Dillards 26 - Grifting All The Way!

[Dandruff]

21 hours ago, Mercer said:

The Dillards just requested $24,000 for groceries, gas, and just general puttering around - as well as, presumably, airfare for their frequent back and forth trips. They are incredibly expensive to support and spend only a portion of their time in their alleged mission field country when they don't have something better going on back home.

$24,000 would get them some really good Spanish lessons.

Aren't they also pulling in $$s from TLC for any filming being done there?

Matthew 6:24: "No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one and despise the other.  Ye cannot serve God and mammon."

[Four is Enough]

4 hours ago, BobTheWalrus said:

It's doubly odd when you think about the Duggars trying to share that message, because their faith seems to be entirely based on following rules and being monitored constantly to make sure you don't break the rules, and then covering up when someone does break the rules because they have no concept of grace, only religion.

This a thousand times.  Even though the only hymn they seem to know has the words , "Twas grace that taught my heart to fear, and grace my fears relieved," they seem to understand only the rules of their religion, not the benefits.

4 hours ago, jqlgoblue said:

Not exactly. Catholicism has the Pope and the trinity which both get in the way of going straight to Jesus. Having a personal relationship with Jesus isn't simply believing in him, it is having an ongoing conversation with him in your head at all times whereas in Catholicism you go through clergy (priests take your confessions). The conversation with Jesus goes something like "Hey Jesus, what do you think about XYZ? I was thinking A might be ok and Jesus replies, well I'm not so sure ... I would do B". (You can imagine a conversation between Michael Bates and Jesus about why she doesn't have a baby yet, and all the things he tells her she is doing wrong / needs to do better). It's interesting b/c in theory this type of dialog would/could lead to more 'moral' decisions on the part of people who have this relationship with him (or Him).

In Catholicism, it's my understanding, that it is more about deeds than beliefs or 'relationships' or evangelizing and so a Catholic Missionary would likely be a nurse, teacher, construction worker, etc. in a place of need vs. a proselytizing one (though I think there are now Evangelical Catholics, I believe Mike Pence is one). Generally though, Catholics believe that when they show up to the pearly gates that God will look positively on them for their good deeds, good work and general morality (though believing matters too). Where as an evangelical believes that when they show up at the pearly gates Jesus will judge them on the number of people they converted (and how hard it was to convert them, it is my understanding that a Jew gets you many more points than a Catholic!) and how strong their relationship was with him. They are actually quite different life goals, so to speak.

I'm not exactly sure where you got your information, but it's mixed up. "Pope and Trinity"... keep people from Christ? First of all, Christ is part of the trinity, which I'm sure I've heard of in more sects than my own Roman Catholic one... Have you HEARD the words, "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit?" Three in one, the Trinity? Jesus is the SON. So how does that keep me from him when I invoke him in the simplest of prayers?

I'm not going to argue with you about the Pope. I rather think few people, including some Catholics, do not understand or feel the need to confess to a priest; I'm not going to argue with them, either. But for a large number of people, the priest, acting in Jesus' stead, (And I quote from the Bible: "Whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven; whose sins you retain, they are retained.") actually acts as a conduit to Christ. I'm not going to say that it's better or not better than  just saying in your head, "I'm sorry." What I will say is that it is a physical demonstration of Jesus' love and redemption for those who need it, provided by a human who still walks this earth, duly deputized by Jesus himself, through the succession of Popes, priests, bishops, etc.

[jqlgoblue]

2 minutes ago, Four is Enough said:

This a thousand times.  Even though the only hymn they seem to know has the words , "Twas grace that taught my heart to fear, and grace my fears relieved," they seem to understand only the rules of their religion, not the benefits.

I'm not exactly sure where you got your information, but it's mixed up. "Pope and Trinity"... keep people from Christ? First of all, Christ is part of the trinity, which I'm sure I've heard of in more sects than my own Roman Catholic one... Have you HEARD the words, "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit?" Three in one, the Trinity? Jesus is the SON. So how does that keep me from him when I invoke him in the simplest of prayers?

I'm not going to argue with you about the Pope. I rather think few people, including some Catholics, do not understand or feel the need to confess to a priest; I'm not going to argue with them, either. But for a large number of people, the priest, acting in Jesus' stead, (And I quote from the Bible: "Whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven; whose sins you retain, they are retained.") actually acts as a conduit to Christ. I'm not going to say that it's better or not better than  just saying in your head, "I'm sorry." What I will say is that it is a physical demonstration of Jesus' love and redemption for those who need it, provided by a human who still walks this earth, duly deputized by Jesus himself, through the succession of Popes, priests, bishops, etc.

