Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
That is quid pro quo. You can eat dinner, but listen to propaganda. These people, who are quite possibly unfamiliar with even the notion of propaganda, are fed. Putting food in their tummy and pouring honey in their ear is why the Christians are there. From the perspective of the missionaries, they are doing god's work, but in reality, they are working to indoctrinate innocent people.
|
It's not always necessary that you listen when missionaries provide dinner. Sometimes it's just a mere suggestion. For example: the church that I used to go to in Waltham -would provide free dinner for homeless -sans prayer. This was a real issue to the congregation because there was a real cost in providing this mission. For example some security was needed when people were reported "shooting up" in a room aside the free dinnerplace.
The question to the congregation was should we keep providing this need or perhaps someone else is better left to do it. It's not like the church was overflowing on Sunday -just on Tuesdays which coincidently was when we had the free supper.
What you are leaving out is that people have a choice. You claim that when a church is going to a far off place that they are proselitizing "innocent people" but this really infantizes them. Again, it's the choice factor. There is no "mind control" and I'm sure that these "innocent people" are more aware of "the dangers" of religion than you give them credit for.