Coming home recently from Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) I went by the Habitat for Humanity airplane! Now this plane wasn't a twin-engine propeller plane, nor was it a Lear Jet like many large organizations have to quickly carry small loads of 15 or 20 people to a meeting. Its tail went as high in the sky as a Boeing 767. What is a charitable organization doing with a plane like that? It must cost millions to maintain, and millions more to purchase in the first place. Those planes cost something in the order of $15,000/hour to fly. I wonder how many people who contribute to Habitat for Humanity know that their contributions are going for such extravagance.
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Habitat for Humanity Extravagence
Coming home recently from Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) I went by the Habitat for Humanity airplane! Now this plane wasn't a twin-engine propeller plane, nor was it a Lear Jet like many large organizations have to quickly carry small loads of 15 or 20 people to a meeting. Its tail went as high in the sky as a Boeing 767. What is a charitable organization doing with a plane like that? It must cost millions to maintain, and millions more to purchase in the first place. Those planes cost something in the order of $15,000/hour to fly. I wonder how many people who contribute to Habitat for Humanity know that their contributions are going for such extravagance.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
how about those Mormon temples and all that extravagance on hard earned tax free donations. wonder what the electricity bill per month for those dwellings are?
ReplyDeleteAre you actually confusing religion with a charity? Although they generally have similar goals, they are different in significant ways.
ReplyDeleteEquating a religion with a charity is typical of the moral equivalence that has gotten our country into many of its problems in the first place. I reject the silly moral equivalence that liberals and others typically engage in.
The irony in this is that moral equivalence such as this is actually an act of amorality. It isn't moral at all - it is the absence of morality. I'm afraid I reject that logic out of hand.
I could also point out that your reasoning is an example of a logical fallacy - a weak analogy.