 sj |
||
|
||
Missionaries also a breed of terrorists?
|
|
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: Stringsinger Date: 22 Jan 11 - 06:39 PM "Terrorist" is becoming a common word today like "Nazism" or "Fascism". It really has lost its meaning. It used to be "Communist" remember? Missionaries run the gamut from benign to obnoxious, mostly concerned with messing with people's minds, some who do good work in feeding and caring for the homeless (let's be fair here), but "terrorist" is too simplistic. The ruining of Iraq is a form of terrorism which by definition is using violence to coerce an ideology. Historically, there have been some missionaries that have done this but not all. Torquemada, the Grand Inquisitor of Spain burnt a few non-believers in his auto-de-fe's, Martin Luther and John Wesley advocated the burning of witches,....... oh and then there's Pat Robertson.....aside from these notable figures I've not found in my experience missionaries generally who advocate a violent means to influence the laity. I suspect that the U.S. Air Force may be applying violent actions to some of their non-believing cadets and there's some Christian fragging going on in the Army. How 'bout the bible spouting gun barrels being used, made in Michigan? But missionaries as terrorists (as defined by using violence) I suspect is pretty rare. Many attribute this to Islam but that sounds like blind prejudice if applied to the general Muslim population. That's like saying that all Christians are white supremicists which is ridiculous. Let's please be careful about tossing around the "T" word. It's meaning is only interpreted when used as a verbal weapon and we have too many of those already. Save that word for the politicians who use it to get elected giving it a meaningless and hollow ring.
[Please note- this thread is 10 years old and has become a target for spam and trolls and olddude saw it after it was again refreshed by a troll. Let's close it and if you feel the need to reopen these issues, start a new thread and copy the relevant material} |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: olddude Date: 22 Jan 11 - 12:06 AM My friend Dave just sent a notebook and accessories worth over 600 bucks anywhere, spent 112 bucks of his own money to ship it to me .. he did this all for someone he never met and when I tried to reimburse him he said your friend is sick, I am happy to help. And ya know what he is a man of faith. Didn't ask if he was a catholic, muslim, hindu or anything else. He did it cause he helps others, maybe ya can all think about that as you continue to do the bigot, generic categorizing people and their belief systems, ... clueless ... that is the only word |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: olddude Date: 21 Jan 11 - 11:32 PM Salvation Army feeds people, gets them off the street so they don't freeze to death, gives then cloths to wear and never once asks anyone what or if they believe in anything. Why do that do that, why do I do what I do for people I never met, cause it is the right thing to do .. period ... and yes some are religious ... good grief ...clueless |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: olddude Date: 21 Jan 11 - 11:06 PM Another pathetic thread by a religious hater with a chip on their shoulder. The saga continues daily on mudcat ... I am here for spaw and pretty much nothing else anymore because of this very thing. ya know what good and bad people come in all walks of life, bad missionaries doing bad stuff. Great missionaries only trying to help people regardless of their beliefs ... KINDA like all walk of life but if you haven't figured that out yet then you are clueless. |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: LadyJean Date: 27 Nov 10 - 02:12 AM The only missionary I ever spoke to was a perfectly gogeous (Darn!) Italian priest, who worked with the Yanomamu in Brazil. His chief mission was to keep the Brazilian government from killing them off. Which struck me, at the time, as a worthwhile undertaking. He seemed to think they'd go to heaven if they were good Yanomamus. Eventually, they might become Catholics, but it would take a while, and he was more interested in keeping them alive than in converting them. The Carnegie Museum uses his work on the Yanomamu culture. Apparently the ladies of the University of Pittsburgh school of Anthropology went into a decline when they learned he was a priest. I do not blame them. |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: GUEST,Patsy Date: 17 Nov 10 - 03:51 AM I wouldn't say Missionaries are a breed of terrorists as such unfortunately in history it has shown that there always has been a hidden agenda i.e. Christopher Columbus robbing the natives of gold with (Catholic) Christianity conversion in exchange. More like legal piracy? What is the real meaning of missionary anyway? Before going on a humanitarian mission is there a clause to say that you have to try to spread the word of the Church while your there as well? I don't know, just wondering. |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 17 Nov 10 - 03:11 AM Well, as long a 'Missionaries' aren't doing it as 'mercenaries', I guess its all right..... GfS |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: wysiwyg Date: 19 Oct 01 - 01:59 AM Sorry, Kat. ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: Bert Date: 19 Oct 01 - 01:55 AM Some of these postings remind me of a situation I got myself into on another thread recently. I completely misunderstood a posting by WYOWOMAN and went off on a rampage. I realised that goofed so I said Sorry. THEN I went on to try to explain why I had misunderstood the original posting. Unfortunately the explanation came across as though I was trying to say. "I'm sorry - BUT I'm not really". I should have just said what I meant "Sorry WYO" and then kept my bloody mouth shut. Bert. |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: Dicho (Frank Staplin) Date: 19 Oct 01 - 12:46 AM Gee, Toadfrog, I was going to put you with the good guys, but if you don't want to go marchin' in with the Saints (New Orleans of course), that's your choice. |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: paddymac Date: 19 Oct 01 - 12:24 AM It seems that this thread has run its course. Although I am the one who iniated it, I did and do not think of it as "mine." Its has, from the beginning, been "ours" and I think the "we" have done a great job in exploring the question. I don't want to summarize or, god forbid, editorialize, about any post or line of discussion. However, I do want to say "thanks" to all of you who joined in to make it a fine discussion. |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: Stilly River Sage Date: 18 Oct 01 - 01:28 AM Sigh. . . looks like this thread has run it's course. But it was a very good one for a while. Our common interest is music, but we are citizens of the world, and we talk about many topics between songs, and our songs speak of many of these things. I just haven't been able to think of a good one that covers this topic. We began by comparing terrorists with missionaries. Though we've pretty thoroughly bashed missionaries, there seems to be concensus that terrorists and missionaries are not cast in the same mold, and though they cast long shadows, they are not the same.
I've been thinking about the songs I grew up with. For a view of how some christian folks work, I would suggest a Richard Dyer-Bennet song that pillories the clergy (not missionaries in particular)--"The Vicar of Bray."
Perhaps Tom Lehrer has something demented that is more appropriate to our senses of humor? I can't think of what it would be. But as far as I know, he's still alive. Perhaps he is writing something as I type?
As to the terrorism that we have alluded to but not actually discussed in depth here, I see retaliation as the route to truly fulfilling one of Lehrer's prophetic songs--"We Will All Go Together When We Go."
How's that for a segue back to music? "We will all fry together when we fry" if we keep up the fighting, considering the level of arms that are available, and the free-fall that is apparently possible when one is on a suicide mission and has a jetliner or a nuclear bomb to hand.
I've enjoyed this thread, and will participate on occasion in others. I work full-time, am a single parent, and am in graduate school, so I'm stealing time from myself to read and contribute. But I grew up in a musical family, where at dinner we spoke of any topic that occured to us, and often times our thoughts found their expression in song. In this postmodern world where few things can be considered "universal," I think music is one of those few. It touches our minds and our hearts, and as we think about everything else under the sun, we refer back to our common humanity with music.
As to this topic and the possible "flamers" and "bashers" along the way: many of us measure spirituality with very personal yardsticks, an amaglam of ancient and modern, local or worldwide belief systems, an eclectic blend from the "global village." May those beliefs bring us comfort, understanding, peace, and true joy.
(Perhaps I shouldn't add to these threads in allergy season--benedryl and an evening glass of wine seem to loosen my fingers on the keyboard!)
Skoal!
|
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: toadfrog Date: 18 Oct 01 - 12:19 AM Gee Dicho, that's an awfully strong statement! I believe a while back, you thought I was the worst! CLICK I'm hurt! Have I been demoted? |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: Dicho (Frank Staplin) Date: 17 Oct 01 - 08:59 PM I would rank "Paul" as perhaps the most pernicious sociopath ever to troll Mudcat. |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: Bill D Date: 17 Oct 01 - 06:24 PM ....ladies...I give up....and I do NOT give up easily. |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: wysiwyg Date: 17 Oct 01 - 05:45 PM First, I don't know this Paul character and I think he's being a shit-stirrer. Kat, I DID take responsibility-- I have said twice, here and in a PM, that I was sorry for the misunderstanding, and explained what I meant. If you want me to apologize for something I did not mean, as if I did, then that will not be happening. ~Susan
|
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: GUEST,Paul Date: 17 Oct 01 - 04:50 PM I think that you are the problem. You have gone off the deep end in reacting to WYS's innocent comments. A "jerk" remark? Where? I was initially kidding about the Xanax but now i am really serious, you need some sort of chill pill babe..... |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: katlaughing Date: 17 Oct 01 - 04:32 PM I am posting here because I do not want any more PMs from you, Susan and because I want others to see my reply. The only thing I am "characterising" is what is in my heart, Susan. How about taking a little responsibility for the jerk remark you made? Everyone had been working hard in this thread at trying to be civil and not step on toes, then Guest, Paul pulled his stunt, you chimed in and now it is ME who is the problem? I have no wish to further discuss anything with you. Why is it when someone tells you that, even in PM's, you choose to ignore it? No, don't answer, it's rhetorical. |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: GUEST,Paul Date: 17 Oct 01 - 04:29 PM Katty, It may not be YOUR thread, but given the possessive manner in which you referred to it, i felt quite accurate in my response. And I will not try to TELL you what to do, but I would politely suggest that you get that Xanax prescription re-filled. |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: wysiwyg Date: 17 Oct 01 - 04:03 PM Kat, if you are determined to mis-characerize what I have in my heart, and then tell me to drop it when I tell you what IS actually in my heart, it's not going to further any understanding. ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: katlaughing Date: 17 Oct 01 - 03:59 PM Dicho, agreed. Not my thread, Guest, Paul. Don't tell me what to do. Susan, thanks, but it did sound like a holier-than-thou gloat. Let's let it go, now, okay? Thanks, John, great quotes and ideals. kat |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: John Hardly Date: 17 Oct 01 - 02:27 PM here's the Paul I know; 1 Corinthians 13 1] If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2] If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3] If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames,[2] but have not love, I gain nothing. 4] Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5] It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6] Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7] It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. 8] Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9] For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10] but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11] When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12] Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. 13] And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love. Hard to do....not hard for me to swallow.
