If you write for a newspaper or magazine, there is one sure way to avoid offending anybody, and to appear to the public as an amiable, likable person. And that is to say nice things about religion—even if you’re an atheist. After all, most believers love that stuff, and even a lot of nonbelievers have “belief in belief” and so won’t be affronted. Only petulant naturalists like me will call out someone who, like Francis Collins, publicly enables superstition. And yes, someone has just done it again—and, unsurprisingly, in the pages of the New York Times. Both the Times (which regularly publishes the faith-osculating blather of Tanya Luhrmann) and the New Yorker, which has an obvious policy of never directly criticizing religion, are two of my favorite venues, but both continue to cower before faith. That is a very odd policy for writers who are supposed to respect the truth. But I digress.
In last Sunday’s Times we have the ever-respectful columnist Nicholas Kristof (see here, for instance) affording even more respect to religion—conservative Christianity—in an op-ed called, “A little respect for Dr. Foster.”
Dr. Stephen Foster, it turns out, is an evangelical Christian missionary, but also a surgeon who gives medical help to the afflicted of Angola. Of course that’s a good and selfless thing to do, but Kristof uses it as a springboard to bash atheists who criticize evangelicals. After all, those missionary Christians do good things! As Kristof notes:
Today, among urban Americans and Europeans, “evangelical Christian” is sometimes a synonym for “rube.” In liberal circles, evangelicals constitute one of the few groups that it’s safe to mock openly.
Yet the liberal caricature of evangelicals is incomplete and unfair. I have little in common, politically or theologically, with evangelicals or, while I’m at it, conservative Roman Catholics. But I’ve been truly awed by those I’ve seen in so many remote places, combating illiteracy and warlords, famine and disease, humbly struggling to do the Lord’s work as they see it, and it is offensive to see good people derided.
Is he as awed by secular people who do the same type of good works, and don’t call it “God’s work”?
But, contra Kristof I doubt that good people like Dr. Foster have been derided for their works, although “good people” like Mother Teresa have been rightfully criticized because she didn’t really give much help to those she pulled off the streets of Calcutta, but used the opportunity to evangelize. Kristof doesn’t seem to recognize the difference between criticizing people and the good things they do on one hand, and criticizing their religious beliefs, which can be harmful, on the other. Those Catholics who give medical aid—well, they’re also evangelizing at the same time, opposing abortion and birth control so that the population gets even larger and more prone to famine and disease. Some Catholics even dishonestly argue that condoms are no preventive for AIDS, guaranteeing that even more people will die. Not to mention, of course, the terror instilled in much of humanity who are taught to fear a nonexistent Hell.
Kristof also notes that one of Foster’s sons got polio while in Africa. I’m curious why the child wasn’t vaccinated.
But Kristof does at least mention that secular organizations render help as well, but adds that out that most of the aid workers he meets are motivated by faith:
Most evangelicals are not, of course, following such a harrowing path, and it’s also true that there are plenty of secular doctors doing heroic work for Doctors Without Borders or Partners in Health. But I must say that a disproportionate share of the aid workers I’ve met in the wildest places over the years, long after anyone sensible had evacuated, have been evangelicals, nuns or priests.
But note that this aid by believers is usually combined with missionizing, so that the aid doesn’t come without some attempts at conversion, or even forcing those seeking aid to attend Christian services. I once knew someone who vetted these organizations in Africa, and she told harrowing stories about the religious hoops the afflicted were forced to jump through for their treatment. Doctors Without Borders does nothing like that.
Would the religious still tender so much medical aid if they were absolutely prohibited from evangelizing or missionizing? Some of them, perhaps, but not nearly so many.
But here is what I want readers to consider—and respond to. It’s the old argument that religious Americans do more good works than do non-religious ones. Now we all know that this by no means either justifies the faith claims of religion, or proves that religion has a net beneficial effect compared to nonbelief. After all, in today’s world atheists do nowhere near the amount of harm caused by believers. But still, consider Kristof’s claim:
Likewise, religious Americans donate more of their incomes to charity, and volunteer more hours, than the nonreligious, according to polls. In the United States and abroad, the safety net of soup kitchens, food pantries and women’s shelters depends heavily on religious donations and volunteers.
