Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

FW: [malaysianequalrights] Hindu Community Faces New Religious Threa

Expand Messages
  • Jambunathan K
    To: From: anpuchelvam@yahoo.com.sg Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2012 13:40:19 +0800 Subject: [malaysianequalrights] Hindu Community Faces New Religious Threa Wherever
    Message 1 of 1 , Oct 5, 2012
    • 0 Attachment



      To:
      From: anpuchelvam@...
      Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2012 13:40:19 +0800
      Subject: [malaysianequalrights] Hindu Community Faces New Religious Threa

       
      Wherever Christianity goes, the below is what happens to the natives.
      So much for the love of Jesus.

      Tahiti

      In 1797, thirty years after the discovery of Tahiti by
      Wallis, the first missionaries landed on the island. The missionaries, sent
      by the London Missionary Society, tried for seven years to convert the
      natives but were unable to make any headway.

      It was then that they discovered, as if by miracle, the proper method of
      converting the Tahitians. They discovered that the local chief, Pomare,
      liked alcohol (distilled by the missionaries) - so much that he became an
      alcoholic. Addicted to the distilled spirit (perhaps the holy spirit),

      Pomare agreed to back the missionaries in their work of conversion. Pomare,
      supplied with western firearms, easily subdued his native opponents. Upon
      his victory over his rivals, the whole island was forcibly converted in one
      day.

      Then the process of inculcating "Christian virtues" began. Persistent
      unbelievers, those who refused to be converted, were executed. Singing was
      banned (except for hymns) and all forms of adornment, flowers or tattoo were
      disallowed. Of course, surfing and dancing were not permitted as well. The
      punishment for breaking any of these rules included, among others, being
      sentenced to hard labour.

      Within thirty years of missionary control, the population of Tahiti fell
      from an inital estimate of 20,000 to 6,000.

      From Tahiti, the missionaries moved on to the neighbouring islands. They
      employed the same tactic that had served them so well in Tahiti: they would
      introduce the local chief to alcohol, made him and alcholic, convert him to
      Christianity and then leave it to the chief to convert the locals. After
      converting the majority the minority that refused to convert were persecuted
      and sometimes executed. On the island of Raratonga, men were conscripted
      into the missionary police to help eliminate the remaining idolators. On
      another island, Raiatea, a man who was able to forecast the weather by
      studying the behaviour of fish was executed for witchcraft.

      This was how the South Pacific was Christianized. [2]

      Africa

      Africa is widely considered to be a missionary success story. Sub-Saharan
      Africa is widely considered to be the most Christianized place on earth.
      Kenya, for instance, has 65% of its population claiming to be active
      Christians. [active meaning church-going]. In Malawi, 68% of the populace
      made the same claim. The Democratic Republic of Congo (formerly Zaire) has
      nearly 200 times as many evangelical Christians as its former colonial
      master, Belgium.[3]

      Perhaps the most famous missionary to Africa was David Livingstone
      (1813-1873). Livingstone spoke of "the white man's burden" to evangelize and
      civilize the peoples of Africa. (Nobody bothered the ask the Africans what
      they thought of this!). A rarely know fact about Livingstone is that, as a
      missionary, his mission to Africa was a complete failure. Throughout his
      many years in Africa he made only one known convert. Even this convert,
      Sechele, eventually lapsed from his faith. Yet it was Livingstone, through
      his book Missionary Travels and Researches in South Africa (1857) and his
      lectures in England, who introduced a whole new group of Europeans to the
      "romance" of missionary activities.[4]

      Yet, in reality missionary activities were anything but romantic. Many of
      the missionaries' attempts to free slaves and teach them Christianity
      amounted to no more than changing one form of slavery to another. Given
      below is an account of how the Holy Ghost Fathers, a missionary group in the
      second half of the ninenteenth century, went about "freeing" and
      Christianizing the slaves:

