Evangelicals in Post -war Iraq.

[JCG]

"Oh yes, now that we have liberated Iraq from its cruel dictator, we must now save their souls and bring them back to the Lord as well".

I'd hope that whatever "thing" ends up bearing the semblance of an Iraqi government a few months/years from now severely restricts these opportunistic attempts. Otherwise, it could be a massive PR disaster in the Arab world (as if those were lacking).

For once, the U.S. would be doing a good deed if they repressed these missionaries a little...but it probably won't happen.

[gsmoove23]

By all means, lets focus on the issues that really matter.

For months, the State Department has been planning the reconstruction of Iraq. Included in that effort is the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), a government agency that has, in the past, taken a very liberal approach to "helping" nations.

Steve Mosher, head of the Population Research Institute, is especially wary of USAID and its liberal approach towards the issues of condom use and abortion.

"As soon as the dust settles after the conflict, (USAID will) be sending in the condom pushers and the sex educators," Mosher said. "There is the view at USAID that we need to remake these societies in the image of Hollywood or in the image of Manhattan. (That) we need to attack the patriarchal family.

http://www.family.org/cforum/fnif/news/a0025243.html

"If we are fighting for freedom in Iraq, then most surely that freedom should extend to women globally and in the United States," says Planned Parenthood President Gloria Feldt, in a statement posted on the group's Web site. "The most fundamental freedom is the freedom of reproductive self-determination."

But the Bush administration, Feldt complains, is standing in the way. "In mid-February, a leaked State Department memo indicated that the administration intended to extend the global gag rule to cover all health programs, including reproductive health programs for refugees."

http://www.truthtv.org/newstext.asp?newsid=1279

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ned
Otherwise we would be violating one of our own core principles.

This is the kind of thinking that led to US international relations fiascos.

Let it be known that most other people in the world don't care about these "core principles."

Impose them at your own risk.

[Shi Huangdi]

Excuse me, but could you lefties take a break from being hysterical and provide a link showing this is actually happening!?

[Felch]

I am giving missionaries the benefit of the doubt and assuming that they won't coerce people into Christianity. If that isn't the case, then what I say next doesn't apply. If it is the case, then I mean everything I say after this.

We believe in freedom of conscience. It is a core freedom, the right to believe what you want.

If Arabs don't feel that the right to worship as you freely choose is not a right, they are wrong. There is simply no moral relativism in this instance. If they don't believe in freedom then their beliefs are worse than those who do.

This is not to say that they all have to be Christian. Just that they allow people to believe what they want. It's a right that the west takes for granted. And if we suffer because we uphold our beliefs in liberty and the rights of man, then that's just something we have to deal with.

I know that people say we antagonized the Arabs into attacking on September 11. But if they hate us for this they'll only be proving Bush right when he said that they hate us because we believe in liberty and freedom.

For once we're trying to do something fundamentally good. To give people the option of making their own choices in matters like this is always good. And even if it's not expedient in the short term that's just what we'll have to do. Even if this one choice leads to the downfall and collapse of the United States it would be the right decision. Because if we were given the chance to uphold our ideals and didn't, we would prove ourselves to be nothing more than the global bully UR always makes us out to be.

[C0ckney]

great post felch

[Sava]

Shi, while I know people on 'Poly don't believe anything unless they have a link, NPR reported a story on this yesterday.

[Elok]

From what I hear, Christian minorities in Iraq are actually quite frightened that charismatic missionaries are going to bulldoze their way in, freak out the local conservatives and run when the riots start, leaving the pre-existing Christian communities at the mercy of a very irritated populace. It was an article in the Washington Post about a week ago. If it's true, my experience with evangelicals leads me to believe that such fears are perfectly justified.
Bush is a Methodist, but he's actually pretty secular and lip-service-prone in his personal attitude towards it all. His use of religion seems to mostly be as a tool for greater purposes. I can't imagine even Dubya is dumb enough to let loose the Tammy Fayes in Iraq.

[Sava]

Tariq Aziz is Christian... he's Hussein's foreign Minister.... or was...

[Spiffor]

Felch, same question :
"So it would be OK to let humanitarian aid sent by communist groups or islamist groups bent on proselytism ?"

[Shi Huangdi]

Ah ok Sava. Well I think the thing is here Christianity was a perfectly legal religion in Hussein's Iraq. I just can't imagine Iraq becoming less tolerant of other religions under US occupatiom.

[Shi Huangdi]

Here is a link:

http://www.cmonitor.com/stories/community/news2003/evangelize_0329_2003.shtml

[PLATO]

The war was fought for the right of self determination, not for freedom of religion. If the Iraqi's choose to allow this...fine. If they don't...fine. It is after all their choice.

[Sava]

"You can have medicine and food, as long as you accept Jesus Christ as your true God."

While not all missionaries will be like this, a lot of them are. If they want to give aid, they should give to the Red Cross, or some other agency that won't try to convert people.

[Ramo]

I see absolutely no reason why evangelicals should be prohibited from Iraq. Of course, there's no way we should be funding these groups.