Pharyngula::Here's an atheistical virtue for you

Pharyngula has moved to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

Friday, January 21, 2005

Here's an atheistical virtue for you

PZ Myers • 55 Comments (last page)

Rage and fury has gripped this tsunami-hit tiny Hindu village in India’s southern Tamil Nadu after a group of Christian missionaries allegedly refused them aid for not agreeing to follow their religion.

[...] Jubilant at seeing the relief trucks loaded with food, clothes and the much-needed medicines the villagers, many of who have not had a square meal in days, were shocked when the nuns asked them to convert before distributing biscuits and water.

Heated arguments broke out as the locals forcibly tried to stop the relief trucks from leaving. The missionaries, who rushed into their cars on seeing television reporters and the cameras refusing to comment on the incident and managed to leave the village.

Disappointed and shocked into disbelief the hapless villagers still await aid.

“Many NGOs (volunteer groups) are extending help to us but there in our village the NGO, which was till now helping us is now asking us to follow the Christian religion. We are staunch followers of Hindu religion and refused their request. And after that these people with their aid materials are leaving the village without distributing that to us,” Rajni Kumar, a villager said.

Now here's why Christianity needs us atheists to be more vocal. Not because we're better, or that we'd never do such a ghastly selfish thing, but because we're all sitting here scowling and cocking an eyebrow at the evangelicals, and making them blush with a little well-deserved shame. And then they get up off their butts and tell their pastor that they shouldn't do that, because it makes them look bad to the heathens.

(via Stupid Evil Bastard)

Trackback url: http://pharyngula.org/index/trackback/1832/xDCSnxcf/

Comments:

#13959: — 01/21 at 11:51 AM
If it's true, outrage is in order. However, it sounds a little suspicious to me. The details are a little sparse. Were the "missionaries" Indian christians or Western? As you know there is some anti-christian sentiment in Southeast Asia. There is also some intolerance among the native christian population. A fellow grad student from India told me the predominantly christian population of his home town refused to let his hindu family cremate his father's remains because it violated their beliefs. This story is not inconceivable, but I would wait for some confirmation before accepting it as true.

#13960: tim gueguen — 01/21 at 11:51 AM
You'd think they would realise that conversions made by desperate people threatened with not being helped if they don't would hardly be pleasing in the eyes of God, and certainly would be of dubious longevity.

#13963: — 01/21 at 11:58 AM
The missionaries' behavior is inexcusable. There has been some tension in Tamil Nadu between Hindus and Christian evangelists; if memory serves the government recently banned (then unbanned, when the ruling party changed) Christian conversions. Regardless, this is disgusting.

#13964: — 01/21 at 12:02 PM
Let's also please note the last line of the article, which was not quoted:

"The incident is an exception to concerted charity in a catastrophe that has left no one untouched."

To be fair, Christians (and others, of course) are doing a lot of good in the region.

#13965: — 01/21 at 12:08 PM
Every day in the good old USA people are asked to pray before they receive their soup kitchen meal and a roof over their head. Some prefer to stay outside instead. Wont the flock get into heaven for feeding heathens? Is there a finite space in heaven? Are they willing to tolerate bums, but only if they are believers?

If one steps back and thinks about it, why does (especially Protestant) Christianity feel the need to recruit. Apparently a one on one relationship with the puppetmaster is possible, so what is the point of churches and pastors and recruiting. I am sure they have a lovely circular argument for this, but in reality it is just a social group with bylaws interpreted from an ancient master text. You have to follow the rules to be part of the group. Personal relationship with the lord, my ass.

#13971: — 01/21 at 12:28 PM
G-Do: Thanks for including the last line of the story (insert atheist saying, "Curses, foiled again! here). Christian charity organizations still do a lot of good deeds around the world in spite of occasional idiocy and abuse.

#13974: — 01/21 at 12:46 PM
Tim said,

Conversions made by desperate people threatened with not being helped if they don’t would hardly be pleasing in the eyes of God...

Exactly. This is a primary source of confusion for me.

When people are forced to worship Jesus, it is obvious to the missionaries (and God) that the new "former heathens" are simply just "going through the motions." As Tim mentioned, they are clearly doing it just for the food, health care, etc.

Then, the Christians "reward" them by giving them food, and inviting them to God's infinite party in Heaven.

What?!?!

Literally, they're letting fake Christians into heaven! One doesn't even have to really believe anymore! Just say the words, move your arms around a bunch, say "we love Jesus", and that's that.

Two groups of people that God doesn't want in Heaven:

1) Fake Christians

2) Christians who force other human beings to LIE about believing in Jesus.

(Actually, it seems that Christian #2 is also a fake Christian)

Well, it's too bad that the fake Christians are going to rot in the ground like the rest of us, instead of going to Hell with the rest of us.

Once in a while you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right.

-Jerry Garcia

#13975: — 01/21 at 12:47 PM
Obviously, this is just an isolated case, but it's striking that it exists. As far as I know, there are no NGOs conditioning giving aid on, say, abolishing the caste system or treating women equally, let alone abandoning their religion. Muslim fundamentalist organizations have been spearheading charity efforts following disasters in predominantly Muslim areas, and I haven't heard of them requiring people to become fundamentalists in order to receive aid.

This is not just evil, but also stupid from the point of view of a Christian fundamentalist who wants these people to convert - attacking their tradition directly won't work, but helping them till they convert voluntarily will. So maybe from a cynical point secularists should be glad these fundamentalists are so blunt.

#13976: — 01/21 at 12:48 PM
The fact these were nuns who did this would be my first hint that this is probably not an evangelical group.

#13977: — 01/21 at 12:56 PM
Jeebus: There was a book written late last century titled The Six Bad Popes. You might find the story interesting—how a concentration of sustained corruption destroyed the Papist domination of Europe.

