Looking for stuff about birds?
Learn more about Charles Darwin and his work.
Lean more about lions
Why did this disaster hit Haiti? Pat Robertson will be happy to tell you.
About mid way through this report, Robertson tells us that the fact that more buildings are collapsed than standing in Haiti is a blessing in disguise.
Starting at 6 minutes, Pat explains the reasons for the disaster. He explains that the Haitian people made a deal with Satan, and have been in this arrangement ever since. The Dominicans did not make the deal with Satan, and they are all happy and not subject to disaster.
Here's a shorter clip with the most important part that may work better:
The only way out of this for the Haitians is to join with the missionaries and do what they are told.
So no, I will not be sending any money to the Christian organizations. And, in fact, I think missionaries should very simply be shut down.
Here's a short list of secular organizations working in Haiti. If you know of others, please add them to that post in the comments.
Hat tip: PZ Myers
Comments
Apparently the archbishop was killed in the quake. Not that Robertson wouldn't see that as a victory for his side.
Posted by: Stephanie Z | January 13, 2010 2:48 PM
It was the papists that made the deal with Satan, so this just proves it.
Posted by: Greg Laden | January 13, 2010 2:57 PM
I don't normally wish death upon people. However, I'll make an exception for Pat Robertson. Please die soon, Pat. The world will be a better place without you.
Posted by: Dave | January 13, 2010 3:23 PM
Dave, shame on you.
(I was thinking the same thing as I wrote this post, but restrained form including it. Well, actually, I got distracted by the baby and forgot to include it.)
Posted by: Greg Laden | January 13, 2010 3:25 PM
While Robertson's remarks are totally unacceptable, don't tar all religious organizations with the same brush. I dare say you won't find any representatives from the American Friends Service Committee or the Unitarian Universalist Service Committee spouting such hateful nonsense.
Posted by: Kathryn | January 13, 2010 3:32 PM
Kathryn, that's true, but you did just name two agencies that are small and pretty darn sectarian. Most religious christians think of unitarians as dangerous commies.
Posted by: Thomas | January 13, 2010 3:35 PM
Pat Robertson is pox on humanity. However, it's completely ridiculous to act like Pat Robertson speaks for all Christians or most Christians.
You also won't hear any of that kind of hateful nonsense from any representatives of Lutheran World Relief, The Methodist Committee on Relief or Presbyterian Disaster Assistance.
I know that you think religious people believe a bunch of nonsense, but you are also distorting what other people with a belief system that is different from yours do. For instance most mainline protestant groups think that traditional missionary work is a form of cultural imperialism and they don't do it. They haven't for decades.
Just as it is possible for people without a belief in any kind of god to be good people, it is possible for people who believe in god to be good people also.
Posted by: katydid13 | January 13, 2010 4:14 PM
Pat's god needs to test him, or otherwise show the world that Pat's in league with satan.
Posted by: MadScientist | January 13, 2010 4:25 PM
"I know that you think religious people believe a bunch of nonsense, but you are also distorting what other people with a belief system that is different from yours do. For instance most mainline protestant groups think that traditional missionary work is a form of cultural imperialism and they don't do it. They haven't for decades.
Just as it is possible for people without a belief in any kind of god to be good people, it is possible for people who believe in god to be good people also."
Which I don't think is being debated here.
But the problem of explicitly religious aid groups is that there's a great deal of conditions they attach to their aid that secular aid groups don't which are often only substantiated by their religious notions, and this has, well, created problems. You don't need to look much farther than Grope Panzerfaust's condom hangups, for example. I don't know how much they attach proselytizing to their aid.
Posted by: Katharine | January 13, 2010 4:54 PM
Actually, Katharine, I think it's your last line that contains the key. Going with a non-secular organization, you simply can't know (without close experience with the agency) whether or not you're supporting proselytizing to a vulnerable group of people.
Posted by: Stephanie Z | January 13, 2010 5:03 PM
While it is true that there are some religious organizations that are pretty good at just throwing down and helping - especially in the context of disaster relief, that is no reason for me to throw support in through them. The bottom line, is that I am not really interested in giving money to an organization dealing with disaster relief, that I would not give money to help run their day to day activities.
I am virtually broke and will have to wait to give, until it is probably not really going to be disaster relief anymore - even though that is exactly what it will be. I want the money that I give go to help people - not to proselytize or help them with strings attached. And honestly, I don't care if the extent of proselytizing is merely wearing clothes that identify the religious organization from whence the aid came - I am not going to support any of it. Not when there are other options.
And I have dealt with some of these religious aid organizations - there was more proselytizing than just emblems to identify. I have gone on relief "mission" trips. It is all about spreading the word of Christ wherever and whenever possible. And you know? Nothing says "fun" like being a young teen and having grown men desperately telling you how much they love your god, because they are afraid that if they don't, you won't give them food.
Fuck That Motherfucking Bullshit.
I am not - I repeat not giving money to pressure adults to desperately proclaim anything, excepting possible thanks, for the help the few dollars I will be able to give will provide. I am not interested in giving because it is going to make someone feel beholden to anything, committed to anything. I am not even interested in getting a fucking thing for the giving - it isn't fucking charity when you get something in return. I am not even sure I will be able to give more than a fraction of a drop - whatever.
All I want for whatever I can give, is some folk getting a full belly, meds or shelter - shit theyneed. Giving through religious charities rarely means that is what is happening...
Posted by: DuWayne | January 13, 2010 5:14 PM
Trust in the lord to protect people from acts of god?
Posted by: CRM-114 | January 13, 2010 5:23 PM
The embedded segment only goes up to 4:19 so it doesn't include Pat's comment.
