They don't want Jesus. They want to be left alone. Jesus might have made this guy feel good but not everyone is interested.

https://aol.it/2zksBJ2

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/inside-north-sentinel-island-lost-13626685

North Sentinel Island is home to the indigenous Sentinelese who killed American missionary John Allen Chau - who was trying to convert them to Christianity by shouting: "My name is John, I love you and Jesus loves you."

The Sentinelese have rejected modern civilisation and have no contact with the outside world. Few photographs or videos exist, and it is not even known what they call themselves.

One thing is for certain, however. Their reputation is fearsome.

They have killed a number of outsiders who have strayed onto or too close to the island, which belongs to India and is about the size of Manhattan, over the years.

In 2006, the tribe killed two men who were fishing illegally in waters in the Bay of Bengal.

The men had moored their boat near the island to sleep, but they were killed when the boat broke loose and drifted onto the shore.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/22/2018 07:43AM by anybody.

Just mind your own damn business and leave them alone.

I wish the jehovah’s witnesses in my city would heed this warning.

All religions, frankly.

Many, many religions do not send missionaries and do leave people alone.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/22/2018 01:16PM by bona dea.

Right. Mainly those would be the ones who ignore the parts of their holy writs that say to go preach to others.

Look, no one deserves to be killed for being a jerk. We can agree on that.

However, Christians don't get to act like actively preaching to others is an anomaly. What a spin job saying that is not one of their primary directives straight from their holy writs.


There were times then this guy could have been viewed as a martyr for dying for his beliefs.

Whatver. Religious people cant do anything right according to you. Also, for the umpteenth time, all Christians are not Biblical litwralists.and there are other ways of spreading the faith such as service.

Are they accepting new members?

This year's Darwin award winner.

After the 2004 tsunami, they told the world they survived by shooting an arrow at the coast guard helicopter.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/6786476/ns/world_news-tsunami_a_year_later/t/stone-age-cultures-survive-tsunami-waves/#.W_bK_ehKjIU

As I stated on the other thread, this guy was a self-appointed "missionary." He did not subject himself to any candidacy procedure or review by any legitimate mission organization or denomination, no funding or training. He strikes me as a 1970s "Jesus Freak" crossed with an adventure tourist.

I'm a little suspect about reports that he called out to these natives in the name of Jesus. Who heard that, to report it? What language did he use, and did the fishermen understand that language? As irrational as his actions were, did he somehow think that the language he used would be understood by the aboriginals?

Was his body recovered? And if so, by whom?

But for those determined to portray Christians in a bad light, he'll do for now.

This guy's choice of behavior is not stereo-typical of most Christians.

Most Christians are not zealots. They exist, certainly, but are not the majority.

Agree. This seems to be another example of taking an extreme example and putting it on all Christians. Some posters have a habit of this and it really isnt honest.

I agree that this guy was dumb, doing what he did for God, so there will be no "legal" repercussions for these indigenous people, not that they would understand our ideas of laws and all....


but....


What if it was documented that they are raiding other islands, kidnapping women and children to maintain their breeding numbers (raping..), killing their enemies for their land and resources???

Does the civilized world allow that to continue unabated??

"Does the civilized world allow that to continue unabated??"

Syria
Yemen
Myanmar

et al



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/22/2018 12:39PM by Nightingale.

I post my whole question for more visibility..
"What if it was documented that they are raiding other islands, kidnapping women and children to maintain their breeding numbers (raping..), killing their enemies for their land and resources?"

Not sure if the countries you listed are fighting over resources, I thought it was moreover "control"...of people, ideology, etc, but it could be a greedy grab too..which Europe did to the Indians in North and South America...Now we didn't do much when ISIS captured and enslaved and raped the Yazidi people here in the "modern" age, so maybe we just leave them (native peoples encountered by the missionary killed by them..) completely alone AND we don't get bent out of shape when they act on their basic needs in a most basic fashion.

Land for living, mining, agriculture
Access to water, potable or navigatable
People for subjugation

The question is in whose name is the war fought?

Manifest destiny is a bitch.

I'm not sure about your "what if" question, but, in this case, the island is owned by India and they have passed laws making it illegal to contact the Sentinelese or travel within 3 miles of the the island. No reports of anyone sneaking off the island to kidnap and rape.

Obviously he was in violation of the law, but does Indian law allow the natives to kill trspassers without any sort of duebprocess if they were not in immediate physical danger? That is the question.

