Christian nutters try to forcefully convert Haiti chidren

[SeVeR]

It has emerged that some of the 33 Haiti children had parents who were still alive. - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8499401.stm

 

When will these vultures stop circling disaster zones for converts. They already invade schools, hospitals, prisons and any place they can find desperate vulnerable people.

[L.C.]

There is no such thing as true Christian conversion via force. Anyone who is for "forced Christian conversion" most likely isn't even a Christian in the heart (my opinion).

 

PS. That is also very sad.

 

*contemplates on technicality and usage of word "force/d" in general context to self*

Edited February 5, 2010 by L.C.

[Simulacrum]

Given that 80-85% of Haitians are Catholic, I don't think this was a conversion attempt.

 

That being said, it's outrageous that they thought they could just pop into another country and pick up a truckload of children of relocation.

[BDwinsAlt]

Given that 80-85% of Haitians are Catholic, I don't think this was a conversion attempt.

 

That being said, it's outrageous that they thought they could just pop into another country and pick up a truckload of children of relocation.

I could understand if it was Cuba.

[»Xog]

I really hope this is all just a mixup and a blowing-out-of-proportion by the media. If it's not, that's just wrong. Granted the parents gave up the children to the missionaries themselves from the village, this is what I'm lead to believe. I really hope I'm right.

 

Twenty-one of the children are from a single village outside the capital and were handed over willingly by their parents, says the BBC's Paul Adams, in Port-au-Prince.

Edited February 5, 2010 by Xog

[NBVegita]

I agree that I think this is blown out of proportion.

 

I doubt that if the 21 parents they could find willingly allowed their children to go, that they stole the other twelve from their cribs.

 

I believe this says it all:

 

"A number of parents in the badly-damaged village said they would find it difficult to provide for their children if they came back."

[SeVeR]

Not a conversion attempt? So there is no need for fanatic Christian missionaries (probably with their own fundamentalist brand of the religion) to convert Haitian's who probably don't even go to Church, and who have just been categorised as Catholic by some survey that cannot possibly be accurate anyway? There's no difference there?

 

Not a forced conversion? So the children are given a choice? If children could make an informed choice about religion rather than being told by adults that God is real, then Christianity would be dead by now. Seriously, it's forced, just like it's forced on any child who's parents are Christian. Children believe what adults tell them most of the time, especially when those adults are giving them food.

 

This whole thing is opportunistic conversion. The vultures flock to the disaster zone to find new meat, and get away with it by being charitable.

 

It's since emerged that the Missionary group leader is in trouble with the law in Idaho and runs an adoption agency. The claimed orphanage in the Dominican Republic actually doesn't exist. It looks like the motive here was more greed than anything, selling kids to adoptive parents for huge profits.

[Dr Brain]

Lol@Sever

 

Hate much? You may bitch about people thinking Iran is bad with no proof, but you do the same thing to Christians.

[NBVegita]

So the children are given a choice? If children could make an informed choice about religion rather than being told by adults that God is real, then Christianity would be dead by now. Seriously, it's forced, just like it's forced on any child who's parents are Christian.

 

The same can be said about almost anything. Adults will always tell children things usually trying to benefit them in some way. You hold a lot of your beliefs simply by what your parents did or didn't tell you in life. IF anything I usually find that if people are forced to do something they either embrace it or reject it completely.

[SeVeR]

So the children are given a choice? If children could make an informed choice about religion rather than being told by adults that God is real, then Christianity would be dead by now. Seriously, it's forced, just like it's forced on any child who's parents are Christian.

 

The same can be said about almost anything. Adults will always tell children things usually trying to benefit them in some way. You hold a lot of your beliefs simply by what your parents did or didn't tell you in life. IF anything I usually find that if people are forced to do something they either embrace it or reject it completely.

Like?

 

Are any examples as divisive as religion? Are any as life-changing as religion?

 

And how can a child possibly make an informed decision about religion?

[Dr Brain]

I think we can all agree that education is more life-changing than religion (though the two are tightly linked). We're educating children without them making an informed decision, yet you seem ok with that.

[SeVeR]

I contend your point that children don't make informed decisions about education. Children have an innate curiosity to learn, they don't have an innate curiosity to be religious.

 

I am sure that religion is more life-changing. The difference between a religious person and a non-religious person is vast, whilst education merely reinforces character traits that are already present and would still be present if the individual had no education.

 

Thirdly, there is no general consensus on whether children should be taught religion, there is on education. The fact that there is a big divide on religion, with large numbers in both camps, is reason enough to concede that children should make their own decisions rather than being indoctrinated in something that has a large chance of being false.

 

-EDIT- Simply put, if Scientology was taught to children in school, would you not have a problem with it? There is a difference between mathematics and religion, and that reason justifies one being taught and the other not.

