Hate Mail - Haiti LTE

After publishing my recent letter to the editor regarding the local church sending stained glass windows and chandeliers to a church in Haiti, I got some hate mail. I love when people prove my point that religion is very harmful and can warp moral priorities. Sometimes, I don't have to go any further than my inbox!

To The Atheist:

One thing you don't understand about donation is that most of that money is still in your government. When they pledge a fund does not mean they pay it to the country. They use those funds to cover payroll and other cost for personnel living in that country. The hospital boat that's in Haiti is a perfect example of that. You think every one on that boat is working for free. You think the food,supplies and all other cost are free. This is how your government spends money that they pledge to other countries. Most of the countries who pledge have not yet given a dime to Haiti, because they claim they don't trust the Haitian government and I agree with them to some extent. Please don't blame people who are trying to send religious statues for the people. Maybe faith is the only thing they can rely on. Your penny may not save their lives at the end, God will decide.

My Response:

"One thing you don't understand about donation is that most of that money is still in your government. When they pledge a fund does not mean they pay it to the country. They use those funds to cover payroll and other cost for personnel living in that country."

Let's not give money because maybe it won't ALL get there? Of course there are administrative costs and such, but if you donate it to a good charity, the money gets maximized and as much as possible is given to the people. Let's say 90% of the money goes to people. Great, this is still better than chandeliers and stained glass going to a church. I'm sure that you wouldn't cease giving to charities here in the US because not all of the money would go to people. If everyone had this mindset, no one would give.

According to this charity, [http://givingaid.richarddawkins.net/] "every penny" goes to Doctors Without Boarders.

"The hospital boat that's in Haiti is a perfect example of that. You think every one on that boat is working for free. You think the food,supplies and all other cost are free. "

I never made any of these claims.

"This is how your government spends money that they pledge to other countries. Most of the countries who pledge have not yet given a dime to Haiti, because they claim they don't trust the Haitian government and I agree with them to some extent."

I'm not talking about giving to the Haitian government. I'm suggesting giving to organizations within Haiti.

"Please don't blame people who are trying to send religious statues for the people. Maybe faith is the only thing they can rely on."

They can have faith without statues, stained glass, and chandeliers. I'm sure, though, that they can rely on family, friends, drinking water, food, medicine, etc. All of these things are infinitely more important. In my letter, I also suggested that they donate money and then build a modest church.

How is God reliable, anyway, when he hasn't even been demonstrated to exist? ...and if he does exist, an all-loving God certainly wouldn't stand by and watch Haiti be devastated by an earthquake/design a universe with an earthquake.

"Your penny may not save their lives at the end, God will decide."

This is a big problem with your religious views. What if there is no "end" where "god will decide?" We need to focus on the certain life that we have now instead of focusing on the next possible life that is very improbable.

Times Leader Letter to Editor 12/4/10

I submitted the following letter to the editor that was published [without my serial commas].

Reader believes Haiti needs money, not pews

A recent article, “Passing on spirit,” featured members of an area church shipping religious-themed items such as stained-glass windows, chandeliers, an organ and pews to a church in Haiti.

As the article mentions, members think this is a wonderful way to help Haitians. Youths said this action is a “good deed.” I disagree.

Haiti has been plagued with earthquakes, a great deal of civil and political unrest, poverty and a recent cholera outbreak. It is one of the worst places to live at the moment.

In times of great peril and the need for humanitarian efforts, religious items shouldn’t be a first concern or even a concern at all. If you’re going to help the Haitians, you should send monetary donations to the American Red Cross efforts in Haiti, Doctors Without Borders or another charitable organization.

Readers might think, “Well, what are you doing to help Haiti?” But if you do so, you’re missing my point and committing an ad hominem fallacy. My argument here is that this church community’s moral priorities are out of whack.

Instead of shipping these religious items, they should have sold the items and donated the money to charity. They could have even sent money to build a modest church (without stained glass and chandeliers) and given the rest to a charity to help Haitians.

Justin Vacula Co-organizer and spokesperson NEPA Freethought Society Wilkes-Barre

-----

For more detail on this story, please view my previous post.

Religious Items are the Last Thing Haiti Needs...

I've constantly commented and blogged about how religion can throw your moral priorities out of whack in the areas of stem cell research, gay marriage, abortion, and even helping the poor. The best example of this is, of course, Mother Teresa who had a very questionable ideas regarding suffering and how the plight of poor people is making the world a better place.

You may recall the nonsensical initiative in which a United States faith group decided to invest money in sending solar-powered Bibles to Haiti (instead of direct monetary donations) right after earthquakes devastated Haiti. Many religious and non-religious groups set up ways to help the Haitians...and solar-powered Bibles weren't on top of the list of priorities.

