Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
For those inclined to help the victims of the earthquake in Haiti, here's another option for you: Non-Believers Giving Aid, organized by Richard Dawkins. 100% of the money donated will go to Doctors Without Borders and the Red Cross, both incredibly worthy groups that do heroic work all over the world.
I couldn't care less whether someone donates to a religious organization helping out there or not. You should donate to whatever group you are comfortable donating to. But I think it's a good idea to do so through a non-religious organization because you can help out at the same time you're disproving the myth that religion is required for morality or charity. That's where I chose to donate. I hope you will too.
Comments
Every time a blowhard spews hatred during a catastrophe, I give to an organization I believe both uses my money efficiently and are also unfairly criticized by the aforementioned blowhards.
When Pat Robertson blamed the Haitians for dealing with Satan, I gave to UNICEF.
Posted by: Michael Heath | January 18, 2010 9:37 AM
Here's one reason to think twice about trying to help through that arm of US government policy known as the Red Cross.
And what about the stories that the US-military-controlled Port-au-Prince airport has turned away planes of medical supplies and personnel from Venezuela, Cuba, and Doctors Without Borders?
This may (dammit) be a perfect field test for the hypotheses advanced in Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | January 18, 2010 9:49 AM
Pierce @ 2:
I'm cognizant of the general thesis of Ms. Klein's book but not the relevant hypothesis you refer to here. Perhaps you could share?
Posted by: Michael Heath | January 18, 2010 10:20 AM
The missuse of funds is always a risk in charity giving but in the circumstances I'll take the risk rather than do nothing.
That said I will continue to donate through funds that are set up for UK gift aid, which saddly this one isn't.
Posted by: Matty | January 18, 2010 10:33 AM
Do you have a link for any kind of support for the military turning away aircraft?
Posted by: Kevin | January 18, 2010 10:57 AM
I searched google news for 'military turning away aircraft'(without quote marks) and the first link was this record of a press conference in which a Colonel Elton states the 3 out of 67 flights were turned away due to limited space at the airport.
Posted by: Matty | January 18, 2010 11:15 AM
See, that's kind of what I thought to. However, Pierce's implication was that the military was turning away aircraft from 'undesirable' countries. That's what I wanted info on.
Posted by: Kevin | January 18, 2010 12:11 PM
This works both ways, I think: The FRC has already issued an appeal for people to donate to Christian charities only. In particular, give money to all those ministries who lost their church buildings in the earthquake, and to train new pastors to replace those killed.
Is is still pure charity if you are trying to out-donate another faction to prove your moral superiority?
Posted by: Suricou Raven | January 18, 2010 12:23 PM
A fair question. I think what makes NBGA a positive thing, and absolves it from the "Look how generous we are!" problem, is that a startling number of people actively believes that nontheists are not charitable.
In other words, I don't think this is a case of nontheists proving their moral superiority, but rather, disproving their alleged moral inferiority.
If nobody went around arguing how great Christian generosity was in comparison with everyone else, this campaign would be a little tasteless. But that's not the case.
And anyway, on a practical side, if some of the anger at theistic pompousness can be channeled to get people to donate more, that can't be a bad thing.
Posted by: James Sweet | January 18, 2010 12:47 PM
1) I'm not seeing the equivalence, Dawkins is not urging people to restrict their giving to to this fund or prioritising organisations that advocate atheism.
2)If I was buried in rubble, I wouldn't give a rodents posterior about the motives of the people who got me out and if their charity was pure.
3) What is FRC?
Posted by: Matty | January 18, 2010 12:48 PM
Scatch 3), I assune you mean the Family Research Council. Actually ,we may have to do without 1) as well, here is what they say about Haiti donations.
Yes the organisations they link to are Christian but I see nothing about how funds should go to replace Church buildings or hire new pastors and nothing about only donating to Christian charities.
Here's how I see it, people cluster into communities in all sorts of ways and if you want to raise cash it is smart to go where people with cash are (their communities). Richard Dawkins has targeted non-believers, FRC has targeted a subset of Christians. In neither case does using the community for fundraising equal using the funds for that community.
Posted by: Matty | January 18, 2010 1:02 PM
James Sweet,
Do you have examples of that? It seems to be a given that Christians are going about claiming that "we do all the charity"--but I don't hear any such claims. To be honest, most of the bragging I have seen about "lookee here at us, see how generous we are!" is coming from unbelievers.
Posted by: heddle | January 18, 2010 1:03 PM
I should add that I'm not endorsing the FRC, their politics repels me but if they also want to do good I'm not complaining.
