Article from an Athiest: As an atheist, I truly believe Africa needs God

[GSPowner]

I am not an atheiest but I found this article veyr interesting.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article5400568.ece

Missionaries, not aid money, are the solution to Africa's biggest problem - the crushing passivity of the people's mindsetMatthew Parris
Before Christmas I returned, after 45 years, to the country that as a boy I knew as Nyasaland. Today it's Malawi, and The Times Christmas Appeal includes a small British charity working there. Pump Aid helps rural communities to install a simple pump, letting people keep their village wells sealed and clean. I went to see this work.

It inspired me, renewing my flagging faith in development charities. But travelling in Malawi refreshed another belief, too: one I've been trying to banish all my life, but an observation I've been unable to avoid since my African childhood. It confounds my ideological beliefs, stubbornly refuses to fit my world view, and has embarrassed my growing belief that there is no God.

Now a confirmed atheist, I've become convinced of the enormous contribution that Christian evangelism makes in Africa: sharply distinct from the work of secular NGOs, government projects and international aid efforts. These alone will not do. Education and training alone will not do. In Africa Christianity changes people's hearts. It brings a spiritual transformation. The rebirth is real. The change is good.

I used to avoid this truth by applauding - as you can - the practical work of mission churches in Africa. It's a pity, I would say, that salvation is part of the package, but Christians black and white, working in Africa, do heal the sick, do teach people to read and write; and only the severest kind of secularist could see a mission hospital or school and say the world would be better without it. I would allow that if faith was needed to motivate missionaries to help, then, fine: but what counted was the help, not the faith.

But this doesn't fit the facts. Faith does more than support the missionary; it is also transferred to his flock. This is the effect that matters so immensely, and which I cannot help observing.

First, then, the observation. We had friends who were missionaries, and as a child I stayed often with them; I also stayed, alone with my little brother, in a traditional rural African village. In the city we had working for us Africans who had converted and were strong believers. The Christians were always different. Far from having cowed or confined its converts, their faith appeared to have liberated and relaxed them. There was a liveliness, a curiosity, an engagement with the world - a directness in their dealings with others - that seemed to be missing in traditional African life. They stood tall.

remaining article:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article5400568.ece

[Runcible Spoon]

1. wow what a fucking stupid article

I just LOVE it when people refer to Africa as if it's one single culture and country :eyes: I don't really have the patience to address this tripe any further...

[glowing]

2. The difference between the missions and outside govt aid is that the people

doing mission work believe they are also working for God and doing a good thing... and other than trying to get their souls to heaven, they really are trying to do their best to better the lives of the people they are trying to help. Outside govts look at the issue and look at the matter as "what's in it for me".. so natural resources are exploited, nasty little leaders end up with the goods and the people end up in some type of genocidal war. They don't need God, they need people who actually care and who are not there to exploit them.. AND then we have to question our own motives... Are we to move them out of their own traditions and into our western culture. Coca Cola has more in trade routes to differing countries than many other organizations because they are trying to sell their product... Its all more complex than looking at the issue as exclusively "faith".

[GSPowner]

5. lots of assumptions...and broad sweeping conclusions

my whole family does mission trips and its not with the goal of working for salavation. We (the whole church) spent summers for the past several years building a school and providing food, medicine, and school supplies to a childrens home in another country...and lots of money. Quite an unfair swath you just painted don't you think?

[gaspee]

9. and how many

"educational" classes did you have for these children? How many bibles did you provide them? All christian charity work comes at a price for those who accept it.

[JerseygirlCT]

10. No, it doesn't.

Some does, much does not.

My own church doesn't proseltyze in return for help. I think you'll find that the case with the mission work of many more mainstream churches.

Yes, some of the more fundamentalist churches operate that way - out of a feeling that "saving" someone's soul is ultimately more important than saving their life. But many of the more mainstream churches do not - help is offered where and when it is needed, regardless of who needs it, and without strings attached.

[skepticscott]

18. So why is religion even necessary

for that type of aid? How much more good could be done with the money that is now spent on elaborate houses of worship and all of the trappings that go with them?

[JerseygirlCT]

19. Which elaborate houses of worship are you talking about?

In Africa?