      In 1868 the Holy Ghost Fathers chose Bagamoyo as the site of the first
      mission station on the East African mainland...Their ambition was to build a
      Christian community of freed slaves. Ransoms were paid to slave traders for
      the freedom of thousands to slaves. Most of those released were placed in
      "Freedom Village" on the mission compound, but they soon discovered that
      their freedom was not absolute. The disciplinary codes enforced by the
      missionaries were severe, with a rigorous timetable of work, Christian
      education and prayers. As the baptised ex-slaves grew up, they were married
      off in batches and resettled under the authority of a missionary priest in a
      Christian village somewhere inland. [5]

      The anthropologist Jaques Maquet had called missionary activities in Africa
      a "religious commando attack, aimed at extirpating 'superstitious and
      idolatrous' practices and converting whole groups." [6]

      The missionaries in general have little respect for African cultures and
      regard their peoples as ignorant savages. One early twentieth century
      methodist missionary in Umtali, Zimbabwe, wrote of the people he had set out
      to evangelize: "Heathen and naked as new born babies, and as ignorant as
      beetles." The solution was simple, educate the children away from their
      parents and give them western clothing to wear to cover their naked bodies.

      As another missionary from Umtali wrote in a letter to the US in 1916:
      "Heathen mothers do not know much, but many boys and girls go to our schools
      now and are begging to read God's word and write and to take care of their
      bodies and be clean and dress like the people of America." These "heathen"
      boys and girls were also given "Christian" names like Kitchen, Tobacco,
      Sixpence or Bottle. [7]

      The missionaries were, of course, part of the oppressive colonial forces in
      Africa. In an effort to set up a successful mission in what is now Zimbabwe,
      Catholic Jesuits entered into an alliance with the British South Africa
      Company (BSAC). Ran by Cecil Rhodes (1853-1902), the collaboration between
      the Jesuits and the BSCA would have made any imperialist proud. BSAC needed
      labor for their gold mines but the native South Africans were not
      interested. They were self sufficient farmers and thus had no need for the
      salaries offered for work in the mines. The imperialists hit upon a
      brilliant idea, the "hut tax", a form of property tax imposed on Africans
      that must be paid in cash. [It is important to note that white farmers did
      not have to pay these taxes.] Thus to pay for the tax, the Africans were
      forced to work. If they failed to pay, they were imprisoned and then sent to
      work as prison laborers anyway! In return for donation of land and
      protection from Rhodes, the Jesuit took the role of collecting the hated
      taxes for the BSAC![8]

      Today the number of missionaries from liberal churches are dwindling, their
      numbers being taken over by the fundamentalist, pentacostal and evangelical
      churches. However much like their ecclesiastical forefathers of the previous
      centuries, these missionaries do not believe the Africans, now largely
      Christians, are smart enough to keep the faith and churches going. Thus the
      rallying cries of the new missionaries involve "making Africa born again" or
      "fighting the forces of secularism" or "battling AIDS". Yet is it obvious
      that it is not the social or physical well being of Africans that concerns
      these modern day missionaries.

      Armed with US$250,000 from the Southern Baptish Convention, Dr. John
      Goodgame, an American missionary in Uganda, launched a most unusual campaign
      against AIDS. Rather than using the money to provide healthcare or medicine,
      the money was used to purchase and distribute 100,000 Bibles with sheets
      pasted onto them giving selected Biblical passages to read. Some of these
      passages are predictable exhortations against adultery and other such
      "carnal" pleasures. [9]

      Yet, just as 150 years of Christian missionary activities failed to prevent
      poverty, under-development, famine, apartheid and civil wars in Africa, it
      is unlikely that these new evangelical missionaries will be a force for any
      good there.

