I heard today that some of the major religious leaders in the US are thinking about sending missionaries to Iraq for humanitarian aid and to preach the Gospel to our new Muslim "friends". Y'all think this is a good idea or are we asking for trouble?  

No, I think it is asking for trouble.  Also, do you really think extremists would allow missionaries to exist there in the heart of the middle east without blowing them up or kidnapping people?

Damn straight it's a bad idea.  Franklin Graham and all those other evangelists are completely clueless.

Could we send over a couple of reverands like Jesse or Al?

Who are these major religious leaders anyhow?  The TBN gang?  Raven was right on when he said they have no f*cking clue as to what they would be getting into.  Those money grubber's at TBN have no business overthere anyhow.

Bad idea.  Can you imagine how they would take to somebody like Benny Hinn?  About the only thing more worthless than an evangelical preacher dressed in a zoot suit and sporting a pompadour is a California politician. That poor country has suffered enough. [rolleyes]

NO!, that's pure P.S.  Look at history's past and look at how many places of unique culture have been stripped of their way of life because a white man with a crucifix.  It's b.s.

If they need religious aid, send help from the muslim parties etc.

You do know that there are roughly 500,000 native Iraqi Christians, right?

Why would sending over American evangelicals be useful?

HELL NO!!!!  

They already have a Christian population and are exposed the knowledge that christianty is an option and will resent any attempt on our part to get them to switch.

Also who knows, their religion might be right.


Bobwrench

Who is this "we" that is sending them over?
Are they going over themselves, paying their own way?  Then they should be allowed to go.  It's their dime, their life.
But I don't want the US government involved in any way.

YES

We should be sending Christian missionaries to every country on the planet.

I'd rather the government spent money doing that than spitting out welfare checks to people who are perfectly capable of getting a job.

There should be plenty of money in the church to send missionaries though, the church should not need government subsidies.

Sending missionaries is not the governments responsibility as much as it's not the governments responsibility to support lazy people.

YES. In fact we should send them to Southern Iraq where most of the population are Shiite Muslims

and I do know that Baghdad alone has a population of almost 5 million

it wouldn't be useful at all, especially considering that the Christians in Iraq are Coptic Christians which is the oldest and purest form of Christianity, unpolluted by the poorly translated and inaccurate king james bible.

No, we shouldn't.  As stated above, many civilizations have been destroyed by these so-called christias with the backing of their gov's using the cross as alibi to "reeducate" (slaughter, and force then to accept Jesus)those who don't believe in the Christ.

allah is still dead

Jesus rose from the dead

FYI, Allah didn't die, Muhammad did.  Yes Muhammad is still dead [:D]

The best thing Christian missionaries can do for society is to try to hold their breath for 10 minutes.  Or take up free diving (sky diving with no equipment).  Or spread the gospel above the arctic circle.  In the nude.

Hell yes, send them all. That way, they won't come knocking on my door.

1) What's with the animosity towards missionaries... I mean, most Christian churches send their missionaries to do actual good AS WELL AS spread the faith. And for the most part they don't knock on doors (Jehovah's Witnesses are NOT representatives of Christiantity (though they claim they are). They are a cult, or a separate religoen, depending on who you ask), telemarket, etc.

2) The missionaries know they are going into a hostile environment over there. They're not going to be a problem unless we make them one, and most are prepared to deal with whatever problems they may encounter (prepared to survive is another story, but they're missionaries not soldiers. The hazards come with the territory).

2) The 'New Iraq' is supposed to be a democracy, where people are free to choose their way of life, INCLUDING religeon. The extremists will fight that no matter what, but for progress to be made, these extremists must be rooted out. The best way to do this is to introduce choices (especially formerly 'verboten' items) and see who breaks the law to oppose said freedom of choice. When they do, it's time to practice our book-throwing skills.

4) We're allowing the sale of booze, and many other things that will PO the muslim radicals. Iraq is not Iran, and there are enough different groups, and enough of a 'Islamic-in-name-only' (similar to the USA's 'Christian-in-name-only') population to make containing the radicals doable...

5) That said, we shouldn't do anything special for the missionaries unless it coincides with US interests in Iraq. The government shouldn't support them (unless they're working on a needed humanitarian mission), but shouldn't discourage them from going either...

I agree.

Sorry too late. Iranian Shia "missionaries" are already there.

As for Christian "missionaries", much like "celebrities" who go to Iraq they can do whatever they want to do. Just so long as they are not funded by or endorsed by the US government.

If they want to do it with their own funds out of the goodness of their own heart, feel free.

Whether missionaries go or not, the US will still be accused of Christian "crusading" no matter what we do.

Just the Christian white guys huh?

Christian missionaries have been getting kidnapped, shnt, blown up, beheaded, etc for centuries...

If they are going to Iraq (and some, at least, were in Iraq illegally when Hussein was in power. Those guys definitely know...), they know what they're getting into...