Sure, it puzzles me that social conservatives are often personally generous while resisting government programs for needy children, and, yes, evangelicals should overcome any prejudice against gays and lesbians — just as secular liberals should overcome any prejudice against committed Christians struggling to make a difference.
The only response I’ll add to this is that I have a great deal of admiration for the work that Dr. Foster does, and for his altruistic impulses behind it. What I have no admiration for is his superstitious beliefs, or the manifest harm that evangelical Christians do to the world alongside the good they do. (For one thing, just look at the hate bills evangelical Christians are promoting and passing all over the U.S., something that Kristof ignores.)
In my view, Kristof’s claim errs in two ways: he mistakes criticism of religous beliefs with denigration of believers themselves, and he implicitly argues that a world with faith does more good than a world of nonbelief, a claim for which he has no evidence. I would love to see him write a piece on an atheist who practices the same kind of self-sacrificing charity that Dr. Foster does (yes, they exist!), and then say that people shouldn’t bash atheists as heartless heathens.
But I am seriously interested in how readers would respond to Kristof’s article, so please read his short editorial and tender your reaction in the comments.
sub
With support from the Fistula Foundation, Dr. Foster is also repairing obstetric fistulas — devastating childbirth injuries that leave women leaking urine or feces.
According to the World Health Organization, the incidence of obstetric fistulas can be reduced by:
– delaying the age of first pregnancy;
– the cessation of harmful traditional practices
Notice how coy WHO is being about “harmful traditional practices”, what they are euphemistically referring to is female genital mutilation.
So it’s very good of Dr. Foster, as a religious fundamentalist of one stripe to be repairing the ravages wreaked by religious fundamentalism of another stripe.
And in case anyone has any doubts about the importation of US christian right wing religious values into Africa, watch the documentary “God Loves Uganda”.
The stuff in Uganda is Disgusting with a capital D.
One of the evangelicals who conceived of their anti-gay laws has now been prosecuted in the US. I’ll try and find a link later.
Found it: https://theageofblasphemy.wordpress.com/2014/12/12/american-pastor-who-helped-uganda-create-kill-the-gays-law-will-be-tried-for-crimes-against-humanity/#comment-2747
Whoops – didn’t mean to link the comment I made, just the article. I’m sure you can manage to scroll up! 🙂
I scrolled up, as you suggest, and then scrolled down again to leave my calling card.
Oh, that is such good news, Heather. Thanks for the link!
The guy is so painfully obviously a self-hating homosexual. The world would be such a better place if he would just get laid already and be done with it.
Just read the quotes and listen to the excerpt here and tell me that he’s not yearning for that forbidden fruit with all his being.
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/scott-lively-homosexuality-worse-murder
b&
Has Kristof written about the Uganda stuff? It’s right up his alley, so if he hasn’t it’s ridiculous.
well we certainly cannot overlook all the good humanitarian things evangelical christians do for Africa, such as the anti-gay laws in Uganda, Kenya, Zimbabwe, or Nigeria…
I cannot help but question the real motives behind the “humanitarian” efforts of missionaries, knowing about the differential access to treatment, food, and clothing to believers and non-believers as a way to force conversions out of need, hunger, or desperation. The simple fact is, as we’ve also seen here in the states with groups like the salvation army, those in need must convert, or at least pretend to by accepting a bible and sitting for sermons, or they don’t get assistance. This isn’t humanitarian, this is cruelty. They are trying to round up souls for jebus, just as Mother Terrorista did in India. It is almost never about helping, it’s about harvesting souls. and as for their courage for staying in dangerous places, well, not surprising since they belong to a death cult that seeks to curry favor with their imaginary friend because they hold martyrdom in high regard, like a E-Z Pass to the right hand of gawd.
you may wish to argue that giving assistance is good, no matter what the motive, but it ignores the historical (and current) effects of missionary work destabilizing and undermining traditional cultures in native South American countries for instance. In reality, it is nothing more and nothing less than hate in humanitarian clothing.
