Good point, Brahminism and Buddhism were both spread from India, a foreign country,maybe Cambodia should have stuck with its more original animist beliefs, and with "smoke children" ("kaun krok") and other delightful ideas!Me Again wrote: If you dislike the spread of foreign religions then you must also be against the introduction of anything foreign - anything less would be hypocritical.
Employment Randomness
- hanky
- I have attained enlightenment
- Reactions: 7
- Posts: 9826
- Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2004 3:38 am
- Location: Living in a shotgun shack.
Pepsi, Coke, Malborough any one ??
These huge multinational vultures seem to attaract less flack than the Christian Based orginisations that attempt to assist /change lifestyles in "OTHER" countries.
Why ?
And why is it that expats seem to be the main group to object to Christian Based aid. The world does not stand still, would you deny a person food because it came from a religious faith you did not approve of.
If you want things to stay as they are, where do you draw the line, most people seem to argue the point at being when They Realised the world existed. But is that a valid observation point. History shows that nothing stays the same, Rome ruled the known world for a period in time, prior to that and after that other cultures held power, do we draw a line in the sand and say that 1500 years ago England didn't exist- therefore it should be handed back to the tribes that ruled the land then. No we don't
Should Asia be refigured as it was say 2000 years ago.
Religion is part of the dynamics of the world, some religions preach a responsibility to others, some worship dog turds and others preach non believers should be put to death, at what point in time do we say evolution should stop.
It almost as if some people want to keep a culture in some sort of time warp so they can visit it, something like going to the Zoo.
Culture and religion all change, they are fluid and evolve, not always for the good, but the constantly change.
So the final question is---
Why do people object to religion being involved with the changing dynamics of a civilisation.
These huge multinational vultures seem to attaract less flack than the Christian Based orginisations that attempt to assist /change lifestyles in "OTHER" countries.
Why ?
And why is it that expats seem to be the main group to object to Christian Based aid. The world does not stand still, would you deny a person food because it came from a religious faith you did not approve of.
If you want things to stay as they are, where do you draw the line, most people seem to argue the point at being when They Realised the world existed. But is that a valid observation point. History shows that nothing stays the same, Rome ruled the known world for a period in time, prior to that and after that other cultures held power, do we draw a line in the sand and say that 1500 years ago England didn't exist- therefore it should be handed back to the tribes that ruled the land then. No we don't
Should Asia be refigured as it was say 2000 years ago.
Religion is part of the dynamics of the world, some religions preach a responsibility to others, some worship dog turds and others preach non believers should be put to death, at what point in time do we say evolution should stop.
It almost as if some people want to keep a culture in some sort of time warp so they can visit it, something like going to the Zoo.
Culture and religion all change, they are fluid and evolve, not always for the good, but the constantly change.
So the final question is---
Why do people object to religion being involved with the changing dynamics of a civilisation.
I refuse to go out with nothing more than a whimper followed by a small farting sound and a shit stain on my bed sheets..
Just thought I'd share that with you.
Just thought I'd share that with you.
-
- I've got nothing better to do
- Reactions: 0
- Posts: 78
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 8:18 pm
Is helping the poor just a principle of Christianity ? ? ? ? ?Helping the poor is a principal of Christianity - if a person holds those beliefs they should act upon them - providing the belief does no harm to others.
I'm not Christian, but I try to help if I can...
But I realy wonder what most Cambodians think about giving money to the poor...
If we (= as tourist, NGO-worker, backpacker, Christian or not, etc.) give some money to a beggar in the streets of PP, or to an NGO like "Friends", or even work as volunteer in Cambodia, do the Cambodians think all these "barangs" are rich as hell - or that we're all just crazy ? - or that we indeed "see" or "feel" that some things are not right in this country and therefore try to help poor people...
-
- I've got nothing better to do
- Reactions: 0
- Posts: 78
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 8:18 pm
Is helping the poor just a principle of Christianity ? ? ? ? ?Helping the poor is a principal of Christianity - if a person holds those beliefs they should act upon them - providing the belief does no harm to others.
I'm not Christian, but I try to help if I can...
