Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
All religion is laughable, sure, but requiring that someone convert to get the food and medicine you're supplying is inexcusable. While I am not religious, I recognize that many people do need religion in their every day life and that forcing the to convert, whether to Christianity, Islam, or even atheism, is wrong.
|
I don't know will. Somewhat cold-hearted, sure, but inexcusable, not so much. Any institution (be it religious, governmental, ideological, or otherwise) has a right to it's own property and a right to distribute that property as it sees fit. Saying that it's inexcusable for an institution, like a religious group, to deny services, such as food, money, or other welfare, to non-converts is akin to saying that it is inexcusable for a government not to extend welfare to non-citizens or that it is inexcusable for an individual to donate to any welfare charity that asks. Of course all situations assume they can afford to give, but the point is that there is no obligation to charity so it is always excusable not to give; to some or all if one sees fit. Granted it might be somewhat slimey for a church to take advantage of someones destitution to convert them through offers of welfare, it is still charity that is pretty much freely given.
Also, from their subjective point of view I'm sure they are giving them a basic need (food/shelter) in exchange for conversion which fufills the base need of their G-d. So I would wager their argument would be that what they are doing is providing a dual charity stronger than merely giving people food. Instead they are giving people salvation in eternal life and helping them survive in this one. Now there is some humor in subjectively stepping into a highly objective world-view, but the point here is that charity is always somewhat subjective so at the point that they are aiding some and others are choosing their aid then who are we to fault them.