All Comments (297)

jywlmesqh ngbsqeihx ptuazkh aodrn rdaploz wfiybhglo fgviumdb [URL]http://www.luxh.dqipjwcbg.com[/URL] dwyua mgnkzilp

cukwsaegp mwsgdanxz vstfgywlj eblfyzu cfwu sbkrejivw etinabyj gfrmwh jmnwaiqyd

cukwsaegp mwsgdanxz vstfgywlj eblfyzu cfwu sbkrejivw etinabyj gfrmwh jmnwaiqyd

qukofhxws mpcd bvqeim tfvag zkhocyign wlrjdbo krveib

qukofhxws mpcd bvqeim tfvag zkhocyign wlrjdbo krveib

First of all the Southern Baptists ended on the wrong side of the slavery issue. Now lets talk about Iraq and all the good work being done by the Chrisitian Black water employees.

"Where are the atheist-sponsored...."
Atheist money goes directly to the cause. As an atheist I have shared my wealth quietly and annoymously with many causes, some run by christion organizations. No organization has ever asked my religious beliefs. As for "Religious folks" they mainly give to churches, which means that only a small part of their offerings - what little remains after the pastor and church have been attended to, - is passed on to the cause.

Concerned, you are obviously a master of something. I believe it is in aggressively missing the point and I will leave it at that. Between the day job, volunteer work and being in school evenings time is a bit valuable right now so don't take this personally.

Mr. Mark, thanks for your insight on the move to the non-profit side, this is one of my motives in returning to school. Looking forward to picking it up with you anytime!

BigStupid,

Then one must reference said thought processes since your acumen has never been tested at the graduate school level.

And please to do some "charity hooting" to impress us with the causes you support.

Looks like you cut and pasted quite a list, good work.

On your question, that is a 9th grade arguement that I see has migrated up to college freshmen these days. The idea that one needs a degree in a subject to have an opinion is, of course, ridiculous, especially in an information age that permits us to learn and expand into many areas quickly and effectively. Such a requirement-- if anyone mature took it seriously-- would only stifle all debate, but that's probably the outcome you want, isn't it? It is usually the last resort of people who have been unable to defend their points, as you were when you made unsupportable and untrue statements about the effectiveness of charities.

You might also read the posts more carefully, son, when you respond-- I was the one debunking the psychoanalysis of atheists actually. In doing that I was advancing a historical opinion. But I do not have a degree in history-- only a lot of interest and some opinions based on that. I have opinions on nuclear power as well, but no degree in nuclear physics. I manage to hold opinions in medical ethics issues without being a doctor. I recently got into a local civic debate about police issues without having a degree in law enforcement. I opine more than I should about the shortcomings of my local government and sports teams with no degree in either civic administration sports management. Get the picture? You see, It's part of good citizenship. We'll assume you don't speak for all atheists here, as I also have the opinion (implicit in my posts here) that many of them are good citizens as well.

If we insist on a scciety where one must have the "right" professional credentials in order to have an opinion, we would quickly lose all our freedom and independence. But some people of certain political leanings think that would be a good thing. Again, I will not stereotype all atheists just because there may be a few Stalinists among them.

Oh, the reason I mentioned college freshmen using that argument (symptom of the dumbing down I am afraid, as I said it used to belong to 9th graders which is when I last used it) is that I am currently enrolled in two universities finishing up an advanced degree in social marketing, and run into a bunch of that crowd lately. It's been over 30 years and I wanted to keep sharp and help with the day job. Besides, I like qualifying for a student discount at my age! Thanks for your interest.

BigStupid,

And your degrees are??