Posted by: Matty | January 18, 2010 1:06 PM
heddle -- I suppose you missed all that shit about faith-based initiatives over the past decade?
Posted by: James Sweet | January 18, 2010 1:12 PM
Also, heddle, though I recognize that one example does not prove a trend, it took me about 45 seconds of Googling to find:
http://www.ncregister.com/site/article/15989/
"Whether we speak about....the generosity and charitable giving of religious people....religion beats atheism hands down in every area."
Posted by: James Sweet | January 18, 2010 1:15 PM
James Sweet,
What you said was: "arguing how great Christian generosity was in comparison with everyone else."
Are there really many instances of people arguing how great Christian charity is in comparison with everyone else? Maybe there are, but I haven't seen them. Referencing faith-based initiatives (which I oppose, FWIW) does not substantiate your claim.
Posted by: heddle | January 18, 2010 1:18 PM
heddle @ 12:
A couple of years ago a study came out that claimed that Christians and conservatives gave more than others. Fox News, viral emails, and other conservative media outlets beat that drum relentlessly. I still occasionally see Misters O'Reilly and Hannity bring it up.
My casual observation was that the study was fatally flawed relative to how the findings were used. I.e., I don't find giving to one's church charity. I realize churches do charitable things with a portion of their budget and part of that (the non-proselytizing part) should be considered in such studies, but charity is not the primary financial purpose of revenues for most churches and yet it was getting lumped in with others' contributions to UNICEF or Red Cross.
Posted by: Michael Heath | January 18, 2010 1:20 PM
And:
http://atheismsucks.blogspot.com/2006/11/study-proves-conservative-christians.html
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100114095026AAHid3K (Answer 3)
http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_Uncharitableness
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/christians.still.giving.to.charity.amid.recession/23649.htm (does not disparage atheists per se, but focuses only on that CHRISTIANS still give during a recession, not talking about people generally giving during a recession)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.christian/browse_thread/thread/590afd91b9432412/95d89f393090cec3?lnk=raot
http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=22177
Need I go on?
Posted by: James Sweet | January 18, 2010 1:21 PM
People have been arguing that you can't be good without God since before Euthyphro. Non-religious charities are just a way to show what bollocks that is.
Posted by: Gretchen | January 18, 2010 1:22 PM
Yes, but unfortunately I found so many links supporting this that my evidence got caught in the spam filter. Come back tomorrow after Ed has approved it.
Posted by: James Sweet | January 18, 2010 1:23 PM
Gretchen,
Sorry to nitpick but actually, logically, they prove no such thing. They do, however, prove that people can be and are good without believing in a god and without religion.
It is still logically possible that their moral compass comes from God. (The doctrine of Common Grace.)
Posted by: heddle | January 18, 2010 1:26 PM
So many people have misunderstood this initiative that I have to wonder whether they really are just that dense, or whether there is something more to it.
It is true that non-believers are — rightly, in my opinion — concerned about their donations going to groups who would use it for religious purposes. That is a valid concern, in my opinion.
It is also the case that most of the people who have commented on the various threads about this had already donated to other organizations or even to the same ones, just not through this channel. And many of those people have decided to donate again, as well.
However, this has been set up, firstly, so that there is a place where people who don't know where to give their money can be fairly certain that it will go to a respected organization, and secondly, because it will almost certainly encourage people who hadn't already donated to give, as well.
In the end, motivations don't really matter a great deal, because there is no such thing as a selfless act. We often give money to charity for more than selfless reasons, whether we would want to admit to that or not. And I really don't care, as long as you do give.
As much as I respect Heddle, I cannot escape the conclusion that he lives in a bizarro universe where nobody would ever suggest that atheists are selfish or that they cannot be moral, and that the religious have a monopoly on all things good. You'd think that it wasn't one of the very things that people often speak about when trumpeting the benefits of religious belief.
However, to be absolutely fair, when it comes to charity the religious are almost always excellent, even if I don't always agree with how that money is spent. They do in fact out-give secularists, and that is why efforts like this are needed. It is not that religious believers are somehow better people, but more to do with the fact that organizations are better at encouraging people to do good. This is one of the things that has been highlighted, and I see nothing wrong with attempting to encourage more secularists and non-believers to give time and money to charity.
Posted by: Damian | January 18, 2010 1:33 PM
Seems like another layer of administrative overhead that someone's going to have to eat the costs for - if I want 100% of my cash to go to Doctors without Borders and the Red Cross, why wouldn't I give to them directly?
Posted by: MattXIV | January 18, 2010 1:35 PM
James Sweet,
If we are just doing google counts, I bet I can match you, link for link, with someone claiming that atheists give more. It's a big internet, you find a lot of people saying anything.
