.jpg)
South Park couresy of Comedy Central
With the recent earthquakes in Haiti and Chile, Christian missionaries have been mobilizing to those nations. With devastation, pain, and grief comes an opportunity to proselytize and spread the “Good News” about Jesus. This week, the Washington Post’s “On Faith” section asks: Proselytizing overseas: Religious freedom or coercion?
What is the real problem with proselytism overseas by U.S. religious groups? Isn't sharing one's faith part of religious freedom? When does it cross the line into manipulation and coercion?
Missionary apologists will often sing the praises of the good work that missionaries do. They feed the hungry, build shelters, teach the illiterate how to read, etc. These are all great things but they can all be done just as effectively if not more so by leaving religion at home. People in third world nations or nations which have been devastated by a natural disaster are in a vulnerable position. They are at a disadvantage economically, scientifically, and often emotionally (due to the losses suffered by natural disasters).
The ends do not justify the means. It isn’t a “service” to use people’s hunger and poverty as a tool to convert more followers. A real service would be if one gave those much needed supplies and training without the proselytizing. Missionary proselytizing does harm in at least two main ways. First, if uses people’s hunger and poverty as a recruiting tool and second, churches use this type of thing as a public relations stunt to get more recruits here in America.
While religious people are free to “share their faith” with whomever they choose, that doesn’t give them the moral grounds to take advantage of people’s hardships as a way to win followers. It would be more admirable to help those in need out of their hardships, expose them to the full marketplace of religious ideas, and then have them choose freely which religion (if any) they believe matches up best with reality.
To put this into a little prospective, when John Travolta led a team of Scientologists to Haiti for their own missionary work (e-meters included), people were outraged. Yet when Christian missionaries descended on Haiti with audio-Bibles the mainstream media didn’t even blink. Both religions have the freedom to “share their faith” but that doesn’t change the predatory nature of their missions. What if Muslims started proselytizing in South Philadelphia en masse? Do you think most Christians would react favorably to that? Now consider that South Philly hasn't even been devastated by a natural disaster. Add that into the mix and it would certainly seem like a form of exploitation, manipulation, and coercion.
Proselytizing about God doesn’t even make sense. Ironically, the very fact that theistic religions need to proselytize at all is a strong argument against the very subject they are proselytizing about. If God or Allah wanted people to believe, then he would know the exact piece of evidence needed to convince people of his existence and the truth of his Holy Book. Such an all-powerful deity would also have the power to present that evidence directly to each person on Earth. Then people would be able to know the facts and be able to make an informed choice to either follow the one true denomination of the one true religion or not. Free will is preserved and yet people would have an educated informed choice to make. No proselytizing needed.
Why does God need a middleman?
If you enjoy this article, please consider sharing the link and subscribing to the Philly Atheist Examiner column using the "Subscribe" button above!
On Faith Series:
On Faith: Should religion have a role be in U.S. foreign affairs?
On Faith: Should the president be a religious figure?
On Faith: Does God allow Haiti to suffer?
On Faith: Media biased against Christians?
On Faith: Free speech vs. God
On Faith: Religion’s Impact 2009
On Faith: Climate change a moral issue?
On Faith: Good News -- Oral Roberts is dead
On Faith: Just war or holy war in Afghanistan?
On Faith: A crèche in the White House?
On Faith: Swiss ban on Islamic minarets
On Faith: holidays or holy days?
Atheism 101 Articles:
Atheism 101: What is the difference between atheism and agnosticism?
Atheism 101: Is there moral grounding without God?
Atheism 101: What happens when we die?
Atheism 101: The Purpose of Life
Atheism 101: The Nature of Good and Evil
Atheism 101: The Problem of Evil
Atheism 101: Is the Bible the inspired word of God?
Atheism 101: The anti-intellectualism of religion
Atheism 101: Why has Christianity demonized nudity, sex and sexuality?
Atheism 101: How to respond to the lord, liar, lunatic argument?
Atheism 101: Does it take more faith to be an atheist?
