Would Atheists Donate Money to a Peace-Seeking Religious Organization?

I do care, and would not donate anything to any religious group under any circumstances.

Quite simply, I don’t trust them.

Also, there are too many non-religious groups doing good works that need my donation instead.

As an atheist Quaker (there are actually quite a lot of us) this is really exciting to me. Quakerism–especially liberal Quakerism–is very welcoming. I like to call it the Humanist’s Religion. Anyway, I’m just really thrilled that humanists and Quakers are beginning to see how much we can offer each other.

(nontheistfriends.org is a good resource if you’re interested, but I don’t want to be accused of proselytizing)

As long as there are plenty of worthy and underfunded secular organizations, I would not donate to a religious organization. I have no issue with other atheists choosing to do so, but I’m not going to.

It really is too bad that Dale is reassured by “the weakness of the arguments against our choice.” I didn’t realize those of us who are not interested in supporting a religious group were supposed to be arguing against it. I figured it was enough not to support it.

I’m of two minds about this. On the one hand, Otto’s comment above is something I agree with (as well as the many others saying there are too man worthy secular groups to make this necessary).

On the other hand, I’m very familiar with Quakerism, as I spent 8 years in Quaker schooling. I don’t know if it’s consistently like this, but the Quakerism I grew up with was basically Humanism with a bit of New-Agey woo tacked on (they justify pacifism by saying “there is that of God in every person”, which is ridiculous as there are so many better ways to justify pacifism). The Quakerism I grew up with was religiously inclusive, in that they didn’t mind if you had another religion.

I respected them because their beliefs were so much more sensible than most other religions, but the problem still remains in that most of the important ones could be better justified in a secular context.

That said… I’m well aware that not all Quakers are of that sort. There are many religious Quakers out there who are sincerely Christian, and I’m not nearly as familiar with them as with the more secular variety. I’ve met a few of them and they took offence to my equating Quakerism with Humanism (I think what I said was “I don’t consider Quakerism a religion” and they took offence to that despite the fact that I meant it as a compliment).

Anyway, what I’m trying to get at here is… if there were one religious group I’d trust to do this right, it’d be the Quakers, but just knowing that they’re Quakers isn’t enough.

I guess I don’t have enough information to decide. Okay, they don’t proselytize. But in what ways are these organizations “religious?”

I love that the Foundation is doing this. I used to be one of those people who never donated to any religious organization, ever. But I’ve come to see that there are organizations out there doing incredible good work and that deserve our support. QPSW is one of those groups — they do excellent work promoting peace around the world. When I look at groups like QPSW, I see that our worldviews and values are more similar than different. Why build walls between ourselves and groups who share so many of our goals? I’m proud to support them through the Foundation.

I would be against donating money “through” any religious group. It promotes their message, whether they preach, or not. I wouldn’t be outraged or anything. If I had strong enough feelings about a particular charity, I might try to make a donation directly, and circumvent the religious group. I honestly don’t think we do the world any favors if we support the groups, and let them think that “god” has anything to do with their good deeds. So, I’m with the people who would avoid the religious charities, but I’m not with the people who would get angry, and leave.

When you give money to a religious group, even if they spend the money you gave them strictly on secular purposes, that frees up any other money they may have to be used on woo.

I won’t donate to any atheist charity that gives money to religious groups for any reason. There are plenty of perfectly good secular charities I can donate to directly instead.

I support it. I suspect most of the complaints are coming from people who are younger and less trusting of religion(these people are much less likely to donate anyway). If a religious organization is doing a good job helping others and is not proselytizing, we ought to support them

We all have the right to give only to those organizations that share our values, or, at least, have values that we might not share but find reasonable.

Sometimes, even if I don’t like the values of the organization, I would give if I supported the specific cause. I have a concrete example here: When Katrina hit, one of the first aid organizations on the ground was the Mormon church. They were (for some reason) one of the most mobilized, and by far the most organized, aid groups. And they helped a lot of people. I was there. I remember how effective they were—and they did not (to my knowledge) proselytize. Because they were one of the most efficient aid groups helping people on the ground, I would have given them money to aid the relief effort. But I would have wanted strict assurance that my dollars were going to help Katrina victims and not to buy more magic underwear.