      Asia

      With the exception of the Phillipines and South Korea, Asia has been quite
      resistant to Christian evangelism. The missionaries found resistance from an
      entrenched Islam in countries such as Indonesia, Malaysia and Brunei. In
      countries with deep cultures such as India, China and Japan, the locals saw
      little need to replace their prevailing myths with foreign ones. Yet this
      lack of success have not stopped Christian missionaries from the conversion
      activities and causing much suffering among native peoples.

      Our first story concerns the Mois, a native tribe of Vietnam of
      Malayo-Polynesian stock related to many of the native peoples of Southeast
      Asia such as the Dayaks of Borneo islands and the Aetas of the Philippines.
      From an initial estimate of one million populating the mountainous regions
      of South Vietnam, their numbers began to dwindle in the 1950's. This was
      partly due to these people being forced into hard labour by the French
      colonialists and partly due to the activities of the missionaries.

      As an example of how missionary activities could lead to a dwindling native
      population is that of the Bihs, a subtribe of the Mois. In the 1940's one of
      the eleven evangelists who came with the returned French troops after the
      defeat of the Japanese, went to Boun Choah, the main village of the Bihs.

      Other missionaries had unsuccessfully tried to covert the Bihs before. One
      Catholic missionary managed a total of only ten conversions in five years.

      However the new missionary, a Mr. Jones, was not to be detered. Upon
      studying the Bihs, he found that one of the principle acts of their beliefs
      was the custom of burial. Their dead was not buried at first, but left in
      open coffins on trees. After a couple of years, the bones were thoroughly
      cleaned, and after some ceremonial offerings, they were finally buried.

      Mr. Jones used his political influence to force the French acting resident
      to suppress this custom. When the police arrived to protect him , Mr. Jones
      went personally to the trees, pulled down all the coffins on the trees and
      threw the contents, be they bones or decomposing corpses, into a common
      grave. The Bihs were then converted. Convinced that their ancestors have
      deserted them due to the desecration of their burial customs, the Bihs
      stopped producing offsprings. One local Bih explained that his people had
      resigned themselves to extinction. [10]

      Next on our list is Thailand. The success of the Christian mission there has
      been abysmal. 170 years after the arrival of the first Protestant
      missionaries , there are today no more than 300,000 Christians there in a
      population of 55 million. Buddhism here (as in Japan) have proven to be a
      bulwark against Christianity. The missionaries have thus turned to the hill
      tribes who are neither Buddhist nor ethnic Thai. One such tribe is the
      Akha.

      There are nearly 70,000 Akha tribes people in Thailand, with many more in
      the neighboring countries of Myanma, Loas, Vietnam and China. The Akhas are
      the poorest of the nine hill tribes of Thailand. They live in conditions of
      poverty and are generally ignorant of the outside world. Some Akhas had
      taken to growing opium while some women have turned to prostitution. That
      the Akhas need help is not doubted, that they need missionaries is highly
      unlikely.

      Matthew McDaniel of the Akha Heritage Foundation had chronicled the abuse
      missionaries had inflicted in the Akhas and their culture. Given below is a
      summary of his findings. [11]

      Many of these Christian missionaries to the Akhas come from the US with some
      coming from other Asian countries. The missions have been at work with the
      Akha for more than eighty years. Obviously their objective is not to
      alleviate the social conditions of the Akha but rather to use the Akhas'
      poverty and lack of political clout as a wedge to force Christianity upon
      them. The methods are brutal. Honing in on the "weakest point" in a village,
      such as a family with problems with the elders, the missionaries would
      increase their converts. Upon reaching a "critical mass" of converts, the
      missionaries would claim the village as "Christian" and forbid all practice
      of the Akha religion. The net effect is clear, even Akhas who have not
      converted can no longer practice what has been an important part of their
      culture. Some churches have gone even further. They forbid the Akhas to
      practice any aspect of their culture. This includes songs, dances and
      traditional ceremonies associated with the harvest. In doing this the
      missionaries are depriving the Akhas of a basic right of indigenous people
      as defined by the United Nations. [12]

