the missionaries

March 30, 2003 11:25 AM

Plans Under Way for Christianizing the Enemy. "Two leading evangelical Christian missionary organizations said Tuesday that they have teams of workers poised to enter Iraq to address the physical and spiritual needs of a large Muslim population." (from Buzzflash) God please save me from your followers!
posted by thedailygrowl (47 comments total)

Sigh. Man, they are just getting lazy, they aren't even TRYING to cover it up anymore.

Haliburton, mass conversions, oil contracts....
posted by CrazyJub at 11:30 AM on March 30, 2003

sickening.
posted by donkeyschlong at 11:31 AM on March 30, 2003

if i were iraqi, that would be enough to make me paint a giant "weapons of mass destruction here!" bullseye on the roof of my house.
posted by birdherder at 11:42 AM on March 30, 2003

Going Postal here......
posted by JohnR at 11:43 AM on March 30, 2003

Sigh. Man, they are just getting lazy, they aren't even TRYING to cover it up anymore

What should they be trying to cover up? These are two private organizations who want to promote whatever their ideaology is. Are you saying they shouldn't be allowed to do so?

donkeyschlong: sickening

From the article: "Both organizations said their priority will be to provide food, shelter and other needs to Iraqis ravaged by recent war and years of neglect. But if the situation presents itself, they will also share their Christian faith in a country that's estimated to be 98 percent Muslim and about 1 percent Christian."

Interesting definition of "sickening".
posted by jsonic at 11:44 AM on March 30, 2003

"And I will tell you Allah is not Jehovah, either. Jehovah's not going to turn you into a terrorist," Vines said.

But the New Crusaders might.
posted by bargle at 11:46 AM on March 30, 2003

It's a pleasant thought to think of a world released from the scourge of religious fundamentalism.

John 10:10

The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.

posted by four panels at 11:51 AM on March 30, 2003

sickening

What? Why is this sickening? Missionaries going to a country to provide food and shelter is not sickening. Missionaries sharing their religious beliefs with Iraqis is not sickening. This is HARDLY akin to the Crusades. There will be no forced conversions here. Does freedom of religious expression really sicken you?

And if we're going to spout Bible verses, how about Mark 16:15, "[Jesus] said to them, 'Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. '"
posted by marcusb at 12:04 PM on March 30, 2003

when the "relief" is coming from gay-bashing, single-mother-bashing, infidel-bashing southern baptist organizations, i am sickened, yes -- and distrustful.

you're the same folks who gave big ups to rudy g for refusing that saudi check for $10 million right after 9/11, right?
posted by donkeyschlong at 12:13 PM on March 30, 2003

I'm as skeptical of organized religion as anyone, but I have to agree that private missionary organizations planning to provide humanitarian relief shows no diabolical government plan, nor is it sickening. While I disagree with a lot of what they believe in, I also think the world would be worse off without the efforts of missionaries willing to go and help out in places most of us would never dream of going.
posted by chris24 at 12:14 PM on March 30, 2003

The goal of providing relief and shelter is honorable and of course not sickening. The problem is with perception. Sending christian evangelical missionaries to the Muslim world following closely behind American tanks and guns is just too much of an historical parallel to be overlooked.

Most Americans cannot fathom that the cultural memory of islamic peoples extends back to the Middle Ages and well before, unlike our own, which seems only to extend to the last episode of Joe Millionaire. I'll wager that most Americans can barely tell you where Antietam was let alone have a grasp of the historical significance of the crusades.

The US has a difficult enough time with its image in the Mideast as it is be insensitive to these types of issues. It may seem innocuous to most of us, but this kind of thing will definitely fan the flames of an already blazing inferno.

It would just be much less complicating for them to go in as a secular aid organization.
posted by psmealey at 12:20 PM on March 30, 2003

you're the same folks who gave big ups to rudy g for refusing that saudi check for $10 million right after 9/11, right?

Nope. Never heard of that until now. Nice attempt at stereotyping though. Here's a concept for you: I can support someone's right to do something without agreeing with everything they stand for. Just because these people have different beliefs than you doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to help those in physical need.
posted by jsonic at 12:24 PM on March 30, 2003

Required reading: Silence by Shusaku Endo.
posted by four panels at 12:26 PM on March 30, 2003

It's a pleasant thought to think of a world released from the scourge of religious fundamentalism.