Or here? And is it really up to you to decide how other people choose to spend their money?

Personally, I'd prefer to spend it on mission and outreach. But some people choose to support physical building projects - artwork that has, after all, lasted centuries and proven an enduring legacy to our culture. (Have you been to say, Chartres?)

In any event, it's not as if it's a zero-sum proposition. And your hatred of anything religious aside, once again, it's really not yours to decide how other people spend their time and money.

Unless you think your philanthropic decisions are up for public examination, too?

[skepticscott]

22. My hatred of anything religious?

Do you seriously think that I hate the fact that millions of people went to church and exercised their freedom of worship this morning? Please. In truth, I couldn't care less, so why would I bother to waste any emotion at all on it? Next time, don't just throw out the same knee-jerk reaction to any criticism of religion, and don't attribute feelings and thoughts to someone when you don't know them at all.

And yes, a religious organization is perfectly free to spend 100 million dollars on an elaborately decorated church if they choose, even if a fraction of that could have done the job and the rest is just for show and prestige. But when my tax dollars, which could otherwise be spent for public good, are used to subsidize such extravagance, then I am perfectly within my rights to question its necessity, particularly when other religious and charitable organizations seem to do just fine without it. And since I haven't been granted a tax exemption on either my income or my property, and since gifts given to me aren't tax-deductible, my own philanthropy really isn't an apt analogy, now is it?

Does it never cross your mind to think how many hungry people could be fed for the cost of a stained glass window that is supposed to impress....who? God? Can you honestly say it never bothers you when you see religious leaders living in the lap of luxury off of the tax-free, tax deductible contributions from their members?

[JerseygirlCT]

27. Those tax deductions go to the individuals making donations

So by the same token, MY taxes are subsidizing your philanthropic choices as well.

And of course, if you'd been reading, you'd have seen my preferences already outlined in a previous post in this thread, so no need to question.

[skepticscott]

29. Is that the best you can do?

The tax deductions that I take are for donations to charities approved by the IRS, just as yours are, and I have no trouble with churches' legitimate charitable activities enjoying a tax exemption. But neither you nor I nor any other normal taxpayer is allowed a tax deduction for putting stained glass windows in our home or buying expensive robes to wear around the house (nor can anyone else get one for giving us money to do it), and we are not given a pass on tax for property that we use to conduct religious rituals. You know all this, so why are you trying to blow smoke at me?

And btw, I never claimed that the decision on how that money is spent should rest with me, only that I have every right to question it, particularly when religious groups try to puff themselves up by touting their charitable activities. By your own expression of preferences, you do seem to wish that you could have that money spent differently, rather than letting the church decide.

[JerseygirlCT]

31. Yeah, b/c churches are also non-profits and derive their

status the same way any other charity does.

So your tax dollars are not funding stained glass, they're funding good works in the community.

Which is the point.

[Meshuga]

30. Tax dollars being spent on extravagant churches is not the issue

The topic is religious groups and charity work and not about tax dollars being used to decorate churches. I am sure everyone here would agree with you that this kind of support would be outrageous.

As far as tax exemption, that is a valid debate but it has nothing to do with the topic being discussed. They were discussing religious organizations having the structure to help in charities and JerseygirlCT is pointing out that the main stream religious groups don't feel the need to proseltyze to do such work. I honestly don't see where the "elabote churches" argument fit in the argument. It is a different issue altogether that cannot be generalized since while we have the extravagant churches that is not the case for all. Not all religious groups are the same so they cannot be generalized unless it is convenient to justify prejudice.

[skepticscott]

43. The question I raised was

why it was even necessary to have a religious, as opposed to a secular organization providing such aid, particularly when religious aid carries so much potential baggage. The claim is often made that religious organizations do a better job at it, but my contention is that if churches didn't get huge tax breaks for non-charitable activities and property and if their contributors didn't get huge tax breaks for supporting them, there would be a lot more money available for governments to do the same job, with no risk that aid would come with religious strings attached, as it sometimes does. My position is that religious organizations should be required to keep their charitable activities financially separate from worship and missionary activities and the like, with only the charitable side getting tax breaks and 501(c)3 status.

