New evangelical strategy: " Adopt Third World babies and convert them."

[madfloridian]

This is an interesting article from one of my favorites, Kathryn Joyce, at the Daily Beast.

She discusses how Bill Clinton is working to free the Baptists in Haiti. Then she points out the new tactics.

"As Clinton works to spring the U.S. missionaries charged with kidnapping, the case highlights a new evangelical strategy: Adopt Third World babies and convert them."

For the past week, the news from Haiti has been dominated by the story of 10 American evangelicals from Idaho who were caught at the border of the Dominican Republic attempting to take 33 Haitian children, many with living parents, out of the country without documentation. The Americans, missionaries with the recently created New Life Children’s Refuge, were arrested and charged with kidnapping and criminal conspiracy—a reprieve from the child trafficking charges they may have faced.

American evangelical churches are embracing a new orphan theology that urges Christians to see adoption and “orphan-care” as an integral part of their faith.

This is a striking paragraph:

The details that emerged about the group’s plans and leader, Laura Silsby, were unsavory. Although Silsby, the legally embattled CEO of a personal shopping business, claimed that the group never intended to put the children up for adoption, an itinerary for New Life’s mission, published by an affiliated Southern Baptist church, bluntly described a plan to “gather 100 orphans from the streets and collapsed orphanages” onto a bus, then take them to a hotel in the Dominican Republic. There, New Life hoped to build permanent orphanage facilities, including a beachfront restaurant and “seaside villas” for prospective adoptive parents—amenities that underscore their understanding of local adoption residency requirements, even as they claimed ignorance of Haitian law. Additional planning and fundraising documents described the group’s goal to “equip each child” with the opportunity “for adoption into a loving Christian family,” and help them “find new life in Christ.

Christianity Today pointed out this new plan in January.

This January, Christianity Today declared adoption the next culture war issue, and a major theological development of 2009. Indeed, 2009 was filled with news of adoption, as Russell Moore, dean of the theological school at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, released his book Adopted for Life: The Priority of Adoption for Christian Families and Churches, exhorting Christians to “be at the forefront of the adoption of orphans close to home and around the world.”

Moore’s message came with both political and theological justifications, both positioning adoption as part of a holistic “pro-life” stance and, in a stunning admission, as a means for Christians to fulfill the Great Commission: evangelizing and making converts of the nations. In fact, adoption has become such a critical, though under-recognized, part of the evangelical agenda that in 2008, The Wall Street Journal’s “Taste” section advised Senator John McCain to highlight his adopted daughter—once the target of an ugly smear campaign—as a means of shoring up his lukewarm evangelical appeal.

Kathryn Joyce then points out that "the wholesale call for Christians to adopt as a solution for poverty and disaster—often at a cost of up to $30,000 per child—and particularly for purposes of proselytization, seems destined to lead to more people jumping headlong into a perceived “calling” to care for orphans without understanding the complex ethics that surround all adoptions."

Joyce is also the author of Quiverfull: Inside the Christian Patriarchy Movement.

[leftstreet]

1. Maybe they can get some Faith Ba$ed Money, too!

Disgusting

K&R

[lonestarnot]

49. And some faith based slavery while they're at it.

:puke:

[The_Casual_Observer]

2. It's a scheme to build a resort in the Caribbean for themselves funded

by trafficking in human beings.

[Donnachaidh]

8. Bingo!

Exactly what they are doing. And they can live in luxury while scoping out *poor orphan kids* - and probably even deduct the costs of staying at the resort as a business expense.

Disgusting.

[Jamastiene]

3. Ever notice that certain sect of Christianity cannot do ANYTHING

without an ulterior motive that is downright creepy?

That's the part that gets to me. It totally creeps me out. Why can't they just do something like adopt children and give them loving homes without so much of an ulterior motive behind it?

[MichaelHarris]

4. If Bill Clinton

is trying to get them released then Fuck Bill Clinton!

[csziggy]

5. Actually from a pragmatic point of view, Haitian prosecution of this gang

Could hurt donations. The pseudo-Christian righties could take offense and stop donating money for Haitian relief. Not very "christian" but it is how they operation. So for Bill Clinton to see what he can do to get them back in the US may be a way to keep donations coming in.