My mom is Catholic and I grew up with a lot of protestants. The Protestants seem to be very confused about what the Trinity means and do seem to think it keeps people from Jesus. It doesn't make sense to me either.

[grandmadugger]

12 minutes ago, jqlgoblue said:

My mom is Catholic and I grew up with a lot of protestants. The Protestants seem to be very confused about what the Trinity means and do seem to think it keeps people from Jesus. It doesn't make sense to me either.

 

What kind of protestants?  I don't know any who don't believe in the Trinity.  The Trinity has always been a huge deal in any church that I have ever been to and I didn't spend much time in the Catholic church.  Usually belief in the Trinity is one of the first tests that a denomination under goes to see if it is a Christian denomination or a cult. 

[Glasgowghirl]

Jill and Derick would be more use if they could actually speak Spanish and had other skills. Jill could have extended her midwife knowledge at least. 

Derick is not a real missionary, I'm from the same hometown as David Livingstone, he worked in a mill during the the day, went to night school and saved to pay for medical training and his travels to Africa. Derick couldn't even use his own money to go to El Salvador. 

[PennySycamore]

@Four is Enough, that is a great explanation of the role of the priest in confession/Reconciliation.

[Jinder Roles]

So here's the thing about missions work/ secular volun-tourism and even many popular NGOs...often times they help people invidivually in some way (and the amount of 'help' varies on a scale) but do not address the global and local sociopolitical environments making these people's lives difficult (or how they are implicated in it themselves) 

Also, when new 'solutions' are introduced they often create other problems. For example, having foreign people come and build houses (they are often unskilled) they but locals out of work. And then the buildings are not well-built and money isn't going into the economy. 

On top of that is the prejudices and assumption that 'my way is better' many missionaries and volunteers have. They're not doing so purposefully and often have good intentions, but its still there

One thing to remember is you can't separate mission work or really any humanitarian effort from globalism, capitalism, post-colonialism and historical violence. Just read "Things Fall Apart" by Chinua Achebe or any sociopolitical critique on volun-tourism or even Paul Farmer who discusses the socio-political reasons why certain communities and regions are affected by infectious disease and have been eradicated in others. 

 Even though I am a Christian I think most mission-work (and by extension volun-tourism and NGOs) are quite problematic and make me uncomfortable. 

 

However on a scale of 'somewhat problematic' to 'ugh, what are you doing?'; Jill and Derick are definitely a "what the fuck is wrong with you? Leave these people alone" 

 

 

Sorry for my long academic rants y'all.

 

[singsingsing]

Protestants believe in the Trinity. It's a core Protestant belief. If you don't believe in the Trinity, you're way out on the fringe. The idea that the Trinity gets in between people and God is extra confusing because the Trinity is God.

[MamaJunebug]

1 hour ago, Jinder Roles said:

So here's the thing about missions work/ secular volun-tourism and even many popular NGOs...often times they help people invidivually in some way (and the amount of 'help' varies on a scale) but do not address the global and local sociopolitical environments making these people's lives difficult (or how they are implicated in it themselves) 

Also, when new 'solutions' are introduced they often create other problems. For example, having foreign people come and build houses (they are often unskilled) they but locals out of work. And then the buildings are not well-built and money isn't going into the economy. 

On top of that is the prejudices and assumption that 'my way is better' many missionaries and volunteers have. They're not doing so purposefully and often have good intentions, but its still there

One thing to remember is you can't separate mission work or really any humanitarian effort from globalism, capitalism, post-colonialism and historical violence. Just read "Things Fall Apart" by Chinua Achebe or any sociopolitical critique on volun-tourism or even Paul Farmer who discusses the socio-political reasons why certain communities and regions are affected by infectious disease and have been eradicated in others. 

 Even though I am a Christian I think most mission-work (and by extension volun-tourism and NGOs) are quite problematic and make me uncomfortable. 

 

However on a scale of 'somewhat problematic' to 'ugh, what are you doing?'; Jill and Derick are definitely a "what the fuck is wrong with you? Leave these people alone" 

 

 

Sorry for my long academic rants y'all.

 

I enjoyed a new angle on what I've never thought about too much. An honest question arose, reading it, please?  What *should* a first-worlder do to attempt to make life better for third-world folks?  

[Feminist_Defrauder91]

What really gets me is that Derick and Jill vote for politicians who think it's okay to leave women and children to die because they don't have the proper health care, housing, or nutrition (poor people having enough to eat is blasphemy!!).  But then they think they can ask for $24,000 to live for a few months in a third-world country?  I guess their rationale is they're asking for private "charity", not government "handouts", but still.  I go back and forth from being sad to infuriated by their hypocrisy.

