Missionaries murdered - Uganda

[dArKeR]

Kampala - A couple from the United States and a Ugandan were killed overnight when unknown assailants raided their home in northwestern Uganda, police said on Friday.

More then seven gunmen wearing military uniform attacked the home of Warren and Donna Petts, both of whom worked for the African Inland Mission (Aim), in Eyeke village in Yumbe district late on Thursday killing them and a Ugandan, Isaac Jurugo, police spokesperson Asuman Mugenyi said.

The victims were working in an agriculture training institute run by the mission's Here is Life project in the area.

http://www.news24.com/News24/Africa/News/0,,2-11-1447_1500877,00.html

[54anickel]

1. My sister called me Friday about this. This couple was from our area

and neighbors of my sister. Very sad.

[Muddleoftheroad]

2. I'm sorry

They died for their convictions to help others.

[54anickel]

4. Thanks Muddle, I never met them but my hubby knew Warren quite well, went

to school together. I do know some of their relatives. Devistating news.

[Muddleoftheroad]

5. Sad to say

If this had happened in Iraq, there would likely be posters here saying they got what they deserved.

I think in either place they are trying to help people and have the courage of their convictions.

[54anickel]

7. I am sure the posts will start. That's OK, there are different missions

and different views of missionaries. I don't agree with all on either side of the argument. I've seen the good and the evil sides.

[seemslikeadream]

3. Missionaries helping children of Uganda

Photo: Gina Bramucci/AVSI

Photo: Gina Bramucci/AVSI

Photo: Gina Bramucci/AVSI

[Malva Zebrina]

6. that top picture is offensive and exploiting those kids

the photographer, Gina Bramucci,is obviously not concerned about photographing these little children in the nude.

We would never stand for that in this country.

[Muddleoftheroad]

9. Question

So if people are nude in their natural environment, you can't photograph them? If people are nude and don't care if you photograph them, you can't?

I'm not quite understanding your concern.

[seemslikeadream]

10. I'm sorry I have to disagree with you

Why are you so offended by nudity and must comment on that but not the conditions of poverity the children endure.

[Malva Zebrina]

12. It implies that it is OK to photograph little black kids nude

because they are poor and live in the jungle

Never in this country would anyone be allowed to phtograph any child in the nude. This implies that these poor little black kids have no decency that needs to be respected. It is, to use the modern term
politically incorrect. And indeed it is

No one asked these kids if it was OK to photograph them naked--one poor little one is trying to cover up--and who knows how many pre- pubescent little girls are there

No sorry==this is offensive and is also disrespectful

Honey, let me assure you, I have seen more naked bodies in my lifetime than you ever will. Respect for the persons sensitivities is the word, not accusations of being a prude.


Let me also assure you that I have seen poverty like you never have seen. I still would not take a camera to those places I have been where "the poor" and especially the poor black native dwellers who need help from the Christian missionaries who photogrph them in the nude and send the pictures back home to the congregation so they can cluck at the naked poverty of those "poor" pagan kids.

Well, those kids do not run around naked like that--that is some sort of a health examination going on there in that picture. In the first place, the person behind the counter where they would be developed were I to take pictures of naked children would report it--and they should.

[seemslikeadream]

16. I am not your honey

and you know nothing about me. I know one thing about you though, you presume way too much!

[Malva Zebrina]

20. No, I think whoever posts pictures of little black kids nude for the whole

world to see, is presuming too much.

And I think implying that nudity upsets me, is implying way too much also.

Not only does it make inaccurate assumptions about me, but it totally ignores the fifty or more nude children we have all been treated to seeing here on DU.

It is implying only those who are so unsophisticated and are in some way prudes, would object to a picture depicting fifty little nude black kids.

Everybody knows that poor, pagan children somewhere in the jungles or plains of poverty striken Africa run around the jungle naked anyhow, right?

so what is the big deal of publishing a picture of fifty of them all naked so that the people back home in the congregation can be tugged at the heartstrings of these savages being converted by the love of the missionaries--who photograph them nude and distrubute the photographs on the net out of the pure love of their heart.

But it is for certain you will not see a picture of their naked lilly white children being published on the net.

[seemslikeadream]

22. And I think some one who has completely ingored

the dozen or so threads on Haiti, Jamacia, Congo, Zimbabwe, and Equatorial Guinea and has only taken the time to post about one photograph shows her true colors. It wasn't worth your time to express your feelings then.

