Would you donate to a charity from a different religion/philosophy?

[paximperium]

So, I was grocery shopping today and in front of the store was a table with kids and minders asking for donations for a local Christian Church funded Homeless Shelter.

Now, normally I refuse to donate to any organization that promotes things that I believe are harmful especially religion. If a theistic group asks for money for a local cleanup, I usually donate to a secular group instead. If a group wants money to feed the homeless, I donate to a secular group that does the same instead.

However in this situation there are no real secular alternatives in the area and if the church closes the shelter, a bunch of folk will not have any place to stay.

Discuss.

[paximperium]

A small question to religious folk, would you donate to a group from another religion? Say a Muslim group feeding the poor?

[BPSCG]

Mrs. BPSCG's mother, who lives in Texas, recently fell and broke her hip. She's active in her tiny Southern Baptist church there. I'm an atheist, and Mrs. BPSCG has been regularly attending the local Unitarian church for a year or two now.

While my MIL was in the hospital, the preacher from her church - who was a physician's assistant in a previous life - came to see her every day - about a 1-1/2 hour drive each way. He kept us up-to-date on what was going on, kept an eye on procedures, in general, was a (you'll pardon the expression) godsend.

You bet we're sending that struggling little Baptist church church a big fat check.

[kurious_kathy]

So, I was grocery shopping today and in front of the store was a table with kids and minders asking for donations for a local Christian Church funded Homeless Shelter.

Now, normally I refuse to donate to any organization that promotes things that I believe are harmful especially religion. If a theistic group asks for money for a local cleanup, I usually donate to a secular group instead. If a group wants money to feed the homeless, I donate to a secular group that does the same instead.

However in this situation there are no real secular alternatives in the area and if the church closes the shelter, a bunch of folk will not have any place to stay.

Discuss.
Well all people are important so we all need to try to give when ever and where ever we can, right? I think it's more about responding to what you feel in your heart than anything. We are sure to see more and more needs coming up so I hope we will all do what we can and leave no room for prejudice of any kind.

[paximperium]

Mrs. BPSCG's mother, who lives in Texas, recently fell and broke her hip. She's active in her tiny Southern Baptist church there. I'm an atheist, and Mrs. BPSCG has been regularly attending the local Unitarian church for a year or two now.

While my MIL was in the hospital, the preacher from her church - who was a physician's assistant in a previous life - came to see her every day - about a 1-1/2 hour drive each way. He kept us up-to-date on what was going on, kept an eye on procedures, in general, was a (you'll pardon the expression) godsend.

You bet we're sending that struggling little Baptist church church a big fat check.
Well that brings up the issue of if a single person in an organization does good, is it appropriate to support the organization? A single person does not an organization make.

What if that Church itself preaches harmful things or things that you disagree with?

[kurious_kathy]

A small question to religious folk, would you donate to a group from another religion? Say a Muslim group feeding the poor?

Yes I would and at the same time I would want to share my faith in Christ with them because Jesus did teach us to love eachother and if I am willing to give to their need then I would hope they would see God's love in me. People always matter and life is precious!

[paximperium]

Well all people are important so we all need to try to give when ever and where ever we can, right? I think it's more about responding to what you feel in your heart than anything.
Not really. I donate based on my brain as well as my "heart". I actually research charitable organizations to actually make sure they use the money to do good instead of spending it on a new car for the boss/pastor or to spend their money on a new building/church.


We are sure to see more and more needs coming up so I hope we will all do what we can and leave no room for prejudice of any kind.
You make it seem as if a prejudice has no merit. I'm prejudice against harmful ideas. I would never donate to a Scientologist ever.

Churches are a mix issue and henceforth this question.

[balrog666]

Depends on the aim and intent of the charity; whom it might benefit is important, but how is a lot more significant.

[ejk]

I wouldn't rule a charity out because it is religious, but it's definitely a strike against them as I'm deciding where to give. Certainly I try to avoid giving to any organization if I think the work I'm supporting is trying to promote a religious view or convert people. OTOH, if they are trying to do good in the world and happen to be motivated by their personal faith, I have no problem supporting that work.

Re: the poll, by an atheist group do you mean one that is non-religious, i.e. secular, or one whose mission includes advancing atheism? Because it seems like there's an imbalance. Most officially atheist organizations are about promoting/discussing/protecting atheists. Groups that feed the hungry, house the homeless, or deliver assistance after natural disasters are either faith-based or not defined in terms of religion at all. What I'm getting at is, it seems it would be a stretch to come up with an atheistic group a religious person would be motivated to give to, while the converse is something we non-believers confront frequently.

[paximperium]

Yes I would and at the same time I would want to share my faith in Christ with them because Jesus did teach us to love eachother and if I am willing to give to their need then I would hope they would see God's love in me. People always matter and life is precious!
What if you cannot preach to them?

Would you still send a check to say the American Atheist charity for Breast Cancer?

[paximperium]

Re: the poll, by an atheist group do you mean one that is non-religious, i.e. secular, or one whose mission includes advancing atheism? Because it seems like there's an imbalance. Most officially atheist organizations are about promoting/discussing/protecting atheists.
I specifically mean Atheistic.

While most atheist groups are mostly educational in nature(including charities for scholarships etc.), what if a local group...say the local Atheist Community runs a Breast Cancer drive, would people support them.

[BPSCG]

Well that brings up the issue of if a single person in an organization does good, is it appropriate to support the organization? A single person does not an organization make.

What if that Church itself preaches harmful things or things that you disagree with?What, you think my MIL's Southern Baptist church doesn't preach things I disagree with?

Dude, I've been to services there a couple of times. The only thing I hear there that I believe is when someone says, "We're glad you came..."

[korenyx]

A small question to religious folk, would you donate to a group from another religion? Say a Muslim group feeding the poor?


I support Inter-Faith Ministries in the fight against chronic homelessness here in Wichita and I been criticized by fundamentalists because not everyone in Inter-Faith is a Christian. :eek:

[Miss_Kitt]

Pax! I'm so disappointed! You left out two reasonable responses: I am atheist(etc.) and it would depend on the charity; and I am Religious and it would depend...