My question was more along the lines of: can you make a case that somehow on the whole Christians are routinely claiming to be more charitable? Your original post, in my opinion, made it sound pervasive.
Posted by: heddle | January 18, 2010 1:37 PM
Wow, way to go with the complete and utter lack of reading comprehension.
Richard Dawkins has personally donated $10k to cover the PayPal overhead. 100% of your cash is going to Doctors Without Borders and/or Red Cross.
As far as "why wouldn't I give to them directly", obviously that is fine too. In fact, I will not be donating via NBGA, because I already donated to the Red Cross before I heard about it and money is tight for me right now. But this is a valid option. And you score an epic FAIL on making a criticism that is already directly addressed...
Posted by: James Sweet | January 18, 2010 1:38 PM
heddle, I'd hoped that in context it would be clear that I was talking about being good without belief in God. It is possible that the only reason I, as an atheist, can be good is because God instilled a moral compass in me...but that would also mean that the only reason I exist in the first place is because God made me, so it's a banal point.
Posted by: Gretchen | January 18, 2010 1:41 PM
Are you asking if, on my lunch break, I can formulate and implement an extensive study gauging American's perceptions of the relative generosity of Christians, other religious groups, and atheists, and then show statistically significant results?
No, I can't do that.
Listen, Damian hit it on the head when he said you are living in a bizarro world. I'm done arguing with you. Anyway, as a Calvinist, you believe we all already are exactly as generous as we are going to be, right?
Posted by: James Sweet | January 18, 2010 1:42 PM
James,
No I understood that exactly. It generates additional overhead, which someone has to pony up the cash for - Dawkins is covering it up to $10k, but it's still money that could be spent on something more useful than transaction fees. The only product of the intermediary transactions appears to be smug self-righteousness.
Posted by: MattXIV | January 18, 2010 1:57 PM
James Sweet,
I'm just saying that perhaps it is more convenient than true that Christians as a group are in the habit of claiming they are more generous than atheists. That the popular we-are-more-moral-and-holier-than-thou Christian has a large component of caricature.
Well--as A Calvinist I naturally believe in a libertine free will. You'll give exactly as much as you want to give, all things being equal.
Posted by: heddle | January 18, 2010 2:00 PM
James Sweet,
Wait a minute. If there was $10k of administrative overhead to set up this route for giving, then why is it a "complete and utter lack of reading comprehension" to say there is a layer of overhead? After all, that's $10k of the total amount of donated money that is not going directly to Doctors Without Borders and/or Red Cross, no matter what individual pocket the money came out of.
Are you perhaps saying that every route by which money goes to these two organizations has at least one layer of administrative costs, and that this route also has only the one layer?
One can give directly to Doctors Without Borders by credit card. Is it so that the administrative cost of the direct credit card donation is the same as the paypal cost through NGBA?
The direct donation to Doctors Without Borders is, I believe tax-deductible in the US, thus theoretically permitting people to give more than they would have been able to without the tax kick-back. Are donations through NGBA tax-deductible?
I'm not arguing with the concept of NGBA. Anything that encourages people to give is probably helpful right now. But it isn't outrageous for MattXIV to be concerned about giving in the most economically sensible way.
Posted by: JuliaL | January 18, 2010 2:06 PM
Or, trying to defend against charges of a lack of righteousness...
Anyway, as Damian points out, if it inspires people to give more than they otherwise would, how is that a bad thing? The only way it could be a bad thing is if a) you are assuming humans are purely rational actors, in which case your "extra overhead" argument is sound, or b) if you think nontheists should just roll over and take it in the ass when people argue that they aren't sufficiently charitable.
Posted by: James Sweet | January 18, 2010 2:08 PM
James Sweet,
Oh, there is extra overhead? So you're saying that in a time when funds are desperately needed in Haiti, Dawkins chose to give $10k to support the cause of nontheism? He's entitled to do that. And, perhaps some nontheists who would not have given directly to aid in Haiti will donate in order to support this particular fund, or will donate extra.
It's still not unreasonable for people to inquire into administrative costs.
Posted by: JuliaL | January 18, 2010 2:13 PM
JuliaL,
The linked page NBGA includes the following.
directly below the paypal button.
And at the very bottom of the page
I trust this answers your questions, as I've stated I will not be donating by this route as despite being a UK registered charity it does not appear to be set up for Gift Aid but from the US tax can be reclaimed and there are multiple ways to pay only one of which is paypal.