Ironically, they could learn a lot from the Catholic Church.  The Catholic Church--particularly the Jesuits and some nuns' orders--is finally starting to take the moral high ground on healthcare, immigration, refugees, and caring for the poor. Too bad Jill and Derick would immediately hear the word "Catholic" and immediately tune them out.

[Jinder Roles]

28 minutes ago, MamaJunebug said:

I enjoyed a new angle on what I've never thought about too much. An honest question arose, reading it, please?  What *should* a first-worlder do to attempt to make life better for third-world folks?  

 That's pretty complicated and some there's a lot of debate on what is and isn't helpful. I think the most important thing is to do research before supporting an organization to look out for red flags. And to be aware of local voices in the community you wish to help so you can respect their opinions and agency (if there are voices) 

Maybe look for orgs that seem to have an awareness of socio-political influences with their work? Or causes that cater to a very specific community or do a specific function. They should be extremely transparent. That's usually more helpful than sending a load of clothes to Goodwill (fun fact: most of the clothes sent to Goodwill etc. are sent overseas and  resold by local merchants) 

Most of all listen to locals, don't forget to help in your own community and consider sending money - as opposed to toys, clothes unless it's for a very specific/transparent purpose - to organizations you think are doing something valuable. Try to help people with something very specific (e.g: buying items explicitly requested by families in need) 

Although many institutions and orgs are quite problematic, in certain situations and for certain purposes they can be helpful. I think sensitivity and social-awareness are key.

 

Edited to say: Remember to not be too hard on yourself while having critical self-reflection or when you feel frustrated. It's good that you're trying to be aware and improve. Just remember to listen to the voices who are affected and take their critiques/wishes seriously (good advice or all social-justice/social-improvement) 

[nastyhobbitses]

9 hours ago, Jinder Roles said:

So here's the thing about missions work/ secular volun-tourism and even many popular NGOs...often times they help people invidivually in some way (and the amount of 'help' varies on a scale) but do not address the global and local sociopolitical environments making these people's lives difficult (or how they are implicated in it themselves) 

Also, when new 'solutions' are introduced they often create other problems. For example, having foreign people come and build houses (they are often unskilled) they but locals out of work. And then the buildings are not well-built and money isn't going into the economy. 

On top of that is the prejudices and assumption that 'my way is better' many missionaries and volunteers have. They're not doing so purposefully and often have good intentions, but its still there

One thing to remember is you can't separate mission work or really any humanitarian effort from globalism, capitalism, post-colonialism and historical violence. Just read "Things Fall Apart" by Chinua Achebe or any sociopolitical critique on volun-tourism or even Paul Farmer who discusses the socio-political reasons why certain communities and regions are affected by infectious disease and have been eradicated in others. 

 Even though I am a Christian I think most mission-work (and by extension volun-tourism and NGOs) are quite problematic and make me uncomfortable.

However on a scale of 'somewhat problematic' to 'ugh, what are you doing?'; Jill and Derick are definitely a "what the fuck is wrong with you? Leave these people alone"

 

Snipped for space and all.

I also quite liked reading Dead Aid by Dambisa Moyo. Many people might not agree with her, but her point was very much about the "new solutions" point you brought up -- traditional aid/charity pours a bunch of stuff into the country and then keeps industries from forming. If a factory for making mosquito nets opens, the owner of the factor has a job, the people working at the factory have a job, the truck drivers/boat pilots/what have you who take the nets to market have a job, the stevedores/stockboys have a job, and the shopkeepers have a job. If a charity just gives people a bunch of mosquito nets, people have mosquito nets, but you just lost all that money that could have gone into the economy. She also believes that aid often fosters corruption and doesn't encourage good governance. I know that a lot of people think she's a lot too "rah-rah free market" (I think so to an extent, though I see her point), but she has an interesting perspective.

[WhyNotJulie]

19 hours ago, JillyO said:

You're still trying to get people to convert to your religion, and that's just wrong in my book.

I'm not a fan of missionary work mostly because I don't think it's in any way effective. However, I'm going to use a quick ice cream metaphor to explain missionary work to those of you who may not be religious, or who don't understand why people like the Duggars do the things they do:

Many people share your views, and think that converting someone else to a specific religion is wrong. They think it's wrong because to them, a religion is more of a personal choice than anything else, sort of like your favourite flavour of ice cream. You may like strawberry, I may like mint chocolate chip, and we can agree to disagree. People who share your views tend to think that religion is something that you choose for yourself to help you live a more full life, or that gives you some form of inner peace. As a result, this group of people cannot understand why anyone would feel the need to shove their religion down someone else's throat. If you like strawberry and I like mint chocolate chip, what's the harm? Why not just let me eat my ice cream in peace and we can both be on our way?