[Meshuga]

44. Fair enough

The system is definitely not fair. For example, religious tax benefits are available to clergy but staff at secular nonprofit organizations don't get the same privileges for doing the same kind of charitable work. What about inner city teachers who get a shitty salary and no break? The shift in tax burden is also a very fair argument.

[glowing]

28. Did you read what I said or were you just making an assumption.

People I've met who are actually up for the challenge of going on mission work actually believe in the goal of bettering the people's lives they are going to help. However, I haven't met a mission expedition yet that didn't bring along salvation tools as well. AND unlike govt, like our own, mission workers generally go in with an attitude of helping and serving. Our govt goes in with an attitude of exploitation and "whats in it for me". It would be nice if there were just good people willing to go and build schools, help plant crops, bring in solar stoves, help with education for women (birth control). I'm not saying there is anything wrong with being a Christian. AND I'm not knocking anyone who beleives in God and Christ. I just wish that govt money wasn't funneled into the likes of Rick Warrens "box" salvation... or that IMF doesn't go in and completely corrupt the entire country.

Also, Africa is a large continenet.. NOT just one country. Way too many people think of that continent like Sara Palin.

[Crunchy Frog]

3. Yes, let's hear it for destroying local cultural traditions.

Anything in there about the witch hunting that's become prevalent over there, that's associated with evangelical Christians? All the children being murdered or abandoned, or driven out of their villages?

[GSPowner]

4. Are you saying the

children being murdedred or abandoned, or driven out of there villages are done by Christians? There seems to be so much hatred for Christians in this online community I thought it would be nice to see that there is a lot of good being done by Christians.

[Crunchy Frog]

7. Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/dec/09/tracymcveigh.theobserver

[gaspee]

8. Oh Puh-leaze!

Not the persecuted christian crap again.

NO hatred here, but I am entirely sick and tired of the religious folk and their attitude - mainly trying to run my life with their beliefs by legislating their crap into my government.

If y'all would keep your noses out of politics and lawmaking, maybe people who aren't part of your cult would cut you a little more slack.

As it stands, the poor persecuted christians control the government and I don't see that changing in an Obama administration.

How come it's always the dominant group claiming persecution? Or is that just a christian thing - sorry, you can't *all* be martyrs.

[GSPowner]

11. You say no hatred but your response says otherwise

Actually we provided exacly what they asked for. Money, clothing, food, medicine, materials, free construction management that their government would not provide. I don't see how we invaded their culture in any way and you attack all of Christianity calling us a cult. Your vitriol is unwarranted. As far as being persecuted it is pretty easy to look across this particular forum and see the antis out number the supporters. I was only trying to point out that Christians do good things and do them with out ulterior motives. Regarding religious folk and their attitudes we are kind gently and love people and want to help people...I don't see athiest missionary groups as it seems their only focus is to bring down the Christians.

In regards to Legislation you are trying to broaden the scope of this thread to something that was not introduced so I am not going to respond to legislation issues here.

There is no need to respond to this thread if all you are going to do is to be antagonistic. Again the purpose of this post is that show that many Christians do good things and we do them out of love.

[Crunchy Frog]

25. People writing opinions on message boards is NOT persecution.

Persecution is when you are being carted off to jail, or having your activities disrupted, or being physically beaten, or being denied employment, or being killed on the basis of your religious observance. People saying nasty things about you on message boards is simply par for the course for anybody who posts on message boards.

I realize that there is a romantic attachment to the idea of persecution on the part of some Christians (though they would be at a complete loss if they ever had to deal with the real thing), but the truth is that it is simply not happening in this country.

I don't expect anything I saw to sway your opinion. Carry on with your romantic fantasies. :hi:

[RetiredTrotskyite]

45. Why Don't You Go Join Them Then?

You love and admire them so fucking much, so you might as well be one. An "atheist" fundie bootlicker.:eyes:

[gaspee]

6. Exactly

That's was my exact reaction... cultural imperialism - the christians out to save the savages - only christianity changed their horrible native ways - PUKE!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

13. You do know that church groups (most of them NOT fundamentalist) are

the main ones taking care of AIDS orphans, don't you? Is it better for a child who has lost all of his or her adult relatives (not an uncommon occurrence) to be on the streets, drifting into crime or prostitution, or in an orphanage with three meals a day, clean clothes, a clean bed, and schooling?