As I understand it, the religious activities of religious institutions were included in the definition of, “charity.” Much of that “charity” went to pay for the basic operation of the churches themselves, including salaries and rent and maintenance and operations and all the other types of overhead associated with any organization that hosts frequent assemblages of large numbers of people.
Once you rule out the religious bits, and consider actual aid in the form of medical supplies, getting relief workers to where they’re needed and keeping them there, and so on…well, as I recall, the secularists pull significantly but not hugely ahead of the religious.
b&
I wonder how much of that charity goes to e.g. the LDS buying up shopping malls and the Catholics paying legal judgments on behalf of their randy priests, etc. (not to mention $2,000,000 to refurbish the organ in the Crystal Cathedral).
Also, “according to polls” suggests that the beneficence of the religious is self-reported. You don’t say?
Finally, if it’s true that only 5% of Americans are truly atheists, it’s little wonder that the majority of everything comes from the religious.
Didn’t Jesus instruct them to be quiet about their personal religious habits?
Comparatively, what do churches spend on personnel, buildings and administration expenses? Those items consume 82 percent of the average church’s budget, according a study from the Evangelical Christian Credit Union.
From http://www.christianitytoday.com/special/ycresources/pdf/exec-report_churchbudgetpriorities.pdf:
Church Expenses Average Percentage of Expenses (%)
BASE: Number of respondents (664)
Salaries/wages 38
Building (mortgage, rent, lease) 12
Utilities 8
Ministries & support 7
Maintenance/cleaning 6
Property/liability insurance 5
Domestic mission support 5
International mission support 5
Office/administration and equipment/supplies 5
Denominational contributions/fees 3
Other 6
That’s right, all church charitable contributions consisted of less than 6% of the church budget as item “Other”.
The rest of the budget was used to keep these tax free social clubs running.
Would you donate to a secular charity where less than 6% of contributions actually got to the intended recipients ?
Good charities may barely be included even if you moved the decimal over to 60%. Many organizations think that 60-80% of funds raised not eaten up by overhead is a good ratio.
So a donation towards Creflo Dollar’s G650 private jet is counted in Kristoff (and the IRS unfortunately) definition of “Charity”…..
How on the nose is that name!?!?
Come to think of it, a credulous flow of dollars is spot on!
Great gig eh?
Are donations to a minister’s retirement fund subsumed in one of these categories?
Thank you. You pointed out the obvious flaws.
Statistics isn’t my thing, but looking at the poll there’s only a 7% difference between total xians (84%) and nones (77%). Shouldn’t that number be higher if xians as a whole donate more since the religious outnumber the nones 5 to 1. Otherwise I could claim that because 100% of my household donates to charity we are the most charitable group in the US.
Yes. On top of that, some of the religious giving is mandated such as via tithing, and is not the giver’s choice. And much of it is self-serving – giving your favourite cake so you have something tasty to eat at lunch after church is hardly a sacrifice.
I find it interesting that Kristof likes to put people in the boxes. He mentions a poll that showed 53 percent approved of gays and lesbians and 42 percent approved of evangelical Christians. Who takes a poll like that and what does it mean?
He then says social conservatives often personally are generous but resist govt. programs. So here we have the box, social conservatives and evangelicals are the same group? Why else would he throw this in? And if it is correct, he just blew his whole point really. We could also ask, why does this group or box fight like hell against abortion but as soon as you are born, forget about it, you are on your own.
The thing about the church based missions around the world are – always open to the same question. What do they get in return or what do they demand?
Let’s take a survey on charity to animal organizations and see if any specific group does more there. There is nothing to get in return here and no new additions to the flock. See how that goes….
“Let’s take a survey on charity to animal organizations and see if any specific group does more there. There is nothing to get in return here and no new additions to the flock. See how that goes….”
What an excellent and insightful suggestion.
Yes.