But I realy wonder what most Cambodians think about giving money to the poor...
If we (= as tourist, NGO-worker, backpacker, Christian or not, etc.) give some money to a beggar in the streets of PP, or to an NGO like "Friends", or even work as volunteer in Cambodia, do the Cambodians think all these "barangs" are rich as hell - or that we're all just crazy ? - or that we indeed "see" or "feel" that some things are not right in this country and therefore try to help poor people...
-
- I've got internet at work
- Reactions: 0
- Posts: 298
- Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 3:30 pm
This is EXACTLY what WV does wrong. Anyone says anything against how they do things, is branded "anti-christian". I'm not "anti-christian", nor have i said anything to imply that i might be.Me Again wrote:
Again; I find it astonishing as to why people are so anti christian
The fact that you take an attack on WV to be an attack on christianity says it all really.
(oh, and you don't have to be a christian to be a good person as you earlier implied).
- Jacked Camry
- Is the World Outside still there ?
- Reactions: 2
- Posts: 5674
- Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 2:53 pm
But still no response to my last post which focused on the issue of coercion and the incompatibility of actively promoting Christianity with WV's development philosophy.Me Again wrote:Scared? No. Busy? Yes.CamSoze wrote:JC, maybe MeAgain got scared...
As the originator of the discussion with you on this issue, I'd appreciate knowing your viewpoint on these issues.
I don't take it as an attack on Christianity as you suggest; I was merely defending WV's right to employ people who empathize with it's missions; values and goals; and defending it's right as a religious organization to set the criteria of employment for it's staff in accordance with its corporate beliefs. I do believe people were implying it was wrong of them to do so; which in my mind is illogical - I was providing a differing opinion. There is most definetly an anti-Christian tone in the posts; otherwise we would see a balance of comments regarding other religious organizations.The Other Side wrote:The fact that you take an attack on WV to be an attack on christianity says it all really.
(oh, and you don't have to be a christian to be a good person as you earlier implied).
Has anyone on this board ever discussed such practices of other religious organizations? As far as I'm aware NO. It seems Christianity cops it's unfair share of the pie - maybe rightly so in the wacko cases; but in WV's case I think the situation is misunderstood. Take off your blinkers and have a good look around. Why don't you try joining an Islamic aid agency? Do you think they'll ask similar questions to WV?
At what point did I ever imply or link Christianity to being a good person? I didn't - it is you who have drawn that conclusion. Being a good person has nothing to do with your religion or lack there of; this is pretty much common knowledge.
Last edited by Me Again on Wed Sep 21, 2005 8:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Out of World Vision and cigarrettes? Or out of Christianity and ciggas?There's no contest which has been responsible for more deaths throughout history.
If the latter, I think there'd be a decent contest there (taking into account people who are acting in the name of christianity, who you might say have misinterpreted it)
On Islamic Aid. They tend to give aid to Islamic people, to strengthen these peoples Islamic culture, rather than trying to convert others to Islam. This is, in my opinion, admirable. Does Islamic aid target anyone but the Chams in Cambodia? As far as I know, it does not.
By and large your arguement extends from the belief all people should conform to what their culture/society and traditions dictate. All these things have changed throughout time in much the same way as they are now - influence of others.Jacked Camry wrote:Not at all. I'd be against anyone trying to use their position to take advantage of others. To pretend that there is freedom of choice when you are going there and offering the only alternative is cynical. It undercuts the existing social and cultural systems that have been here for much longer and which are indigenous. This is where the conundrum lies - WV is perfectly aware of the basic tenets of sustainable development, and bringing in from the outside a new and completely alien belief system/technology/dependence is directly contrary to the development philosophy that they otherwise follow in a very positive way.
Does Coke offer you Pepsi? Will your water utility supply you with Gas? Do you go to a supermarket to buy a car? NO. Explain why when it comes to Religion you would expect someone to inform a person of every possible choice available when this mostly doesn't happen throughout most aspects of life.
It undercuts the existing social and cultural systems that have been here for much longer and which are indigenous. - This statement makes you selectively anti-change. How does something become attached to culture in the first place? Someone first decided to adopt the practice; ideology; tradition and so forth; then passed it on.
