What are some good secular charities to donate to?

[DavidB]

I can't help but get the feeling that religion is an accepted 'given' in many western countries because it is such organized religions that operate most of the charities that get most of the publicity.

This is the doing (and the fault) of government because by allowing religious organizations to pick up the slack that government should really be responsible for, and actively persuading these organizations to do so by allowing them enormous tax benefits and etc. they have boosted religion up to astronomical heights in the eyes of the general public that might access the said charities.

What can be done? Should we (as active atheists) take up the challenge and create our own charities that will eventually overtake the religious based 'help', or should we wait until a political party is strong enough and 'votable' enough to 'get into power' and make a difference?

I know the Secular Party of Australia is trying its best but, let's face it, there is indeed a very long way to go.

Any thoughts?

HooRoo

[robertkd]

David

there are already non theist charities out there doing great work

http://www.msf.org.au/

http://www.redcross.org.au

http://www.hollows.org.au

and likely many more

[Fearless]

I personally think that the words Atheist/Atheism are rarely understood correctly by Joe and Jody Public. I was one until recent years.

I think the number of Atheists would potentially double (ok, big claim!) in no time at all if people who have never identified themselves with a label (for lack of a better word) understood the true definition of the words (this goes for Agnostic Atheism, Secular Humanism etc too).

We have to respect the tireless efforts of the AFA and other Atheist organisations (which I hope to get more involved in one day) trying to get the truth out there and bring more fact, reality and education to the masses.

Who knows, one day Atheism will be a more recognised, represented and understood term and 'our' organisations can drive more focus towards legitimate charity causes and have a fair go at charity work from a non theist influence.

"Win the crowd, and you will win your freedom!" ~ Gladiator

[wearestardust]

I am not sure what you are getting at. Removing spurious tax breaks from religions to do religious stuff = . I'm not sure, however, why there is any reason to be smacking charities that do good things on the head simply because they are religious. It is worth noting that one of the consequences of Catholicism being pretty much dead on its feet is that many putatively Catholic charities operate more or less as secular organisations.

Moving on to pedantry, I think you have your history and causal links the wrong way around in terms of things things that 'govt ought do'. The idea of government as safety net and service provider is a really recent phenomenon. It really only got traction with the creation of the Bismarckian social welfare state in the later 19th Century (never mind that the point was to keep society quiet and produce health Prussian sons to become health Prussian soldiers). Prior to that of course there were kinds of government social supports, but generally of a punitive nature such as the workhouse. In general throughout history charities have been the principle social support. So in a sense governments have muscled into their territory.

Which is not to say that I don't think that government has a role in these areas under contemporary ideas about society.

Another bit of history with the vaguest connection: the history of the St John Ambulance Brigade. The Sovereign Military Hospitallar Order of St John of Jerusalem of Rhodes and Malta (Knights of St John,
Hospitallar, or Hospitallars) were, of course, one of the crusader orders that died out eventually due to a combination of Islam and French Revolution. Since they (and the Templars) got defuncterised, there have been various 'false orders' - basically chapters set up by con men claiming a link with the original orders and selling knighthoods. Anyway, one day, a bunch of (I think, English) guys who had bought knighthoods got it into their heads that they should actually try and live up to the ideals of what they had, literally, bought into. And thus: St John Ambulance.

[DavidB]

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to upset anyone.

But I think the point I was trying to get to was that the majority of charities that Joe and Jane Public are most likely to access (here in Australia and in other Western World countries) are charities that provide some kind of social service such as family planning, food and shelter for the homeless, aid for social outcasts such as (again) homeless, (sometimes) the mentally ill, battered wives and etc.

In my opinion, this kind of service provision should be supplied by government and not by religious organizations.

This kind of services provided by religious charities portrays the said religious organization in a very good light by our Joe and Jane. It is this service provided by religious organizations that legitimizes their existence in the eyes of many.

So it might well be stated, out there on the streets, that 'Who cares what the churches believe in, who cares that religion is based on myth and fairy-tale, so what if the church organization is getting away with not having to pay taxes and rates?' So what! as long as they provide a bed for me when I am homeless; so what as long as they provide a meal for me when I am hungry ; so what as long as they can arrange for an adoption for the baby I didn't want to have in the first place; so what?

I reiterate, religion has set itself up very nicely, thank you very much. And it will take a lot of work, determination and will power on our part (as atheists) to change Joe and Jane's mind-set.

What can we do?

[Logic]

I will not sponsor christian based charities, instead I give my money to ones such as Care Australia, RSPCA, Red Cross etc.

[DBK]

I think that religious organisations use their charities to promote their beliefs, and then use them to justify their existence. ie. "The Church of ABC is good because we provide ___"

I believe that giving to charity is one of the ways we, as human beings, can make ourselves feel a little bit superior- I'm able to help someone else, I have some power. Maybe it's hardwired into our evolved brain that people who receive our charity are more likely to not do us harm, as they believe they owe us.

Naturally, I only support charities not linked to religion.

[Seamus]

Originally Posted by Logic

I will not sponsor christian based charities, instead I give my money to ones such as Care Australia, RSPCA, Red Cross etc.

Me too I will occasionally give a few dollars to a secular ("charity direct") charity.

I support Medicines Sans Frontiers with pledged giving,and The Fred Hollows Foundation whenever I can spare $50.

It took me some months to chose those charities. I found out as much as I could about what they actually DO with my money:

How much of donated money goes to admin costs. (up to 36% is normal across the board,but can sometimes reach 80% and even higher))

Do they pay their professionals?

I stopped giving to religious charities partly because an [often large] part of donated monies are spent on religious agenda.

Some major religious charities,such as World Vision have bad reputations.However,neither will I give a bean to a monolith such as Red Cross or any large scale appeal.

I have no problem with a church incorporating it's charitable arm which is then attracts tax exemption. I have a BIG problem with religion being given carte blanche tax exemption.

strongly resent the notion of a paid clergy and of churches as organiations owning property(it should remain the property of the crown or community) I find the wealth of the "Mega churches" and their clergy obscene,but not even close to that of the Catholic Church.

[Fearless]

Originally Posted by Seamus

I support Medicines Sans Frontiers with pledged giving,and The Fred Hollows Foundation whenever I can spare $50.

I actually supported MSF for a few months... they came a knocking at my door and I decided to get on board.

Problem was I was off work at the time after being hit by a truck and told them I could only afford to donate $20 a month at that time and would raise it when I was able. I asked for my wishes to be noted as I did not want to be hassled about it.

After 6 months I got the letter. Went something like:

'We have found that asking our existing donators for extra support is more affective then getting new members, so we plead to you at this time to dig a little deeper if you can. Here is our adjustment form...'

I don't ever want to feel guilty that I am not donating enough to a charity when Joe Average rarely donates at all.

I phoned up and cancelled my donations telling them that they did not respect my simple request and that if I am able to later on I would donate in lump sums rather than a regular payment. I was really miffed!

But not as miffed as getting the letters afterwards still asking for more money. I wrote a letter to them asking them to leave me alone or I will have to see who to contact about putting a definite stop to the letters... the mail then ceased.

Left a really bad taste in my mouth.

[DavidB]

Did you know that there are full-time and part-time pastoral staff on the payrolls of some public hospitals here in Australia? That's correct - Public hospitals. Hospitals that are funded by tax payers.

Diocese and Archdiocese are supplying 'personnel' to these hospitals in exchange for the equivalent of salaries at levels of remuneration equivalent to middle management, and they are pocketing considerable amounts of tax-payers money for the privilege.

Why should we be paying for the 'pastoral care' of the faithful whilst they are in public funded hospitals?