      The missionaries have little respect for the Akhas, their cultures and even
      their well being. One Baptist Mission, run by an American Chinese lady,
      resorted to broadcasting it's religious message over the public announcement
      system (loudspeakers) to the entire village, no consideration was given to
      whether the villagers like it or not! [To get an idea of how unpalatable
      this would be to the Akhas, imagine being bombarded by Osama bin Laden's
      preaching over the loudspeaker condemning the "crusaders" and proclaiming
      Allah's will]. This mission, well funded, had added another building on its
      location as well as two satellite dishes on its roof. Yet they are unwilling
      to provide economic help to the Akhas. Unable to provide for his children,
      one Akha man drank herbicide and committed suicide. He lived no more than 20
      meters away from the mission compound. When asked why they didn't help in
      cases of such desperation, the mission replied simply that they "cannot help
      everybody, we are here to teach the Bible."

      Like many cases throughout history, Christianity looks set to play a
      prominent role in the cultural extinction of the Akhas.

      Papua New Guinea is an island situated at the edge of the Southeast Asian
      archipelago, just north of Australia. It has a modest population of 3.3
      million. With 2,300 missionaries, or roughly 1 missionary for every 1430
      Papua New Guineans, the country has the highest proportion of missionaries
      in the world. Has this proliferation of Christian proselytization lead to
      any spiritual revival? No, only more cultural genocide.

      One example of the missionary attitude is that of Reverend Paul Freyburg, an
      American Lutheran, who said "I rejoice in the memories of what I have done
      and pray that it will continue. I don't believe that our mission destroyed
      much of any value." Rev. Freyburg came to New Guinea in the 1930's and,
      except for a brief interval during world war II, have remained there ever
      since. What did Rev. Freyburg destroy in his long missionary carreer? He
      held "renunciation festivals" at which he was called in to destroy "things
      of darkness". This of course includes, "magical objects" and also what he
      ignorantly described as "vegetable items". The former are irreplaceble works
      of arts and crafts by the natives. The latter are priceless herbal remedies
      and are important heritage of folk medicine. The natives were forbidden to
      perform any cultural dances and to observe their native festivals. [13]

      Fundamentalists missionaries are today at the forefront of such activities.

      One such mission, the Pioneers, works among the Ningram people. Sal Lo Foso,
      a missionary there, has no qualms about his activities. These include
      destroying the "haus tamburan", a "spirit house" which is the normal focal
      point of village life for the Ningram, and building in its place, a church.
      All forms of traditional songs and dancing were forbidden. Such destruction
      of the Ningram culture has no meaning to Lo Foso, for he believed that for
      the Ningrams to be "born again", they must make a clean break with their
      past.[14]

      The missionaries lack of understanding and unwillingness to try and
      understand native cultures have left much suffering in their trail.
      Australian administrators reported a case in which missionaries refused to
      baptised men because they were polygamous. The men started divorcing their
      "excess" wives, leaving the women and their children without much visible
      support in their society. Another man, with three wives, on being told that
      he can only have one, simply killed two of them, so that he could then-being
      a monogamous Christian-"go to heaven"![15]

      This rush by the natives to get converted has little to do with the

      Christian message but everything to do with the "cargo" they carry.
      [I]t was the possessions, the cargo, which the missionaries had in
      abundance that mainly impressed the tribal people. Inevitable they assumed
      that since the Christian God blessed his followers with cargo, they they too
      would be rewarded for following the "Gutnuis Bilong Jisas Kraist." (New
      Guinean pidgin for the gospel) [16]

      Papua New Guinea is now 94% Christian. Yet missionaries still arrive in
      droves. Why? For the simple reason that they are now importing their
      denominational bickering into the country. Thus an Anglican missionary
      reported finding leaflets circulated among his congregation by missionaries
      from the Seventh-Day Adventist church telling them that worshipping of
      Sunday is a sure fire step to Hell! In a similar manner, the New Tribes
      Mission (or NTM-for more info on this group see the section on South America
      below), tells the confused Papua New Guinean that the papacy is the
      antichrist. In fact some fundamentalists have taken to distributing the
      tracts by Christian publisher Jack T Chick, with cartoons showing, among
      other things, Catholic monks going through a secret passage way for an orgy
      with nuns![17]