India tried to contact them many times and was finally like, "Leave these people alone."

So....let's say he made close contact with them and they died from some funky bacteria he brought from Vancouver, WA. Is he a mass murderer?

What do you suggest India do? Kill off this entire community by exposure to [insert disease HERE] in order to try them for, oh, not breaking the law?

Pfft. I'm glad they killed him. No outside contact is a survival imperative for them.

I don't know the legal answer to that, however, I don't believe the Indian government has any plans for retribution. They have detained the fishermen that took him there and it's unclear if they will try to contact them to get his body back. I'm not sure what you expect them to do, go in and wipe out the entire tribe for having defended their land?

I dont know what exactly should happen either, but killing him seems extreme. I do think the person who actually did the shooting should be investigated and if found to have acted illegally ,pay the penalty. I certainly dont think he should be executed- much less that the entire tribe should. A lot depends on Indian law and the exact circumstances. I doubt the law specifically states that the natives can shoot intruders on sight.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/22/2018 02:09PM by Beth.

Maybe the cant. I dont know, but they can try if they are not already doing so. What bothers me is that you are glad he was killed!!!.Sure, he was wrong, but your lack of compassion is disturbing.

ETA: This truly is a black and white situation. His life or theirs? Some dickhead's delusion, his defiance of well-known Indian laws and policy, and his desires to bring these people to Jesus versus their right to be left the hell alone.

They. Win.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/22/2018 02:34PM by Beth.

" 'A murder case has been registered against unknown persons,' Mr Pathak said, adding that the local fishermen suspected of illegally ferrying Chau to the 60-square-km island had been arrested on separate charges."

<snip>

"Police said in a statement that they had launched an investigation into Chau's death after being contacted by the U.S. consulate in Chennai."

<snip>


"Mr Pathak said a Coast Guard vessel with police and experts on the tribe had gone to scout the island and formulate a plan to recover Chau's body. North Sentinel Island is about 50 km west of Port Blair, the capital of the island cluster.

"Chau made two or three trips to the island by canoe from Nov. 15, making contact with the tribe but returning to his boat, Pathak said. He told the fishermen on Nov. 16 he would not come back from the island and instructed them to return home and pass on some handwritten notes he had made to a friend.

"The source, who asked not to be named, said Chau wrote that he was 'doing this to establish the kingdom of Jesus on the island...Do not blame the natives if I am killed.' "

https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/do-not-blame-the-natives-if-i-am-killed-us-missionary-wrote-in-notes-1951806?pfrom=home-topscroll

(New Delhi Television)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/22/2018 02:08PM by Beth.

The Sentinelese have a license to kill intruders, recognized by treaty. That’s why it’s illegal to visit, even if only to give them a hug and talk about Jesus. The “missionary” fully understood the “don’t go there, they will kill you” bit. But his faith in Jesus was stronger.

We have license to kill laws in our country too, but we are not India.

Now India has an international incident on its hands. There will be an investigation and hopefully fewer people will try to visit the island.

I understand that it's contrary to U.S. law to kill (murder) a U.S. citizen anywhere in the world, probably the FBI will consider investigating this (if victim is/was U.S.).

And investigations don't always turn into action.

That's true.

Sometimes a country will send agents to another country to poison its enemies and suffer no penalty. Sometimes a national leader will come to the US and have his security forces beat up Americans in the capital and suffer no penalty. Sometimes a government will lure an American resident to a third country, then torture, kill and dismember that US resident and pay no penalty. Indeed, sometimes the aggressor nation will be praised as a national ally and thanked for its help keeping commodity prices down.

The poor foolish man should not have died. I'm not sure what should happen now. I do think it unrealistic for Americans, given the national record, to find this situation particularly upsetting.

Hey - don't point guns at the cops and scream you're going to kill them. Bad idea.

Hey - don't ignore laws and explicit warnings that you need to stay the fuck away from these people. Bad idea.

I recognize most Christians are not "zealots" but they get to own this. The Bible makes is clear to go around and spread Jesus. That guy was actually acting on what the Bible teaches.

Historically Christians went out spreading their religion all over the world. Many Christian groups currently still send missionaries all over the world with Bibles. So, acting like this guy was not doing what they support all the time is disingenuous.


All it takes is visiting a historic Catholic mission in California or reading Poisenwood Bible and you realize this guy was simply doing what many other Christians have done in the service of their religion.


