Every atheist has heard the argument that a person can have no moral code or sense of altruism without accepting god first. It’s a lazy argument theists use when they choose to ignore reality so I rarely give people the time of day when I note this sentiment oozing out of them like ignorance made manifest. That being said, I find National Catholic Register blogger Matthew Archbold difficult to ignore. Why? I haven’t seen something this offensive and illogical since God Will Take ‘Em Back. Mr. Archbold seems to be upset (masked as patronizing amusement) that the Richard Dawkins Foundation has the audacity to create a charity in which non-believers send aid to Haiti (by way of Doctors Without Borders and the International Red Cross). The nerve!
Writes Archbold:
I always get a kick out of evangelizing atheists and how they’re so desperate to prove that they’re as good (and usually better) than us religious types. Dawkins writes on the charity’s website: “When donating via Non-Believers Giving Aid, you are helping to counter the scandalous myth that only the religious care about their fellow-humans.” While we should all applaud Mr. Dawkins’ altruistic efforts to help his fellow man I’m just not sure he’s making the point he thinks he’s making.
If Dawkins is running this charity to show up religion and helping Haitians is only a secondary consequence then we could hardly claim that what he’s doing is good by most definitions. Because if that’s true then it would seem that the greatest value of Haitians lives to Dawkins is how they make Dawkins look.
Wow. So, by that logic I assume Christian-specific charities are also out for self-promotion? No? Oh, that’s right. They’re out to promote god. I guess that makes it better somehow. But wait … something seems wrong with that argument. Is Mr. Archbold honestly saying there is something wrong with creating a charity of any sort that contributes to the welfare of people in need? Let’s take your (incorrect) argument for granted and assume Dawkins doesn’t have Haiti’s best interest at heart (he does) and really is out for self-promotion (he isn’t). People are still being helped by his actions, right? If I’m starving and someone offers me food, I’m going to take it and be grateful regardless of the giver’s motives. Anyway, it’s not as though Dawkins invented the idea of secular charity. Plus, if you send your money to a secular charity you can be assured it won’t go towards one of the 600 solar-powered talking Bibles being sent over by one Christian organization. At $100 a piece, that’s $60,000 that could have been used for food, water or medicine. Nauseating.
Also, in case you’ve missed the previous subtle hints, click here to donate to a worthwhile cause.
By donating to a secular charity you can also rest assure that aid will not be withheld until someone converts. People who need help will be seen as simply people who need help and not potential christians. I would only add that there are some very good organizations that are run by christians, such as Partners in Health, started by Paul Farmer, that I’m happy to give to because they do good work without conditions. Unlike some of those family values folks in the media that we heard from immediately after the quake.
I tend to mention, when confronted with this morality argument, that if Christians truly took their morality from the Bible they’d be stoning adulterers and anyone who gathers logs on a Sunday. Or possibly a Friday. When you should definitely not be eating meat.
Lots of people have gone a bit quiet at this point.
Archbold is lacking in reading comprehension skills, or perhaps he’s just got that selective reading theists are famous for. The part he quotes is only the secondary goal. The primary goal Dawkins cites is ensuring 100% of your donation goes to the Haitians. Many charities don’t do that, shunting huge chunks to administrative and/or publicity costs. And, of course, religious charities use much of the funding to push religion on the needy as part and parcel of their “services”.
Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. @#%#$%#%
Let’s also not forget that some Christians *cough*Pat Robertson*cough* believe that it was God himself that cause the earthquake. So that would be God causing an earthquake so that a bunch of bible bashers can collect money in his name to relieve the suffering he caused, all the while glorifying his name.
Utterly sinful if you ask me.