Atheism 101: What came before the Universe?
Atheism 101: How to respond to the ex-atheist
Comments
Hello Staks,
Firstly, allow me to help you with your vocabulary:
It's not 'on mass', it's 'en masse'...French to be exact.
Secondly...you really need to take considerably more time to link the nonsensical points of your anti-Faith diatribe bit by bit: you try to jump from A to D, thence to M and then all the way past Z to A again...
In short, you're engaging in circular logic, as usual.
Further, 'theistic religions'? Would you provide an example of a non-theistic religion?
Buddhism doesn't qualify, as the Nirvanic State of Being is an impersonal theistic concept as well.......soooooo......got an example?
You seem to not understand that Muslims of various sects, including the Crazies in the Nation of Islam, preach/teach in favor of Islam all across the nation (just in case you didn't notice, Philly is part of the USA).
Oh yeah, "Allah" means God in Arabic...you seem to not know that fact either.
More in my next...and all just for you.
Partial Cheers.
Hey again Staks,
You seem to not understand the concept of Free Will any more than you understand how to spell 'en masse', the definition of 'Allah', or how to NOT debate using circular logic.
Should God reach down to each person and say "Hey there, I'm God and here's the evidence you wanted to believe in me."
Here's one of those 'scary' words you really don't like, understand, or prefer to hear at all: Faith.
Faith: belief in things not seen, nor empirical evidence thereof (just a partial definition so you don't have to tax yourself too much).
John 20:28 "Blessed is he who has not seen, yet believed."
Ya know Staks, ya really need to open up that really closed mind of yours, put down that bowl full of hatred, and begin to actually practice some 'diversity', 'tolerance', and be accepting of opinions which are opposed to your own.
Scary for you I know Staks....but hey, take a walk on the wild side!!!!
Cheers from a Bible Thumper!
Yo, JR -- a little respect.
Staks, if you've ever said, "I was afraid that would happen," you know the problem with that decision wasn't between your ears. Genesis teaches that people who had irrefutable proof of God's existence didn't *want* to obey him. Romans 1 says the same thing. I don't know why he chooses to use middlemen anymore than I know why he doesn't give us an endless supply of teeth.
We "proselytize" because we're convinced we know an objective truth others don't. Knowledge is power. Not everyone accepts knowledge. Not our problem.
Haiti was devastated by an earthquake milder than what only damaged Chile because people don't have property rights (government policy) and therefore no incentive to build solid houses. The Bible says, "Don't put your trust in princes," so to the degree that Haitians trust their government (religious decision), they are to blame. (So are US Xians who support imperialism. Maybe they need to take their message more seriously.)
Sorry -- My garbled first paragraph refers to those decisions we make that turn out badly for reasons we choose to ignore.
JR - As far an the 'en masse' is concerned, I stand corrected. In fact, I even made the change in the article. You see, I don't have a problem admitting that I was wrong when I was in fact incorrect. But I don't use people's ignorance as an attack against them. I would rather eliminated the ignorance through education not condescension.
As for the non-theistic religions, there are some denominations of Buddhism that don't believe in Dharma as a deity. Also, the Jedi religion which is growing in both Australia and England may seem like a joke to some, but there are people who take it very seriously. They also do not believe in a deity. Confucianism would be another religion. Some Secular Humanists consider their view as religious and dare I say they definitely don't believe in a deity.
JR - Next, Allah does mean God but Muslims prefer to call God Allah. So I was making that distinction so that people wouldn't get the false impression that I was just referring to Christian proselytizing.
As far as tolerance goes, I have to assume that you are joking since the Bible is very much against tolerance and Christianity has a long history of intolerance. Criticizing religions is not the same as being intolerant toward religions. In fact, I have been and will continue to be very respectful to religious people even though I am critical of their ideas. You in contrast have been extremely condescending, rude, and even hateful toward me and it shows.
JR, I think your religious beliefs don't have merit and I have no problem being critical of ideas and belief that I think are quite frankly ridiculous. But I will not attack you as a person for holding those beliefs.