If there is any kind of deal that does not require prosecution of this gang of kidnappers, I will get upset. So far, I think the Haitian government is handling it OK.

[truth2power]

30. I thought they didn't have much use for government....

Always yammering about keeping the govt. out of people's lives. They get themselves into a sling and right away they're wanting the govt. to help. I hear Hillary is working on their behalf, too.

Screw 'em! they should rot in jail.

[bertman]

34. Hillary is a member of the Family Prayer Group. Should we be surprised that she's trying

to get these folks out of trouble?

[EmeraldCityGrl]

36. There are more important things for him to be focusing on.

The world is watching. How can we possibly expect other nations to criminalize
human trafficking, yet excuse these people? Get a grip Clinton!

[Bluebear]

6. Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war!

[Monk06]

7. 'Time Share Adoption Vacations', what a killer business plan. Sisby should patent that

before Best Western steals the idea. And if
adopting black and brown babies is not to
your taste there's always Romania.

[aquart]

9. Women who tout patriarchy..............sigh.

I'm just going to bring up the Bible here, my trusty OT. Seems to me there was a similar adoption plan long ago...a boy named Moses.

The princess of Egypt adopted that boy and taught him all Egyptian ways.

And then one day he led an uprising against Egypt and became the leader of his real people.

Indoctrination doesn't always go the way you want.

[puebloknot]

48. This is inspiring! nt

[alphafemale]

10. Thing is...these children were probably being raised Catholic -

- which is a Christian religion in the eyes of nearly all reasonable people.

But, with the Fun-D Baptist types, Catholics aren't Christians. In fact. certain other Baptists aren't TRUE Christians.

[madfloridian]

17. I remember having that preached to us in the Southern Baptist churches...

that I grew up in. That they did not believe Catholics were Christian.

[alphafemale]

32. My ex-husband's daughter's Mom had taught her that.

Poor kid had a lot of issues.

[Mari333]

21. I tried to tell my mom, who was an Uber Catholic, that she was not considered a christian

by many many people. she did not believe me. I finally convinced her. she couldnt fathom how anyone could think that way. I told her, well, think of people like that as being in a CULT.
she was a kind woman, and truly lived what she believed in, in a good way.

[alphafemale]

33. How long before the fundies decide it's OK to tell these orphans that their parents burn in Hell?

Some of these people are demented and cruel beyond belief.

[gbate]

46. Baptists generally don't view Catholicism as a legitimate Christian religion.

I found that out when I was a fundie. I was required to have a re-baptism in order to fully join the Baptist church.

[SpiralHawk]

11. This is a VIOLATION of free will

Gross violation.

[Berry Cool]

19. Actually, it's not. Parents try to bring up kids in their own religion all the time.

However, it's up to the kid whether or not the religion is going to stick. Sometimes it does. Sometimes it doesn't. But most of the times, the child makes a free-will decision as to whether or not to keep believing as an adult.

Sure, you have some wackjob parents who will literally try to beat ALL free will out of a child and produce an obedient slave. But most parents just expect a child to live by their rules for as long as that child lives in their house (and going to church, or which church, may or may not be part of those rules). After kids become adults, the parental grasp loosens and their own free will takes over.

What amazes me is that people think that believers adopting kids from other countries and training them up in the adopters' religion is some "new" way of doing things. It's been around for a long, long time, hasn't it? Some do it in a militant fashion; others do it because they regard it as a way of living their faith and sharing what they consider their blessings with others.

Anyway, it still doesn't mean that the adoptive parents' assumption that they have won more "recruits" to their religion will turn out to be accurate. When kids grow up, all bets are off.

[mudplanet]

26. I agree. These people creep me out, but if they adopt a child they

have a right to attempt to impart their beliefs to the child.

A goodly number of the more extreme ones will end up with anti-christian bigots as adult children.

[hapkidogal]

29. It is an age old story

I was afraid of this very thing. People go into that country and rather than respecting its inhabitants and their beliefs as has happened in history they wish to indoctrinate the natives.My favorite quote is from Gandhi " I like your Christ.Your Christians not so much."