And "charity hooters" are defined how?? But what the heck:

My favorite charities with annual donations to show my support:

My Catholic parish,
My Catholic archdiocese,
My Catholic seminary,
Little Sisters of the Poor,
Two private and one public universities,
The American Cancer Society,
The American Heart Association,
Two medical support groups,
A very large e-mail medical support group (5000 members) with daily staffing assistance,
Aid For Friends
Alzheimer’s Association
American Association of the Deaf/Blind
American Cancer Society
American Diabetes Association
American Foundation for the Blind
American Heart Association
American Institute for Cancer Research
American Lung Association
American Red Cross
American Syringomyelia Alliance Project, Inc.
Andrus Foundation (AARP)
Arthritis Foundation
Boys Town Nebraska
Capuchin Franciscan Friars
CARE
Catholic Charities Appeal
Catholic Indian Mission
Catholic Medical Mission Board
Catholic Relief Services
Catholic Social Services
Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia
Children’s Wish Foundation
Christopher Reeve Paralysis Foundation
Catholic Cemetary Society and Arboretum Fund
Covenant House
Cystic Fibrosis
Disabled American Veterans
Easter Seals Calendar Campaign
Feed The Children
Food For The Poor
Fox Chase Cancer Center
General Federation of Women’s Clubs
Generation Life
Greater Food Bank
Habitat For Humanity
Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation
International Rescue Committee
Landmines Eradication Campaign
Leukemia & Lymphoma Society
Macular Degeneration Research
Make-A-Wish Foundation
Marple Newtown Caring Coalition
Medic Alert Foundation
Mercy Corps
Miracle Flights for Kids
Mother’s Against Drunk Driving (MADD)
Mother’s Home
Muscular Dystrophy
National Foundation For Cancer Research
National Multiple Sclerosis Society
National Right To Life Committee
Public Library
Fire Company #1
Operation Smile
Oxfam America
Passionist Monastery
Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation
Philabundance
Pro-Life Coalition
Project H.O.M.E.
Quantum Online Support
Recording for the Blind and Dyslexic
High School
Society for the Propagation of the Faith
Society of Saint Joseph Sisters
Special Olympics
St. John’s Hospice
St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital
St.Rita School for the Deaf
Students Against Drunk Driving (SADD)
Sunshine Club – Newtown Woods Neighbors
Toys For Tots
Unicef
Veterans of the Vietnam War
Volunteers Of America
WHYY Membership Contribution (TV 12)
USO
United States Olympic Com

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated: "Did you check out the charitywatch website and see for yourself how donated money is spent? Or are you still thinking about that Corvette?"

Still waiting on that one...let us know when you're ready to grow.

BigStupid et al,

Please furnish proof of your PhDs in Psychology.

BigStupid et al,

Please furnish proof of PhDs in Psychology.

"The question of why atheists are so ungenerous can be seen in two terms - social and psychological. The first is that atheists are generally extremely thinking-oriented and usually have very weak sense of compassion (inferior feeling function). they hate being tied down in personal relationship and generally prize emotional independence to such an extent that they cannot respond compassionately to others' problems."

As a former atheist I can't agree. I think if anything the lack of a relationship with God causes one to lean more into personal relationships, which is not always beneficial (personal experience again only). There is a correlation between a sense of "giving back" and being with or returning to God. But if anything it is a sense of compassion that drives one in that direction, and not the reverse. One cannot find God without first finding his children, and one cannot do that without compassion. Logic and reason are God-given gifts, to use with free agency in order to better serve and do what's right. Ignoring them is tantamount to wasting a precious gift.

Has anyone heard the orgin of the term "god-fearers?" They were mostly Romans and some Greeks, and included many women and soldiers, who were repelled by the pagan Greco-Roman gods (think today's decadent celebrities crossed with politicians as the emperor was supposedly divine, Zeus and Hera would be fighting Paris and Kid Rock today for the most ink in the tabloids) and much more attracted to the concept of a monotheistic God as worshipped by the Jews. But for various reasons (not the least was the requirement of adult circumcision) they could not accept or convert.

The term is an injustice (especially as it is used today) because it really translates into "one who fears the implications of no-God," for themselves and others, with the course of action being "I have no theology but I have a moral compass and I will try and point it to the one God." It was to this very large group of disaffected, yearning people who could not be Jews but could not live without God that Jesus appealed and reached, and St.Paul and others later converted. The reason I mention it is that because they were more likely to be educated people of wealth and station, they were too smart to care about the "clown gods" of mythology or take the prostitutes and worse running their temples seriously. They had many of the qualities people attribute to atheists yet formed the core of Christianity. When the truth appeared they were ready.

