Church group in Haiti Hurts, not Helps

A group of ten Baptists volunteers from Idaho traveled to Haiti to try and help the newly orphaned children. Sounds like a good cause, right? Ah, but of course there is a catch. Their “rescue” involved taking children from the country, without the government’s permission. For the record, that isn’t charity. It’s human trafficking.

The most disturbing thing about this is that not all of these kids were orphans. And these people knew it.

The orphanage where the children were later taken said some of the kids have living parents, who were apparently told the children were going on a holiday from the post-quake misery……

One [8-year-old] girl was crying, and saying, “I am not an orphan. I still have my parents.”

Laura Silsby the groups spokesperson, claimed that she hadn’t been following news reports while in Haiti, and didn’t think she needed the Haitian government’s permission to take them out of the country. This statement seems either dishonest, or woefully ignorant. Did she really think she could just haul children out of the country and their government wouldn’t care? I can’t claim to know much about the Haitian government; it’s not exactly a common avenue of study for most of us. But despite what Silsby seems to think, the Haitian people don’t live in free-for-all anarchy. They have laws, leaders. They have a prime minister. It strikes me as somewhat racist to assume that Haiti won’t have rules about kidnapping it’s children.

An article on NPR brings up the idea that some families may have given over their kids willingly, to have a chance at a better life. It isn’t unheard of in third world countries like Haiti.

Marie Rita Pierre said, “I would allow one of these groups to take one of my children. My youngest daughter wants to go to university. We can’t help her. I think its good groups come here to take kids, even though most of the time they will lose touch with their families.”

That is an extremely difficult decision fort a parent to make. And while this may have been the case for some of the children, what about the parents who were told their kids were “going on a holiday”? A holiday implies they will return safe and sound to their families once the country is more stable. Not given to strangers looking to do some kidnapping for Christ.

The group claims they were only trying to do what is right. I have no doubt the mean it. The problem is, their warped ideal of what is “right” is highly subjective. They feel that taking little kids from their parents and placing them with Christian families is right.

“One of the reasons that our church wanted to help is because we believe that Christ has asked us to take the gospel of Jesus Christ to the whole world, and that includes children,” Henry, the senior pastor, said.

However, I feel this is wrong. As do the Haitian government, the local religious leaders, and pretty much anyone with a sense of decency. Max Beauvoir, head of Haiti’s Voodoo Priest’s Association, summed it up quite nicely:

“There are many who come here with religious ideas that belong more in the time of the Inquisition. These types of people believe they need to save our souls and our bodies from ourselves. We need compassion, not proselytizing now, and we need aid — not just aid going to people of the Christian faith.”

If you still want to defend these people, do this for me: I want you to imagine that you are a parent of one of these kids. Your home has been destroyed. Fire, screaming, smoke. Nearly everyone you know and love is dead. You stumble from the wreckage with what’s left of your  family, looking for help. Somehow, in the panic, your child dissapears. There by your side one moment, then gone the next. Imagine the panic at losing your only surving loved one, the last thing you had to cling to. Or even worse, what if some rescuers volunteered to take your baby somewhere safe, until things calmed down. You are so grateful to these kind people, so selflessly helping you, until you find out your baby is in an orphanage, and they had no intention of bringing them home.  How would you feel?

Secularists: Choose your battles wisely!

The Freedom From Religion Foundation is urging its members (which would include me) to boycott the recently-announced Mother Teresa commemorative stamp. Ugh. As Fox News reports:

Freedom from Religion Foundation spokeswoman Annie Laurie Gaylor says issuing the stamp runs against Postal Service regulations.

“Mother Teresa is principally known as a religious figure who ran a religious institution. You can’t really separate her being a nun and being a Roman Catholic from everything she did,” Gaylor told FoxNews.com.

Postal Service spokesman Roy Betts expressed surprise at the protest, given the long list of previous honorees with strong religious backgrounds, including Malcolm X, the former chief spokesman for the Nation of Islam, and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., a Baptist minister and co-founder of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.