Generally speaking, I don’t trust any religious organization not to spend the money on proselytizing. But the Quakers have a good reputation.
Certainly better the the United Way, which some of you may remember got busted about 20 years ago for spending a huge portion of the money on company cocktail parties and managerial salaries. They say they’ve changed, but I wouldn’t give them a nickel.
The Red Cross and Doctors Without Borders are two well-regarded secular charities.

Religious groups could create a charity without any mention of their religion. Essentially, a secular charity created by religious types. It seems to me, that if they instead inject their religion into the charity in any capacity, they’ve already crossed the line into proselytizing. They should be doing good for the sake of doing good, instead of tacking on the additional “look at us! we belong to this religion, see how nice we are?”

Just like the last time this subject came up. If there’s an effective secular alternative doing the same kind of work that I’m interested in donating to, then my money goes there. However not donating to a cause I think is worthwhile jut because the labelling is “wrong” strikes me as ridiculous. I try to think what kind of judgement I’d have of Christians not giving to MSF because they are strictly secular, and don’t want to see myself mirrored. Sure the equation changes if they are inserting religion into their work and it changes a whole lot more if religious values are directly impacting their work (I’d NEVER give to a Catholic charity working on AIDS relief), but that doesn’t seem to be the case here.

A lot of Quakers are actually atheists, agnostics, or non-Christians of various types – especially the unprogrammed congregations. Liberal Quakerism isn’t a religion in the same way that Lutheranism or Catholicism or Mormonism are. And while it does depend on the type of congregation, I’ve attended a few of their unprogrammed meetings before, and found them to be totally adogmatic and very, very supportive of secularism.

Generally, the liberal, unprogrammed Quaker meetings are more of a social group that meets together than a religion. There is no dogma, so every person has their own beliefs, ranging from traditional Christian to Buddhist, New Age or atheist. In this it is very similar to UUism.

And while I’d still prefer to donate to a wholly secular or atheistic organisation, Quakers (and UU) are probably the only religious-type organisations I’d ever feel comfortable supporting.

It’s really frustrating to see Dale talk about “the weakness of the arguments” for the other side when his comments responding to those arguments on my blog ignored many of the points I was making, made the same arguments repeatedly without acknowledging responses to them, and in general failed to constitute a convincing refutation of my stance overall.

Oh, and I’ve got to add this: what kind of freaking snobbery is that comment about the arugments of the people who were against it — people who thought they were giving to a wholly Atheistic charity — that their arguments are weak. What condescending horseshit snobbery.

It’s his argument that is weak in his justification for doing this knowing it is not what was represented in the making of the Foundation to begin with. Atheists signed on and supported it and it begins to get a little success because they did and it turns around and slaps them in the face for it. That’s why I call them traitors.

Yes, I’m pissed. In case you couldn’t tell.

Well, I can’t speak for anyone else but if a charity isn’t proselytizing and do good work I could care less what affiliations they have. I want to make the better place, would it be better without religion, absolutely, but there are a lot of other things that will help as well. So today I signed up to donate a few extra dollars every month. I wish I had more but money is still tight.

So, no, FBB will not be getting one red cent of my money. Thanks for the heads up.

@Muggle, deep breath. Now, from a quick visit to the FAQ:

Q: What if I don’t like one of the beneficiaries you select?

A: That will certainly happen from time to time, which is why members can change their donation distribution at any time. Suppose you have 50 percent of your distribution in Child Welfare, then one quarter we choose an organization you do not wish to support. Simply go into your Account, move your 50 percent to another category, and you’re all set.

See? That easy. Yo don’t like, for whatever reason, a charity selected (they rotate) for a certain quarter, then you can change the balance of your donation (which you distribute between a total of 10 categories; health, poverty, environment, education, human rights, peace, animal protection, child welfare, small charities, and the Foundation itself) so that the category that currently has a charity you don’t approve of gets none of your money.

Given that they rotate charities and there are a total of 10 categories, there are absolutely sure to be charities you either don’t like or simply don’t think as worthwhile as others occasionally. Denying any money for any of the 10 based on the fact that 1 of the 10 will irritate you is a tad too dramatic, don’t you think?

And since the Foundation exists to allow individual humanists a means of expressing their worldview positively and doing good in the name of that worldview, it seems fitting to occasionally feature a carefully-screened, non-dogmatic, non-proselytizing, effective organization based in a sane and progressive denomination as one of our choices.