|
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: wysiwyg Date: 17 Oct 01 - 02:25 PM No, Kat, I wasn't gloating, really... I am sorry it seemed that way, and if I pushed your button I am very glad you hollered. I think I may have been trying to point out that some of the really excellent thinking had gotten overwhelmed enough that something obvious had snuck past you (plural). And that the person who had posted in such a fashion as to push those buttons had gotten over on you (singular) again-- and I don't like it when people bait you that way. I was inviting you (plural) to notice, with me, that you are smarter than that. *G* Dang English. (The language, not the people.) ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: GUEST,Paul Date: 17 Oct 01 - 01:51 PM Katlaughing, Some might argue that your thread is mucking up a good music site, but I won't go there. Rather, think of Paul as providing valuable insight into the dynamics alluded to by dicho. And try to relax bit..... |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: Dicho (Frank Staplin) Date: 17 Oct 01 - 01:33 PM The problem is that there are too many real people like Paul's invention out there. They must be taken seriously. |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: katlaughing Date: 17 Oct 01 - 11:46 AM So, Susan and Guest, facetious Paul, are we supposed to feel like fools now? Do you feel all better, having a good gloat? Was mucking up a good thread really necessary? |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 17 Oct 01 - 10:48 AM Fair play, Joe - that was a cracking response to my post. And I take A;ex's point, but only up to a point. There is surely a distinction between an idea (eg communism) and a specific, funded organisation (eg Solidarity). |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: wysiwyg Date: 17 Oct 01 - 09:42 AM Well, I didn't, Mrrzy! *G* ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: wysiwyg Date: 17 Oct 01 - 09:30 AM In every thread like this I can recall, the good discussion has eventually wandered off the track to less-amicable grief. Sometimes the things you have read need to be processed and absorbed... Sometimes the feelings get hooked and the resulting frustration can limit the good you might have gotten out of it. Sometimes it's good to say to yourself, "This was.... all right. Maybe it was enough, for now." This has been.... all right. It's enough, for now, for me. ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: Mrrzy Date: 17 Oct 01 - 09:29 AM I thought it was a sin to swallow, WYSIWYG! LOL! |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: John Hardly Date: 17 Oct 01 - 09:10 AM Those were not the words of a "hardcore fundamentalist". |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: GUEST Date: 17 Oct 01 - 09:03 AM WYSIWYG wins the gold star for smarts. Actually, I agree wholeheartedly with most of the comments in this thread. I was just curious as to how folks here would react to a hardcore fundamentalist. |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: wysiwyg Date: 16 Oct 01 - 09:37 PM Can't believe anyone fell for the Paul thing. Hello? Paul??? As in, St. Paul, one of the most difficult Biblical writers to swallow? ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: GUEST,Tahoe Date: 16 Oct 01 - 09:06 PM But then they should label themselves aid workers or relief workers and not missionaries. They may start out serving there fellow man w/ food, shelter, schooling etc... but it's religion (and I think conversion) that drives them. It seems to be a numbers game w/ Mormonism and Catholisism et al. It may be good intentioned but the ultimate goal is numbers, $$ and people.... Jehovas Witness used to visit my grandparents years ago. They would sit and talk to them for hours (my G'parents were lonely. After about a year or so and many turn downs to join their faith they abruptly stopped showing up. They weren't a friend. They realized it was a waste of time trying to recruit and bailed..People in need be it food, schooling or just conversation are prey for ANY religios recruitment. And I think it's sad... Vaya Con Dios |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: Joe Offer Date: 16 Oct 01 - 08:45 PM Maybe recruiting isn't an accurate term for all missionaries, Tahoe. Many religious people feel their faith obliges to serve their fellow human beings. I think the best of the missionaries are doing just that nowadays - with no preaching, and no strings attached. That's certainly the case with most of the missionaries I've known myself. They spend their time solving human problems and serving human needs, not preaching. A close friend of mine spent five years as a Maryknoll missionary in Thailand - he served in an office that worked to combat prostitution and the sex trade in Southeast Asia. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: GUEST,Tahoe Date: 16 Oct 01 - 08:27 PM I just don't understand why religions have to recruit. "The conversion of a savage to Christianity IS the conversion of Christianity to savagery" George Bernard Shaw...Androcles.. |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: Joe Offer Date: 16 Oct 01 - 08:23 PM Ah, yes, nun stories. We used to sing, Give a yell, give a cheer,Word has it that the convent had been a speakesay until the parish bought it out.... -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: katlaughing Date: 16 Oct 01 - 07:17 PM That must've been quite a sight, Dicho! Joe, I had considered the possibility and I think you are right. Nonetheless, it is also true that there are people who believe as Guest, Paul has posted. |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: Dicho (Frank Staplin) Date: 16 Oct 01 - 06:37 PM As well as folk music, I am a lover of late renaissance polyphony. Much of the music and art before 1800 is religion-based because that's where the money was. I have a low regard for Pope Marcellus because he changed the direction of choral music away from polyphony toward the simpler form of Bach and the Baroque masters. He objected to polyphonic masses because they required professional singers and the parishioners could not understand the lyrics. This has nothing to do with the subject of this thread, but I excuse myself because others are wandering as well. Getting back to the subject, I reiterate my dislike of proselytizing missionaries, but I appreciate much that those interested only in helping people have done. This thread should be concerned with missionaries, not the right to practice the religion of your choice. Are missionaries terrorists? I think not; misguided but not terrorists and useful if they help but do not force their beliefs on those they help. Posts like Paul's may change my mind, however. He is as frightening as the current local bishop and his crew who suggested excommunication for one of our local representatives in Parliament (Canada) because he supports a woman's right to choose and was the marshall of the local gay parade. Wandering again, Joe's mention of the stories about nuns reminds me of the irreverance (downright blasphemous!) shown by some students towards the teaching nuns and priests in my home town, which was largely Catholic when I was young. Some of the teachers were threatening and strict, but terrorists? No. One had terrific aim with an ink well when he was provoked. I also remember the young apprentice Franciscans (forget what they were called) who went over the wall at night to partake of the pleasures indulged in by we heathens and protestants. |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: Joe Offer Date: 16 Oct 01 - 05:05 PM Well, actually, I think that Paul is engaging in an age-old religious tradition known as trolling, seeking to satisfy his primal, sexually-deprived craving for attention. ...But don't tell Paul I said that. I probably shouldn't have responded to him in the first place, but he reminded me of all the fun we had telling exaggerated war stories about the nuns. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: katlaughing Date: 16 Oct 01 - 04:55 PM I'll bet you'd love to lock away homosexuals, paint the letter "A" on the dresses of unmarried women who have sex, and keep your women barefoot and pregnant, too. Want to bring back whipping posts? The days of the old patriachal church are gone. Your intolerance is offensive and archaic. What arrogance to believe such as you've posted. The type of coercion you seem to advocate borders on terrorism, imo. And, yes, I for one, would like to see our money changed, without that particular phrase, but it is not something I obsess over, nor would even work towards getting done. kat-pantheist |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: MMario Date: 16 Oct 01 - 04:52 PM Paul - first, it is not the altar of Christ - it is God's altar - there is a difference you know. secondly - I don't remember where in the bible it says anything about being fully clothed. In fact - nakedness and innocence are often related. thirdly - you are descending to personal insults - without even knowning the people whom you are addressing. This is suppossed to put a good face on Christian mission? Methinks you are shooting yourself in the foot. |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: GUEST,Paul Date: 16 Oct 01 - 04:47 PM The last thing that people who worship cows, rocks, etc. need is respect. They must be firmly guided onto the proper path. God has given us the inspiration and the means to provide that guidance. When they are fully clothed and are kneeling before the altar of Christ, then they will be worthy of the respect of the civilized nations. Those who provide this guidance need your prayers and monetary support instead of smug comments. But then again, I am probably dealing with people who wish to have "In God we trust" removed from our currency. |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: Joe Offer Date: 16 Oct 01 - 04:29 PM Gee, Paul, that's almost the same thing Sister Mary Conscience said to us in Catholic grammar school in the 1950's, when she collected our dimes so we could adopt "pagan babies." I'm glad many churches have changed in the last 50 years. Generally, they approach people of other faiths and cultures with much more respect than they used to - and with much less paternalism. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: GUEST,Paul Date: 16 Oct 01 - 04:07 PM As someone who has embraced the Lord Jesus Christ as his lord and Savior I find this thread appalling. I have spent the last decade of my life supporting efforts at enlightening heathens throughout the world about God's love and the benefits of adopting civilized mannerisms. People who go about in various stages of nudity, and who cohabitate without the blessings of the church need spiritual guidance. Your efforts to criticize the efforts of God's workers is as good as sentencing millions to eternal damnation. |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: Jack the Sailor Date: 16 Oct 01 - 03:41 PM Webeter says terrorism is coersion through terror. The type of terror is not specified and I don't think think it has to be, if you frighten someone to the point of terror to bend them to your will then you are a terrorist. By that definition, perhaps some catholic educators have beeen terrorist? I wouldn't know. But that is not what missionaries do. Perhaps a small number have used terror as a technique. But most use bribery ("Listen to me and I'll give your village medical care or water") or they just set a good example and preach. It has been an interesting discussion, but certianly the answer to the original question is "No". |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: Joe Offer Date: 16 Oct 01 - 01:47 PM St. Peter's Basilica in Rome is one of the largest and most beautiful churches in the world. There's an inscription in huge letters above the entrance. You'd think it would be an inspiring scripture passage, or sometime in homage to St. Peter, or maybe the name of the church. Nope. The inscription says the building was erected during the reign of Pius V, Pontifex Maximus (Supreme Pontiff). Pius V (1504-1572) became pope in 1566, just after the Council of Trent, and he implemented a number of reforms to correct the worst of the abuses that had triggered the Reformation. He also got his name plastered on buildings all over Rome. You'll see his name in Rome more than you'll see the name of Richard Daly in Chicago. And yes, I believe you'll see his name on some beautiful schools and hospitals. The opulence of Puis V's buildings made me uneasy when I visited Rome. Still, I love architecture almost as much as I love music, and a lover of architecture can't help but be in awe in Rome. I didn't get any spiritual inspiration from Rome at all, but my Italian-American friend Bill was in ecstasy. So, should Pius have spent all that money on all those buildings? Should anybody spend money on frivolous things like art and music? I dunno - but I'm sure glad we have them. I'm sure those buildings kept the Bernini kids in diapers for generations. Opulent buildings may seem wasteful, but their construction provides jobs and the natural resources used in construction are quite plentiful. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: Mrrzy Date: 16 Oct 01 - 12:49 PM Hi paddymac, great thread. Missionaries are not terrorists, IMO, but they do spread evil. Evil, in my definition, is anything that blocks the good that humans can do. Terrorism is the use of violence (either threatened or enacted) to accomplish political ends. It is evil to tell people what in the supernatural is "true" and what is not. It is evil to tell people to depend on an intermediary (priest, pope, imam, or anyone) when trying to figure out their conscience. It is evil to plan for the afterlife and neglect the present life. It is evil to build a beautiful cathedral as long as schools and hospitals are ugly. It is evil to pray when work could accomplish something. It is evil to tell people about Heaven and Hell but not about basic biology. But it isn't terrorism unless you terrify people - even Hell & Brimstone preachers don't fall under that heading, they may be getting their church donations by threatening future punishment but not by meting it out in the present and they saying I did it for the children, or something. For Fallwell to be a terrorist he'd have to tell people to bomb abortion clinics, or something... Wait.. OK, they are terrorists when they preach violence for political ends, even if that end is just getting their particular myths into the supposedly secular legal system. But if all they are preaching is religion, they may be evil, but they are not terrorists. If they crusade against the other religions, they can become such only too easily. (Mrr, DARFC) |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: Ebbie Date: 16 Oct 01 - 12:23 PM Joe O, that was an excellent presentation! As a non-Catholic with many Roman Catholic friends, I had wondered at times how they reconcile the Church's political history with their own beliefs. You have broadened my understanding. Thank you. Ebbie |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: mousethief Date: 16 Oct 01 - 12:00 PM I have one historical bone to pick with Fionn: In open and fair elections in Poland a few weeks ago, the former communists got 45 per cent of the vote and are back in government, while the western/Vatican construct Solidarity didn't win a single seat Solidarity was largely home grown. Whereas communism was imported, immediately from Russia, but ultimately from England and Germany. Marx was not Polish. Lenin learned much of his Marxism in Switzerland. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: Joe Offer Date: 16 Oct 01 - 03:22 AM Fionn, you're absolutely right. I've read most of what you said from the same critical perspective - in the pages of Catholic publications. If it were the Vatican I were defending, I'd have to back down and agree with your perspective completely. The Vatican has all the politics and intrigue and corruption that you'll find in any political organization on earth - and the Vatican may well be the oldest political organization on earth. If the Vatican were the sum and substance of my faith, I'd be truly miserable. Politics isn't pretty - and the Vatican is very political. Still, you need the politics to give the organization structure and keep it going. I've lived in the United States for all but two of my 53 years, and I like it very much here. I guess I could say that for about ten years of my lifetime, I was proud of the people leading my country. I suppose that about the same is true for my church. I swore I'd move to Canada if Ronald Reagan were elected, but I didn't - and the country survived his reign. I get frustrated as hell with Pope John Paul II's stodgy conservatism - but I have to say I think he's a good man. The only popes I was proud of were John Paul I and John XXIII. If you judge an organization by its leadership, you will most likely have a very negative view of that organization. Generally, leaders are not nice people, and it's quite often that they're less than amazingly intelligent. Leadership is only one facet of an organization or a community. Leadership is essential for any organization, but it is usually not the essence of an organization - and maybe "organism" would be a more descriptive word than organization. Along with a history of political intrigue, the Catholic Church has a strong intellectual backbone; a deep, widespread spirituality; and a tradition of altruism and charity. Rome has very little to do with the intellectual, spiritual, and charitable essence of the Catholic Church. Oh, yes, we have some right-wing kooks who won't lift a finger without permission from Rome - but every organization has right-wing kooks. In the life of a normal Catholic parish, Rome is hardly ever even mentioned. So yeah, Fionn, the Vatican stinks. It's every bit as political and corrupt and full of intrigue as Washington, D.C. I suppose it would be nice if it were otherwise, but that's not the nature of organizational leadership. the U.S. can't get along without Washington, and the Catholic Church can't get along without the Vatican - but Washington is not the essence of the U.S., and the Vatican is not the essence of the Catholic Church. I'm fascinated with the politics of both organizations and I follow their politics closely - but I've learned not to take the politics too seriously. -Joe Offer- By the way, Papal Knights serve two functions in the Catholic Church:
|
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: toadfrog Date: 16 Oct 01 - 01:01 AM Liland: Good question! I'll bite - where would he be?? |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: Haruo Date: 15 Oct 01 - 11:33 PM Without missionaries Buddhism would never have penetrated the Tibetan plateau. And then where would the Dalai Lama be? (I like the guy, too.) Liland |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: Stilly River Sage Date: 15 Oct 01 - 11:29 PM Toadfrog said And also suppose (just for argument's sake) that the absence of missionary activity will condemn all those people to eternal damnation. Now, based on these assumptions, are missionaries "terrorists"?
You misconstrue. My complaint is merely rhetorical. I am pointing out that if anyone who disagrees with you regarding religion, particularly the "eternal damnation" stuff, accepts this premise (for the sake of argument) on the terms that you've stated above, they've lost the argument before they utter one word. |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: toadfrog Date: 15 Oct 01 - 10:50 PM Stilly River: I don't really understand what you are asking. Are you saying, "of course all religions are false, all reasonable people think that"? Maybe I would agree with that. But there are people who don't. Some of them are Mudcats. Do you have anything to say to them? Or are they just beyond the pale? |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: Stilly River Sage Date: 15 Oct 01 - 10:39 PM Geez, toadfrog, now who's trolling?! That question of yours is tantamount to using the word in the definition. Accepting your argument would trump our own. Can't do it. |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 15 Oct 01 - 10:36 PM Joe has put up a stoic defence as usual. But I would urge him to read "Religion and the Rise of Capitalism" by Richard Tawney. Its argument that the world's religions have in significant degree been shaped to address vested interests is so persuasive as to be almost irrefutable. Joe's particular religion owes its survival and wide propagation largely to the fact that it was adopted as the state religion of the Roman empire, Constantine seeing its unique intolerance of other religions as a useful device for building cohesion across the empire. (The state's role in developing its new religion, to mutual benefit, is first documented in chapters 15 and 16 of Gibbon's "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.") Later, the church was to amass fabulous wealth by putting a price on salvation and selling indulgences - a monstrous example of religion being shaped purely to feed vested interests. No wonder some were diffident when papal infallibility was voted in, in 1870 (it applied retrospectively of course, Joe - not just to subsequent ex cathedra papal pronouncements.) I am frankly amazed that Joe can write: "I strongly support the Catholic Church's ...uneasiness with warfare and with capitalism." This of a church that makes Rupert Murdoch a papal knight! Never mind the barbarity of the crusades, or the iniquities inflicted on South America under the Spanish conquest, or Rome's deep unease at the spread of demmocratic governance 100 years ago. Or its hostility to tolerance and freedom of expression, as in Pius IX's "syllabus of errors" published around 1865. It's enough to remember how the Vatican sided with United States interests against its own clerics on the ground in El Salvador. Or Rome's pathological hostility to communism (the only possible excuse for Pacelli throwing in his lot with Hitler - in defiance of brave archbishops in Germany and Austria - long before going on to become the famously spineless Pious XII). The Vatican's capitalist sympathies have been stalwartly upheld by the present Pope, whose meddling in eastern Europe has been thrown back in his face. (In open and fair elections in Poland a few weeks ago, the former communists got 45 per cent of the vote and are back in government, while the western/Vatican construct Solidarity didn't win a single seat.) To say nothing of the corruption and scandals involving Bank Ambrosiano, Roberto Calvi, etc, that preceded his accession. Unease with capitalism??? Some church. Its shortcomings are not merely "newsworthy" Joe, they are shameful in an institution that puts itself next to god; presumes to hear the confessions of lesser mortals; and to absolve us of our sins, blah, blah, blah. Briefly on a wider note, it is now well documented (from their own correspendence, among other sources) that many if not most of the 19th Century missionaries in Africa and India, including probably the best-known, Livingstone, saw their work as opening up new markets for British trade. Persuading "savages" to wear shoes (cue Bata) meant breaking down their cultural values, and pushing Christianity up their noses was as good a way as any to do it.