I am not opposed to donating to charities staffed/run by religious groups, if the service they provide does not require people share their beliefs or are willing to be indoctrinated to receive the service. I don't know if the people who repair cleft palate kids are atheists, theists, or space aliens, and I don't care: They fix the kids, and they don't preach to 'em. Donation: Yes. Society of Gideon puts Bibles in hotel/motel rooms--yes, that helps treat insomnia sometimes, but since it seems to be a little good for a lot of religion-pushing: No.

I buy Girl Scout Cookies, and I think they're somewhat meagerly Christian somewhere; I think the Boy Scouts actually have expelled some gays. But 1) They're killer cookies; and 2) It's a good learning experience for the kids. They certainly didn't preach at me or my kid sisters when we were Scouts.

Where does that fall on your poll options??

Plus, On Planet X, all charities attack Shemp, regardless of religious status.

[paximperium]

Pax! I'm so disappointed! You left out two reasonable responses: I am atheist(etc.) and it would depend on the charity; and I am Religious and it would depend...

That would make it too easy wouldn't it?


I buy Girl Scout Cookies, and I think they're somewhat meagerly Christian somewhere; I think the Boy Scouts actually have expelled some gays. But 1) They're killer cookies; and 2) It's a good learning experience for the kids. They certainly didn't preach at me or my kid sisters when we were Scouts.
I don;t have an issue with the Girl Scouts except for their obvious desire to cause diabetes and heart disease by selling those heart attack in a box cookies.

I will not support the Boy Scouts...the kids run away from the grumpy atheist.


Plus, On Planet X, all charities attack Shemp, regardless of religious status. That is so blatantly obvious that I didn't even bother. I thought it was a given.

[paximperium]

I support Inter-Faith Ministries in the fight against chronic homelessness here in Wichita and I been criticized by fundamentalists because not everyone in Inter-Faith is a Christian. :eek:
Heretic!!!

[paximperium]

What, you think my MIL's Southern Baptist church doesn't preach things I disagree with?

Dude, I've been to services there a couple of times. The only thing I hear there that I believe is when someone says, "We're glad you came..."
Well, I guess I would have a whole lot of trouble supporting them like that but that's just me.

[Dr Adequate]

I've given money to ChristianAid. They don't spend any of it on Bibles, and I like their slogan. "We believe in life before death". So do I.

They wouldn't be my first choice, but when they're knocking on my door or waving a collecting tin at me, it's not a good time to get all theological about it.

[Sun Countess]

It looks like I was the first to pick the option of "atheist and would not donate to a theistic group." Heck, I wouldn't even send my kids to YMCA camps. No bingos or bakesales either.

If the theism is apparent from the charity's literature, I assume that a bit of preaching could be part and parcel of the assistance they're giving, even if it's just a few pamphlets left at a homeless shelter. Also, almost no charitable group donates 100% of the proceeds raised, so some overhead costs are going to the theistic organization, and I'd rather my money not go there.

I can't really think of a circumstance where I would donate to a theistic organization. Bah. I'm such a scrooge.

[Piggy]

Well, so far I'm the only atheist bigot.

I don't donate to any relgious charities, no "missions".

I only support secular organizations. There are a lot of charities out there, and I don't see any reason to support the religious ones. They have plenty of believers to help them out.

ETA: Oops, looks like I'm the second atheist bigot.

[KingMerv00]

Well, so far I'm the only atheist bigot.

I don't donate to any relgious charities, no "missions".

I only support secular organizations. There are a lot of charities out there, and I don't see any reason to support the religious ones. They have plenty of believers to help them out.

ETA: Oops, looks like I'm the second atheist bigot.

It looks like I was the first to pick the option of "atheist and would not donate to a theistic group." Heck, I wouldn't even send my kids to YMCA camps. No bingos or bakesales either.

If the theism is apparent from the charity's literature, I assume that a bit of preaching could be part and parcel of the assistance they're giving, even if it's just a few pamphlets left at a homeless shelter. Also, almost no charitable group donates 100% of the proceeds raised, so some overhead costs are going to the theistic organization, and I'd rather my money not go there.

I can't really think of a circumstance where I would donate to a theistic organization. Bah. I'm such a scrooge.

Just a hypothetical for you two:

If you saw that the most effective and organized charity available happened to be theistic, would you still favor and atheistic group? Assume the theistic charity also gives you the best bang for the buck.

[Sun Countess]

If you saw that the most organized and effective group happened to be theistic, would you still choose to donate to an atheistic organization?
Not necessarily, but I wouldn't donate to the theistic organization in any case.

I donate annually several small amounts to various organizations who do good things (in my view), and larger amounts to two or three causes that are most important to me. If it's a cause that's not really important to me, and there's no non-theistic avenue for donating, then I can forgo the whole thing.

If it's a more important cause and the theistic organization is most organized and effective, and a secular organization is less so, I'm going to donate to the secular organization. Partly because I won't be indirectly advancing any religious causes, and partly to build up the effectiveness of my preferred charity provider. Win win win.

[Texas]

I specifically mean Atheistic.

While most atheist groups are mostly educational in nature(including charities for scholarships etc.), what if a local group...say the local Atheist Community runs a Breast Cancer drive, would people support them.
Could you post a link to an Atheist charity?

[linusrichard]

Could you post a link to an Atheist charity?

I know I have that bookmark around here somewhere, it was right between the Aleprechaunist charity and the aphilatelist charity.



(Dude, it's a hypothetical question.)

[qayak]

I have donated to the MCC for disaster relief and I donated to a christian charity in Alabama when they were housing people displaced by hurricane Katrina.

There are really only two criteria for me:

1- It must be a cause I support with the vast majority of the donation going directly to those in need.

2- There can be no strings attached. For instance, a person displaced by Katrina didn't have to accept Jesus in order to get a bed and a meal.

