Question Regarding Nepal Earthquake

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

And did someone mention the Clintons?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/04/24/tangled-clinton-web-firms-tied-to-clintons-profited-in-post-quake-haiti/

[AURaptor 1,125]

There was a documentary on PBS or some such, which looked into NGOs which bilked millions from donors who then went on to do next to nothing for the people of Haiti. Where'd all that $ go ? Much of it went to folks on the ground in Haiti, staying in 5 star hotels, who barely ventured out beyond the comfort and luxuriously appointed confines , and instead spent much time sipping drinks by the pool and racking up huge bar tabs while dining on steak, shrimp, lobster, etc... Oh, and they were organized from their home office, which was located where ? Manhattan, and the pricey upper level , high rent spaces which had great views of NYC. Smart money use there.

[homersapien 11,383]

Well, I actually prefer organizations that meet not just physical and emotional needs, but spiritual ones as well. I also think it's valuable for people in parts of the world that are with other religions to know that people who worship differently than they do love and care about them. If for no other reason that spreading religious tolerance - the notion that we can have different beliefs and disagree on doctrines and such but we will drop everything to come and help you when you need it...it's a message that needs to spread.

Well, I think it's presumptuous to proselytize to people who are physically and psychologically traumatized with grief.

I totally agree with your last sentence.

But I find it ironic since it addresses the very issue that forms the basis of my antipathy for Franklin Graham.

I don't have to like everything Mr. Graham says to believe in the mission of Samaritan's Purse.

And what you call proselytizing, we would call simply telling people the truth about God's concern for them, even in the midst of their darkest hour - especially in their darkest hour. It's presumptuous to think that the only needs people have in grief and trauma are physical or emotional needs.

Never said you did. I am just relating my position.

And if someone asks for "spiritual" support, then provide it if you can. But it is (at least) presumptuous to proselytize to people when they are the most vulnerable without being asked. Actually it's exploitative.

Knowing Graham, he would lead off with the burning in everlasting hell/salvation part. Just what a traumatized person needs to hear. :-\

[homersapien 11,383]

Samaritan's Purse is great.

Maybe so, but I don't care for Franklin Graham.

It's not about you or Franklin, but the good work that gets done.

I understand. But the fact of the matter is, being human, emotion plays a key role in every decision I make.

Given the choice of contributing to an equally deserving charity that is not affiliated with Franklin Graham, I would not support his organization.

No doubt you would feel the same about an charitable organization founded by Hillary Clinton (for example).

Well, MY motivation and emotion are driven by seeing $ well spent when it comes to aiding others. Samaritan's Purse , as noted before, rates highly in seeing donation $ making a difference in helping those in need.

If this non believer can get past the fact they're religious, and realize the point is to get aid to thems who need it, I don't see why all the fuss.

But that's just me.

They rate highly in terms of financial integrity and openness. Quality of help wasn't rated, although I am sure it's mostly worthwhile or appropriate.

But as a non-believer, I'd rather not support religious proselytizing.

But that's just me.

[homersapien 11,383]

Samaritan's Purse is great.

Maybe so, but I don't care for Franklin Graham.

It's not about you or Franklin, but the good work that gets done.

I understand. But the fact of the matter is, being human, emotion plays a key role in every decision I make.

Given the choice of contributing to an equally deserving charity that is not affiliated with Franklin Graham, I would not support his organization.

No doubt you would feel the same about an charitable organization founded by Hillary Clinton (for example).

Well, MY motivation and emotion are driven by seeing $ well spent when it comes to aiding others. Samaritan's Purse , as noted before, rates highly in seeing donation $ making a difference in helping those in need.

If this non believer can get past the fact they're religious, and realize the point is to get aid to thems who need it, I don't see why all the fuss.

But that's just me.

Some people are not just non believers but vehemently opposed to anything spiritual. The thought of ministering to ones soul while also ministering to their physical needs is just abhorrent to them and drives them over the edge.

Yeah. I find those folks to be very annoying and counter-productive.

[quietfan 233]

They have an insane rating from Charity Navigator (which, btw, I also recommend.) http://www.charityna...26#.VTwqp3oXGDk

Thanks for this link as I had not heard of them

Some other charity-rating sites that I was aware of:

http://www.givewell.org/

https://www.charitywatch.org/home

http://www.give.org/

Which sort of begs the question: "Who rates the charity raters? Which of them is the most impartial? How do they arrive at their ratings?"

[Auctoritas 2,828]

Samaritan's Purse is a fine organization, and yes, they do good works. My issue with religious charities - any of them, any religion - is that normally to get the help you need you have to visit one of their ministries. For instance, Samaritan's Purse is sending aid to Nepal - from their website: "Samaritan’s Purse deployed a team of 16 disaster response experts, including six medical personnel. Staff began to arrive on Sunday. We will work with local ministry partners in Nepal. We will be helping victims with emergency shelter, water, hygiene kits, and other emergency supplies. We are sending initial supplies for 15,000 households, and anticipate doing more as the response continues.The medical team and supplies will support mission hospitals that are Samaritan’s Purse partners."

Is that bad in itself? No, not at all. But it can give the illusion that "to get this help, you must believe in xyz" or that you have to join their church. Or, worse, that the help WILL only go to members of that partner church/hospital and the rest of you guys are on your own.

I do not think that this is the case. I choose to believe that humans, especially humans that help, are intrinsically good people and will give aid when and where it is needed irrespective of the belief of the person in need.