No, you can’t compare charity to animals with charity to humans because helping animals is the lesser good. I’ve seen videos on the internet where they pick up injured street dogs and put them under expensive surgery. That is less moral than using that money to treat humans.
Re: Kristof’s “Likewise, religious Americans donate more of their incomes to charity, and volunteer more hours, than the nonreligious, according to polls. In the United States and abroad, the safety net of soup kitchens, food pantries and women’s shelters depends heavily on religious donations and volunteers.”
I personally don’t volunteer for soup kitchens, Habitat for Humanity, etc., specifically because they are so god-ridden. I would be annoyed by the people I was working with, and I would have to watch as credit for my work went to the religion that the charity trumpets. Instead, I choose to donate money to secular causes such as FFRF, the Union of Concerned Scientists, the ACLU, the Nature Conservancy, etc. So if atheists don’t volunteer for these god-drenched charities as much as theists do, what is cause and what is effect? Maybe atheists need to start their own volunteer charity organizations that specifically disavow any religious affiliation or motivation. I’d volunteer for one of those.
As for donating more of their incomes to charity, I remember this claim being made about Mitt Romney. Upon investigation, it turned out that most of that was his tithing to his church; that was being counted as a “charity”. But if one does not assume that churches are a force for good in the world, then donations to them should not be counted as charity (indeed, one might even weight them negatively!). If one removes all such donations, I would suspect that the difference disappears – or even tips in favor of atheists. I haven’t seen statistics to prove that, though.
Is there a double whammy in tithing to the church?
Does the person get a tax break for donating while the church does not pay tax on the donation? Who has to pay more taxes to make up that shortcoming? Are the rest of us making indirect contributions to these donations?
Always another one in the taxes not paid area. Most all religions get this one real good. They provide big housing allowances to the pastors and even thought that should not be tax free, it usually is.
Then you should check out Beyond Belief Network, run by the Foundation Beyond Belief, “a collective of over 100 freethought organizations putting compassionate humanism into action through community volunteering and charitable fundraising”.
Good tip, thanks!
I resent that the only measure of charity is voluntary contributions. What about taxes? For me one hallmark of a secular society is that we’ve decided that it is fairer, it is more effective, and it raises far more cash to use taxes to provide the social services once provided exclusively by charitable organizations.
Evangelicals, being largely conservative, are opposed to these secular government programs, whereas liberal secular people on average are happy to pay the taxes to ensure that there is a fair safety net available for everyone.
In contrast, the religious charities, as Jerry noted, often impose the fee of being exposed to and at least appearing to accept specific religious beliefs and practices.
I’d far rather pay higher taxes so that people in need can be free of the burden of being subjected to specific religious beliefs.
Exactly.
Most of my property taxes fund K-12 education. That bill isn’t small — each year, more than my monthly mortgage payments before I had the house paid off, and I’m still paying property taxes. I have no children and never anticipate having any. How are my property taxes any less a form of charity than the $X / day somebody gives to fund schools for disadvantaged kids overseas? Because I can guarantee you that children here in my neighborhood wouldn’t be going to school, either, if people like me didn’t pay property taxes.
…and then there’s Medicaid, which does for my neighbors what MSF does overseas (and which helped pay for my own post-accident shoulder surgery), unemployment insurance, which does what microloans for job training does, FEMA that domestically serves the role of the Red Cross, and so on.
Charity is a wonderful thing, but the most effective forms of charity are when society itself weaves the support structure into its very fabric.
b&
Yes, and that all goes back on what Kristof admitted himself. the conservatives, the republican party are a NO on taxes and actually want to cut damn near everything but military spending. So all they want to fund is military spending and churches. Your property taxes will handle the rest.
Exactly right. My guess is, if you reduced taxes the way evangelical and social conservative politicians say they would like, any net benefit from godly giving would become a meager pittance by comparison with the net loss to society. If Kristof thinks they deserve my respect for that he’s got another thing coming.
My thought as to why this is: Tax based good things like medicare, schools, old age security pensions etc. are HIDDEN good works of charity. That is you personally don’t normally take personal credit for them. You do them because as a society as Ben above has said, it has been correctly determined this is the most efficient and fair way to do charity.