Amen to that. And while I agree with marcusb that we may run the risk of demonizing Christians here, the majority of whom seem to be condemning the war, the headline does us the word "Christianize" — just as Bush once used the word "Crusade" to describe the war on terror, before being reminded that American Muslims, who tend to be social conservatives, voted for him in a block in the last election, and tend to react negatively to the "C" word. But the "C" word here seems to be slant of the headline writer, not the author, who offers up a pretty balanced view of the controversy, I thought.

Missionaries who aid others in expectation of the quid pro quo of conversion would not be acting in an entirely unselfish way, many Christians would argue.

Take heed, that ye do not your rightwiseness before men, to be seen of them, else ye shall have no meed at your Father that is in heavens — Wycliffe NT, Matthew 6
posted by hairyeyeball at 12:26 PM on March 30, 2003

Remember: reading the Bible + accepting Jesus = oil for food.
posted by WolfDaddy at 12:38 PM on March 30, 2003

Hairyeyeball said: Missionaries who aid others in expectation of the quid pro quo of conversion would not be acting in an entirely unselfish way, many Christians would argue.

Right. So maybe the truly Christian thing for them to do, if they are not (as they are say they are not) interested in preaching along with the aid, would be to write a big fat check for some non-demoninational group such as OXFAM. But I'm not holding my breath.
posted by carter at 12:54 PM on March 30, 2003

So, that's their position then is it? Missionaries. Hmm.
posted by Dick Paris at 1:04 PM on March 30, 2003

Missionary: from dictionary.com
1. One who is sent on a mission, especially one sent to do religious or charitable work in a territory or foreign country.
2. One who attempts to persuade or convert others to a particular program, doctrine, or set of principles; a propagandist.

Franklin Graham called Islam "a very evil and wicked religion" during an interview on NBC, the television network. In his book published last year, "The Name," Graham wrote that "The God of Islam is not the God of the Christian faith." He went on to say that "the two are different as lightness and darkness."

I'm all for humanitarian aide being sent to Iraq and for people to help the homeless and the hungry, but when a group that is tied to a leader who speaks hateful things about Islam tries to send help, I'm going to be a bit suspicious (and the above show of ignorance not only leads me to distrust this Graham's particular organization but his words also stain my view of Christianity).
posted by Stynxno at 1:07 PM on March 30, 2003

the problem is, they can never resist baiting and setting the hook.

but for once I'd like to see the vatican do some of its outdated, patented flexing-in-disapproval...so amusing it would be, to see the US slapped with an interdiction.
posted by dorian at 1:31 PM on March 30, 2003

They just don't get it do they?
posted by wfrgms at 1:34 PM on March 30, 2003

Missionaries who aid others in expectation of the quid pro quo of conversion would not be acting in an entirely unselfish way, many Christians would argue.

Wow ... This is such a distorted perspective of what missionaries do in the 21st century. Sure, there may have been a time when some missionaries used the old bait and switch tactic to win converts, but you'd be hard pressed to show me many examples of that still happening today. I mean, I guess that Mother Theresa was a cold-hearted bitch to have spent her life caring for orphans in India while adhering to the doctrines of that anti-gay, anti-abortion evil empire known as the Catholic Church. Many of the hospitals and schools in the third world today have been built and are operated by missionaries, offering medical care or education to anyone, regardless of their religious affiliation. I think people are ascribing motives to these groups that simply do not exist.

Franklin Graham called Islam "a very evil and wicked religion" during an interview on NBC, the television network. In his book published last year, "The Name," Graham wrote that "The God of Islam is not the God of the Christian faith." He went on to say that "the two are different as lightness and darkness.

Gee, it just seems so odd that since Graham and others think Islam is so evil, they are running out to feed Muslims. You'd be hard pressed to find any Christian theologian (of any tradition) who wouldn't agree with Graham that the God of Islam and the God of Christianity are not the same.

And where is the outrage about the way Christians are treated in the Muslim world? Practicing Christianity in places like Egypt, Sudan, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia is practically a death sentence. THAT is sickening.
posted by marcusb at 2:36 PM on March 30, 2003

What marcusb and others should understand is that the pivotal question is not just whether you like Christian mission work or or not, but the nature of Islam itself. Islam takes a definite, fundamental stand against converting out of the faith, like it or not, and identifies such actions in terms of "crusaders" against Islam. If you really want to alienate a bunch of Arab Muslims and turn them into terrorists, send in the missionaries. I can imagine nothing could work faster. Secular agencies can hand out glasses of water too...