[shanti]

28. fwiw, marianne

i understand where you're coming from. it's hypocritical, given the hysteria here about nudity in the media in the u.s. those children are being exploited; more than one of them are attempting to cover up. shame on them.

[Kagemusha]

18. You have seen diaper commercials, right?...

Just wondering... because there are people who do wonder why those are allowed on the air... and I am one of them..

[Malva Zebrina]

21. well I haven't to tell you the truth-I do not watch TV much except CSpan

but I can imagine what you are referring to.

my objection is to the implications here and the disrespect shown to these black children by these missionaries who seem to have no guilt at all in blatantly photographing them nude and there are at least fifty of them. Indeed from the responses here, it seems they are to be excused-- they did nothing wrong in taking this picture and certainly did have a right to exploit these children--for various reasons--they were starving and in war and other things.

I am certain these kids did not assent in any way to having their nude bodies published publically. Perhaps they did not even understand what was happening or perhaps they thought it was a part of the process they all seem to be going through there--it looks to be some sort of an examination.

That in and of itself is an exploitation.

[seemslikeadream]

11. This is not offensive, it is the truth of war

12 percent of those who are starving are adults - a high percentage compared with similar crises.


88 percent of the caseload at the feeding centers are children. These are just two of the estimated 200,000 Sudanese children who are at risk



These boys hid when slave raiders attacked. They managed to survive, but 500 boys and girls were taken, and 36 were drowned in a nearby river.

[Malva Zebrina]

13. I know about the starvation and that has nothing to do with that pciture

We would not allow pictures like this to be published of our own lilly white children, even the starving ones, except maybe in medical journals Why do you think it is acceptable to post pictures of little naked black kids who live elsewhere?

This cannot be justified by any stretch of the imagination and it reeks of a hidden racism

[seemslikeadream]

14. I wonder if you could consider this

I agree with you that the pictures show racism but it is not hidden and it is not because the photographer took a picture of their naked bodies. Some one would be hard pressed to find naked white children living in the poverity that Africa's children do, that is the racism. When I look at those pictures I see the eyes of the suffering children. Those chldren are not bothered by their bodies, they have more immediate concerns like disease and starvation, which the kind missionaries are attending to. Do you consider the missionaries racist, they are responsible for the situation that was photographed?

The number of deaths due to severe anaemia is alarmingly high, with one hospital reporting that between 10 and 15 children die each month due to a lack of blood. Illnesses such as malaria and diarrhoea take their toll, while malnutrition rates continue to climb.

Displaced people living in camps confront a constant threat from rebels, unhygienic conditions, disease outbreak and looming food shortages. A current survey in camps in Gulu district indicates acute global malnutrition of 6.5 percent in children under five.

With the children's ward running at three times its capacity at St. Joseph's Hospital in Kitgum, mothers and children take shelter from the midday sun in the small chapel, on verandas and under trees. Most rural health units have been closed or burned by rebels, leaving hospitals to respond to the needs of Kitgum, Pader and Gulu districts, as well as patients from southern Sudan

Congested living conditions led to an outbreak of scabies at the Kitgum mission in June. With the cooperation of the Comboni missionaries and district authorities, AVSI organised a day of washing and medicating 657 children, many of whom already had open sores from the disease. The children received new blankets and clothing after all infested materials were burned.

Note the burning of clothes, their job was overwhelming.

I will conceed my only fault was not to put the explaintion next to the picture for that I am truly sorry.

[Malva Zebrina]

25. yes

It is heartbreaking to see little children suffer I agree.

[seemslikeadream]

26. Thank you

and I truly meant no harm. How could I have known it would offend you. I am sorry that it did but I had no control of that. At least we agree on something, Marianne.

[arwalden]

19. Oh Good Grief... No It Doesn't. The Pictures Show The Sad Reality...

... of their lives. Someone may be able to argue that the circumstances that led to these deplorable conditions arose out of racism... but I fail to see how REPORTING it and posting pictures can be considered "racist".

It's not "dirty" it's not "sexual" it's not "titillating" (why anyone would think that is beyond me). No... what these photos do is to demonstrate VISUALLY in ways that are more powerful than mere words at the disease, starvation, petulance, squalor and deplorable conditions. While some may find the subject matter of the photos, or the reasons and causes for the conditions show in the photos to be offensive... there is not cause to be offended at these photos themselves.