 

-EDIT2- Lets be clear, it would be difficult for me to say that parents can't teach their children about whatever they want, but it is easy for me to say that religious people shouldn't seek out other peoples children to teach them about religion.

Edited February 6, 2010 by SeVeR

[Dr Brain]

I contend your point that children don't make informed decisions about education. Children have an innate curiosity to learn, they don't have an innate curiosity to be religious.

 

I completely disagree. I can only assume you've never worked with young children. For clarification, I have.

 

I am sure that religion is more life-changing. The difference between a religious person and a non-religious person is vast, whilst education merely reinforces character traits that are already present and would still be present if the individual had no education.

 

Again, I disagree.

 

Thirdly, there is no general consensus on whether children should be taught religion

 

I disagree. There may not be a consensus on which religion, but there is a consensus on whether to teach them. About 8% of the world is non-religious. Not even all of them believe that it shouldn't be taught. I'd call that a consensus. You do not make up a consensus. You certainly don't get to dictate how the other 92% handle their education.

 

-EDIT- Simply put, if Scientology was taught to children in school, would you not have a problem with it? There is a difference between mathematics and religion, and that reason justifies one being taught and the other not.

 

If one has the option to send their children to another school, no I have no problem with that. It's no different than catholic schools. I have great respect for them, but I wouldn't send my child there for the religion.

 

-EDIT2- Lets be clear, it would be difficult for me to say that parents can't teach their children about whatever they want, but it is easy for me to say that religious people shouldn't seek out other peoples children to teach them about religion.

 

What? If they have the parent's consent, then what's the issue? As NBVegita said, the parents almost certainly gave consent for the children to go.

[SeVeR]

Well this is mostly a matter of opinion. Before getting to the relevant point of this discussion I'll say that coming from England, where about half the population is non-religious, I see a clear divide. Also, your statistics are meaningless, and I could just about guarantee they are wrong. People are classified as Catholics or Christians in polls even if they don't attend Church, and we know that many of them just put Catholic/Christian on the poll because they don't know what else to put. The divide is much greater.

 

The relevant point is this:

What? If they have the parent's consent, then what's the issue? As NBVegita said, the parents almost certainly gave consent for the children to go.

The parents cannot take care of the children. The parents give their consent because they want their children to be fed and sheltered. It is very probable that if the mission workers only wanted to teach the Children about religion, without a change of living conditions, then the parents would say 'No', or they would be more reluctant. So my point is simply this: The mission workers are using this disaster as an opportunity to spread their religion. Would you agree? Edited February 6, 2010 by SeVeR

[Simulacrum]

I contend your point that children don't make informed decisions about education. Children have an innate curiosity to learn, they don't have an innate curiosity to be religious.

What if they want to learn about religion?

 

In other words, how do you distinguish between religious education and other types of education?

 

I am sure that religion is more life-changing. The difference between a religious person and a non-religious person is vast, whilst education merely reinforces character traits that are already present and would still be present if the individual had no education.

Seriously? You think that 13+ years of education are less life-changing than the nominal religious identity than most theists have?

 

What? If they have the parent's consent, then what's the issue? As NBVegita said, the parents almost certainly gave consent for the children to go.

It's not a matter of probability. 21 of the children's parents consented, but 12 were never asked, and there's apparently some evidence that the mssionaries were deceptive when asking.

Edited February 6, 2010 by Simulacrum

[SeVeR]

I contend your point that children don't make informed decisions about education. Children have an innate curiosity to learn, they don't have an innate curiosity to be religious.

What if they want to learn about religion?

 

In other words, how do you distinguish between religious education and other types of education?

There is no difference. Becoming religious isn't education. Learning about what faiths have to offer is education.

 

Seriously? You think that 13+ years of education are less life-changing than the nominal religious identity than most theists have?

Yes.

[Simulacrum]

Socialization, then; should all of that be illegal?

[NBVegita]

Are any examples as divisive as religion? Are any as life-changing as religion?

 

And how can a child possibly make an informed decision about religion?

 

I think your first mistake Sever is to assume that your religion plays a major impact on your life. Yes for the small minority of people who are stoutly religious, the religion you take is a stark impact on your life. For the majority of people who practice casual religion, which I would say is the majority of all religions, everywhere, short of tying up your Christmas eve's and Sunday mornings it really has no bearing on your life. I concede that if you are planning to become a zealot in your religion, yes it is very life changing, if you plan to practice casually as the majority of people do, it is not nearly as important as MANY other life decisions.

 

How can a child possibly make an informed decision about anything? That is why as a minor your parents are charged with making decisions for you. They choose what to teach you and what not to teach you. Simply put they cannot "give" a boy religion if he does not want to learn it. Yes they can force him to learn of it, but that does not mean in his heart he will accept it.