The success of the Muslim fundamentalist movement in Iran in the 1970s was partly a response to the free hand given by the secularist Shah to American Christian missionaries to work in Muslim communities.

This link to the article about Sayyid Qutb, the philosopher behind modern Islamic fundamentalists, should give an idea about how seriously ignorant such missionary efforts would backfire.
posted by zaelic at 2:38 PM on March 30, 2003

Gee, it just seems so odd that since Graham and others think Islam is so evil, they are running out to feed Muslims. You'd be hard pressed to find any Christian theologian (of any tradition) who wouldn't agree with Graham that the God of Islam and the God of Christianity are not the same.


marcusb - Well of course no Christian theologian would say that. By admitting that, the theologian would be be saying that Islam is the right faith and that Islam is suppose to superceed Christianity. God had sent to earth many prophets. The first ones wrote the Old Testament and brought about the Jewish faith. However, the teaching of God were perverted and God sent down another prophet in the form of Jesus. Once again, God's word was changed and God finally sent Muhammad as the final prophet. Islam accepts that the Jewish and Christian faiths do exist and they are given special treatment in the Qu'ran. Islam exists to replace Christianity as the one true faith of God. If a christian theologian would admit that the God of Christianity and Islam were the same, he would be admitting that Christianity is flawed and that Islam is the true religion.
posted by Stynxno at 3:04 PM on March 30, 2003

If you truly want to feed and help people that is, in and of itself, the Christian thing to do. No discussion about your faith to who your helping is necessary.

The problem comes in when the "missionaries" want you to listen to their thoughts on Jesus in order to get a sandwich or a bottle of water.
posted by bas67 at 3:13 PM on March 30, 2003

Hmmm... so if someone wants to provide aid... that's "sickening"?

And if that someone (you know, the person spending all the damn money and providing the food/water/shelter) might actually want to TALK TO YOU while you eat his food, drink his water and sleep in his shelter... then he's obviously a full on bastard right?

Tell ya what, the Iraqis can exercise their free choice, just like the charities. They can decide not to take the charity. No one is forcing them to do it.

Unlike of course the situation hey have now, where their faith or lack of it will get them tossed in a plastic shredder.
posted by soulhuntre at 3:28 PM on March 30, 2003

And if that someone (you know, the person spending all the damn money and providing the food/water/shelter) might actually want to TALK TO YOU while you eat his food, drink his water and sleep in his shelter... then he's obviously a full on bastard right?

They can talk to them but they shouldn't focus on faith and religion. But what are the odds that an evangelical missionary won't try to talk about their faith? If an organization has a leader who believes that Islam is evil, do you honestly believe that he will send his people and money to Iraq just to give out food, water, shelter?

Unlike of course the situation hey have now, where their faith or lack of it will get them tossed in a plastic shredder.

Um, okay. Maybe I'm the idiot here, but what does that statement mean?
posted by Stynxno at 3:34 PM on March 30, 2003

The people who see no problem with Christian groups going to Iraq to proselytize (as opposed to just providing aid) are the same people who will be bewailing "Why do they hate us?!" when Iraqis start blowing themselves up amid our troops and aid workers. Oh, wait, that's already started.

Giving aid is a wonderful - dare I say Christian? - thing to do. But even mentioning conversion right now is to throw a match on gasoline.
posted by Chanther at 3:41 PM on March 30, 2003

"Um, okay. Maybe I'm the idiot here, but what does that statement mean?"

It means the current religious climate in Iraq is dramatically more dangerous than a few Christians talking to you while you eat their free food and drink their free water.
posted by soulhuntre at 3:48 PM on March 30, 2003

If a Christian theologian would admit that the God of Christianity and Islam were the same, he would be admitting that Christianity is flawed and that Islam is the true religion.

Stynxno - Without tangentizing (?) too much, I have to take issue with that statement. As a Christian, I see that Jehovah and Allah derive from the same belief. There are MANY parallels between Islam and Christianity.

If a Muslim becomes a Christian (or vice versa), I see it as more of a shift than a conversion.