One more thing JR - there is a difference between the concepts of "free will" and faith. In this article I was discussing free will and how knowledge doesn't adversely interfere with that concept. Faith is a different concept all together and best left for another article on another day.
Hey Staks,
Congrats on the editing, I spend no few hours on my own work, doing the same: it is a sad fact of life, that 're-write' is a four letter word.
I fully accept blame for not understanding what you meant concerning your intent, vis a vis, Allah/God section. There is no doubt that I made the mistake of presupposing that you didn't know the difference, because I've run into only a handful of people whom actually knew this point.
I apologize for my presupposition.
The Jedi nuts I will leave to themselves: kinda like Ron L. Hubbard and the Scientologists; they've a right to believe in whatever they want. Personally, choosing to worship a Pet Rock makes more sense than either Scientology or Jedi.
I would like to thank you for cluing me in on the non-Dharmic sect: I had no inkling that such existed. Would you mind emailing me with their name and if they have a website?
I'm always interested in non-Judeo/Christian Faiths.
More in my next.
the More.......
Staks, I'm really hoping that you'll actually take a moment and understand this point, which I make regarding ANY religion on the planet, which has sacred texts:
Please do NOT confuse the actions of its human adherents, with Written Doctrine.
All too often, the actions of the humans do NOT reflect the religious doctrine found in the written pages.
You can cite all sorts of nasties committed by the Roman Catholic Church, but you won't find a single biblical doctrine which will have supported the human action(s).
Same with Islam, but in the reverse: it is actually the Jihadists which are acting honestly and doctrinally, in accordance with Qur'anic and Hadithic Doctrines.
When the Muslim clerics in the Mosques of Britain, France, and elsewhere in Europe, call for Jihad, or issue a Fatwa based on Islamic Doctrine, they really can point CONTEXTUALLY to the Quran legitimately for the action.
More often than not, the doctrine they cite is in context.
Ch
JR - this is actually the first comments you have posted to my articles that was not mean spirited and insulting. Congratulations, you are making progress. As far as Buddhism is concerned, there are many Buddhists (especially in America) who don't affiliate with temples and view Buddhism without a deity. In the East, the Zen tradition also puts less emphasis on that aspect and spend more on the path to enlightenment. In Harrisburg, PA there is a Temple called the Blue Lotus that takes a less Dharma focus. You should really read Tricycle magazine or other Buddhist publications to learn more. Oh, and thanks for reminding me that Scientology is yet another religion that does not have deities. While you think that religious is ridiculous, I think both of your religious are ridiculous. In fact, Scientology seems slightly less ridiculous to me.
JR - As for adherents not matching up with holy texts, you are right about that. Have you ever read your Bible? If more people did, the world would be a much more violent place and women would still have no rights. The Bible is so tolerant that in it God orders the murder of gays. Even children aren't safe.
Personally, I am glad Christians don't follow the Bible that much any more.
Hey Staks,
I don't think that you're actually ready to understand the dichotomy of Old Covenant vs New Covenant, so I won't go into that now....hopefully at some point that sitch will change for you.
Pertaining to the issue of the role of women in society, culture, and even religion, the historical and doctrinal facts are just the opposite of your beliefs.
Up until Christianity, women were literally the property of the men in each society. The Ancient Roman paradigm is the quintessential example of Patriarchal dominance in Antiquities.
The doctrines of Christ and His Apostles concerning women, is that women were EQUAL in both innate and inherent values.
Women's homes were where churches existed, where services were provided, and those woman were seen as Leaders within the church.
The Pauline and Petrine epistles delineate fully the equality of women within the Christian Faith; it is ONLY within church services, teaching specifically, which is denied them.
More in n
Women had staunch property rights within Christian doctrine and culture.
NONE of this sat well with the dominant Power of the day, Rome. The Paterfamilias (Father of the Family) quite literally had the legal power of life and death over every member of his family, including his wife.
