How is this any less deprived than Robertson?

As everyone in the world knows by now, Pat Robertson saw fit (as he usually does when there's a big tragedy somewhere in the world) to pander his disgusting theology of divine retribution for anyone he, Pat, doesn't like. I don't want to say much of anything about that, because lots of people have already said everything and more than that. Plus, Don Miller threw a spanner in the wheels of my plan to share my righteous indignation.

Other than spreading the historically dubious and theologically flawed story about a Satanic pact, it was Pat's timing that was so appalling. Tens of thousands of people had just died, yet Pat didn't see how it might be a little inappropriate to say the people had it coming. It was inappropriate, pure and simple.

But not only religious nuts know how to exploit human suffering for their own ideological gain. Richard Dawkins is pretty good at it too, it appears. Here's the Christian Post,

Famed New Atheist Richard Dawkins has opened up a "religion-free" way of helping the victims of the deadly earthquake in Haiti.

Dawkins has joined 13 other groups to create the Non-Believers Giving Aid. Donors are told that when they give they are "helping to counter the scandalous myth that only the religious care about their fellow-humans."

"[W]e do not hide behind the notion that earthly suffering will be rewarded in a heavenly paradise, nor do we expect a heavenly reward for our generosity: the understanding that this is the only life any of us have makes the need to alleviate suffering even more urgent," the atheist and freethought groups say.

I can just imagine the meeting where they decided this was a good idea. The glee with which they sent out the press release.

"Think of the publicity this will bring to the cause!"

"Finally we will be able to prove to those pesky theists that we aren't just intellectually superior, but that our moral motives are purer too!"

"And we can help through an organisation that will ensure that our money is not contaminated by religious cash!"

I guess the lack of witchcraft is something, but this is no different and no less deprived than Pat Robertson's using the Haitian earthquake to spread his theology. It's inappropriate. It shows a deep lack of respect for the victims of the earthquake, a disrespect compounded by the fact that it takes place within the context of helping people. It's like extending your one hand to someone while slapping them with the other. Way to go, Dawkins!

(I want to urge readers to donate some money to help the people of Haiti through your charity of choice, whatever it might be. But I'm afraid that I would be doing something similar to what I'm criticising, though with a reversed directionality: Instead of spreading my ideology under the veneer of charity, I'm urging charity within the context of spreading my ideology.)