[Giraffe107]

I'm an atheist and I have and would donate to a religious group. For example, I recently donated to the Salvation Army for the bushfire appeals, and I often donated food and clothing to St Vincent De Pauls. However, from my experience these aren't overlty religious groups, they don't seem to push anything on anyone.

I prefer to donate to secular groups.

[H3LL]

Any donation to a religious group must include a percentage to support that group.

I will not give a penny to religious organisations.




Quite the opposite, after many years in their clutches and a major struggle to break free - They owe me for the time, money and effort they got under false pretences.

.

[KingMerv00]

Not necessarily, but I wouldn't donate to the theistic organization in any case.

I donate annually several small amounts to various organizations who do good things (in my view), and larger amounts to two or three causes that are most important to me. If it's a cause that's not really important to me, and there's no non-theistic avenue for donating, then I can forgo the whole thing.

If it's a more important cause and the theistic organization is most organized and effective, and a secular organization is less so, I'm going to donate to the secular organization. Partly because I won't be indirectly advancing any religious causes, and partly to build up the effectiveness of my preferred charity provider. Win win win.

Maybe I wasn't clear in my hypo. Let's assume the group is theistic but none of your money will be spent to promote religion.

I'm sorry, I don't get it. In my hypothetical, a percentage of your money is being wasted simply for ideological reasons.

[Miss_Kitt]

In all fairness, KingMerv, maybe they don't like the idea of supporting a cause that, for example, wouldn't hire an atheist.

I don't have an issue with my stepmom donating to Project Heifer as our family Xmas gift, for example, even though that is somewhat Christian in basis. What they do is donate animals and training to poor families in developing countries; part of the bargain is that that family needs to donate one (some, for chickens and rabbits) of the offspring from their animal to another local family, who in turn will do the same. There may be some implicit selection bias, but even so: it's one less child too hungry to learn in school, one more family that has eggs for protein and to sell the extras.
Seems okay to me, but I understand the people who do elsewise.

[Seanette]

Frankly, I was a lot less hostile to the idea of donating to atheistic organizations before I experienced the anti-theist population of JREF. I don't see any less knee-jerk hatred than is claimed to exist among theists, so why would I wish to contribute to groups that hate me for believing in God?

[DC]

when i know (ETA: Think / Belive) the donation is really ariving there where it must help, and i belive that help is really helpfull. i dont mind if it is organised by a religious group or a non religius group.

I hardly find organisations i completly agree with. Im not totaly in agreement with everything greenpeace publish or is doing, but i still support several of their program by donations.

[paximperium]

Frankly, I was a lot less hostile to the idea of donating to atheistic organizations before I experienced the anti-theist population of JREF. I don't see any less knee-jerk hatred than is claimed to exist among theists, so why would I wish to contribute to groups that hate me for believing in God?
Would you care to name an atheistic charitable organization that promotes hatred against theist?

I find such persecution complex among theist distasteful and actually exceedingly pathetic. Demanding theist to keep out of non-believer's lives and government is not hatred. Demanding theist to stop shoving their myths into science classrooms is not bigotry. Not getting your way because you are a majority is not persecution. Laughing at beliefs we consider stupid and silly is not hatred.

[Seanette]

Take a look at how many insulting words you just used in one paragraph. I'm talking about the JREF anti-theist crowd's attitude, not any specific organization.

I've seen more tolerance of differing POVs among fundamentalist Christians discussing theology than I see among anti-theists here. Doesn't exactly encourage me to consider a POV that appears to be pure hate and venom.

[paximperium]

Take a look at how many insulting words you just used in one paragraph. Insulting words? Which words? About specifically calling your persecution complex pathetic? Sorry but I don't hold back statements of truth and I do find such whining pathetic.

I'm talking about the JREF anti-theist crowd's attitude, not any specific organization.Why am I not surprised by the backtracking?
So you have nothing of relevance to add to this thread but decided to come by to do what exactly? To act persecuted? To whine?

I've seen more tolerance of differing POVs among fundamentalist Christians discussing theology than I see among anti-theists here.You speak of tolerance for tolerance sake is a good thing?

Tolerance of differing views that are benign are fine since this allows society to function and for people to get along. However, I do not tolerate harmful beliefs. I do not tolerate the delusional backward mindset that tends to infest theists. I do not tolerate the illogical and irrational mindset that retards human progress. If theist kept such nonsense to themselves we wouldn't have much of a problem but what I see is the attempt to impose their silly beliefs on others.

Doesn't exactly encourage me to consider a POV that appears to be pure hate and venom. Hate and venom? :rolleyes:

Let me repeat:
"I find such persecution complex among theist distasteful and actually exceedingly pathetic. Demanding theist to keep out of non-believer's lives and government is not hatred. Demanding theist to stop shoving their myths into science classrooms is not bigotry. Not getting your way because you are a majority is not persecution. Laughing at beliefs we consider stupid and silly is not hatred."

Are you done derailing this thread or do you have something to add to the OP?

[paximperium]

Oh yeah back to the OP.
I did donate the this Christian organization because there was no alternative. There was no other homeless shelter in the area and no secular groups to donate to as an alternative.

Nice folk who were doing nice things. While I sure as heck didn't support their beliefs, I did support their work. Hopefully my trust was not misplaced.

[kurious_kathy]

What if you cannot preach to them?

Would you still send a check to say the American Atheist charity for Breast Cancer?
If I felt led to I would. To be honest with you most of the charities we have given to have been things like World Vision, Compassion Int., our local preganancy center, church, familiy and friends when needs arise. There are always people in need so I think we all must do what we feel led to do when someone asks.

And I prefer to call it sharing Christ with them, not preaching. If they aren't open then I would just try to show them I care!

[kurious_kathy]

Oh yeah back to the OP.
I did donate the this Christian organization because there was no alternative. There was no other homeless shelter in the area and no secular groups to donate to as an alternative.