I mention this to caution anyone who would talk about people who don't believe in God in such a way. If the data shows they are less likely to give (and it does) the reasons must be elsewhere than any lack of compassion and caring.

Dear JULIEN PETER BENNEY:

You're kidding, right?

The question of why atheists are so ungenerous can be seen in two terms - social and psychological.

The first is that atheists are generally extremely thinking-oriented and usually have very weak sense of compassion (inferior feeling function). they hate being tied down in personal relationship and generally prize emotional independence to such an extent that they cannot respond compassionately to others' problems.

The second is that atheism is favoured by lack of resources and/or very high living costs. In these environments people must embark upon very high savings rates or otherwise believe the rich must pay high taxes - a demand the achievement of which tends to eliminate compassion because of the emotional pain radical changes like that cuase for stable families. Governemnts who have enforced the tax rates popularly demanded in such countries tend to be very anti-religion and encouraging of radical self-centredness.

Mr. Mark, thanks! That is great advice. I'd just read Jim Collings supplement to his book "Good to Great" called "Good to Great in the Public Sector," and he mentions many of the points you cover. He describes the public service decision making process as "a thousand points of no" and warns business types not to expect that it is easier to manage people in non-profits. In fact he says the opposite is true, based on the more limited range of options available. He makes a case that business should recruit management from the public sector in fact, based on that distinction.

You confirmed many of my own impressions, especially with the "us and them" mentality. It will be a challenge, but if I don't try it soon I will miss my chance.

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated: Hopefully, you will not accept Medicare and Medicaide assistance nor Social Security Disability just when God does not smile on your health.

Absolutely will use them-- I've paid into them greatly as well as supported charity health care for others through giving (my 10% of income supports the largest private hospital system in the world). They help everyone, including you and me. No need to thank me son.

Did you check out the charitywatch website and see for yourself how donated money is spent? Or are you still thinking about that Corvette?

Bigstupid,

Hopefully, you will not accept Medicare and Medicaide assistance nor Social Security Disability just when God does not smile on your health.

The three individuals to have donated the most to charity in the history of the United States--Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and Andrew Carnegie--have all been atheists or agnostics, despite the fact that we make up a comparatively small percentage of the population. It was Carnegie who said:

"I don’t believe in God. My god is patriotism. Teach a man to be a good citizen and you have solved the problem of life."

If atheists are supposed to be uncharitable, Mr. Land, why did this atheist donate more to charity than any Christian who has ever lived in our country? Why is the largest private charity in the world the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, run by a man who has told interviewers he does not believe in God, Christianity or the human soul?

You ask--where are the atheist charities? They are all around you. UNICEF, the United Way, the American Red Cross (that's the red cross referring to the Swiss flag, not to the cross of Jesus), all nonreligious in nature. Atheists do not found charities in the name of atheism because atheism is not a creed or an organization. We found charities--the largest in the world, in fact--in the name of humanity.

And these little smear campaigns of yours are not going to save your church.

If there is a Hell, then I'll bet that evangelicals and fundamentalists are going first.

Russell D - Father O'Marlowe is as much a menace as Pastor Deacon Fred at Landover Batist Church. Google and see.

FATHER O'MARLOWE writes:
"Mr Mark.

I am sorry my wisdom does not resonate with you.

Perhaps you are just not ready for the truth."

More parody...I hope.

BTW - I've come up with a new definition for the word "truth" based on religion:

religious "truth" - an unproven and unprovable assertion that is fervently held despite a total lack of evidence and/or in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Father O'Marlowe:

That was the most degrading and self deluded rant I have ever heard. Instead of asking thos questions, you should be looking at yourself, and wonder why you still have a job teaching people about Christ.

Dear Big Stupid -

So, you're thinking of a career in the non-profit world. Expect a salary about 33-50% less than what you make in a comparable private-sector position. As we say in the non-profit world, "not-for-profit begins at home."

Also - be prepared to have multiple bosses. They're called "Board of Directors."

Be prepared for small-town politics, even in the largest urban centers. Most non-profits are hotbeds of warring fiefdoms.