|
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: toadfrog Date: 15 Oct 01 - 10:14 PM Basically, the problem with labeling missionary activity as an evil is that it assumes, without stating, that the religion being taught is not a good in itself. And regardless of whether I personally think religion is good, that is an assumption many religious people do not accept. So that asking such people whether missionaries are "terrorists" is akin to trolling. So I ask this. Just suppose it is true that missionary activities disrupt peoples' cultures and cause suffering on earth. And also suppose (just for argument's sake) that the absence of missionary activity will condemn all those people to eternal damnation. Now, based on these assumptions, are missionaries "terrorists"? |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: Joe Offer Date: 15 Oct 01 - 07:02 PM Amen to that, Kat. The Dalai Lama is one of my favorite people, too. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: katlaughing Date: 15 Oct 01 - 06:04 PM This comes from one of my favourite people, the Dalai Lama, and seems appropriate to post here. I receive a weekly quote from him by email: "No religion basically believes that material progress alone is sufficient for humankind. All religions believe in forces beyond material progress. All agree that it is very important and worthwhile to make a strong effort to serve human society. "To do this, it is important that we understand each other. In the past, due to narrow-mindedness and other factors, there has sometimes been discord between religious groups. This should not happen again. If we look deeply into the value of a religion in the context of the worldwide situation, we can easily transcend these unfortunate happenings. For, there are many areas of common ground on which we can have harmony. Let us just be side by side- helping, respecting, and understanding each other- in common effort to serve humankind. The aim of human society must be the compassionate betterment of human beings."- His Holiness the Dalai Lama, from "Kindness, Clarity, and Insight", published by Snow Lion |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: mousethief Date: 15 Oct 01 - 05:38 PM What I'm getting at is this - the most effective missionaries I have ever seen, and seen in action, simply live among the people they are witnessing to, helping them when they can and living a righteous life. Eventually, people come to THEM to learn more about this wonderful religion. This is how St. Nina ("Equal to the Apostles") "evangelized" the nation of Georgia in the 9th century, and how St. Herman "evangelized" the natives on Spruce Island, Alaska in the 19th. I hope one wouldn't say that the Russians gained nothing in professing Christianity in the 10th century, nor that their culture was disappeared or subverted to that of the Byzantines. The history of the Russian nation belies such a belief. In contrast the most strident "evangelists" in the 20th century were the Marxist-Leninists. Now there is evangelism by terrorism. Literally. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: GUEST,Frank Date: 15 Oct 01 - 05:32 PM This thread is hard to wade through. So much information. Terror means inflicting fear on others through violence. Some missionaries have done that, some didn't. Auto-da-fe's, Crusades, early cultures such as the Langadoc, Wicca, many middle European early religions, Goddess based religions, holy wars,collapse of the Ottoman Empire, persecution of early Christians.....all religious terrorism. It has happened through missionary zeal. It has also not happened. I disagree that religion has not caused damage to the Native American. They were considered heathens by the white man based on scriptural asssumptions. The buffalo hunt was a kind of terrorism against the Native Americans. Religion did have something to do with that, not just the inecession of the railroad. We saw lynching in the South based on the idea that there was a scriptural basis for the preservation of slavery. In a sense, the whole Civil Rights struggle was waged against a kind of terrorism. The idea of a missionary assumes a kind of superior position in trying to save another's soul may not be terrorism but it is arrogant and insulting. It can lead to terrorism but it is not always. The idea that some fundamentalist Christians have that Jewish people can't go to Heaven could be construed as a kind of psychological terrorism. Terrorism doesn't always have to contain the extermination of unbelievers. Sometimes, it can be intimidation. Frank |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: GUEST,Still River Sage Date: 15 Oct 01 - 04:48 PM John Hardly wrote See, this is my assertion. If they depend on an unchanging world around them for the survival of their religion, they will necessarily fail…..as I said, if not by Christian influence, by some other influence that does function better in a changing world. The environment, both physical and intellectual, stands still for no one. That's my point.
I said nothing about the natural world being "unchanging." As an evironmental philosopher, I would be the LAST person to make that assertion. The syncretic impulse I discussed earlier is what allows the flexibility to live in a world with a spirituality based on the natural world and to absorb useful elements of other cultures as they pass by. To put it bluntly, this is the original "shit happens" kind of world view. Evil exists, one must learn to live with it. And these tribes have, by and large, done just that. But not on their own terms. Disease, warfare (of which they were not innocent, I don't make that claim, either), but on a European scale, and interference with the cultural teachings were more than many tribes could swallow.
Additionally, Mr. Hardly said . . .this discussion dismisses prior to the argument, the possibility that revelatory religions might be based on an objective truth. Yes, that is true. My non-christian, not-quite-atheist roots are showing. My a priori assumption is bolstered by an a posteriori examination of history. He also said We accept everyday that something may be both true and unproveable. We dismiss this notion when we talk about religion…..probably because that possibility makes us too uncomfortable to think about. We clearly will not agree on this point. It doesn't make me uncomfortable to think about it, I dismiss big organized religion in general as a male-dominated power game. Man did make god in his own image. I don't, however, dismiss the personal strength that individuals who have given it a lot of thought obtain from it.
|
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: Dicho (Frank Staplin) Date: 15 Oct 01 - 01:37 PM In my post to Paddymac's heading, I used the term strikalight, having in mind the bundle containing fire-making materials carried by Indians and early settlers alike. The initial post did seem to be one asking for opinions; it struck a light with me because of my dislike of proselytizers ("propagators of the faith"). Not only history but the present illustrates the harm they can do, albeit unknowingly. I did not mean to denigrate anyone's personal beliefs, only the overt propagation of those beliefs, usually in conjunction with a pressuring society. Some missionaries I consider harmless, among them the young men of the LDS who, however much I dislike their purpose, are well-educated, polite, and, until they develop a thick hide, embarassed at approaching people who are emphatic in their response. Priests and nuns have been killed in Latin America for espousing the needs of their native parishioners (there is tentative peace in Guatemala and Chiapas but the problems are not being addressed in any meaningful way). Medical missionaries, especially those like the eye surgeons working with the Seventh Day Adventists, I applaud. Here in Canada, many young Indians were sent to church schools, abetted by the government, to learn the faith and customs of the white man, and to get a smattering of "education." Unfortunately, they learned just enough to turn them away from their parents and tribal elders and toward a white society that did not, and does not, want them. The education was sufficient only for the most menial of jobs. A considerable number of young boys were sexually assaulted by their teachers and administrators. Many ended up on skid row or in jails, an extremely disproportionate number in relation to whites. The schools are mostly closed today, but the legacy goes on. Assaulted former pupils are suing the churches, to the point that church administrators are asking for government protection from the suits because they would be bankrupted. Little was, and is being done to improve the reserves, the suicide rate is high and drug use incapacitates many, housing and services are inadequate, schools are inadequate and literacy low. The prayers of the natives to the white man's God, as well as to their own Gods, go unanswered. This is not history, it is current. Similar situations exist in the plains states. The pueblos and the nations of the United States southwest are making strides, but not much has happened yet in the plains and forests of the north. It is these current situations that mostly "struck a light" with me; although, much interested in history, I have cited examples from the past as well. I repeat again, I am not attacking anyone's personal faith- only the unthinking and forceful propagation of that faith. I apologise to those I may have offended, it was not my purpose. |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: Jack the Sailor Date: 15 Oct 01 - 12:58 PM Webster's definition of terrorism. Terrorism. 1795: The systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion. This, I believe, is an adequate definition of terrorism in any context. This does not make religious zealotry terrorism. But terror may be a means of coercion, used by religous zealots. For instance the bombing of abortion clinics here in North America. No one in thier right mind with the least understanding of Christ's message would condone these actions. But they are done in his name. It is not religion which makes these people kill. It is something else. |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: Rick Fielding Date: 15 Oct 01 - 12:38 PM Damn, this is good writing. Thoughtful points articulately presented....although I agree with the folks who think the header could have been a little less flammable. great thread. Rick |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: John Hardly Date: 15 Oct 01 - 08:42 AM "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.""
See, this is my assertion. If they depend on an unchanging world around them for the survival of their religion, they will necessarily fail…..as I said, if not by Christian influence, by some other influence that does function better in a changing world. The environment, both physical and intellectual, stands still for no one. That's my point.
|
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: Gervase Date: 15 Oct 01 - 07:28 AM Some years ago I lived next to a college which trained missionaries for overseas work and I got to know some of those studying there. Without exception they were incredibly nice people; drawn by a vocation and fired by a fervent if naive view that they were going out into the world to do good. Some even accepted that they were embarking on a life of risk, and that there was a chance, albeit slim, that they may have to suffer for their faith and possibly even die (from disease and as collateral damage in internecine struggles and feuds if not directly targeted as Christians). Their conviction and their faith were, possibly, little different to those that drive a suicide bomber, although naturally the would-be missionaries would recoil in horror at the thought of any physical coercion of converts (unlike organisations like the New Tribes Mission, which has perpetrated some foul deeds in the Amazon Basin). To the college's credit, anyone accepted for missionary training had to have a skill which would demonstrably benefit the communities to which they'd be travelling - resulting in a lot of medics, engineers and teachers passing through. To its discredit, however, was the evangelical ethos - the assumption, as has been mentioned earlier, of the superiority of their belief systems. But maybe that's my problem - I have nothing against the propagation of essential truths and the expansion of the Englightenment, but I'm only interested in facts, science and rational humanitarianism. For someone to try to propagate a 'faith'; a core of beliefs which cannot be proven and which will not demonstrably improve the lot of the converted is, to me, pernicious. By all means go overseas to teach, to cure and to build, but please don't ram an alien belief system down people's throats. Maybe any religion that feels the need to proseletyse can't be too confident about itself. If your belief system is any good, surely the world will beat a path to your door to adopt it. But maybe that's the rational humanist in me talking and trolling. As the saying goes, some of my best friends are Christians :^) |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: Haruo Date: 15 Oct 01 - 02:49 AM As an American Baptist I am proud of our Founding Father Roger Williams (see my essay Roger Williams and Freedom of Conscience) for his progressive notions vis-à-vis the Native New Englanders' land and religious-freedom rights. However, I think one needs to draw a distinction between people's intentions and the effects of their behavior/teachings. The road to hell is proverbially paved with good intentions, after all. My sister has spent most of her adult life with Wycliffe, helping develop a Bible in the Mazatec de San Jerónimo Tecoatl language of southern Mexico. I do not know how much this has helped those people who speak the language, nor how much it has hurt them. It has certainly provided meaning and focus for my sister. Liland |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: Stilly River Sage Date: 15 Oct 01 - 12:42 AM 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.