Gaylor said the atheist group opposed Father Flanagan’s stamp but not those for King and Malcolm X, because she said they were known for their civil rights activities, not for their religion.

Martin Luther King “just happened to be a minister,” and “Malcolm X was not principally known for being a religious figure,” she said.

Gaylor said Mother Teresa infused Catholicism into her secular honors — including an “anti-abortion rant” during her Nobel Prize acceptance speech — and that even her humanitarian work was controversial.

I’m actually somewhat sympathetic to the FFRF’s concerns. I think secular humanitarians are underappreciated, and I have also been very critical of Mother Teresa and her charity. Moreover, I know and like the people at the FFRF. They often do good work—and no, I’m not saying that because they’ve given me scholarship money.  :p

But why incur all this negative press over a stamp? These rather petty complaints only serve to eclipse secularists’ more legitimate grievances.

To their credit, the FFRF isn’t litigating this issue. I think they realize that they either don’t have a strong legal case or it’s not worth the effort. Again, though, does a stamp really merit a press release, let alone a boycott? From at least a PR perspective, I vote “no.”

Tell me I’m wrong.

Mormon anti-intellectualism

Excerpts from a recent Mormon Times article:

There are many wondrous components of the gospel for Mormons to focus their study on rather than unsubstantiated details and rumors, said Elder Bruce C. Hafen at a fireside for young adults Sunday, Jan 24.

“Look at the restoration’s content, don’t get lost in the sometimes unclear details and footnotes,” he said.

Elder Hafen related his remarks specifically to anti-Mormon literature found on the Internet, and stated that too many people of faith let initial curiosity give way to feelings of dismay and betrayal when they come across unfamiliar arguments against the church.

“Don’t take your faith on whether or not God is blessing you or giving you all the answers you expect or want. Just trust him.”

Translation: “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!”

Hafen’s remarks are reminiscent of Apostle Boyd K. Packer’s 1981 address to BYU educators entitled “The Mantle is Far, Far Greater than the Intellect.” “There is a temptation,” Packer said, “for the writer or the teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not. Some things that are true are not very useful.”

Reading Hafen’s talk and revisiting Packer’s sparked a couple of questions that I want field to you for discussion.

What does more undermine Mormons’ faith: “anti-Mormon” literature, or church leaders’ dismissive response to it? For me, it was the latter. As a young Mormon, I was fascinated by and familiar with many arguments against Mormonism. I read “anti-Mormon” literature and even corresponded with a ex-Mormon author, hoping to rekindle his testimony. All the while, I shelved whatever doubts my research and correspondence produced, because I was told to “just trust God.” I assumed that even though some answers alluded me, they must exist.

I consulted my bishop about some of the critical arguments I had come across, thinking he might have thoughtful rebuttals at-the-ready. Instead, he gave me a copy of Packer’s “The Mantle is Far, Far Greater than the Intellect.” I was upset by its anti-intellectual tone, and the talk ironically proved more fatal to my faith than any “anti-Mormon” argument up to that point.

Second question: Anti-intellectualism, of which the above talks are but two examples, is rife within Mormonism. Why do you think this is so? To be sure, Mormonism isn’t wholly anti-intellectual. Mormons put a great deal of emphasis on education, for example. But on balance, I think the anti-intellectual strain in Mormonism has been more salient than competing strains.

Predjudice is Ugliest in Children.

For those of you who don’t know, I make my living as a substitute teacher. I’m sure most of you find the idea appaling, but I really enjoy getting to work with kids. My favorite age group to sub for is elementary school. I find their enthusiasm and happiness refreshing. Yesterday was art day, and I was having fun walking through the groups of children, looking at their drawings and talking with the kids. As I passed by one group of second graders, I heard the following conversation,

Kid 1: Where do you go to church?

Kid 2: I don’t go to church.

Kid 1: If you don’t go to church, that means you don’t love everyone. It means you hate me.

