Donating to christian / religious charities

--amadeus--

I saw this mentioned in the xmas thread and it kind of surprised me.

I never knowingly give money to a charity that has a religious affiliation. My reasons are simple enough - if it is a religious charity then I assume that the work they do must have strings of some form attached and most of the religious charities have identical or similar non-religious ones. I had assumed that most (or even all) atheists would be the same but the christmas thread implies that some do give to (for example) christian aid.

Am I alone in this?

Galvasean

I am suspicious about religiously run charities. When I donate money to say building a well in Africa I want it to do just that, not build a well and throw in a free Bible. I currently donate money to a non religious charity.
There are plenty of non religious charities out there, so atheists can pick one with no religious connections and still feel good about themselves.

eoin5

--amadeus-- wrote: »

I saw this mentioned in the xmas thread and it kind of surprised me.

I never knowingly give money to a charity that has a religious affiliation. My reasons are simple enough - if it is a religious charity then I assume that the work they do must have strings of some form attached and most of the religious charities have identical or similar non-religious ones. I had assumed that most (or even all) atheists would be the same but the christmas thread implies that some do give to (for example) christian aid.

Am I alone in this?

I think a better way of choosing a charity is to weigh up the pros and cons. Some of the strings attached might be a good thing. The charity might be able to vector some of the churches wealth and/or facilities in the direction of actually helping people (as opposed to the 'saving' crap), but may need their own capital to do so. I think its better to be sceptical rather than cynical in looking at christian charities.

achtungbarry

I am very very wary of any religious based charity.

I do not doubt that many of these charity do some great work but when religion is involved there is an ulterior motive.

Anything that even mentions the word "missions" is a no no in my book.

In my humble opinion you should help people for no other reason than it is nice to help people and it does some good, not because you are looking to convert another person or "save another soul".

I much prefer giving to "no strings attatched" secular charities where you know your money is being used to help people and not indoctination in the cult of the invisible sky wizard.

ChocolateSauce

Even if there was a religious charity which was famed for not promoting religion, I would not give to it for the simple reason that there is going to be a secular charity with the same job.

robindch

--amadeus-- wrote: »

Am I alone in this?

Nope. As far as I can make out -- and it's difficult to get hard data on this -- the majority of good works that are done with religious backing are intended to benefit the spread of the religion more than the recipient, frequently unapologetically and unashamedly so.

In terms of percentages and from informal and possibly unreliable financial figures relating to the religion as a whole, I believe that somewhere between 5% and 15% of the catholic religious economy goes towards good works, with the remainder going towards sustaining the religion (or these days, paying out cash to victims of clerical abuse). In protestant circles, this low figure is substantially less, and I believe that good works account for between 1% and 5% of the religious economy.

In terms of time rather than money, I believe that religious believers do good works (that they wouldn't otherwise do) somewhere between 1% and 5% of the time that they're doing "religious" things.

There are, of course, various charities, set up by religious organizations, which have far higher efficiencies than the figures above -- no doubt in the 75% to 90% range that you'd expect secular charities to be operating. But there are very few of these.

There was a collection in the Galway shopping center at the weekend that definitely will never get anything from me:

Send sick children to Lourdes.

Sangre

I think the real question is, why would an atheist give to a charity?

ChocolateSauce

Sangre wrote: »

I think the real question is, why would an atheist give to a charity?

To annoy theists?

eoin5

robindch wrote: »

Nope. As far as I can make out -- and it's difficult to get hard data on this -- the majority of good works that are done with religious backing are intended to benefit the spread of the religion more than the recipient, frequently unapologetically and unashamedly so.

In terms of percentages and from informal and possibly unreliable financial figures relating to the religion as a whole, I believe that somewhere between 5% and 15% of the catholic religious economy goes towards good works, with the remainder going towards sustaining the religion (or these days, paying out cash to victims of clerical abuse). In protestant circles, this low figure is substantially less, and I believe that good works account for between 1% and 5% of the religious economy.

In terms of time rather than money, I believe that religious believers do good works (that they wouldn't otherwise do) somewhere between 1% and 5% of the time that they're doing "religious" things.