Posted by: Matty | January 18, 2010 2:23 PM
@JuliaL (and indirectly Matt XIV): I'll admit that my initial response to Matt XIV was overly harsh. I apologize for that. I had assumed he just didn't read that part of it, whereas I see now he was making an argument that Dawkin's $10k would have been better spent as a direct donation. I should not have assumed the worst.
I believe at #30 I have responded to what Matt XIV was actually saying. But as you say, it's "not unreasonable" for people to disagree about this, and as such I apologize for my initial post implying that Matt XIV wasn't being reasonable. He is being reasonable; I just disagree.
Posted by: James Sweet | January 18, 2010 2:27 PM
And let's not forget that Dawkins has probably donated directly to one of those organizations, already, so the insinuation that the $10,000 is being used for a less worthy purpose, instead of donating it to the relief fund, is fairly malicious, particularly as the fund has reached nearly $200,000 in little over 24 hours. I realize that Julia probably doesn't mean that, but that is how it comes across.
The RDF is actually a registered charity, so it is a little silly to make an issue of the fact that this has been set up as another arm of an already functioning charity organization. In the end, a charity has to set up at some point, and if you want to be consistent, you would have to be equally suspicious about each and every one of them, and particularly those — and there are many — that allow you to donate through paypal.
Posted by: Damian | January 18, 2010 2:40 PM
James,
There are more implications to publicized giving than that, such as a feeling of beholdeness it can create in the recipients. The question of whether publicizing one's (or those of a group one is a member of) charitable acts is a good idea isn't a simple one, but skepticism of the idea that encouraging people to give because it brings glory to some other cause that they support does more good is quite defensible, especially when it creates additional overhead. As for the believers' claims that they're morally superior because of their publicized giving, I'm quite content to leave the self-righteousness to them.
Posted by: MattXIV | January 18, 2010 2:40 PM
James,
After reading your last comment, I think we're narrowed it down to a reasonable basis for disagreement although I am still of the opinion that publicization's downfalls are non-trivial and it should be treated with skepticism.
Posted by: MattXIV | January 18, 2010 2:49 PM
Damian,
The fact that the fund has so quickly reached $200,000 doesn't suggest to me that those funds would not have been donated at all without this particular conduit. My experience is that non-believers give generously, and most or all would have given anyway.
Now, not to mislead you, I must indeed be clear that I do think that the Paypal-payment is a less worthy cause: not unworthy but, yes, less worthy. If someone told me that for only $10,000 of extra overhead, a fund called "Christians Giving Aid" had been set up so the world would know that bunches of the money going to Doctors Without Borders and the Red Cross came from Christians rather than non-believers, I wouldn't use it as a conduit for my giving. I do think that giving money to be sure that a particular group gets credit is a less worthy cause than giving money directly to Doctors Wtihout Borders.
But there's nothing "malicious" in that judgment. We all have our opinions about what causes are more worthy, and we tend to judge these matters, perhaps, in the light of our own experiences. Your own values and experiences appear to be leading you to give a certain priority to the cause of changing public opinions about nonbelievers, and I agree that that change would be good. My own experiences in having lived through the desolation and need that comes in the aftermath of, first, a Category 2 hurricane, and then, more recently, a very large Category 4 hurricane, makes me want to get money to Haiti in the most direct, low-cost manner possible. Neither of us is, in my opinion, being malicious.
Posted by: JuliaL | January 18, 2010 3:03 PM
I've never understood why Doctors Without Boarders was considered a worthwhile charity anyway. What’s so important about building bookstores near golf courses?
Posted by: Abby Normal | January 18, 2010 3:28 PM
Heddle - sometimes I agree with others about the bizarro world claim. Most of my life has been spent around red staters that are constantly talking about how one can't be moral without God and how Christian charity distinguishes itself. Essentially they mimic the Rick Warren schtick. Constantly.
OTH I don't spend hardly anytime around non-Christians except on the Internet, where I rarely even see this brought up as a topic. If charity is even brought up in an atheist-friendly site, it's almost always either a policy argument or advice on why to give. I don't even think I've ever encountered an argument where atheists defend themselves against Christian claims they aren't charitable. Perhaps when the flawed report came out a couple of years ago I previously mentioned.
I admit this is merely my observation, but I can't imagine it's unrepresentative of at least conservative Christians relative to free thinkers.
Posted by: Michael Heath | January 18, 2010 3:54 PM
Another reason not to donate to the Red Cross: they don't accept blood donations from gay men. No, really, it's in their policies. Go look. And their centers typically won't take transsexual blood either.