The crux of the matter, at least to me, is what the purpose is of the organization. If the mission is to give aid and therefore through their actions show the love of Christ, then I have no problem with giving. If the primary mission is to convert people in the area, and the organization sees providing aid to the area as a means to that end, then there's a problem and my money will go elsewhere.

I have no problems with my money going for spiritual needs, even needs I do not believe in, as that's an important part of many people's lives. But that should be for THEIR spiritual needs, not the spiritual needs we think they should have.

(And, just for the record, coming to this realization about charity and relief was my first step that led me away from the church. I did plenty of mission work, but one day, someone told me I was "doing it wrong." It was immeasurably sad.)

[TitanTiger 20,498]

I think you are reading too much into that bolded line. It doesn't say that they will exclusively distribute supplies through the hospitals, just that the supplies will support area hospitals that are mission partners, nor does it imply that you have to believe anything or go to their church to get help. A lot depends on the infrastructure they have in a given area as to how close to victims they can get for direct giving, but you extrapolated an awful lot from a rather general statement. It reads to me that they have certain hospitals and partners that they have access to that they will utilize to distribute the help. In many cases it's the most efficient way to do it...it's a centralized point where people know to go for assistance and it doesn't put SP in the position of scouring the countryside for needy victims or setting up shop somewhere that gets in the way of medical and emergency personnel.

[Auctoritas 2,828]

I think you are reading too much into that bolded line. It doesn't say that they will exclusively distribute supplies through the hospitals, just that the supplies will support area hospitals that are mission partners, nor does it imply that you have to believe anything or go to their church to get help. A lot depends on the infrastructure they have in a given area as to how close to victims they can get for direct giving, but you extrapolated an awful lot from a rather general statement. It reads to me that they have certain hospitals and partners that they have access to that they will utilize to distribute the help. In many cases it's the most efficient way to do it...it's a centralized point where people know to go for assistance and it doesn't put SP in the position of scouring the countryside for needy victims or setting up shop somewhere that gets in the way of medical and emergency personnel.

It was an example to illustrate my general point. Ergo, "for instance." I even went so far as to say "I do not think this is the case." What more did you need?

I am in public health with concentrations in epidemics and disaster response. I'm well aware of the necessities for delivering large-scale programs to as many people as possible. We partner with NGOs all the time, including religious organizations, because they are (as you say) centralized points.

But we also live in America, where coercion isn't such a cultural problem and people know they can get the help. In these very poor countries, the culture is generally more family-centric and things are gained by bargaining.

The problem remains, then, in a general sense: is there an illusion that you have to participate to get aid if you need it? That's the only extra question I ask about a religious charity if I am going to give to them.

[AURaptor 1,125]

There are a finite number of resources for any private group to use. I have no problem if SP or any other group directs their efforts to partners who will do all they can to aid those in need. They man one small front on a very large problem. They aren't meant to be one size fits all when it comes to disaster relief.

[TitanTiger 20,498]

We are in agreement then. It should be made clear that to receive help you are not required to convert, listen to a sermon or sit through a meeting about Christianity. At the same time, I do not have a problem with them giving supplies that may have some attached literature that expresses the reason (showing the love of Christ to them) that SP is involved and that Christians donate to fund the supplies they are receiving. I wouldn't have a problem with them also letting people know about any meetings or availability of people in the area to speak to them about spiritual matters if they are interested. But care should be taken to be sure no one thinks it's expected or required.

[Auctoritas 2,828]

We are in agreement then. It should be made clear that to receive help you are not required to convert, listen to a sermon or sit through a meeting about Christianity. At the same time, I do not have a problem with them giving supplies that may have some attached literature that expresses the reason (showing the love of Christ to them) that SP is involved and that Christians donate to fund the supplies they are receiving. I wouldn't have a problem with them also letting people know about any meetings or availability of people in the area to speak to them about spiritual matters if they are interested. But care should be taken to be sure no one thinks it's expected or required.

I agree completely. The only concern anyone should have, in that case, is how much the printed materials are taking out of the ability to provide aid (which is not that much). I think you are absolutely correct, though, about presenting the idea that people outside their religion (and ethnicity) are trying to help them - if for nothing else, it makes America look better. And, best case, it helps either de-radicalize people (or, prevent it from happening in the first place).

[AURaptor 1,125]

Death toll reported to be over 2,500 now, and many more injured, missing.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/apr/26/nepal-earthquake-death-toll-exceeds-1500-rolling-report

[Auctoritas 2,828]

http://www.npr.org/b...elief-for-nepal

What You Need To Know Before Donating To Earthquake Relief For Nepal

If you're thinking about making a donation to help Nepal in the wake of the devastating earthquake, now is the time to act.

Immediate aid is essential, says Center for Global Development fellow Vijaya Ramachandran, who has drawn her conclusions from looking at the earthquake in Haiti and other disasters. "The aid that comes in within the first weeks and even months is of a life-saving nature. That's the period when the local capacity is almost zero. So outside help is really important."

And while aid from the U.S. and around the world is coming in, that does not negate the need for additional help. Nongovernmental and nonprofit organizations can allocate their funds more flexibly, to react to immediate or unforeseen needs on the ground, says Julien Schopp, director of humanitarian practice at InterAction, a coalition of aid groups.

But the sheer number of organizations appealing for funds can be overwhelming. Here's a guide for the bewildered do-gooder.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Aucto......link to the guide?