Social Conservatives want to be SEEN themselves doing good – much like the Pharisees who Jesus, there own home-boy, rails against.
That is the underlying reason — I’d bet my bible on.
Worse, to quote from an organization I still support: “it is not about charity, it is about justice”. Personally, I’d rather do a tiny part to make charity (in the limit) unnecessary, but …
Thanks you, again. There is a very real question about whether we should fund our human needs through charity rather than guaranteed incomes, etc. I’m suspicious when the wealthy decide how to best dispense their largesse, that they know what’s best for us, what we need. Witness Bill Gates and his oft misplaced charity.
While Dr Foster is to be admired for his humanitarian work there is no reason to admire his religious views. He clings to a belief system rooted in superstition and ignorance.Actually such ignorance should embarrass him. Why even mention that he is an evangelical Christian? Why does Kristoff believe that bit of information needs to be trumpeted? Do we hear non believing doctors, nurses and others marching into the jungles proclaiming themselves atheists or agnostics?
It seems to me that many believers (Kristof?) are so insecure that they need to tell the world how wonderful the practitioners of Xtianity are.
Dr Foster is a great humanitarian , with no doubt, but his religious beliefs rest on nothing and deserve no more respect than does an adult’s fervent belief in the tooth fairy.
If Dr. Foster also happened belonged to a political group whose views Kristoff considered abhorrent or wrong-headed, would Kristoff be so quick to merge his good deeds into his underlying philosophy? Or would he take more care to separate the reasonable aspects of a political party from what defines it as unique?
I have a guess.
Indeed; good point (like the donations to animal-rights Gendankenexperiment suggested above).
There are many Cuban doctors helping out in Angola. There may be many motivations among them but undoubtedly many would be doing it for humanitarian reasons.
I have long believed that most people are naturally kind and helpful. Most of the ones who are not are driven that way by religion.
Dr. Foster’s charity, as reported by Kristof, is absolutely admirable. His level of commitment is rare among believers and unbelievers alike. As Jerry has said this does not mean that his religious beliefs are also admirable. It also doesn’t mean criticizing him for his religious beliefs should therefore be off limits. Neither does it validate his religious belief.
If Dr. Foster were to decide he no longer believed, would he stop helping people? If Dr. Foster were not raised by parents who spent their lives doing charity work, would he have spent his life doing charity work as he has? Does Dr. Foster proselytize the people he helps? In the course of Dr. Foster’s work, are any of his decisions informed by his religious beliefs contrary to what unbiased evidence supports? Could he do what he has dedicated himself to do better if his religious beliefs did not inform his decisions?
Considering the truly tragic results of much of Christian missionary work throughout Christianity’s history, it seems ridiculous to me to suggest that because Dr. Foster therefore religious belief is good, so don’t be a meanie and criticize it.
Regarding the religious being more giving than nons, is the best that can be done by Kristof a link to a study of self reported behavior? Trying to quantify this with any hope of accuracy is much more complicated than that. But we do have examples of societies where the population is much less religious than the US. A comparison does not lend support to Kristof’s implication that religious people are more inclined to help the needy.
As I’ve mentioned before, I think one of the things most likely to motivate volunteers and charitable giving is a sign-up sheet being passed around a room filled with one’s peers. ANY community which identifies itself at least partly with a desire to “help others” and do good is going to do well in these sort of polls.
It’s just not that they attract members who are drawn to good works, it’s that it often becomes hard to avoid doing something when you can see so many of your friends and role models doing more. In addition to wanting to help the homeless get soup, you also want to help your friends serve soup. Absent a community, it’s too easy to do nothing.
I’d like to see churches put up against organizations like women’s clubs or environmental groups and look at the numbers. Combining charity with social networking is powerful in and of itself.
I’d also be interested in seeing how many of the church-going volunteers would say they ONLY do it for God. There are a lot of humanists going along with piety and yet when it comes right down to it they care about people more than they care about the theology.
