “Yo, you preachin’ hea?” From what I have seen they used the words “Secret Police”. Besides the special handshake and decoder ring, it implies to me that they gathered information quietly before the arrests were made. So, as far as lying, were is the proof.
I will leave the religious beliefs out of this, and just respond to your points.
Point the first: Although the Taliban were not the diplomatically recognized government of Afghanistan by the vast majority of the nations of the world, they were the ruling entity in that country and actually issued visas to foreigners (you might recall that Pakistan has a Taliban-run Afghanistan Embassy in Islamabad).
Point the second: The women’s own words. It’s all over the recent news. Let me know if you need a link.
I think that in deciding what should be considered universal rights, great allowance should be made for variation in cultures.
For example, I remember a few years ago a case where a Japanese exchange student walked into somebody’s house in Louisiana, didn’t stop moving when instructed to do so, and was fatally shot by the homeowner, who was not charged with any crime. Later, a group of Japanese citizens presented a petition to the U.S. legislature asking for stricter gun-control laws. Many Americans were offended by the petition.
Two points emerge:
First, in any country, there are certain rules that you violate at great peril.
In the U.S. you don’t enter somebody’s house without their knowledge and consent, and if you do enter unannounced, you follow all of the homeowner’s instructions to the letter.
In Malaysia, you don’t possess narcotics.
And in Afghanistan, you don’t proselytize Christianity.
Second point: It can be really annoying when members of other cultures try to impose their own values on yours.
I agree that, at a certain point, the practices of a culture can become so outrageous that it is justifiable for outsiders to interfere. This is where the notion of universal rights begins, and it is admittedly a very difficult line to draw.
But IMHO, a ban on proselytizing Christianity is not so outrageous that it violates universal rights (as long as practicing Christians are not themselves persecuted).
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by lucwarm *
It can be really annoying when members of other cultures try to impose their own values on yours.
QUOTE]
Sure, tell that to Amnesty International. By the way, not by any stretch of the imagination were these women** imposing **their values. Sharing their beliefs when asked even in the hope of conversion is not an imposition.
The student involved did not walk into someone’s house. He walked onto the property on the way to knock on the door whilst trick-or-treating. The racist jerk who got away with killing the Japanese student lucked out and got a jury of racist jerks.