|
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: toadfrog Date: 14 Oct 01 - 11:31 PM Well, this thread began with the stated premise, "If it is accurate to view terrorism as an assault on the life and culture of a target people . . ." The short answer is, the premise is wrong, so whatever follows is wrong. Words mean what they are used to mean. "Terrorism" does not mean anything unless it involves violence, and trying to expand it to include missionary activity is a perversion of language. Properly put, the question is "is it wrong to try to convince other people of the merit of your own beliefs, where it may change their customary way of life in an undesarable way"? My answer would be, "No, it isn't wrong not unless you do it by force and fraud." It's true that missionaries often use force and fraud. But that isn't unique to missionaries. So no, GUEST, it isn't "terrorism." |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: PeteBoom Date: 14 Oct 01 - 10:07 PM I tend to fall much into a similar bucket as Joe. More years than I want to admit of being taught by Dominicans (nuns, brothers and priests) with a few Jesuits thrown in so we'd appreciate the Dominicans. I find myself shaking my head at arguments comparing contemporary missionaries with those of 300 years ago, then saying, "See?! They're ALL evil!" Some probably were and are. Others are (or were) misguided. I have great fun pointing out to people that applying today's standard's to anything from more than a few years ago is silly. People have been simply brutal to each other for much longer than folks living in the West want to admit. In some cases, this has included spreading religion by force (eg., convert or else). It matters not if it is pressure from a dominant church or a government - the Prince is a Lutheran, therefore ALL of us MUST become Lutherans. Sorry - rambling a bit - just got back from a gig and this caught my eye.... What I'm getting at is this - the most effective missionaries I have ever seen, and seen in action, simply live among the people they are witnessing to, helping them when they can and living a righteous life. Eventually, people come to THEM to learn more about this wonderful religion. Those that live a righteous life are far better at winning true converts than those who preach on a street corner ranting an raving about devils and what not. As one fellow I heard on NPR pointed out this weekend, MOST "Christians" are looking for God to get even with those "others" who are clearly going to Hell. Those are the Christians I find myself shaking my head over - the ones that say I'm not a "good" Christian - which causes me to say prayers of thanks to the God they find to be false. Pete |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: John Hardly Date: 14 Oct 01 - 09:07 PM "Add to that the fact that missionaries sometimes were elevated to a shamanistic level by virtue of them having books, being able to read and to write, and the natives were torn between covering all bets between their own holy wo/men and the new black robes or what have you." --katlaughing
"...through belittling them, and the used of advanced European technology (apparent magic) and the seeming magic of the printed word" --Stilly River Sage" |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: Stilly River Sage Date: 14 Oct 01 - 08:27 PM Robomatic did have a lot to say, but I think he/she is conflating evangelism and colonization.
4) If you extend the evangelizing idea to include the cultural expansion of the European nations around the world, the following subjects have been evangelized:
5) Some evangelizing goes two ways: Adoption of customs, expressions, ideas, and especially cuisine gathered from abroad.
Those areas of indigenous cultures were colonized as agriculture and industry moved into conquered lands. Land was distributed in a variety of ways to many types of people, depending on who did the giving (Spanish land grants, Mexican colonies, British colonies, French . . . ). Language is one of those slippery areas where evangelism did have a large influence, but was not the only influence. [snip] I also agree with remarks much futher up the page, that individuals with agendas are as much responsible for the damage done by Old World religions (what many secular philosophers call Industrial religions). Religion has always been a source of power. Some religions are better at letting it remain the confines of the individual. Though I haven't read greatly on the subject, a case in point where Old World religion tried to let the power remain with the individuals were with the Gnostics in southern France. The pope saw this as a direct threat to his power base; if people understood spirituality to not require the expensive and powerful conduit of the church, there would be trouble. Jessie Weston's From Ritual to Romance goes into lucid detail on this subject.
Robomatic was also correct, I think, on the exchange of cultural material. Colonizers do absorb the culture of the conquered. That exchange of language, foods, and customs does eventually alter the colonizer. And if they stick around, as they did in North America (in contrast to the African nations where many of the colonizers pulled out upon independence) and Asia (Vietnam is a conspicuous example), it makes for a rich blend. And it means we examine our consciences in this way as part of the continual adjustment as we learn more about each other. We adjust our laws and practices accordingly. It's a messy process sometimes, and will continue to be.
Good thread.
|
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: Max Tone Date: 14 Oct 01 - 08:06 PM I've only briefly scanned all the input to date, but a few home truths have come to light, so far -- apart from all the examples of Genuine philanthropy, etc., and the allowance for invasive missionaries (backed by Traders)having a deep belief that their 'conversion' of 'natives' was PC..... 1/ Religious indoctrination instills 'terror', in the guise of "Fear of God". 2/ Joe Offer's version of spreading his 'creeds' is faithful, fair and full of FAQs. 3/ If 'God' (or Satan) in an agnostic sense is taken to be "the power of the collective subconscious", irrespective of particular faith, or any organised religion, with praise and retribution meted out in appropriate amounts, dependant on myriad influences........then Karma.....or whichever term we like to use.....is immediate, and recognisable......but we don't always admit to our mistakes, though often prompted. Hey, it's Called a Mudcat Discussion Forum!! All pray now......... |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: katlaughing Date: 14 Oct 01 - 07:14 PM It may not be mentioned in the Old Testament, but those I was referring to did not restrict themselves to just the Old Testament. They still threatened with examples from the New Testament where hell is depicted as a "lake that burns with fire and brimstone" (Rev. 21:8). As a former member of Job's Daughters, I hardly agree with your depiction of Satan as a "helper." According to the Book of Job, Satan, first named so in the Book of Job, came to God, along with the angels, not as one of His angels. God bragged a bit about his pious follower, Job. This got Satan's back up a bit and off he went to test Job. Not exactly a helper, IMO. I'm kat, who are you? |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: GUEST Date: 14 Oct 01 - 06:18 PM There is no "hellfire" in the Old Testament, as there was no concept of "Hell" in the Jewish thinking before the New Covenant. In fact, there was no belief even in an afterlife of any sort. That is why in the Old Testament so much emphasis is placed on children and families, e.g. Abraham and Sarah...since there was no afterlife, the only way to be remembered and to have one's memory live was by carrying everything on to your children, and thus on to the future. Even Satan is a messenger of God, a helper, appearing in the book of Job. And don't bring up "The fires of Gehenna" either. Gehenna was the garbage dump in Jerusalem. |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: robomatic Date: 14 Oct 01 - 05:35 PM This is a wonderful topic to me because I've agonized over the issue of missionaries and evangelizing in general for years. I have too much to say on the topic so will try to be organized: 1) The essence of evangelizing is the proposition that the one doing the evangelizing has a 'better way' than the one being evangelized. 2) Thus there can be good evangelizing (such as when I talk to my Baptist neighbors about the improvements made by Charles Darwin to the theory of Natural Selection). And bad evangelizing (where a couple of sportsjacketed LDS missionaries knock on my door to let me know that there's a whole nother book I've got to read to ensure the safe transition of my soul to the afterlife).
3) Some peoples clearly are worse off due to the influence of the most self righteous among the prosylitizzers
4) If you extend the evangelizing idea to include the cultural expansion of the European nations around the world, the following subjects have been evangelized:
6) Bad evangelizing to me is hypocritical. It comes under the forced grin of the promise of eternal bliss, not right now but in the indefinite future. Beneath it lies the subtext: "I'm so screwed up in my philosophical approach to life that I finally accepted a narrow band of belief among the smargasboard that is out there, and in order to reinforce my wafer-thin metaphysical confidence in these beliefs I have chosen to inflict them on everyone I meet to convince myself of their merit."
7) Good evangelizing to me: "I am in your neighborhood to investigate your life and beliefs and also to explain to you, if you are interested, my life and beliefs in the object of improving both our understandings and ways of life. If you find my world-view worth adopting, then let's find a way to relate it to the real world in which you life.
I used to be dead-set against missionaries, but as I thought about it and met a few, and investigated my own tendency to pontificate, I came to my current opinion that it's more of a case-by-case affair.