The photos are not themselves "racist". The posting of the images are not "racist". Those who feel that the photos are racist are hypersensitive. There is no cause for alarm here. Such efforts to fight imagined racism are wasted energy... the good-fight against REAL racism is found elsewhere, not here in these photos.

-- Allen

P.S. I don't find National Geographic magazine to be offensive. I am also not offended by that famous picture of the Vietnamese girl (running on the street... naked, crying, arms outstretched).

Edit: typo/clarity

[seemslikeadream]

23. Thank you so much

I meant no harm. I truly did not see what she did......in the mind of the beholder.

[shanti]

32. you aren't the one at fault

it was the person using these images as tools. racism is very insidious, and the u.s. is still very racist.

[Malva Zebrina]

27. You can bet that those pictures by National Geographic have signed

releases from those they photograph-and they depict cultural dress and are intended to be documentaries of a culture . They were not taken from afar and the people photographed were probably educated as to what was going on. These are children--unaware perhaps.

You can bet that child who was photographed in Viet Nam was also protected in some way, identified etc. She was NOT a part of a mission. That picture depicted an immediate poingnat tragedy of war.

This p icture does NOT depict a tragedy like a napalmed child screaming in pain--this picture exploits these naked kids--and there is no good reason for taking it in the first place. Even if there were--it does not depict any cultural behavior or manner of dress,is not meant to be a documenetary of these people and is offensive in the fact that a photographer shot them with the purpose of publishing this on the web.

We would NEVER see this done in our country--we have laws against it here, with good reason, and I submit once more, this is exploiting these kids, there was no good reason for distributing the picture on the net and it was unnecewssary. Further it promotes a sterotype that I believe exists re black kids running around naked in the wilds of africa-- ie the noble savage.

[Muddleoftheroad]

41. Not necessarily

You don't get signed releases for news photos.

OK, I think there are points on both sides of this issue.

So a few summary comments from my view:

* First off, our strictures against child nudity are all related to sexuality. There is nothing even remotely sexual about these pictures. They are news photos of an event.
* Next, I am glad to see someone looking at things from a different angle, but I just don't think we should overreact. Different cultures have different rules and taboos or not about nudity. Our culture is extremely media savvy. Likely as not, these children will never see their photo on the Internet and might care more that they are fed and clothed than photographed.
* Marketing. Showing the pathos of the situation IS good marketing. Yes, it gets contributions and, even more, gets others willing to go to Africa to help.
* Is it exploitation? Probably yes. But so much in the world is. Are teen stars exploited even when they get paid millions of dollars? Yes also.
* Permission. Frankly, we just don't know what the photographer got approved and what he/she didn't get approved. Perhaps the village leaders gave blanket approval. Perhaps not.
* We do indeed see pictures of naked children in America. But the truth of the matter is it doesn't happen much. In fact, most of the first and second world nations have nudity taboos that prevents it. But if you want, look around the web for photos of nudist camps and you can probably find whole families in various stages of undress.

In summary, it's not a clear-cut issue and it's good to be sensitized, but I wouldn't get too PC either.

[arwalden]

48. Marianne... That's Total Bullshit, And You Know It.

"We would NEVER see this done in our country" -- Bullshit! Someone would have to be pretty naive to believe such a thing. If a situation like that ever occurred in this country there would definitely be photos to document it. And those photos would be everywhere.

Good grief!

"Signed releases" -- More bullshit! Perhaps in some other alternate reality one might find that a photographer takes a picture at a PUBLIC gathering and gets a signed release from everyone visible... but not in THIS reality. Photographs that are taken IN PUBLIC at public gatherings do not require releases from everyone in the photo.

And yes... that young Vietnamese girl is well known... her name is Kim Phuc. She lives in the US now. (Google it for yourself. I believe she also wrote a book.)

What the fuck does their skin color have do with anything? These are the conditions they live in... for better or worse, these pictures show the reality of their lives and their culture and their poverty. There's no foul here.

Certainly there are many undereducated folks who mistakenly believe that ALL OF AFRICA is nothing but naked dusty people or that ALL OF AFRICA is nothing but naked jungle natives. --- Is sad that some folks aren't very smart, isn't it?

Still it cannot be denied that these people DO EXIST in parts of Africa. It also cannot be denied that these living conditions DO EXIST in many parts of Africa.

