Hitch is dead

Religious people donate moreFrom the report;

quote:

---

But religious people also contribute to other types of charity at similar or higher rates than their secular counterparts.

​

The report says there is a staggering difference between the charitable giving practices of the religiously affiliated and those with no religious affiliation. While 62 percent of religious households give to charity, only 46 percent of nonreligious households do.

---

I read that report earlier, but I did wonder whether donations to churches qualified as charitable donations, for the purposes of these numbers (ie the 62% 46% split).This reference to IRS practice certainly indicates that the IRS sees tithing as tax deductible in the same way as charitable donations: Is Tithing Tax Deductible? | H&R BlockNeed some more detail on the research.Edited by vimesey, : No reason given.

I'd be very surprised if they didn't. But how come 38% of religious households give nothing? And what are the givers giving to? Charities can be anything from making their own institutions even wealthier to supporting a stray cat home.Anyway, the point being made is that religious institutions are incredibly wealthy and not doing what their saviour instructs them to do. Why?

First, just for perspective, there's the Judaic teaching about charity from the Pirke Avoth ("Sayings of the Fathers") (from memory):

quote:

---

There are four kinds of giving:

• Where the donor knows who the recipient is and the recipient knows who the donor is.
• Where the donor knows who the recipient is, but the recipient does not know who the donor is.
• Where the donor does not know who the recipient is, but the recipient knows who the donor is.
• Where the donor does not know who the recipient is and the recipient does not know who the donor is.

---

One of the sticky points of charity is the same as for altruism: giving/sacrificing with no thought of reward (for if you give or sacrifice for sake of being rewarded (eg, with salvation, with advancing your religion) then you are in fact not being altruistic). Giving with recipients knowing who you are will have you seeking praise, while giving knowing who the recipients are can have you seeking to support specific groups for non-charitable motives. Only that last combination with donor and recipients not knowing who each other is would most safely approach charity.BTW, there are several such teachings which examine the four possible combinations of two characteristics (eg, the four kinds of students based on how quickly or slowly they learn and how well they retain what they have learned). The first problem with that the article is from the Washington Times (not the Washington Post). It was founded by Unification movement leader Sun Myung Moon and is owned by Operations Holdings, which is owned by the Unification movement. IOW, Moonies!That raises the issue of strong religionist bias in the article, which is borne out by the article itself, in which the only factor it examines is religious affiliation versus non-religious. It completely ignores other important factors to explain the numbers. In that, it is nothing more than a typical religionist hatchet job trying to falsely claim some kind of moral superiority.Although I should have presented this one second, one simple factor that the article ignores is one of organization. Religious affiliations are organized whereas non-religious affiliations tend to not be organized since they commonly consist of unaffiliated individuals and small discussion groups.It's a simple fact that effective charity requires organization. You need to identify where the need is and what is needed. You need to set up collection and distribution networks. Collection can be augmented by organizing drives for donors. In contrast, unorganized individuals are busy enough just living their lives and getting by, which leaves them with very little time to do a lot of redundant independent research identifying need, analyzing how to address that need, and applying a small amount of personal excess funds which ends up being very ineffective in address that need.Religious associations are able to mount the organization that dispersed individuals cannot. Thus they are able to do what dispersed individuals cannot do. Of course, that has absolutely no bearing on whether their beliefs are true nor whether their teachings are of value.Also, with their power to identify where the need is and how to address it, they are subject to the temptation to exploit their charity work to advance their own sectarian agenda. And the non-religious are then tasked with determining whether a particular charity has a religious agenda that they do not wish to promote with their contributions. More on all that below.A second factor involves religious teachings and peer pressure. The religiously-affiliated are preached to and taught to tithe and give to charities. Then their religious affiliations present several organized charities to them, a number of them missionary work (ie, going out and proselytizing). And their religious affiliations set up or host collection drives in which they and the members of the congregations pressure congregation members to contribute.So why do the religious contribute? Because they are taught that they must. Because they somehow feel that by "being charitable" they are gaining "Brownie points" for salvation; even though that might not be theologically sound, that feeling still remains. At the very least, they feel that if they are indeed saved, then they need to demonstrate that "fact" by acting charitably *. But the real selling point is that those charities promote their church's mission in proselytizing.

