[Frank777]

Originally Posted by Kickaha *facepalm* By that reasoning, hand out copies of Chicken Soup for the Soul. Or a Tim Robbins book. Or heck, maybe some Harry Potter, get their mind off of things.

I'm sure non-Christian aid groups hand out stuff like that all the time (and Christians don't complain.) It just makes sense.

As I mentioned, you have to do something to keep people grounded, prevent suicides and deal with emerging mental disorders.
Food, Water and Meds are important, but are not the only considerations in situations like this.

[Iago]

Originally Posted by Frank777 As I mentioned, you have to do something to keep people grounded, prevent suicides and deal with emerging mental disorders. Food, Water and Meds are important, but are not the only considerations in situations like this.

Do you really believe that Bibles are a good way to combat suicides and mental disorders? As opposed to, say, professional psychiatric help, or counselling? Do you think Narcanon is a good way to combat drug addiction? Do you think handing out copies of the Qur'an would be an appropriate solution to preventing suicides and emerging mental disorders?

[alcimedes]

I think there are a lot of people of faith in Haiti that would be more thankful for a Bible than the amount of food or medication they could have shipped in that Bible's place.

Faith is a very important part of a lot of people's lives, and while I know that this board is generally very anti-religion, for a variety of reasons, there are people who's faith means more to them than any single meal, or even a week of meals.

They're worried about their souls and the souls of their loved ones, hearing/reading stories in the Bible would for those people have much longer term benefits than eating a meal.

While I may not have any faith in any God, it's pretty short-sighted to say then that if I wouldn't get any benefit from it no one else would either.

I think many in this thread are underestimating the hope, focus and strength that people can draw from their religion. At the end of the day it doesn't matter if you get your results form a certified psychologist or God, what matters is what you do with it.

[Iago]

Originally Posted by alcimedes I think there are a lot of people of faith addicts in Haiti that would be more thankful for a Bible hit of heroin than the amount of food or medication they could have shipped in that Bible's heroin's place. Faith Heroin is a very important part of a lot of people's lives, and while I know that this board is generally very anti-religion anti-drug, for a variety of reasons, there are people who's faith addiction means more to them than any single meal, or even a week of meals.

It's a little overstated in the above, but you can see what I'm saying. I'm not disputing that some people might like to hear Bible stories in Haiti right now, I think we're all just suggesting that it's not a priority, it's a little icky for charities to have religious overtones, and that the people who lean on faith like a crutch are people who need real help for exactly that reason.

Example from my real life: my brother has absolutely no coping mechanisms for real life interaction. He does whatever he wants and if someone asks him to do something he doesn't want to do, he retracts into a shell and doesn't respond, or gets very angry. He's essentially high-functioning aspergers. He goes and works, goes back to his flat and annoys his flatmate by shouting and laughing on Xbox Live until 3 or 4am, then he goes to bed, gets up and goes to work. He can't deal with paying the rent or bills, so my parents organise that for him. He can't sustain relationships with people. He doesn't do his washing unless someone forces him to. If something comes up that he feels he can't cope with (heaven forbid he should have to travel somewhere by train alone, working out the timetables would give him a literal break down), he just retracts into a shell. He was encouraged into church by people who suggested it would be good for him to have a network of people to lean on, as well as the faith element. He went for a few years, and whilst he liked the idea of a man in the sky looking out for him, he found it hard to believe. He now sees a private counsellor every week and is really coming on in certain areas.

I guess my point is that faith can get you so far, but it's not something you should use in lieu of real, actual help. It's very easy to get wrapped up in it. Frank wouldn't disagree with me when I say that Islam or Mormonism is the definition of false hope. So he can hopefully understand why I and others say the same about Christianity. When I grew up, I put away such childish things.

Originally Posted by alcimedes I think many in this thread are underestimating the hope, focus and strength that people can draw from their religion. At the end of the day it doesn't matter if you get your results form a certified psychologist or God, what matters is what you do with it.

I absolutely don't underestimate it, I'd simply suggest it's misplaced at best. Humans are pretty bad at knowing what's good for them, in general. People who need a 2,000 year old book to get through difficult times should be given real help, they shouldn't be encouraged to perpetuate it. There are real things that can be done, as there were with my brother. There is real hope for Haiti, and I can tell you that none of it comes from epileptic, illiterate tribesmen in the Middle East.

I don't criticise people for having faith. If you want to have your own private unfounded beliefs then that's up to you. I don't like seeing it pushed on other less fortunate people. I know we've got the Spanish to thank for that in Haiti, but that doesn't mean we should brazenly perpetuate it. If someone thinks they need a Bible to get through a disaster like this then they need real help. Probably more than can be given to them by a relief worker, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

[zsummers]

Originally Posted by Iago Do you really believe that Bibles are a good way to combat suicides and mental disorders? As opposed to, say, professional psychiatric help, or counselling? Do you think Narcanon is a good way to combat drug addiction? Do you think handing out copies of the Qur'an would be an appropriate solution to preventing suicides and emerging mental disorders?

Well, no. To Frank777, it is a good book. Better than the rest. So of course he thinks it would help more than those others. You understand that--but you're choosing to ignore it.

This thread is rapidly becoming vicious. Can we all take a step back?

My mom, prior to the Haiti crisis, was involved in handing out hand-cranked radios there. The catch: they were tuned only to Christian stations. It always annoyed me.

Now, it doesn't so much annoy me as it does raise my hope: please tell me that the programming is all information on how to get food/water/shelter and find your dead. If it is, what--to me--was a misguided attempt to limit the reach of Christian compassion can be changed into a life-saving act. If not...