Posted by: Rose | January 18, 2010 3:58 PM
Your argument is ultimately self-defeating. We already know from research that charitable giving makes people feel good about themselves. Indeed, if it made people feel really bad there would almost certainly be a lot less giving. So, as I've said, there is no such thing as a selfless act. And that's why I really don't care why people give money, as long as they do.
You have also failed to mention that many atheists deplore what religious charities do with their donations, so it is perfectly reasonable to highlight those charities that non-believers can donate to without any fear of it being used to preach against condoms, or to tell people in need that it can be filled with Jesus Christ. That is a perfectly valid concern, because no secular charity as far as I am aware has told people that they need to become an atheist if they are to receive help.
And we already know that charity has to be advertised. Again, if there were no fund-raising drives or adverts on the TV and radio, there would be a lot less giving than there is now. Expecting people to know exactly where and when to give is naive. Many non-believers spend a lot of their time on the internet reading various atheist and science blogs, so it makes sense to have a place where people can be reminded that they can give to charity. The argument that paypal is unnecessary is valid, but you don't know why that was done, and it is possible to donate directly without using paypal (and through other methods, as well).
That you are reading in to this that atheists are giving money for reasons other than to help people is largely a product of your own imagination. I couldn't care less what you think about people giving to this fund, because it makes absolutely no difference whether you think well of me or not. You're the one that have made an issue of what most people see as a perfectly good idea, but I have to wonder why it bothers you so much.
And the same argument you and Matt are putting forward could be used against Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, or anybody else that has set up a foundation or advertises for charity. Why are they not self-promoting, also? And even if they are, it really doesn't matter as they are giving millions, if not billions, of dollars to help people around the world. Only someone with a warped sense of the world would even bother to suggest that they might be doing it to make themselves look good.
Whereas you appear to see this as non-believers attempting to make themselves look good, I see a fund being set up that will only encourage more giving and so that non-believers can be certain that their money will go directly to a good cause.
Although it does concern me that atheists are the least trusted people in the US, and that a large majority of people would never vote an atheist in to office, and that a lesser, though still sizable proportion, don't believe that it is possible to be moral without believing in God, and that majority would be very unhappy if one of their children married an atheist, I really don't see this fund as an attempt to show that these things are all wrong. As I've already said, this is being advertised on atheist and science blogs, mainly, so it is highly unlikely that even a small percentage of people will hear about. If the goal was to make atheists look good, it won't work.
No, you are being malicious because you have ignored every other possible and alternative explantion and gone straight to one that no doubt helps to propogate the myths about atheists. That you cannot see any other reason why this fund was set up means that you are part of the problem. But as that problem can wait for another time, I will continue to advertise this fund in the hope that it attracts a lot more money to help the people of Haiti.
But please, do be consistent in your thinking, because it would be really unfair to think that doctors without borders are doing what they are to look good, but that is effectively the logical conclusion of what you are arguing. And it stinks.
Posted by: Damian | January 18, 2010 4:11 PM
W(hy)TF is there an argument about overhead and administrative costs and such with donating to NBGA compared to explicitly religious organizations?
Is someone actually claiming that religious organizations don't have such costs? Is someone actually claiming that churches don't siphon off a hefty percentage of every dollar donated to pay for purchasing property, building churches, advertising out the wazoo (proselytizing), hiding evidence of altar-boy-buggering, administrative paperwork, satellite transmission, hiring playboy playmate wannabes as assistants while keeping their wives in the pancake make-up lifestyles to which they are accustomed, multiple sectarian-dedicated television networks, multiple mansions on prime real estate, and gilded palaces for their leaders???
And why the hell shouldn't non-believers self-promote? It isn't as though the religious don't continuously spew their moral superiority across those aforementioned networks. I hear self-aggrandizing comments from religious associates almost daily. I hear such comments on commercial radio, commercial television, see such comments plastered on billboards on every major highway and not a small number of back roads. You'd have to be giving yourself a permanent naked-eye colonoscopy to not notice the extreme bloviation of the self-congratulatory and mutual admiration clubs that are organized religions (particularly Christian sects in the US), especially with regard to charity. For non-believers to identify themselves as charitable givers is an infinitesimal form of self promotion by comparison.
Oh, as for giving directly to DwoB or the Red Cross, check with your credit card company as some are charging up to 3% as a "transaction fee" while others are waiving those fees. Obviously, giving directly potentially will strip away one layer of overhead costs, but there is almost no way to avoid them entirely.
Posted by: rndm_arshl | January 18, 2010 4:19 PM
Michael Heath #40,
I don't mind that it is a bizzaro world, because it is the best of all possible worlds!
Posted by: heddle | January 18, 2010 4:28 PM
The last thing Haiti needs are new church buildings and pastors.