Nice folk who were doing nice things. While I sure as heck didn't support their beliefs, I did support their work. Hopefully my trust was not misplaced.

I think it was very noble of you to try to help. I have been toying with the idea of getting some friends together through the church to try to get something else going in our town since they only have one homeless shelter and it's always full.

We actually had a family stay with us for a while that had to leave the shelter and they said this county run shelter was very difficult to deal with. Everyone had to do group AA meetings and random testing and it did not matter if you had been in trouble with the law or anything. I guess they think most homeless people are drug addicts or something. This was a widow who lost her rental after her husband died and we helped them get another place as good as we could. In the case of homeless people I think it takes as many people getting involved to help as possible since it is one of the toughest things people face these days.
Does anyone here know if they have a survey on how many homeless right now in the US after the big banking disaster??

[KingMerv00]

And I prefer to call it sharing Christ with them, not preaching.

This is known colloquially as "spin".

Instead of "war", I like "entropy festival".

[KingMerv00]

In all fairness, KingMerv, maybe they don't like the idea of supporting a cause that, for example, wouldn't hire an atheist.

Would it be immoral for an atheist organization to not hire Christians?

[martu]

Atheist here who regularly donates to one Christian charity (child sponsorship) and has been known to give to others. If they are helping they can have some of my money.

[KoihimeNakamura]

I don't have a lot of money to donate. That said, I have donated to a church before, as part of a drive to send money to Africa for food. My opinion is that if the charity is good, and the goal good, the fact they are theist/atheist is irrelevant.

... I would however, be very very wary of a Scientology charity. But..

[DC]

Scientology is theism?

[BPSCG]

Well, I guess I would have a whole lot of trouble supporting them like that but that's just me.You should re-read my first response in this thread, then. That church's preacher was a huge help at a time when we needed it. What possible justification could there be for not expressing our thanks?

What do you suggest we should do? Send them a Hallmark card that says "F**k you very much"?

[BPSCG]

Any donation to a religious group must include a percentage to support that group.

I will not give a penny to religious organisations.Do you approve of all the ways the government spends your tax dollars?

Or do you just accept the fact that the bad always accompanies the good?

[geonuc]

However in this situation there are no real secular alternatives in the area and if the church closes the shelter, a bunch of folk will not have any place to stay.

I think this is the salient point - preferring folks be thrown out on the street simply because you disagree with some of the tenets of the charitable organization that otherwise provides the necessary help is hardly a charitable attitude. So, I agree.

For myself, I have donated to many charities whose core beliefs differ from my own. If the good work they do outweighs the bad, they get my money.

[Georg]

In all fairness, KingMerv, maybe they don't like the idea of supporting a cause that, for example, wouldn't hire an atheist.



Would it be immoral for an atheist organization to not hire Christians?


I think it depends on the goal of the organisation. If the goal is to promote atheism, it would not be immoral. If the goal is simply to do charity, it would be immoral because hiring Christians does not conflict with that goal.
The same is valid the other way round. If the official purpose of a christian organisation is to push christianity, I have no problem with them not hiring atheists. If the goal is simply to do charity, I do not see a reason why they should not hire atheists.

To expand a bit: where I live, more and more social work done before by the government/state/communities is outsourced to private organisations, and mostly churches, while still being funded by the state.
Why? It is cheaper. Especially the churches do not pay as much as the government would have to.
The big problem is that those christian organisations do not hire non-church members like myself, even if the work itself is "wordly", and they are officially allowed to discriminate like that, despite having an anti-discrimination law in the EU, because the churches are exempted from that law. Talk about separation of government and religion, my arse.

For me as an atheist social worker that means that I have less job opportunities every year, and social work is getting more and more a monopoly for the christian organisations (a bit exaggerated, but you get the gist), which I think is simply wrong.

If they are doing wordly work with the money of the government, they should be forced to employ atheists as well, given the atheists are as qualified as the christians. As long as this is not the case, not one single penny from me, because I do not think you can have it both ways.
Let me give you an example: School social work in my region is now in the hands of a catholic organisation.
I do not see any rational reason why an atheist should not be able to do that, especially when the school social workers are primarily employed in schools where problems arise with pupils from different cultural/religious backgrounds.

For me, the not-hiring of atheists clearly shows that the goal of them is not simply to do social work, but to push their faith by doing social work, and that´s something completely different.

Paying money to the church organisations means helping them to push their agenda, and at the same time helping to "christianise" social work/charity, at least where I live, so no ****** way to support that.

Even if they would not get money from the government, they should hire atheists. If they don´t, it´s nothing less than admitting that the charity itself is not what they have in mind. That´s even true for voluntary, unpaid work. Or does anybody think the food for the homeless tastes worse if prepared by an atheist?


Yes, I am very, very angry.

[H3LL]

Do you approve of all the ways the government spends your tax dollars?

Rarely, but I have little choice. Pay my taxes or go to prison.

Charity donations are voluntary.

Or do you just accept the fact that the bad always accompanies the good?

IMHO, the bad is always guaranteed if I give to a church, not necessarily so elsewhere.

[Darat]

It has to depend on the charity itself. If the charity is just part of a religious group I am unlikely to donate since I do not want to support the religious side of the religious organisation.

A charity like Christian Aid is more a grey area for me since I agree with the majority of their charitable works I also know if you donate to Christian Aid some of your donation will be used to directly promote Christianity.

On the other hand a cult like the Salvation Army is one I would never give money to support despite the fact that they do do some very good charitable works (and even today despite a lot of the changes that have happened in the SA it is still a cult).

[Soapy Sam]

Funnily enough, I would (and do) contribute to the SA (Never thought about those initials before), because they do practical charity on the ground and I never met a less sanctimonious mob.
If it's a cult it's one that doesn't fit my definition of "cult". I know several active and ex-members. Never heard of any brainwashing or adoration of overweight gurus.

