No Jesus? No Tsunami aid for you!

[monolith94]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi


In so far as they have gone all that way to do what is in their view helping people, and because of the fact that they have not inflicted harmed anyone, they are behaving morally.

Well, that depends on what you define as harm. Physical harm - no. True, they were left off almost exactly as before. But how do you think they felt as they watched trucks of food drive away because they weren't christian??? That's called psychological damage, or emotional harm, take your choice. It feels like a cruel trick. And under the good samaritan law (remember your seinfeld?) it'd be illegal as well. Do you also side with George, Elaine, Kramer and Jerry?

[Shi Huangdi]

If they thought what they were doing was so moral and righteous, why did they flee from the reporters when confronted about what they were doing?

Thinking you might get bad press isn't the same as feeling guilty. Believing (correctly) that others will disapprove of your actions isn't the same thing as believing your actions to be immoral, at least for those who don't believe that morality is tied to what the mob thinks. When a public figure avoids a reporter known to be hostile, it isn't because they are ashamed, but because they don't want to provide fuel for their attackers.

[Proteus_MST]

I don´t know how it is handled in other countries,
but I think in Germany these Missionaries could be tried for "failure to render assistance",
if as a result of their Inaction any of the villagers dies
(for example of starvation, or because a villager didn´t get a medicine which these missionaries had but refused to distribute)

[aneeshm]

When upper caste Hindus forced lower caste ones out of government-run relief camps , I condemned them . According to the upper-casters , the lower ones were unclean , and would add to the Karmic burden of the upper-casters . If I were Shi , I would defend them , saying that , from their viewpoint , what they were doing was justified . I did not . I consider myself secular , and that is why I condemned their behaviour . I frankly don't care what they think , and I condemn these Christain bigots equally , because my viewpoint is a secular one .

As a note : What the upper-casteists did was illegal , because they did not own the aid . What the Christains are doing is not , because the aid they are giving is theirs to give . Nobody can force me to give aid to a Hindu , Muslim , or Jew , or stop me from denying it to any of these communities , because I own the aid I give . It would be , however ( and , in this case , is ) , repulsive and disgusting .

@ Oredin
Atal Behari Vajpayee was not the Hindu nationalist . His party stayed in power due to a coalition of allies , and one of his allies was the Hindu nationalist party , the VHP and the RSS . Thus , he had to bow to some of their decisions . He was , in fact , the person who tried his best to curb this tendency ( and mostly succeeded ) . It was the rest of his party members who were more vocal Hindu nationalists . And Hindu nationalism had died down quite a bit after the election .

[molly bloom]

'....this dreadful new military order that someone has rather pleasantly called the order of the 5th gospel was founded for the purpose of forcing infidels to accept the faith at the point of the sword. Its members consider that they have every right to attack anyone not confessing Christ's name, leaving him destitute, whereas if they themselves are killed while unjustly attacking the pagans, they are called martyrs for the faith....

We do not maintain that all they do is wrong, but we do insist that what they are doing can be an occasion of many future evils.'

Isaac of Etoile, Cistercian Abbot


Plus ca change, except these missionaries seem to lack the courage to accept martrydom.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


A former leftist who wrote an expose on Mother Theresa a few years ago. He's currently a major critic of the left for his perception (not entirely inaccurate) of the left's opposition of the War on Terror. He has a column in Harper's and has for many years. His critiques are generally quite thoroughly researched. He also wrote The Trial of Henry Kissinger which fairly well lays out the claim the Kissinger was a war criminal, and Kissinger has don nothing except to say that Hitchens is wrong. No libel suit. His book on Mother Theresa was written while she was alive, and she didn't sue him either.

His two main accussations agains ther were the denial of care for those who wouldn't convert and the acceptance of money from questionable sources.

Was there ever any corraboration of his story? I find it difficult to believe that an Indian government would have let this happen without a protest.

[chequita guevara]

Here's an interview with Hitchens if you want to read it.