Posted by: Joshua Zelinsky | January 13, 2010 6:29 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQ4dA6kZsEs includes the actual clip
Posted by: Joshua Zelinsky | January 13, 2010 6:36 PM
Joshua, I think that's something wrong on the server end, and it may be intermittent. But I added your YouTube clip to the post.
Posted by: Greg Laden | January 13, 2010 6:40 PM
That's right, pray to the deity that ostensibly just leveled your country. Nothing like a little Stockholm Syndrome to increase the church's reach, and by extension, coffers.
Pat Robertson is a heartless and evil douchebag.
Posted by: Jason Thibeault | January 13, 2010 6:54 PM
The continued existence of Pat Robertson is unequivocal proof there is no God.
Posted by: Art | January 13, 2010 7:24 PM
Mercy Ships claims to cater to the spiritual needs of individuals (for the volunteers that seems to be mandatory religious services). It also "And, of course, above all, the ministry seeks to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ to those it touches with the compassion and healing power of God"
In other words evangelism is going hand in hand with aid.
Posted by: Erp | January 13, 2010 8:00 PM
Wow hetero, I am really curious what post you were reading. Nowhere did anyone suggest that the religious should have any freedoms taken away, much less the freedom of speech. I cannot speak for anyone else here - though I suspect that many about these parts are not much different. I can however make it absolutely clear that I have no desire to take away anyone's right to express themselves. I am about as absolute about freedom of speech as a sane person can get - to whit, I am not really keen on some of the infringements on speech that our own U.S. engages in. The restrictions engaged in in a lot of other countries make me sick to my stomach.
As far as freedom of religion - I have no problem with it whatsoever, unless you want exemptions from the laws the rest of us live with.
No one is suggesting that religious charities should be stopped from helping people either. We are just talking about why we object to giving aid through religious charities ourselves - or would you rather infringe on our rights to offer aid as we see fit? Are you suggesting that we should stop engaging in that free speech you were so concerned about us stealing from you? Would you rather we just shut up about our own views on religion, so you can have yours uninterrupted? Freedom of speech goes two ways, freedom of religion many more than that.
You are free to engage in your religious expression - no one is trying to take that away from you. So please stop trying to take away our freedom from your religion - if you don't, someone might just start to think you're a hypocrite or something...
Posted by: DuWayne | January 13, 2010 8:19 PM
Was it Robertson that got his organization listed (on some "official" government page) as one of those helping with the Tsunami (even as he was presumably making remarks similar to these)?
Breeder with a Boner @ 18: Think of that FREE HEALTHCARE for POOR PEOPLE and the liberals hate it
Cognition problems? Blood drained from your brain?
Posted by: Uncle Glenny | January 13, 2010 8:27 PM
I think most religious "charities" should be banned, as they are not really charities. But otherwise I agree with DuWayne.
Posted by: Greg Laden | January 13, 2010 8:29 PM
And obvious troll is obvious.
Posted by: Joshua Zelinsky | January 13, 2010 9:55 PM
ED, UNICEF does not fund abortions. They suggest, out loud, that fewer teenagers will die if abortion is legal and sex education consists of something other than "Don't do it." That's a rather large difference, large enough that even you should be able to see it.
Posted by: Stephanie Z | January 13, 2010 11:39 PM
And moron troll is moronic. Seriously, dude, the "New World Order"? Somebody needs to get over to Slacktivist to get the lowdown on L-n-J's ridiculous (and unBiblical) Apocalyptic Fundyworld Foolishness.
Then again, this is someone who thinks the Southern Baptist Convention is a charitable organization. He's already gone over to the Dark Side.
Posted by: Leigh Williams | January 14, 2010 12:21 AM
Posted by: Leigh Williams | January 14, 2010 1:14 AM
Sorry, I think the douchebag's charity is "Operation Blessings".
Posted by: Leigh Williams | January 14, 2010 1:37 AM
Leigh, it's best not to think of people that stupid as human.
Posted by: Katharine | January 14, 2010 9:29 AM
I don't think anyone should be surprised that pat robertson (or billy graham, or any other "famous" evangelist) is in the business for any reason other than pumping up an ego and (more importantly) a bank account. as my grandfather would say (mostly because he believed it, partly because it got a rise from my grandmother) "They are like the missionaries who went to Hawaii to do good and ended up doing very well."
Posted by: dean | January 14, 2010 9:41 AM
Robertson kind of reminds me of some abusive people I know. He uses his money and his "charity" to get away with being a horrible person. I've known actual people that insist that we musn't criticize Robertson or call him on his evilness because he's helped enough people that we should tolerate his crap. They're afraid that if we don't fawn over him, he'll take away his money and stop helping people. It's clear that he only helps people to gain control over them, not because he actually cares about helping them.
Posted by: catgirl | January 14, 2010 9:43 AM
There's a more practical motive as well. Some of this "charity's" planes were used to support Robertson's adventure in diamond mining in Zaire. He also apparently uses it as a slush fund and to support his broadcasting network.
Posted by: Leigh Williams | January 14, 2010 12:46 PM
Here is a safe way to donate. Please do it.
http://www.humanistcharities.org/index.php
Posted by: Jimmy Joe | January 14, 2010 5:24 PM
Netjeret, a commenter over on Pharyngula, has pointed us to the SalesForce foundation, which is matching donations. Your choices are World Vision, which is faith-based, and the Red Cross. I was happy to double my donation!
https://www.salesforce.com/haiti/
Posted by: Leigh Williams | January 15, 2010 1:34 AM