I was thinking about this today so i digged out an interesting discourse that touches on this issue from this link. enjoy reading

Sunday, October 11, 2009
Religion, atheism and charity

I received this message from a reader of the site:

"Can you do a post on charity? I've had this argument with my (religious) girlfriend many times but have yet to win it. She argues that most of the 'very bad' religious events in history really had more to do with non-religious things such as politics or discrimination. Fine and dandy, no problem with that. But then she goes on to argue that the major force of charity - what we would call nonprofit organizations today - is and has always been religious in nature. /That/ I don't really have an argument for."

OK, let me give it a shot. I want to address this from a number of different angles, so I'll break it up by point.

1. It's true that many charities are run by religious organisations. For that, we can be happy. It has been asked to me in the past, by religious people, why there aren't any "atheist charities". Well, the first reason is that atheists don't organise themselves on nearly the same level as religious people do. It has been said that trying to organise atheists is like trying to herd cats. They are independent thinkers by nature. And if you don't believe me, ask yourself why, if your particular country is X% atheist and Y% religious, you don't see X atheist buildings for every Y religious buildings in your town. There are some atheist clubs, sure, but not on nearly the same level, even per capita, as religious groups. I find even the concept of an atheist charity to be silly, because besides alienating a good deal of the population as potential donors, the only reason atheist groups exist is to respond to religious claims of the supernatural and to try to maintain a distance between politics and religion. Setting up a charity for the cause seems kinda pointless.

2. While many charities are religious, many are not, including some of the biggest charities on Earth. Some examples of secular charities (as far as I know) are the Red Cross (despite the logo), United Way, World Wildlife Fund and Doctors Without Borders. And don't try to argue that any charity started by a religious person is therefore inspired by religion, unless you're willing to admit that my charitable donations are inspired by atheism. And if you do take that route, I think you're a fool.

3. I want to question the motivations of religions for doing charity work, and to argue that most religious donors would probably give to charity even if they didn't have theistic beliefs. If you are religious and reading this, do you give to charity solely because of your religion? If the answer is, "No", then we're finished. But if the answer is, "Yes", then what kind of person does that make you? Doesn't that mean that you only act charitably in hopes that you'll get something in return (ie. in the afterlife), or that you only give because you feel obligated to in servitude to your imaginary master? If you think you only give to charity because of your religion, then that either makes you wrong, a liar, or a total jackass! Another point is that some religious organisations only provide their charitable services as a way to spread their religion to populations that don't currently embrace it. After the big tsunami a few years back, there were some Christian groups that provided aid to villages only on the condition that the villagers abandon their beliefs and convert to Christianity. Not exactly noble, is it?

4. I take exception to the argument about past 'very bad religious events' were not truly inspired by religion, but by politics or discrimination. Besides the fact that politics and discrimination often have a large religious component as their justification, any argument about how bad things couldn't have been caused by religion, but were merely using religion as a cover, is unfalsifiable, and therefore worthless. So when good things, like charity, happen and use religion as a cover, it's legitimate, but when bad things happen, it isn't really because of the religion? It's Ray Comfort's "no true Christian would become an atheist, so those people clearly weren't Christians", or "every sane person has a conscience given by a god, so anybody without the same conscience as me is insane". It seems like your girlfriend is trying to do major damage control, and brush the misdeeds of religion and religious people under the carpet. It's total bullshit.

i totally agree with this because this same religion you call charity have also been the creation of more pain that demands charitable work to ease off. and considering that the non-religious wealthy people are the greatest donors when it comes to charity. its simple, charity is not religion imo

diluminati: i totally agree with this because this same religion you call charity have also been the creation of more pain that demands charitable work to ease off. and considering that the non-religious wealthy people are the greatest donors when it comes to charity. its simple, charity is not religion imo

Sometimes I do often wonder if such "charitable" donations from certain bodies with a murky past are just to ease of their conscious or repair their reputation although it would be unfair to use that to discredit all especially those with good intentions. But do those seemingly good intentions actually cater to what is "good" for those in need? I considered this because Charity/Aids etc is influence and whilst it may sometimes be detectable to outline the objective of some charity bodies i.e. some religious charity organizations have an ulterior aim to proselytize....intentions from other organizations may be much more subtle....again this doesn't reflect on all members from specific charitable bodies.

I find even the concept of an atheist charity to be silly, because besides alienating a good deal of the population as potential donors...

I fully agree with this point. Furthermore charity should not even be a competition and despite what may have influenced ones charitable giving no group has a monopoly on charity.

In the Nigerian Context 'Charity has been made and indoctrinated into religion'....If one gives he holds in it in his heart that he does so to receive a reward...

emöfine2:

Sometimes I do often wonder if such "charitable" donations from certain bodies with a murky past are just to ease of their conscious or repair their reputation although it would be unfair to use that to discredit all especially those with good intentions. But do those seemingly good intentions actually cater to what is "good" for those in need? I considered this because Charity/Aids etc is influence and whilst it may sometimes be detectable to outline the objective of some charity bodies i.e. some religious charity organizations have an ulterior aim to proselytize....intentions from other organizations may be much more subtle....again this doesn't reflect on all members from specific charitable bodies.



I fully agree with this point. Furthermore charity should not even be a competition and despite what may have influenced ones charitable giving no group has a monopoly on charity.

on point there. definitely these religious groups do these charity work to get more members and in turn even sell their books or videos, items etc and yes they have good intentions depending on the way we see them. but looking out of the box, the way it is stated that charity is an act of worship to God or doing God's job to me doesnt make sense because there are many people who dont believe in God making changes in the world and their effect is even more grand.

Why i brought up this topic is to divert peoples stance towards charity due to constant religion mind control, many people dissatisfied with religion now see it as a burden or some kind of duty they dont want to get associated with because of the God factor, to do charity, especially those who now feel anger on their pastors and churches pulling some fast one on them.