[Manifestor_of_Light]

12. This has been going on for centuries.

Invade and forcibly convert the natives to Christianity. Native Americans, other aboriginal peoples such as in Australia, Africa, Mexico, Latin America, many other places.

This includes giving Jews a choice as Ferdinand and Isabella did in 1492: Either convert to Catholicism or be expelled or die.

[malaise]

13. New?

Well I guess the older version was slavery

[quaker bill]

14. Correct

but not all that new. Perhaps it is just more aggressively promoted now. The "be fruitful and multiply" and "care for widows and orphans" themes are both Biblical in reference and have been part of the evangelical movement for quite some time.

The fact that it has been around makes it no less objectionable under certain circumstances. Churches run many orphanages in third world countries, the church I grew up in did so in the 1960s and still does. Some churches do this to create converts and/or find children to adopt out of country. Some do not.

Friends Meetings (Quakers) ran a war orphanage in Nicaragua during and after the Contra war in the 1980s. We do not do such things to find or create converts or as a source of children to adopt, we do them because the children need food and shelter, as a statement to peace. We generally work to keep the kids in country and also work to support education and small scale economic development in the communities we serve to make this possible.

[TokenQueer]

15. This strategy is new?

It is my understanding that brainwashing and early age indoctrination represents standard operating procedure for these kooks.

[Berry Cool]

20. There's also just "adoption and bringing up the kids in your religion"

the same way parents who have children from their own bodies often bring them up in their own religion. No "brainwashing" about it. "Early age indoctrination," yes, but that doesn't guarantee it will stick. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't.

[Gormy Cuss]

28. Well, they can't "save" native American children anymore.

Like those campaigns by earlier evangelicals who adopted Indian children, the child needn't be an orphan. The only requirement is being born poor in a different culture.

[DailyGrind51]

16. It's like converting analog signals to digital signals, weak reception in some areas.

[madfloridian]

18. I do NOT believe the link did not show....no one reminded me.

Which is usually the case when a link is missing.

It was in my original write-up, but misplaced brackets dropped part of the post.

Here is the link:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-02-06/evangelicals-adoption-battlecry/

And here is part of what else was inside the brackets.

"In the wake of the New Life fiasco, Russell Moore worried the news would “give a black eye to the orphan-care movement,” as anti-abortion vigilantes had to the pro-life movement—a lawless take on a shared agenda. But there are larger problems with the call for American Christians to adopt en masse. Among them are the widely misunderstood definitions of orphans, which lead to ever-ballooning estimates of children in need of adoption. Another is the strong taint of colonialism in casting American adopters as saviors and focusing on adoption as a solution for impoverished communities. In some countries in recent years, including Liberia and Ethiopia, religious adoption organizations have been singled out for censure by national authorities, accused of using church ties to legitimize unethical practices."

[PVnRT]

22. There's nothing really "new" about it

It's all part of the missionary zeal of extremist Christians. Clearly, these kids aren't going to do well in the "dark" countries, so we have to indoctrinate them with fundamentalist Protestant garbage to create new warriors for Christ.

[madfloridian]

23. In response to the "it's not new" posts.....that it is a "strategy" is new.

Of course it is not "new" in one sense....I grew up Southern Baptist, so I am aware of this. However, the wider awareness of it is new, their blatant use of it is new.

You can always "know" of something, but to see it talked about openly is another thing.

It was always presented to those of us in the church as a good and helpful thing, helping orphans. SBC even had special offerings for orphans.

But as in everything, the misuse of the idea is happening in what can be called thoughtless, and even illegal ways.

The importance of events can be overshadowed at DU by the words "it's not new."

I have seen it happen many times.

Yes, they have been doing it for years. But the utter blatant aspect of it now is new.

[madfloridian]

25. Plus I used the word "new" because the author herself used it.

"American evangelical churches are embracing a new orphan theology that urges Christians to see adoption and “orphan-care” as an integral part of their faith."

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-02-06/evangelicals-adoption-battlecry

[MyNameGoesHere]

24. Well they have made progress, they used to convert people and then burn them.

but that's what happens when man creates gods.

[TygrBright]

27. Oh, boy. This is one steel cage match I wanna watch...

:wow:

:popcorn:

[tbyg52]

31. Well, if you are a true believer of their ilk

you are saving these kids from hell, or making sure they participate in the rapture, or some such thing. Not that that makes it right, or anything other than a myth.