#13979: ArtK — 01/21 at 01:03 PM
Assuming that the report is true, these are not Christians. They may wear the "clothes" of Christianity and lay claim to the name, but they fail the most basic test: Do they follow the teachings of their founder? They do not. (Ref: The parable of the "Good Samaritan" and the associated question "who is my neighbor?")

It's ironic that atheists can understand that everyone is their neighbor far better than members of a religion that explicitly teaches that.

#13982: — 01/21 at 01:12 PM
Assuming that the report is true, these are not Christians. They may wear the “clothes” of Christianity and lay claim to the name, but they fail the most basic test: Do they follow the teachings of their founder? They do not. (Ref: The parable of the “Good Samaritan” and the associated question “who is my neighbor?”)

This is a No True Scotsman fallacy - you're defining "Christian" in a way that makes it obvious that "No true Christian requires starving people to convert before giving them aid."

I can define "Christian" to mean, "Anyone who participates in a violent crusade to convert people to Christianity" and then note how all Christians are violent.

#13983: — 01/21 at 01:20 PM
Hope you're all listening to Science Friday on NPR. If not, you can get it from the archives later. An excellent guest just identified his hope as that "science and religion will have a dialog, but not a constructive one."

#13989: — 01/21 at 01:44 PM
Everyone is still proceeding on the assumption that the story is legitimate. I see no good reason to believe it, especially if the "missionaries" are from out-of-country. This story is especially suspicious in light of reports that another SE Asian nation was considering preventing outside christian charities from providing aid because they wanted to protect their own religion (buddhist, not hindu). The apparent source of the story is Asian News International. I have no idea how reliable this source is.

#13990: — 01/21 at 01:56 PM
The only thing I've found that casts doubt on the credibility of ANI is this story about a woman giving birth to a frog, a common urban legend that is biologically impossible. But even here they qualify their statements with "reportedly" and "According to Ananova, the Iranian daily Etemaad claims..." which they don't in the missionaries-deny-aid story.

#13993: coturnix — 01/21 at 02:03 PM
The NPR thing just ended. Steven Weinberg called Creationists "idiots" on air, and told a woman caller who said that she came to ID through logic to go back and revisit her logical steps. It was great! The other guests were just as good. It was a pleasure to listen. Can someone get a transcript and post it on a blog? Please?

#13995: — 01/21 at 02:06 PM
Mark: I, too, am waiting for the other shoe to drop. If I find this story elsewhere online, I will surely report it (the claim that there were cameras and reporters present suggests that if we do hear about it from someone else, it will be soon).

#13996: — 01/21 at 02:06 PM
I hesitate to invoke Eddie Izzard again but really....

"Cake or death?"

#13997: — 01/21 at 02:12 PM
Also, with regards to the question of "who is the final authority on who decides what a 'true Christian' is?" I'm going to repeat the answer I was given when I was a church-going youth.

Christ.

And he's keeping his mouth shut.

#14001: paperwight — 01/21 at 02:30 PM
Actually, given the behavior of at least some affiliates of western Christian "charity" organization in Indonesia, I think it's entirely reasonable for the Southeast Asian countries to not want them there right now.

Bottom line for me is if you want to be thought of as a charitable organization, you patch people up, you feed 'em, you keep 'em healthy, and you leave their brains alone. Otherwise, you're just a missionary (and I don't mean that in a good sense) bribing people to hear your pitch.

#14002: ajmilne — 01/21 at 02:33 PM
See also:

http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/news_syndication/article_050113tracts.shtml

http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/news_syndication/article_050115mission.shtml

... can't claim I know much of who or what 'The Anvil Trust' is, however.

See also the ATS' press release with regard to the initiative described in the former story:

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050112/daw038_1.html

#14005: — 01/21 at 02:43 PM
I am having some problems with these "news" sources. I have no doubt there are some idiots who are using this natural disaster to spread their particularly distasteful version of religion to people who want food instead, but the only traditional news source reports I have heard were about the possible rejection of aid from christian organizations for fear of just this type of behavior. I can't remember whether it was Indonesia (I think not) or Sri Lanka (probably, since I think the reports talked about protection of hinduism). In any event, I would still very much like to get a confirmation. I noticed the 16 Jan. date on the original report --the only one I can find is:
http://in.news.yahoo.com/050116/139/2j1rp.html

#14008: ajmilne — 01/21 at 02:56 PM
See also:

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2005/s1282067.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7535-2005Jan13.html

#14011: ArtK — 01/21 at 03:12 PM

This is a No True Scotsman fallacy - you’re defining “Christian” in a way that makes it obvious that “No true Christian requires starving people to convert before giving them aid.”

I can define “Christian” to mean, “Anyone who participates in a violent crusade to convert people to Christianity” and then note how all Christians are violent.

You certainly can define "Christian" that way if you so choose, but that won't make it correct. Your definition is the equivalent of defining "biologist" to include an ID supporter. The No True Scotsman fallacy only applies when there is criterion to define what a "true Scotsman" is. There are criteria for defining what a biologist is, and they don't include ID. I think that one necessary criterion for defining a "true" adherent to a religion or philosophy is following the basic tenets of that philosophy or religion.

Q: If we call a dog's tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?
A: Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.

#14012: ArtK — 01/21 at 03:14 PM

The No True Scotsman fallacy only applies when there is criterion to define what a “true Scotsman” is.

Ooops... should proofread bettter. That should read "... when there is no criterion to define..."

Page 1 of 3 pages 1 2 3 >

Next entry: Speaking of sex differences…

Previous entry: Sexist Calvinism

<< Back to main

Pharyngula has moved to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

Friday, January 21, 2005

Here's an atheistical virtue for you

Info