---

---

Obviously, those pressures do not exist for the non-religious, but that does not keep the non-religious from making charitable contributions. Though for the sake of actually helping others instead of trying to promote a particular religion.That puts an extra obstacle in the way of the non-religious making charitable contributions. Nobody would want to contribute to any cause that they would oppose. For example, as I understand there were some innocuous-looking charities that actually funded ISIS, so those who opposed ISIS (most of us) would not want to be caught contributing to them even though it was unknowingly.One thing that most non-religious contributors would object to would be to religious proselytizing. The problem is that many charities are fronts for religious organizations for the purpose of proselytizing. An acquaintance at skeptics meetings was a homeless veteran. He has told us stories of "non-profit charities" who would make adherence to their religion as a condition for receiving their services. What non-religious contributor would want to lend their support for such odious activities?I guess you would think that the Boy Scouts of America (BSA), Inc, would be a safe non-religious charity. After all, in all their public presentations they emphasize that they are "absolutely nonsectarian". That is a complete lie. In the many religious discrimination lawsuits, BSA lawyers repeatedly and emphatically proclaimed that the Boy Scouts of America, Inc, is a "secret religious organization."

Religious institutions are man made institutions and everything man made is fallible. However having said that I would hope that the money that flows from wealth is used wisely. If you have wealth and give it all to the poor it is a one time gift. If however you use that wealth to create income and give that to the poor you have a gift that keeps on giving. It is how religious institutions use their wealth that matters, just as it is for individuals.

Do you genuinely think that 'fallible' covers it? Really? You would hope? Why do you have to hope, this is factual? Why don't we know how much the Vatican is worth and what it's doing with it? Why don't we know in detail the wealth of your Anglican church and how it's being used and - more importantly - why it has any wealth at all? Why is it not following its founder's teachings?

I agree completely with all of that. You’re probably right. I should have done more research before posting. I will say though that all reports have some bias or another. Most of the people working in churches are just, unionized or not, busy people just trying to get by, but they still seem to find time and money to be involved. This is a stereotypical view of Christianity. As I have lived in several places with in Canada I have been a member of several churches all Anglican, but I have also been involved with other churches but not as a member.Frankly, I agree that people in churches are more inclined to give to charities that have Christian leadership, not necessarily because they want to proselytize, but because, rightly or wrongly, they have more confidence in the integrity of the recipients.Firstly, I don’t see members donating in order to get brownie points with either God or the church, and In addition if they are then we are back to your first point which I agreed with. However, it is hard enough to judge my own motivations let alone the motivations of others.It isn’t about what we do that Jesus calls us except indirectly. It is what we do as a result of having hearts that love sacrificially. Like you pointed out, it is one thing to give in order to gain approval from God, church or anyone else, as opposed to give in order to simply improve the lives of others.

wealthy organization - starting of with charitable organizations Other than the Cathoilic church whose wealth nobody knows, but it is a lot, and the Mormon church the rest of the Christian churches seem to be about the same as Imam Khomeini's Order or the Bill Gates foundation which is funded by essentially 2 people. I doubt that the Catholic church has any idea of its worth as it is scattered all over the world. It appears by wiki that it isn't worth that much and presumably a lot of it isn't liquid anyway.Presumably you are pulling a Faith and cherry picking the verse which talks about the rich young guy giving all he has and following Jesus. The context of the whole NT is about what you do with whatever you have to give.

Apart from that, Mr Lincoln, what did you think of the play?The major religious organisations of the world are staggeringly wealthy (and secretive about it) - don't you think that's at odds with the Christian message? Just a teeny bit? Well if you think an instruction like this ....Jesus looked at him and loved him. One thing you lack, he said. Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me..... is cherry picking, then I think I picked the whole tree. Exactly. And the Christian (and other) organisations have amassed a huge amount of wealth but what are they doing with it? Making more. Where does the NT instruct them to do this? Doesn't it rather say the opposite? Eyes of needles and all?As for not having liquid assets (which is both wrong and irrelevant anyway as land, building and art are easily sold and would not be a concern any creditor), in North America alone, the Catholic church has paid $1.3 billion cash in compensation for sex abuse.Settlements and bankruptcies in Catholic sex abuse cases - WikipediaThe final amount is likely to be double. And, that's just the bloody Catholics.