Others have commented on this line already, but something needs to be added.
“Likewise, religious Americans donate more of their incomes to charity, and volunteer more hours, than the nonreligious, according to polls.”
If you actually look at the poll that Kristof is citing, the results do not support what he is trying to imply here. As others noted, the definition of charity and volunteering broadly includes hours and money to religious organizations. But Gallup also distinguished between purely religious charity/volunteering and secular (which could of course still be religiously motivated). From Gallup’s report that Kristof links to (emphasis is Gallup’s):
“These differences [higher rates of donating time and money] are driven largely by religious respondents (weekly churchgoers, Christians, and Protestants, specifically), who are more likely to say they donated money or time to a *religious organization* in the past year. At the same time, religious Americans are just as likely as nonreligious Americans to report *nonreligious* giving and volunteering.”
So one of two things here: either Kristof is being disingenuous by implying that there is evidence that religious Americans are more charitable than nonreligious Americans, or he simply didn’t read the report that he cited. My bet is on the second of these two options, but both are inexcusable.
Dropping $5 into the basket at Sunday service shouldn’t be counted as a voluntary contribution; it’s more like an admission ticket or membership fee. Take that out and my guess is that the high contribution rate for weekly churchgoers takes a substantial hit.
I had a quick read of the poll too, and came to the same conclusion as you. It doesn’t seem to say, really, that religious are more charitable.
Well, if any atheists thought all evangelical Christians were unsophisticated snake-handling gun-toting Bible-thumping rubes with brains smaller than a pea, hearts harder than a stone, and a cumulative obsession with imposing their narrow-minded uniquely Christian morals on other people at every chance in order to advance their own version of theocracy, then Kristoff sure told them off.
He told them off good.
Gee, it turns out to be more complicated than that because human motivations and social systems are complicated. It’s time somebody bravely pointed out this breaking news flash and looks like Kristoff marched right up. A good Christian. Well, as I live and breath, what will it be next.
I’m largely unmoved by Kristof’s piece. The point seems to be that we shouldn’t be so hasty to generalize; good advice, to be sure, but hardly novel.
Also, while it’s undeniable that Dr. Foster has done much good and impactful work, I don’t agree at all with Kristof’s implication that it has all been noble – in particular, regarding all the calamity that has befallen his family as an indirect result of that work. Now, I’m not saying that the doctor’s actions are ignoble. I’m saying it’s a difficult, perhaps inappropriate, situation to judge and many decisions people make in life are neither righteous nor selfish. I won’t condemn him for putting his family in harm’s way in exchange for some “greater good”, but I also won’t declare the action a noble one. It is what it is.
Indeed.
Likewise, religious Americans…volunteer more hours, than the nonreligious, according to polls.
My wife and I volunteer at a local Food Bank, and I’ve observed a couple facts about the majority of volunteers; they are elderly, retired, and religious. I think the polls are biased towards a demographic that is on average more religious and represents people with lots of spare time in which to volunteer.
sub
sub
A case of religious child abuse by Dr. Foster of his own children who had no choice about the environment and conditions they lived in. His son shouldn’t have contracted polio if he had been treated properly. His children should not have gone hungry to share food with others. Why starve your own children because other children are starving?
The fistula problem in women may be due to genital mutilation, but also may be due to young girls being forced into marriage and sex before they are physically mature enough. It wouldn’t surprise me if there were very many deaths of such too-young women also. Childbirth when not physically mature enough to do so safely was a major cause of death in American young women in our history when it was not unusual for 20+ year old males to marry 13 – 14 year old girls.
A few years back, I went on a couple medical mission trips to Guatemala. The first year I went, I did notice that several of the other volunteers were fairly religious, but I’d guess that compared to the community in general, the split between religious and non-religious was still shifted towards a higher proportion of non-religious (i.e. not that there were more non-believers than believers, but that there were more non-believers than you’d expect from the community demographics). The second year I went it was shifted ever further, to where I think non-believers were close to half of the volunteers.