The Christian community has one thing in this crisis that cannot be said of most others--no matter how many magic sky fairies or magic books or tall tales you think are involved--they hadn't been ignoring Haiti for the past 20 years, and had been trying to help long before the question became "a pound of food for a pound of books." I'm not saying they did enough--of course they didn't (see Crystal Cathedral, or, in my case, the really, really nice church on what must be multi-million dollar real-estate up on Mullhulland Drive). But they were trying, which is more than I can say for most people, myself included.

Hopefully, the Christian community won't blow their chance to show the world that they are there to be compassionate first, and reach out to Haitians second, after people are safe, and long after the news cycle has forgot Haiti altogether. Or, more accurately, hopefully the number of Christians set on making misguided evangelism their number one priority will be outnumbered by the number of Christians who are helping first, and will offer any comfort later. Can we all agree that we at least hope that, given the realities of the situation, that's the outcome?

That said, when I told my mom I routed my donation through my sister-in-law, who is Buddhist (and who was able to send it directly to a nurse on the ground there), and has been down on a number of medical missions trips with the nuns there (who once saved her from men with guns!), my mom said, "You know, I think most of your sister's charities down there are Catholic." This from my mother who refuses all Christmas and birthday gifts (we buy goats/latrines, etc. from WorldVision or sponsor children (a few of whom are Haitian) in her name instead) and gives far more than her 10% to charity on an already limited budget.

God save the Catholic-hating, fully-compassionate, Protestant Midwestern woman! A contradiction the world will never solve.

[Iago]

Originally Posted by zsummers Well, no. To Frank777, it is a good book. Better than the rest. So of course he thinks it would help more than those others. You understand that--but you're choosing to ignore it.

I understand that he thinks it's a good book, but I was genuinely asking those questions. If he had the opportunity to give someone a Christian minister with a Bible, or a mental health professional, which would he choose? I guess what I'm trying to get to the bottom of is whether Frank's a reasonable, moderate Christian, as I suspect he is, or whether he's a fundie whose entire worldview starts and ends with the KJB.

Originally Posted by zsummers This thread is rapidly becoming vicious. Can we all take a step back?

Apologies to Frank for any part in that I had. It's a serious subject and I think we're all debating it very passionately. I don't mean anything personal.

Originally Posted by zsummers My mom, prior to the Haiti crisis, was involved in handing out hand-cranked radios there. The catch: they were tuned only to Christian stations. It always annoyed me.

Yeah that's pretty low.

Originally Posted by zsummers Now, it doesn't so much annoy me as it does raise my hope: please tell me that the programming is all information on how to get food/water/shelter and find your dead. If it is, what--to me--was a misguided attempt to limit the reach of Christian compassion can be changed into a life-saving act. If not...

I wouldn't like to hazard a guess as to the answer of that

Originally Posted by zsummers The Christian community has one thing in this crisis that cannot be said of most others--no matter how many magic sky fairies or magic books or tall tales you think are involved--they hadn't been ignoring Haiti for the past 20 years, and had been trying to help long before the question became "a pound of food for a pound of books." I'm not saying they did enough--of course they didn't (see Crystal Cathedral, or, in my case, the really, really nice church on what must be multi-million dollar real-estate up on Mullhulland Drive). But they were trying, which is more than I can say for most people, myself included.

Absolutely. But there are also a lot of secular charities who have worked in Haiti and elsewhere. It's great that these people want to work in Haiti. It's really great and they do a lot of good work. But it's really bad that mankind has to feel compelled by a sky fairy to do it! That's why I admire the secular charities more. None of them have any sort of reward in mind, they're just doing it to help their fellow man, whilst at least some of the Christian charities do.

Originally Posted by zsummers Hopefully, the Christian community won't blow their chance to show the world that they are there to be compassionate first, and reach out to Haitians second, after people are safe, and long after the news cycle has forgot Haiti altogether. Or, more accurately, hopefully the number of Christians set on making misguided evangelism their number one priority will be outnumbered by the number of Christians who are helping first, and will offer any comfort later. Can we all agree that we at least hope that, given the realities of the situation, that's the outcome? That said, when I told my mom I routed my donation through my sister-in-law, who is Buddhist (and who was able to send it directly to a nurse on the ground there), and has been down on a number of medical missions trips with the nuns there (who once saved her from men with guns!), my mom said, "You know, I think most of your sister's charities down there are Catholic." This from my mother who refuses all Christmas and birthday gifts (we buy goats/latrines, etc. from WorldVision or sponsor children (a few of whom are Haitian) in her name instead) and gives far more than her 10% to charity on an already limited budget. God save the Catholic-hating, fully-compassionate, Protestant Midwestern woman! A contradiction the world will never solve.

[alcimedes]

I should also say, if people hadn't picked up on it by now, that I have zero religious beliefs. None.

I'm about as atheist as they come.

That said, I also realize that I'm one of the very small percentage of the population that thinks that way. Most of the people in this world have faith in a higher power. I don't.

That doesn't mean that I have the right to preach to them that they're stupid because they don't agree with me. They all fervently believe that I'm the one living in ignorance.

So rather than say "you don't think like I do, therefore you're an idiot" step back and realize that for a lot of people, faith provides infinitely more than simple food/water/shelter.

There's also a lot of "well, *I* wouldn't want this so I'm sure no one there would either!" which is also a bit presumptuous.