The history of the church in Scotland is one of Parish administration. Education and welfare were matters for the Kirk until well into the 20th century. That has lessened drastically since WW1, but it still functions to a limited extent. I think to say it has no useful social role would be wrong. And that has to be funded from somewhere. The odd pound doesn't hurt. It's not like the Moderator of the General Assembly is about to show up on my doorstep demanding a 10% tithe.

[Darat]

Not being allowed to marry someone outside the SA and having to have your "commanding officer"'s permission to marry is in my mind a classic sign (that is one of the things that I'd heard they'd dropped at least in the UK).

[gdnp]

I donate frequently to the salvation army.

[KoihimeNakamura]

I dunno if it's theistic, but it is in some respects a religion/cult. In any case.

[Rolfe]

I specifically mean Atheistic.

While most atheist groups are mostly educational in nature(including charities for scholarships etc.), what if a local group...say the local Atheist Community runs a Breast Cancer drive, would people support them.


That was the basis on which I answered the question. It doesn't seem to be very realistic though.

There are lots of general charities raising funds for good causes whose basic motive for doing so is that their religious faith embodies an element of "go and feed the hungry". So they tell us they're Christian Aid or whatever, but they actually want the money just to feed the hungry, of any denomination or none.

Then there are other charities doing the same thing, who simply don't advertise any religious (or non-religious) motive for their actions. Oxfam, say, or the Red Cross. But that doesn't make them "atheist" charities.

I remember when the Asian tsunami happened, people on this forum were getting all exercised about which charity to donate through, trying to find ones that weren't explicitly religious foundations. I think Oxfam and the Red Cross were mentioned. Fair enough, but the money was all going the same way in the end.

A couple of weeks ago a fundraiser for the Red Cross came to my door. I agreed to make a regular monthly donation, partly because one of my cousins spent 5 years in a German prisoner of war camp, and was always grateful for the support he'd had from them. I'd still have done it if they'd said, we make a point of not being a religious-based charity (although they didn't, and I know the local Red Cross organiser here is a neighbour my mother recently described as "awfully holy").

But realistically, is anyone going to come to my door and say, we're an atheist group, and we're collecting for breast cancer/the Sudan/world poverty? It just doesn't happen, so it's hard to know exactly how I'd feel if it did.

I think I'd give them the money for the good cause anyway. But it's a hypothetical question.

Rolfe.

[Darat]

They aims of the Salvation Army Charity in the UK:

http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/registeredcharities/SIR/ENDS79%5C0000214779_SIR_08_E.PDF

The Salvation Army aims to provide Christian worship both indoors and
outdoors and to reach people with the Christian Gospel through
evangelism.

The Salvation Army also aims to provide community activities at local
corps (churches) for all people and to reach out to people who are
marginalised and vulnerable.

The Salvation Army aims to be available to people through Salvation Army
Officers (full time Ministers of Religion), soldiers (members of The
Salvation Army who have committed themselves to The Salvation Army's
statements of Christian belief and practice) and the many volunteers who
give time to help The Salvation Army to make a difference to the lives of
those who otherwise might be forgotten by society.




This document provides a god overview of what they state they do: http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/registeredcharities/SIR/ENDS79%5C0000214779_SIR_08_E.PDF

[Modified]

I never respond to want ads on freecycle if they close with "God Bless" (which quite a few do), not because the people are religious, but because invoking religion in the quest for free stuff seems a bit slimy.

[Sun Countess]

Let's assume the group is theistic but none of your money will be spent to promote religion.

I'm sorry, I don't get it. In my hypothetical, a percentage of your money is being wasted simply for ideological reasons.
First I can't be sure that none of my money will promote religion. If the charity gives themselves even a small percentage for overhead costs then it's going to support the religion.

Even if 85 cents of every dollar is going to the cause and 15 cents to the running of the organization, I'd rather give to an organization where only 75 cents was going to the cause and 25 cents to the organization.

Like H3LL said, charity is voluntary, and it's my choice where to spend my money. I made a choice to not even give one penny to religion, whether it be christianity or scientology.

I don't take such a stingy stand when it comes to donating items or time. If a church is collecting items and donating them directly to hurricane/flood victims, I have no problem letting them be the middle man.

[I Ratant]

I have at times.
Mostly I just pass it by.

[cj.23]

A small question to religious folk, would you donate to a group from another religion? Say a Muslim group feeding the poor?

Sure, I do, I support and donate to the British Humanist Association, a group with a political agenda directly opposed to my religious beliefs and beliefs on the need for an Established Church. Why? Because i value the grassroots work done by members in providing secular funerals, hospital visiting etc. While many BHA members moan about the organization as an institution, they and i agree much good comes of it. If some of my money goes on Atheist buses, why would i care?

However if you are a British atheist or humanist why not support the BHA yourself? http://www.humanism.org.uk/home You can join, donate, donate time and become an activist and generally help out a good cause. And these are the people who brought you the atheist buses - so if you support that, supoort them.

End of advert.

cj x

[Piggy]

Just a hypothetical for you two:

If you saw that the most effective and organized charity available happened to be theistic, would you still favor and atheistic group? Assume the theistic charity also gives you the best bang for the buck.

And what if there were a terrorist who you knew had the information you required to stop a thousand people from being blown up in 20 minutes?

When your hypothetical happens, get back to me.

The reality is, there are hundreds of charities and I can only donate to 2 or 3.

Religious charities have a built-in donor base.

I pick charities that are well run, who do good work, and who don't also promote an affiliated religion.

[Piggy]

Frankly, I was a lot less hostile to the idea of donating to atheistic organizations before I experienced the anti-theist population of JREF. I don't see any less knee-jerk hatred than is claimed to exist among theists, so why would I wish to contribute to groups that hate me for believing in God?

I don't think that AmeriCares, Doctors Without Borders, or Operation Smile hate you. I also don't think that your average non-theist hates you (or anybody) for what you believe either.

[mikeyx]

Well that brings up the issue of if a single person in an organization does good, is it appropriate to support the organization? A single person does not an organization make.

What if that Church itself preaches harmful things or things that you disagree with?


