Would You Support a Group Like This?

YES.

If the organization is an efficient and effective charity and they do not force their own beliefs down the throats of those they are helping. Then by all means I would be happy to support them.

The goal of charity is to help those who cannot help themselves, I don’t really care whose name it is done in.

I believe ALL religion removed would make the most effective organization and culture for that matter.

A group cannot completely renounce proselytizing unless it effectively conceals its religious nature. As long as that label is somewhere out there, there’s the implication of causation.

I have a hard time accepting that any religious charity could 100% avoid proselytizing, however well intentioned. But generally, yes. The need will almost certainly outweigh the ‘risk’ if you want to call it that.

My answer is about the same as Claudia.

No, I do not support religion in any form, particularly when it is disguised as a charity. That would be supporting the false idea that altruism originates from religion, rather than from human nature.

I give to non-religious charities only.

And I second Euan’s point that it is better to fix the system.

Yes, of course.

If I wanted to analyze it, I would look at the cost/benefit: the benefit to society (the charity work) versus the cost (proselytization). That would be for a typical religious charity, for nearly all of them I would expect the benefit to outway the cost, and if they’re foreswearing proselytization the cost goes to effectively zero. (Yes there’s the idea of fungibility of funds, but at that point I’d say “Lighten up, Francis”.)

It would depend on the charity and the cause. I can not give a blanket yes or no.

No. Regardless of the nature of the charity, there is always a secular organization that will just as, if not more, efficiently operate.

More over, charity is just a nod and a bandage towards a problem people don’t want to really solve, just feel good about themselves for “giving” to.

Not only would I, but I have before for the Catholic hospital where my sister received emergency care a number of years ago. I’ve made donations to Holy Cross Hospital on an irregular basis ever since.

No.

You’re probably implying that this religion doesn’t ‘horizontally’ proselytize, i.e., indoctrinate people it comes in contact with. But ‘vertical’ proselytizing, i.e. to members of the religion’s family, children, grand children, great grand children etc., WILL be proselytized… and that’s wrong. So, the question in nonsensical as there is no such thing as a religion that does not proselytize. A religion that has absolutely no proselytizing, bith horizontally and vertically, will die out in a generation.

Secondly, if you define the word ‘religion’ to implies some sort of supernatural belief, then the answer to the question is “absolutely NO”. Performing silly traditions like not working on Sundays, wearing magic underpants, circumcision, being able to turn a cracked into the flesh of a man that dies 2000 years ago, may seem innocent, but can easily have terrible and unexpected implications in the future. For example, transubstantiation turns a Catholic priest into some magical witch doctor type figure in the eyes of children that aided in their pedophilia.

Thirdly, when you say the word, “religion” you’re being divisive. This is because one person’s ‘religion’ is always better than another person’s ‘religion’. This will inevitable lead to some people refusing the services of that particular charity, which is unfair.

I would if it were for a cause I wanted to donate to and if there were no other secular options for donating to this cause.

Wow. I feel like I went back and forth on this every time I read a comment that defended one side or the other. “Hmm, good point. … Oh, that’s a good point too though.”

I think I would be willing to support such a charity, but only in the sense that I am willing to support lots of imperfect things financially. I will (someday, when I’m out of grad school and have a job, I hope) donate money to alumni foundations for my high school and college, even though I don’t want to send the message that I stand by every decision my high school and college have ever made and will ever make. If I wanted to donate to a charity that did whatever this one does, I wouldn’t rule it out on this basis because I think their religious affiliation is slight enough to be overlooked. (Unlike, for example, Chick-fil-A, which I don’t patronize.)

That being said, if there’s a non-religious alternative, I would choose that over this one. I bring my old clothes to Goodwill instead of the Salvation Army. And so on.

I should point out that I think this charity you’re describing is distinct from a charity that happens to have been founded by people of a particular religion. If that were the objection, it would rule out most charities in the US, even the “secular” ones, I’d think. I’d choose a non-religious alternative over this one if it were available because I think the very act of saying, “Everybody here has faith in X religion” is effectively proselytizing, especially if the people saying it happen to be really nice people who are doing something great to help you out in a time of need.

Like David W. I already give money to religious charities. I donate to the Shriner’s children’s hospital in Ft. Worth. My sister’s scoliosis was treated free of charge when she was a child and now they treat my son’s scoliosis free of charge. It is the cleanest most efficient hostpital I have ever been to. And no one has mentioned religion once.

I also donate to the St. Jude’s childrens hospital. They also treat children free of charge.

By all means work to correct the system but don’t ignore the needs of right now.

Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Yes.

I’ve even worked as a volunteer for an organization like that. It provides food and shelter for the homeless. They also teach anyone interested how to read and write.

As long as you keep your business to yourself, I’m ok with you being religious or an alien from Mars. They never asked if I was religious either, so I don’t really make out the problem here.

Probably, but I still have a few questions.