Stupid side story. There was a woman trapped in the rubble for a week. She spent the entire time praying to God to help her out. They dug her out, and she's now alive. Do I personally believe that God intervened on her behalf based on her prayers? No. It's irrelevant though, because her faith is what gave her the strength to hang on when many would have given up.

No one in that scenario is going to pray to their psychologist or therapist for help, and even suggesting that people as abjectly poor as those living in Haiti are going to be able to pay $x per hour to talk about their problems shows just how far removed we are from their lives.

[zsummers]

Originally Posted by Iago I I think we're all just suggesting that it's not a priority, it's a little icky for charities to have religious overtones.

Please explain? All charities are self-serving. For someone who put away the childish games when you grew up, that's surely no revelation. Human beings need motivation for doing anything--sometimes, as it does for me, that comes from somewhere other than religion (though, I suppose, given my upbringing, this is arguable). And sometimes it comes from religion itself. There's nothing "icky" about it unless you think that humans have some innate altruism gland that could motivate them to act, and that all generosity must flow from that pure center with no ulterior motive--now, there's a fairy tale I can't believe.

In return for our helping hand, some of us just want the glowing feeling we get from helping our fellow humans, some of us just want to be able to rest our minds that we did something for people in dire need, some of us want to avoid hell, and some of us want Haitians to come to Christ. But all of us want something, and who are we to judge if it's "icky" to want the glowing feeling vs. avoiding hell. So is it icky that we all want something in return for extending a helping hand? Maybe... but unavoidable, surely.

When I grew up, I put away such childish things.

Good for you. You know, when Marx said that religion is the opiate of the masses, he didn't mean it was such a bad thing: opium back then was like aspirin--a pain-killer. Marx had a broad view of religion, and understood that, for many, it was a pain-killer. That doesn't mean he thought it was great, but he did know that it provided hope (even if misguided).

I certainly don't know your situation, but I'd wager that--like mine--it's better than most Haitians. Perhaps neither of us understand why Bible stories bring these people hope, or why, after some stability is restored, it might be necessary to hear about the God they have believed in. If we saw tens-of-thousands of bodies in the street, our kin dead, and the world we know destroyed, perhaps we wouldn't need it. But perhaps, given how these people have looked at life, they will.

Putting aside childish games also means looking at the state of facts not as we might want them to be, but as they are.

[zsummers]

Originally Posted by Iago I Absolutely. But there are also a lot of secular charities who have worked in Haiti and elsewhere. It's great that these people want to work in Haiti. It's really great and they do a lot of good work. But it's really bad that mankind has to feel compelled by a sky fairy to do it! That's why I admire the secular charities more. None of them have any sort of reward in mind, they're just doing it to help their fellow man, whilst at least some of the Christian charities do.

This is a really good question: I sort of played on it in my last post. Are there really people out there without any reward in mind? If they are, is that even ideal? I don't really know the answer to that--I'm not acting from religious reasons, but I certainly have my reasons, my ends for giving to Haiti, etc. And that, to me, is no different from giving on a religious basis, given that it's just part of my worldview.

Hmm... perhaps there is something a bit icky about putting your worldview on others. Is the line that you don't impose it on people in order to help others? In other words, that compassion doesn't discriminate?

[RowdyScot]

How could there be a thriving Christian community in Haiti so desperately in need of Bibles if Pat Robertson says the earthquake happened because of godlessness and deals with the devil?

[Iago]

Originally Posted by alcimedes I should also say, if people hadn't picked up on it by now, that I have zero religious beliefs. None. I'm about as atheist as they come. That said, I also realize that I'm one of the very small percentage of the population that thinks that way. Most of the people in this world have faith in a higher power. I don't.

Same. Happily we're in the only minority experiencing steady growth, at least

Originally Posted by alcimedes That doesn't mean that I have the right to preach to them that they're stupid because they don't agree with me. They all fervently believe that I'm the one living in ignorance. So rather than say "you don't think like I do, therefore you're an idiot" step back and realize that for a lot of people, faith provides infinitely more than simple food/water/shelter.

Faith can definitely be the difference between someone struggling on and taking their own life. Again I don't think anybody is arguing that point. What I'm saying is that there is real help we can provide to those people that isn't faith based. It's grounded in the real world.

I'm not saying someone is an idiot for disagreeing with me. I deliberately surround myself with people who disagree with me at every opportunity. If you can't kick the tyres on your views then you don't know that they're sound. When I was younger I voted liberal democrat in the first general election I was allowed to vote in, despite having Labour-voting parents. I've since thought about it and completely changed. I now vote Conservative. I'm not adverse to changing my ideas or holding my hands up and admitting I'm wrong. Religion has a lot of built-in booby traps to protect against that.

However the point with religion is that it's either right or wrong. The minutiae of what it gives people becomes irrelevant if it's false or vitally important if it's true. Whereas everyone has a value between 1-5 on political views (even people who say they don't vote or don't have an interest have viewpoints on specific legislation), on religion it's 0 or 1. And either 0 is right or 1 is right. They can't both be correct.

I think that's why a lot of people are sensitive about religion more than politics or sports. With politics or sports it's impossible to empirically say who's right and wrong. With religion, it is possible to put the matter beyond reasonable doubt. That's why they're people of faith.

Originally Posted by alcimedes There's also a lot of "well, *I* wouldn't want this so I'm sure no one there would either!" which is also a bit presumptuous.

If I was in Haiti maybe I would want it. But I'd rather have someone who knows better looking out for me in the long run. Same with Iraq, or a hostage situation. People with Stockholm Syndrome don't want their captors to be taken away. It's jolly good that somebody knows better and acts on it. We're thankfully getting to a point in our existence where we do know better than religion, and we'll be able to act on it.