Is it being suggested that we HIDE all images of this type because they happen to FIT into the stereotypical view of what uneducated folks believe that ALL Africans look like? If so, what purpose does this serve?

After all... there is nothing UNTRUE about the pictures. Why HIDE it? How is the truth to be construed as being "racist"? How is showing the REALITY of this particular situation to be construed as having some sort of nefarious agenda that exploits the people in the photographs? HOW??

Simply because a TRUE image happens to FIT a stereotype, it doesn't mean that it's PROMOTING a stereotype.

Rather than HIDE these images, wouldn't it make more sense to try and educate folks? Wouldn't it make more sense to let them know that although sad images like these can be found... it doesn't mean that ALL OF AFRICA is like this. Hiding the truth doesn't educate.

To what laws are you referring? Kiddie-Porn laws? Nudity is NOT pornography. Living without clothes is NOT pornography. I'm pretty sure that these people KNOW they are naked in public... they just don't think it's dirty or sexual or shameful as some people apparently do.

I think that to NOT REPORT these horrors, and to HIDE FACTS (as some appear to be suggesting) would be the TRUE DEFINITION of racism.

-- Allen

P.S. Pornography and "dirty" images are in the eye of the beholder. I see sad and striking images of starving naked children living in poverty. I don't understand how anyone could see anything else. There is no agenda here.

[Malva Zebrina]

52. sorry, sounds good but no cigar ar

You know, ar. I would like to respond to the rest of your post
but I am arguing with at least four other people here all of them anxious to beat me.

so Y'all win OK

congratulations

I'm tired now.

Bye

[Dookus]

24. Nonsense

there is nothing racist OR pornographic about documenting the living conditions of people.

You're stretching really hard in an effort to be offended.

[Malva Zebrina]

31. Nonsense

these kids are there blatantly naked and being photographed without their consent--if they were even asked.

In our country this NEVER would occur--period

The very people that took that picture would be the first to complain if ever ever anyone in this country took a picture of fifty white kids and published it on the net like that.

Why is it that we have those laws here that protect children and that perhaps the same people who publish this here, would not dare do that in this country? They would be arrested probably first of all.

But it seems to be OK to do that when they are on a "mission"?

What could be the possible reason for this discrepancy in behavior bewtween one country with protective laws toward children and another where it seems children can be photographed naked with impunity

[Dookus]

35. You are mistaken

the laws do not prohibit any photographing of nude children. It outlaws doing so for prurient interests.

If there were news photos that showed nude white children for a legitimate news interest, the law would not prohibit the publishing of such photos.

YOU are the one harping on the fact that they're "little black kids". To me, they're just people living in a horrible state.

[Malva Zebrina]

38. well thank you for that information

Have you seen any pictures of fifty little white American kids all standing around, published on the net lately?

I am harping on the fact that they are black kids becasue first of all that is exactly what they are, and because of the sterotyping that exists. PLease do not try to poison the well. When you start doing that, you have lost the debate.

[Dookus]

40. No I have not

probably because there aren't fifty litle white American kids standing around naked due to a national crisis.

but if such a crisis led to such a thing, I would expect to see documentation of it.

As to poisoning the well - look in the mirror. YOU are asserting some sort of racist connotation that simply does not exist. The photographer was documenting conditions in Africa. They happen to have darker skin there. And if those kids were in fact naked, he simply documented it. He didn't arrange the photo - he didn't pay them to model nude. He was recording a fact.

I learned a long time ago that people are who are adamantly determined to be offended will do so regardless of what other information is provided. So be offended all you want. It doesn't change the fact that it's entirely unfounded.

[Malva Zebrina]

43. there is no crisis being depicted in the photo at all

I learned a long time ago there are people who will adamantly adhere to their beliefs and sterotypes no matter how much fact and reasoning they are exposed to.

Sorry, there is connotation to this photograph--it depicts no crisis and it was unnecessary to publish it to prove any point at all.

the Sterotype that is implied is subtle

Yes they do have darker skin and you know what?--I am not afraid to call them black kids. Didn'd you try to poison the well in a previous post by implying I keep bringing up the fact they are black kids?

Now you say the same???

[Dookus]

44. The connotation that YOU found in that photo

was explained by you in ATA:

"Why does DU allow pictures of naked black children to remain on the boards

Edited on Sun Mar-21-04 09:36 AM by Marianne
there are pictures taken of naked black children in a mission. The implication, to thinking persons, is that there are "little black sambos" running around in the jungle who need the missionaries to tend to them"


That implication is astounding to me. "Little black sambos .... who need missionaries to tend to them?"

