Would You Donate?

It may sound cold of me, but I’d say no. There are lots of charities you can give your money to whose activities are unambiguously secular. I’m not denying that Christian charities do lots of good work, but inevitably, some of that money gets wasted on, y’know, Bibles and tracts and stuff.

That said, if you’re that interested in helping your own community’s homeless, funding a few Gideon Bibles may be a small price to pay. So I wouldn’t criticize her if she chooses to donate.

Non-religious doesn’t mean anti-religious. If there really are no secular charities helping the homeless in your area and homelessness (as opposed to, say, international development or the environment) is a priority for you, then give the money.

It might be really nice to start your own local non-faith-based charity to fulfill community needs.

I would also encourage you to check the charter of the organization you are considering donating to. Many organizations may technically be faith-based but all of their funds going to a particular cause, not buying Bibles, tracts, and stuff.

I would say no. After all, religious charities have had a monopoly on charity for far too long. Giving your money to them only prolongs that monopoly. I myself work for a secular non-profit that the community benefits greatly from (it’s a large non-profit servicing four counties with close to 400 full-time employees, not counting part-time and volunteer employees).
We benefit from operating in a relatively secular part of the [U.S.] without having to compete with major religious charities. We are efficient and have a broad range of services.
Religious charities in my opinion have lower efficacy on account of their supplementary spending on religious/spiritual “programs” and the trappings that go with those programs. They also siphon off money that I myself would rather see go to a secular organization or agency that could duplicate these services just as well if not better.
Yet I would not fault her. I would go with donating food also.

As a Christian, I agree with the above statements…do research and make sure you are comfortable with how the money is going to be used. I don’t feel comfortable giving to certain Christian organizations because of what they represent or how much of the money is used for administrative purposes.

On another side, I don’t give solely to Christian organizations. I’ve given to secular charities and also charities which are organized by other faiths. Personally, I just want to help people and if an appropriate opportunity arises, I’ll give.

Someone might ask, “would you give to an ______-based charity” (fill in the blank with another “faith” that isn’t Christianity) knowing they may share their faith message?” If they were truly helping people and the money was being used, I think I’d say yes, even if a religious view was expressed that was not my own. I believe the recipients still have a right to choose to have their beliefs and I see nothing wrong with someone being shown how a certain faith celebrates or shares.

Anne, you said:
I believe the recipients still have a right to choose to have their beliefs and I see nothing wrong with someone being shown how a certain faith celebrates or shares.

I, too, believe the recipients of charitable donations have all kinds of rights when it comes to practicing their beliefs, or being exposed to new ones. That’s all covered in the First Amendment.

However, I, personally, don’t have to fund the organizations who preach to what is essentially a captive audience. Those homeless folks are about as captive as you can get. “You want food? Then come pray with us.”

Now, I’m not accusing the particular charity in question of having an ulterior motive, because I don’t know that it does. But you must admit: Many religious charities do.

Apparently, we atheists are really touchy about these things. It’s all well and good to be concerned about what the money is used for, and so, as many said above, do the research. But when I imagine myself homeless and hungry, I wouldn’t give a damn what I had to listen to to get fed. Just bring on the food! It may be unethical to preach to the “captive audience” but it’s far from abuse. Most likely, most of them are already faithful anyway.

I give bums money when I can. Yes, I know many of them are con artists–but some are not. In the absence of any way to tell the difference, I give them the benefit of the doubt. Why? Because that way I know that at least part of the time, I am doing a good thing, and if I didn’t give to any of them, then no good was done. It hurts me none to give to the less fortunate, even if some of it is wasted–I do the best I can and sometimes there is a cost involved.

This is not a war zone where atheists and Christians are fighting for souls. Am I to get on my soap box and preach the glories of atheism to the homeless? I doubt any of them would care. They would listen, and then say, “Bring on the food!”

I just re-read the post, and had another thought concerning: “should atheists donate to help people knowing that their donation may be used to fund religious activities?”

It occurred to me that we might ask the reverse: “should the religious donate to help people knowing that their donation may be used to fund atheist activities?”

I like to think atheists we would welcome the support of any organization that was willing to try and get along. The upshot is that people get help. I live in a world that I see differently than 90% of people on earth, and yet I still live in that world…I may do everything I can to promote freethinking and critical thought, but the reality is that those 90% are never going to see it my way. So why should anyone suffer because of this? I know how painful it is for atheists to hear this, but religion is not a disease. In fact, as an evolutionist, I must recognize that it is apparently a normal part of our psyche. Most of the happy, successful people we see around us are religious. I am less concerned about what a person believes than I am about whether that belief is doing themselves or anyone around them any good.

A Christian who donated to an atheist event would no doubt feel they were doing God’s work in spite of the atheists. Why should we feel any different? I can donate to a religious event with the full knowledge that I am doing so for the right reasons, and that I’m no better than any of them, and they no better than me. Remember, very, very few religious people are like those extremists that make the news, and community organizations are genuinely concerned with helping people in their community. There is some truth to the criticism that atheist organizations aren’t very active in their communities. Remember the story of the Star Thrower?

As sad as it is, by the time someone is in the position of being homeless, it’s a little late to start trying to get them to understand The Joys of Critical Thinking. Faith is simple, and familiar, and probably the best way to keep many of them from continuing on the downward spiral. In short, I’m more concerned with the person’s welfare than whether they believe in something that I personally find fanciful. As an atheist, I know there is no place else to go, and so I’d like to do whatever I can to keep everyone alive and healthy.