Originally Posted by alcimedes Stupid side story. There was a woman trapped in the rubble for a week. She spent the entire time praying to God to help her out. They dug her out, and she's now alive. Do I personally believe that God intervened on her behalf based on her prayers? No. It's irrelevant though, because her faith is what gave her the strength to hang on when many would have given up.

There's no evidence to suggest that her faith gave her strength to carry on. It's a nice story, and if the faith genuinely stopped her from dying then great, but I don't see any rational basis for it preserving her, any more than, say, the thought of getting out and seeing your kids might. I see your point, though: faith is important to some people. My point is that we should offer secular help and secular help only in this scenario.

Originally Posted by alcimedes No one in that scenario is going to pray to their psychologist or therapist for help, and even suggesting that people as abjectly poor as those living in Haiti are going to be able to pay $x per hour to talk about their problems shows just how far removed we are from their lives.

So rather than help them build in that direction we should keep passing down Bibles and ministers? Come on. I wasn't suggesting that we'd literally line the suicidal Haitians up and give them a choice between a Bible and a psychologist. I wanted to know whether Frank was a fundamentalist. I wasn't either suggesting that a shrink is an option for a suicidal Haitian. I'm suggesting that instead of dealing in myths and maybes, and sending out Bibles to provide a temporary fix, charities start committing to a long-term strategy in Haiti. One which doesn't rely on faith, but gives people actual, physical, it's-there-I-can-see-it help.

Originally Posted by zsummers Please explain? All charities are self-serving.

You could maybe say that all people who give charitably (whether time, money, other donations) are self-serving. I don't think a Charity is necessarily self-serving, as a whole. The people who work for Amnesty don't necessarily want to feel good about themselves. I donate to Amnesty and I don't tell anyone (this doesn't count, you have no clue who I am, and I don't give a shit what anyone 'on' the internet thinks of me). I don't do it to feel good, I do it because I feel empathy. If I was in that situation, I'd want someone to help. Do I feel good because I did it? No, not really. I could give more. I give to other charities too. It's not something to feel good about, it's almost an obligation.

As an aside, where would the world be if everyone who gives 10% of their salary to their church instead donated it to a secular charity? I don't know what the figures are like for tithes, but I've got to speculate they're pretty high.

Originally Posted by zsummers For someone who put away the childish games when you grew up, that's surely no revelation. Human beings need motivation for doing anything--sometimes, as it does for me, that comes from somewhere other than religion (though, I suppose, given my upbringing, this is arguable).

But empathy isn't a selfish motivation. Doing it because your book of laws says you must or you'll go to hell is.

Originally Posted by zsummers And sometimes it comes from religion itself. There's nothing "icky" about it unless you think that humans have some innate altruism gland that could motivate them to act, and that all generosity must flow from that pure center with no ulterior motive--now, there's a fairy tale I can't believe.

What of primates and other creatures who display altruistic traits? It actually is built-in for a lot of species.

Originally Posted by zsummers In return for our helping hand, some of us just want the glowing feeling we get from helping our fellow humans, some of us just want to be able to rest our minds that we did something for people in dire need, some of us want to avoid hell, and some of us want Haitians to come to Christ. But all of us want something, and who are we to judge if it's "icky" to want the glowing feeling vs. avoiding hell. So is it icky that we all want something in return for extending a helping hand? Maybe... but unavoidable, surely.

I'd suggest that it's not unavoidable. I'd also suggest that if you do believe that, you surely must recognise that doing good so that you avoid hell is a hollow gesture. My father was once overchanged in a gas station--he gave them a £10 note and they gave him change for a £20. The next time we went to that gas station he reimbursed them. The guy at the counter didn't seem to care, but my Father insisted: "No, I have to, I'm a Christian." Dude. That's something you should do no matter what your religious faith is. It's the golden fucking rule*

*The golden rule is actually pretty shitty (and incidentally predates the Bible by a loooong time), a better rule would be "Don't do to others what you wouldn't want done to yourself," as it's non-interventionalist.

Originally Posted by zsummers Good for you. You know, when Marx said that religion is the opiate of the masses, he didn't mean it was such a bad thing: opium back then was like aspirin--a pain-killer. Marx had a broad view of religion, and understood that, for many, it was a pain-killer. That doesn't mean he thought it was great, but he did know that it provided hope (even if misguided).

I did know that. But I don't see what your point is. Misguided hope is better than no hope at all? Maybe. It's 2010. We can provide hope, even in desperate situations.

Originally Posted by zsummers I certainly don't know your situation, but I'd wager that--like mine--it's better than most Haitians.

Absolutely.

Originally Posted by zsummers Perhaps neither of us understand why Bible stories bring these people hope, or why, after some stability is restored, it might be necessary to hear about the God they have believed in.

No. I absolutely do understand why Bible stories bring them hope. I just think A) There are other priorities at this point than clogging up a fragile infrastructure with Bibles, no matter what minority might want them more than they want a meal, and B) We should be working to provide real solutions, not just hope.

Originally Posted by zsummers If we saw tens-of-thousands of bodies in the street, our kin dead, and the world we know destroyed, perhaps we wouldn't need it. But perhaps, given how these people have looked at life, they will.

And again I haven't disputed that. I'm suggesting there are better things to provide them with. We're already cast in a paternalist position, in terms of foreign policy. We may as well.

Originally Posted by zsummers Putting aside childish games also means looking at the state of facts not as we might want them to be, but as they are.