Yo gump, is it me or are you steering the perception for a shot against religion? Seems that way.

[mikeyx]

Not really. I donate based on my brain as well as my "heart". I actually research charitable organizations to actually make sure they use the money to do good instead of spending it on a new car for the boss/pastor or to spend their money on a new building/church.


You make it seem as if a prejudice has no merit. I'm prejudice against harmful ideas. I would never donate to a Scientologist ever.

Churches are a mix issue and henceforth this question.


Scientology is a ponzi scheme not religion.

[Georg]

Scientology is a ponzi scheme not religion.

The difference being...?

[Kestrel]

I make a large donation to the local Salvation Army every year and have at times donated my time. I appreciate the work they do even if I don't buy into their theological reasons for doing the work.

[Roadtoad]

My brother went through a Salvation Army program that got him off drugs. So far, it's worked. So, I have, and probably will in the future, support their efforts in that area.

As to others, well, Kurious Kathy's responses reveal why I won't.

[Soapy Sam]

Not being allowed to marry someone outside the SA and having to have your "commanding officer"'s permission to marry is in my mind a classic sign (that is one of the things that I'd heard they'd dropped at least in the UK).
I was at a wedding two years ago. Bride was a member. Groom was in the RAF. I don't really know much about their inner rules, which is why I asked.
My father used to say they were the only charity that did much for troops in WW2. He always donated. I suppose it's a tradition with me.

Incidentally I recently contributed to a local group sending drugs to hospitals in Gaza. Did they buy drugs or rockets? I believe drugs. You have to trust people sometime.

[paximperium]

What do you suggest we should do? Send them a Hallmark card that says "F**k you very much"?
Why are you tempting meeee?:p

[paximperium]

Would it be immoral for an atheist organization to not hire Christians?
Actually as long as a theist can do their work without any problems, such discrimination is unethical and unwarranted.

[paximperium]

Yo gump, is it me or are you steering the perception for a shot against religion? Seems that way.
Are you a tad paranoid? Nope, it was an actual question.

If I decide to attack religion, I don't hide behind insinuations, I will actually come out and state it clearly and succinctly.

[paximperium]

I think it depends on the goal of the organisation. If the goal is to promote atheism, it would not be immoral. If the goal is simply to do charity, it would be immoral because hiring Christians does not conflict with that goal. I disagree with you here.
If an Atheist organization is promoting its agenda I see no justification to not hire a theist who can do their job. What does a person's religious beliefs have to do with clerical work, secretarial work or designing commercials? If they can do their job without problems, I believe such discrimination is unwarranted.

The issue becomes more fuzzy as you climb the ladder of said organization. Would you allow a theist to run the PR program? HR? or as a spokesperson? The issue becomes one of similarities in goals between the theist and the organization.

In such situations, I don't really have as much an opinion.

[joobz]

This is known colloquially as "spin".

Instead of "war", I like "entropy festival".
It's not "rape", it's "enhanced love making".

[The Mutha]

Like Miss Kitt, my family and I donates often to heifer.org even though it is a Christian based charity. The good works that it does far outweigh the religious element in my mind.

After all, it's not often that one can say a water buffalo was bought in memory of my mother...

[bigred]

However in this situation there are no real secular alternatives in the area and if the church closes the shelter, a bunch of folk will not have any place to stay.

So? Who cares about that? I would certainly hope neither you nor any of the other atheists of inherently and vasty superior intelligence didn't lower themselves by donating to a worthy cause run by those nasty evil ol Bible-thumpin Christians. After all, eveyone knows if Christians are behind it, it must be bad in some way.

[paximperium]

So? Who cares about that? I would certainly hope neither you nor any of the other atheists of inherently and vasty superior intelligence didn't lower themselves by donating to a worthy cause run by those nasty evil ol Bible-thumpin Christians. After all, eveyone knows if Christians are behind it, it must be bad in some way.
Congratulations. Do you feel better now? I suggest you sweep away all that straw on your way out.

And of course your only argument is to tear down a nice big strawman. Please come back when you have some relevant point.

[paximperium]

So? Who cares about that? I would certainly hope neither you nor any of the other atheists of inherently and vasty superior intelligence didn't lower themselves by donating to a worthy cause run by those nasty evil ol Bible-thumpin Christians. After all, eveyone knows if Christians are behind it, it must be bad in some way.
In reply to your big pile of flaming straw, actually no. I do not automatically equate Christian related works as automatically evil, however, donating to theistic charities does invariably lead to:
1)Some money being used to spread said religion.
2)The continued promolgation of the myth that theistic charities are the only ones or the most efficient at doing charity.

So, if I have an alternative who does the same good work, I would choose it.

How about you? Do you actually have any thoughts about this at all?

[iiwo]

On the Salvation Army, just a couple thoughts.

I've spent some time working for them in various positions and I will back up the non-aggresive evangelism in a heartbeat. If they would have me, I would work for them again, even as a non-theist.

The marrying/permission thing: For officers (ministers, full time clergy) they are required to marry other officers, or if the 'to be' is not an officer, they must be in the process of becoming one. I'm not sure on the rule for members who have gone through the equivalent of confirmation/baptism.

Most of their attendance comes from people in the areas they serve, however, I would guess a much larger percentage of non-members attend SA Church services than any other denomination. You do not have to be a member to be involved, and most people who work in non-management positions are not otherwise affiliated with the SA as church members.

Their primary focus is "soup, soap, salvation" in that order. Last statistics I heard money from the kettles, stores, and regular donations were amazing. It was something like .85 cents of every dollar goes to a drug rehab program, soup kitchen, or after school program. Other programs include shelters, single/abused mother (and child) situations, stop smoking clinics, and summer camps.

In addition to running the programs, they provide a number of jobs including truck driver, cook, maintenance, etc for those that come through the various programs. Candidates for positions involving contact with minor are HEAVILY vetted, go through stringent training, and are held to strict protocol in both treatment of children and being alone with a child (it's not allowed due to some serious lawsuits of sexual abuse). Compared to many programs both religious and secular, they have their stuff together.