There are, of course, various charities, set up by religious organizations, which have far higher efficiencies than the figures above -- no doubt in the 75% to 90% range that you'd expect secular charities to be operating. But there are very few of these.

I wonder where SVP sit on this, I've always thought of them as a worthwhile charity.

Zillah

Sangre wrote: »

I think the real question is, why would an atheist give to a charity?

Yeah, I realised a while ago that because I don't believe in God I may as well rape and murder loads of people. I suppose I should cancel my charity direct debits too?

Mena

Sangre wrote: »

I think the real question is, why would an atheist give to a charity?

May I be so bold so as to assume that the line you're taking is "Atheist, therefore has no morals, as morals are defined by the bible" ?

Assuming my assumption (lot of ass in there ) is correct, then could I ask when last you offered a human sacrifice to your god, bought your last slave and raped a woman?

If I've taken this (you) up wrong then well, I'm a ass :cool:

achtungbarry

Sangre wrote: »

I think the real question is, why would an atheist give to a charity?

Now here's a crazy thought, what if there are some people who do something nice just for the sake of doing something nice.......... and not out of hope of reward or fear of punishment in a future life.

Seems clear to me which motive is more sincere.

Rev Hellfire

Personally I think it shows a level of cynicism to simply reject all charities with religious connects simply because of an association of with religion.
The sad fact is in many cases they provide services which simply aren't available from 'purely' secular organisations.

Certainly services like John of Gods and SVP offer facilities which may not be available elsewhere or complement existing underfunded HSE services for example.

Funnily enough from where I'm standing it seems a case of the pot calling the kettle black, you'll support charities but only if they're non-religious, seems like your 'charity' comes with conditions also :rolleyes:

pH

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Funnily enough from where I'm standing it seems a case of the pot calling the kettle black, you'll support charities but only if they're non-religious, seems like your 'charity' comes with conditions also :rolleyes:

Well exactly, whose doesn't? Charities (as organisations) cover a broad spectrum, most as well as doing charitable works have some political, social or ideological agenda as well. Very few exist just to "do good works" of an unspecific nature.

Taken to an extreme I'm sure we can all find a 'charity' that we'd not give money to, for example I'd be unlikely to donate money to build memorials for and commemorate the animals who have died in war.

Given these 2 mission statements I know which one I'd donate to (and have done).

Mission

Focus Ireland aims to advance the right of people-out-of-home to live in a place they call home through quality services, research, and advocacy.


SVP Mission Statement

The Society of St. Vincent de Paul is a Christian voluntary organisation, working with poor and disadvantaged people. Inspired by our principal founder, Frederic Ozanam, and our patron, St. Vincent de Paul, we seek to respond to the call every Christian receives to bring the love of Christ to those in need: "I was hungry and you gave me food" (Matthew 25). No work of charity is foreign to the Society.

--amadeus--

Ahhh Ph beat me to the punch!

There are two consequences of having so many charities. First is that there is an inevitable degree of overlap between them all, so if you disagree with one charity in a given field then you can find another in the same field you feel more comfortable with. The second is that with so many charities and so many causes you inevitably have to make a choice.

That choice will involve weighing the factors involved; the nature of the cause, the nature of the charity and how well you think they will use your money / time / other donation. I would view money spent on preaching as a waste so I'll give to charities that are more efficient and spend more of the money on whatever it is they are supposed to be doing.

Rev Hellfire

pH wrote: »

Well exactly, whose doesn't? Charities (as organisations) cover a broad spectrum, most as well as doing charitable works have some political, social or ideological agenda as well. Very few exist just to "do good works" of an unspecific nature.

Indeed I agree that people naturally pick a 'cause' to support and where multiple charities are available people will naturally pick the one which sits best for them. Again no problem with that.

But the subtext of the opening post in my view and the subsequent posts which follow (and I admit I may be wrong here) seems to have a different agenda, that of not supporting any charity with a religious connection regardless of the non-availability of secular services.

But perhaps I'm misrepresenting people here.

pH

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

But the subtext of the opening post in my view and the subsequent posts which follow (and I admit I may be wrong here) seems to have a different agenda, that of not supporting any charity with a religious connection regardless of the non-availability of secular services.