[elshiva]

21. Yes, a lot of ancient cultural traditions are lost forever.

That's not say that all ancient traditions were "good," some are/were sexist. However, christianity, especially evangelical and tradition roman catholic teachings often bring homophobia into the culture. I think that some African cultures actually accepted homosexuality.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

33. Often, the destruction of local cultural traditions is a good thing.

There are a great many "local cultural traditions" that need to be seen the back of as soon as possible - female "circumcision" leaps to mind, as to feudal and/or extremely sexist social structures that persist in large parts of the world.

"We've always done this" is a very bad reason to keep on doing something. "It's our culture" is a very poor excuse.

[RetiredTrotskyite]

46. Oh and Christians DON'T...

resort to the same old tired culture argument when they oppose things like same-sex marriage? Or is that OK because they are following their consciences? Can't have it both ways.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

47. I think you're proving my point rather than refuting it.

Trying to disprove my claim that ending cultural traditions is often a good thing by providing an example of a cultural tradition that ought to be ended strikes me as paradoxical.

If you thought that the point I was making was "it would be a good thing to replace many African cultural traditions with Western ones" or something similar then, while I wasn't making that point in my last post, it is in fact something I believe.

However, as you point out, Western culture is *far* from perfect - to take your example, while Western christian isn't usually nearly as virulent homophobic as most parts of Africa, it's still bad.

[skepticscott]

12. Are any of these the same Christians

who have consistently opposed any kind of family planning aid to any country in Africa (or anywhere else, for that matter)? Are any of them the same Christians who essentially tell people in poverty-stricken countries that the very best thing they can do is to have as many children as possible and then trust in gawd to provide, even when the evidence is clear that giving women the power to control the number and timing of their children is one of the best things that can be done to improve quality of life?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

14. None of the mainstream Protestants are against birth control

:shrug:

[skepticscott]

17. That's not news to me

but it leaves the question unanswered. It IS religious organizations that have been the main obstacle to the introduction of (desperately needed) modern family planning to many parts of Africa.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

20. Or patriarchal attitudes that say that the number of sons is proof of

man's virility and a woman's worth. That's a widespread attitude in many non-Western parts of the world.

[skepticscott]

23. That is certainly an important reason

why many women end up with more children than is wise or than they would choose, and in some places, no amount of family planning information and material, even if available, would make much of a change. But when their distribution isn't even allowed, for nonsensical religious reasons, change is made that much more difficult, and even people who want those options may not be able to exercise them.

[JerseygirlCT]

24. Absolutely

Sometimes aided and abetted by some religious people, true. But those are fairly deeply ingrained cultural attitudes toward women. That's akin to blaming the treatment of women in Saudi Arabia to Islam - it goes far deeper than that, and is quite cultural. You'll find it in people who are not religious at all.

[gaspee]

15. Here's what Christianity has brought to Africa

Be ready to be SICK

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/dec/09/tracymcveigh.theobserver

killing helpless children as witches so the preachers can get money. SICK SICK SICK SICK SICK

Yeah, Africa needs christianity, all righty :sarcasm:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

16. Many African tribes had belief in witchcraft before the missionaries arrived

as did many other non-Christian peoples around the world.

NO mainstream religious groups believe in witchcraft. (If you can find me one mainstream established religious group that is teaching anyone anywhere in the world to kill witches--not in the middle ages, but in the 21st century-- I'll give you some credit.)What those horrific stories reflect is free-lance fundies (maybe some sixth grade dropouts from a mission school) blending half-understood Christian beliefs with indigenous beliefs about witches. (It also makes a great rationalization for plain, ordinary child abuse, which of course, NEVER happens anywhere else :sarcasm: )

[Goblinmonger]

37. It seems to me you are setting up a circular argument

If I give you a protestant religion that believes in witchcraft (and they are out there), you will just respond with "they aren't mainstream" which in essence means "they aren't liberal."

