Go to Religion in the Modern World
- Add a comment
- Go to A reply to a comment by ExStud2006
pappy -- all of what you are saying is valid
The process of providing aid can be rife with many nuances. I am trying to discuss the subject without trampling on the inherently good aspects of it which is a little more than a bit precarious. The underlying ideal in itself as noble as it may be as an ideal acts as a smokescreen quite often to blind people from some of the things which are decidedly wrong. In the traditional way that missionary work or aid has been perceived some of the responsibilities of an alltruistic charitable endeavour are rotuinely overlooked. Why as I mentioned must receiving aid be conditional with accepting someone else's religious beliefs? This very practice which is still prevalent today rescinds the notion of this type of aid being a charity. It is a form of blackmail to a certain degree but then one cannot overlook the fact that in many cases religious groups are the only ones doing this much needed work, regardless of their motives. It's not a simple issue to be sure.
posted by
gomedome
on January 2, 2005 at 1:03 PM
| link to this | reply
I understand your frustration, gomedome
The English routinely took the children away from their aboriginal parents in Australia. For their own good, of course. They needed to be 'mainstreamed' was their hideous thinking.
But the active principle in giving aid is that it is needed, and then given. And who gives it? Those who feel that giving is important, even taught, and they don't teach that in schools anymore. It resembles religious principles too much. If the aid were witheld until the dogma was taught, as it was in native American schols, then it is wrong. But if advice is given freely and accepted by choice, then we do not have the right to stop it.
posted by
pappy
on January 2, 2005 at 12:43 PM
| link to this | reply
Wow freerain -- that comment could have replaced my post
The way you put it is so much more direct and no nonsense. This is a tough contention to be sure. We have all been brought up to believe that all forms of missionary work are synonomous with caring for people. But if one really cared why not just feed them first? Why must aid of any sort be conditional?
posted by
gomedome
on January 2, 2005 at 10:46 AM
| link to this | reply
Very well said,
Gomedome, and to add, it doesn't just apply to foriegn recipients of aid. Here in America, the richest country in the world, we have oppressed and subjegated citizens who seek out basic human needs, like housing, food, energy for heating and cooking--medical care as well--that are or soon will be funneled into the faith-based service of charity. This relationship between our government and religious institutions is just what the churches in this country have wanted for decades. Having been a Mormon for twenty years, I understand how the welfare system within a church organization works. Help is given to those who are willing to embrace the "faith" and behave in the proper manner (attend services, make tithe contributions, serve as missionaries etc.). But, if you don't want to "become one with God" then there is nothing for you from the church.
Christianity has always used human need as a doorway to preaching and perverting the minds and cultures in which is proselytizes. It is manifested within scripture that avoiding this commandment leads to being a slothful servent and brings into question your own faith, which is the purpose of proselytizing in the first place.
Our Government, by virture of the Constitution, is mandated to "ensure the general welfare" of the people and it should not be abdicated to religious institutions who are free to discriminate based on an individuals religious or non-religious beliefs.
Peace,
FR
posted by
freerain
on January 2, 2005 at 10:21 AM
| link to this | reply
ExStud2006 -- I see what you are saying and you do make some good points
I will even concede that I am guilty of poor qualification in the statement of mine that you have chosen to illustrate. I know better than to generalize such as this, I should have prefaced the word Christian with the word Fundamental. I also realize my motivation in doing so. I am simply heaving back rocks that are relentlessly thrown in my direction, responding in kind, which again I must concede does little to advance a worthy contention. Though this type of behaviour is a bit out of character for me I will not apologize nor take my words back, at least not in this life time. I may edit the post slightly however. Thanx for stopping bye, good points.
posted by
gomedome
on January 2, 2005 at 10:19 AM
| link to this | reply
Gomedome, you have presented a very thorough and thoughtful argument. I share your attitude toward the religious-cultural imperialism that denigrates native cultures and faiths. I just insist on specifying whom is being criticized, Christianity in general or a particular faction. Likewise when I write about the Middle East, I criticize "militant fundamentalist Islam" rather than making the blanket condemnation of Islam that unfortunately is common in the United States (and maybe elsewhere). Writing that Christianity has no respect for other faiths, "never has and never will," will alienate those who you most need to convince, if persuasion is part of your objective. Plenty of Christians may be receptive to your argument about respecting other cultures and religions, but if you denounce Christianity
per se as an intolerant faith, you will probably make enemies of all devout Christians. That would be unfortunate, because you have a really valid perspective to offer them.
posted by
Dyl_Pickle
on January 2, 2005 at 9:34 AM
| link to this | reply