6 ms·

>I really dislike that so many of the US domestic charities are religiously driven. In fairness, many of them are very good. The Mormons, for example, have alw

>I really dislike that so many of the US domestic charities are religiously driven. In fairness, many of them are very good. The Mormons, for example, have always impressed me. I had a friend who grew up in Menlo Park, fell on hard times, and ended up in Utah. The Mormon community there was very supportive in substantial ways, and although they did evangelize, I hear it was pretty mild. But yeah, it's...evil when a religion gets transactional with it's charity.

munk-a 7y ago
Yea, I used to work in a soup kitchen regularly with a group from my church, a lot of the work and the people doing it are great - but we didn't evangelize and I think that's how it should work. As a religious organization feel free to support charities and note that your organization accepts people from all walks of life - even include pamphlets if you'd like... but the aggressive evangelism is where it gets weird - if dinner and shelter that I require to live is contingent on me accepting religion then that shifts religion from a freely associated faith into an exchange.
- PaulHoule 7y ago
  Same here. I volunteered at Loaves and Fishes and it was not a place where people would force religion down your throat if you didn't want it.
  - FisDugthop 7y ago
    See, that name sounds like religion-down-the-throat. When I was younger, and I volunteered at a food bank in (let's call it) Foo County, it was called "Food for Foo County". Ambiance matters.
    - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
      That is about the minimum possible religious content, so little that many people would not even notice. And you regard that as "religion-down-the-throat"? I would suggest that you are a bit hypersensitive.
Someone1234 7y ago
> But yeah, it's...evil when a religion gets transactional with it's charity. Getting transactional with charity is the whole point. That's why religious organizations often fight against public programs instead arguing that religiously affiliated charity should take its place (receiving public funding to do so in many cases). Utah in particular loves to under-fund programs, and let the church pick up the slack. The benefit to them is that it is both transactional, and allows them to exclude as they desire. The Mormons might be nice, but they shouldn't be getting public money to provide public assistance. They should be cut out entirely and taxes should fund these programs directly and fairly.
- kortilla 7y ago
  > Utah in particular loves to under-fund programs, and let the church pick up the slack. But does Utah give that money to the church programs instead? It’s not clear from your comment.
- dundercoder 7y ago
  As far as I know, they don't get any public money[0]. It comes from donations from their membership. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finances_of_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints#Current_source_of_funding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finances_of_The_Church_of_Jesu...
  - creyes 7y ago
    But they're tax exempt - which is kinda like getting public money. Or at least, not paying money other businesses have to pay
    - colejohnson66 7y ago
      So you want to remove separation of church and state?
      - mercutio2 7y ago
        I don't think that's a charitable way of interpreting the comment. Mormons as a rule are very generous with the church, and often with church affiliated charities. If the deduction for charitable giving was removed, the Mormon church would do fine, and likely so would many of their charitable activities, and it would seem more like separation of church and state to me. If the charitable giving deduction were removed, I guess I agree that at that point there wouldn't be a way to argue (from a constitutional perspective) against Mormons in Utah voting for low levels of government support. As it happens, I'm not convinced the "all charity should be provided by religious institutions in Utah" narrative for Utah voters is actually accurate; Salt Lake City at least is fairly generous with the homeless, at a government level.
dwnvoted2hell 7y ago
I don't know. If I had to listen to a spiel to get a meal, I think that would be okay. Beats prostitution any day of the week. And it's still way above selling plasma.
- woah 7y ago
  Yea but it’s not charity in that case. It’s paid promotion
  - dwnvoted2hell 7y ago
    If I have to watch a show chosen by KFC, but in the end I get a free sandwich, I really don't care. You call it a paid promotion, I call it a subsidized benefit. The church is engaged in a giving action that is subsidized in part by their ability to get paying members. So in a sense, the church is a two legged business. One is to genuinely help people. The other is to find people that are willing to assist in the continuation of that goal. (Thanks for the downvote. I've always noticed that the most heartless people downvote the most.)
reaperducer 7y ago
But yeah, it's...evil when a religion gets transactional with it's charity. Not all religions do. Catholic Charities, for example, doesn't care what religion you practice and does not try to convert people who seek its help.
- filmfact 7y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magdalene_asylum https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magdalene_asylum
- charia 7y ago
  This is very, very, very dependant on your experiences. My family is from India and they've told me some fascinating stories of the lengths some Catholic charities and churches are willing to go to convert people.
  - philsnow 7y ago
    reaperducer is referring to a particular organization named (confusingly) Catholic Charities https://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/ https://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/
kgwxd 7y ago
If your friend is a straight white male, and the only example you have real first-hand stories of, it might be best to reserve judgment. I don't have any personal experience, but I think there's plenty of historical evidence to support defaulting to a suspicious position on that particular organization.