As far as your "God's word changing" bit, that's a whole 'nuther thread...
posted by TheFarSeid at 3:59 PM on March 30, 2003

Um, okay. Maybe I'm the idiot here, but what does that statement mean?

5th paragraph

Still unclear, though, whether anyone's confirmed the infamous "plastic shredder" tale. Anyone know? Snopes has nothing.
posted by Karl at 4:04 PM on March 30, 2003

no one can deny that branding matters. there's a reason why SBC and Miller Lite, etc are willing to pay millions just to have "SBC presents" added to the name of a function; there's a reason why some poor school districts would rather forego installing a new scoreboard than have one paid for by Coca-Cola: branding impacts preception, changes minds, matters.

i support "humanitarian aid" because it's our responsability as an occupying force. it's not an option or any kind of charity. allowing Christian-branded organizations to feed the starving masses we've created makes the U.S. look bad in at least two ways: one, we're passing the buck, and two, we're providing evangelical crusaders--enemies of Islam--access to an Islamic culture at a time when the power is terribly unbalanced.

anyone who says the Iraqis have a choice to take or not to take our food doesn't understand the position we have put them in.
posted by squirrel at 4:11 PM on March 30, 2003

Coming in kind of late, but I am defintely in the faction that there is nothing wrong with what is being done. I have been on a few missionary trips to Mexico and am going on one to Texas this summer. While we go as Catholics and with the intent to share our faith if possible, first and foremost in our reason for going is sharing our faith by doing good works because Jesus tells us to (and, honestly, its the greatest feeling in the world!), NOT the other way around as most street&TV Preachers do. We, along w/ almost every other missionary I've known, goes not to convert the people they are helping, but rather to help out those in need and share their faith that way (kind of like "let the light of Jesus shine so all can believe"). THAT is what I believe the Bible teaches, and hence I, along with most people follow that doctrine. Don't let a few bad seeds complete soil your perceptions.
posted by jmd82 at 4:42 PM on March 30, 2003

Religion and invasion - two great tastes that taste great together!
posted by spazzm at 5:07 PM on March 30, 2003

It is not the action of providing aid that is sickening, but the ulterior motives behind it which make the stomach churn.

If modern Christian missionaries following in on the heels of U.S. Marines doesn't turn your blood cold, I'm forced to question whether or not you realize what's going on today. Is America invading Iraq or liberating it?

Or are we ethnocentrically believing our way of life to be superior, and the real goal is to convert the muslims of Iraq into accepting "civilized behavior" of the 21st century? What is the true goal here? The presence of Christian missionaries in the fracas would indicate we're trying to convince the Iraqis that they're living wrong.

Personally, I have trouble arguing that. I learn of a twenty year old who embraces islam with such ferocity that he's willing to commit suicide to kill an objectively insignificant number of the invader, believing the act will somehow improve his chances in the after life? His was a vain life with a vain death, just because he believed in something. So personally I have difficulty arguing that some muslim Iraqis are living wrong.

However, I'm not a muslim. I'm not an Iraqi. I try to put myself in their shoes, and I don't like what I see. If someone were to invade my home, much of what I take for granted philosophically seems to fly out the window. So I don't know what to think anymore.
posted by ZachsMind at 5:40 PM on March 30, 2003

I mean, I guess that Mother Theresa was a cold-hearted bitch to have spent her life caring for orphans in India while adhering to the doctrines of that anti-gay, anti-abortion evil empire known as the Catholic Church.

Mother Theresa cared for the dying, not orphans, and although she received enormous sums of money in donations, she refused to spend it on new medical equipment to cure them or help ease their pain because suffering was pious.

former sister

christopher hitchens

Gee, it just seems so odd that since Graham and others think Islam is so evil, they are running out to feed Muslims.

Why? If the intent is to save them from the evil muslim influence, this wouldn't be hypocritical.
posted by mdn at 5:52 PM on March 30, 2003

allowing Christian-branded organizations to feed the starving masses we've created makes the U.S. look bad in at least two ways

Allowing? Allowing>

If Iraq has no law prohibiting Christian missionaries, then who's doing the allowing? Or are you suggesting that the American government ought to step in to forbid this, lest we "give someone the wrong impression?"