      Pettifer and Bradley summarised the situation in Papua New Guinea thus:

      The future alone will reveal the cultural cost and the political
      consequences of importing the theological bickering of Western Christianity
      into an already divided society.[18]

      Mother Teresa

      In India too, the success of Christian missions have been limited to the
      marginal groups: the untouchables, the hill tribes and the "Anglo-Indians"
      (Indians with mixed parentage).[19] Some missions in India had tended to
      concentrate on proselytizing through the provision of social services to the
      poor and needy. While this is certainly a better method than the ethnocidal
      methods of the fundamentalists, it should not be forgotten that these social
      services in general play a subserviant role to theology. The mission once
      headed by Mother Teresa (1910-1997) is a case in point.

      Born in Albania in 1910, Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu, became a nun and a
      missionary to India. She subsequently changed her name to Teresa. Her work
      among the poor in Calcutta attracted the world wide attention culminating
      with a Nobel Peace Price in 1979. [20] Yet her work has been criticised as
      not one based on the alleviation of suffering but on the morbid theological
      celebration of pain and suffering. Christopher Hitchens outlined these
      rather disturbing facts in his book The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa
      in Theory and Practice (1995):

      Dr. Robin Fox, editor of the medical journal The Lancet, visited Mother
      Teresa's operation in Calcutta in 1994. He reported that he was very
      "disturbed" by what he saw. There was little anesthesia to be seen and a
      near total neglect of medically sound diagnosis. Why were not the sisters
      given proper training in simple diagnosis as well as in managing pain?
      Because according to Dr. Fox, Mother Teresa "preferred providence to
      planning; her rules are designed to prevent any drift towards
      materialism."[21]

      Mary Loudon, a volunteer in Calcutta, had even worse things to say about
      Mother Teresa's operation. She reported seeing in the Home for the Dying
      more than a hundred men and women all dying and not been given much medical
      care. Pain killers used do not go beyond aspirins. The nuns were rinsing the
      needles used for drips with plain tap water. When Loudon asked them why they
      were not sterilizing the needles, the reply was simply they had no time and
      that there was "no point". She also recounted the case of a fifteen year old
      boy who was dying because of a treatable kidney complaint. All that was
      needed was a cab fare to take the boy to a proper hospital. But Mother
      Teresa's peons refused to do so, for "if they do it for one, they had to do
      it for everybody."[22]

      · Susan Sheilds, who worked for almost ten years as a member of Mother
      Teresa's order, subsequently left the movement because of the atrocious
      negligence she witnessed there. The order's obsession with poverty means
      that the nuns and volunteers works under conditions of austerity, rigidity
      and harshness. Due to Mother Teresa's fame, Ms. Sheilds reported that the
      charity had around US$50 million in their bank account in the US. The
      donations kept pouring in, yet little of these were used to procure medicine
      or to provide better health care for the suffering. The nuns were rarely
      allowed to spend money on the poor they are trying to help. [23]

      · To Mother Teresa, like all other missionaries, spiritual well being
      over-rides everything else. As Ms. Sheilds reported, "Mother Teresa taught
      her nuns how to secretly baptised those who were dying. Sisters were to ask
      each person in danger of death if he wanted a 'ticket to heaven'. An
      affirmative reply was to mean consent to baptism. The sister was then to
      pretend she was just cooling the person's forehead with a wet cloth, while
      in fact she was baptizing him, saying quietly the necessary words. Secrecy
      was important so that it would not come to be known that Mother Teresa's
      sisters were baptising Hindus and Muslims."[24]