Be prepared to change jobs quite often. Non-profit salaries are based on operating budgets, and as operating budgets rarely rise significantly in most non-profits, the salary you start at will be very close to the salary you end at. Development officers (fund raisers) have a life expectancy of 18 months at any given institution, primarily because they must move to a larger institution to up their salary. The pattern is get a job - be successful at that job - parlay that success into a better-paying job somewhere else. That's just the way it works.

If you are a process-oriented person, be prepared to start from scratch with a staff that prefers to wing it most of the time (this is less of a problem at larger and more-established non-profits).

If you have been working exclusively in the private sector, expect the sense of resentment from the career non-profitists about your private-sector experience to be in direct proportion to your success level. There is a real sense of "us v them" in the non-profit world that can be overcome with success in the non-profit world, but it takes time. Most non-profit staffs I have worked with tend to look at private-sector types as carpetbaggers who haven't the love and passion for the non-profit that the careerists do. You'll need to earn respect in non-profit just as you do in the private sector.

For all the nuts-and-bolts mentioned above, you can make up for the frustrations by doing something you really enjoy while being on the positive side of the human experience ledger. While you may tear your hair out all day at the office, at the end of the day (or week or months!) you'll feel good about the good you're doing.

I find it depressing that so many heathens are allowed to comment here,and write the most outrageous blasphemies.Whatever is happening to our world that heathens and atheists are given scope to
express their anti-christ ideas? What if our children see this? Where will it end? My fear is it will end in a cruel and selfish world,that will perhaps destroy everything that Religion gave us.
Maybe another Flood would be timely,if there is no other alternative. And you have only yourselves to blame.

Mr Mark.

I am sorry my wisdom does not resonate with you.

Perhaps you are just not ready for the truth.

I'll be mentioning you in my prayers to the Almighty.

Peace and love, F.O.

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated

"When said person gives $40,000 to charity, it can in many cases never get to the persons in need because of bureacratic overheads/mismanagement."

Excuses, excuses-- like I said, if you don't wnat to give you can always find a reason not to. Sounds exactly like someone with no experience on the subject. To get some just check out the link below:

http://www.charitywatch.org/toprated.html

Here are their criteria: "The mission categories below list charities which get high grades from AIP for putting 75% or more towards program cost while generally spending $25 or less to raise $100. These groups also receive an “open book” credit from AIP for willingly sending the financial documents we request."

There are loads of watchdog resources, including the one above, so you can check out a prospective charity and see exactly how effective and transparent they are with donations. They operate today as open books because they have to. Notice that they represent an entire range, secular, religious, left, right, and just about every advocacy and support issue imaginable.

BTW, did you ever stop to think that your money that the govenment pours into relief is far more likely not to find its ways to the intended needy than private charities?

When a person buys a red Corvette for $40,000, said person is providing gainful employment to thousands of GM workers and like employees of GM suppliers.

When said person gives $40,000 to charity, it can in many cases never get to the persons in need because of bureacratic overheads/mismanagement.

Bottom line: buy two red Corvettes and feel good about it.

"2. I happen to work in the non-profit industry, so I already spend 40+ hours a week helping secular non-profits. Do I need to do more?"

Hey Mr. Mark, I am in no position to tell anyone what they need to do-- I just set a baseline derived from general Christian charity practices (LDS, Catholic, Baptist, etc.) for discussion. I greatly admire the choices you have made. But I was thinking of your question here as I too am comtemplating such a move. I know that I would be making a good deal less money than now if I were to do so, and I would expect that the switch to a service calling is another way of giving. My experience is that there are very few clock-watchers in non-profits, and those doing the lifting in them-- secular or religious-- certainly aren't doing it for the money.

"2. I happen to work in the non-profit industry, so I already spend 40+ hours a week helping secular non-profits. Do I need to do more?"

Hey Mr. Mark, I am in no position to tell anyone what they need to do-- I just set a baseline derived from general Christian charity practices (LDS, Catholic, Baptist, etc.) for discussion. I greatly admire the choices you have made. But I was thinking of your question here as I too am comtemplating such a move. I know that I would be making a good deal less money than now if I were to do so, and I would expect that the switch to a service calling is another way of giving. My experience is that there are very few clock-watchers in non-profits, and those doing the lifting in them-- secular or religious-- certainly aren't doing it for the money.