There may be some 'cultish' tendencies within management, but those going in know full well ahead of time what they are getting into and choose to do it--most of them quite happily. Though they are regularly working with those many of us would consider 'scum of the earth', they are more happy and satisfied (and worn out) than many I've come across with more money, less stress, and less hours.

This is not to urge everyone to run off and join the Sally Ann, but since it came up I thought I'd share my experience with them.

Oh, and you're damn right I would donate if I had any extra pennies to my name. As it is I have nearly visited the local soup kitchen myself several times!

D'oh, one more thing. Since they are present in every state and many cities, FEMA and other agencies often use them as contacts into the local community since they already have a presence and know local authorities. Katrina was one example--the officer over the area affected was an 'adjunct advisor/liason' to the local authorities and agencies; not to mention the fact that they had stores of supplies in place, ready to go. Not enough for everyone, obviously, but some stuff. More was shipped in from around the country within days to most places aside from New Orleans. Without the Salvation Army (ok, ok--and a few other smaller groups!), Katrina would have likely have been a *much* worse humanitarian disaster. The last note is to the best of my knowledge. I was not actually there, but was friends with several (including officers) who were.

[Piggy]

Turns out, I do donate to religious charities.

I was thinking only in terms of cash donations.

But when I donate clothing, blankets, and such locally, my only options are organizations with some sort of religious affiliation. (We do have a secular food bank, tho.)

I avoid the ones that give Jesus a hard sell. But no, I'm not going to refuse to help my neighbors who are cold and can't afford clothing just because a church is involved somehow.

[Georg]

I disagree with you here.
If an Atheist organization is promoting its agenda I see no justification to not hire a theist who can do their job. What does a person's religious beliefs have to do with clerical work, secretarial work or designing commercials? If they can do their job without problems, I believe such discrimination is unwarranted.

The issue becomes more fuzzy as you climb the ladder of said organization. Would you allow a theist to run the PR program? HR? or as a spokesperson? The issue becomes one of similarities in goals between the theist and the organization.

In such situations, I don't really have as much an opinion.


The bolded part would be my concern for lower ranking jobs as well. If I as an atheist who, softly spoken, does not like religion, would be employed by a church, ETA: and would be required to work for the "christian cause" for example /ETA, I do not think I would work as well as if I´d be employed by an organisation which goals I can agree with.
Would you really think, to go with one of your examples, that a theist would design good commercials against theism? I don´t.

[MG1962]

D'oh, one more thing. Since they are present in every state and many cities, FEMA and other agencies often use them as contacts into the local community since they already have a presence and know local authorities. Katrina was one example--the officer over the area affected was an 'adjunct advisor/liason' to the local authorities and agencies; not to mention the fact that they had stores of supplies in place, ready to go. Not enough for everyone, obviously, but some stuff. More was shipped in from around the country within days to most places aside from New Orleans. Without the Salvation Army (ok, ok--and a few other smaller groups!), Katrina would have likely have been a *much* worse humanitarian disaster. The last note is to the best of my knowledge. I was not actually there, but was friends with several (including officers) who were.

In Autralia, the Sallys responses in time of disaster is legendary. It seems no matter what has gone down, they can be counted on to deliver a smile, a hot cup of something and a sandwich. The fact all this is done without strings attached makes them all the more respected.

They are definately an organisation that walking the walk is far more important than talking the talk

[Andrewsarchus]

I voted "Would Not" for the theist charity. There's no long drawn out reasoning for my vote. If I were in a financial situation where I was able to donate money, I'd give it to the JREF. I like the JREF and I would choose only to donate to them.

[Darat]

...snip...

Their primary focus is "soup, soap, salvation" in that order.

...snip..

Not according to their own submission in the UK. Have a look at the link I provided above.

[Patsy]

Yes I would and at the same time I would want to share my faith in Christ with them because Jesus did teach us to love eachother and if I am willing to give to their need then I would hope they would see God's love in me. People always matter and life is precious!

So you aren't actually giving a donation, you are purchasing an opportunity to preach. Actual charity would not have strings of self-interest attached.

[Roadtoad]

So you aren't actually giving a donation, you are purchasing an opportunity to preach. Actual charity would not have strings of self-interest attached.

Patsy, if you haven't figured it out yet, Kathy isn't interested in actual charity. Kathy is simply looking for an opportunity to look like she's a Christian. She isn't actually wanting to be one, because that requires genuine sacrifice of her time, her energy, her capital. It puts her claim of taking in a homeless family in a whole new light, and leaves you wondering what was really going on.

Sadly, that's what most "Christians" are about nowadays. Heaven forbid that you should actually talk about doing real ministry to people who need real help. At that point, you become a "fanatic," and a genuine danger to the church, not because you put anyone's safety at risk, or you put capital at risk, but because you stand a good chance of revealing who these people really are. You unmask them, and they can't abide by that.

It's why Kathy reacts so badly when her lies are revealed, and why she bleats about being treated so mean by eeeevil people like me, like Ducky, like Darat and others. If she appeals to emotion, if she cries foul on that basis, she thinks she'll continue to get away with it. And in some circles, sadly, she will.

She's completely unlike my neighbors, Alan and Beverly, who are the real deal, who will go out of their way to help people in need, even when they know they'll never be repaid. I don't question Alan's beliefs. He lives them. He doesn't have to preach to me to let me know what he believes. And, interestingly enough, when Alan wants to pray for me, I usually say "Yes," not because of what I believe, or what he believes, but because it's a sign of respect on his part for me.

And if Kathy ever figured that out, we'd be seeing less of her whining, and a lot more of her actually learning. She might actually earn people's respect around here, instead of the well-deserved contempt she's getting, in part because she's a liar, in part because she whines, in part because she's a hit and run poster, and in part because she's ultimately a moral coward.

And that's sad.