I guess that I am more concerned with how churches use their resources more than with how much they have.Also on a more philosophical note, and I know how much you love philosophy, the church is a result of human formed institutions built around a set of beliefs.The church has been a mess and sometimes more so than others. We have had leaders support despots when it suited them. It has been supportive and occasionally even been part of instigating occupational wars. It has been involved with subjugating indigenous cultures in occupied countries. Some of the leaders of been involved in all sorts of scandals including sexual abuse etc. The church has warts and lots of themFortunately, partly because they have no choice, things are getting better. In Canada it is the church that has been more involved than any other group in supporting our indigenous people and supporting their culture and openly admitting to and apologising fro the church from past generations.I am primarily concerned with what I can control or at least influence. I can control what I do and I can influence my local church.This though is the result of human weakness and subsequent failings. It is something that is totally distinct from the veracity of the Gospel message. It may often be a bad witness to the belief in a loving God as perfectly modelled by Jesus but it says nothing about the veracity of that belief. It does nothing to dispel or confirm whether or not Jesus being resurrected is a historical fact.

Sure, but the churches are staggeringly wealthy and are not using it - they're hoarding it. Why is the Vatican stuffed full of priceless art when it could be sold to help the poor. If Bill Gates can do it - give away his wealth to help solve human suffering - why can't religious organisations do the same? Yes, religious organisations are man made. And so, of course are the beliefs that made them. Well as a minimum it should raise the question that if the organisations of religion are man-made and seriously flawed, designed and used to build wealth, power and empires then the beliefs that they're built on are flawed also. A house built on sand?

I build my house on the firm belief that Jesus embodied perfectly the nature and desires of God for humanity and our world. I build my house on the belief that God resurrected Jesus and that somehow in the end it is the precursor of what God will do for all of creation. That gives me purpose in the belief that ultimately life has meaning. My house is built on the belief that my signature is a template of how life is supposed to be lived as part of that ultimate purpose.The atheistic belief is that all life is transitory, that how our lives should be lived is arbitrary and culturally driven, and that ultimately there is nothing but oblivion.Neither of us know whether our understanding of our world and why we are here is true, but I would ask just whose house it is that is built on sand.Edited by GDR, : typo

More 'I believe'.That's all fine for you but we're not discussing you. Or me. We're discussing the wealth of religious institutions and whether any of them are following Jesus's teachings and it seems very obvious that they are not.There's nothing wrong with He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness... it's just the universal stuff of being decent that any reasonable person of any religion and none can and does agree with. You mark it with a supernatural significance that it doesn't have.Of course I think the ... And to walk humbly with your God. is redundant and meaningless, but so long as it doesn't result in building entire empires, it's 'mostly harmless'. I really wish you guys would stop telling us atheists what we believe. You never, ever get it right no matter how many times we try to explain it. Can you at least try? Instead of defensively inferring that it's the opposite of your own belief, try to understand our actual position.1. Atheists don't believe that life is transitory, they know it is. We all die. All life dies. Ashes to ashes etc. Some people hope for some kind of afterlife. Atheists just assume the base case that as there was no consciousness before life, there will be none thereafter. And that's fine with us. It is what it is. We don't need the fantasy of an afterlife to get us through this life. Oblivion was ok before I was born; it'll be ok after.2. We do not think that how we should live our lives is arbitrary and you'll notice that we don't go around doing random things. Apart from the kneeling down chanting embarrassing rubbish in order to placate a needy god we're remarkably similar to you. We do the same things. Weird huh? I haven't built a house GDR, I'm just living a life. I haven't created a fantasy of an afterlife and built this life here around it. That's the believers way not the atheists way.

underneath your explanation lies a pretentious smugness that I dont appreciate. You sau that atheists...or you....somehow know something that belivers...or myself dont know. The fact is you know no more than I know. No God is not a default position and you have no grounds to insist that it is. Its fine that you have no problem with oblivion. q if you want me to quit preaching I too want you to quit spouting your beliefs as facts. You have no idea.

Such as? Uh? Of course it is. It's the null hypothesis. You're claiming knowledge of something that there is no knowledge of. Thanks. I don't have beliefs. When we die, we die; do you doubt that? If something happens after that, neither of us has the faintest idea. It's a fact that I have no problem with oblivion and that we all had it before we were born and as far as I know, nobody was complaining. I do have an idea about what I think and it pisses me off when you guys tell me what it is. It would be annoying enough if you were right but you never are.It's fair to say that I perhaps have a better idea about that than either you or GDR. It would be great if both of you stopped pretending you know what atheists think - you don't. You can't begin to grasp that some people don't need your belief to lead a good and useful life. But it's obviously true isn't it? Ordo you really think otherwise?