Dear Father O'Marlowe -

Geez, I hope that's a parody you just posted: a formula for ignorance and the worship of the same that proves - once again - that faith is the most-overrated commodity in the world and a bad excuse for the social criminalization of the intellect.

Egads! You scared me for a moment!

Yes Hitchins is foolish if he thinks a little logic will stand bteween me and my God.
The reason my faith is so secure is that I know it is on another level from logic and reason and overrated rationalism.
There's more to life than making sense. Sense is for the weak and unsteady.
The highest virtue is accorded those who believe in the least likely,and the most seemingly irrational.
Any fool can believe in logic and earthly common sense.
It takes a man of true Faith to believe in the apparently ridiculous.
The Lord understands because he is The Lord.
Sincerely,F.O.

Mr. Mark, thanks! I think you have covered it well. I had worked as a Scout leader while my son was active. I respct the fact that you object to their stand on the issue and chose to shift your giving. And I completely empathize with cutting back based on family circumstances. You are absolutely correct: we both wish people would do more and I truly appreciate how much you have done. We are all called to serve; what we consider the source of that call is less important than our response.

I further wish that those who do little or noting would stop bashing those who do so much and start thinking instead about why there is such a gap here. My experience has been that if you get past the stereotypes, media-hype and political agenda-driven biases out there you will find that the rank-and-file faithful give an awful lot. If secularists and atheists criticize and condemn them without first demonstrating the same sense of compassion, caring and giving, they have little credibility on the subject. It's a twist on the old adage: "those who don't have nothing to teach."

People can always find an excuse not to help. The litany of them is pretty well covered in many of the 260 other posts here. My hope is that the other group who doesn't give is inspired enough to ultimately prove Brooks, Land and others wrong.

E-something, I see you still don't get it. Those are minimums that religious people consider, not the norm. We are called to do more. How do you answer that call? We're here to help you.

Dear Big Stupid -

Having read your posts, I have some questions and observations:

1. Donating 10% of gross income to charity. I know that Xians are supposed to tithe 10% to their church, but are you implying that they also donate an ADDITIONAL 10% to charity? I don't think so. I think you are considering the 10% that they tithe to their church to be a 100% donation "to charity." It isn't. That 10% tithe goes primarily to pay for the expenses of running the church, from the minister's salary to turning on the lights to buying communion wine. That's not charity, that operating costs of the church they belong to.

If you consider the church to be a charity in and of itself, then any contribution to any tax-exempt entity should also be considered charity. Ergo, if I contribute a combined 10% of my gross income to the local opera company, orchestra and ballet troupe, I should consider that my "10% donation to charity" is covered.

2. I happen to work in the non-profit industry, so I already spend 40+ hours a week helping secular non-profits. Do I need to do more?

My observation is that both you and I wish that Americans were more philanthropical across the board. I give what I can, but with a family of four in this economy, I've cut back on my giving. Also, I refuse to donate to any organization that is religious-based, that promotes a religious agenda or that discriminates against people in any way. For instance, the United Way used to be a big funder of the Boy Scouts, but since the scouts have decided to openly discriminate against gays, UW chapters across the country have stopped funding them. But you need to know what the UW is doing in your county, because they may still support the scouts. The UW in my county does support the BSA, so they get no donations from me.

In other words, atheists like myself have to do their homework before donating, at least if our positions are to have any meaning. That's not an excuse for not donating, it's just an explanation of the process.

As far as the religious giving more to charities, including secular charities - you and I both know that people who give to one charity are more likely to give to another simply because giving is a good thing to do and it makes one feel good to do it. More importantly, the bulk of philanthropic giving in the USA is directed to religious institutions, fully 32.8% of giving in 2006. Next comes health & human services (16.9%) and educational institutions (13.9%). At the bottom of the scale are giving to environmental & animal funds (2.2%), international affairs (3.8%) and the arts (4.2%). (Source: http://sforce.benevon.com/images/GivingUSA2007.htm )

I point this out because the fact is that the scale is so tilted in this country toward religious giving that it's only natural that those givers would be more likely to make an additional donation to a secular fund than would a non-giver be likely to give anything to anyone. Giving begets more giving. The trick is turning people into givers to begin with, and here the religious have a built-in model for nurturing giving (must give the devil his due on this one).