Quote: |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: weepiper Date: 14 Oct 01 - 04:32 PM Hey Paddymac, I knew Michael Newton when he was living in Edinburgh. I'm glad to see people are buying his books! :-) |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: wysiwyg Date: 14 Oct 01 - 03:44 PM We CAN deal with those-- we just DON'T. FMI see www.rc.org. It works. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: Bill D Date: 14 Oct 01 - 03:29 PM ...ignorance and assholery are the main problems, whether they are within some religion or totally separate from it. If we could deal with THOSE problems, then perhaps we could discuss belief systems rationally and quietly. I stole a quote and changed it a bit to: "It's too bad ignorance doesn't itch unbearably" |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: katlaughing Date: 14 Oct 01 - 02:29 PM Paddymac, thanks for coming clean.:-) I had a post written up with a couple of links to very interesting articles about missionaries today and it disappeared while I was looking up additional sources on google. I foolishly had not copied it! So, no posting. I do think it is interesting that whenever we do try to have a discussion about this, several peoplecome in to defend and try to bring an end to the discussion. I think this one has been very interesting and in general less rancourous than previous ones. Just one thing I will retype as well as I can remember it. Amos, the Old Testament is full of fear, hellfire, and damnation. Add to that the fact that missionaries sometimes were elevated to a shamanistic level by virtue of them having books, being able to read and to write, and the natives were torn between covering all bets between their own holy wo/men and the new black robes or what have you. No army needed, just what they saw as strong magic, so yes, in answer to your question. kat |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: wysiwyg Date: 14 Oct 01 - 01:38 PM Amos, I can't quite imagine you ever topping this one: ... jerks tend to hide in religions as an excuse for practicing not their religion but their personal drama of assholery. It's the ultimate synthesis, the purest distillation, of our many, long discussions. It's a point I think anyone of sense can agree with, and it's as much agreement as I want, from anyone, on the topic. It all flows from that simple point, said clearly. IMO it actually makes the rest of the discussion... unnecessary! I think we could zip out the word [religion] there and substitute any other personal agenda, and it works just as well. Asshole qua Asshole. I like it. The AQA theorem. (Amos Quips Again.) ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: John Hardly Date: 14 Oct 01 - 01:20 PM "People who are not threatened physically are not likely to jump out of a familiar and working cultural framework into a strange one just because someone pounds the old Testament at them, now, are they?" --Amos Yes. And they have individually for centuries. Regards, John
|
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: Amos Date: 14 Oct 01 - 01:14 PM My experience is that the offenses and crazinesses of humans are about evenly distributed regardless of religion -- religions don't make jerks; it is simply that jerks tend to hide in religions as an excuse for practicing not their religion but their personal drama of assholery. It is really easy to borrow a bunch of highly charged vocabulary whether from the Sanskrit or from Thomas and use those terms to push buttons, stir people up, and so on. Because many religions also deal in a sense of mystery it is fairly easy to use one to push people around by making calls to forces, ideas and entities that they have no perception of, but have to accept. What jerks do when they are working this scam is use those terms to instill fear and obeisance in others. Osama bin Laden, at least insofar as he is presented in the media, is such a jerk, and his Black Knights of the Quesadilla with him. So areany others who use the genuine language of a religion to breed fanatics for political purposes, financial gain, sexual opportunity or just some kind of weird power trip. Fortunately, I can say with a high degree of confidence that neither Joe nor WYSYWYG are interested in that brand, which is not religion in any true sense anyway, but merely typical human nuttiness borrowing some veneer to hide true intent. That's not what Catters in general and these Catters in particular are about in any sense. As for the historical overwhelm of the Incas, the Maya, the Polynesian, and the American Indian, this was not done solely by zealous missionaries. Don't fortget the overpowering presence of steel armor, guns, horses and square-rigged vessels. That certainly contributed to the overhwelm, and without those elements it is likely that a lot less destruction of native culture would have occurred. People who are not threatened physically are not likely to jump out of a familiar and working cultural framework into a strange one just because someone pounds the old Testament at them, now, are they? Regards, A. |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: wysiwyg Date: 14 Oct 01 - 01:08 PM Wouldn't it be more accurate to approach this topic as a discssion of class war and colonialism? ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: paddymac Date: 14 Oct 01 - 12:42 PM Well, first let me wipe the egg off my face for being the anonymous initiator of this thread. I didn't realize that my cookie had crumbled until I had a chance to visit again today. Somebody above used the phrase "light striker", meaning, I think, a sub-category of "flammer." I think that is creativity, and applaud it. As to the topic of the thread, I neither had nor have any interest in bashing any particular brand of religion, but am very interested in the views of our family members on the generic topic of proselytizinig. My interest was stimulated by a book I've been reading which a friend brought me: "A Handbook of the Scottish Gaelic World" by Michael Newton(ISBN 1-85182-541-X). He makes the point that when different cultures come into contact, there are three typical response options: traditionalist (in the extreme form, "death to the other guy"); syncretist (maybe they've got something we can use); and, assimilationist (let's be like them). He observes: "Whether we look at Native American society, Gaelic society or any other society which stands at the cross-roads of tradition and Modernism, there is debate, sometimes even violent conflict, about which path to follow. The differing responses and lack of agreement can lead to factional in-fighting which only strengthens the position of the newcomer and creates a stereotype of the native as innately prone to division." In Newton's book, the above is set in the context of "traditional" societies encountering a "Modernist" society, but it seems to me that current events are better thought of as the inverse. Thanks to all for their sentient contributions to the discussion, and , again, my apologies for posting anonymously, even if inadvertently. |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: Joe Offer Date: 14 Oct 01 - 11:40 AM Exactly so, as George would say, so Nobody said it for him. Thank you, Nobody. Thank you, too, John. Judge the people who do the harm - don't make a general condemnation of the group. I'd like to say one more thing, and then I'll give up. Religious faith isn't about power and coercion, but there are many who wield power in the name of religion. Faith is the fundamental system of belief that individuals or groups of people develop deep within themselves and their traditions - it is not something that can be forced upon others, but it can be shared. Truly faithful people are those who contemplate the beauty and goodness of life and see it as a gift given by a power beyond them - and they respond by contributing to the beauty and goodness of life. And in that contemplation, they share with faithful people of all creeds, and with faithful people who adhere to no creed at all. My grandmother, Julia McQuaid, was a truly faithful person. She used to drive me crazy with her rosaries and novenas and prayers to St. Jude and St. Anthony - I thought all that stuff was superstitious, and I still do. It wasn't those external practices that were the essence of her faith, although those practices were very important to her. Wherever she went, there was joy and goodness. By the time she died, she was the only white person left living in her Detroit neighborhood. The neighbors thought she was kind of crazy, but they loved her. They weren't Catholic, but they drove her to church on Sundays. Many came to her funeral and prayed with us in celebration of her life, and they told me how much she and her faith meant to them. And no, she didn't try to convert the neighbors - she just loved them, especially their children. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: John Hardly Date: 14 Oct 01 - 11:40 AM We tend to be harder on the religions with which we live. I believe this is because we can see the lives of the religious (individuals) and can scrutinize them for their hypocrisy. Those religions that are distant (in geography or history) and don't live among us are romanticized and generalized and somehow or other seen as more pure---because we don't see, aren't aware of their inner struggles and impurities.
It is an inescapable fact of history, and its interface with technology, that more and more religions and philosophies are going to come face to face, and there will necessarily be a "survival of the fittest" as the weaker give way to the stronger ideas. Yes, I believe that some philosophies and religions are superior to others----I find it interesting that it is often the same people who, on the one hand find it untenable and irrational that a Christian might still hold to an "archaic" notion, for instance creation, in the face of such a large amount of seemingly contrary, objective evidence, are on the other hand the first to issue outrage that one objectively inferior (from a rational point of view) religion or philosophy would be swallowed up by another.
I think this, as much as any other factor, has contributed to the rise of frenetic terrorism in this age. Inferior philosophies and religions depend on isolation in order to survive. For instance, it wasn't necessarily our military build up and policies that did in the USSR—it had much more to do with an inescapable proliferation of technology that made misleading their people an increasing impossibility for the leadership of the USSR—the people could educate themselves as to the nature and lifestyles of the world outside the USSR.
Terrorists (as a group of wannabe power players) are seeing an end in sight to their ability to effectively lie to those they oppress for their power. Thus, they are trying a panicky two-pronged approach to keeping their power—they are oppressing their people to a greater degree in hopes that the masses never become educated, and they are lashing out in what may be a vain attempt (given the balance of power) to injure those they know have a more workable plan that threatens their power.
It is one of the first things a "cult" does when breaking away from a larger philosophy—isolate. They do so because it is their only hope in standing against the "onslaught" of superior thinking. If the cult was secure in the superiority of its own beliefs it would join, not shun the family of man.
Many religions of the world are oppressing their followers, and they often do so in much more injurious ways than we in the western world think probable (given a few centuries of rational philosophical thought). Ironic though. We see and believe the "oppression" of Christianity but fail to be even equally outraged at the other religions who by our very own objective standards are immeasurably more oppressive.
If not by influence of "Christian" missionaries, these other religions will still fall by the wayside of their own inferiority because the modern world is going to take over any philosophy that cannot amply explain its own existence in the light of a changing world. It's a curious and modern notion that we have—that a culture must be preserved simply because it (currently, or at one time) exists. Also modern is the notion that all cultures are equally valuable and objectively equally "right". Viability is an impersonal, grim reaper. I tend to be sort of an "evolutionary theologist", that is, I believe that every religion and philosophy should be open to public scrutiny and stand on its own merits. Christianity has a long history of such scrutiny and has often undergone it greatest changes when it thought it could be its most arbitrarily doctrinaire. This also leads me to believe strongly in a barrier between gov't and religion because there will always be conflicting ideas/philosophies/religions and these must be "fought" in the realm of the mind in order to most effectively move us forward as a race. |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: GUEST,just a nobody Date: 14 Oct 01 - 10:47 AM Religion, it is the world's Scapegoat. Be it that the great Infidel, the Godless Pagans, the Pompuos Cathlics, the Fundamentalist Bastards... We all love to look at other beliefs and say, "Look how much trouble THAT has started." It is so easy to say, but religion, a belief, is typically not what is to blame. I think these threads start, typically, so someone can sharpen their axe on Christian faith. I don't think the problem is with religion, it is with the human beings that follow it (or not). People have brought up some horrible tales dealing with missionaries, but is it the religion that is to blame? No. It is usually, the person involved. Any number of people on any given day say that people should do some such or another, "In God's Name". To me, that is one of the closest things to sacrilage in any religion. Man does not know how 'God' thinks. But man does know what 'HE' wants. And religion can be used as a tool, just as a gun, food, sanctions, and money. I guess what I am saying is... Why blame the religion, that is ignorance. Look into the people that gave the orders... those are the people at fault. |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: DonMeixner Date: 14 Oct 01 - 08:22 AM There have been some good missions and some bad missions in the world. The same is true of missionaries. My Uncle Bill who has been a Southern Baptist Missionary in South America all his life seems to fall in the middle. A good man who has had questionable result. At a family reunion I saked him what his most important contribution was to his mission and he said, "Bring flushing toilets and private bathrooms to the hill people in Colombia." I asked if it was for sanitary and water safety reasons he said only partly. It was mainly so they wouldn't been seen peeing in the bushes. Modesty in the Garden of Eden I guess. When asked to support missions I ask if they are Evangelical Missions or strictly Mercy, Help, and Service. I will not support Evangical Missions of any kind. I am appalled by the notion that we feel we can ram a religion so far from a cultural down the throats of a population because we think our faith is better than theirs. But if the mission is there to feed the needy and help the sick. I'll offer support only if the effort to convert is strictly by example and not by Evangelical brow beating. Don |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: Joe Offer Date: 14 Oct 01 - 01:42 AM
