3 ms·

I'd just point out that Suki Kim's book is really an ethical morass, as you can certainly make the argument that she put the people she used to work with in a t

by tdees40 12y ago

I'd just point out that Suki Kim's book is really an ethical morass, as you can certainly make the argument that she put the people she used to work with in a terrible position. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/30/world/tales-told-out-of-school-in-pyongyang-cause-stir.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/30/world/tales-told-out-of-sc...

ivraatiems 12y ago
Interesting. I think I will have to read this now, but I'm not sure I want to pay for it if it's funded by deception. A couple of thoughts just from the article: Bad deeds do not wipe out good, nor vice versa. If Christians are helping the impoverished or teaching English because they want to convert people, that doesn't make giving a hungry person food any less of a good thing to do (this is a general example). When she says "it's another code word for what they're doing," she doesn't go on to explain what that means. What ARE they doing? I think if she had a concrete, non-easily-objected-to explanation of the problems with what she'd observed, she'd have come out and said it. She describes their general goals, as she sees them, earlier in the article, but provides no evidence or justification for those conclusions.
- glesica 12y ago
  She did explain it, they are seeking to establish a foothold for Christianity in North Korea so that, at some point in the future when the regime falls or changes its mind about religion, they can "capture" the country. This isn't a very complicated idea, it's how missionaries operate in countries that frown on their work.
  - ivraatiems 12y ago
    I understand the idea, but without any evidence, it seems kinda paranoid to just assume that is automatically the case. Hopefully the book explains why she reached that conclusion about her colleagues. In any case, assuming it is true, I don't support it necessarily - but again, it is hard for me to say "no, bad!" when they are also making a legitimate effort to help North Koreans.

by tdees40 12y ago

ivraatiems 12y ago

Interesting. I think I will have to read this now, but I'm not sure I want to pay for it if it's funded by deception. A couple of thoughts just from the article: Bad deeds do not wipe out good, nor vice versa. If Christians are helping the impoverished or teaching English because they want to convert people, that doesn't make giving a hungry person food any less of a good thing to do (this is a general example). When she says "it's another code word for what they're doing," she doesn't go on to explain what that means. What ARE they doing? I think if she had a concrete, non-easily-objected-to explanation of the problems with what she'd observed, she'd have come out and said it. She describes their general goals, as she sees them, earlier in the article, but provides no evidence or justification for those conclusions.

glesica 12y ago
She did explain it, they are seeking to establish a foothold for Christianity in North Korea so that, at some point in the future when the regime falls or changes its mind about religion, they can "capture" the country. This isn't a very complicated idea, it's how missionaries operate in countries that frown on their work.
- ivraatiems 12y ago
  I understand the idea, but without any evidence, it seems kinda paranoid to just assume that is automatically the case. Hopefully the book explains why she reached that conclusion about her colleagues. In any case, assuming it is true, I don't support it necessarily - but again, it is hard for me to say "no, bad!" when they are also making a legitimate effort to help North Koreans.