HOWEVER, the truth is that most of those "second-tier" donations by the religious go to hospitals and colleges (almost always their alma mater), and most hospitals and colleges are considered secular institutions. In short, that $88 that the religious are giving to "non-religious charities" is most likely a donation to their alma mater's college fund or the local hospital's annual fund. It isn't to some atheistic, secular-oriented institution.

Statistics are important and fun, but there's always more to them than appears on the surface.

Thanks for the info and the chat.

BigStupid - If spending time on this board is an indicator of how little charity work one does, you're way behind.

Please consider practicing what you preach.

Thanks DZ, that's great. God bless you.

I would just suggest qualifying church contributions based on the format of the church itself. For example, if a church runs schools, hospitals, foodbanks, hospices, shelters, etc.

BigStupid

First, I've read Brooks' stuff, and it is parhetically biased and, IMHO, not very well documented.

But, as to your challenge: I am an atheist, raised as such and at age 60 still there. I have given more than 10% of my gross income to charity for more than 40 years. I cannot give blood, because I had malaria when I was 18. I work 12 hours per month for the local food bank. I also work 6 hours per month for a local theatre, but that doesn't really help people in need so can't really be counted - just as working in your church can't be counted unless it directly contributes to something other then operating the church.

Its a matter of opinion whether or not there is a God.
My opinion is that there is a God.
There is no proof,not even any evidence.But I believe anyway.
Its more virtuous believing when theres no evidence.
any fool can believe in the real.
It takes a man of faith to believe in the irrational.
God be with you.

"It will be interesting to see if these findings influence anyone to re-think their biases and charity ethics as it did with Brooks, or if they will just want to shoot the messenger especially as this one's message comes with an awfully high price tag and challenge should it be true."

In skimming through the posts, I noticed that the actual numbers from Land's sources-- as well as those sources themselves-- were not mentioned by anyone previously.

So here's a "modest proposal" to raise the bar now that there are more data points. How about if anyone is going to post on this subject from this point on they first disclose whether or not they are giving in the three areas mentioned earlier:

1. 10% of gross income (before taxes) to any charity, secular or religious
2. a pint of blood (health/faith permitting, the second to accommodate Jehovah's Witnesses and similar) three times a year
3. at least eight hours a month (one full work day) to a non-profit service organization, secular or religious

The deduction questions are covered in his research. I can tell you in my case it is not my motivation (I would be more ahead if I did not give as much income based on the current tax structure. As summarized in the Catalyst review, Brooks writes: "and contrary to what many people believe, charitable giving cannot be explained by tax breaks afforded by the IRS. Only 20 percent of those who give to charities do so because of a tax deduction; 80 percent give because 'those who have more should give to those who have less.' "

Keep in mind that there are also the other common donation methods Brooks covers that can't be claimed, such as time working with non-profits, giving blood, large personal gifts to local needy people, etc. Those giving their incomes rate much higher in those categories as well.

More from the Catalyst review: Brooks details that "an average secularist nongiver earns 16 percent more money each year than a religious giver." (His emphasis.) Yet secular liberals "are 19 percent points less likely to give each year than religious conservatives, and 9 percent less likely than the population in general."

It will be interesting to see if these findings influence anyone to re-think their biases and charity ethics as it did with Brooks, or if they will just want to shoot the messenger especially as this one's message comes with an awfully high price tag and challenge should it be true.

But are these religious types doing it just for the tax deductions??? Hmmmm, one wonders what would happen if charitable contributions of money, time and goods were not deductible.

Another good summary of some highlights from Who Really Cares, from The Chronicle of Philanthropy: The Newsletter of the Nonprofit World, by Ben Gose Those who are a bit familiar with nonprofits (aka as "givers") will know this is considered a non-political and agenda-free source.