And perhaps it's a genuine "atheist dilemma". If only one charity was operating in an area you cared deeply about (say rain forest conservation) but they had a slight religious theme (say they distributed a few bibles and maybe helped build a mission or 2 - but it was a small part of their budget) then I can see how many atheists would have a problem donating to that, and I certainly can see how someone could weigh it up and decide not to.

I think it comes down to shades of grey, very few atheists (I'd imagine) would donate to the Salvation Army, and I hardly think it's hypocritical or disingenuous for them not to.

nozzferrahhtoo

No I do not think you are misrepresenting people. They clearly do not want to donate to charities with a religious motive for their ends. Especially when often religions tend to do their best to be “good by association”. I am often told “Religion is great, look at all that religious charities do….”. This is a complete non-sequitar. The charities are great, the religion is NOT great by association.

There are many charities. There is no hypocrisy when confronted with two that provide the same function to go for the one that does not have an agenda you disagree with.

After all Hamass clearly does provide social services in Gaza but this does not change the fact that it is a militarised terrorist organisation with a fanatical anti-Semitic ideology. There are clearly other services providing social services I can donate to instead.

Louis Ferikand has been claimed to help get young black men to turn away from drugs. This does not mean it is not a racist cult of insane crackpots. There are clearly other organisations that provide the same function I can donate to instead.

And us all being Irish we know our disagreements with the Catholic Church. They may association themselves and administer several charities but this also doesn’t change their history of child molestation cover ups, fear mongering, lies and damage to society.

So no I see no hypocrisy in avoiding a charity with a religious agenda.

PDN

What about charities set up by religious people who were motivated by their beliefs, but which appear to operate in an entirely secular manner?

I'm thinking of Oxfam (set up by Canon Theodore Richard Milford) or the Samaritans (set up by Rev Chad Varah)

BTW, Chad Varah is a fascinating figure. He set up the Samaritans from the crypt of his church. He was blamed by Mary Whitehouse for ushering in the Permissive Society by writing articles on sexual matters in the Picture Post (this prompted by his experience of burying a 14-year old girl who had killed herself when her periods started because she thought it was VD. Rev Varah became a committed advocate of early sex education). He was also the Scientific and Astronautical Consultant to the Dan Dare comic strips! :eek:

Dades

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

But the subtext of the opening post in my view and the subsequent posts which follow (and I admit I may be wrong here) seems to have a different agenda, that of not supporting any charity with a religious connection regardless of the non-availability of secular services.

I'd say it's more a case of there being too many charities to give to all of them, in which case you have to decide which of them you wish to donate to.

For the most part you have a choice between secular and religious charities that help the same demograph, so I see no issue with choosing the former if you are not an advocate of spreading religion.

Of course if someone has a cause close to their heart, but refuses to contribute to the only charity that addresses that cause because it is religious in nature, then you might have a point. Though I would imagine this is somewhat rare.

I'm not bothered either way, but given the option of two collection tins on the counter in Spar, I'll consciously drop my change in the ISPCC rather than the Missions.

And why hasn't PDN posted here yet!

PDN

Dades wrote: »

And why hasn't PDN posted here yet!

Ha ha! Beat you to it!

pH wrote:

I think it comes down to shades of grey, very few atheists (I'd imagine) would donate to the Salvation Army, and I hardly think it's hypocritical or disingenuous for them not to.

Indeed! It was the Salvation Army who provided food and shelter to a homeless atheist alcoholic 28 years ago - an act of kindness that caused me to examine their motives and eventually give my life to Christ.

So every cent you give to the Salvation Army increases the chance of creating another PDN!

pH

So every cent you give to the Salvation Army increases the chance of creating another PDN!

So remember children how important it is to give money to FOCUS IRELAND this Christmas. (Which incidentally was founded(?) by Sr Stanislaus Kennedy who is still president)

Why PDN feels the need to troll this thread with by equating "not giving to charities with religious agendas" with "not giving to charities who've ever had a religious person walk through their doors" is beyond me.

Dades wrote: »

And why hasn't PDN posted here yet!

Careful what you wish for.

