Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (98435)	5/18/2003 1:18:11 AM
From: Sig	Respond to of 281500

<<<Help Unwanted - What's wrong with Christian groups helping Iraqis?>>> Nothing wrong at all with that But to actually convert them to Christianity would need major effort and a new approach- the hard sell Folllowing the saying, When in Rome, etc...................... Many Iraqis have (or had) guns, collecting rations or checks from Religious leaders living in Palaces and who were riding around in stretch MBZ limos. Must promise them, or show them, something better than they have had, peace and love may not be it, since my guess is they are more inclined to revenge at this stage. If Converts is all one is after ( more than the 5 obtained to date) then one must show the advantages, have Christians rent some of the classiest houses in town, dress fancy,wear colored robes and Rolex watches, drive BMW's and MBZ's, and pass out a few steady bucks regardless of how small the amount. Jim and Tammy knew the ropes I guess building a Crystal Cathedral is out, would need glass to withstand RPG rounds. aburriss.tripod.com I dont mean to discourage anyone from trying, because that has real personal value to those who try( to convert others.) But it is the Christian tourists who visit Iraq after it becomes a tourist haven who are the ones that will be most effective in causing Iraqis to reconsider Religious preferences. And would also be a safer situation. Sig@whateverworks.com

To: LindyBill who wrote (98435)	5/18/2003 1:59:36 AM
From: kumar	Respond to of 281500

Nothing wrong provided the agenda is clear to the receiver and the provider. In many countries, aid is often viewed as a lock-in to something else. If that something else is religion, all bets are off. Think about the many religious charities in the US and what their real agenda may be... Help Unwanted - What's wrong with Christian groups helping Iraqis?... When an outfit that has successfully disbursed humanitarian aid world-wide for 30 years announces that it intends to expand its efforts to postwar Iraq, you'd think the news would be met with enthusiasm. Yet reaction to just such an announcement by Samaritan's Purse, headed by the Rev. Franklin Graham, has been anything but positive, revealing much about the cultural divide in America over Christian evangelism.

To: LindyBill who wrote (98435)	5/18/2003 5:36:08 AM
From: Dayuhan	Respond to of 281500

Sounds like they have not had a good conversion rate among the Muslims. As a matter of fact, I think the Muslims have done much better here among the Blacks. That’s undoubtedly true, and the issue is certainly not the fear that the evangelicals are going to succeed in converting anybody. In fact the article, in my view, misses the point completely. The point is simply that Graham’s on-the-record comments about Islam, his close relationship with the US administration, and his obvious sentiments about Christianity, make him, personally, an issue of contention. His presence in Iraq would provide almost unlimited propaganda material for the Islamists. Perception is often more important than reality. Whether or not Graham is being dispatched by the White House to convert the infidels, with the armed force of the US military behind him, is not the issue. The issue is that it will be dead easy for propagandists to make it look as if that is the case. That would unnecessarily inflame an already tense situation. There is nothing to be gained by giving away free propaganda points to our opponents. If the people at Samaritan’s Purse really care about Iraqis, the obvious solution would be for the organization to prominently back out, but to attach its trained people to other aid agencies, and send its material through other (ideally non-religious) aid organizations. The aid workers should of course be under strict instructions not to try and convert anyone, but of course if they are professionals they know better than to try. It’s a question of managing an aid effort in a tense environment with the least possible provocation, and that should be an issue of pragmatism, not ideology. I should note that this passage alone, in my view, diminishes the credibility of the article’s offer to a quite negligible level: What really bothers them is not so much Mr. Graham's view of Islam but their own view of Christianity--or at least any version of it that actively seeks to spread the faith. Such a goal is simply incomprehensible to those imbued with the modern gospel of militant pluralism, which equates religious certitude with jackboots and cudgels. Religious certitude is not an issue here, not at all. What is an issue (speaking now not of Iraq, but of the acceptability of evangelism on a larger scale) is whether any individual’s personal religious certitude entitles that individual to push their views on others that do not want or need them. It’s interesting to see pluralism cast as a vice, is it not? Gives a bit of insight into the prejudices and motivations of the author, I’d say. It is true that religious certitude, if practiced on anything more than a personal level, is not compatible with pluralism. Anyone is welcome to believe that their religion is best for them, but when they proclaim that it’s best for everyone, that’s a different story. When religious certitude conflicts with pluralism, which should give way? Christianity and Islam, by virtue of their powerfully exclusivist doctrines and built-in priority on conversion of the unbelievers, pose a fascinating question for those interested in freedom of religion. How does one guarantee freedom of religious practice to religions that regard intrusion on the religious freedom of others as an essential part of their practice of their own religion? One of the unavoidable realities about religious evangelism is that evangelists must, in order to evangelize, be convinced that their religion is superior to that of those they are seeking to convert. Whether or not telling others that your religion is better than theirs is a violation of their religious freedom is open to question, but there is no doubt about its rudeness.