Why do aid groups always seem to have a religious bent?

[quote name='Clak']You, as Knoell, are missing the point completely. You don't like what I'm saying, then don't post in the thread, friend. I've got a legitimate problem with the way many of these organizations do business and are trying to explain that, but all you here is "Whiny atheist being whiny". If that's all you care to hear, than don't even read past this post.[/QUOTE]

Talk about squashing other people's view points. "You disagree? Get out! My view is right! Can't you see that yet?"

From your standpoint on religion how many religious charity events have you gone to that you have such an "expert" view on these "legitimate" issues? I count 1 with the soup kitchen, and that was just outrageous with the praying! How dare they feed the hungry, and pray out loud! and a 2nd with the church that put signs ALL over a school announcing their charitable work and such. I can see why religious charities are so corrupt from your point of view!

Either give me a list of events you have been to, or some study that gives validity to your accusations.

[quote name='Clak'] If you're helping feed people but also telling them that birth control is bad, you're no more helping them than anyone else. Now they have food, but thanks to you they won't use condoms to help prevent the spread of incurable diseases. But hey, pulling out helps stop disease apparently.[/QUOTE]

If these vulnerable people are so apt to listen to them about condoms, why wouldn't they listen to them about abstinence? I think you are laying an existing problem on the laps of religious charities because it fits with their views. People were not using condoms before religious charities told them to practice abstinence.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dmaul1114']The religious aspect at a school is an issue because of separation of church and state.

We legally (as per current precedent) can't have anything promoting a specific relighttp://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=8455611ion, much less a specific church, on public school property.[/QUOTE]

Would you feel this prohibition would also extend to state universities? For example, I know that Maryland used to allow a specific church (Destiny) to hold services in the African American center on campus. They also advertise chaplains affiliated with the university. Now, I'd argue that because they have several different faiths listed, there is no clear 'establishment'. But if merely having a sign on school grounds is a violation in your mind, I'd think that having contact information on the official UM website would be analogous.

Of course, I dont even think the sign approaches violating the establishment clause, but I just wondered your take on the UM situation.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Would that not be acceptable? It's not promoting that church, per-say. Merely pointing out the fact that the church paid for stuff.[/QUOTE]

And the 'paid for by ARRA' signs would be acceptable? It's 'merely pointing out the fact that the ARRA paid for stuff'. Assuming it's required by law of course.

EDIT: Been trying to find a more objective source for this, but you should accept this without hesitation:

http://www.cnsnews.com/node/71174

Seems to be based on a directive but not directly required by law.

One good thing may come of the signs: maybe dipshit Republicans won't try to get credit for projects funded by the thing they voted against.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='hostyl1']Would you feel this prohibition would also extend to state universities? For example, I know that Maryland used to allow a specific church (Destiny) to hold services in the African American center on campus. They also advertise chaplains affiliated with the university. Now, I'd argue that because they have several different faiths listed, there is no clear 'establishment'. But if merely having a sign on school grounds is a violation in your mind, I'd think that having contact information on the official UM website would be analogous.

Of course, I dont even think the sign approaches violating the establishment clause, but I just wondered your take on the UM situation.[/QUOTE]

I'm not a fan of public universities having chaplains and a religious presence beyond voluntary student groups etc. personally.

The non-denominational angle helps, but it can still be viewed by atheists as establishing faith over non-faith.

That said, it's not something I get up in arms over, and nor would be the signs Clak is talking about. Both are just things I'd rather not be present being a strong supporter of a firm separation of church and state, its but not something I get really upset over as there are bigger and more important things to spend emotional energy on.

I used to get more annoyed over that type of thing win I was younger, but have mellowed over it and just realized it's not worth getting upset over things like that or "In god we trust" on our money etc. I don't like it as a non-believer, but its not worth getting upset over and just a consequence of living in a nation that is still over 80% believers of some faith.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Clak']You'll love this story. A few years ago a local megachurch helped fix up a public elementary school here, they bought them new computers, fixed up the building some, did a lot. However, predictably, they also put up signage all over the front of the school to make sure everyone knew who was resposnible. So you've got a church advertising on the grounds of a public school, yeah nothing wrong there.[/QUOTE]

I would say this is no different than when some wealthy person donates money to a university or hospital for a new wing and has it named in their honor. I don't know the extent of the signage but if they are donating considerable time and money to fix a public school which should be on the taxpayer, then they have a right to take credit. I've heard of businesses doing the same thing because of the advertising/publicity it brings them and I'm sure it's a write off. The point is doing a good deed for the benefit of children by anyone shouldn't be thumbed your nose at worthy just because it's done by a church, just because you don't like their message (people believing in a higher power and doing good and trying to live a virtious life) doesn't mean they don't do good for others.