However, then there's a second group of people. The Duggars are included in this group, but so are hundreds of thousands of educated, well-meaning Christians. This group believes that religion is not a matter of taste, but that it is the truth. To use the same ice cream example, they may like mint chocolate chip (whatever branch of Christianity they subscribe to), and they might be totally cool with you liking Strawberry (e.g. another branch of Christianity) but then they notice that in lieu of ice cream you've purchased a glass of cyanide and you're going to drink that instead. So they likely will feel the need to come over and offer you some of their ice cream instead. They are doing this partly because of how much they like mint chocolate chip, yes, but MAINLY to stop you from drinking cyanide.

And then after this interaction takes place, the person with the cup of cyanide just can't understand why someone would feel the need to tell them what they're doing is "wrong", when they feel that it's their choice, and that cyanide is right for them. They ask why the Christians couldn't just eat their mint chocolate chip in peace. In reality, the missionaries truly are acting out of a sense of love. It would be easier for them to just eat their ice cream at home, but they're choosing to engage with you about your cyanide in an attempt to save you.

Not saying it's a good use of time, energy or resources, but that's the underlying purpose.

/rant.

[Four is Enough]

11 hours ago, PennySycamore said:

@Four is Enough, that is a great explanation of the role of the priest in confession/Reconciliation.

Thank you. It's kind of you to say.

[MamaJunebug]

46 minutes ago, WhyNotJulie said:

I'm not a fan of missionary work mostly because I don't think it's in any way effective. However, I'm going to use a quick ice cream metaphor to explain missionary work [snip] The Duggars are included in this group, but so are hundreds of thousands of educated, well-meaning Christians. This group believes that religion is not a matter of taste, but that it is the truth

[snipped to save room :-; ]

 In reality, the missionaries truly are acting out of a sense of love. It would be easier for them to just eat their ice cream at home, but they're choosing to engage with you about your cyanide in an attempt to save you.

Not saying it's a good use of time, energy or resources, but that's the underlying purpose.

/rant.

@WhyNotJulie, yes--that's the way it's always been explained to me, as I sat in the pews and listened. 

9 hours ago, Jinder Roles said:

 That's pretty complicated

[snipped for tidiness ;-) ]

Although many institutions and orgs are quite problematic, in certain situations and for certain purposes they can be helpful. I think sensitivity and social-awareness are key.

 

Edited to say: Remember to not be too hard on yourself while having critical self-reflection or when you feel frustrated. It's good that you're trying to be aware and improve. Just remember to listen to the voices who are affected and take their critiques/wishes seriously (good advice or all social-justice/social-improvement) 

@Jinder Roles, rest easy -- of all the things for which I'm likely to be hard on myself, my attitudes on aid won't be one. Today, anyway. 

My schedule today is going unusually full so that's all i can respond now, but I did want to thank you for your genuine reply to my query. Indeed: something to think about! 

[formergothardite]

@BobTheWalrus have the responses helped you better understand why people find "just go convert" missions so offensive? And why even the missions that offer help are often problematic?

[Palimpsest]

11 hours ago, MamaJunebug said:

I enjoyed a new angle on what I've never thought about too much. An honest question arose, reading it, please?  What *should* a first-worlder do to attempt to make life better for third-world folks?  

"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."

A cliche, I know, but I think the best efforts in developing countries are those who provide the education and seed money to empower people to help themselves - within their own cultural norms and with very little outside interference.  I tend to look for those efforts to support myself, an example being giving women seed money (and mentor-ship on request) to set up their own independent businesses.  It has proven very effective.

@WhyNotJulie, you are describing evangelism rather than missionary work, per se, although I like the ice cream and cyanide metaphor.

Some denominations of Christianity take enthusiastic evangelism far more seriously than others, although I would argue that it is a central tenet of Christianity.  Matthew 28:16-20.  And we are also touching on the whole Jamesian versus Pauline "work versus grace" issue here. Some Christians (yeah, Fundies) practically scorn the idea that good works and leading by example are any use to fulfill the Great Commission.  We need Dominion over the World, folks.  That means converting everyone to our flavor of Christianity. Bah!

People become missionaries in developing countries for many reasons.  Yes, they are religious but for many it is a way to serve those who are less fortunate - and fits with their Christian beliefs.

