With world events unfolding at an alarming rate, politics,
religion and morals intertwine to the point of a tangle. Power
vacuums in war-ravaged nations provide a blank template from which
leaders can craft a society in their image. Vulnerable and
impressionable people serve as the perfect host to the guests known
as missionaries.

Missionaries have traveled to Third World countries for years,
offering food, clothing, medical aid and their faith. Muslim
missionaries coerce populations in Africa and even target
African-Americans living in the United States, thereby exploiting
the dissatisfaction and alienation many of them feel from
mainstream America. Most recently, missionaries of Christianity and
other faiths, either as individuals or as part of organized groups,
have visited the Middle East in the wake of military actions to
spread the word of their holy books. While these actions may be
genuinely well-intentioned, they are neither appropriate nor
ethical.

It is wrong to offer “humanitarian” aid in exchange for
profession of faith. No act of generosity or kindness should be
precluded with terms of learning another religion or lifestyle.
True compassion and empathy does not come with strings
attached–service is not a business deal. Faith can be a source of
inspiration and peace to many; however, this does not imply that
one should preach his or her beliefs to vulnerable people in
exchange for monetary or other assistance. The citizens of these
nations are in a precarious situation. They lack adequate
nutrition, sanitation, running water, employment, electricity, and
stable and lasting leaders.

Why is it that missionaries choose such underdeveloped and
poverty-stricken lands? First, they are clearly some of the
neediest populations; they desperately need whatever assistance is
offered. However, the purpose of missionaries, honestly felt by
those who pursue such evangelical work, is to bring faith to people
whom they feel could benefit from God’s love. But missionaries were
not asked to assume this responsibility.

On a different level, missionary work undermines the purpose of
U.S. military efforts in the Middle East and central Asia. The
purpose of the war on terror was to ensure the safety of the
American people while simultaneously allowing civilians in those
nations to establish democratic governments. The United States
takes great pains to assure the citizens of these countries that
these actions were not done in an attempt to eradicate the existing
culture there or to assert and increase its own influence.

Still, at conventions teaching the art of converting,
evangelists train to sway practicing individuals away from their
faith. These people have not claimed dissatisfaction with their
spirituality, nor have they requested schooling in any other
religion. The cover story of the June 30 issue of Time magazine,
which discusses the issue of missionary work in length, includes
statements from missionaries who clearly lack any understanding of
the faith of those they are “aiding.” Among these comments are
allusions to members of a particular faith as victims and the
glorifying of their own spirituality as superior to any other form
of belief.

Such remarks reflect disrespect, ignorance, and intolerance–a
message not promoted by any religion. This is neither a realistic
nor ethical method to “helping” people. Neither does it serve our
original purpose of protecting national security; nor does it
encourage the people of the Middle East to create democratic
governments.

It is possible to achieve a fusion of faith and service without
preaching one path to God over another. Church World Service, an
organization of several Christian denominations, has contributed
roughly $2.5 million in medical care without spreading the message
of religion. Donna Derr, associate director of the group, states,
“Beyond that [giving the name of the group], do we do any sort of
proselytizing as we offer assistance? No. We simply consider being
there a witness to God’s love.”

Politically, missionaries do not project a healthy image of the
countries of their origin. Morally, their work is flawed, though it
may be performed with the best of intentions. In the end,
acceptance of God is a matter of volition and cannot be packaged
under a fake identity or with a much-needed meal.

Maryam Zia is a sophomore in the school of Art &
Sciences