Kid 2 just ducked his head and kept coloring, while the rest of the table continued to question him. I could see his cheeks turn red in embarrassment. This broke my heart.  I love teaching little kids because of their love and acceptance towards everyone. Somehow, this cute little girl had lost these qualities.

I have made it a point to avoid all discussions of religion at school. I am a teacher, and it would be inappropriate. However, I couldn’t just let this kind of bullying slide. I took a seat at the end of the table, and started coloring with them. I hoped my presence would be enough to stop the conversation, but apparently I’m not exactly an intimidating figure.  The kids kept badgering the little the boy, who was holding his own.

“You can’t love everyone if you’re not Mormon,” insisted the little girl. Her face was twisted unpleasantly in anger.

“Nuh uh,” said the little boy, “(a certain teacher) isn’t Mormon.”

It’s true. The teacher in question is Catholic, and she is one of the greatest people I know. The little girl was blown away. In her mind, anyone who was not Mormon should have fangs and and horns, apparently. She went back to coloring with a dazed look, as if her world had been fundimentally shaken. I can’t blame this little girl for her predujice. She’s 9. She doesn’t know any better. The fault lies with her parents and Sunday school teachers. Where are the lessons about loving thy neighbor? The story about the good Samaritan? I don’t know if they blatantly told her that non-Mormons aren’t as good as them, or it was implied, but either way is unnaceptable. I would feel just as horrified about a little girl who said that all Christians are stupid. Or a little kid who said that blacks are inferior to whites. Prejudice of any kind is wrong to instill in a child, and all of us should know better.

However, I do have hope for this little girl. She learned an important lesson when she realized she couldnt’ tell the Mormons from the Non-Mormons. She couldn’t pick out her fellows by “their special glow” or their “spirit”.  I am hopeful that she will realize that everyone is deserving of respect and love, no matter what their beliefs. I hope all of us can realize that too.

All dogs go to Heaven

Hat tip to Richard Packham for these quotes.

Prophet Joseph Smith:

Says one, “I cannot believe in the salvation of beasts.” Any man who would tell you that this could not be, would tell you that the revelations are not true. John heard the words of the beasts giving glory to God, and understood them. God who made the beasts could understand every language spoken by them. The four beasts were four of the most noble animals that had filled the measure of their creation, and had been saved from other worlds, because they were perfect: they were like angels in their sphere. We are not told where they came from, and I do not know; but they were seen and heard by John praising and glorifying God (See Rev.4:6). – General Conference held on the floor of the Nauvoo Temple, April 8, 1843 HC 5:343-44, cited in McConkie, Mormon Doctrine 1st ed p 578, and in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith 345-346

Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith:

Animals do have spirits and that through the redemption made by our Savior they will come forth in the resurrection, to enjoy the blessing of immortal life. – “Answers to Gospel Questions” Volume 2, Page 48

Apostle Bruce R. McConkie:

Nothing is more absolutely universal than the resurrection. Every living thing and being will be resurrected. “As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Cor. 15:22). … Just as the creative and redemptive powers of Christ extend to the earth and all things thereon, as also to the infinite expanse of worlds in immensity, so the power of the resurrection is universal in scope. Man, the earth, and all life thereon will come forth in the resurrection. And the resurrection applies to and is going on in other worlds and other galaxies.

Thus saith the Lord: “And the end shall come, and the heaven and the earth shall be consumed and pass away, and there shall be a new heaven and a new earth. For all old things shall pass away, and all things shall become new, even the heaven and the earth, and all the fulness thereof, both men and beasts, the fowls of the air, and the fishes of the sea; And not one hair, neither mote, shall be lost, for it is the workmanship of mine hand” (D. & C. 29:23-25). Mormon Doctrine 1st ed 573-578, 2nd ed 642-643

The First Presidency (Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, Anthon H. Lund):