munk-a 7y ago

Yea, I used to work in a soup kitchen regularly with a group from my church, a lot of the work and the people doing it are great - but we didn't evangelize and I think that's how it should work. As a religious organization feel free to support charities and note that your organization accepts people from all walks of life - even include pamphlets if you'd like... but the aggressive evangelism is where it gets weird - if dinner and shelter that I require to live is contingent on me accepting religion then that shifts religion from a freely associated faith into an exchange.

PaulHoule 7y ago
Same here. I volunteered at Loaves and Fishes and it was not a place where people would force religion down your throat if you didn't want it.
- FisDugthop 7y ago
  See, that name sounds like religion-down-the-throat. When I was younger, and I volunteered at a food bank in (let's call it) Foo County, it was called "Food for Foo County". Ambiance matters.
  - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
    That is about the minimum possible religious content, so little that many people would not even notice. And you regard that as "religion-down-the-throat"? I would suggest that you are a bit hypersensitive.

Someone1234 7y ago

> But yeah, it's...evil when a religion gets transactional with it's charity. Getting transactional with charity is the whole point. That's why religious organizations often fight against public programs instead arguing that religiously affiliated charity should take its place (receiving public funding to do so in many cases). Utah in particular loves to under-fund programs, and let the church pick up the slack. The benefit to them is that it is both transactional, and allows them to exclude as they desire. The Mormons might be nice, but they shouldn't be getting public money to provide public assistance. They should be cut out entirely and taxes should fund these programs directly and fairly.

kortilla 7y ago
> Utah in particular loves to under-fund programs, and let the church pick up the slack. But does Utah give that money to the church programs instead? It’s not clear from your comment.
dundercoder 7y ago
As far as I know, they don't get any public money[0]. It comes from donations from their membership. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finances_of_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints#Current_source_of_funding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finances_of_The_Church_of_Jesu...
- creyes 7y ago
  But they're tax exempt - which is kinda like getting public money. Or at least, not paying money other businesses have to pay
  - colejohnson66 7y ago
    So you want to remove separation of church and state?
    - mercutio2 7y ago
      I don't think that's a charitable way of interpreting the comment. Mormons as a rule are very generous with the church, and often with church affiliated charities. If the deduction for charitable giving was removed, the Mormon church would do fine, and likely so would many of their charitable activities, and it would seem more like separation of church and state to me. If the charitable giving deduction were removed, I guess I agree that at that point there wouldn't be a way to argue (from a constitutional perspective) against Mormons in Utah voting for low levels of government support. As it happens, I'm not convinced the "all charity should be provided by religious institutions in Utah" narrative for Utah voters is actually accurate; Salt Lake City at least is fairly generous with the homeless, at a government level.

dwnvoted2hell 7y ago

I don't know. If I had to listen to a spiel to get a meal, I think that would be okay. Beats prostitution any day of the week. And it's still way above selling plasma.

woah 7y ago
Yea but it’s not charity in that case. It’s paid promotion
- dwnvoted2hell 7y ago
  If I have to watch a show chosen by KFC, but in the end I get a free sandwich, I really don't care. You call it a paid promotion, I call it a subsidized benefit. The church is engaged in a giving action that is subsidized in part by their ability to get paying members. So in a sense, the church is a two legged business. One is to genuinely help people. The other is to find people that are willing to assist in the continuation of that goal. (Thanks for the downvote. I've always noticed that the most heartless people downvote the most.)

reaperducer 7y ago

But yeah, it's...evil when a religion gets transactional with it's charity. Not all religions do. Catholic Charities, for example, doesn't care what religion you practice and does not try to convert people who seek its help.

filmfact 7y ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magdalene_asylum https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magdalene_asylum
charia 7y ago
This is very, very, very dependant on your experiences. My family is from India and they've told me some fascinating stories of the lengths some Catholic charities and churches are willing to go to convert people.
- philsnow 7y ago
  reaperducer is referring to a particular organization named (confusingly) Catholic Charities https://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/ https://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/

kgwxd 7y ago

If your friend is a straight white male, and the only example you have real first-hand stories of, it might be best to reserve judgment. I don't have any personal experience, but I think there's plenty of historical evidence to support defaulting to a suspicious position on that particular organization.