      Perhaps a poignant summary of Mother Teresa's mission can be seen in a story
      recounted by herself. A dying man was in terrible pain. She told him "You
      are suffering like Christ on the cross. So Jesus must be kissing you." To
      which the man replied: "Then please tell Jesus to stop kissing me." [25]

      South America

      It is in South America that the missionaries are at their most destructive.
      During the conquest of the "New World", beginning in the 15th century,
      Catholic priests and friars, accompanied the invading armies of Spain and
      Portugal. All kinds of coercive methods were used to subjugate and
      evangelize the Indians. The Indians were exploited, enslaved and made to
      work for the settlers in return for protection and religious instructions. A
      total of up to 15 million Indians were reported to have died due to such
      brutality. [26]

      The major damage done in modern times are by fundamentalists evangelical
      groups. The two main sects that have major activities in South America are
      the Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL) and the New Tribes Mission (NTM).
      The very name, Summer Institute of Linguistics, suggests an attempt at
      deception, of concealing their missionary activities. To the South American
      governments, the SIL presents itself as lingusitic investigators of the many
      languages of the native tribes of the continent. Under this cover, its 3,500
      missionaries conduct their goal of converting the natives. It's founder
      William Townsend defends this patently dishonest method by asking the
      rhetorical question: "Was it honest for the Son of God to come down to earth
      without revealing who he was?" [27]

      Founded by Paul Fleming, the NTM today boasts of 2,500 missionaries in 24
      countries worldwide. More conservative and ardently fundamentalist than the
      SIL, the NTM has a pronounced policy of recruiting young evangelists of
      limited education. Their lack of sensitivity for these native tribes can be
      seen in some of their descriptions of them. The natives are referred to as
      "naked savages" by Jean Johnson, the widow of a young NTM missionary, in her
      book God Planted Five Seeds . In one instance, Les Pederson, the NTM Field
      Co-ordinator for Latin America was reported to have said "those Indians all
      look pretty much the same". [28]

      How do these sects, and others, spread the word of God? Do they learn the
      language and then preach? Do the natives then, by virtue of hearing the
      "Truth" with a capital "T", automatically become Christians? No. The methods
      employed are devious.

      One method, as explained by Victor Halterman, of the SIL, involves cutting
      off the natives from their source of livelihood. This involve a few distinct
      steps; in the words of Halterman himself:

      When we learn of the presence of an uncontacted group, we move into the
      area, build a strong shelter-say of logs-and cut paths radiating from it
      into the forest. We leave gifts along these paths-knives, axes, mirrors, the
      kind of things the Indians can't resist-and sometimes they leave gifts in
      exchange. After a while the relationship develops. Maybe they are
      mistrustful at first but in the end they stop running when we show, and we
      get together and make friends.

      As the author and journalist, Norman Lewis, explained in his book The
      Missionaries: God against the Indians (1988), the gifts are placed in such a
      way that at the end the Indians become far removed from their sources of
      food and game. It is then that the gifts are stopped. Halterman continues:
      We have to break their dependency on us next. Naturally they want to go on
      receiving all these desirable things we've been giving them, and sometimes
      it comes as a surprise when we explain that from now on if they want to
      possess them they must work for money. We don't employ them but we usually
      fix them up with something to do on the local farms. They settle down at it
      when they realise there's no going back.