1) What does this charity do? I do not see this question as unimportant or irrelevant. If they fund protests at women’s clinics, then they’re not getting any of my money.

2) Even if they don’t actively proselytize, they may still be using the charitable activity as a marketing tool. I know of a church group which accepted government money to help with flood cleanup. The first thing they did was pass out T-shirts with the name of their church to their volunteers (not all of whom were members of that church.)

This pretty much describes every not for profit hospital in the US, doesn’t it?

Two of the main charities I supported over the years were founded by religious groups and had religious names. I supported them because of their non-religious programmatic functions. I eventually stopped giving to them both and found other secular charities to donate to because I became uncomfortable with the whole ethos. I no longer give any money to religiously affiliated charities except the UUs and the Rose Walker Fund of the American Ethical Union.

Sure, though I incline in the same direction as some others, and would prefer an equally-effective secular organization.

Yup. . . I have the same opinion as the first commenter.

Like others, I would support the charity only if I thought the work they were doing was really important and there was no secular alternative.

For example, I too sponsor a child in the Philippines like Daniel does, but there’s no way I’d do it through a Christian organisation when there’s a perfectly good secular alternative, Plan, who are not religiously or politically affiliated. I think giving to religious organisations can simply increase the idea that it is only religious people who give and only religious people who are good or have morals.

Yes, absolutely. I’m a pragmatist.
I can think of few better vehicles for defending our rights with little to no risk of exposing atheists to negative propaganda from the other side.
This is an easier sell than the offered alternative, but it shouldn’t be the only course of action taken.
Direct action is a desirable thing as well. It’s not an “either-or” proposition, once you look at all the options out there.
Whatever it takes to win, while doing no long-term harm to the cause.

If I have the spirit of the question right – which is that the money I’m giving is guaranteed in some way to go to the thing I want to support, I’d absolutely donate to the religious charity. In fact, given these terms, I wouldn’t even automatically switch to a secular charity should one be made available – I’d want to examine them independently and figure out which one is more effective in their work.

That’s the hypothetical, anyway. Practically speaking, the fact that a charity is religious or secular does pretty heavily weigh in on my decision to donate, because I don’t know of any churches that do fit that hypothetical, but for the most part my donation money goes to individual struggling writers and artists anyway.

I support charities that I think do good work. Who’s running them doesn’t matter to me, only what they do with my money.

Well, for starters, as someone pointed out, it’s nigh-impossible to be in an organized religion that isn’t dogmatic. There are different degrees of dogma, sure, but for an organized religion it must be there.

Aside from that, my answer would depend a lot on the importance of the charity and the availability of a truly secular alternative. Frankly, anything super important pretty much has secular alternatives now, so I guess the answer is no simply because I wouldn’t have to, with the caveat that I may always find an exception.

@Killer Bee:
“I don’t give to charity as I think humans or groups of humans who can’t help themselves are not salvageable and a waste of my resources”

Wow, harsh. You one of them there libertarians?

Wow, harsh. You one of them there libertarians?

No. Libertarians are idealists.
I just value different things.

My support of such a group would really be case-by-case.
My main problem with religious charities is that I don’t see why people must help others in a religious context. Why not do it because it’s the right thing to do? There is an automatic gratification that most people get from helping others. It may be the definition of altruism to help others with no other motive/benefit to oneself, but I do not know any volunteers who do not get some emotional satisfaction (as they should).

I would, for example, donate to a fund for children that was started 100 years ago as a religious organization, but is now secular but still does the same work with no religious literature, praying, etc.

For me, I would have to consider being as ethical as possible-
Even though they aren’t forcing people to pray, are they in partnership with anti-choice or anti-gay organizations?
Are animals being harmed with this money (animal testing, corporate animal agriculture support)? How is a non-proselytizing policy really enforced? Do the people involved in the charity really care or are they trying to help only to get into heaven? These questions are pretty important to me.

The first person who responded said they wouldn’t mind a charity where kids are forced to pray before receiving food. They can support that if they want, but making children pray before eating the donated food is immoral, in my opinion. It is a way to prey on the weak, and I think it’s wholly against the spirit of true service to others.

@Killer Bee:
“I don’t give to charity as I think humans or groups of humans who can’t help themselves are not salvageable and a waste of my resources”

Wow, harsh. You one of them there libertarians?

As someone who considers herself a libertarian, I take exception to this comment. In my estimation, Killer Bee’s comment is not representative of libertarian principles, but of selfish and misguided social Darwimism. True libertarianism, as I see it, wouldn’t really work without private charity and a caring and compassionate citizenry. No man (or woman) is an island, as they say.

To answer the point of this post, I think there are a lot of religious charities who do good work and whose religious affiliations seem to matter little. St. Jude’s and the Shriners have already been mentioned; to my knowledge, there are few, if any, secular charities which provide what St. Jude’s does. There are many good points to be made, and while I do agree that the prevalence of religious charities tends to mask the fact that atheists are just as charitable as theists, without religion, I think there are greater concerns in the world. If a charity is truly non-dogmatic and non-proselytizing, and they are providing something truly valuable to society, then their religious affiliations shouldn’t matter.

