I've had enough of you people! I'm leaving!

Well for some. I was in Belgium on Tuesday for the day, which is likely to be the most travelling that I do for a while.

I'll give you a clue. When Belgium ruled, the then, Congolese shot up the Belgians. Now they shoot up each other.

Not going to Miami this summer?

depends... if Black can take venezula this turn that'd be a game changer. Knocking pink out of Europe would be the priority.

Blue is toast.

The first version I played (about 1977 or so) had the three-sided pieces for single armies and the six-sided pieces for the "10" armies.

Not to worry; I'm back, safe and sound. Glad to be back in civilized territory again, I admit. As much as I enjoy visiting Madagascar, for example, the Congo isn't nearly as nice. Beautiful, but corruption you can't believe. Unfortunately, I have a huge amount of work to do in the next week or so, followed by scout camp, so I still won't be around the board much until August. But when I get the time, I'll post some pics and tell you all about it.

All I can say for now is: I have less and less hope for the Congo. I won't stop my humanitarian efforts for them, of course, because they still help those in need, but I just can't see the country becoming a decent place until there are some serious changes in a number of areas of their mentality.

Are you going to post pictures and further details in the Green Room again? I enjoyed the last thread.

Yes. In fact, I have a whole collection of lovely pictures from my last visit to Madagascar. But those threads take a lot of time, and I've been pretty busy the last few months. I'm planning on doing it, though: "Madagascar 2012 -- baobab country". Look for it maybe in September.

Don't know if I'll do a GR thread on this last trip to Congo, though. I don't have as many scenic pictures, and the issues are more political. It would make better RR fodder.

But thanks for the encouragements. I'll get the next travelogue up when I can.

"Humanitarian efforts"!

Such posh names for brainwashing these days.

I'm not sure about the particulars of what Asyncritus does, but religious groups often do very useful humanitarian work, which often does not come with strings attached.

Spreading the good word of JAY-SUS!!!!!

Id' be really interested to know the politics about what's going on.

Oh, I'll get to it; I have a lot of information on that. Just don't have time for it now. Some of it is slightly encouraging, but not a lot.

Hopefully, early next year, a good friend of mine who is a member of Parliament will be coming to France to visit. That will give me some more information, as we didn't have many chances to talk this time (he was too busy with parliamentary activities). But I'll do a thread on the social, cultural, and/or political situation in the Congo (maybe even more than one) before that. Probably in August.

The DRC is 95% Christian so I'd be surprised if he was trying to suck up the last 5%.

It just occurred to me to wonder about something, which hopefully El Chup will be able to explain (since he obviously knows more about these things than I do): Since I go to the Congo to convert them all to my beliefs, does that mean this MP will come to France to convert us all to his beliefs?

Please, Chup, tell me now, so I'll be able to warn the French people ahead of time, in case that is why he is coming.

Yeah, that's what makes it hard about going to Congo to force my beliefs on them.

Asyncritus, in the street, trying to force a person to "convert": (Grabs him by the shirt) Friend, Jesus loves you! You need to repent of your sins and believe in him!
Other person, with a big smile of pure joy: Amen, brother! Preach it!
Asyncritus, disappointed, letting go of him: I see I'm wasting my time here...

Next attempt:

Asyncritus, grabbing the next passerby: All those who don't believe will go straight to hell! Jesus is the only hope!
Passerby, looking amazed: That's wonderful, brother! Are you a Christian, too? Would you be willing to come preach in my church next Sunday?
Asyncritus moves on, frustrated again, saying nothing...

One more attempt:

Asyncritus, preaching to a crowd of people on the street: Jesus is the only way! God loves you, and he is the only hope! All the non-believers will perish!
Whole crowd, to the last man, woman, child, or stray dog: Amen! Let's have a revival! We can start by singing a hymn together. (They all start to sing together, knowing the words by heart, because they all sing it regularly in their various churches. Yes, even the dog.)

How can I force my beliefs on these people when they already believe the same things I do? Are they purposely making me waste my time? Why do they hate me so much?

Now he'll accuse you of only caring about them because they're Christians.

I just find his trolling amusing. He thinks he is discrediting me somehow, but all he really does is discredit himself. Normally, he knows what he's talking about but here he has made it obvious to everyone that he doesn't know what he's talking about, doesn't care what he's been told over and over and over again (that I don't go to third world countries to do evangelism), and simply trolls because of his intense dislike for Christianity.

But at least he is good for laughs.

So while we're at it, why don't you do evangelism when you go to those countries, such as Madagaskar, that are not as thoroughly Christianised? I'm assuming here that you want them to lead better lives, are going there in order to help them do just that, believe Christianity would make their lives better, and that you believe yourself to be at least as able as the average preacher to convert and persuade. If all of that were true of me, I'd probably engage in evangelism.

For a couple of reasons, which are related to each other. The first one is that I am not a big believer in "hit and run" evangelism, where you accost some stranger and try to "share the good news" with him. I have no problem with letting someone know that I have found what I believe to be good, workable answers for my life, and letting him know as much as he wants (if he wants to know it) about what I believe and why, so that he can make an informed decision about whether or not he wants what I have. But that requires getting to know him, spending time with him, getting involved in his life and, most off all, letting him get involved in my life, so that he can see, not just from my carefully rehearsed and manipulated words, but from how I live, what I actually have found.