      That work at the "local farm" oftentimes amounts to slavery was
      (indirectly)admitted by Halterman when he mentioned that "abuses" sometimes
      occur. [29]

      Another method, aptly called "manhunt" by Lewis, involves the missionaries
      going out, sometimes in motorized vehicles, hunting for natives to integrate
      them into reservtions set up for missionary work. The NTM, for instance,
      went on such a manhunt in Paraguay. Five missionized natives were killed in
      one such manhunt. Those unconverted natives were taken to the NTM camp in

      Campo Loro. Within a short while, according to Survival International, all
      had died of new diseases they had no immunity to. Stung by criticism, the
      best reply the NTM 's Director in Paraguay could muster was: "We don't go
      after people anymore. We just provide transport." [30]

      A final element needs to be added. As Lewis wrote:
      The unimportance of a comfortable earthly life, weighed in the balance
      against the threat of eternal punishment in the next, inspires many
      missionaries to gather the souls at all costs, often with disregards for the
      welfare of the converts' in this world.[31]

      These elements make for a militant fundamentalist missionary campaign. One
      that we would expect to cause harm to the natives. And we would be right.
      Below are some examples of the evil committed in the name of Christian
      evangelism.

      The contact work, done in conjunction with the "manhunt" are sometimes done
      by Christianized natives who are trained by the missionaries to carry guns.
      The "newly contacted" natives are then rounded off to the mission camp. One
      American organization, Cultural Survival, reported in 1986 that natives in
      the NTM camp in Paraguay were held there against will. In short, they had
      been kidnapped.

      In another such "manhunt" in 1979, also in Paraguay, one of the freightened
      natives fell down from a tree and broke her leg. (Her right breast had
      already been shot off by a previous encounter with the missionaries.) She
      was compelled, with her broken leg, to walk back to the mission camp. She
      subsequently died. [32]

      If the process of rounding up the natives to be converted were bad, their
      lives within the mission camp were even worse. Some examples.

      Once in the mission camp, many of the natives either die from starvation or
      from diseases transmitted by the missionaries with which the former had no
      immunity against. In one such mission camp in Paraguay, the German
      anthropologist, Dr. Mark Munzel, reported that food and medicine were
      deliberately withheld by the missionaries. From a total of 277 natives in

      April 1972 only 202 survivors were left three months later. A US
      congressional report confirmed that 49% of the camp population had vanished!
      [33]

      Surely the (uninformed) believer may assert: these natives would be allowed
      to leave if they do not accept the preachings of the missionaries. Surely
      that would be the Christian thing to do. But that is not the case. Take the
      following eye witness account by Norman Lewis in a missionary camp in
      Paraguay:

      I followed him [Donald McCullin-the photographer from The Sunday Times]
      into the hut and saw two old ladies lying on some rags on the ground in the
      last stages of emaciation and clearly on the verge of death. One was
      unconscious, the second in what was evidently a state of catalepsy...In the
      second hut lay another woman, also in a desperate condition and with
      untreated wounds on her legs. A small, naked, tearful boy, sat at her
      side...The three women and the boy had been taken in a recent forest
      roundup, the third woman having being shot in the side while attempting to
      escape.[emphasis mine][34]

      Of course Paraguay is not the only place where the defenceless natives were
      subjected to Christian genocide. In Bolivia, William Pencille, of the South
      American Missionary Society, was called in to help when white ranchers
      moving into the tribal areas came upon the Ayoreos. Pencille persuaded these
      natives to stop resisting the encroachment of the cattlemen and to settle on
      a patch of barren land beside a railroad tract. The natives, having no
      resistance to common diseases of the "modern" man, began to die. Throughout
      all this Pencille had the means to save the lives of these people. He had
      access to many modes of transport, including an aeroplane, and to funds
      which could easily have been used to buy medicines for them. Yet this is
      what he said: "It's better they should die. Then I baptize them (on the
      point of death) and they go straight to heaven." [Extract from a
      conversation between William Pencille and Father Elmar Klinger, OFM , quoted
      by Luis A. Pereira in The Bolivian Instance] A total of three hundred
      natives died in his "care" within a matter of weeks.[35] [a]

