I like the fair and balanced coverage in the article about forced Christian coverage (end sarcasm). We get no quotes from missionaries (ostensibly, they fled the scene when they saw reporters), or even any indication who exactly they are (maybe Roman Catholic, since a nun was involved). The story may have been true, but it seems so one sided that I would believe otherwise.

Could it have been a misunderstanding? Perhaps. In recent years, several incidents against the Christian community have injected fear into Christian organizations doing charity work in India. Although such incidents were isolated but high profile, if I were part of that group and I saw a seemingly angry group of people heading towards me (was it only tv reporters?), I would have jumped into my Ambassador car and fled the scene. Does the reporter have an axe to grind against Christians in this article?

I don't deny that forced conversions have taken place in the recent past in India, but it is not the norm or modus operandi of the vast majority of Christian organizations. Current Christian theology (on the Protestant side, at least) dictates that you cannot force a person to be a Christian. It is an individual choice.

i agree with "anonymous cow". i don't know much about recent christian missions in India, but from what i know of the conversion effort over the past 2 centuries, christian organizations are not interested in "rice christians," those individuals who convert just for the favorable treatment they receive from the missionaries. (name coined during the boxer rebellion when many Chinese were thought to have converted just to receive extra grains of rice in a time when rations made it scarce)

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

AC, no doubt there are is no real verifiable information to go on, but there is no reason not to believe that some people might be doing this; of course not all and not with sanction.

Of course, in 99 when the Pope added fuel to fire by asking for stepped up conversions didn't help either. Of course, Hindu, Muslim, and Christian fundies continue to keep the fire going when it seems like it's about to ebb...

I definately believe that this is happening and surprised that we didn't hear about it sooner. There have been a lot of reports these past days about Falwell and comments he has made via email regarding their role in the tsunami disaster.

"In a January 12 "Falwell Confidential" email obtained by CAIR, Virginia-based Liberty University Chancellor Jerry Falwell makes a plea for donations to support relief work in "India, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Indonesia." The email states that "in this heavily Muslim part of the world, millions have never even heard of Jesus Christ."

According to the email, Liberty University's "Director of International Crusades" will head a team sent to the region to distribute relief supplies. "In addition we will be presenting the Gospel to tens of thousands of persons through distribution of Gospel tracts written in the native languages of the area
Our ultimate purpose for this first mission is to set the stage for many other missions trips to this Asian region by hundreds of Liberty students in the months to come," said the email."
(http://www.baou.com/newswire/main.php?action=recent&rid=2014)

If true, this makes me angry.

Those are typical letters/emails sent out from a variety of religious organizations, not just Christian ones. What should make you angry about Falwell is that he is treated as a moral figurehead on TV, print, radio, etc..

riverside23: I don't doubt the veracity of that memo. The Christian and Muslim organizations operating in the tsunami-affected areas would like to spread their religions. I would say this is true for all religous-based charities.

But is Falwell (et al) practicing forced conversions? It appears not. If there are people who are refusing to help others on the basis of religion, then that is wrong and completely inhumane. I would hope that any religous charities would do their preaching *after* the people have been helped and fed and clothed and kept warm. But eople should be free to choose (or reject) their own religion.

One could even say that Mother Teresa used her charity as a vehicle for conversion amongst the beggars and lepers. The point I am trying to make is that many of the religious organizations want to help their fellow human beings first. Unfortunately it seems like many people characterize them as parachuting into Southeast Asia, converting the masses, and then getting the hell out of there - like a modern form of colonialism. I say, on the contrary.

I'm sure my comments will invoke a few responses, some of them heated. Or maybe not. I will be camping for the weekend and therefore away from technology(there'll be no proselytizing!), so do not take my lack of a response to mean anything significant.

Sluggo: Such people who refuse to help others because of a person's religion are the scum of the earth. It would make me very angry to see or hear of such a thing... on the lines of "first time I heard Star and Buc Wild and the call center" angry

I think whatever happened, asking people to convert before giving them food is acceptable practice. However, as you said, it should not be considered charity.

I posted a full post on my blog about this very incident.

http://ionimbalance.blogspot.com/2005/01/where-is-their-1040.html

Speaking of Mother Teresa and conversions, did anyone read "The Missionary Position" by Christopher Hitchens? I wrote a paper on it in college, and I remember reading that she secretly baptized dying kids without their permission and that made some nuns uneasy. The gist of his argument (as I remember it) is that she did far more harm than good, that with her money and resources she could have provided excellent medical help but instead focused entirely on introducing the sick and poor to Jesus before they died, to the point of refusing them basic medication and even sterile needles. I'm sure there are many religious organizations who still operate this way, who emphasize religious teaching over food and health care.

Interview about it here, short essay by Hitchens here. Google away for more.

relevant ny times article on the topic:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/22/international/worldspecial4/22preach.html?hp

How stupid is Fallwell. You would think Mr Evangelical in Chief would know that Jesus Christ is mentioned extensively in the Quran and the Muslims consider him to be a prophet.
Wonder how he will convert people he seems to be so ignorant about.
On the point of conversion, there's nothing wrong in converting people as long as they are being helped as well.
As long as the people are not being forced, there's no difference in people who convert because of money/jobs and people who convert because they are told that they would go to hell if they dont accept Jesus.

Ah, Al-M, there's a problem with your last statement. Say you know there's a bridge out. Isn't it your duty to warn people driving towards it that they're going to fall over and die if they don't turn back? That's the thinking of Religious Person X. His religion has led him to believe that people who don't accept Jesus will go to hell, or people who don't accept Islam will go to hell, or (to take a bit from Manu) brahmins who eat mushrooms will defile themselves, so it's no less than his duty to warn people unaware of their doom. It would be hateful and sadistic not to, really.

Shourie did say that claiming a better afterlife should count as an illegal artificial inducement to conversion. I think saying "God loves you" or "this is the way to sorrow in this life but happiness after" is rather different from "join us and we'll give you food and money." But I suppose that's just me.

Incidentally, the general method of religious aid groups (and national aid groups) is to provide aid and then give as their reason for doing it, "because Jesus told us to love you," or "because we want to show that the US cares about other nations," etc.

This is all those things below:dubious, suspect, shady, shifty, questionable, unreliable, untrustworthy, dodgy

doubtful, distrustful, mistrustful, apprehensive, wary, guarded, chary, skeptical, dubious, leery

hello just new to here