[Lydia Leftcoast]

39. By mainstream I mean the traditional Protestant religions such as

Lutherans, Methodists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, UCC's, and even Baptists.

The believers in witchcraft are SOME of the free-lance fundamentalists (usually proudly non-denominational) and the Pentecostals, which, except for minor sects that went nowhere, are largely a twentieth-century movement.

"Not believing in witchcraft" doesn't necessarily mean "liberal," either.

[Goblinmonger]

41. How convenient to leave out the Pentecostals

in this discussion. Pew puts the Pentecostals as nearly a quarter of the world's Christian population. And they, as you indicate, believe in witchcraft.

And Catholics are out, too, by your definition of mainstream?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

42. Cathoics are in, but they don't believe in witchcraft either

:-)

As for Pentecostals, their largest growth worldwide has been among the poor and uneducated, people who are more likely than average to believe in witchcraft, with or without the Pentecostals. In fact, it's a common ploy to tell a practitioner of Santeria or Vaudun that their African gods are really "demons."

[Igel]

40. I have an aside that's a bit late, but relevant.

Xianity has a lot of factions and schisms in the US, where it's rather circumscribed by culture and tradition. In Africa, there's a lot of syncretism. Some don't "get" the idea of doctrinal limitations in an organization--it's more congregation by congregation at times. Many also feel completely free to take bits and pieces from various denominations, mix them with local traditions, and name it whatever they want. Who's going to stop them?

They also don't have tradition or culture to bind them in the same way, nor, often, the desire to parse words. So when they read that "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live", they take it at face value. They know what a witch is--their local cultures tell them what they are--and so they kill them. Church as state did that a bit hundreds of years ago in the West (with recent estimates of the deathtoll far lower than estimates from the '60s and '70s), but not any longer. Not just because church isn't state, but because what a "witch" is has become a lot fuzzier, and most churches don't necessarily want the OT punishments instituted on a population that's opposed to them.

In some respects, in Africa it's like the year 150 CE in Europe, where a congregation can pick up a few doctrines, interpret them however they want, and call themselves Xian. It makes for a rather wide definition of "Xian", rather wider than here, with numerous factions (or, to use the word for "faction" we borrowed from koine Greek, heresies).

One problem involves definitions. Most American Xians--even the fundies--would immediately exclude them from the definition of Xian. But to exclude them from the definition of "Xianity" brings charges of being unfair, especially from those who don't claim to be Xian. It's rather like saying that Stalin was a progressive and a democrat, only to have progressives say otherwise--and to say they're being exclusionist and unfair, since, well, Stalin said he was on the side of progress and democracy. On the surface, sure: he used the words. But they meant something rather different to him and to us. After all--look what democracy and progressivism brought to Russia! Many, many millions (and more) dead in GULags, anti-Semitism, famine, the divvying up of Poland, repression.

It's sort of the same with Islam, but not quite. Most, but not all, Muslims I've met reject more extreme forms, but most also don't believe that much should be done to stop them--whether by Muslims or by non-Muslims. Even some of the more extreme Muslims I've met are defended by a fair number of moderate Muslims: It's often an in-group/out-group kind of thing, and to discuss them is embarrassing or meddling in their in-group business. Most Xians I know would love to see the Lord's Army bombed into hamburger, and groups like those killing witches disbanded and put in jail, by force if necessary. It's not so much an in-group/out-group affair, as agreeing that these groups violate our principles, and while discussing them is embarrassing, their actions are far more embarrassing.

As for coverage, the news media seem to take pains to distinguish brands of Islam, usually saying there's only one true Islam and that's the one they like. With Xianity, there's no such compunction; indeed, from time to time they ignore any differences. Strange, that, or at the very least, asymmetrical.

[struggle4progress]

26. "Traditional African life" essentially disappeared with the 19th century European colonial conquests

Much of the story of Africa is the story of gross expropriation of land and resources and gross exploitation of the inhabitants

It is simply ridiculous to imagine (say) that anything of traditional life, except a few outward forms, remained intact in the Belgian Congo after Leopold's rubber-slavery period

Only by completely disregarding the history of the continent could anyone think what remains culturally anywhere is really "traditional African life"

[HamdenRice]

32. As someone who's spent a lot of time in Africa, I would say he's both right and wrong

I think he's right about the need in Africa for a transformed world view in "village Africa." I don't think that people in the rural areas are at all as passive as he says they are. In most places I've been, in the presence of peace, security and rational macro economic policy, rural Africans tend to be very economically active and motivated. Most of Africa's poverty is not cause by some pre-existing poverty, but by actively bad macro policies and war.