Again, I don't dispute that some Haitians will feel the need to read the Bible in this time, and that some Haitians will be grateful for the shipment of Bibles. Maybe some will even be grateful for the E-Meters! Here's a summary of my points:

1. The infrastructure for getting shipments into Haiti at the moment is fragile by all accounts. Don't clog it up with non-essentials.

2. Pushing Bibles on people at their lowest point. For Christians this represents the fulfilment of a doctrinal obligation. To everyone else it's a predatory act. In the same way as Frank has already said he sees the E-Meters as a risible attempt to get money out of Haitians or aid workers. All the religions see each other as not really providing much more beyond superficial help. An Islamic charity handing out aid and Qur'ans. A Christian would congratulate them on the aid, and dismiss the Qur'an as mythology. Let's start embracing the way they all think about each other! Hagel's dialectic FTW.

3. Bibles and Christianity encourage people to put their faith in the unseeable and to have the hope of glory after death. Let's work in the now and let the gods take care of the glory after death part. We can provide real care, real aid, real food, real solutions and real support. Western nations and charities can help rebuild Haiti without foisting our notions of spirituality on them.

I get the feeling I'm being cast in a sort of "YOU DON'T SUPPORT OUR TROOPS!!!11" role here, like people who criticised the war in Iraq (although obviously I'm not one of those people.) I'm not saying that the aid religious charities are providing is bad or unwelcome. I'm saying we can do better, as a species. That's all.

[Iago]

Originally Posted by zsummers This is a really good question: I sort of played on it in my last post. Are there really people out there without any reward in mind? If they are, is that even ideal? I don't really know the answer to that--I'm not acting from religious reasons, but I certainly have my reasons, my ends for giving to Haiti, etc. And that, to me, is no different from giving on a religious basis, given that it's just part of my worldview. Hmm... perhaps there is something a bit icky about putting your worldview on others. Is the line that you don't impose it on people in order to help others? In other words, that compassion doesn't discriminate?

That's a very interesting question. I'd break it down to:

1. Can altruism ever be selfless?
2. Can you ever help someone without imposing your world view, to some degree, on them?

Of the first, I'd say yes it can be, insofar as altruism can be an act of instinct. I don't dive in front of the President to stop the bullet because I'm going to be hailed as a hero--I don't know if I'll survive. I do it because it's instinctive, and because I have accepted that his life is more valuable than my own.

Similarly, I don't give to charities to feel good about myself. I do it because I recognise the plight of my fellow man and would want them to help me if I was in their situation. By and large I'd say a lot of people actually feel pretty guilty when they contribute to charity. They know they could give more.

The second point is a really difficult question to answer at any level. We dealt with it a lot on a module about foreign policy analysis I did. I subscribe to paternalism (the policy of restricting the freedoms or, better, 'augmenting' the freedoms of subordinate nations and entities in their best interests) because it's unavoidable, and when it works, it works very well.

With Charity I'd say it happens on two levels. The very fact that you are there helping someone shows that you believe it to be a worthwhile endeavour and maybe a virtuous thing to do. So there's an aspect you can't get around without sending anonymous, identical robots to help.

The part which gets me is that religious charities go beyond that. They believe their mandate to help comes from God. Would they help if they didn't believe god was telling them to? I think some would. I think more wouldn't.

Everyone thinks they're right in this situation. A lot of atheists, agnostics, and even moderate people of faith would say that to give without religious overtones is the best way forward. A lot of people of faith would disagree with that and would maintain that what they provide is absolutely the best thing. That's why I believe in paternalism. It makes the trains run on time

Originally Posted by RowdyScot How could there be a thriving Christian community in Haiti so desperately in need of Bibles if Pat Robertson says the earthquake happened because of godlessness and deals with the devil?

He really is the heir apparent to Jerry Falwell. *spits*

[alcimedes]

My point in all of this is that there are lot of people upset that Bibles are being sent, and arguing that they have no value in this situation.

I would stipulate that to people of faith a Bible is worth considerably more than nothing, and to many it would be worth more than the amount of food displaced in a shipment as long as the ratio of Bibles/food doesn't get out of hand.

While they might be worthless to us, they aren't going to be worthless to everyone, and to a population that's 90% Christian they might be valued by many.

[709]

I really can't believe, in two-thousand fucking-ten, we're really discussing Christianity (and monotheistic religion, in general) like it actually means something.

It's about time we shook off all this negative bullshit, don't you think?

We'll never evolve as a species with this stupid crap hanging around our collective necks like an albatross.

[alcimedes]

Originally Posted by 709 I really can't believe, in two-thousand fucking-ten, we're really discussing Christianity (and monotheistic religion, in general) like it actually means something. It's about time we shook off all this negative bullshit, don't you think? We'll never evolve as a species with this stupid crap hanging around our collective necks like an albatross.

And the best way to do that is by aggressively insulting those who's views you disagree with?

Quite the persuader aren't you.

[709]

I don't remember "aggressively" disagreeing with anyone in particular, but thanks for that. I can be quite the bitch.

If all it takes is for me to say "HAY, YOUR RELIGIN IS BROK" for the masses to swoop in and burn me at the virtual stake, then, well, I guess my work here is done.


I'm not trying to "persuade" anyone, btw. You're looking at the wrong person.

[Iago]

Originally Posted by 709 I don't remember "aggressively" disagreeing with anyone in particular, but thanks for that. I can be quite the bitch. If all it takes is for me to say "HAY, YOUR RELIGIN IS BROK" for the masses to swoop in and burn me at the virtual stake, then, well, I guess my work here is done. I'm not trying to "persuade" anyone, btw. You're looking at the wrong person.