I see no such implication in that photo, and for you to see it shows how overwrought your imagination is.

Also, are you saying there is no national crisis in Uganda? There certainly is. Multiple crises, in fact. This picture just demonstrates that.

[Malva Zebrina]

45. poisoning the well again--I don't think it works well for you

and neither will "gotcha"

Do you know and understand what a rhetorical device is?-

the picture does not depict any crisis at all--it depicts naked children lining up for something an examination by someone. It is an invasion of their privacy if that means anything to anyone

and further, why are there so many, perhaps fifty, of them naked all bunched up together? If they are being examined for scabies or something that is a "crisis" why are they forced to all be naked at once. Each could have been examined as a separate child, behind a makeshift screen of some sort if there were any respect at all. They are being treated like cattle here.

[Muddleoftheroad]

46. Visitng doctors and missionaries

Often do indeed have to treat people fast and furious because the crisis is so extreme. So in some cases they have to do things just like the military -- with large groups all doing the same thing including disrobing, especially when the clothes are being burned.

[Dookus]

47. I don't understand your continued claim

about "poisoning the well".

You harp on the fact that they're little black children, not me. YOU inferred that the purpose was to display them as "little black sambos".

I'm simply saying that it's a news photograph showing the reality of their situation. If that same situation occurred in a country composed of white children, the photos would also be allowed.

Why are there so many bunched up naked together? I have no idea, and I suspect neither do you. I don't see an article linked to the photograph. I have only the photo to judge by, and unlike you, I don't make wild-ass speculations about such things without more information.

[Malva Zebrina]

50. Harping?

How do you suggest I refer to these children? Little, dark skinned, children? Little white children? Little brown skinned children?

Poisoning the well

A quick google on logical fallacies "poisoning the well" may be to your advantage

Here is one I have on my HD, but it is from an atheist/agnostic site.
There are others on the net you can explore if this is not to your taste.



http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/skepticism/blskep_flaw.htm?terms=n525

[Dookus]

51. You're going to give ME advice on

logic and argumentation? Somebody who sees a picture of children and presumes that the intent of the picture is to portray them as "little black sambos running around the jungle"? You have shown precious little reason and logic in this thread - just a lot of hyperventilating.

YOU are presuming that we are racists for not agreeing with you. YOU are poisoning the well.

[Malva Zebrina]

53. hey, i just gave a link, and you are not infallible

you do not have to hit the link--your logic is suffering and poisoning the well is a sure way to lose.

[Dookus]

54. Well you're the one

making an accusation that such a photo is racist and offensive. You have provided no logic to back up that claim. Many others have presented reasons WHY you're wrong, but you ignore them.

Be offended all you want - I know you're not going to reconsider your position. I'm just pointing out for others reading that your interpretation is baseless.

[Malva Zebrina]

55. Dookus, I am positive that all those others reading will be forever

indebted to you and your flawless argument and exquisite use of poisoning the well to make your point.

Actually I post for myself and not for the benefit of anyone else here that may be reading. I am that confident of my point.

Having said that why should I sully my beautiful mind reading incoherent logic such as yours.

so, as a last post to you, I will concede that you won.

I hope all of those who you think are anxiously reading your posts will take notice of that.

You won!


OK?

LOL

[Dookus]

57. Yeah, that's OK.

Glad you wised up.

[shanti]

33. pornographic

doesn't necessary mean sexual.

[Dookus]

37. Yes, it does.

Look it up.

You may be thinking of "obscene" which has a broader meaning. I agree the condition those people live in is obscene. Documenting it is not.

[Just Me]

29. The issue of nudity is secondary to the greater inhumane conditions,...

,...of their lives which is inexcusable in a world that has plenty to go around. I doubt those people (who are members of the whole of our humanity) even take much congizance of their "nudity" like the "lilly whites" who have chosen such obsesssions. Those members of our human race cling to a far greater and simpler challenge,..."life", "living", "survival". The photos depict their particular reality,...not ours. To project our own issues (about nudity) upon their realities is to deny both our problems and theirs.