He made the tadpole and the ape, the lion and the elephant but He did not make them in His own image, nor endow them with Godlike reason and intelligence. Nevertheless, the whole animal creation will be perfected and perpetuated in the Hereafter, each class in its ‘distinct order or sphere,’ and will enjoy ‘eternal felicity.’ That fact has been made plain in this dispensation (D&C 77:3). – Church First Presidency Message, Christmas greetings, Dec. 18, 1909

Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith (later President):

The Lord created all things for a purpose. Nothing has he created to be destroyed, but that all things might endure forever… The Lord intends to save, not only the earth and the heavens, not only man who dwells upon the earth, but all things which he has created. The animals, the fishes of the sea, the fowls of the air, as well as man, are to be re-created, or renewed, through the resurrection, for they too are living souls. – General Conference, October 1928

Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith (later President):

Every creature has a spirit, and that it existed in the spirit before it was on the earth; the spirit of every creature is in the form of its temporal, or mortal, body. Since this is true, and all forms of life partook of the effects of Adam’s fall, therefore they are entitled to the resurrection and shall live again. …

Likewise the earth, which is a living body, must die “in like manner” as to all other mortal things, and then receive the resurrection (Isa. 51:6). The fact that the spirit of every animal, every fish, every fowl of the air, is in the likeness of its body, and that also it was created in the spirit in the beginning, is a contradiction of these unscientific theories which man has inflicted upon a fallen world. – “Church History and Modern Revelation”, Published by The Council of The Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 1946.

In commemoration of MLK, Jr. Day

As we celebrate Martin Luther King, Jr. and his legacy, it’s important to appreciate just how hard-fought this holiday was.

Shortly after King’s assassination, Democratic Representative John Conyers introduced a bill to make King’s birthday a national holiday. One might assume that this was an easy affirmative vote, and the bill quickly cleared both houses of Congress. But, in fact, the legislation wasn’t even considered until over a decade later! And when considered in the 1979 session and again in 1980, it was defeated—with Republican Senators John McCain and Jesse Helms leading the opposition.

Finally, in 1983, the bill passed with an overwhelming majority and in spite of President Reagan’s threatened veto. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day still faced some hurdles, however.

Some states refused to honor the holiday. Utah held out the longest, failing to recognize the holiday from 1986 to 2000. Instead, Utah only observed “Human Rights Day.” That euphemism still remains popular in Utah and Idaho.

Utah’s reluctance to honor King was undoubtedly influenced by the state’s dominant religion: Mormonism. Many LDS authorities were vehemently opposed to the civil rights movement.*

Perhaps the most prominent LDS voice against what he called the “so-called civil rights movement” was Ezra Taft Benson. Benson served as president of the LDS Church at the time when Martin Luther King Jr. Day became a federal holiday. And while he never publicly denounced the holiday, he nonetheless helped shape Utah’s negative perception of King. Of King, and just a year after his assassination, Benson wrote, “the kindest thing that could be said about Martin Luther King is that he was an effective Communist tool. Personally, I think he was more than that.” The view that the civil rights movement and its leaders were a front for some communist agenda was a constant theme of Benson’s; he once even espoused it in General Conference.

Benson was widely known for his conservative politics–both in and outside the church. For his views on civil rights and communism, he won praise from the far-right John Birch Society and was even considered as a running-mate for segregationist third-party candidates Strom Thurmond and George Wallace.

I’m glad that Martin Luther King, Jr. Day triumphed over politics and prejudice. King—or rather, what he represented—is worth honoring. His message, though, has been neutered in recent decades (ironically, because of the federal holiday that bears his name). Most remember him only as a slain civil rights leader, but he was more than that. And to appropriately honor his legacy, we must first understand it.

Benson and the Republican in Congress weren’t entirely wrong about King: he was a radical. While no communist, King was a critic of capitalism and a champion of the poor—advocating things like affordable housing and health care. His economic views also informed his opposition to the Vietnam War, which he felt was an aggressive act of colonialism. “A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death,” he said.