To pretend that there is freedom of choice when you are going there and offering the only alternative is cynical. One can only teach what they themselves know and believe to be true. If your statement was applied to life in general we'd live in a very cynical world indeed.
WV is perfectly aware of the basic tenets of sustainable development, and bringing in from the outside a new and completely alien belief system/technology/dependence is directly contrary to the development philosophy that they otherwise follow in a very positive way
Sustainable Development was coined in the Western world and is a Western world ideology related to western economic models and therefore alien to Cambodia. By default anything you do not already have knowledge of is infact "alien" to you in any case. Development philosophy is just that - a philiosophy. If bringing a religious belief is contrary to the philosophy then the philosophy is seriously flawed and biased since development is littered withg foreign concepts; methods; ideals and so forth.
Admirable? You think so? Helping needy people based soley on their religious belief? If true this IS wrong and shows where the true priorities lie. A person in need is a person in need - we are all human.Willem wrote:On Islamic Aid. They tend to give aid to Islamic people, to strengthen these peoples Islamic culture, rather than trying to convert others to Islam. This is, in my opinion, admirable. Does Islamic aid target anyone but the Chams in Cambodia? As far as I know, it does not.
-
- I've got internet at work
- Reactions: 0
- Posts: 298
- Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 3:30 pm
Again, this is the whole point; It's not about religion, it's about aid. Their job isn't to "inform" people about religion, and that's certainly not what people donate money for them to do. Their job infact has nothing to do with religion. When i go to work, my religious beliefs are never enforced on collegues or customers.Me Again wrote: Explain why when it comes to Religion you would expect someone to inform a person of every possible choice available
As for why we're only talking about WV? Coz that's what you were defending! If you want to defend the UN in Cambodia, or countless other organisations, just let me know and i promise i'll attack your defence with equally agressive sentiment to the opinions i've stated on this post.
Helping those who share your values. Accepting that not everyone shares your values, that they are not universal, and trying to strengthen them in those people who do share them.Me Again wrote: Admirable? You think so? Helping needy people based soley on their religious belief? If true this IS wrong and shows where the true priorities lie. A person in need is a person in need - we are all human.
We are all human, but we come from many different civilizations, we are not all the same. On the most basic level, if you are giving out sandwiches, and everyone is hungry, then fine...give them out to everyone. But when you are giving out education that is founded in say...Islam, then it is not the same. It is then a good thing to offer it to those who want it, not to push it as the only available option to those who may or may not want it.
You still don't understand the issue; WV do not enforce their beliefs on anybody as you proclaim. Do you ever talk to your collegues or customers on issues other than work? Do you interact on any other level? If so; explain why WV can't do the same since their provision of aid is in no way affected by these other activities?The Other Side wrote:Again, this is the whole point; It's not about religion, it's about aid. Their job isn't to "inform" people about religion, and that's certainly not what people donate money for them to do. Their job infact has nothing to do with religion. When i go to work, my religious beliefs are never enforced on collegues or customers.
They primarily deliver what they say - AID
If you donate to an organisation without doing your homework - that's your problem; don't complain if they are doing something you don't agree with. WV in no way conceal what they do. All their advertising and correspondance I have ever seen indicates they are a Christian organization; and their more detailed publicly available information states exactly what they intend to achieve/do.
This debate has been about WV because they were mentioned in the original post - it's just an example of the larger issue.
Good point Willem; depends on what one views as "aid"; but ultimately I guess I wouldn't like to see people excluded from the basic nescessities of life based solely on their differing beliefs.
Back to Playboys original topic - there certainly are some weird and wonderful jobs; sounds like you'd need a philosophy degree for most of them.
- Jacked Camry
- Is the World Outside still there ?
- Reactions: 2
- Posts: 5674
- Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 2:53 pm
First of all, thanks for responding partially to my posts. However, you seem rather reluctant to address the coercion aspect. I'd say you are actively avoiding it. Just in case for some reason the quotation device malfunctioned, allow me to repost the first two paragraphs that contain the gist of my argument so you can finally address this main point I have been making.