No, I wouldn’t. I make it a policy not to donate to religious charities. It doesn’t matter if they proselytize or not. They are still identified with a certain religion and are doing charity work in the name of that religion. The people receiving help associate the charity with that particular religion and probably assume that all the donors are members of the religion in question.

Plus, why would an atheist want to donate to a religious charity when there are so many secular organizations out there? It’s not like all or most charities are religious. I make it a point to donate to secular charities operating in my community, and there are plenty of them nationwide as well. Since I don’t have an unlimited amount of money to donate, I have to make choices on what to support, and I choose not to support religion.

of course. the key is that they renounce proselytizing. and even if they did proselytize, if they didn’t make the receipt of aid contingent on believing in their religion i would still consider supporting them

I already do. It’s called Doctors Without Borders.

I’m extremely reluctant to support any religious organization, but Mercy Corps seems to keep their religious bullshit so far on the back burner compared to the emergency and humanitarian relief they provide.

I thought both of these organizations were entirely secular? Doctors Without Borders explicitly states that they have no religious agenda, and I couldn’t find any mention of a religious affiliation for Mercy Corps either at their official site or on Wikipedia. Is there something I’m missing? I would happily support both groups, but I would be worried if there’s a stealth religious connection that I don’t know about.

For example, I too sponsor a child in the Philippines like Daniel does, but there’s no way I’d do it through a Christian organisation when there’s a perfectly good secular alternative, Plan, who are not religiously or politically affiliated.

Thanks for that! I’ve always wanted to sponsor a child, but I’ve never felt comfortable doing it through a Christian organization. Good to know that there’s a secular alternative out there.

Certainly. World Vision and Habitat are good examples.

Anna: Children International is what I contribute to. As far as I can tell, they’re entirely secular. So there’s more than one option, even!

Yes – and I already do.

For one example, I live in Canada, with winters that can be chilly. A local group of seven churches have put together an “out of the cold” program, where the churches let the local homeless sleep inside one or another local church, and also provide hot meals and such. I learned of the program this year, and started volunteering. There isn’t any serious proselytizing other than the church facilities themselves, and my efforts can be shown to have a direct benefit for those who are even worse off than I am.

The good done by this program far outweighs the harm done by any religious proselytizing, and I don’t have to worry about money being appropriated for purposes other than helping people.

Yeah, sure. I’d also support any other social groups that do charity work without pushing their group.

yes. if it is effective, i will give it my money. I am a hard-core atheist, but yearly donate to several catholic and christian charities. If it works, and reduces the overall suck factor for people then support it.

I’ve been sponsoring a kid in Bolivia through Children, Inc. (a nonsectarian charity infused by Christian principles, whatever that means) for nearly 10 years. It’s a non-question for me.

Barry Greenstein, the atheist poker champion, has donated a ton of money to them.

If it’s helping someone who needs help, I will donate. Provided that anything else it supports is not so bat-shit crazy that it will wind up hurting the world more than help, of course. But honestly–Humankind has survived religion and all its included insanity for millenia, and in the long run I’d rather have some kids in Africa temporarily convinced of god’s existence than permanently dead of starvation. If it’s helping someone effectively WITHOUT promoting any particular religion, then that’s even better and I’ll donate to that organization instead.

Religion is already out there and getting people organized. While I may disagree with some particular ideas that are reinforced and the atrocious things that have been done with it, I don’t deny that it has a large level of control over people and is often very effective in using it. A secular organization has to grow from scratch, while all the organization tools and hierarchy of religion are right at hand for religious folk.

Convenient. I’ll use it.

@Anna @HamsterWheel As an employee for Mercy Corps, I just wanted to clarify that they are indeed secular. The organization was founded by people of the Christian faith, but the organization today does not have a particular religious connection.

I would add Catholic Charities to this lit.  I was a volunteer for a refugee program they run in Dallas, TX.  I was very skeptical when I began working with them – but left as a true believer (no pun intended) in their ogranization.  They were not there to proselytize to anyone, and they respected the views of everyone.  Incredibly progressive and tolerant.  Interstingly enough, the director of the program was a Jewish woman married to a Muslim man.  I told them outright that I was an atheist and they didn’t bat an eye.  

They supported the people they were there to help – which sometimes meant aid related to religion, such as these two instances:

1.  Helped a group of Muslims rent an extra apartment in their complex to use as a mosque.
2.  Provided church bus service to a group of Bhutanese refugees who came to the US as Catholics.

But they also provided life skills classes, case workers for new families, after school tutoring and care, health care, etc.

These people were the real deal and I commend their efforts.  I would have no problem donating money to Catholic Charities.  They are all about what counts – social justice.