No Jesus? No Tsunami aid for you!

[Monk]

Originally posted by Whaleboy

Yeah, I do suppose welfare and drugs are okay. The fact that I don't know my English grammar less so.

[Whaleboy]

if it is true then these nuns be should be burned at the stake

If they convert to Islam can we cut their throats instead?

[Ramo]

A bunch of ****sticks are exploting the suffering of tsunami victims to get people to convert, and people in Poly justifying such inhumanity. I'm mighty disappointed in some of y'all.

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


If they convert to Islam can we cut their throats instead?

"Mercy rejoices in judgment" (or maybe I have that backwards)

[GePap]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
"
Ah, right you point out a key difference between the United Negro College Fund and a group like this that goes on religion(Either these people, or Moslem groups that focus their aid towards helping other Moslems). You can change your religion, but not your race.

No, the main difference is that the UNited Negro College Fund exists to give help to black get into college (as it names obviously implies), and helping to give college scholarships is NOT like giving emergency aid to victims of a natural catastrophe- hence the comparison between an aid group dsitributing aid to victims and a private fund set up explicitly to give out college schollarships is, well, 0.

I failt t understand why this patently OBVIOUS difference fails to penetrate your psyche.

[GePap]

If You wisht o continue with absurd comparisons, Shi, i guess you think this is much like the US government only giving welfare to US Citizens. I mean, whats the difference between giving help to one group of people and not another? Right!???

[Shi Huangdi]

Whaleboy:

So why is it so much better to distribute aid randomly rather then to specific groups? You said:

"
Yes but while that usually happens the differentiations are made for a good reason relating back to the need and the charitable intention, this situation does not exist. There is nothing to distinguish the need of Christians and Hindu's in this situation."

Fine, but aren't they underpriviliged Caucasians who need scholarships as well as African Americans? They are going by the basis of something other then need. In their view(and again as I said don't approve of how they are trying to convert), there is a rational basis for choosing who to give aid, in that they view by giving aid in this way they hope to save souls.

"Asides from what I said above, they are allowing people to die (and if they live it would be no thanks to them, who's religion and public perception was apparently more important than their immediate need, such that they would up and run somewhere else) for no reason other than their religion."

There is still a definitive difference between actually causing harm, which they are not doing, and not helping one specific group. It is by no means similar to the SS officer example you gave. And even still, what they did is also what alot of other people throughout the developed world did in choosing not to give aid.


"Shi still pedelling that moronic comparison to the United Negro College Fund? Damn..."

Ooh, you used name calling a second time, that's strong, I guess you win.

[Shi Huangdi]

"
No, the main difference is that the UNited Negro College Fund exists to give help to black get into college (as it names obviously implies), and helping to give college scholarships is NOT like giving emergency aid to victims of a natural catastrophe- hence the comparison between an aid group dsitributing aid to victims and a private fund set up explicitly to give out college schollarships is, well, 0"

The UNCF only chooses to give aid to a specific group, so do these missionaries, who would be distributing aid to other people who need just as bad. Maybe if you make your zero a little bigger though.

Yes, the scale is much different, but the principle is the same.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
Fine, but aren't they underpriviliged Caucasians who need scholarships as well as African Americans? They are going by the basis of something other then need. In their view(and again as I said don't approve of how they are trying to convert), there is a rational basis for choosing who to give aid, in that they view by giving aid in this way they hope to save souls.

Having already addresses the moronic comparison,
on the issue of "spending aid judiciously" and its rational basis:

Physical aid does not save souls- saving the body is not the same as saving the soul- you can svae the body and not the soul, AND VICE VERSA. Besides, how do you judge the authenticity of conversion by simply having people claim conversion, when the likely reason was simply to save the body? They would then fail in their supposed aim. And they have no way of judging why people would be saying "fine, I convert, whatever", if they trully wanted to save their souls, OR simply their bodies.

Even from what you assume their aims are, this is a stupid campaign.

[Ramo]

Again, these idiots are exploiting the suffering of people in dire need of food, water, and medicine to get them to convert.