I do feel the same way, really. There comes a point when you have to just say that some things are empirically better than others. Code of laws is better than theocracy. Equal rights are better than oppressing women. Freedom of speech is better than censorship. Not irrationally believing in a fairy is better than irrationally believing in a fairy.

The question is how far you go to enforce that. That's a question humans have been struggling with for a long time. We shouldn't ban religion, but I think we should be doing a lot more to discourage unwarranted religious belief. Let's remove the charitable tax breaks for religious organisations. You want to do good? Do it secularly. Otherwise you can pay your taxes like everyone else. It'll still get you into heaven, you just need to ask your god to pony up some more money.

Kids shouldn't be brought into religious congregations until they're 16 or older. Your child is your duty, not your personal blank canvas. You want to tell them about areas which aren't demonstrably right/wrong, like politics, sport, etc? Fine. You want to tell them there's a skyman with a booboo list checking who's being naughty and nice, and have others drum that into their heads twice weekly whilst their brains are at a vulnerable stage of development? Uh, no.

[709]

That said, my post wasn't a response to another post in this thread so much as it was an expresion of disbelief.

Really, as smart as we think we are, we saddle ourselves with some millenium old voodoo.

I'm the biggest fan I know of mythology. But to make it a part of our actual decision making is just dumb (imo, of course).

[PB PM]

Originally Posted by 709 I don't remember "aggressively" disagreeing with anyone in particular, but thanks for that. I can be quite the bitch. If all it takes is for me to say "HAY, YOUR RELIGIN IS BROK" for the masses to swoop in and burn me at the virtual stake, then, well, I guess my work here is done. I'm not trying to "persuade" anyone, btw. You're looking at the wrong person.

The human race is broke, whether people are religious or not. I'm not going to get into the religion hating or any of that, but its sad to see people who claim to have superior intellects sink to the level of throwing insults. If secular people, here on this forum, are so "evolved" then suck it up and MYOB, like the rest of us.

[zsummers]

Originally Posted by Iago 2. Pushing Bibles on people at their lowest point. For Christians this represents the fulfilment of a doctrinal obligation. To everyone else it's a predatory act. In the same way as Frank has already said he sees the E-Meters as a risible attempt to get money out of Haitians or aid workers. All the religions see each other as not really providing much more beyond superficial help. An Islamic charity handing out aid and Qur'ans. A Christian would congratulate them on the aid, and dismiss the Qur'an as mythology. Let's start embracing the way they all think about each other! Hagel's dialectic FTW. I get the feeling I'm being cast in a sort of "YOU DON'T SUPPORT OUR TROOPS!!!11" role here, like people who criticised the war in Iraq (although obviously I'm not one of those people.) I'm not saying that the aid religious charities are providing is bad or unwelcome. I'm saying we can do better, as a species. That's all.

Regarding the "YOU DON'T SUPPORT OUR TROOPS" point: my apologies... and, as for doing better, I agree. It was getting a little to fiery in here to tell where people stood, but I think your point is a good one.

Re: 2. Very good point that made me smile. But embracing how religions think about each other seems... interesting. I'd prefer to let them handle that, and try to think about it fresh.

Your point rings true to me. Maybe I should have more faith in humanity to do something good despite themselves... in some ways, I do. But I cannot get around the fact that religion is the greatest motivator known to man--it drives people to extremes, both good and bad, on a mass scale--and it is also the greatest source of comfort we know (even if, for me personally, a Kurt Vonnegut novel provides greater solace). It's like when sports commentators play that stupid game--"which QB would you pick to lead a championship team"--if I were picking something to motivate people to follow a good cause, I very well might pick religion--the problem is, I'd pick it to motivate a bad cause as well.

So I do agree that, in 2010, we should be able to do better than motivation and/or hope through religion. But I'm also afraid that we have not yet done better, in large part. It's like Churchill's old saw: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." Maybe we can apply that to religion: "Religion is the worst form of motivation/comfort, except all those other forms of motivation/comfort that have been tried from time to time." Sure, chicken soup, hot chocolate, a good therapist or a stiff drink work pretty well too. But those things are real, and when they disappear, you can be certain they are gone and certain that the hope you've placed upon them is gone too. Religion, on the other hand, has the great good benefit of speaking only of things we cannot know, and motivating us and comforting us thereby. Uncertainty has its upsides (and, of course, its massive, tragic downsides).

One thing I do know: we won't evolve if we don't keep talking about what we don't know... it's just how we do it, I think.

[709]

Originally Posted by Iago I do feel the same way, really. There comes a point when you have to just say that some things are empirically better than others. Code of laws is better than theocracy. Equal rights are better than oppressing women. Freedom of speech is better than censorship. Not irrationally believing in a fairy is better than irrationally believing in a fairy. The question is how far you go to enforce that. That's a question humans have been struggling with for a long time. We shouldn't ban religion, but I think we should be doing a lot more to discourage unwarranted religious belief. Let's remove the charitable tax breaks for religious organisations. You want to do good? Do it secularly. Otherwise you can pay your taxes like everyone else. It'll still get you into heaven, you just need to ask your god to pony up some more money. Kids shouldn't be brought into religious congregations until they're 16 or older. Your child is your duty, not your personal blank canvas. You want to tell them about areas which aren't demonstrably right/wrong, like politics, sport, etc? Fine. You want to tell them there's a skyman with a booboo list checking who's being naughty and nice, and have others drum that into their heads twice weekly whilst their brains are at a vulnerable stage of development? Uh, no.

a): I say let people believe whatever they want. We're human, and we've made up shit to believe in for the past 20 thousand years. Go for it.

b): Don't get any on me. It's fine that you do what you do. Do it. Somewhere else than in my personal space.

c): Religion is a business. Point. Tax it like any other business. You tax my amendment right to have guns, you should tax my amendment right to worship whatever the fuck I want (or the place I choose to worship at).

d): Religious institutions should be absolutely banned from interfering in politics and social laws. No religion allowed in schools. No thinking allowed in religion (heh, that'll be my one dig ).