I really don’t understand. How can you say that that the goal of the foundation is to do good “in the name of [the humanist] worldview” and then give the money to an organization doing good in the name of an explicitly opposed worldview? It’s nice to think that the work will be done in the name of FBB, but not won’t. It’ll be done in the name of Quakers. People will see the charitable organization, not the donors. The sentence I quoted above has the structure of “Since X, Y”, but I have absolutely no idea what sort of logical relationship exists between X and Y.

It’s not that this is a bad charity. I think the world is made better when they get more money. It’s just that giving them money undermines the whole point of having an atheist middleman handle your charitable contributions.

“Oh, and I’ve got to add this: what kind of freaking snobbery is that comment about the arugments of the people who were against it — people who thought they were giving to a wholly Atheistic charity — that their arguments are weak. What condescending horseshit snobbery.”

I’m shocked, shocked, that an atheist could be guilty of condescending snobbery.

Normally when it comes to charitable donations I’d avoid any religious organization like the plague. The Quakers are one of the very few exceptions to that rule. It doesn’t bother me that they’re on board with FBB.

Yes. If it helps a fellow human being, then the answer is an unconditional yes. Period. If, by some research, I find they funnel even a small amount of their funds to promoting their religion instead of giving it to the cause they are supposed to be serving, I would complain about it, first, then if they insist it is within their rights, I will opt out, and give an a worthier cause.

Case and point: I give to a foundation called “The Exodus Foundation” here in Sydney http://www.billcrews.com.au/htm/exodus_frontpage.htm It is run by a reverend and he provides free meals to the homeless. I am thinking of volunteering. NO person is turned away based on their religion (or lack of). It is a wholly worthwhile organization even though it is affiliated with a church.

Religions do charity to increase brand identity and make positive connections to their brand. The excellent point was made that religion itself is associated with charity, as it’s associated with morality, that is a benefit to all religion and a detriment to secularists.

How can a humanist or freethinker justify giving to a religious charity over a secular one? There are legitimate reasons for this, but these aren’t given. Freethought and humanism are philosophies that hold that opinions should be based on reason and evidence. Religions are the opposite, they promote irrational beliefs, that’s beliefs despite lack of evidence or reason. Undogmatic doesn’t mean sane, astrologers are undogmatic. It’s contradictory to state encouraging religion is an expression of humanism, that’s bullshit.

Dale McGowan is condescending towards those that disagree with him about supporting religions. I guess those that don’t like the idea of encouraging organisations that promote irrational beliefs need some “growing up” and “vision”. I wonder how this reflects of Foundation Beyond Belief’s brand towards its target demographic of atheists.

I wouldn’t be 100% happy with donating to a religious or religion-affiliated charity, but if they are transparent in their dealings (that is, I know where my money’s going, what it’s doing, and how much is coming out in admin fees and such) and are using it to fund a cause or program I am willing to support, then I’ll do it – reluctantly.

I’d much rather donate to a secular charity though.
But, if the charity is transparent and honest enough about its dealings, I’ll consider it. That’s the only thing I’ve ever really disliked about religious charities – it’s often very hard to get out of them exactly where the money is going, what it’s being used for, and how much will come out in administration fees and the like, not to mention the difficulty of getting the details of programs out of them. I often think it’s because if people actually knew those details, they wouldn’t donate to that particular charity. Evasiveness about financial matters always makes me suspicious about what they’re *really* doing with my money.

The exception is the charity that supports retired Catholic priests, pastors and nuns – I can’t quite remember the name, but it appeared in an article about the situation of many retired Catholic priests and pastors. The conditions some of them live in are awful, and they are not exactly young people. Apparently, the Catholic Church does not believe in old-age pensions, and it doesn’t help that they don’t have much superannuation now. I don’t care if it’s associated with the Catholic Church – people, old or young, have the right to be able to eat, have a roof over their head, and stay warm in winter. It’s why I don’t mind donating to a couple of the groups that help the homeless here – even if religion’s being dragged into it, at least they’re warm and they’re eating.

@muggle: You seem to think FBB has pulled the wool over our eyes by selecting a religious charity. From the FAQ:

Q: What are the criteria for selecting a beneficiary?

A: Among other considerations, beneficiaries are chosen for efficiency, effectiveness, moderate size (annual budget under $10 million), compatibility with humanist focus on mutual care in this world and this life, and geographic diversity. In addition to direct research, FBB makes use of Charity Navigator, the Better Business Bureau, GiveWell, GuideStar, and other third-party sources of information and charity review. Featured beneficiaries founded in any worldview will be considered so long as they refrain from proselytizing.