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/hitchens_16_4.html

An article by Hitchens:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2090083/

From another site:

http://www.skreed.com/life/mother_theresa.html

Examining Mother Theresa's morality more closely, we should consider the facts that she supported the brutal dictatorship of Duvalier in Haiti; she "accepted over a million dollars from Charles Keating, the Lincoln Savings and Loans swindler, even though it had been shown to her that the money was stolen" (Hitchens); she vigorously campaigned to prevent divorce from becoming legal in Ireland; she squirreled away millions of dollars of donations in bank accounts while the children she was supposedly attempting to save starved to death; she stated on many occasions that human suffering was intrinsically good; and perhaps most damning of all, she was a tireless birth-control opponent who used her power against the humanists of India struggling to end the vicious cycle of over-population, poverty, and misery.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
The people who feel "shocked" to agree with me are payment enough for my efforts. That and Shi's posts about how this isn't morally repugnant give me no end of amusement.

Actually, the agreement was secondary - a minor surprise, really, compared to the shock (SHOCK, I tell you) that you actually took a position.

-Arrian

[DinoDoc]

I'm full of suprises.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
"His book on Mother Theresa was written while she was alive, and she didn't sue him either."

Maybe she was too busy caring for those in poverty to be concerned with such things?

Given her active political campaigning in a country on the other side of the globe from India (Ireland) and the money grubbing tours she did, I find that explanation less than compelling. Especially since she could have taken him and his publisher to the cleaners for even more money.

She's an idol with feet of clay.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
Thinking you might get bad press isn't the same as feeling guilty. Believing (correctly) that others will disapprove of your actions isn't the same thing as believing your actions to be immoral, at least for those who don't believe that morality is tied to what the mob thinks. When a public figure avoids a reporter known to be hostile, it isn't because they are ashamed, but because they don't want to provide fuel for their attackers.

Yeah, that's a great apologist answer. Or maybe they knew what they were doing was suczzy and fled to avoid getting questioned by the media? After all, they could have just stayed and given out the food to avoid this "hostile" press you cited.

That you would consider their actions moral is pretty bizarre. The bottom line is that when they left with their truckload of food, the men, women and children of the town were still starving. If you entered a village with a bunch of food, dangled it in front of starving people for any condition, and then fled with the food, leaving the people in hunger, I would say you were behaving plenty damned immoral.

Tell me, what moral good was done by leaving those people to starve?

[Giancarlo]

I will respond to the very first post, on the original topic. I find that having assistance rejected based solely on ones religion is very disgusting and morally repugnant. Everybody in the region affected, whether they be buddhist, muslim, christian or otherwise, should not be rejected aid. It is morally disgusting that one could even tell people to convert so they can receive assistance, especially after the massive emotional trauma that was inflicted on the victims. Many people lost their entire families, and children are left without parents.. and parents are left without children.. I find it grave insult that these christians are even allowed to operate.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
Again, if you believe that you are trying to help these people get into heaven and avoid damnation, it becomes an act of charity.

I pulled this one quote from page 2.. to highlight the mental insanity of some people. How dare you? What if I was caught up in this disaster, or anybody of different religion and needed aid.. but was rejected because I'm not christian? I don't give a damn about some made up heaven or some stupid damnation some stupid conservatives make up to scare people.. you have no right, no right at all, to reject ANYONE aid when they were afflicted with such a massive natural tragedy. If they want to go there to help, they should help every single person they can, christian.. muslim.. buddhist or otherwise.

What happens if it occurs in the US.. will I rejected aid because I'm gay and atheist? Answer that.

I think you are morally lacking.

[MRT144]

shi, by your logic showing up to a fire, with equipment to put it out but not putting it out would be a moral action.

[Asher]

Originally posted by MRT144
shi, by your logic showing up to a fire, with equipment to put it out but not putting it out would be a moral action.

IIRC a Christian would only believe this is true if the people in the fire were sinners.