America has made significant (though insufficient) strides toward racial tolerance since the civil rights movement. Prescient though he was, I don’t think King could have predicted the election of a black president. But with our continued occupation of Iraq, escalating involvement in Afghanistan, and the inaccessibility of health care for millions of Americans, much of King’s dream is still unrealized.

So let’s recommit ourselves to that dream today and work to see it realized in this new year.

*In a 1947 letter to USU sociology professor Lowry Nelson, the First Presidency called interracial marriages “most repugnant” and “contrary to Church doctrine.” Apostles Bruce R. McConkie and Mark E. Petersen not only defended the church’s black priesthood ban, but went further in arguing for segregation more generally. McConkie wrote that blacks were a “spiritually inferior” race who were consigned to be “a caste apart.” And Peterson told an audience at BYU that “the Lord segregated the Negro” and asked, “who is man to change that segregation?”

In the wake of the Haiti earthquake

Natural disasters like the recent Haiti earthquake make God’s apparent absence all the more conspicuous. Where was God? Why would a loving God allow such immense suffering?

Today, on the Christian Broadcasting Network, televangelist Pat Robertson volunteered an answer. He claims that Haiti has long since been under a curse, having sworn a “pact to the Devil” in return for independence from French colonial rule. The earthquake, then, is just the latest visitation of that curse upon Haiti.

Robertson has also blamed Katrina on abortion and 9/11 on the increasing secularization of America.

I think these statements are disgusting and callous—a total slap in the face to the victims of said tragedies. I wonder, though, how many Americans are sympathetic to Robertson’s explanations. Those who believe in the Bible and/or the Book of Mormon literally certainly couldn’t deny that God has at times manifest his wrath in natural disasters. Untold millions are killed by the God of these books through global floods, earthquakes, plagues, etc. It was once even a popular Mormon belief that people in disaster-prone areas did something in their pre-mortal life to merit the disasters. Consider this brief excerpt from Apostle Mark E. Petersen’s 1954 address at Brigham Young University:

Can we account in any other way for the birth of some of the children of God in darkest Africa, or in flood-ridden China, or among the starving hordes of India, while some of the rest of us are born here in the United States?  We cannot escape the conclusion that because of performance in our pre-existence some of us are born as Chinese, some as Japanese, some as Latter-day Saints.  There are rewards and punishments, fully in harmony with His established policy in dealing with sinners and saints, rewarding all according to their deeds…

A question to the theist readers of this blog: What role does God play in natural disasters, if any? And if God doesn’t cause these disasters, why doesn’t he at least prevent them?

I’m curious how believers reconcile the suffering in the world with their notions of God. The problem of suffering ought to be the source of many sleepless nights for theists, in my opinion.

But while your theodices will be of interest to me, the people of Haiti need something more right now. To anyone reading this, please make a donation to any (or all) of the following organizations:

Red Cross: http://www.redcross.org/

Partners in Health: http://www.pih.org/home.html

Doctors Without Borders: http://doctorswithoutborders.org/

The International Rescue Committee: https://www.theirc.org/

LDS Humanitarian Services: give.lds.org/emergencyresponse

Catholic Relief Services: http://www.catholicrelief.org/

Skeptics and Humanist Aid and Relief Effort (SHARE): https://secure.ga1.org/05/share_earthquake_in_haiti

Or do what I did—donate $10 automatically via text message to the Red Cross by texting “HAITI” to 90999. Texters will then be billed for the donation on their next cell phone bill.

If you know of other organizations that I should include in my list, please let me know.

New(er) Blasphemy Law in Ireland

Across the pond, Ireland is pretty well known as a place of religious conflict between Protestants and Catholics, but their new blasphemy law is facing a lot of criticism. Their original constitution stated that you could be prosecuted for perpetrating blasphemy and because of some legal thing in their constitution, they had to keep it when they revised a revision to the constitution. Atheist and religious groups alike seem to find it too vague and not particularly enforceable.

Read on here for more information.