Other than that, whatever.

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.

[zsummers]

Originally Posted by Iago I do feel the same way, really. There comes a point when you have to just say that some things are empirically better than others. Code of laws is better than theocracy. Equal rights are better than oppressing women. Freedom of speech is better than censorship. Not irrationally believing in a fairy is better than irrationally believing in a fairy. The question is how far you go to enforce that. That's a question humans have been struggling with for a long time. We shouldn't ban religion, but I think we should be doing a lot more to discourage unwarranted religious belief. Let's remove the charitable tax breaks for religious organisations. You want to do good? Do it secularly. Otherwise you can pay your taxes like everyone else. It'll still get you into heaven, you just need to ask your god to pony up some more money. Kids shouldn't be brought into religious congregations until they're 16 or older. Your child is your duty, not your personal blank canvas. You want to tell them about areas which aren't demonstrably right/wrong, like politics, sport, etc? Fine. You want to tell them there's a skyman with a booboo list checking who's being naughty and nice, and have others drum that into their heads twice weekly whilst their brains are at a vulnerable stage of development? Uh, no.

Yowser! I can't remember a post I so violently agree and disagree with, all at the same time. Some things are empirically better than others--and we should say it. But saying it doesn't change the fact that some people won't and don't see it that way. And that, in fact, those people make up far more than a majority. I guess that's what I'm concerned with when it comes to how we give people hope in the immediate situation in Haiti. If I could wave a magic wand and make a beer do what religion does for those people, I would--in a hearbeat. But I can't... and that makes me lean towards the devil you know, so to speak.

And eliminating the tax breaks: hallelujah.

But limiting when kids can be brought into religious congregations, etc., is a dangerous door to walk through, and requires absolute certainty regarding the results--both intentional and unintentional--of what would amount to a massive social experiment. We do not have that certainty when it comes to social engineering. And I can only imagine the underground movements--nothing cements conviction like persecution--and the resulting, more extreme, behaviors. I'm not so sure that pushing things underground is the way to go. Better education at public schools, though? Yes please. Teach children to think rationally, and they'll handle the rest themselves.

(As a side note, being from a rural town with a terrible school system, I learned 90% of my useful skills in church: parsing text, questioning authority, reading music, etc. Am I an exception? Probably. But even though I'm not a whit religious, I've often thought about how to replace what I got in church for my kids... and how difficult that will be).

[709]

Originally Posted by PB PM The human race is broke, whether people are religious or not. I'm not going to get into the religion hating or any of that, but its sad to see people who claim to have superior intellects sink to the level of throwing insults. If secular people, here on this forum, are so "evolved" then suck it up and MYOB, like the rest of us.

Gawd. One, I'm not religion hating. I love religion. I study religion ffs. The first essay I was ever charged to do, in grade 4, I chose religion as my subject. Religion is fascinating to me.

Where you got "throwing insults" from is exactly why religion is fascinating to me. If you're not with us you're against us, obviously. There were no insults thrown, but that's what I love about religious people. If they even think a stink-eye was thrown their way they're always like "I AM PAIN! I AM KILLED BY TEH INFEDIL!!!"

Fucking hell. Predicability, thy name is religious grunts.

Honestly, I could give a shit, but your whole MYOB "like the rest of us" quip was the funniest thing I've ever heard coming from a believer. Fucking classic.

If only. The world would be a better place.

[Iago]

Originally Posted by PB PM If secular people, here on this forum, are so "evolved" then suck it up and MYOB, like the rest of us.

Would have been good advice fifty years ago. Religion is as sinister, pervasive and threatening as it ever has been in the world today, IMO. I don't think anyone means to insult anybody else. It's just something everyone cares about a lot.

Originally Posted by zsummers Regarding the "YOU DON'T SUPPORT OUR TROOPS" point: my apologies... and, as for doing better, I agree. It was getting a little to fiery in here to tell where people stood, but I think your point is a good one.

It's cool, everyone cares a lot about this

Originally Posted by zsummers Re: 2. Very good point that made me smile. But embracing how religions think about each other seems... interesting. I'd prefer to let them handle that, and try to think about it fresh.

Well I just meant that they all treat each other with skepticism and disdain. 90% of Christians would never think to try any of the other religions on offer. Let's do the same thing. I don't need to try any of them to know they're all crackpot myths!

Originally Posted by zsummers Your point rings true to me. Maybe I should have more faith in humanity to do something good despite themselves... in some ways, I do. But I cannot get around the fact that religion is the greatest motivator known to man--it drives people to extremes, both good and bad, on a mass scale--and it is also the greatest source of comfort we know (even if, for me personally, a Kurt Vonnegut novel provides greater solace). It's like when sports commentators play that stupid game--"which QB would you pick to lead a championship team"--if I were picking something to motivate people to follow a good cause, I very well might pick religion--the problem is, I'd pick it to motivate a bad cause as well.