Women were in no way seen as equals to Roman men, and once you left Rome, traveling East, the value of women was lessened and lessened, to the point of virtual nothingness.
Christianity changed all of that Staks and that is one of the reasons why the Roman Imperators (Emperors), the Roman Aristocracy, and Roman Mercantile Class, felt so threatened by Christianity.
Praying to only One, Invisible God was bad enough from the Roman perspective: teaching that men and women were of equal value was just too much for Romans.
Read Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Suetonius, or many others of post Tiberian times, and you'll see just how upset were the Roman Elite at the Christian teachings.
Lastly Staks,
Continuing in the historical vein, after the Constatinian Conversion, as Rome held on for a few more centuries and Christian missionaries went out into the vast reaches of the Roman Empire, they took with them this concept of the Equality of the Sexes.
Other Christian teachings such as sexual fidelity (to one wife, no more polygamy) cut down on STD's and created more stable villages/towns/cities, bribery was no longer acceptable doctrinally for biblical Christians, slavery was not only frowned upon, it was considered outright immoral and sinful (slavers were damned doctrinally if they didn't repent), and the list goes onward.
The fact that many were Christian in name only, or perverted what is easily found, read, and understood within the pages of the Bible, is not God's fault, it is the fault of humans.
So...in conclusion, Christianity marked a Paradigm Shift in value of humanity was conceived, and how society was to function.
Cheers.
JR - You were doing so well without the insults. It is a real shame that you had to backslide. In any case, I find your revisionist history comical. Aside from the Islamic religion, there is no religion more anti-women than Christianity.
Starting with Genesis the Bible claims that women were made as an after thought to be a companion of men. Their purpose is to serve man. Next we can jump to Exodus in which the ten commandments treats women as property on par with livestock. Moving right along to Leviticus female children cause the mother to be unclear for longer than male children and women get a lesser price as slaves (there goes your anti-slavery revision). I can go on and on, but you are just going to claim Covenant Theology which doesn't really hold water. But I will go to the New Testament and see if you have better luck there.
1 Timothy 2: 11-14, much of 1 Corinthians (too much to list), Ephesians 5:22-24, 1 Peter, etc. Guess the New Testament doesn't work out so well for women either JR.
Oh, and the No True Scotsman argument isn't going to cut it either.
I don't know. What do you call your articles?
Freedom or Coercion?
Well Genre, I am not threatening anyone with eternal torture or bribing them with needed food and medical supplies. I am also not trying to persuade people at times when they are in emotion distress. In fact, I would rather have an intellectual conversation with someone who is in the right mindset to have such a discussion then to prey on people's weaknesses, insecurities, fears, and helplessness. So I'm going to go with freedom over coercion on my articles. But I am open to hearing how you think I am coercing people to re-examine their faith based beliefs.
Proselytizing to people after a disaster, especially by saying "convert or die" to the starving and thirsty as happened after tsunami, is not just coercion, it's blackmail. (I would post links as evidence, but Examiner won't allow that.)
The proselytizing that went on in Haiti, Indonesia and elsewhere is like a man driving through a desert and finding a woman who's car broke down. A civilized person will offer true charity, help or a ride with no expectation of reward. A jerk will do nothing and just leave her to die in the heat.
What the proselytizers are doing is like telling the woman, "Have sex with me or I'll leave you here." And these people, whether the proselytizers or the sexual predator (but I repeat myself) feel absolutely no compunction about doing it.
Staks the facts is that you assume that they are hepless and not intellegent if they receive the message that is being preached to them and that because they do they are victims. The fact is that they are person just like you and I. Intellegent, wise and able to make their own decisions and their. Although they have been struck with tragedy just as Americans were struck with 911, their free will remains untouched and their freedom to exercise their faith remains just as you have your freedom to say no. If they accecpt Christianity then so what that's none of your business. That is a personal choice. Trust that they are wise enough to see through lies. For you to believe that they have somehow lost their intellegnce because of disaste and poverty is a little arrogant and borderline bigotted on your part.