Earlier today, a local newspaper published an article regarding a local church sending religious items such as stained glass windows (!), chandeliers (!), statues, altars, and pews. It's always amazed me that churches spend egregious amounts of money on religious items when they can have worship in very modest buildings that aren't filled with astounding frescoes, chandeliers, expensive statues, etc.

Haiti is a devastated country and one of the worst places to live at the moment. The country is still recovering from earthquakes and there is a recent cholera outbreak. In light of this, a local church decides that sending religious items is the proper response. Am I the only one who sees a problem with this? In times of great peril and the need for humanitarian efforts, religious items shouldn't be a first concern or even a concern at all. If you're going to help the Haitians, you should send monetary donations to the American Red Cross efforts in Haiti, Doctors Without Boarders, or another charitable organization instead of trying to bolster or reinforce religion.

It's great that this church community wants to help Haitians, but they should simply sell the religious items and send the money gained from the sales to get the most bang for their buck. Do you think that statues, altars, and pews are what emaciated people want? I don't. Haitians don't need stained glass windows, chandeliers, and other items mentioned in this article.

I knew I would get some flak for commenting on the article...and was right. Someone commented on a previous post of mine:

I just read the story in the timesleader regarding the donation of religious articles to a church in Haiti. Your comment struck me as a visceral response to anything positive about religion. Under your sense of intellectual honestly one would sum life up as this: You're conceived, you're born(maybe) you live briefly or at most 120 years. During that period you respirate, take in nourishment to sustain your body which grows at first but then starts to decline then die. You may reproduce but that truly does nothing for you as an individual. It's purpose is to perpetuate the species. You may delude yourself to think that your unique perspective on existence if imparted to anyone who will listen will bring you some type of eternal memorialization in the minds of future generations but in reality your situation probably assures you your wisdom no matter how profound will be forgotten with a few years of your demise. Just like the fondness you feel for one of your great great grandparents and the words they passed down to your generation.
If you think religious people are intellectually dishonest then that is your opinion. But in reality (which is the realm in which you operate) who really cares what you think. It will soon enough be forgotten.
I do thank you however for giving me a brief moment to reflect on what I believe.I beleive your need to comment was directed to me by the Spirit. And Justin, I don't believe you are trying to force your belief on others. Don't get mad that I am going to pray for you that you someday see the joy that comes from the belief in God. My name is not important. I hope you got that point from my writing.

This comment doesn't address my argument at all, but rather strawmans me and displays a great deal of existential angst that I don't have. I've briefly commented on "the meaning of life" and enduring accomplishments in previous posts and will soon post something more extensive.

I don't think that this donation of religious items to Haiti is a positive thing because the items could be sold and money can be sent to help dying people.*

* Someone may object to this post or raise objections like, "Well, why don't you use most of your money to help Haitians or sell your stuff to help the poor in your community? What about atheists who put up billboards? Shouldn't they donate to Haiti?"

At this moment, I'm a "poor college student" (really) and I spend money wisely. I don't spend much, try to conserve money, and spend little on entertainment. I need to build up money for college now and graduate school in the future. Later in life, I hope to donate much of my money to charities when I am able to. I'm not able to donate much at this moment.

Richard Dawkins Foundation - Charity for Haiti

Copied from http://givingaid.richarddawkins.net/

You can donate there via PayPal.

Non-Believers Giving Aid: a religion-free way to help disaster victims

Spurred by the horrific suffering in Haiti, the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (RDFRS) has set up a dedicated bank account and PayPal facility to collect donations to non-religious relief organizations. This new account is in the new name of Non-Believers Giving Aid, with all of the money donated being distributed to disaster relief.

Clearly the immediate need is for the suffering people of Haiti, and all the money raised by this current appeal will go to that cause, but the new account will remain available for future emergencies too. There are, of course, many ways for you to donate to relief organizations already, but doing it through Non-Believers Giving Aid offers some advantages:

1. 100% of your donation will be go to these charities: not even the PayPal fees will be deducted from your donation, since Richard will personally donate a sum to cover the cost of these (capped at $10,000). This means that more of your money will reach the people in need.

2. When donating via Non-Believers Giving Aid, you are helping to counter the scandalous myth that only the religious care about their fellow-humans.
It goes without saying that your donations will only be passed on to aid organizations that do not have religious affiliations. In the case of Haiti, the two organizations we have chosen are:

Doctors Without Borders (Médecins sans Frontières)
International Red Cross

You may stipulate using the dropdown menu which of these two organizations you want your donation to go to; otherwise, it will be divided equally between them.

Preachers and televangelists, mullahs and imams, often seem almost to gloat over natural disasters – presenting them as payback for human transgressions, or for ‘making a pact with the devil’. Earthquakes and tsunamis are caused not by ‘sin’ but by tectonic plate movements, and tectonic plates, like everything else in the physical world, are supremely indifferent to human affairs and sadly indifferent to human suffering. Those of us who understand this reality are sometimes accused of being indifferent to that suffering ourselves.