This is another example of Christians backing away from their Bible when embarrassed that someone followed it.

https://www.biblestudytools.com/topical-verses/bible-verses-for-missions/



Hmmm...all NT verses except the Psalm. Curious.

ETA: "As believers, we are called to actively spread God's words and love to make a positive difference in the world, whether it be our loved ones, or strangers from another country. Use this collection of Bible verses about missions for inspiration in making a difference in the world today."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/22/2018 01:10PM by Beth.

But note that on their missionary trips in Acts, Paul, Silas, Barnabas, Peter, and the others discoursed with recognized bodies and forums to proselytize, discuss, and debate: the synagogues, government halls, and Mars Hill, along with personal one-on-one opportunities such as Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch. Based on what we know so far, this guy was a self-styled, self-appointed adventure tourist without authorization of accountability to a legitimate missionary authority. Perfect fodder for Christophobes who congratulate themselves for their disdain of Christianity.

If they shoot an arrow into your bible, it means they want to be your friend. Maybe have you over for lunch. They don’t get American food often.

Regardless of his reckless and possibly offensive behavior, he WAS MURDERED.Along with condemning all Christians for either zealous proselyting or hypocrisy for not proselytizing, maybe we could mention that being a jerk, if he was a jerk, doesnt merit the death penalty.Also his behavior is on him alone, not all Christians.

based on *their* laws.

I know firsthand that my US passport does not protect me from the consequences of acting like a jerk in another country. And crying profusely might keep you from being arrested. Depends on where you are...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/22/2018 01:27PM by Beth.

An intruder was killed by the property owners after knowingly violating the laws of the government of India and being warned by those who killed him and returning even after being warned. His very presence on their property posed a threat the the life of the people through lack of immunity to biological virus and bacteria that he was carrying. Definitely not murder. They acted in self defense just as I would if someone entered my home and posed a threat to my loved ones and returned even after having been driven off once and having been strongly warned. No, it was not murder.

That remains to be seen as more facts come out, but unless they were threatend physically by him and in danger of bodily harm,shooting him was a vigilante act just about anywhere. If he was violating the law, the law should have dealt with it.I realize it may not be prosecutable, but I am a bit disturbed that no one seems to be bothered by the fact that he is dead regardless of his behavior.

In parts of the United States a homeowner can kill someone who comes to the door on Halloween and appears frightening.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Yoshihiro_Hattori

There are also the "stand your ground" laws that permit the shooting of trespassers who appear frightening.

I'm not sure why the Andaman situation, especially when Indian law protects the islanders in their territory and penalizes people who violate the law by approaching, is worse.

Killing is worse than trespassing in my book unless there is an immediate threat ny the trespasser. The stand your ground laws are being challenged by many. I object to them too and doubt that they will be upheld-at least in the most extreme form. I am not defending the missionary, but that doesnt make vigilante justice ok either. If it turns out that he was physically threatening them, that is different.

His mere presence was physically threatening to them. You must be missing that point.

I get that very well thank you and agree he should not have been there and should have been punished. I object to him being summmarily shot.

The "stand your ground" laws are terrible. I hope, but am not sure, that the US will be collectively intelligent enough to eliminate them. But the killing of the Japanese trick-or-treater occurred well before those laws were adopted. My point is simply that there is a pot-meets-kettle element to this story.

On the other hand, the situation in the Andamans is somewhat different. The concept of vigilantism depends on a common understanding of what the law is. Here we are talking about US sensitivities and overlooking both Sentinelese law and Indian law--not to mention treaty law with regard to distinct nations within India. It was a tragic death, to be sure, but I'm not sure that India should go in and impose American justice.

I did say several times that what happens will depend on INDIAN LAWS, not US laws. It will also depend on what actually appended.

Yes, I know. But you did employ the term "vigilantism," which presumes the existence of relevant law and the enforcement of such by private persons.

You also presume that Indian law applies on the island, which is not clear. The US has treaties granting significant legal autonomy to Native American tribes, and either formal or conventional agreements may likewise put this beyond the reach of Indian law.

Then whatever law applies, if any, should apply to the shooter. I don't pretend to know Indian law or how much applies to the natives.and I suspect no one else here does either. If Indian laws don't apply, there is tribal law. Does tribal law allow anyone who tRespasses to be summarily shot? I don't know,but kind of suspect not. Most legal systems have some rules about executing someone and it usually isn't shoot first and ask questions later. He may not be prosecutors for many reasons-which I also said several times, but I am disturbed by people who think about shootings an unarmed trespasser is ok. Even if it is legal under local law, I find it objectionable.