But this is mostly irrelevant, because this is not the the main thrust of my argument.
There is an enormous difference to introducing change in the context of sustainable development via, for example, different farming methods, and that of changing someone's basic belief system and culture to one that is completely different to all that have come before and exist within the place. And if one introduces an entirely alien farming system, it is almost certain to fail rather than one that is an adaptation of what people are doing now but addresses some of the basic flaws in its implementation.
Cambodians have every right to convert to Christianity if they so choose. My point is that I believe WV should either not proselytize if they are providing aid as this is clearly coercion, or should simply proselytize without providing any material incentive if that is their mission.
I look forward to your response on this issue.Jacked Camry wrote:Aid as a means to inculcate your belief system on vulnerable poor people is coercion. Same as convincing people to "try" a cigarette is coercing them into becoming potentially addicted to tobacco.
There are plenty of Christian NGOs in Cambodia doing development work but in no way proselytizing or otherwise pushing their belief system on the recipients. They are offering instead aid with no strings attached and their own conduct as a means of validating for those interested an alternative belief system. I have no problem with this.
This is a mischaracterization of my argument. The concept of sustainable development, and the one that guides as the basic principle the technical implementation of WV's projects, is participatory development based on the foundation of people's experience, abilities and situation. It by no means rules out change, but instead seeks to identify change that is appropriate and can be incorporated within the existing systems of the people.Me Again wrote:By and large your arguement extends from the belief all people should conform to what their culture/society and traditions dictate. All these things have changed throughout time in much the same way as they are now - influence of others.
But this is mostly irrelevant, because this is not the the main thrust of my argument.
This is the classic "strawman" tactic - the point about offering all choices regarding religion was not mine at all and has nothing to do with what I wrote.Me Again wrote:Does Coke offer you Pepsi? Will your water utility supply you with Gas? Do you go to a supermarket to buy a car? NO. Explain why when it comes to Religion you would expect someone to inform a person of every possible choice available when this mostly doesn't happen throughout most aspects of life.
You don't become "attached to culture", it is your life, your family, your surroundings, your village, your agro-ecosystem, your country. It is formed over the course of centuries, although with some violent shifts and indeed, it changes over time. However, history has shown that radical changes in short periods of time imposing entirely foreign cultural regimes tend to have bad results. How many examples does one need to demonstrate this point?Me Again wrote:It undercuts the existing social and cultural systems that have been here for much longer and which are indigenous. - This statement makes you selectively anti-change. How does something become attached to culture in the first place? Someone first decided to adopt the practice; ideology; tradition and so forth; then passed it on.
So the other Christian organizations who don't proselytize are not following their beliefs by suppressing their inclination to spread the gospel knowing that it wouldn't be fair to those who are in a subordinate position as a result of requiring and receiving aid from them?Me Again wrote:To pretend that there is freedom of choice when you are going there and offering the only alternative is cynical. One can only teach what they themselves know and believe to be true. If your statement was applied to life in general we'd live in a very cynical world indeed.
This is an absurd argument - your claim boils down to "if anything introduces change and is not indigenous but is good, then all things that introduce change and are not indigenous are good".Me Again wrote:Sustainable Development was coined in the Western world and is a Western world ideology related to western economic models and therefore alien to Cambodia. By default anything you do not already have knowledge of is infact "alien" to you in any case. Development philosophy is just that - a philiosophy. If bringing a religious belief is contrary to the philosophy then the philosophy is seriously flawed and biased since development is littered withg foreign concepts; methods; ideals and so forth.
There is an enormous difference to introducing change in the context of sustainable development via, for example, different farming methods, and that of changing someone's basic belief system and culture to one that is completely different to all that have come before and exist within the place. And if one introduces an entirely alien farming system, it is almost certain to fail rather than one that is an adaptation of what people are doing now but addresses some of the basic flaws in its implementation.
Cambodians have every right to convert to Christianity if they so choose. My point is that I believe WV should either not proselytize if they are providing aid as this is clearly coercion, or should simply proselytize without providing any material incentive if that is their mission.