PDN

pH wrote:

Why PDN feels the need to troll this thread with by equating "not giving to charities with religious agendas" with "not giving to charities who've ever had a religious person walk through their doors" is beyond me.

You need to learn how to read. I did not make any such equation or equivalency.
I asked a question about a further category of charities.

I would also refer you to a link to learn what 'to troll' means - but there's probably no point since you wouldn't read that properly either.

Unless of course there's a new policy that theists are no longer welcome to participate in threads on this board?

Tim Robbins

eoin5 wrote: »

I wonder where SVP sit on this, I've always thought of them as a worthwhile charity.

No way. I read recently a story about SVP helping a lady give up her and go back to college because she wanted a career change!

What's interesting is the origins of Charity itself. The Philosopher Andre Compte-Sponville makes a point that the origins of the word Charity are from the Greek word Charitus (note don't have book at hand so don't have correct spelling). This was a translation of the Greek agape which was a word used many times by the early Christian writers. It did appear in earlier Greek texts, but not very much. so it was something the early Christian writers really pushed.

So are the origins of agape as cultural characteristic Christian?

Your thoughts...

Dades

pH wrote: »

Why PDN feels the need to troll this thread...

That post was nowhere near trolling.

PDN wrote: »

Unless of course there's a new policy that theists are no longer welcome to participate in threads on this board?

That policy would get boring very quick.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

No way. I read recently a story about SVP helping a lady give up her and go back to college because she wanted a career change!

My mind is boggling in attempting to fill in the missing word. Put me out of my suspense, Tim. What was it they helped her to give up? Her husband? Her virginity?

the origins of the word Charity are from the Greek word Charitus

Not Greek. Latin caritas, then Old French charite.

This was a translation of the Greek agape which was a word used many times by the early Christian writers. It did appear in earlier Greek texts, but not very much. so it was something the early Christian writers really pushed.

So are the origins of agape as cultural characteristic Christian?

The word agape refers to pure unselfish love, as distinguished from eros (sexual love) or phileo (love based on family kinship).

It is used extensively in the New Testament, but predates Christianity and was used by Plato.

So, Tim, are you arguing that the concept of pure unselfish love is somehow exclusively Christian? I certainly can't agree with you there.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

What about charities set up by religious people who were motivated by their beliefs, but which appear to operate in an entirely secular manner? I'm thinking of Oxfam (set up by Canon Theodore Richard Milford) or the Samaritans (set up by Rev Chad Varah)

Or indeed the Simon (of Cyrene) community for whom I worked part-time for some years here in Dublin.

As long as religion is kept out of it, I'd imagine that most atheists are quite happy to donate.

And as an aside, of the ten or twelve so people with whom I worked most closely, there were only two (one methodist, one catholic) who were religious. The rest were agnostic or atheist.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

Not Greek. Latin caritas, then Old French charite.

You're correct there. The Philosopher says as such and my head was somewhere else when writing that. [I am sneaking posts in between coding something here.

The word agape refers to pure unselfish love, as distinguished from eros (sexual love) or phileo (love based on family kinship).

I think you are wrong on your definitions there. The book I am currently reading (Rollo May and 'Love and Will') differentiates between sex and eros. According to him Eros is the burning want for something you don't have. so you can have a sexual eros, but eros isn't exclusively sexual.

It is used extensively in the New Testament, but predates Christianity and was used by Plato.

Agree. I said that. It's in "The Republic" as far as I remember.

So, Tim, are you arguing that the concept of pure unselfish love is somehow exclusively Christian? I certainly can't agree with you there.

No I am not. I couldn't agree with that either. I am saying the contribution of Christianity to agape as being a cultural characteristic is arguably quite large, even though they did not come up with the concept of agape. They went on about it quite a lot and possible influenced the Zeitgeist quite considerably as such.

toiletduck

robindch wrote: »

As long as religion is kept out of it, I'd imagine that most atheists are quite happy to donate.

My position exactly.

Just hope that the recession won't affect the donations people give.

Sangre

Zillah wrote: »

Yeah, I realised a while ago that because I don't believe in God I may as well rape and murder loads of people. I suppose I should cancel my charity direct debits too?

And I suppose I should start putting 'wakka wakka' after my posts.