The thing that bothers me most about this entire thread -- beyond the obvious ignorance and assumptions about the operations of the vast majority of mainline affiliated Christian humanitarian missions -- is the underlying implication that the Iraqi people must somehow be shielded from different, possibly inflammatory (but possibly not) ideas, and the idea that the Iraqis are some monolithic hardcore Islamic bloc incapable from diversion from the Islamic hardcore line.

They are not children, they are not fragile beings who can't bear to hear a possibly controversial word. If some missionary gets pushy about witnessing before watering, why believe the Iraqis involved incapable of saying "I'm not interested in hearing about your Jesus. Are you going to give me food/medicine/tents or not?" If sitting through a church service is a prerequisite to receiving a food bundle, why presume that doing so would be a desperation move by die-hard, anti-conversion Muslims who are being forced to suffer in order to feed their families? Why couldn't it be the decision made by people of free will who are interested in hearing what has to be said?
posted by Dreama at 6:00 PM on March 30, 2003

It is not the action of providing aid that is sickening, but the ulterior motives behind it which make the stomach churn.

Re-read my post. If that makes your stomach churn, you are missing the motives behind 99% of missionaries, which is to honestly give humanitarian aid. And if that 1% makes you that sick, well, there are more important things to worry about, like maybe seeing mission work for yourself in the first place instead of people lamblasting something they have no first hand experience of.

Is America invading Iraq or liberating it?

Regardless of your view of the war, doesn't liberation kind of require invasion in the first place?
posted by jmd82 at 6:52 PM on March 30, 2003

Yes, Dreama, I would suggest that the Administration, as a matter of policy, block relief efforts that won't refrain from proselytizing. I don't suppose they'd be able to stop anyone invited by the Iraqis, but no religiously affiliated group should have the imprimatur of the US government.

Why? Because the presence of groups committed to converting Muslims (even if they are primarily helpers and only secondarily spreading the faith) will undermine everything the US and UK need to have happen there. The presence of Christian missionaries will help inflame the region - cause Islamic zealots to be able to claim, "See? It was all just a new Crusade."

If he have any hope to make the dream of a stable, democratic, prosperous Iraq work, it's got to be a democratic, prosperous, Muslim Iraq. Anything else will further destabilize the region, which is precisely what we want to avoid.

Do I think the average Iraqi will be "harmed" somehow by having to sit through a church service, as you say? Of course not. But do I think that religious groups could make things worse in the name of humanitarian assistance? Definitely. We're going to have a hard enough time convincing the Iraqis that we actually have their best interests at heart. That job will be made impossible if we're handing lots of ammunition to those who would like to claim we're not humanitarians but imperialists.
posted by Chanther at 6:53 PM on March 30, 2003

Sorry for the double post ... yes, I know that 99% of what missionaries do is humanitarian aid (at least the Catholic missionaries I know well; I couldn't vouch for other groups). But that is not how self-identified Christian missionaries will be perceived there, and the perception in this situation is a huge factor.
posted by Chanther at 6:56 PM on March 30, 2003

But that is not how self-identified Christian missionaries will be perceived there, and the perception in this situation is a huge factor.

So you wish to stop what people think is their duty to get to heaven (well, Catholics could make that claim kind of, though i know most prots don't) or to even simply doing what Jesus told us to do in ministering to the poor because of YOUR opinion? (not trying to be a dick, but i just see a double standard here)
posted by jmd82 at 7:17 PM on March 30, 2003

Again, the objection that some seem to have to missionaries going to Iraq is that (1) it's insensitive to the Iraqi culture and (2) it's unethical to offer humanitarian aid if the recipient might hear about the Christian faith.

(1) presumes that somehow Islam has a place of cultural priority in Iraq, above Judaism and Christianity, when in fact Judaism and Christianity pre-date Islam in Iraq by several centuries. If anything, American missionaries bringing Christianity to Iraq has an historical equivalence in St. Thomas' missionary work there in A.D. 33.

(2) remains absurd, as there will not be any case where missionaries will withhold food or medical aid if the recipient refuses to accept Christianity.