I've been a Roman Catholic all my life, and I have a degree in theology from a Catholic seminary. I've always been a member of what I call the "loyal opposition" in the church. Like many priests and nuns I know, I'm in opposition to the Roman party line because I favor birth control and married female priests. I'm very "iffy" on the issue of papal authority and infallibility (which is supposed to apply to very limited situations - three in the last 125 years). On the other hand, I strongly support the Catholic Church's "preferential option for the poor" and its opposition to capital punishment, along with its uneasiness with warfare and with capitalism. Besides that, I share a general perspective of faith with most Catholics, give or take a few minor theological issues. While I don't support everything Rome says, I'm a member of the Catholic Church in good standing. I know from first-hand experience that Catholics don't mindlessly march to the tune Rome plays. I also know from first-hand experience that my church and many other churches do much good - I see evidence of that good every day. And yes, I know from first-hand experience that my church and most others have done harm - and I see evidence of that harm every day. I've studied the history and politics of the Catholic Church quite closely for almost 40 years, and I think I know the church well and have a realistic view of its good and bad points. On the whole, I'd say my church is much more good than bad - but the bad parts are much more newsworthy, and that gives outsiders a negative view of us. If you've personally had a bad experience with a church, I'm sorry. I just hope you'll remember that many people have had good experiences with churches. If you're using third-hand information or centuries-old history as your basis for condemnation of religion, then I suggest that it's time you take another look. If you don't belong to an organization and you want to voice criticism about it, they you'd better be sure you have your facts straight. You'd better also be sure you don't make broad generalizations from limited information about isolated incidents. There are good, intelligent people who belong to churches; and there are good, intelligent people who do not. There are a few Mudcatters who regularly make anti-religious statements that are at least partially untrue. If you characterize an organization as all bad or all good, or if you think ALL members of any given group are such-and-such, then I would like to suggest that you may well be a bigot. I think it's better if we view all people and all philosophies with an open mind. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: wysiwyg Date: 14 Oct 01 - 01:22 AM People listen because they can, not because they are made to. If you try to make them and they won't, trying harder will delay their being ABLE to hear. Of course I myself forget this thousands of times daily. *G* Some of these things, we forget, we just have to help each other remember. ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: Dicho (Frank Staplin) Date: 14 Oct 01 - 01:19 AM Well, I can quote Dylan, "When will they ever learn?" The truth is they don't, but some of us keep trying to make them listen, fruitless and repetitive as it may be. |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: wysiwyg Date: 14 Oct 01 - 01:07 AM Well, Dicho, you see, I have said that sort of thing before... just as I have seen much, in this thread, that has been said before. I've worked for others' rights, in many settings... I have cried out for cultural awareness where it has been dangerous to do so... that isn't the point. It's just all old news! Don't worry, Kat, the Bishop has gone home for the year, and now life at our house gets back to normal-- which means, back to the Spirituals project. It'll probably be a long time before I speak my mind on this stuff again, here. Nuffadisstuff! ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: katlaughing Date: 14 Oct 01 - 12:58 AM Ya read my mind, Dicho, thanks. Good, Susan. I hope you can continue to keep that balance going. kat |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: Dicho (Frank Staplin) Date: 14 Oct 01 - 12:50 AM It seems that each segment of humanity finds it necessary to impose his beliefs upon every other segment. Was Man's first conscious thought Bash thy Neighbor? Social organization brought men into groups within which rules of behavior kept them from bashing each other, but individuals were expected to conform. Groups became nations, but those outside the nation were prey, subject to exploitation and domination. Religion became a powerful tool in exerting domination (Stalinism, which did not recognize a God, was as much a religion in practice as the others). Contributors to this thread in part were attacking the practice of proselytization, forcing belief on others, and was not an attack on religions as a whole. It is the "spreading of the faith," often forcibly and without regard for the consequences that I bemoaned in my posts. WYSIWYG, you say nothing about the religions that were wiped out by the religions of the invaders. I shouldn't speak for KatL, but like her, I feel great sorrow for the destruction of the cultures of peoples here, and I think many of us with native blood or close contact with natives feel this way. Thankfully those days are dying, but their sad legacy remains. Much that religion has done is useful and has contributed to civilizing the beast in all of us; it has, until the last century, been a dominant force in the development of the arts and the promulgation of education and ethics, but religious leaders have too often imposed their will on the cultures and rights of others. |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: wysiwyg Date: 14 Oct 01 - 12:40 AM Kat, thanks for your words, I think they are meant to calm-- I am not taking it personally, I think maybe for the first time in a LONG time. It's just--- SILLY how often we go over and over this stuff! I'm sorry for any crap you got, BTW. I'd have stood with you, if I had been here then, and I would now, any day. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: marty D Date: 14 Oct 01 - 12:23 AM It's hardly surprising that there has been a surfeit of religious threads lately, and it's even less surprising that they've been more negative than positive. We've just been attacked by people who feel that God is fighting with them. We mourn our victims with constant references to "our" God, in word and song. We retaliate in the name of God. More people die from our bombing while calling to "their" God. It's become "Duelling Religions" (Gee, a music reference) between people absolutely convinced of their righteousness. I think big-time skepticism is a pretty natural result. Besides there has been some excellent writing and debate in threads like this. Don't like the negativity? Don't get mad. Start a positive religious thread. (as Wyz has already done) That's a better antidote. marty |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: katlaughing Date: 14 Oct 01 - 12:11 AM Susan, this isn't about you personally. No one is making deliberate blanket statements. If people still feel a need to talk about the past, then talk they will. Christianity, in general, has been the biggest mover and shaker for the past 2,000 years, so naturally there is a lot to talk about. If it hurts, I am sorry, but you do not have to read it. You are not responsible for the past, nor for the actions of those we speak. It would be best if you could understand this better and not expend so much energy in trying to defend. And for the record, some of us pagans have already taken a lot of heat and crap on this forum, too. We mostly got over it. Again, this discussion is not about you personally and your own personal Christianity. kat |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: GUEST,faswilli2 Date: 13 Oct 01 - 11:55 PM Not sure how many wars have started over religion but I'm sure its no small number. But rather than trying to convert anyone to a new religion, perhaps we shuould try to convert them to the 20th century. (or the 19th at least). |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: wysiwyg Date: 13 Oct 01 - 11:33 PM I was just wondering, after I stopped laughing, how long it would be tolerated here to run threads like: Agnostics: Wishy-Washy Fence-Sitters! Atheists: Asses or Elbows? Pagans Suck, Don't They? Did Witches Really Eat Baby Jane? ... and yet over and over, it's them pesky Christains being run down for intolerance, insensitivity, and other heinous acts. Did we corner the market on being A**h*les???? How come we have to go over and over and OVER this ground? "Hey, it's been at least a month since we had a good Christian-bashing around here, better get on it!" "Hey Wiz, yer too sensitive!" (Oh wait, I thought I was insesitive.... maybe I dunno my ass from.. no that's the other group, I forgot!) Does anyone have anything POSITIVE to post, about any other group???? ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: 53 Date: 13 Oct 01 - 11:17 PM boy this is a deep topic. bob |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: wysiwyg Date: 13 Oct 01 - 11:15 PM I know-- let's have a permathread on The Usual Complaints About Religion, and require that people post to that one, and that they always come up with new complaints. (hi Bill! *G* LOL!!!) Or wait! We HAVE a solution-- USE the BS prefix!!!! Wow! Let's patent that one! ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: Dicho (Frank Staplin) Date: 13 Oct 01 - 11:01 PM Stilly River Sage, you are probably familiar with stories of California missions who established large farms with slave Indian labor. Thousands died of overwork and bad treatment. This thread was started by one of the nameless strike-a-lights, but it has set several of us off on a pet topic. I remember in New Mexico in the 30s- 40s that several anthropologists there took every occasion to urge the Indians to preserve their religion. I don't know whether it was the result of this or a separate quarrel, but the council of one of the pueblos padlocked the Catholic Church. We chuckled over that for some time. |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: katlaughing Date: 13 Oct 01 - 10:51 PM BillD and Stilly River Sage, sorry I missed your postings before I submitted mine. BillD, I understand the frustration and had quit responding to threads started by anonymous GUESTS, but this one seems to be generating some good discussion. *smile* I know you've heard that one before.:-) StillyRS, thanks for your comments and specific citations. kat |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: katlaughing Date: 13 Oct 01 - 10:37 PM well said, Dicho. Joe, thank you for your response. No, I do not think MT should have been banned from India, but I also do not believe that birth control is not a part of the indigenous culture. Midwives and wisewomen have traditionally had knowledge and, usually, access to herbal abortifacients and preventatives. I believe they have been restricted to those simply due to lack of education and power over self. In countries where women are taught about modern-birth control methods and where they have ready access, they become empowered over much more of their lives and very interested in a respite from the rigours and poverty of constant chidbearing. kat |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: Bill D Date: 13 Oct 01 - 09:57 PM in issues like this, I need a name and some perspective before I comment. I am getting VERY unhappy at serious issues being raised here by the equivilent of leaflets stuck up on the bulletin board with no name attached. Yes, I am familiar with the argument that the 'point' is more important than the person, but my mind harks back to my university days when "The Council of 500" posted various inflammatory messages on campus, alternately denouncing, questioning and threatening the status quo. 99% of the folks here identify themselves, whether they are members or not, so that we may know which entity we are responding to, whether we ever know their 'real' name or not.....and the 1% do NOT ask simple, benign questions, but mostly prod, provoke and cause dissention. You want to discuss things with me, show your damn face! |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: Stilly River Sage Date: 13 Oct 01 - 09:42 PM Sorry, Joe, but I think you're wrong about christian missionaries not coercing native cultures. And they aren't working to preserve cultures. I'll give a specific example. In the last year or two the news (probably NPR, my usual source) has contained stories about the Baptists convincing the Yanomamo of the Amazon jungle to stop their migratory hunting/gathering practice and settle down to grow sugar cane. They totally disregard the fact that the Yanomamo can't use the sugar cane, they can only trade it for goods produced by others. This switch from self-sustaining to commercially dependent is in order to get the Yanomomo to stay put so they can indoctrinate them with their Baptist beliefs. I personally find this practice obscene. Finally, you said "It's also grossly paternalistic to depict the natives of a "missionary" land as innocents who are incapable of defending themselves against new ideas that will pollute and destroy their pristine culture. "The natives" are intelligent adults, not innocent prey." Missionaries systematically destroyed the religious leaders of Indian cultures, through belittling them, and the used of advanced European technology (apparent magic) and the seeming magic of the printed word. Matrilineal cultures were disassembled as Europeans appointed Indian men as liasons between the tribe and the conquerors, based in no way on their standing within their own cultures. This undermined families, villages, clans.