All true.

The one point I would add is that the 3 or 4 articles I read on the topic state that the reason India hived the island off is because the islanders almost always kill outsiders who come to their island. It therefore seems that their customs allow, or even demand, the execution of intruders.

I use the word "execution" instead of "murder" because if killing enjoys social sanction, it is not unethical--witness capital punishment in the US. This may be a case in which western standards render the man's death appalling but do not coincide with local "law."

Why do you suspect that their own "laws" as you call it wouldn't allow them to defend their right to exist by killing those who refuse to leave after having been warned? They very well could have already been exposed to disease and all of them could very well perish because of his presence.
https://www.survivalinternational.org/news/12031

But I do agree with you on the point that his actions shouldn't be a reflection of or judgment against Christians or any other religion. He was a nutcase and the loss of any life is a tragedy, but in this case it wasn't murder or vigilantism. If anything, it was suicide. Let's hope that the entire population doesn't perish too through disease because of his foolishness.

They were threatened physically by him. They know what the diseases can do to them. I object to your calling this an act of vigilantism. They have every right to defend their right to exist and to send as strong a message as possible for everyone to stay away and leave them alone. They warned him first and he returned, knowing what would happen. No, it was not murder, it was not vigilantism. I would also question India's right to govern them and the application of the laws of India on them. They are their own people, sovereign citizens and always have been.

I'm not sure the word "sovereign," which is itself a legal concept, applies in this case. But they may well be legally autonomous.

In either case, I agree that the word "vigilantism" doesn't make sense.

India considers them sovereign.
https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/isolated-tribe-kills-american-tourist-on-remote-island-in-andaman-sea-but-who-are-sentinelese/story-QV06OcI9cujDTflqw1eyBP.html

Well, that depends. If they were sovereign they could conclude treaties with foreign powers and allow other countries to put military bases on their island. I doubt that India would permit China to put an airstrip there or the US navy to sail ships through what would be Sentinel's territorial waters.

The Sentinelism are, however, clearly autonomous under Indian sovereignty.

This is my opinion, too.

He was intentionally, and with full awareness, breaking international law....he was trespassing....he had been repeatedly warned by those on the outside, as well as those on the inside, to NOT do this....and his simply being there was an immediate, lethal threat to every person living there.

They were protecting themselves, and they had a right to do so.

I agreenhe was breaking the law and should have been punished, but without physical threats on his part, killing him was not ok in my book.I am not sure what Indian laws apply here, but I cant justify it in my mind unless the natives were being attacked by him.If they were, it is a different matter of course. It may not be a case that can be prosecuted depending on circumstances and local law, but no one seems disturbed that he is dead and some posters are using it as an excuse to blame all Christians. In one case the poster is going after all religions.

The physical threat of his presence there was real. Why don't you just acknowledge that? Up to 90% of indigenous Americans perished from that same physical threat.

"If I knew for a certainty that a man was coming to my house with the conscious design of doing me good, I should run for my life, as from that dry and parching wind of the African deserts called the simoom, which fills the mouth and nose and ears and eyes with dust till you are suffocated, for fear that I should get some of his good done to me — some of its virus mingled with my blood."

- Henry David Thoreau, book Walden, chapter Economy

This was a variation on the theme. To wit: If you come to my house with the conscious design of doing me good, you should run for your life.

Yes, extreme by our standards, but their standards were known. Mr Chau apparently didn't believe them, or assumed he would be protected because Jesus. Not so much.

if he thought that deeply.

He knew he was not suppose to be there. He also knew why. He knew that his presence on that island could lead to the death of every man woman and child in that tribe. He has a college degree in health and exercise. His presence put them at risk of genocide. He did not care.

Much of the reporting, particularly in the US press, has emphasized the risks that he knowingly took with regard to his own life. But the real problem was that he was risking the lives of this tribe.

We won't know if his actions have led to the genocide of this tribe, something he fully knew was possible, and didn’t care. That may take several weeks or months to find out. Also, these misguided calls for investigations of who might have shot him cannot be done without risking a genocide of this tribe. Again, something this guy did not seem to care about.

Christian missionaries associated with Mr. Chau talk about this guy showing his love for these people, when all I see is his contempt. Tribes in the Amazon have been wiped out the same way by missionaries showing their version of love.

So sad. So stupid. So contemptuous.