John Hardly wrote I'm confused. The above statements only confirm my assertions above. They really don't condemn the missionaries--they point out inherent weakness in the belief systems of those being proselytized. It only reinforces that, whether by missionary or by secular forces, the world was inevitably going to change and their belief system was bound to crumble--it had no accomodation to the increasing enlightenment and knowledge of the world around them.

This remark makes me wince as it illustrates the very problem with the sort of missionary work that I've been discussing. The American Indian religions must not have been all they are cracked up to be if they couldn't withstand christianity?

The religions of many of the American Indian cultures are what are termed "syncretic." They absorb what works from other belief systems they encounter. They are, however, based on the land from which the people live on (autochthonous) and utilize the world around them as dynamic expressions of the truth as they know it. Religions serve, in the most basic of functions, in teaching people how to get along in a society. In the world where they live. They have components that deal with "others" and with the environment and with "self."

A big problem I see with the Industrial religions (called thus because though they appear to be the opposite of science, they are in fact hand-in-hand with science, unlike the religions of the low-tech New World) is their unrootedness. They also originated in an autochthonous place, but on another continent in another environment. In a desert, in the case of christianity. Harsh social attitudes necessary to survive in the desert may be what contributes to the aggressiveness of this transplanted believe system. It has acted as a weed on this continent, beneficial at times, totally destructive at other times. But in no way should the indigenous beliefs be considered inferior, destined to fail anyway when one considers the firepower to which they were subjected along WITH christianty.

And Toadfrog, this is a Postmodern world. The statement Words mean what they are used to mean is about as naive a remark I've seen in this thread. Words are as slippery as humans can make them, they don't have fixed meanings. Anyone involved with the folk process on this list can or should be able to understand that. But you're correct, this thread started out comparing missionaries and terrorists, wondering if they are the same. The intent appears to be poles apart, but the effect of both is usually destructive. It just takes one a little longer to do its corrosive work.