What say the donations are used for building essential infrastructure, say roads, sewers, fresh water supply and perhaps even training the Haitians to build and support their own infrastructure and help them escape from this endless dependency on foreign aid.
Posted by: steve | January 18, 2010 4:32 PM
Hmmm. I can't wrap my head around the concept of a moral atheist any more than a vegan butcher or a brilliant moron. What does "morality" mean without some kind of trancendent authority? I think you're referring to what we normally call preferences, social mores, opinions and "what works" for our common comfort.
Words like "good" - "should" - "wrong" and "evil" are incompatable with atheism. Just thought I'd point that out.
Posted by: steve | January 18, 2010 5:03 PM
Damian,
I did no such thing. In fact, I said plainly that I think non-believers are generous givers with or without a fund that identifies them as such.
You do appear to care. You're writing a good deal about it. And I think that it's admirable for you and other people to give to relief in Haiti through this fund and through any other way they choose.
I did no such thing. My comments were an objection to making an issue of people questioning the administrative costs. It's always a good idea to question administrative costs. I have no objection at all to the fund, or to its serving two purposes.
I don't understand you. What explanation have I "gone to"? And what "alternative explanation" are you talking about? You said that that Dawkins' $10,000 was "instead of donating it to the relief fund," and now you say I'm a malicious person because I agree with you? Surely you are not arguing that the name of the fund is merely an irrelevant strange coincidence, and not reflective of a double purpose? Ed says "you can help out at the same time you're disproving the myth that religion is required for morality or charity," and that sounds exactly right to me.
I expressed my own personal preferences about which organizations to give to only because you made an incorrect assumption about what they are. I prefer, whenever possible, to donate money directly to organizations that themselves are directly carrying out the work, "boots on the ground" organizations, rather than to organizations that serve as a sort of middleman conduit. The groups that collect money in order to pass it on to other groups have their place, though for me the increased administrative costs make them a secondary, not primary, choice for giving. Whether or not such a group is for non-believers or knitters or whatever is irrelevant to that issue.
rndm_arshl,
I've not heard anyone making that comparison.
Not on this thread.
No reason that I know of. And no one on this thread has suggested that.
Precisely so.
Posted by: JuliaL | January 18, 2010 5:05 PM
Steve,
That simply isn't true. There are a number of ways to construct ethical systems, and religious belief is only one of them.
People are suffering, and you are using this opportunity to argue that non-believers have no reason to help out. Stop it.
Posted by: Julia L | January 18, 2010 5:19 PM
Michael @ # 3 - The ultra-short version of Klein's idea is that when a disaster strikes a smaller nation, the US (meaning both large corporations and the government acting as their agent) moves in rapidly to displace local economic and power centers and replace them with its own.
Often enough, the catastrophe is US-caused (e.g., the coup against Allende in Chile); other times, it's pure opportunism (such as displacement of coastal villages by tourist hotels and other development following the Indian Ocean tsunami). Typically, a crash program of Friedmanian economics (privatization, elimination of protectionist tariffs, gov't downsizing) is part of the package.
Klein perhaps makes too much of her model, which doesn't cover every instance of capitalist takeover, and of comparisons between the cases where it does apply and of how torturers break down their victims' resistance, but her book is well researched and fact-checked (the sections on Chile & South Africa are particularly on target).
Joseph Stiglitz gave Shock Doctrine a positive review in the NY Times.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | January 18, 2010 5:29 PM
Whether you can wrap your head around it or not, atheists are endowed with the full complement of human psychological capacities, including moral capacities. Christian translation: the law is written in the heart and conscience bears witness.
Posted by: Dr X | January 18, 2010 5:40 PM
FYI, steve @ 4:32 PM != steve @ 5:03 PM if it's not obvious.
I would remove my tonsils thru my ears before regurgitating that tired old religiot canard.
Posted by: steve oberski | January 18, 2010 5:46 PM
steve, #46: What does "morality" mean without some kind of trancendent authority?
Morality is exactly what people feel is right or wrong, or what people feel is abhorrent or feel is commendable. What else could morality mean? Invoking a "transcendent authority" just begs the question: why "should" anyone obey this "transcendent authority?"
Posted by: Chiroptera | January 18, 2010 5:46 PM
Here. Read.
Posted by: Gretchen | January 18, 2010 6:34 PM
Kevin & Matty @ #s 5-7 - sorry I missed yr messages earlier, while scrambling to answer Michael Heath's @ # 3.