That's a very different thing from giving aid to disadvantaged minorities to go to college.

Just as if I were to, say, go to this village, and give food to anyone willing to give me oral sex, would be a very different thing.

[Whaleboy]

Fine, but aren't they underpriviliged Caucasians who need scholarships as well as African Americans? They are going by the basis of something other then need. In their view(and again as I said don't approve of how they are trying to convert), there is a rational basis for choosing who to give aid, in that they view by giving aid in this way they hope to save souls.

As with any group, but where a specific impediment is caused by a specific factor (or the direct consequences of that, i.e. racism or race identity etc) charity can be distributed accordingly. I should think it obvious no? And if they knew what they were doing was right, why did they run? It seems they knew something you dont... that their actions are indefensible.

There is still a definitive difference between actually causing harm, which they are not doing, and not helping one specific group. It is by no means similar to the SS officer example you gave. And even still, what they did is also what alot of other people throughout the developed world did in choosing not to give aid.

The SS officers chose to kill or cause suffering by their actions that were religiously motivated... if you're attempting to delinate then you would say something on the order of "it was the bullet's responsibility" or "it was the gas's responsibility for murdering the Jews" . Again note the description of "harm". Would you deny that their choice was intentional?

The rest of the developed world not choosing the give aid? You're statements go from the sublime to the ridiculous. That some did not give aid is choosing not to help the entire region, and they're not there so there may well be other factors out of their control influencing the decision, as opposed to evident selfishness. If one refuses to give aid to anyone but a charity that would only help a given group of victims... that is perhaps a little more analogous, but still not an acceptable comparison because they're not in the field.

The UNCF only chooses to give aid to a specific group, so do these missionaries, who would be distributing aid to other people who need just as bad. Maybe if you make your zero a little bigger though.

Yes, the scale is much different, but the principle is the same.

No the principle is completely different... the reason the UNCF chooses to give aid to a specific group is directly related to the need of that group, or did you miss me saying that twice before?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi

The UNCF only chooses to give aid to a specific group, so do these missionaries, who would be distributing aid to other people who need just as bad. Maybe if you make your zero a little bigger though.

Yes, the scale is much different, but the principle is the same.

NO, the principle is NOT the same.

Missionaries exist to spread a message- aid giving is only part of their aim, and ancilliary to their professed aim. They also have a mission to their own values, those of mercy and loving your fellow man which they are supposed to embody, otherwise how the hell are they good vehicles of the faith!?

Christian missionaries there to spread the message of Christ fail in their task if they are so faithless as to believe them must buy people into the faith. If the faith is so powerful, it should be self evident. Besides, do not their own personal values push them to helping those in need where they meet them?

These missionaries are either faithless hacks, or hypocrites. Either way, they are piss poor missionaries.

The Negro College Fund has one aim, its obvious from its title, and it exists because when it was created, Negros did NOT get aid from the hundreds of other scholarship groups a poor white had access to. And even today, poor whites have no shortage of getting financial aid to enter a college out of their financial means.

But of course, getting into collage and getting life saving aid from a natural disaster are two totally different things.

UNICEF is a branch of a much larger organization, and not a stand alone.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
"
No, the main difference is that the UNited Negro College Fund exists to give help to black get into college (as it names obviously implies), and helping to give college scholarships is NOT like giving emergency aid to victims of a natural catastrophe- hence the comparison between an aid group dsitributing aid to victims and a private fund set up explicitly to give out college schollarships is, well, 0"

The UNCF only chooses to give aid to a specific group, so do these missionaries, who would be distributing aid to other people who need just as bad. Maybe if you make your zero a little bigger though.

Yes, the scale is much different, but the principle is the same.

The UNCF isn't trying to convert people to being black.

[Japher]

Soul Man

Great movie

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I think we have a very good reason to condemn these people. Coercion isn't a very good way to go about saving souls even in the best of times. But to go into a village suffering form such devestation and do such a things is morally repugnant. Thier reactions upon seeing reporters show even they know that.