That said, African governments (the well meaning ones at least) have a hard time creating an effective public sector, and a lot of that has to do with traditional world views. It's not that Africans are passive. It's that in a very fractured social world with dozens of states, hundreds of ethnic groups and hundreds of thousands of chiefdoms and villages, there is little concept of legitimate political authority and common good. One of the side effects of monotheistic religion is that people transfer their sense of being in a single entity under god into being part of a single society. One of the reasons African governments are so corrupt is that political leaders have to bribe their followers -- which usually means their narrow ethnic or local followers, because there is almost no concept of a larger country, or universal common good. (The first chapter of Goran Hyden's, "Beyond Ujamaa in Tanzania," has one of the most brilliant explanations of this problem ever written.)

But monotheistic religion isn't the only overarching ideology that has worked, and what worries me most about contemporary Christian mission work is that it tends to do exactly what the OP says it eliminates -- ie it makes people passive recipients of aid.

Much more effective overarching ideologies have been modern, secular and liberal -- like African socialism (Tanzania) or self-help (Botswana). If you want to read a fascinating, detailed account of how a secular overarching ideology jump started development in a country -- told largely from the perspective of village level individuals -- check out Bessie Head's "Serowe: Village of the Rain Wind." It is about how the western educated paramount chief of Botswana, Chief Tsekedi Khama, combined Tswana traditional organization (age grades) and self help development, to create a very effective development movement in his country. Julius Nyerere also created an ideology of self-help and socialism that bound his country together in a way that most east African countries weren't bound together -- even if the economic policies of his movement weren't optimum, the political effect was positive and lasting.

[moggie]

34. How very paternalistic

The Christians were always different. Far from having cowed or confined its converts, their faith appeared to have liberated and relaxed them. There was a liveliness, a curiosity, an engagement with the world - a directness in their dealings with others - that seemed to be missing in traditional African life. They stood tall.

Does he believe that it took an influx of European culture to teach Africans to "stand tall"? And why were the others, the non-converts, the "traditional" Africans, failing to live up to this white guy's ideals: could that also have been due to the influence of outsiders? After all, unless Parris is a lot older than he looks, he's never seen what Africa was like before the Europeans came plundering.

I hope that those westerners trying to help today are more enlightened than in colonial times, but still this smacks of the people who broke something trying to fix it, while we're supposed to applaud the latter and forget about the former.

[TechBear_Seattle]

35. Missionaries are why HIV is rampant in southern and eastern Africa

The anti-sex, anti-condom crowds have indirectly murdered more than a million people over the last 30 years and left hundreds of thousands of children orphaned. Missionaries are responsible for on-going witch hunts -- literally -- in much of Africa, as Christians root out the "servants of Satan" they claim to be responsible for droughts, floods, disease and crop failure.

Africa needs far less religion, and far more help towards becoming self-sufficient.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

36. Did you even read the posts above?

1. Most missionaries are from mainstream groups that are NOT against birth control or condoms

2. The witch hunts are the result of syncretistic cults that combine the teachings of free-lance fundies with indigenous African beliefs about witchcraft. Whether you know it or not, many cultures around the world have beliefs in black magic and have had them since time immemorial, even without any contact with Christianity (Japan is one example). Name me ONE mainstream religious group that promotes or has promoted witch hunts in Africa. (Almost all the missionaries to African arrived after the mid-nineteenth century, when Europeans and North Americans no longer believed in witchcraft.)

[HamdenRice]

38. No, missionaries are not why HIV is rampant in southern and eastern Africa

Don't be ridiculous.

There is no single factor, but larger political, economic and social forces are far more important than a few missionaries. The migrant labor system, part of apartheid, is probably the single biggest factor, followed by long distance trucking through impoverished areas, which created a very large sex work industry.