BRAZIL: US Missionary Faces “Genocide” Charge After Trying To Share Jesus With Remote Indigenous Tribe

[Potoooooooo]

https://www.joemygod.com/2019/01/br...-to-share-jesus-with-remote-indigenous-tribe/

A Christian missionary may be charged with “genocide” by Brazillian authorities after he illegally came in contact with a remote tribe.

The missionary allegedly entered an area occupied by the remote and protected Hi-Merimã tribe sometime last month while attempting to evangelize a neighboring tribe. The Hi-Merimã is one of a few dozen isolated communities in Brazil that have had almost no contact with the outside world and have limited immunity to outside diseases.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

How many did he kill? From the article, it sounds like zero.

If he didn’t kill anybody, it sounds like it would be kind of tough to get a genocide charge to stick.

 

[Keith&Co.]

But these are the end times, where the Faithful were promised persecution for simply being faithful.
So, if he has taken a body worth of diseases they've never developed a defense to into contact, then a suggestion of maybe callously creating a Star Trek-like threat 'to all life on board' must be a trumped up charge against his faith...

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

These tribes were put off limits because they have no immunity to many diseases. They could be wiped out if some fool goes there are brings say, influenza with him or her. This moron had that explained to him but decided to ignore common sense and to disobey the law.
May he be sent to prison for a long, long time. A head on a pike to discourage other fools for also thinking ignoring the law is a good idea.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

These tribes were put off limits because they have no immunity to many diseases. They could be wiped out if some fool goes there are brings say, influenza with him or her. This moron had that explained to him but decided to ignore common sense and to disobey the law.
May he be sent to prison for a long, long time. A head on a pike to discourage other fools for also thinking ignoring the law is a good idea.

Even if he knew that, it doesn't justify a genocide charge. That would only be valid if he actually committed genocide, not put people at risk of genocide.

It's like how drunk drivers aren't arrested for vehicular homicide despite the fact that they knowingly took an action which put people at risk of getting killed by their car. That charge only becomes valid at the point where they actually hit and kill someone.

 

[Atheos]

What if the Brazilian law in question actually states that anyone breaking it will be considered guilty of genocide? Sounds more like reckless endangerment to me, but the wording of the law would have a big impact on what the charge would be.

 

[skepticalbip]

Could it be that the report on joemygod.com was a bit hyperbolic??? Near the bottom of that article, it also had the line:

About two months ago another American Christian missionary was killed after trying to contact an isolated tribe on an island in the Bay of Bengal.

This seems to be trying to give the impression that American Christian missionaries are under assault and threatened everywhere. But isn't this line actually referring to that missionary that was warned by officials to stay away from the North Sentinel Island both because the island was off limits to any visitors and that the Sentinelese would kill anyone trying to land there. He landed there and the Sentinelese killed him.

The reports I have read in newspapers say that the case against the missionary is still being investigated, that he hasn't yet been charged but could be charged with a slew or charges including possibly genocide. I would assume (and hope) that genocide charges would only be made if the investigation discovered that many of the isolated tribe were infected with something like influenza or had already died from it.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

What if the Brazilian law in question actually states that anyone breaking it will be considered guilty of genocide? Sounds more like reckless endangerment to me, but the wording of the law would have a big impact on what the charge would be.

Then that would be a really fucking stupid law and the guy still wouldn't be guilty of genocide. A country could make a law that someone who parks in front of a fire hydrant is guilty of genocide, but that would just make it dumb when they say that these people are guilty of genocide, even if it would be technically correct for them to say that.

 

[steve_bank]

Cultural genocide in Central/South America was the norm by Catholics.

In the 19th century and early 2oth centuries Chrismans practiced cultural genocide on Native Americans. Destruction of language, customs and culture, and tribe by forced indoctrination of youth into Christianity.

They exist to convert regardless of consequences.

 

[Atheos]

What if the Brazilian law in question actually states that anyone breaking it will be considered guilty of genocide? Sounds more like reckless endangerment to me, but the wording of the law would have a big impact on what the charge would be.

Then that would be a really fucking stupid law and the guy still wouldn't be guilty of genocide. A country could make a law that someone who parks in front of a fire hydrant is guilty of genocide, but that would just make it dumb when they say that these people are guilty of genocide, even if it would be technically correct for them to say that.

You know, you're right. No government ever enacts really fucking stupid laws. Don't know what I was thinking.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

What if the Brazilian law in question actually states that anyone breaking it will be considered guilty of genocide? Sounds more like reckless endangerment to me, but the wording of the law would have a big impact on what the charge would be.

Then that would be a really fucking stupid law and the guy still wouldn't be guilty of genocide. A country could make a law that someone who parks in front of a fire hydrant is guilty of genocide, but that would just make it dumb when they say that these people are guilty of genocide, even if it would be technically correct for them to say that.

You know, you're right. No government ever enacts really fucking stupid laws. Don't know what I was thinking.

I learned something today, as well.