I frequently get mail from folks telling me that their religion “isn’t like that” – if only I’d take the time to understand the true nature of their particular faith I would see the light and save myself.
Many are the same people who give to a giant douche-bag like Pat Robertson. According to the faith-based idiot, Haiti brought this earthquake on themselves by get this, making a pact with the devil! The fact that people don’t laugh out loud at this stuff is beyond me. No, not the current people of Haiti, their ancestors in order to be rid of the French. Has nothing to do with plate tectonics, it’s a spiteful god claiming vengeance on the descendants of alleged devil dealers. That’s rich!
Watch the clip below, you can make your own judgment.
Tweet
Danny Glover said that climate change caused the Haiti earthquake. Does that mean that all climate change proponents are whack-jobs? No, just that particular one in that particular case.
I’d focus on the religous (mostly Christian) charity organization that have been on the ground in Haiti for years who are leading a lot of the local recovery efforts, and on the charitable contributions that are coming in from religous (mostly Christian) organizations that are actually getting to Haiti in the short term. You can disagree with the intent, but it’s hard to disagree with the results.
Jim, I’m surprised you’re defending this idiot. Come on, if Danny Glover says climate change caused the earthquake he’s an idiot on the subject. See how easy that is?
Why can’t you just acknowledge that Pat is a fraud who takes money from predominantly poor people and spouts bigotry, ignorance, and hate cloaked in the forgiving coat of religion?
As for religious organizations that are helping (and helped before,) that’s great. Most of the support is non-religious in nature. People, generally, seem to do the right thing over time – religion, is simply a means of mind control and often PREVENTS people from pursuing the right thing. Like defending Pat, you’re much, much smarter than sinking to that level. I know it from first-hand experience.
I’m confused… where did I defend him? My comment was that I’d rather focus on the organizations that have been helping and will continue to help, as I think that’s a better example of Christianity living the transformed life than a particular whack-job of any color.
Well, since you pulled the old bait and switch rather than simply saying “Pat is an idiot” it is assumed you are defending his position. You’ll notice when you offered the switch of Danny Glover I was quick to say the opinion that climate change had anything to do with the earthquake. Thus there is no danger of confusing that I think his view has merit.
Finally, what does color have to do with the discussion? I certainly didn’t bring that issue into the discussion……
Poor choice of words on color… I meant it in the figurative sense of, “cloth of any color.”
I don’t defend his position. I defend the right of any person – Robertson, Glover, you, me – to have an opinion, and the right of anyone else to disagree. If you want my opinion for the record, I don’t agree with Mr. Robertson that a pact with the devil caused the earthquake, nor do I agree with Mr. Glover that climate change caused it. My logical explanation would probably involve tectonic plates.
To the other point, I prefer that people look at Christains for the deeds that they do, but I can understand that some appoint themselves as spokespersons who don’t represent the views of the others. I was stating a preference that we look at the transforming acts of Christians if we’re to address the first point you made: To understand the body, look at the body, not the big mouth.
Whew, that was confusing…
OK, I get it Jim. One more thing, I don’t refute the right of anyone, including myself, to espouse whatever they believe. However, the flip side of that is to open one’s self for criticism of what one says. Personally, I find Pat to be a ignorant, hateful, bigot based upon what he says.
This highlights one ‘issue’ I have with my own lack of faith… namely that I do get the impression from the evidence of my own eyes and experience (the caveat being that that is of course anecdotal) that more Christians (not by any means ALL but comparing the Christians and non-Christians I know) seem to give their time (not necessarily their money, I can’t judge that) to charity than the non-Christians I know.
I wondered does anyone know of any studies into this? Stats on faith based charities versus non-faith based ones? Stats on time given to organised charity against faith?
This info wouldn’t be earth-shattering or change any of the arguments but I’d find it interesting.
on the hunt for stats I stumbled upon this http://www.sodahead.com/world-news/religion-vs-______/blog-251279/ which should undoubtedly be taken with a pinch of salt but, at first glance at least, the stats seem to have been derived from reliable sources.
Interesting stuff Lloyd, thanks for taking the time to comment and leave a provocative link!