[Malva Zebrina]

36. Oh I agree that a lot of help is needed

but not with your logic. It makes no difference to this argument what they think about their nudity and to say they are unconcerned aobut their bodies is almost playing into a sterotype. Further publishing it on the net for the world to see, would further add to a stereotype--ie that little black kids in the jungle run around naked all the time and do not show any concern about their nakedness.

if there is a perception that they do not care on whit about being photographed nude, that does not give someone with a presumably higher ethic , to declare that since they probably don't care about their nudity anyhow it is just fine to photograph them nude and publish it on the net.

[Just Me]

64. They don't care what you think,...

,...they are surviving and would likely find your "cover your bodies" obsession,...demeaning/humilitating/persecutory. Do you understand that?

They don't need your collateral judgment. They need your hand and heart and help.

Geez,...I love you, Marianne,...but,...please, I will beg you to face the first over the last of concerns. Heal your own heart, because it is bleeding all over the place which is not helpful to those who are not living in your skin. Please, heal thyself, Marianne.

[spinbaby]

63. Are children starving in Uganda?

I thought Uganda was doing fairly well nowadays.

[w4rma]

42. No it's not. (n/t)

[Skittles]

8. *sniff*

those precious children

[cliss]

15. The fact is, when missionaries go to foreign countries,

they take the risk that they could be killed or harmed in carrying out their mission. Like the ones who were killed in Iraq last week. I believe they were Baptist missionaries from the US.

It's just a fact of life - the world has gotten very dangerous thanks to Bush and his Quixotic crusades. Anyone who goes over there needs to understand the risk before they go.

In retrospect, they could have sent black missionaries from the US. That might have had a better reception. We whites are so conspicuous in other countries.

[Malva Zebrina]

17. and especially when we teach, supposedly, humility , respect and

purity, encourage them to abandon their traditional cultural dress, and cover themselves up, and then send pictures back home to be published all over the net of their children in the humiliating position of being seen stark naked by the world.

Shades of Coming of Age in Samoa, Margaret Mead and pehaps a little Franz Fanon thrown in for good measure.

[EdGy]

30. here's what they were doing there

from the website of the Africa Inland Missionaries, the organization of which these missionaries were a part:

The Hope for Africa is Jesus Christ

While our ministries are many and varied, our two primary goals are:

1. To reach unreached peoples with the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and to plant maturing churches among those peoples.

2. To strengthen and equip the church through leadership training and development.

http://www.aim-us.org/about_AIM/mission_goals/mission.asp

[54anickel]

56. You could have finished the clip -

Whether they repair Landrovers, perform appendectomies, or teach better farming methods all our missionaries contribute in some way to these objectives. AIM's ministries meet people's needs, validate their worth and declare God's glory.

[EdGy]

58. Did you read the page?

it says this:

our two primary goals are:

1. To reach unreached peoples with the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and to plant maturing churches among those peoples.

2. To strengthen and equip the church through leadership training and development

Everything else they do, including the things they list, are nothing but a means to achieve their two primary goals:

all our missionaries contribute in some way to these objectives.

In other words, their primary goal is to undermine existing cultures and religions, to convince people that their own religions are wrong, and that only their religion (and not "Christianity", but a very particular, extremist version of Christianity"), is the truth, all the while holding out goods and services that are desperately needed in this countries that are impoverished because of the policies of western countries like the US.

These people are an arm of US imperialism.

[Muddleoftheroad]

59. Charity

OK, so if somebody named Gates gives $100 million to charity so he looks good, then we should ban it?

So if a company sends employees to the inner city every year to work with Habitat for Humanities (a great group btw), but what they are really doing is also putting a human face on their company, then we should ban that?

So only completely charitable acts with no ulterior motive are allowed? What if I join the Peace Corps because I don't like my family, is that OK? Or if I join the church because I am in trouble with the law?

[54anickel]

61. Thanks again Muddle.

[EdGy]

66. again you're changing the subject

Why do you do this muddle? You are perfectly capable of making a good argument without resorting to ridiculous distortions.

We are not talking about "putting a human face" on a company, or making someone look good, or generic ulterior motives.

We are talking about people who are trying to undermine and destroy peoples' religious beliefs and cultures, under the guise of helping, by taking advantage of peoples' desperation.

That kind of ulterior motive, that kind of goal, IS bad, I believe.

The other cases you are raising are totally different and are not relevant to this discussion.