Is like saying no one other than you and people like you can know any better and make sound choices and that the Christian boogeyman is after those helpless people. You want to have an intellectual conversation then make sure that when you write it is because you gathered information because you were at the scene not because you heard and it stirred up an emotion in you.
"What if Muslims started proselytizing in South Philadelphia en masse?"
You need to be a Christian to know how a Christian would react before judging how they would react based on your biased affections towards Christians and Christianity. If you don't like it, don't write about it. What I don't get about many is how their intolerance demands tolerance. Not saying that hypocrisy doesnt't exist in religion but this is another example of hyposcrisy at its best.
In case many don't know faith is not anything you can force on people. You can't even see faith. They just have it or they don't.
Yes God has a middle man his name is Jesus who taught his followers to witness to as many people as possible.Who better to help then those who need comfort from suffering by helping them see that a better future is soon to come.Its up to them if they want to take it future,no one is forced but if they don't know they cannot act.
"Reading the Bible + Accepting Jesus = Food" -- South Park (Starvin' Marvin in Space)
Here is a funny one. Should make you laugh!
Josephus 'War of the Jews' Book 6, Chapter 3, Paragraph 4.
First sentence:
"There was a certain woman that dwelt beyond Jordan, her name was Mary; her father was Eleazar, of the village Bethezob, which signifies the house of Hyssop"
I love listening to atheists try to take a moral high ground about missionaries. Here's a thought lets see the secular humanist or "freethinker" missionaries. Lets see atheists get off their backside and take up the mantel if its so "horrible" that religious people would do this. Personally I think scientology does a lot of damage but you know at least they are DOING SOMETHING not just lecturing other people who act. Yes I"m well aware of groups like Doctors Without Borders that do their work with out the auspices of a single religious organization and I applaud that to but thats not the same as the atheists taking action to take up the mantel they want the religious to cast off. But then its always easier to preach then to act.
Kevin - Just because atheists don't broadcast their actions and use charity as publicity stunts the way Christian groups often do, doesn't mean we aren't doing anything. Atheists have been doing lots of charity work privately as individuals.
Also, it has only recently that atheists have started to organize into groups at all. Now that we are forming groups, you will start to hear about atheist groups doing charity as opposed to the quiet individual doing charity. Katrina and Haiti are recent examples of this. The Secular Student Alliance (SSA) did a lot with Katrina (among others) and the Dawkins Foundation did a lot in Haiti (among others). But we don't use our good efforts as weapons the way many Christians do.
What if Muslims started sharing their faith in South Philly? Are you kidding? We have thousands of mosques in the USA, Thank God that we have religious freedom in the US. But when Christians try to live out their faith by building churches, feeding the hungry, and caring for the sick, all of a sudden Christians are the bad guys. THis is a blatant disregard of consistency. Aethiests, Buddhists, Jews Christians Muslims, Hindus, and Sikhs etc. should have the right to express themselves and to care for others. If any of these groups try to proslyetize in the midst of caring that is fine, as long as the assistance is given with no strings attached. That is what true Biblical orthodox Christian missionary work is about. Whether they convert or not is up to GOD. THE PARABLE OF THE GOOD SAMARITAN IS A PRIME EXAMPLE. Mr. ROSCH your comments are FALSE.
Love u in Christ. Ephesians 3:9
Anonymous (if that is your real name, lol), please re-read the article. You seem to have taken much of it out of context. I didn't say, "What if Muslims started sharing their faith in South Philly?" I said, "What if Muslims started proselytizing in South Philadelphia en masse? Do you think most Christians would react favorably to that?"
You state, "we have religious freedom in the US." Yes, I stated that too. But just because we can do a thing doesn't mean me must do that thing. As I stated in the article, "that doesn’t give them the moral grounds to take advantage of people’s hardships as a way to win followers."
You claim my comments are false, but you fail to show what exactly is false. Instead you have just selectively read my article and prayed no one would notice that you completely ignored everything I stated. This is intellectually dishonest of you.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!