(emphasis mine)

FBB has always been very upfront about the fact that they’ll consider religious charities (something I support).

Jed Carty,

Hemant did state in his post that this is a religious group. Dale McGowan states that this is a religious group and they were chosen specifically because of this. The group’s name has “Witness” in it. The group’s site was linked to, it contains many references to God, spiritual insights, and a Quaker Faith. They’re part of the Religious Society of Friends. Is not the quaker doctrine truth to God, not simply “truth”? Seems like a lie by omission. Also, I wonder where “simplicity” fits into humanism.

This group is specifically theistic. It’s not just some secular group that contains religious members. What are your motivations for misrepresenting this?

Speaking of the Quakers, they were featured in an article in USA Today about faith-based movies:

In Not Today, “we won’t shrink from using the name of Jesus, but it’s part of the story,” says Chris Bueno, who co-produced the film with his wife, Denise, for Yorba Linda Friends Church, one of the world’s largest Quaker congregations.

“Some Christians want very overtly Christian messages. Others want to see gritty truthful stories of people struggling with faith, who may not lead perfect lives but are genuinely seeking,” Denise Bueno says.

The couple helped introduce Sherwood to Provident Films, the faith film division of Sony Music, which launched Facing the Giants and Fireproof.

The church auditions cast and crew not only for acting talent, but for their Christian commitment and ability to represent the film if called upon. The Buenos say there will be prayer every day on the set in India, and “everyone knows we represent a church.”

Hopefully this might help some people see why many of us might not want to be associated with giving money to religious groups. I have no idea if these are the “regular” Quakers or the evangelical kind, but the name/brand is the same.

Thanks, Aj. I figured that out after I posted. I went to their website, and, yep, they’re definitely not the liberal kind. To the average person, though, a Quaker is a Quaker. Most people don’t know the difference, and anything done in the name of Quakerism is associated by default with both the liberal and the conservative forms of the faith.

This is a problem throughout Christianity. The United Church of Christ is a good group, too, but their theology and actions can be associated with the theology and actions of everyone else who falls under the Christian umbrella, and the vast majority of those other people are decidedly less enlightened. So while I might like the inclusivity of the UCC, I wouldn’t donate to them for the same reason that I wouldn’t donate to the Quakers. I just don’t want to promote or support the Christian “brand.”

Really? That’s disappointing. I guess it’s what comes of belonging to a religion with a loose hierarchy. If I had to pick, though, I’d prefer that to something like Catholicism, which gives the hierarchy all of the power over doctrine, fires subordinate clergy if they dare to disagree, and ignores or persecutes laity who want to make changes.

The UCC/Congregationalists around here seem to be good people, but I guess there are always outliers, and it’s a shame that the hierarchy (even if they’re not the top-down power sort) doesn’t bother to at least make it clear that the denomination in general doesn’t support every point of view that individual clergy may promote.

I’ve been attending a Friends Meeting (Quaker) for several years as I come to an equilibrium between my atheism and the desire for a community of like values, reflection, and public service. It is a lovely organization and I will probably stay.

That said, while there are some non-theists among Quakers, it seems to me that most of them do believe in the supernatural. I would welcome your contribution as it might serve to strengthen the non-theist constituency among Quakers, but you would be building their brand, not yours.

Claudia, I get that very well. Hence, my disgust. Since they’re going to financially support belief perhaps they should change their deceptive name, hmmm?

Denying any money for any of the 10 based on the fact that 1 of the 10 will irritate you is a tad too dramatic, don’t you think.

Who said a damned thing about denying money to the other 9? What I said was that I don’t trust charities that distribute to other charities and tend to give directly to said charities I approve of directly. Looks like I was right in that assumption.

Yeah, Kelly, and it gave me pause and how glad am I that it did? Christian charity is, frankly, never real charity but using the unfortunate in need of help for advertising. I have a slight problem with that.

beckster, a fool and their money are soon parted but you must think that I’m ten kinds of a fool if you think for one second I believe you are giving to a charity just because you didn’t like that some stranger on the internet got pissed at them. Either that or you need some serious help.

And, yes, I stand by what I said, if they’re going to financially support belief perhaps they should change their name to something that isn’t false advertising.