If you believe that undermining and destroying others' cultures and religions is okay, if you really think there's no difference between that and Microsoft wanting to look good, then please just be honest and admit it instead of playing these word games.

[Muddleoftheroad]

74. Everyone has ulterior motives

People in need often don't have the time to wait for those two or three people in the world who do not.

The difference lies in the ulterior motives. Let's say I chat up a guy I vaguely know at a chamber of commerce event. Hell maybe I let him talk me into trying a game of golf which would be laughable since I can't play the damn game.

Now, we might even end up friends, but if I did it in theory to improve my business, should I have rejected the offers? Should he?

Now religious folks are different. Because, since most don't go burning you at the stake these days, they are intent on trying to HELP you. Now, if you are strong in your convictions, you don't want that help. What if you aren't?

[54anickel]

60. Yes I did, and it's the usual marketing stuff, they aren't going to

market to atheiest or agnostics, they are a Christian organization. As I stated early on, I have seen both the good and the evil sides of missions. Some do it simply to win converts and money from their supporters.

Others do it for more selfless reasons, they believe they are doing the work their lord intended, what being a part of humankind and a creation of God is all about - caring for His creation. These are the types of missionaries that I, personally, am thankful for.

I will not attempt to assume the motive of any individual missionary based on the website of the organization that sponsored their mission. I will not pass judgement. As I said, I've seen both sides of the argument on missionaries.

Here is an interesting story on Uganda. Gee, guess it's too bad it's a Christian Organization that is helping these parents trying to get their children back from slavery, huh?

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/fromthefield/107951927738.htm

[Muddleoftheroad]

62. Christian organizations

Have a long history of being abolitionist. Some of the best abolitionist groups before the Civil War were churches and religious societies.

I support pretty much anybody fighting slavery.

[EdGy]

67. the group in your article, Christian Aid, are not missionaries

Christian Aid is a VERY different kind of group than the Africa Inland Mission or other US missionary groups.

First of all they are NOT a missionary group. In their own words:

Does Christian Aid carry out missionary work? Christian Aid is not a missionary society but an overseas development agency, sponsored by 40 British and Irish Churches.

In addition, their philosophy is the complete opposite of those other groups, for example, again from Christian Aid website:

From the organisation's very earliest days we based our work on the conviction that local people in poor countries are in the best position to understand the causes of their problems and how to resolve them. As a result we became committed to working with local churches and other organisations that would provide the analysis, responses and person power while Christian Aid provided the resources. We call these organisations our partners.
http://www.christianaid.org.uk/aboutca/faq.htm

This is the kind of group I was referring to in an earlier post. Not only are they trying to help people, they are actually asking people what they need and how best to resolve them.

They do not go in with a pre-determined recipe that they know best for the local people, with a goal of destroying local religion and culture. I too have looked at all kinds of groups, including groups sponsored by religious institutions. Not all of them are missionaries, and not all of them are seeking converts. Some of them, like Christian Aid are actually respecting local people.

The tone, the attitude towards locals is SO different than what you find at the AIM or others. I would guess that even you could see that.

[EdGy]

69. and they DO NOT use westerners in overseas projects:

Does Christian Aid send volunteers overseas?
Our partner organisations are based in the countries where we work, and employ local staff. We do not place volunteers in our programmes around the world, but volunteers are vital to the functioning of the organisation in the UK and Ireland.

I hope you do see the enormous difference between them and AIM, or the International Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention...

[54anickel]

70. Yes you are correct. I am not going to get into it with you one way or

the other. Not all Christian organizations are out to convert people. Not all missionaries work to tow the line that their sponsors put out in their glossy ads.

I am too close to the couple killed in this story to be objective on the matter. They were not the type of people that were in it for converts, they were the type of people that wanted to help others.

Like I said, I will not judge any missionary by the organization that may have sponsored them. There is good and/or evil to be found in everyone and everything.

It just seems to me that here on DU the word missionary is immediately made equivalent to converting people to Christianity. I've known several types, and no they do not always fit the mold of their sponsors.

[EdGy]

71. I can appreciate that

I understand what you're saying, and in this case it is sad these people were killed (though if they were not in it for the converts I just wonder why they didn't work through a group that does not seek converts...)

But the word missionary DOES mean converting people to Christianity or to Islam or any other religion.

Regardless of the intention of individuals, who may very well be nice people with good intentions, the overall effect of missionaries and missionary organizations that are seeking to actively convert people in poor or wartorn countries is negative.