Sure, that’s anecdotal on my part, but no more so than, “But I must say that a disproportionate share of the aid workers I’ve met in the wildest places over the years, long after anyone sensible had evacuated, have been evangelicals, nuns or priests.” And I really do wonder, is it disproportionate, or is it just that such a high proportion of the population is religious that makes encounter so many religious aid works. Add in the fact that religious people, especially evangelicals, are usually much more prone to discuss their religious beliefs than non-believers, and there could be a lot of confirmation bias going on here.
That is my assumption – if 80% of Americans are Christian, it is likely that around 80% of aid workers are Christian. A big proportion of those are, as you say, evangelicals, and they talk about their faith while others roll their eyes and get on with the job.
More to the point, if most of the funding is being funneled through religious organizations, then it should come as no surprise if most of the aid workers you meet wear the badges of those organizations.
There’s a false equivalency for you.
I confess to a minor bias against committed Christians of the fundamentalist or evangelical persuasion — a weak presumption that they are yahoos from Podunk. Like the “disappearing” presumptions sometimes encountered in the courtroom, this prejudice can be overcome by any evidence, however slight, that the persons in question are not as I feared they might be. And once overcome, the presumption is of no further force or effect in my dealings with religious folk. (If the presumption remains un-rebutted, my bias is against Yahoo-ism, not religious views per se.)
I certainly would never discriminate against them in matters of housing or employment based on their religion. Nor would I refuse to bake a wedding cake for a customer, if that were my chosen calling, based on him or her being a committed Christian and wouldn’t endeavor to prevent folks from having their cake and eating it in celebration of his or her marriage to any consenting partner of legal age. Much less would I ever interfere with their and their daughters’ right to control their own reproductive systems, based on either their religious affiliation or my lack of one.
Instead, I strongly support the right of committed Christians and everyone else to practice the religion of their choosing, or any other freedom of conscience, in any manner they see fit, so long as it does not involve the coercion of others or material support from the State. And I would stand in solidarity with them, committed Christians or otherwise, to protest should those rights be in anyway infringed.
Would that the biases and prejudices of those on the other side were equally as tractable, Mr. Kristof.
“Likewise, religious Americans donate more of their incomes to charity, and volunteer more hours, than the nonreligious…”
I wonder if there is a correlation between the amount of charity provided in an area with the quality of the local social safety network available to the residents. I would guess that in deeply conservative / religious areas the amount of charity is higher but the safety net is inadequate. Liberals give to society through taxes which provide social services, conservatives give directly to those that are visibly in need. In the end, we all want people to do well but differ in how we go about it.
I’d say that conservatives give directly to those that are visibly in need and deemed deserving. Needle exchanges for drug addicts? Shelters for battered prostitutes? Probably not.
As far as the net benefit of religion goes, I can do no better than refer those that haven’t seen it to the Intelligence Squared debate on the topic, “The Catholic Church is a Force for Good in the World”. This is the long version, but you can find versions that have just the speeches (1 hour), or the speeches of the debaters separately. Christipher Hitchens and Stephen Fry are at their brilliant best: https://youtu.be/LrIHw0fZNOA
That debate is well worth watching, although I think Hitchens & Fry missed a chance to reframe the question somewhat. The standard of comparison should not be “Would the world be a better place without the RCC and the good works it funds?” but rather “Would the world be a better place if that funding went to, say, Doctors Without Borders instead of the RCC?”
I think the answer to the second question is inarguably yes, and that’s the point they should have been hammering. Yes, the Church does good works, but it does them inefficiently and with a lot of harmful baggage. A world without the Church would not be a world without good works; it would be a world in which good works get done by people with more expertise and fewer axes to grind.
I don’t think you can find Hitchens any better than this. An amazing presenter. How I miss him.
One can be a good person and still hold ideas that are batshit insane. Who knew? I wonder if Dr. Foster accepts the theory of evolution upon which his medicines are based.
I wonder if Mr. Kristof would ever be predisposed to ask a doc such a question.