 

Children have an innate curiosity to learn,

 

I would say that is only true to a point. They have an innate curiosity to learn what they deem interesting. Most children if given the opportunity would never attend school. Simply put, for most children learning math and English is not fun whilst learning to play ball is.

 

The difference between a religious person and a non-religious person is vast, whilst education merely reinforces character traits that are already present and would still be present if the individual had no education.

 

I would contend the opposite. I believe the difference between an educated man and a non educated man is far more vast than religion differentiates. I say that with the caveat of leaving out extremists on either side. Simply put religion is not a major impact on your life.

 

The fact that there is a big divide on religion, with large numbers in both camps, is reason enough to concede that children should make their own decisions rather than being indoctrinated in something that has a large chance of being false.

 

First, there is an equal chance of religion being true and false as neither side can produce any evidence to prove or disprove God. In your mind there may be a large chance of it being false, but in reality there is equal chance of God existing or not existing. Second it is up to the caretakers of each child to choose what to teach their children and what not to. Simply teaching a child religion does not mean he will follow that religion. If anything I find it can be quite beneficial to enforce morals with religion, which is why I believe it has been around for so long.

[SeVeR]

I define religion as something that infects every thought in a persons brain. Every thought is equidistant from a thought about God. For example, a scientific query into carbon-dating or dinosaurs will correspond with the thought: "How can all this be rectified with God's 6000 year old Earth.". For every belief that the Bible and the Church instill in a religious brain, there are hundreds of other theories that must be disbelieved. Most of science must be dismissed because God is a permanent fixture. Belief structures are formed on sex, marriage, abortion, drink and drugs, swearing and language, attitudes to study beyond Bible study, medical procedures, stem-cell research, homosexuality, politics, and even dress-sense.

 

Time is spent in Church, contemplating the Bible, communicating with God in their usual pseudo-schizophrenic way, thinking "what would Jesus would do", etc.

 

When someone is religious, they are the sort of person I describe above. Someone who thinks long and hard about the God question before unenthusiastically answering "yea.... I believe in God", whilst not going to Church or disbelieving the majority of science, is not religious.

 

So yes, religion has a much bigger effect on a religious persons life than education. I think you went up a blind alley with education really. Nothing you get taught in school really affects your opinions on politics, philosophy, and life in general. It has very little effect on the sort of person you turn out to be. If you learn mathematics, history, geography, french, and so on, then what have you done other than absorb facts and get better at problem solving?

 

And of course children can be "given" religion. What a stupid thing to say the opposite. Where would Islam be in the Middle East if children weren't "given" their religion. You think 100% of Middle Eastern children just choose Islam? You think they've learnt about it and they all just think it's great? Christian parents in America precipitate Christian children, Islamic parents in the Middle East precipitate Islamic children, what does that tell you about the choices of the children in the matter???

 

Yes, there is an equal chance of God being true or false, I never said otherwise. My point is the same.

Anyway, the real point I have been trying to make from the start is what is in my reply to Dr Brain. This kind of opportunistic conversion has to stop.

[Simulacrum]

When someone is religious, they are the sort of person I describe above. Someone who thinks long and hard about the God question before unenthusiastically answering "yea.... I believe in God", whilst not going to Church or disbelieving the majority of science, is not religious.

I know plenty of committed, church-going Christians who understand science and are quite liberal. Your definition of "religion" is absurdly specific and biased.

 

So yes, religion has a much bigger effect on a religious persons life than education. I think you went up a blind alley with education really. Nothing you get taught in school really affects your opinions on politics, philosophy, and life in general. It has very little effect on the sort of person you turn out to be. If you learn mathematics, history, geography, french, and so on, then what have you done other than absorb facts and get better at problem solving?

Funny you should mention history... And English class? There's a lot of worldview circulating there, to the extent that right-wing churchy types often object to the field as a whole. And that's to say nothing of American Government classes, which inevitably make various assumptions about how people, states, and societies ought to be arranged.

 

And why are you responding to something that I've already modified? We socialize children with political beliefs (both those that you like and those that you don't), social attitudes (both those that you like and those that you don't), hobbies (both those that you like and those that you don't), goals (both those that you like and those that you don't), and so on already. Are these things problems? Should we only raise feral children because you can't stand the thought of anyone being raised into beliefs?

 

I emphasize that parenthesized refrain to again emphasize that this only sounds remotely like a good idea when you ignore all the religious people who already agree with you on the issues that you name. Would I like people to stop opposing abortion, stem-cell research, and LGBT rights? Of course. Would getting rid of religion help? Perhaps. But saying that all religious socialization is wrong because of these issues is like saying that all lighters are wrong because of arson. And getting rid of religion, especially before getting rid of things like homophobia and misogyny, is a pipe dream anyway.