I once asked my mother (15 years as a missionary in Africa) how many people she thought she and my father (21 years as a missionary in Africa) had converted to Christianity.

She thought for several minutes.  Then she said, "Well, I can't speak for Dad, but I can't think of a single one.  It wasn't what we were there for!"

They did do church services, preach, and teach Christianity, but they were medical missionaries and also taught their medical skills to others.  They saved many lives and undoubtedly improved the quality of life for thousands.

[Palimpsest]

13 hours ago, Jinder Roles said:

Sorry for my long academic rants y'all.

No need to apologize.  I think that post was brilliant and spot on. 

[JillyO]

@WhyNotJulie, I don't disagree with what you're saying, and I like your metaphor. But causing harm, even when it comes from a place of love, is still causing harm.

[Shouldabeenacowboy]

12 hours ago, MamaJunebug said:

 An honest question arose, reading it, please?  What *should* a first-worlder do to attempt to make life better for third-world folks?  

My personal opinion: education and health. Investments in locally run, locally-managed education programs, and sanitation and medical infrastructure. 

Leave your personal ideas about religion (or lack thereof) entirely out of the picture. 

Wishful thinking on my part, huh? 

[luxfilia]

Not trying to focus on any individual, but I often notice the use of the phrase "third-world" on our forum. I guess it got drilled into me in college (global awareness courses, journalism courses, and such) that that term is outdated and comes off as, well, sort of bigoted. The preferred term is "developing country." I think that makes more sense, anyhow. Anyone else bothered by the "third-world" term, or am I just finicky when it comes to words?

ETA: Of course, then I find sources like this, saying NO term is perfect (reminds me of latino vs. hispanic argument): http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2015/01/04/372684438/if-you-shouldnt-call-it-the-third-world-what-should-you-call-it

[Palimpsest]

11 minutes ago, luxfilia said:

The preferred term is "developing country." I think that makes more sense, anyhow. Anyone else bothered by the "third-world" term, or am I just finicky when it comes to words?

No, you aren't being finicky nor are you the only one.  I find "Third World" disparaging, although I don't think most people intend it to be so.

I've mentioned this in the past and it is very tricky.  I tend to use the terms developing country or global south most often.  With the latter, I mean no disrespect to people south of the Equator and it may deeply offend those in the Antipodes.  

[luxfilia]

6 minutes ago, Palimpsest said:

No, you aren't being finicky nor are you the only one.  I find "Third World" disparaging, although I don't think most people intend it to be so.

I've mentioned this in the past and it is very tricky.  I tend to use the terms developing country or global south most often.  With the latter, I mean no disrespect to people south of the Equator and it may deeply offend those in the Antipodes.  

Yes! I guess the best bet is to avoid the general labels when possible by being more specific. Not always an option, but it helps.

[Shouldabeenacowboy]

54 minutes ago, luxfilia said:

reminds me of latino vs. hispanic argument

If we are talking about words...

Bringing back memories of a similar discussion which was was a major culture shock to me when I moved to the USA many moons ago!  

You see, I am from Italy, and all my life I have been taught that Latin people are those whose language, history, etc. trace back to Latin. Latin, the language of the Romans and their empire, drilled into my head for several years in middle and high school...my ancestors and my roots. 

Then I get to the USA and I am told I am Caucasian. WTF? No. Caucasus = geographic region that comprises parts of (modern) Georgia, Azerbaijan, Turkey, Russia, and I believe Armenia (if memory serves me right). Nothing to do with me or my ancestors.

Having to tick a box, I would tick Latina. But I can't. Because I am, apparently, not. 

Labels.

 

[missegeno]

1 hour ago, Shouldabeenacowboy said:

...

Then I get to the USA and I am told I am Caucasian. WTF? No. Caucasus = geographic region that comprises parts of (modern) Georgia, Azerbaijan, Turkey, Russia, and I believe Armenia (if memory serves me right). Nothing to do with me or my ancestors.

Having to tick a box, I would tick Latina. But I can't. Because I am, apparently, not. 

Labels.

 

I have central american roots and, growing up in the US, there were always the relevant boxes for me to tick. When I moved to England, that option wasn't on the radar. There, you are either Caucasian (and yes, I agree with you on how ridiculous that is as a synonym for "white"), Chinese, Indian, or Black British. I have a bunch of screenshots from forms I filled out, just because I found the English list of races to be so novel from an American perspective. I realized that, while it's human nature to try to categorize people, those categories are relative and entirely dependent on context, exposure, and culture. I wish I knew a way to access these types of lists for more countries because I find it fascinating, but I'm not sure how to do so.