When I read this last week, I knew exactly what it was going to say before I even started. I love the little dig at Kristof in Hirsi Ali’s new book. (Of course she doesn’t name him outright.)
Jerry,
“Kristof also notes that one of Foster’s sons got polio while in Africa. I’m curious why the child wasn’t vaccinated”
The fact that one of his son’s got polio doesn’t necessarily mean that he was not vaccinated against polio. There is a small vaccine failure rate.
You realize you are instructing a prof with a PHD in biology right?
Jerry’s “curious why?” is a valid curiosity given the prior probabilities of the rate of vaccination among Christian Fundamentalists.
One would reasonably think that Kristof would ask whether the son was vaccinated. Surely reporters are among the least likely to assume anything. (Maybe he’s addressed that on his blog.) What reasonable, prudent visitor to Africa doesn’t get recommended vaccinations, let alone the child of a physician permanently residing there?
From Mr. Kristof’s FB page:
“Peggy Schuber Why was the son not vaccinated against polio?
Nicholas Kristof There was no vaccine available in that part of Angola during the civil war.
Carol Botsch I made that same point in my comment. This doctor had no right to put his children at risk. And he certainly knew better. To say no vaccine was available there is not an acceptable answer.
Peggy Schuber Agree, Carol. A trip back to the States would have prevented his son’s polio. And I also expect he could have arranged for a mail order direct from the supplier.”
“Would the religious still tender so much medical aid if they were absolutely prohibited from evangelizing or missionizing?”
Often they are prohibited from evangelising, eg in India and China, but they do it anyway. Then they get into trouble and claim persecution. In Australia we have school chaplains (inorite?) who aren’t supposed to evangelise, but they do.
When atheists write this sort of thing it always sounds to me like; “These crazy beliefs make people go and do useful things for almost no return, so why would I want to change that? Let’s humour them and they can go and risk their lives (and their children’s lives) for no money, and we won’t have to properly fund rational people to do what needs to be done, support religion or you’ll have to pay more taxes to have the poor properly looked after.”
It lets governments off the hook for things that ought to be their responsibility. Unfortunately it also means that aid is a very hit and miss affair. All sorts of churches fund their own missions which means they are all struggling for money, and doing whatever seems like a good idea, without any overall plan or organisation deciding how best to allocate resources. Whether you get the help you need depends largely on luck, which is not the way it should be. The missionaries are often independent people who decide to do missionizing, they schlep around to churches looking for money to support their goals, when they run out they do the rounds again. It’s all very ad hoc and unsatisfactory really.
This sort of atheist is one of those who like to keep religious people as pets, “Aw isn’t he cute with his weird beliefs and fluffy tail? Who’s a good little missionary then?” It’s terribly patronizing and if I were a religious person I would not be interested in having this sort of support. I also cannot possible admire a doctor who allows his own child to get polio, that is parental and medical negligence at the same time. Disgraceful.
Feed a man a fish ……Teach a man to fish…….
As has been mentioned, there is more than one way to give to society.
I have always been happy to pay my share of tax. As a single person in the middle bracket my tax is a bit high and I receive fewer benefits but I am still quite happy to live in a society that has a good safety net and where fewer people need charity.
I would even pay a bit more if a reasonable argument were presented.
Is the good doctor just buying a stairway to heaven?
All I can think of is Cisco Houston’s “Pie in the Sky”:
And the starvation army they play
They sing and they clap and they pray
‘Till they get all your coin on the drum
Then they’ll tell you when you’re on the bum:
You’re gonna eat, bye and bye, poor boy
In that glorious land above the sky, way up high
Work and pray, live on hay
You’ll get pie in the sky when you die
Dirty lie
I know that this is not true of the Dr. Fosters of the world, but it’s true of too many.
Good point.
There always has been an association of religious rationalisations with various kinds of exploitation.
It doesn’t matter if you are suffering and others are rich, god wants it that way, but you will get ‘pie in the sky when you die’
That song is ‘The preacher and the slave’ by Joe Hill, an early workers rights advocate.
Somehow I am also reminded of “Dem Bones”