Of course the very opposite is the truth: we do not hide behind the notion that earthly suffering will be rewarded in a heavenly paradise, nor do we expect a heavenly reward for our generosity: the understanding that this is the only life any of us have makes the need to alleviate suffering even more urgent. The myth that it is only the religious who truly care is sustained largely by the fact that they tend to donate not as individuals, but through their churches. Non-believers, by contrast, give as individuals: we have no church through which to give collectively, no church to rack up statistics of competitive generosity. Non-Believers Giving Aid is not a church (that’s putting it mildly) but it does provide an easy conduit for the non-religious to help those in desperate need, whilst simultaneously giving the lie to the canard that you need God to be good.

Robertson and More - Rant

"Something happened a long time ago in Haiti, and people might not want to talk about it, They were under the heel of the French. You know, Napoleon III, or whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said, we will serve you if you'll get us free from the French. True story. And so, the devil said, okay it's a deal. [...] Haiti is in desperate poverty. Same island. They need to have and we need to pray for them a great turning to god and out of this tragedy I'm optimistic something good may come."

After Pat Robertson made comments saying that Haiti is cursed by a pact to the devil and trying to explain an earthquake via an act of the devil, many people (Christians and non-Christians) have rebuked him. The proper response, though, is not “Pat Robertson is not a real Christian” or “He misunderstood how God works.” The proper response is this: an earthquake is not an act of God or the result of a pact with the devil, but rather a product of natural causes. Like it or not, Pat Robertson is a huge spokesman for Christianity in America and greatly impacts our image as a nation.

Anyone who makes claims about what God says, the devil does, or anything supernatural should be critically examined, questioned, and should provide good evidence for what he/she says. Many people are appealed at what Robertson said (and with good reason). Why isn't this the case with all religious comments? Why aren't we critically examining all other claims made in the name of religion?

We need to stop giving credence and some level of special authority to people who claim to speak on behalf of God, religion, or anything supernatural. Religious individuals have no exclusive special claim to ethics, knowledge, or insight into supposed metaphysical realms. We're all humans and need to be honest about our claims to knowledge and admit that people don't have some sort of contact with a supernatural creator of the universe who knows us, loves us, made us distinguished and special, and watches us 24/7.

This isn't just a problem with fundamentalists like Pat Robertson, but it is a problem with virtually all areas of our discourse. People are simply being lied to with all of this chatter and are perpetuating lies that are diminishing our understanding of the universe, human-based ethics, science, and possibly everything. Religious individuals are not claiming to have hypotheses about the universe, but rather that they have the truth about metaphysical claims, yet have offered no compelling and conclusive evidence for these claims.

We're plagued with the idea of marriage being a “sacred blessing from God” and are unwilling to give homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals. It's quite obvious that religion is a major boundary to homosexuals.

According to Gallup polls in 2008, 44% of Americans believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years. 42% believe that all life on earth has existed in its present form since the beginning of time. This is an educational tragedy and, without a doubt, religion is responsible for these poll results.

Cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad caused a great deal of violence, murder, death threats, violent protests, and outrage from Muslims all around the world.

Children die needlessly because they or their parents don't “believe” in medicine and decide to forgo medical care and pray for miracles.

We're stopping stem cell research – the most promising and pioneering endeavor in medicine – because we shouldn't “play God” with cells.

We tend to give credence to religion and religious individuals because of some wicked idea that religion is above criticism or that we shouldn't challenge ideas because people hold them dearly. Thankfully, many individuals like myself are willing to stand up and stand out to challenge religion and all of the damage it is doing to humanity.

Open discussion of critical issues that matter to us shouldn't be the case only with religion, but should be the trend with all areas including ethics, sexuality, politics, and education. We need to talk with people who agree and disagree with us in a fair manner without fear that “people will be offended.” We desperately need to abandon the idea that we shouldn't talk about critical areas in our lives.

Sure, religion also does many good things, but all that can be had from religion can be had without...and we'd not have to worry about all of the damage done exclusively because of religion. Do we really need to believe in claims on no or insufficient evidence to be good people and do good things?

Sure, not all religious people are bad people (and most of them aren't bad people), but the ideas that they spread and hold dearly are contributing to the base of these fundamentalists and are spreading lies. “Religious moderates” aren't guilty by association, but I want to hold religion responsible for all of the bad things that are done exclusively because of it. Each religious individual should carefully research, ask questions, and face the most compelling objections to their faith just like I did whether or not they want to change their mind or will change their views. The simple idea that there is a God is quite possibly the most worthwhile investigation and really carries many implications that shape life.

Let's not sacrifice rationality, education, intellectual honesty, open conversation, and human life in lieu of religious ideas.