We need to fight the battle for rationalism in the classrooms, not the streets.

Sorry to have written a book. Hemant, if you hear back from this person, please let us know what she decided to do.

Give time. This way you can check out the program first hand. Also ask around. Catholic Worker houses tend to open the door for anyone.

And look around. There are plenty of independent soup kitchens and shelters that have no religious connections. Showing these your support helps keep them alive.

One word: NO.

I’m seeing some confusion here. Mighty Favog wrote, for instance, “It occurred to me that we might ask the reverse: “’should the religious donate to help people knowing that their donation may be used to fund atheist activities?’” Maybe I’m mistaken, but I supposed/assumed that a secular charity would not require its beneficiaries to listen to a 2-minute sermonette by Ayn Rand or Bertrand Russell before feeding them. I thought a secular charity would just provide the service without “services” of any kind. But various people here seem to suppose that atheists wouldn’t feed the hungry without preaching for our side. Are they right? I wouldn’t like to support an atheist charity that did that either, and I’m an atheist.

Mike C. wrote, “Wow, you make it sound like it’s a competition. Isn’t the important thing that the hungry are fed? Who cares who gets to take credit for it?” I care, just because so many theists want to claim ALL the credit for good works. And it would be fair to ask a religious charity why the hungry can’t be fed without forcing them to genuflect. Further, there are problems with many religious charities: the Salvation Army and the Roman Catholic Church are notorious for their homophobia, for example. But even many Christians object to that.

This discussion has made me wonder, though: what is the percentage of atheists among the homeless and the poor generally? Do most homeless people object to a halo of religiosity around charity? I imagine that like most Americans, they would see it as entirely reasonable to, for instance, say a prayer before a meal. They wouldn’t like being patronized, of course, the kind of treatment that has given “charity” bad connotations; but I’ didn’t think that secular charities gave in that temptation. An atheist or other secular charity needn’t mimic the worst of religious behavior, and I didn’t suppose they did.

In my experience here in Chicago, most of the homeless folks are already very religious. I’ve gone down occasionally to chat with a few, buy them lunch, etc, and they usually begin by preaching to me.

I used to donate to Christian charities, but now Christians are boasting of how much work Christian charities do, and saying that atheists do little.

I don’t see why my money should be used as ammunition about how generous Christians are compared to atheists.

Once Christians stop beating me over the head with my own money, then I shall donate once more.

I’d suggest this year volunteering your time there. If there’s prostheletising you can leave and if not, then you can give next year.

I agree with Mike C.: Most of the poor and homeless who came to my church for help with food were already fervent Christians. Or at least, they knew the lingo and used it when they were getting help from the food co-operative that I founded and ran as a volunteer for several years.

We did not insist that those who participated make any confession of faith, pray or listen to a sermon. This idea was controversial amongst the church-members, but I felt that was demeaning for those of different religions who wanted to participate. Eventually the church assigned a pastor to come down to the co-op on food distribution days to talk to people who were interested in listening to the gospel.

But the vast majority – 60-70% – were already Christians or lapsed Christians and they knew the gospel message inside-out.

Steven has a point. The whole “we give more, no you don’t” argument is a turnoff.
I don’t think there has to be a huge amount of hand-wringing over this issue. Figuring out whether a charity makes good use of resources and is in line with your values is the responsible thing to do. Whether non-proseletyzing is one of the criteria is nobody else’s business. It’s not as if there is a scarcity of organizations needing donations, I would think it would be quite easy to find one where you could donate without misgivings.

I prefer not to donate to religious organizations. I’m sure they do a lot of good, but you never know what underlying agenda they might have; such as spreading the gospel, etc.
When being direct with my charitable acts, I would prefer either working at a soup kitchen or sponsoring a child as others have suggested.
But when it comes to charity donations, I think the best idea is to think outside of local communities. Donate money to UNICEF and other worldwide organizations. People in America (even the poor!) have is good compared to other countries. I’m not trying to be callous toward homeless Americans, but from a utilitarian perspective, third world countries need our charity more than we need it.

I prefer not to give money to religious organizations. There are other secular charities which I support instead. I also pay taxes and vote Democratic, because I think it’s important for society to provide the safety net and social services these people need.

Religious organizations are great at making you feel sorry for people on religious holidays but the problem is much bigger than one meal on one day of the year. I know if I donate to a religious group at least part of the money and time will be spent on trying to indoctrinate people into their religious beliefs. To me, the harm that does is worse than the potential hunger.

I’m a Christian, so I’m going to look at the question the other way. I would absolutely give money to an organization doing any work I believe in. If someone is feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, taking in orphans, educating the impoverished, protecting the abused, taking a stand for the environment, providing drugs for the AIDS pandemic, or otherwise making the world a better place for people to live in, I would give the money regardless of whether the organization is Christian, Jewish, secular, or whatever…and I would do so believing that it is the Christian thing to do. (I know that not all Christians agree, but that’s my stance.)

I acknowledge that the logic might not work analogously in reverse, but I doubt anyone is trying to use the Thanksgiving dinner as a recuitment tool for Christianity. My advice: do whatever you think is the right thing to do. It sounds like you want to do something to help the homeless, so if you decide not to donate, you might wan to try to find another way to help. Maybe you could talk to the Chicago Coalition for the Homeless if you need ideas — http://www.chicagohomeless.org/