And,
The good news is that I misremembered details of the first story: the plane turned away had "leading technical officials", but not explicitly medical personnel. And the second story details that the medical personnel and equipment were allowed to land in the Dominican Republic, to be transported by truck, for a mere 24-hour delay - but time flows differently in the laid-back, fun-loving sunny Caribbean, right?
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | January 18, 2010 9:23 PM
Steve #46,
You're new to the nonbeliever blogosphere, aren't you? Your questions have been answered about 10 hundred million times on it, and we're still really just riffing on what the ancient Greeks said. Oh well. Thanks for playing!
Posted by: Will E. | January 18, 2010 10:35 PM
Oh, frabjous day, here's another one:
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | January 18, 2010 10:50 PM
steve "Hmmm. I can't wrap my head around the concept of a moral atheist any more than a vegan butcher or a brilliant moron. What does "morality" mean without some kind of trancendent authority? I think you're referring to what we normally call preferences, social mores, opinions and "what works" for our common comfort.
Words like "good" - "should" - "wrong" and "evil" are incompatable with atheism. Just thought I'd point that out."
...Must not feed the trolls. Must not feed the trolls. Must not feed the trolls...
Posted by: Modusoperandi | January 19, 2010 2:31 AM
Pierce, I have no particular reason to take the word of Colonel Elton over you so I'm happy to accept that the cited 3 planes is wrong. I am curious what you think the implications are though, is this cock up or conspiracy? If it is a conspiracy, what are they trying to achieve?
Posted by: Matty | January 19, 2010 5:44 AM
Oh look a vegan butcher. Looks like Steve is extra wrong.
Posted by: Matty | January 19, 2010 5:54 AM
Matty @ # 58 - assuming all these reports are correct (the typos in the first one are a bit discouraging, at least to some of us elitist snobs), I suspect there's a bit of both cockup and conspiracy happening.
Since one report had it that the Pentagon was controlling Haitian air traffic, and the other that it was the FAA, either there's confusion among the US leadership, or functions are being shuffled around rapidly (or both). Whatever priorities have been set for the one reported useable runway, no doubt US planes get first call; if the CariCom plane did carry heads of state, sending them home was a major gaffe (unless it was a deliberate "WE'RE in charge here" snub), but easy to imagine from a "get the job done" mindset.
The Doctors Without Borders (usually known by the French acronym MSF) plane is another story, since those guys are famous for job-doing. You can imagine a controller, faced with a dozen flights already stacked up, telling the most recent arrivals to get the hell out, but on every other level that one screams "screwup!" to me.
Politics seems much more likely regarding the three Brazilian planes. For about five years, Brazil has been in charge of the multinational relief force attempting Haitian relief, and does not seem inclined to relinquish their UN-granted control. US commanders not having many gold stars under "plays well with others" on their report cards lately, I'm finding it hard to conjure any other scenarios than power struggle in that case.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | January 19, 2010 9:14 AM
Hey folks, I think atheists have lots of good reasons to give: Love, compassion, duty... But "morality" isn't one of them. You just decided upon a moral law that dictates to me how I should think, act and speak, did you? Then you make yourself god. Shall I bow down to you? Call it consensus, public welfare or what instinct tells your gut. But don't control me with your version of morality. I have my preferences and you have yours. Anything you label with the term "moral" is just theism in different wrapping paper.
Posted by: Steve | January 19, 2010 12:22 PM
Thanks Matty (#59). That's hilarious. He's also a brilliant moron so you got me twice there!
Posted by: steve | January 19, 2010 12:26 PM
Steve, I think I see where you're coming from but I still think 'moral' is useful shorthand for "things I feel obligated to do for motives other than direct self interest". Take that away and you are left with no distinction between my choosing to believe than donating to charity is right and my choosing chocolate ice cream over vanilla. Both are personal choices not in my view dictated by a universal code but they are very different in both their effects and my subjective feelings about each choice.
Posted by: Matty | January 19, 2010 12:43 PM
I see your point Chiroptera (#52). If morality "is exactly what people feel is right or wrong, or what people feel is abhorrent or feel is commendable" then an atheist can certainly be moral. That's a definition of morality I am comfortable applying to everyone. But I can't shake the feeling that your trying to say, "my personal opinion." I suppose when you say "morality" you are talking about everyone's individual feelings and standards about what they should do. When I mentioned "morality" I was referring to an objective standard for behavior that is true and obligatory no matter how I may feel about it.
Posted by: steve | January 19, 2010 12:54 PM
When I mentioned "morality" I was referring to an objective standard for behavior that is true and obligatory no matter how I may feel about it.
And
But I can't shake the feeling that your trying to say, "my personal opinion." I suppose when you say "morality" you are talking about everyone's individual feelings and standards about what they should do.