Many American Indian tribes today practice a dual-religion system. Some Indians try to adhere to their cultural beliefs, others have a pan-Indian practice today known as the Native American Church. In a different approach, a Kiowa speaker in a class of mine told of how in his town (Carnegie, OK) on Wednesday they would go to one church, on Saturday another, and on Sunday yet another. This is due to the common American Indian view that all religious practices lead to power, so they often participate in the christian church while continuing in their culture's belief system. Many others converted entirely to christianity and have left behind the overt practice of their autochthonous (land or place-based) religion. Elements of it remain in their use of language and the alternate meaning of some words they speak in English. In the same way that christianity is embedded in the English language for non-Indians, Indian beliefs have translated into English and can be found in the literature and art.
Someone in this thread mentioned the Catholic priests/missionaries and their work in the New World. Many of them worked directly with colonial military powers to round up the indigenous population, destroy their land-based economies, and generate a captive population for virtual if not literal slave labor. One of the exceptions to this was Padre Kino, in Sinaloa and Sonora Mexico, and parts of southern Arizona. Years ago I read about his resistance to enslaving the Indian populations. Is all of this religious social-economic activity terrorism? I doubt it. Both acts are calculated, but one is intended to murder, the other to enslave. Both have political ends.
Just muddying the waters.
|
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: Dicho (Frank Staplin) Date: 13 Oct 01 - 09:24 PM Just wanted to add that the type of terrorism exhibited Sept. 11 has nothing to do with the wrongs committed by missionaries. The attack indicates hatred and a desire to destroy our people and culture, not a wish to reform us. |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: Dicho (Frank Staplin) Date: 13 Oct 01 - 09:14 PM It is only in the last 50 years or so that the "missionary" who only wants to help, not preach as well, has come forward. For the most part, I agree with Katlaughing. The "missionaries" who came with the conquerors to the Americas regarded heathenism as something to be uprooted. The mindset of the inquisition certainly came to Mexico. The material wealth and power of the conquerors were such that the natives were, in a real sense, innocent prey. As an aside to your comments, Rick, some of the 19th C. preachers in Canada were extreme in beliefs. A Rev. McDougall (Wesleyan) who was active in what is now Alberta even regarded the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Ukrainians as benighted and fodder to be converted; a physician in his coterie combined McDougal's ideas with his medical treatments (unbelievably, some of the Ukrainians were converted). He and his group stole a sacred meteorite from the Cree in order to prevent its ceremonial veneration. It was shipped to the Wesleyan college in Ontario. It is now back in Alberta, but in Provincial storage. Some day, it may be returned to the Cree, but Canada has not yet followed the United States' legislated program of returning sacred objects to the tribes. Unfortunately, the majority here still regard McDougall as a great Canadian. |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: Ebbie Date: 13 Oct 01 - 08:54 PM It certainly has not been only the Roman Catholics who proselytized and pressured the indigenous populations. One of Alaska's most revered missionaries, Sheldon Jackson, is also one of those who were most injurious to the native cultures. Ironically, many of the native people did become converts and are still Presbyterian, generations after. That does not, in my mind, mitigate the harm he did to the families and individuals in his single-minded pursuit of what he felt God required of him. God save us from all who are absolutely sure of anything! There be dragons. Ebbie |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: Joe Offer Date: 13 Oct 01 - 08:40 PM Well, Kat, one of my major disagreements with Mother Teresa was about birth control. She spoke strongly against artifical birth control, which is what you'd expect out of a pious old Catholic lady - but I highly doubt that her expression of her beliefs had any significant effect upon the population of India. There's certainly no indication that she forced people to believe as she did. Should she have been barred from India because she had ideas that were unacceptable to liberals? For that matter, it seems that birth control is not part of the indigenous culture, anyhow - so Mother Teresa may have been more in accord with local culture than we would be. The Europeans conquered America for economic reasons - they wanted land and riches. They took their religion with them, and they believed that their God approved of their conquest - but religion was not their reason for conquest. Yes, there were missionaries who did harm to Native Americans - but there were also many missionaries who did good. In the end, religion had very little to do with the final outcome. America was doomed to become a land of sport utility vehicles and flush toilets. Primitive American culture and religion died. In recent years, the traditional, authoritarian model of European Christian religion died also. The old men are trying to hold onto power in the churches, but they're not having much luck. For Catholic and other mainstream Christian missionaries, the standard practice nowadays is to serve people without preaching. Coercion is completely forbidden, and evangelization is generally frowned upon. The missionaries practice their own religion openly, and the church doors are open to local people. Converts are certainly welcomed, but only if they freely choose to convert. My main point is that it's dangerous to make generalizations and it's wrong to demonize anybody - missionaries, European settlers in America, or indigenous peoples. I'll readily agree that coercion is harmful - but churches just don't do that nowadays. In fact, modern missionaries from the mainstream churches now work to preserve the indigenous cultures in Central and South America. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: Rick Fielding Date: 13 Oct 01 - 07:36 PM I used to know a young woman (autoharpist and folk singer) who one day surprised all of us in the 'old tyme country music' circle by saying that she had been called by god to go overseas and be a missionary. I remember sitting chatting with her for about 10 hours, and I never heard her say anything that indicated she was seeking converts. Her motivation seemed to simply be wanting to help people. She certainly never seemed the type who wanted power over others, and in fact was apalled at how many Native children in Canada were forcibly separated from their tribes and beliefs by the Politically powerful churches. I wished her well, and often wonder what has happened to her over the last twenty five years. Rick |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: katlaughing Date: 13 Oct 01 - 07:21 PM I wouldn't go so far as to call them terrorists, as to me, that does bring up images of extreme violence and hatred spewing. Joe, though, do really believe Mothre Theresa did no harm to the women she served, if she converted them to the notion that they must have children regardless of their circumstances? That is one of the biggest bugaboos I have with the RC Church. You also stated that the missionaries who came to this country were "well-meaning." Of course they were within their own paramaters of belief. Their well-meaningness carried through well into the recent past with whole generations of Native American children taken from their families, incarcerated in strict schools where they were forbidden any of their culture, as you know. I don't consider that well-meaning, nor any less disruptive than what the other "conquerers" did. Most of the missionaries at the time preached a hellfire and damnation theme which also wreaked havoc with the already well-established Native American spiritualies. I am going to stop because I don't want to go overboard, but I think there are plenty of instances wehere religious zealotry has been far from benign. Witness what the Spaniards did to the indigenous cultures of Central and South American and Mexico; all in the name of their god. I have never understood the mindset which creates a missionary; it seems very egotistical to me, rather than "god" centered. By that I am not referring to the Mother Theresa types who work among the poor, but more th types who feel they must travel about foreign lands pointing out how wrong everyone is for not believeing in their god. I wonder if the indigenous cultures along the Amazon have seen the bumper sticker, yet, "God save me from your followers." |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: Jeri Date: 13 Oct 01 - 07:11 PM My view is that this is a wind-up. You may have an anti-missionary agenda, but trying to work "terror" in there is a bit awkward. I doubt inspiring terror in large numbers of people is effective in interesting people in a religion. Interesting to note, back when I was in the military and giving "pre-deployment" briefings to Gulf War troops, the current intelligence was that any discussion of a religion other than Moslem was risking an accusation of trying to convert others. In other words, if a Saudi asked you about about what you, as a Christian, Jew, or whatever, believed, and you told him, you could be in big trouble. It HAD happened. The bottom line: avoid any discussion of your religious beliefs. |
|
Subject: RE: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: Joe Offer Date: 13 Oct 01 - 07:03 PM Well, what you've said is pretty extreme, but I suppose you're doing that just to stimulate discussion. I have a strong, almost religious belief in nonviolence. Am I polluting the minds of my innocent children by encouraging them to be nonviolent? Is it immoral for me to discourage the development of their natural aggressive behavior? If I express my nonviolent ideas in a culture other than my own, and I guilty of detroying somebody else's culture? Certainly, I think it is wrong to force another to "convert" to a different religious belief - but is there really anything wrong with persuasion? I suppose that coercion was a tactic sometimes used by missionaries in the past, but I really don't think that happens much in the present time. Was it wrong for Mother Teresa to establish convents in poor areas and to feed people and give medical assistance? She won many converts to her conservative view of Catholicism. As a liberal Catholic, I didn't agree with her on many theological issues, but I can't see where she did anything but good for the people she served. I think it's a gross exaggeration to say that the missionaries to America did nothing but harm. The European conquest of America is what did the damage. The missionaries certainly took part in the bringing of European "civilization" to America, but I think their purpose was essentially well-meaning. I think it's safe to say that in general, the missionaries tended to lessen the harm done by European conquerors. In the process of conquering America, the Europeans brought about an almost total destruction of Native American culture. It is clear that this was a horrible thing, an act of genocide - but that does not mean that everything the Europeans brought to America was bad. The Europeans were both good and bad, and brought both harm and good. It's also grossly paternalistic to depict the natives of a "missionary" land as innocents who are incapable of defending themselves against new ideas that will pollute and destroy their pristine culture. "The natives" are intelligent adults, not innocent prey. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: Missionaries also a breed of terrorists? From: GUEST Date: 13 Oct 01 - 06:17 PM I've been pondering the topic of terrorism and have not yet arrived at what strikes me as an effective definition. In the current context, there seems to be a presumption that it must necessarily involve the violence of arms in at least a quasi-military context. But that strikes me as an inadequate definition. If it is accurate to view terrorism as an assault on the life and culture of a target people, then is it not rational to consider religious zealotry, whether "armed" or not, a form of terrorism? There is no question that "christianizing" afforts among native American peoples were as devastating to their cultures as guns and microbes. It continues today in the efforts of some groups to "convert" Mayans to christianity, and in other forms as well. Seems as though I read that the Taliban rather severely "punished" some westerners for "preaching christianity" to Afghan people. The issue, I think, is not whether one person's beliefs are more or less meritorious than another's, but whether any group can ever be justified in seeking to "impose" or "convert" another to their system of beliefs. The core rationale is that a people's system of spiritual beliefs is a major element in defining who and what that group is, and any attempt to influence either the direction or rate of development in that system amounts to an attack on that culture. Knowing that most 'Catters are thoughtful folk, I'm interested in learning the diversity of views on the topic. |
| Share Thread: |