A Stitch in Haste

The latest estimates are that over 30,000 people died in yesterday's Southeast Asia earthquake. As the calls for charitable relief again swing into motion, I am reposting a revised version of this piece I wrote in response to the Boxing Day Tsunami.

---

It has always been my opinion that the best way to contribute to overseas disasters is through the American Red Cross, not the International Red Cross (ICRC) or any United Nations bureaucracy (and certainly not a Christian charity). I think it makes a huge difference when aid recipients know unequivocally that the help is coming from the United States -- the most charitable nation on earth -- and that the funds are voluntary, private donations rather than taxpayer-subsidized government monies.

You can donate online (choose "International Response Fund").

Also remember to ask your employer whether they, like my greedy Swiss bank firm, match charitable contributions.

ADDENDUM #1: A reader asks, much to my shock and awe, why not give via Christian charities? The best answer I could give is, "Because I read the newspapers."

The question can be answered on many levels. Primary level: I'm not a Christian, I suspect most of my readers are not Christians, nor are most libertarians Christians or even deists.

Secondary level: If you want to achieve a "message" in addition to simply rendering aid (and we don't shy away from a message being attached to our money, do we?), then that message should be "Courtesy of the people of the United States of America" rather than "Look how much the Lord loves you, especially after he just wiped out your country, village, family, livelihood, etc."

Tertiary level: Most Christian (and practically all Catholic) charities are overtly missionary in their nature. (It's not called the "Salvation Army" for nothing.) If you give money to a Christian charity, then you are subsidizing and catalyzing the spread of the Christian religion. If you want to spend the effort figuring out which Christian franchises are less obnoxious than others, then go right ahead. I will have no part of it — especially when a no-cost alternative is right at my fingertips.

ADDENDUM #2: Another reader raises the issue of the Red Cross' "ban" on gays donating blood — see my previous posts. The ban is actually an FDA regulation, not an ARC policy, though one can certainly argue that the ARC isn't trying very hard to overturn the nonsensical — and life-threatening — ban on gays donating blood. I therefore can't fault any gay man who refuses to do business with the American Red Cross. A detailed list of alternative organizations can be found at the nonsectarian Network for Good.