Further, I again assert that what Islamic governments do to Christians is far more sickening that what American missionaries will ever do in Iraq.
posted by marcusb at 7:28 PM on March 30, 2003

Perhaps some excerpts on the Islamic ideal of charitable behavior would be relevant:

"The third duty [of zakat, charity] is secrecy, for this is farthest removed from hypocritical display and reputation-seeking.
...
The Prophet, on him be peace, also said: 'Let the servant do a good deed in secret and God will surely record it to his credit as a secret; if he reveals it, it will be transferred from the secret list and recorded among good works done openly; if he talks about it, it will be taken off both lists and recorded as hypocrisy.' According to the well-attested Tradition: 'Secret Alms extinguish the anger of the Lord.' God, exalted is he, said:

'But if you hide it and give it to the poor, it is better for you.' [2:271]

...
As the Prophet, on him be peace, said: 'God does not accept from a braggart, a hypocrite, or one who always looks for gratitude.' He who talks about Almsgiving is seeking prestige, while he who gives for all the world to see is after public recognition; these pitfalls are avoided by secrecy and silence. Some [of the scholars of religion] have taken such an extreme view of the merit of secrecy as to maintain that the recipient should not know the indentity of the giver. Some used to slip their alms into the hand of a blind man, while others would drop them in a poor man's path or in the place where he sat, so that he could see the gift without seeing the giver. Some would tuck their alms in the poor man's clothes while he was sleeping; still others would convey them by way of a third party so as to hide the donor's identity, the intermediary being asked to keep the secret and charged not to disclose it.
...
Whenever fame is the donor's objective, his work will be in vain, since the purpose of almsgiving is to eliminate miserliness and to weaken the love of wealth. But the love of status has a stronger hold over the the soul than the love of wealth... So what is the use of going against miserly impulses only to yield to hypocritical motives, weakening the lesser only to reinforce the more powerful?"

Excerpted from Inner Dimensions of Islamic Worship, Al-Ghazali (1058-1111)
posted by BinGregory at 8:14 PM on March 30, 2003

As a Muslim, I'm very suspicious. The SBC is notable for being one of the few in support of military action. Also notable are the hateful, hurtful remarks of Graham. I never used to hate anyone, but I couldn't help myself when I heard his evangelical rantings against something in which I deeply believe.

I'm all for charitable work, but this is despicable and very short-sighted.
posted by drstrangelove at 8:19 PM on March 30, 2003

Who could have guessed that this wasn't just a crazy rant, but a blueprint for the future?
posted by Ljubljana at 9:53 PM on March 30, 2003

I don't think there is much to add to what BinGregory has posted, but I can offer my perspective.
Christian faith based charity work in impoverished (insert any non-christian religion here) areas is often seen as suspicious by the locals. Christians, with their smily, wily ways attempt to include everyone in their impromptu ceremonies. It is not often the case that everybody wants to bow thier heads and pray before recieving food/aid/anything, but the locals feel great pressure to please the rich westerners with their seemingly endless supplies of aid. It makes the locals uncomfortable, but the Christians just go on smiling obliviously.
Respect is not engendered.
Basically, it is difficult to see how this 'faith-based' charity is any different from the 'love-bombing' techniques used by 'cults'.
posted by asok at 2:12 AM on March 31, 2003

And where is the outrage about the way Christians are treated in the Muslim world? Practicing Christianity in places like Egypt, Sudan, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia is practically a death sentence. THAT is sickening.

Hmmm...I see Iraq was not mentioned. So maybe that's why they're so evil, not being fundamentalist enough and all for the Duhbya Cabal.

Looks like AnnThrax Coulter was prescient when she said "Let's bomb them, invade them and convert them to Christianity" Ljubljana!
posted by nofundy at 5:50 AM on March 31, 2003

Man, these guys at exile are on to something after all:
The new sense of freedom is everywhere, from over-the-counter bacon sales to strolling Southern Baptist missionaries on “Mosque Watch.” The 51st State’s happy citizens are too busy joining the American consensus to bother with old rivalries. That’s why Iraqis love to say, “Even our Shiite is Sunni in Sunni Iraq!” American Iraq is the envy of the entire Arab world. Regrettably, this envy has led a few fanatics to commit terrorist attacks, including the cowardly Dec. 17, 2003 sinking of the USS Enterprise, the bombing of the George W. Bush Sr. Golf and Sumerian Tablet Museum, Kirkuk Mormon Cathedral and other symbolic targets throughout Iraq and the Persian Gulf. The Office of Homeland Security has since required that all Americans who gained citizenship after Sept. 11, 2003, register with local authorities and carry documentation at all times.
But they offer an opposing prophecy as well.
posted by talos at 6:09 AM on March 31, 2003