At my Catholic church, we've donated a lot of money over the years and done everything from build houses, soup kitchens, etc. Almost every week it seems like we are collecting food or clothing for those less fortunate and I personally never did more than mention the church I was affiliated with and never in my life tried to convert anyone nor have my friends. Even I admit there are some religious people who take it to the extreme and don't realize they are coming on to strongly to people. I'm not trying to sound like a moral compass here but it's good to see some liberal members admitting that religious groups do a lot of good for others. I can't speak for everyone but even getting a warm meal or a coat or shelter even at the cost of a simple word shouldn't be the end of the world. You are free to completely ignore it and to decline any paperwork you are given, for some though, they may be interested in whatever religions teaching.
 
[quote name='jputahraptor']just because you don't like their message (people believing in a higher power and doing good and trying to live a virtious life) doesn't mean they don't do good for others.[/QUOTE]

I doubt he disagrees with *that* specific message, it's hard for any decent person to disagree with it; I imagine he disagrees with the 'gay marriage will lead to man on dog marriage' type of messages that tend to emanate from some organizations.
 
[quote name='IRHari']I doubt he disagrees with *that* specific message, it's hard for any decent person to disagree with it; I imagine he disagrees with the 'gay marriage will lead to man on dog marriage' type of messages that tend to emanate from some organizations.[/QUOTE]

Yes you're right I'm sure, but it seems trival not to want to do charitiable works because a organization that works and funded the project has views that you oppose. All the more reason to accept them for the good works they do and find common ground in helping others and accept that we all have different opinions on major issues. It shouldn't be a debate to help others, save it for these forums to scream and yell at each other and then go out in the real world and realize you are probably surrounded by thousands of people that have the complete opposite beliefs and points of view as you and yet I'm sure you'd help them regardless of their view if they were in trouble. I'm not gonna run into a burning building, ask them their political or religous affiliation and then turn around and leave if it's not the same as me.
 
[quote name='jputahraptor']I'm not gonna run into a burning building, ask them their political or religous affiliation and then turn around and leave if it's not the same as me.[/QUOTE]

No, but you should ask them if they've paid the fire and rescue fee. :D
 
It's not a matter of not wanting to help others. It's a matter, for me at least--I can't speak for Clak and others, of wanting full disclosure about charities motivations, how they spend donated money etc. so I can make an informed donation without having to do a lot of digging for info on my own. If I'm giving away my money, it should be easy for me to find that kind of info.

I have no issues with religious groups doing charity work and trying to spread the word as part of it (other than some separation of church and state issues when it involves schools and other government entities and/or tax payer dollars funding the religious group).

I just don't personally want to donate to such organizations, and only want to donate to secular organizations. So I feel there needs to be an easier/standard way to look up that kind of information about any charity/non-profit group. The national and international organizations are pretty clear cut, but I prefer to donate to local organizations.
 
[quote name='IRHari']And the 'paid for by ARRA' signs would be acceptable? It's 'merely pointing out the fact that the ARRA paid for stuff'. Assuming it's required by law of course.[/quote]

My main issue with the "Paid for by the ARRA" signs is that money was pretty much wasted on these signs.

If ChruchX wants to waste some money on putting up "Paid for by ChurchX" signs, personally, I think it's a bit of a waste - but, ultimately, it's not my money.

Taxpayer money is from all(-ish) of us... so I don't feel like it's a double standard objecting to that.

[quote name='dmaul1114']I just don't personally want to donate to such organizations, and only want to donate to secular organizations. So I feel there needs to be an easier/standard way to look up that kind of information about any charity/non-profit group. The national and international organizations are pretty clear cut, but I prefer to donate to local organizations.[/QUOTE]

I don't mean this in a bad/condescending way, but, perhaps instead of throwing money at a charity and thinking you've done good (which you have, as charities do need money), I'd recommend spending some time working with the charity. This will allow you some first hand experience seeing where your money goes and, unless you're donating large sums of money, most charities are probably going to value your time as much as - if not more than - your cash.
 
My time is more valuable to me than my money, thus I'm much more willing to donate cash than my precious free time.

I did a good bit of volunteering back in high school and college, and perhaps will again down the road when I'm not working long hours (still up at 3:12am as I just finished up some work for a deadline tomorrow). But in the meantime I'll just donate the meager sums I can afford as I already have far less time for friends, family and hobbies than I'd like.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']My time is more valuable to me than my money, thus I'm much more willing to donate cash than my precious free time.

I did a good bit of volunteering back in high school and college, and perhaps will again down the road when I'm not working long hours (still up at 3:12am as I just finished up some work for a deadline tomorrow). But in the meantime I'll just donate the meager sums I can afford as I already have far less time for friends, family and hobbies than I'd like.[/QUOTE]

Tell me about it. We had some pretty major flooding here in the past week. Sadly, I was unable to donate any real time for the cause. Thankfully, in my position at work, I was poised to arrange some pretty useful donations of supplies for the community. It's funny - in my previous position, I probably could have just skipped work and donated time, but not been able to arrange the supplies. Damned if you do, damned if you don't?

Anyway, outside of actually spending time working with the charity, I don't how how far a disclaimer will get you. Dishonest charities will still be dishonest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top