Having seen it first hand, I must say it is wrong, and I must oppose it.

This does not mean I oppose all actions by all religious organizations. Like you, I have seen enough groups which, like Christian Aid, are doing work in a way that is respectful of local people, cultures and societies.

But I do have a problem with groups that are outright going after the souls for Jesus or Islam in these kinds of places.

I'll just conclude with the well-known saying about the road to hell being paved with good intentions.

[54anickel]

73. Thanks for understanding. As to why people go with organizations

that do seek converts, I don't know. I know of one person that put in with several organizations for sponsorship. There are a lot more that do evangelism than not. Your own post stated that Chrstian Aid does not send westerners to other lands.
You feel you have a calling to help, you're a Christian so you trust in the Lord to provide and look who shows up with the sponsorship.
:shrug:

[54anickel]

72. It's all in the marketing -

Does Christian Aid only help Christians?
No. Christian Aid funds projects that help people regardless of their beliefs. Some of the work we fund is done through local Christian organisations, but it is for the benefit of all.

You don't think some of those Christian organizations might also do a bit of evangelizing? If you say no, how can you be sure

From the visions and values page:
to work with our partners in the Church, and those of other faiths and beliefs who side with the poor to be inspired by the Gospel of good news to the poor, which promises a fulfilling life for all and the hope of a new earth.

My point is that you cannot judge ANY organization, institution or indivduals motives from the outside.

[demdave]

34. This thread illustrates why I really don't care about OFFENDING people.

It is an objective measure and some hypersensitive individual will always have their own agenda for being offended.

[Malva Zebrina]

39. well you are right about that--lots of supersensitive people interested in

issues of justice--and lot's of people with personal agendas too. I think you meant to say subjective.

[dawn]

49. I think this is sad...

Although I disagree with missionairies trying to convert people, this is still awful.

[Roaming]

65. Thanks for posting these pictures--there is nothing offensive here

except the offense of poverty and starvation. I am so grateful for the kind, brave souls who work the world over helping people. They are daily putting their lives at risk and truly living out the Gospel in their example. They are true heroes.

[Almost_there]

68. After reading this whole thread...

I can't seem to put my finger on it, but, some here seem to object to this not because the picture is factual or not, but, because it is being used as a tool by missionaries. How is it being used as a tool for propoganda? I don't know. But then it occurred to me, perhaps because they are missionaries.

Perhaps because 2 human beings lost their lives (which seems to have TOTALLY GOTTEN LOST IN THIS THREAD!!) serving others on a RELIGIOUS mission, well, they were there just trying to convert the heathens, and damn them if they don't find JEE-SUS!

Sorry, I am not buying that A) the two missionaries that were there deserved to die, B) that the photos in question were propoganda or racist, prejudiced or anything of the ilk, and C) that people on a religious mission are there to only convert the "heathen darkies".

Some posts seem to decry that the pictures are awful because the kids are naked and they want to be covered up. Well, I don't know about that, looks like all the kids are just milling about, its impossible to tell what the child who has turned from the camera is doing. Pretty weird that 30 kids would be waiting in line, naked, then get all worried when the Nikon comes out. Sorry, don't buy it. Missionaries often take pictures (and yes, I know numerous missionaries) for keepsakes and to show the atrocities of the world outside of our "call for a pizza, I'm too tired to microwave something" world.

Let's be honest, most of these kids don't OWN CLOTHES AND PROBABLY NEVER HAVE! How can you be embarrased about something you might not even know? In Japan, I never met a man or woman who really cared much about the looks of their teeth because they didn't know about orthodonture work! Are they more conscientious about it today? A little, not much though. The CEO's of corporations have crappy teeth in Japan, they just aren't emabarrased by it the way Americans are.

So, what does that mean? Well, maybe these kids aren't embarrassed about their poverty and lack of clothes because it is all they know! Perhaps they should tell the evil, expoitive racist missionaries to leave them alone, they'll be fine without clothes. These missionaries are trying to help, yes, some kids are in the nude. No, I have never seen 50 white kids in the US photographed at once. Have I seen abject poverty in the Appalachias, where kids go virtually naked, wearing almost nothing? Embarrassed by their poverty? Why? Its all they know.

But please, let's try to remember the title of this thread. There are two human beings who have sacrificed their lives to try and help others, and we seem to have forgotten that.

~Almost