« Clash of fashion fundamentalisms | Main | Some common sense about Sarah Palin ' s hair »




You have to think this is just one case where a group of people ( Together on a bus - how OFFICIAL) were caught with 33 children. We might not know for months, years or ever how much trafficing or "adoptions" have already taken place. Why do many people always equate moral, ethical and other such adjectives with Christianity? Being a Christian doesn't automatically make you either of those things.
Individual religious interpretation, regardless of ANY denomination or faith, gives no one the right to deem what kind of dogma someone else should have - including blatant kidnapping to have those live out your chosen ideology.

In the piece by the NYT piece you have referenced:
" Ms. Silsby, who had helped organize the group’s mission, sounded a hopeful note as she waited to be taken into court, saying, “We’re just trusting God for a positive outcome.” "
Well Ms. Silsby, I think the positive outcome has already begun to take place. You can comfort yourself knowing God does work in mysterious ways - sometimes even through the law.


The first time I read Kipling's poem it took my history teacher a good 10 minutes to convince me it WASN'T satire. I'm still stunned whenever I see the sentiment in action.


The Jesus Hijackers have no more right to call themselves Christians than Dick Cheney has a right to call himself a Patriot. Maya Angelou has the perfect comeback to those who call themselves Christians: "Already?" Jesus' message was one of continual *personal* revolution and Marx, attempting to make Christianity mandatory and institutional was not able to appreciably improve on Jesus' message. These Silbysians are as full of themselves as were the Pharisees.
I think the line you are looking for, Laurie, is:
"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves."

Laurie Essig

You're right- no more Christians than the Soviets were communist or the 9/11 attackers were Muslim.

Beliefs are easily highjacked for power.

I wasn't suggesting that these people were Christian (yet?), just that they were motivated by an ideology of Colonialism that is also about a certain sort of Christianity as a movement associated with national and racial privilege.


I understand your thesis and agree with it wholeheartedly. The problem I have is that at least once you call them , without quotes, instead of something like "so-called Christian missionaries". And that is the same as calling the 9/11 perpetrators "Muslim terrorists."
Also, I think it is just as important to overtly point out that theirs is not a representative Christian point of view anymore than 9/11 was representative of a Muslim point of view.
It's a very difficult semantical challenge to write around. Putting "Christian" in quotes at every mention creates a sense of general cynicism toward the Christian faith. But if you want to give the teachings of Jesus their due, to leave some room for a legitimate Christianity that supports peace, good stewardship and social justice, I'm sure you will find a way.


Sorry, what I typed wasn't transmitted correctly due to the use of carats. The second sentence should read:
The problem I have is that at least once you call them Christian missionaries, without quotes, instead of something like "so-called Christian missionaries."


I am stunned by the brazenness of these people. And not easily convinced that they were taking up the "white man's burden," as despicable as that is, but suspect instead their aim is to take up the white man's version of "charity" = and that is helping themselves to free/forced labor. I'm very very suspicious of the line: "We will strive to also equip each child with a solid education and vocational skills." What exactly are those skills? Ugh. The world is going backward ...

The comments to this entry are closed.


Blog powered by Typepad