      In Guatemala, the leadership of the Summer Institute of Linguistics had a
      close relationship with the former military dictator Efrain Rios-Montt, a
      fellow evangelical Christian and an ordained minister of the Gospel
      Outreach/Verbo Evangelical Church. Rios-Montt has been implicated in the
      genocide of the indigenous Mayans and political opponents in Guatemala
      during his rule in the early 1980's-with more than 70,000 people reportedly
      murdered by his army. His scorched earth policy (or in his own words
      "scorched communist policy") against guerilla insurgents was implemented
      indescriminately. More than 400 Mayan villages were burned to the
      ground-their properties, crops and lifestock, destroyed. Mayans suspected of
      supporting the insurgents were tortured and murdered, their women and girls
      raped. In the midst of all these atrocities, Rios-Montt was regularly giving
      broadcast sermons on morality! Of course, the fact that Rios-Montt was a
      Christian was more important to our missionary friends that the fact that he
      was a mass murderer. The relationship between the general and SIL was so
      cosy that he once had his henchmen serve as escorts for the SIL. [36]

      But the worst of the mission linked atrocities happenned in Brazil. Granted
      that the main culprits of the genocide were functionaries of the grossly
      misnamed Indian Protection Service, the missionaries were at least partly
      responsible for these. In the 1980's the Brazilian attorney general's office
      began an investigation into the atrocities committed by the agency over a
      period of thirty years. It's findings were shocking.

      Many native tribes were hunted, murdered and some to the point of
      extinction. Some of these include:
      · Munducurus tribe: reduced from 19,000 strong in the 1930's to 1,200
      · Guaranis tribe: reduced from 5,000 to 200
      · Cajaras tribe: from 4,000 to 400
      · Cintas Largas: from 10,000 to possibly 500
      · Tapaiunas: completely extirpated
      · Other tribes were reduced to only a few (one or two!)individuals and some
      by only a single family.

      These peoples were culled by various means by greedy landrobbers who wanted
      to developed the untapped natural wealth of the Brazilian rainforest. Some
      of the methods include:
      · The Cintas Largas were attacked by dropping dynamites from aeroplanes.
      · The Maxacalis were given alcohol and then shot down when they became
      drunk.
      · The Nhambiquera were killed in huge numbers by machine gun fire.
      · Two Patachos tribes were exterminated by giving the unsuspecting Idnians
      smallpox injections.
      · Some of the Indians were murdered by presenting them with food laced with
      arsenic and formicides.
      The above does not exhaust the creativity of the murderers but should
      suffice to show the almost unparalleled cruelty that were visited on the
      Indian tribes.
      What have all these got to do with the missionaries? The Brazilian newpaper,
      O Jornal do Brazil had this to say:
      In reality those in control of these Indian Protection Service posts [where
      the majority of the atrocities had taken place] are North American
      Missionaries...

      This was confirmed by the Brazilian ministry of Indians. Thus, in essence,
      the missionaries allowed the atrocities to happen. As Lewis remarked:
      Despite the law of every civilized country...that those who witness...a
      crime without denouncing it to the authorities are held to be accessories to
      the crime, there is no record to be found of any such denunciation [by the
      missionaries].

      As the newspaper O Globo reported: "it was missionary policy to ignore what
      was going on."

      Of course the missionaries were not only passively supporting the genocide
      of the Brazilian natives. They played active roles in many of the
      atrocities. One missionary persuaded 600 Ticuna indians that the end of the
      world is taking place and they will only be safe on a ranch. On that ranch
      the Indians were made slaves and tortured.

      The Bororos, a tribe studied by the reknowned anthropologist Claude
      Levi-Strauss, fell prey to the missionaries as well. They were banned by the
      missionaries, who were aided by the local police, from performing their
      customary burial rites on their dead. That left the Bororos without a
      cultural identity and, one by one, they committed suicide. As the O Jornal
      do Brazil explained:

      It is sad to see the plight in which these people have been left. The
      missionaries have deprived them of their power to resist. That is why they
      have been so easily plundered. A great emptiness and aimlessness had been
      left in their eyes.

      Thus was the power of Christian love in the Brazilian jungles. [37]

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.