Are not mutually exclusive - at least not in practice. All morality is, is your personal feelings - whether they are yours outright, or your feeling that this is what your god wants you to do or not do. Claiming that atheists are incapable of morality, is like saying that no one who doesn't understand your god's will the way that you understand it is capable of morality. I.e. - everybody who isn't you.
Please seriously consider your position and consider a primer in elementary logic. There are a lot of them on the web, though I am partial to Stanford's. Purdue and Brown also have very good logic resources online. After you have gotten the hang of logic, feel free to come back and have a reasonably intelligent conversation about morality. Outside of your very narrow view of morality, there are a lot of very interesting positions.
I personally am a fairly extreme moral relativist. Please do not take that to mean that atheists are all a bunch of moral relativists though. While I am far from alone with my position - indeed, I have convinced others mine is the correct position, far more atheists are unwilling to accept my position as valid. And it would do you well to keep in mind that I developed my position on morality while I was a theist - Christian to be exact.
To be very clear, when you come around and start telling us we are immoral or even amoral, you are betraying more than an ignorance of logic. You are also betraying an extreme ignorance of what atheist means, what morality actually is and worst of all, your own faith. Because I can guarantee you that there are millions of Christians alive today who do not operate from the same moral frame that you do. Go into history and we are talking billions, many of whom would happily stretch you across a rack for heresy, unless you subscribe to a very fringe view of your faith. Go into different places today and you find other Christians with somewhat dramatically different moral frames - we needn't even discuss other theistic foundations.
You ask us not to control you - we have no interest whatever in controlling you. Morality as a governor of behavior has it's greatest value, when the individual has absolute ownership of their moral frame.
Posted by: DuWayne | January 20, 2010 8:42 AM
Doctors Without Borders (MSF) is still getting major interference from the de facto US occupation of Haiti:
More details of the continuing horrors and heart/brain-less US maladministration here.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | January 20, 2010 7:30 PM
Hey buddy, I get it. Morals are feelings and feelings are morals. I can understand why you choked when I said you didn't have any feelings/morals. But I can't understand why you need this archaic language.
Is it about legitimacy?
Why not use accurate terms? Why recycle and redefine old theistic words? I suppose pretty soon you'll also be a spiritual person? Do you have a soul too? Do you harness the mighty power of prayer?
It sounds so pitiful: "...you can help out at the same time you're disproving the myth that religion is required for morality..." What are you afraid of? I see the logic dude. It's the insecurity and insincerity that I don't get.
Posted by: steve | January 20, 2010 7:57 PM
steve, #64: When I mentioned "morality" I was referring to an objective standard for behavior that is true and obligatory no matter how I may feel about it.
Well, that is what I was responding to, and that was what I take issue with. I don't believe that "objective standard for morality" even makes sense. If one were to claim that such an objective standard exists, there still remains the question why it is obligatory. Why such a system must be adhered to is itself a moral question, and I can't see how any system can self-evidently answer this question within itself.
To me, "objective standard of morality" is an oxymoron, like four sided triangles. It could be I'm not thinking about it correctly, but I've given the matter a lot of thought and read what a lot of other people have to say about it and haven't found anything that gets around this problem.
Posted by: Chiroptera | January 20, 2010 8:54 PM
JuliaL:
Sorry about the late reply. I'd like to apologize as I misunderstood you as suggesting that the reason that this was set up was to make atheists look good, and that it somehow detracts from the actual giving.
I'll admit that I am a little disappointed that it was even mentioned that it was set up, even in part, to counter the myth that atheists aren't good people because, on reflection, it can be and has been used to say just that. That's a shame, as you can be certain that the people giving to it are doing so to help the people of Haiti.
However, a more clear reading shows that it was set up as an ongoing project, which will allow humanists, atheists, secularists, etc, to not only advertise for donations, but to recommend different charities, depending on the circumstances. In that sense, they need an over-arching placeholder beyond the actual charities so that people know where to go each time. And there is also the fact that this is a joint project consisting of numerous groups, so it does, in my opinion, make sense to handle it in that way.
I suppose that the unfortunate thing is that it was set up at this time, and that allows people to claim that atheists are taking advantage of the disaster for their own ends. As I've explained, that's a rather silly and cynical argument as you could say that about anyone who works for or raises funds for charity. It has never once crossed my mind that Christian charities are only interested in making religion look good, even if I sometimes disagree with how that money is spent.
And by the way, as far as I am aware, pay-pal are waving the fees, so even that it is a none issue.
Posted by: Damian | January 23, 2010 1:51 AM