[iiwo]

Darat:

The link you posted goes through some of the specifics (including money) of how the soup, soap, and salvation are meted out. The phrase isn't something splayed out on signs or listed in legal documents (or logistical ones, as you linked to).

It is something lived out--a mission statement of sorts, listing the order in which they give things to people. No strings attached, the person gets soup and soap--whether literal or proverbial. Then they are helped and cared for. Once their basic needs are met, then they are more explicitly invited to attend a service, Bible study, or other religous function--but even if they say 'no', they are still welcome to the soup and soap parts.

It's not on signs, not flashy, not "hey look at me, I'm/We're such Christians...". Documents such as you linked to are necessarily more in depth, more specific. I wouldn't expect those to say "soup, soap, salvation", I would expect them to list activities, donations, and usage of time and resources. When they say "soup, soap, salvation", they mean exactly that. It's their mission in three words, listed by priority. You could even call it a meme, but it is the three most precise words I've encountered that describe what they do. Those guys walk the walk, then talk the talk, and at the end of the day, my hat goes off to them even if I disagree with their theology.

See here (http://www1.salvationarmy.org/heritage.nsf/36c107e27b0ba7a98025692e0032abaac7b6bcea0572c44080 256b8a00536c07!OpenDocument) and here (article title) (http://www.acton.org/commentary/commentary_253.php)

[Safe-Keeper]

To OP: it would depend on the charity. I'm not touching the BSA, Salvation Army or other disgusting groups that openly discriminate. I'm not going close to organizations that treat people in need of help by forcing religion down their throats.

Sure, I could donate to a religious charity, but I admit I'm biased against them and would first check to see how they operated.

[Darat]

Darat:

The link you posted goes through some of the specifics (including money) of how the soup, soap, and salvation are meted out. The phrase isn't something splayed out on signs or listed in legal documents (or logistical ones, as you linked to).

It is something lived out--a mission statement of sorts, listing the order in which they give things to people. No strings attached, the person gets soup and soap--whether literal or proverbial. Then they are helped and cared for. Once their basic needs are met, then they are more explicitly invited to attend a service, Bible study, or other religous function--but even if they say 'no', they are still welcome to the soup and soap parts.

It's not on signs, not flashy, not "hey look at me, I'm/We're such Christians...". Documents such as you linked to are necessarily more in depth, more specific. I wouldn't expect those to say "soup, soap, salvation", I would expect them to list activities, donations, and usage of time and resources. When they say "soup, soap, salvation", they mean exactly that. It's their mission in three words, listed by priority. You could even call it a meme, but it is the three most precise words I've encountered that describe what they do. Those guys walk the walk, then talk the talk, and at the end of the day, my hat goes off to them even if I disagree with their theology.

See here (http://www1.salvationarmy.org/heritage.nsf/36c107e27b0ba7a98025692e0032abaac7b6bcea0572c44080 256b8a00536c07!OpenDocument) and here (article title) (http://www.acton.org/commentary/commentary_253.php)

Sorry but we shall have to strongly disagree - according to the official documents the SA has to submit to the English charity authority to be a registered charity they clearly state that their first priority is (and remember this is their own words):

The Salvation Army aims to provide Christian worship both indoors and
outdoors and to reach people with the Christian Gospel through
evangelism.

I don't disagree that many if not most of the followers of the cult will be good people wishing to do good deeds however for the organisation itself that is not its priority.

[kurious_kathy]

So you aren't actually giving a donation, you are purchasing an opportunity to preach. Actual charity would not have strings of self-interest attached.
No I'm actually donating to help their cause. I take every oportunity I can to share Jesus!

[Patsy]

No I'm actually donating to help their cause. I take every oportunity I can to share Jesus!

Yes, that is what I said. Instead of making a charitable donation with no strings attached, you are purchasing a chance to preach. Charity doesn't attach strings of self interest. Commercial transactions do.

[Kestrel]

To OP: it would depend on the charity. I'm not touching the BSA, Salvation Army or other disgusting groups that openly discriminate. I'm not going close to organizations that treat people in need of help by forcing religion down their throats.

Sure, I could donate to a religious charity, but I admit I'm biased against them and would first check to see how they operated.

The Salvation Army considers it a sin to preach to someone who is cold and hungry. They take care of the physical needs of their clients first and offer spiritual advice as an option later. The SA may discriminate when accepting new members, but not when it comes to helping those in need.

[Safe-Keeper]

Oh, my bad. The 'forcing religion down your throats' part was for another organization. Again, mea culpa.

[Professor Yaffle]

On the subject of whether religious charities would employ an atheist:


EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES
Our policy
It is the aim of Christian Aid to ensure that no job applicant or employee receives less favourable treatment on the grounds of sex, race, colour, religion, marital status, sexuality, age or disability, and is not placed at a disadvantage by conditions or requirements that cannot be shown to be justifiable.

CAFOD seeks to ensure that all job applicants and employees are treated equally regardless of their race, colour, ethnic origin, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, disability, HIV status or religious belief.

[Harpyja]

I am an atheist/agnostic/nonreligious and I WOULD NOT donate to a theistic group.

I say this only if the theistic group was for explicitly theistic purposes, such as religious education and such. Otherwise, I'd certainly donate to a charity like the one you mentioned.

[Tanstaafl]

I voted that I would donate to a theistic group, and I have done so at times. But it's largely academic, as there's no shortage of secular organizations, and I give them priority. As long as I don't percive that the money is used for preaching I am willing to consider them, though.

[MattusMaximus]

I like to judge charities more on their merits than on any particular religion/theology to which they cater. However, if a group wants to use my money to proselytize or push some kind of woo-nonsense, my money will go elsewhere. Thus, I have to spend a little time investigating the groups to which I donate.

ETA: I think Tanstaafl said it well.

[GreyICE]

I would donate my time and money to any charity that I thought was helping people out, regardless of religious affiliations. Anyone who believes athiests inherently run things better is deeply stupid. Atheism in no way contributes to the successful running of an organization, anybody who thinks that it does is committing silly magical thinking.