I totally see what you mean. Religion has been a tremendous kick up the backside for a lot of people throughout history. But I think that whatever good it has done is outweighed by the fact that it's disingenuous at best, and also led to a lot of evil. Here's a tough question: would you rather the notion of religion hadn't ever come up to humans? Very tough call. Richard Dawkins was asked this once and he answered emphatically that he would--"we'd save a lot of lives, and wouldn't have had any superstitions delaying the enlightenment."

I'm not so sure. I think we'd have found other things to fight over. I don't think we'd lose anything artistically, though. Although religious institutions were the great patrons of arts for many centuries, I believe we'd have seen other things being commissioned.

Originally Posted by zsummers So I do agree that, in 2010, we should be able to do better than motivation and/or hope through religion. But I'm also afraid that we have not yet done better, in large part.

I agree wholeheartedly. I think the fact that religion is still around, like Jay Leno, is preventing the Conan O'Brien of secularism of getting a fair crack at the whip

Originally Posted by zsummers It's like Churchill's old saw: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." Maybe we can apply that to religion: "Religion is the worst form of motivation/comfort, except all those other forms of motivation/comfort that have been tried from time to time." Sure, chicken soup, hot chocolate, a good therapist or a stiff drink work pretty well too. But those things are real, and when they disappear, you can be certain they are gone and certain that the hope you've placed upon them is gone too. Religion, on the other hand, has the great good benefit of speaking only of things we cannot know, and motivating us and comforting us thereby. Uncertainty has its upsides (and, of course, its massive, tragic downsides). One thing I do know: we won't evolve if we don't keep talking about what we don't know... it's just how we do it, I think.

Agreed.

[curiousuburb]

Originally Posted by alcimedes I think there are a lot of people of faith in Haiti that would be more thankful for a Bible than the amount of food or medication they could have shipped in that Bible's place. Faith is a very important part of a lot of people's lives, and while I know that this board is generally very anti-religion, for a variety of reasons, there are people who's faith means more to them than any single meal, or even a week of meals. They're worried about their souls and the souls of their loved ones, hearing/reading stories in the Bible would for those people have much longer term benefits than eating a meal.

When we see footage of disaster victims storming churches or madly looting motel rooms for Gideon's as their #1 priority rather than crushing themselves queueing for food/water/medicine/blankets, I'll consider debating Maslow's pyramid.

As for athiest altruism:,

Ethics and Morality without Religion The humanist chaplain at Harvard preaches on living an ethical life without belief in God as the underpinning. His new book explores why people manage to do good without belief in a deity. Guests Greg Epstein: Author of "Good Without God." He's the humanist chaplain for Harvard University.

[zippy]

Originally Posted by Iago Would have been good advice fifty years ago. Religion is as sinister, pervasive and threatening as it ever has been in the world today, IMO. I don't think anyone means to insult anybody else. It's just something everyone cares about a lot.

WHAT??

Religion is sinister, pervasive and threatening? Oh, but you don't mean to insult anyone. Oh, OK.


Your absolute disdain and intolerance for religion (and dare I say anyone who disagrees with you) is duly noted. Can we move on now.

And don't worry. I'll still pray for you.

[zippy]

Originally Posted by 709 Gawd. One, I'm not religion hating. I love religion. I study religion ffs. The first essay I was ever charged to do, in grade 4, I chose religion as my subject. Religion is fascinating to me. Where you got "throwing insults" from is exactly why religion is fascinating to me. If you're not with us you're against us, obviously. There were no insults thrown, but that's what I love about religious people. If they even think a stink-eye was thrown their way they're always like "I AM PAIN! I AM KILLED BY TEH INFEDIL!!!" Fucking hell. Predicability, thy name is religious grunts. Honestly, I could give a shit, but your whole MYOB "like the rest of us" quip was the funniest thing I've ever heard coming from a believer. Fucking classic. If only. The world would be a better place.

I don't know. I read 'meaningless', 'stupid crap' and 'voodoo' as insults.

[zsummers]

Originally Posted by Iago Here's a tough question: would you rather the notion of religion hadn't ever come up to humans? Very tough call. Richard Dawkins was asked this once and he answered emphatically that he would--"we'd save a lot of lives, and wouldn't have had any superstitions delaying the enlightenment." I'm not so sure. I think we'd have found other things to fight over. I don't think we'd lose anything artistically, though. Although religious institutions were the great patrons of arts for many centuries, I believe we'd have seen other things being commissioned.

Now there's a great and unanswerable question... given religion's central role in shaping our world up until 2010, it is almost like asking, "is our world good?" My brain scrapes bottom (or top) on that one.

Here's what I think I can say for certain--I do wish that, if religion had to exist, it would have taken on Kurt Vonnegut's great humanist maxim as its one and only: "Hello babies. Welcome to Earth. It's hot in the summer and cold in the winter. It's round and wet and crowded. On the outside, babies, you've got a hundred years here. There's only one rule that I know of, babies-"God damn it, you've got to be kind."

I agree wholeheartedly. I think the fact that religion is still around, like Jay Leno, is preventing the Conan O'Brien of secularism of getting a fair crack at the whip

Best analogy ever? Best analogy ever.

[PB PM]

Originally Posted by 709 Honestly, I could give a shit, but your whole MYOB "like the rest of us" quip was the funniest thing I've ever heard coming from a believer. Fucking classic. .

Don't recall saying I was.

[709]

Originally Posted by zippy I don't know. I read 'meaningless', 'stupid crap' and 'voodoo' as insults.

Fair enough.

I'll lay with it as an insult to humanity, which is how I meant it (Christianity, that is).