Which brings us to the second reason: To do the kind of evangelism that I find the most effective, you have to be able to spend a lot of time with the people and, especially, be a part of their culture. I can do that in America, or in France, but not in third world countries where I don't speak the local languages and have "rich foreigner who is not part of my world" written into the very color of my skin. I enjoy spending time with Christians in those countries, if they want to, but I think that where those who don't share my beliefs are concerned, it is best not to try to go into such personal issues. I can talk to them about humanitarian projects, because there the cultural issue is fully expected (they want "rich foreigners" to help organize and finance such things), but unless someone really wants to know about my personal beliefs (which almost never happens) I simply am not enough invested in their culture to be able to do anything more than what seems to me pretty much like an intrusion into their personal lives.

As my previous comments indicate, I do not believe that, in those kinds of cultural contexts, I am "at least as able as the average preacher to convert and persuade".

In any case, I do not believe I or anyone else can or should "convert" anyone; people should be able to make totally free choices, that are strictly between themselves and God. Historically, Christianity already made enough of a mess of everything in Europe with the forced "conversions" of most of the continent. That not only didn't help the Europeans, it also turned Christianity into something fundamentally different from the actual teachings of Jesus, something wicked and unappealing that is no help to anyone.

Make some comments about this, Bick.

Ok, now that I have a chance to sit down and comment, this is essentially the reason why I wasn't very enthusiastic about going on a mission for my church.

While I wouldn't have been sent to a high Mormon population area, the idea of having to proselytize is a rather daunting one. LDS missionaries aren't really the type to street preach; they generally work on contacts from withing the local wards and branches, and failing that, they go door-to-door. Given my (slowly slipping) fluency in French, chances are that I would have been sent on a foreign-speaking mission rather than one in the States (or Canada). Beyond that, the convert retention is always a challenge, because the missionaries that helped with the conversions are transferred to other wards or districts, so the familiar, friendly face that the convert has been relying on is suddenly gone, and they're forced to either get their own testimony strengthened or rely on the ward or branch, and they might not feel confident enough to do so, so they slip through the cracks and go inactive in the church.

Also, to note, being an LDS missionary requires a total commitment to the church for two years, essentially eschewing the secular world. In many ways this is a noble goal, but it's not something I'd particularly enjoy. I still wouldn't, largely in part because there are a number of social matters in which I disagree with the church (its stance on gay marriage, for example). Financially, the missionary and their family are expected to pay as much of it as possible. Where that falls short, the ward will pitch in, followed by the church's missionary fund. While the argument could be made that the church should shoulder the entire cost of a mission, I actually agree with the church's model and expectation -- it helps give value to the mission and encourage the missionary to give it his (or her) all, and with such a sacrifice on the missionary's and their family's part, make the mission the best two years of their life (argumentatively speaking).

When I did finally decide to go on a mission, I was at the upper end of the age range the church likes to send out (19 used to be the norm; it was lowered to 18 last October). To everyone's surprise, Salt Lake honorably excused me from serving. I honestly can't say if I missed out on my 'two best years', because I never experienced them to know if they would have been or not. Not going was both a relief and a disappointment, but looking back, probably more a relief. Salt Lake, my understanding goes, never honorably excuses potential missionaries. Those that are excused usually have some self-inflicted blemish that they hadn't worked out or fixed.

There are often Mormon missionaries around here. (The French joke about their name badges, since they are always both "named" Elder.) I actually like getting together with them when I can, because I have the only locally-available supply of root beer and Kool-aid, and because they were almost always scouts (and usually eagles). Sometimes we even talk religion, though not always. But I have done so enough to discover that Mormons, unlike Jehovah's Witnesses, do not have monolithic beliefs; their church allows and even apparently encourages them to think.

The big problem is that they change so fast. Often, they're only here for a few weeks at a time, or a few months at the most. They can't do anything but the "hit and run" evangelism. I have always had cordial visits with them, but never been able to actually become friends with any of them, because they're not around long enough. I have asked them why the Mormons don't have career missionaries like other groups, but I can't remember what the answer was. But it sure seems to me that they would be more effective if they did. (Not that I have any important investment in the outcome either way, since I disagree seriously with a number of important Mormon beliefs.)

Always the nicest, most helpful guys you could ever want, though. The kind of guys who could actually attract people to their church just by the fact that they aren't the cold, dogmatic, hypocritical religious types that the French usually associate with the Catholic Church (the only religious group they really know, though they're getting to know a bit more about Islam -- which doesn't help the general attitude towards religion...). But since they don't settle down and become a part of the culture, they lose at least 75% of their efficiency.

Yeah, LDS missionaries are impressive. They go into a foreign country at a very young age and try to connect - - often to people they have no reason to expect will be friendly in return. I quite admire their conviction, communicative attitude, and respect for learning.

I also seem to remember that two of the guys that used to come round to my place would insist on only drinking water or juice, as all other beverages would defile their temple body, so your root beer story is interesting.

Root beer is Mormon holy water! They aren't allowed to drink anything that contains any alcohol, caffeine, or anything else that can have an effect on one's mental state. Since root beer contains none of that, it's their big thing. But since root beer is so rare in Europe, they don't often run into people here who offer it to them. When they do, it really makes their day.

Root beer is one of the few points on which I would make a good Mormon.

Um. I wonder if they are aware of the effect of high concentrations of sugar on your mind?

My experience with Mormons is that they are either good salt of the Earth types that are genuinely nice, giving people or completely batshit (ie, Glenn Beck, although he was a late in life convert). But in either case I've yet to find any that are rank hypocrites like what's common in most other Christian sects.

Why do you think they have so much energy to do their missionary bit?

Mormons can't drink booze?