[SeVeR]

In school you are not taught to believe in things that are as divisive and unproven as believing in God. Nothing even comes close. You make broad statements about politics, but what specifically are you talking about? Are you talking about democracy? - something agreed upon by almost everyone in our Western World. What are you talking about? I don't think you have a single example.

 

You can't seem to tell the difference between being taught to believe something, and being taught about why other people believe something. I enjoyed learning about the Five Pillars of Islam in school, I wouldn't have enjoyed being told Allah is our Lord and I must submit to him.

 

I can only take your word that you know liberal, scientific Christians, but I'll believe it when I see it. How are they liberal? How are they scientific? Tell me about these people, who from the thousands of Christians I have met (many having extensive discussions with), seem to break the mould. And you say "plenty"... where is this mythical gold-mine of non-moronic Christians?

 

The argument was about how life-changing religion is. I was showing the depth of religious socialisation that exists. Religious socialisation isn't wrong because of issues like anti-abortion or whatever. The effects don't mean the method is wrong, the cause means the method is wrong; that cause being a selfish one.

Edited February 7, 2010 by SeVeR

[BDwinsAlt]

Just because you tell someone something over and over, doesn't mean they will grow up living it.

They may believe everything you tell them, but eventually they go out on their own and they discover themselves, and may not pursue it. For example: I learned Chemistry in school, but that doesn't mean I will grow up to follow what Chemistry has to offer. You can learn Greek/Roman Mythology in school. I don't believe that religion (which is still practiced today). But children can still learn about it if they want to and there is no conversion attempt. I think schools should offer a program in areas that want it, to learn more about their religion if they choose. Of course it would be completely optional and consent forms would need to be signed.

 

Back on topic, these children will grow to trust these people and may even want to become a Christian because of the good things they've seen. Christianity isn't a bad thing. Even if God isn't real, what is wrong with someone else believing in something more, and following the Bible, which has great morals still used today. (Ignoring the old testament since it really isn't relevant anymore, i.e: stoning. Jesus took care of that.)

 

These are good people trying to help in every way they know how. Part of being a Christian is TELLING others about God and their beliefs. It has nothing to do with making them convert. Simply explain your beliefs, then if they WANT to become a Christian, then you help them.

[SeVeR]

Part of being a Christian is TELLING others about God and their beliefs. It has nothing to do with making them convert. Simply explain your beliefs, then if they WANT to become a Christian, then you help them.

Ah, the greatest evil is committed from the best of intentions. So there is a woman in a hospital bed at St. Hospital. Her husband just died in the car crash she narrowly escaped from. Along comes a Christian to tell her about heaven. Is this right in your eyes?

 

The woman might have rejected the advances of the Christian at any other time, but now she is vulnerable, she is more likely to accept it as truth. +1 convert.

 

A criminal commits a terrible crime and is imprisoned. Eventually he begins to feel guilty. A visitting Christian tells him that by accepting Jesus all his sins are forgiven. +2 converts.

 

As for children, I refer to my earlier point, if 100% of Islamic parents bring up Islamic children, and nearly 100% of Bible-belt Christians bring up Christian children, then really, how effective do you think parental conversion is?

 

Get them while they're young! Fly into the disaster zones! Offer to look after these children, tell the parents you'll give them food, shelter and warmth! Then they're yours to convert!

 

Disaster zones like Haiti are an opportunity!

[BDwinsAlt]

They went there to help people first and foremost. If someone is sad, they tell them what they believe, which usually cheers them up, wheather it be a wife who want's to believe there is something great waiting for her, or a criminal who changes his ways and follows God (Prison doesn't correct the problem, but religion can). I really don't see your point. It's not a game of conversion, they are helping in any way they know how. You seem offend by a belief shared by 2/5 of the world, while Islam and Judaism follows it. Which have the same God, and a lot of the same prophets. So probably over half of the world believes in the same God. Isn't Islam 1/5 of world religion?

[»Lynx]

Nothing new here, righteous religious people going to another country at it's darkest hour, and using what they can provide as a reason to support their religion. To be honest though, if I had just survived an earthquake; had no food or water - I'd have jumped on that van and hoped for the best. If some religious nuts want to feed me provided I listen to them babble; then I'm happy to listen. If it makes a few weak-minded individuals suddenly see a God, then good for them. As long as what they believe in doesn't effect me, I don't care. I have no issues with religion etcetera, I only have an issue when religion effects me. That happens 99.9% of the time due to either: bad political policy or people forcing their ways upon me.

 

Also, religion and education are two immeasurable attributes. Depending on who you are, depends on how either will affect you. I'd argue that children are obviously easier to 'brainwash'; but I think that anybody will eventually make up their own mind provided they hear all of the arguments. I was brought up a strict Catholic, but I do not practice catholicism, and I think it's far more likely that god does not exist.

 

In my experience, however, I find people typically get sucked into a religion when something bad happens in their lives, or a lot of the people whom they idolise are also religious.