[LibertyLover]

35. As the parent of an adoptive child

reading this kind of story upsets me beyond belief. My husband and I had to jump through all sorts of hoops to get approved to adopt and yes, the cost was about $30,000. We adopted for a number of reasons, but in order to convert her was not one of them - loving her was. People who adopt solely to raise a child in a particular religion are, as far as I'm concerned, low lifes.

[madfloridian]

37. Excellent comments, thank you. You adopt to "love" a child, not convert.

It is an upsetting story.

[Mopar151]

38. I know of 2 couples who fostered "troubled " older kids - 4 each

Both Moms have control issues, one is a fundie. They are shocked when the kids turn 18 and look up their own families, and set out on their own paths in life.

[saracat]

39. It is absolutely horrifying that we as a nation support this in any way.I am revolted.

And to whomever made the point about the Catholics, that was dead on.It IS likely that the children were being raised Catholic and these so called missionaries had no respect for the parents, apparently either living or dead. This is just the arrogance of one Christan group attempting to flex its muscle over another. And at the expense of the lives of the children!This is vile.
I remember trying to convince my Dad (we were a catholic family) NOT to describe himself as a "Christian" because they didn't accept him as such. He just could not believe it. The reason I didn't want him to describe himself that way was it lead to arguments with the fundies. It stopped cold if he said he was Roman Catholic! They fled in horror.

[Nay]

40. If it were really about orphans and abandoned children, there wouldn't

be ANY kids (black or white) left unadopted here in this country. But there are hundreds of thousands waiting for adoption, kids the same age as the ones these crooks tried to take out of Haiti.

Secondly, many of the Haitian kids HAD parents or relatives -- they were just talked into giving up their kids. Maybe for money, maybe for hope of a better life, but they weren't orphans in need of any special help, other than the normal aid that should be given to any impoverished families.

Third, IMHO, the reason Haiti got its panties in a bunch about them taking kids is that the Dominican Republic is known for its child trafficking and catering to pedophiles, who arrive there from all over the world to have sex with kids.

Fourth, the head of this Baptist group, a 40ish woman, ran an orphanage in the states (it went bankrupt) and cannot claim that she did not know the rules about adoption -- the paperwork, etc. -- so she is a LIAR when she claims that. IMO, one of the reasons she took a bunch of 18-yr-olds to "help" her was that she knew if they got caught, they'd be in trouble, and by surrounding herself with kids, the claim that THEY were just dumb innocents might give her cover as well.

Fifth, the idea that they were going to start an orphanage and "villa" in DR is suspicious in itself--I agree with a poster above who says the donations to an orphanage would really be going to a seaside villa for this woman and her fellow crooks! If she adopted out a few kids a year, that would be all she needed to do to keep up the fiction and live in luxury on donations. Even worse, since this villa would be in DR, there's a reason to fear that she might indeed want to run an operation supplying pedophiles with children.

In any case, the Clintons are idiots for even giving that group the time of day.

[AllentownJake]

41. New Strategy?

Forgive me but they have been doing this for at least 50 years.

[Therellas]

45. beat me to it.

dang.lol

[burning rain]

42. New twist on colonialism.

As with colonialism, less-developed nations are targeted. And, this adoption movement has the same rationale: gotta Christianize the savages.

[Tsar_Bomba]

43. Don't use the word adopt when speaking about xians. Use kidnapping.

It's a better way to describe it. This is not new, the Catholic Church kidnapped thousands of Cubans for Pedro Pan.

[sulphurdunn]

44. Adoption should begin at home.

There are always at least 125,000 kids waiting to be adopted in the US. That's a lot of good work for these good soul saving Christians to get busy doing. Maybe, someone should tell them.

[DonCoquixote]

47. Suppose a Saudi Prince

One of these ones with tens of Billions, you know, like the ones that funded 9-11, were to decide to do a strategy like this to convert kids to Islam, the fundies would howl!

Too bad there are no Atheists willing to do the same.

[Anakin Skywalker]

50. Anything to Hike the Numbers (of Fundies)! Dirty Tactic!