Seems like Land's real crime (and the source of all the hysteria and invective here) is in his using this data to expose the fact that in this case the emperor not only has no clothes but also has no business telling anyone else how to dress.

http://www.philanthropy.com/free/articles/v19/i04/04001101.htm

"His [Brooks'] initial research for Who Really Cares revealed that religion played a far more significant role in giving than he had previously believed. In 2000, religious people gave about three and a half times as much as secular people — $2,210 versus $642. And even when religious giving is excluded from the numbers, Mr. Brooks found, religious people still give $88 more per year to nonreligious charities.

"He writes that religious people are more likely than the nonreligious to volunteer for secular charitable activities, give blood, and return money when they are accidentally given too much change.

'There is not one measurably significant way I have ever found in which religious people are not more charitable than nonreligious people,' Mr. Brooks says. 'The fact is, if it weren't for religious people in your community, the PTA would shut down.' "

http://www.catholicleague.org/catalyst.php?year=2007&month=September&read=2289

For those without the time to read the book Land is citing in his article-- the one that apparently has everyone getting defensive here-- above is a good essay covering the essentials of Arthur Brooks' Who Really Cares? Brooks started out with the same assumptions as many others: liberals must be interested in helping the poor since they talk so much about it. The results are quite the opposite, much to his surprise. He, at least, was intellectually honest enough to change his mind. No wonder so many are afraid of his findings.

It will be a challenge for many, but tough it out and enjoy the read. Brooks is a professor of public administration at Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs.

To quote from the linked essay/review, Brooks' work is ranked with "Paul Johnson's 1988 best-seller, Intellectuals, and Peter Schweizer's more recent book, Do As I Say (Not As I Do). Johnson detailed the unbelievable hy-pocrisy of some of the West's greatest minds, from Marx and Rousseau to Sartre and Lillian Hellman; Schweizer did the same with today's celebrities, from Michael Moore and Hillary Clinton to Barbara Streisand and Edward Kennedy." Again, tough stuff if your liberal mind is inflexible-- you know, hard-wired the way conservatives supposedly are.

E-whatever: So prove him wrong by doing some good yourself. Or do you just another one who "talks the talk?"

And remember that part of doing good is humbling oneself in the process. What I call myself is unimportant. You might worry more about what others are going to call you when your time comes. So what are you waiting for? What good are YOU doing? Get offline and get going while you still can make a difference. You're not making one here.

Again, prove him wrong by doing some good. And remember that part of doing good is humbling oneself in the process. What I call myself is unimportant. It is what they are going to call you when your judgement comes. What are you waiting for? Get offline and get going while you still can make a difference.

"Land is simply quoting valid research which indicates that people of faith are better adjusted and give far more of their time, money, blood, and everything else, than the unchurched"

I think I know why you call yourself Bigstupid.

Land is simply quoting valid research which indicates that people of faith are better adjusted and give far more of their time, money, blood, and everything else, than the unchurched. So here's a great way to prove him wrong: any atheist or secularist is qualified to compare themselves to any seriously religious person if they are doing these three things: turning over 10% of their gross income (that's before taxes) to charity, donating a pint of their own blood (health/faith permitting) three times a year, and giving at least eight hours a month (one full work day) to a non-profit service organization. Can you lead by example? Or would you rather keep blogging away and "talking the talk"?

I hope Richard Land reads these comments and understands why his column is absolutely wrong. But conservatives have difficulty changing their views to fit new information, religionists even more so, and conservative religionists (like Land) most of all. See this study that shows the difference between the brains of conservatives and liberals:

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-politics10sep10,0,5982337.story?coll=la-home-center

You could explain to a conservative religionist all day how a lion is a species of cat, and he would still insist it's a kind of dog if his religion told him so.

In response to; where are the Atheist children homes, orphanages? The answer is easy. There would be these places if they could afford them. And the reason they can't afford them is, Atheists don't have the nerve to falsely sell eternity, and swim in the profits.

To reiterate:

Rev. Land,

You asked:

"Where are the great atheist-sponsored charitable and reform movements?"

They are USA taxpayers who happen not to believe in God but support the following:

Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security Disability, No Child Left Behind programs, HUD, WIC (The supplemental nutrition program for women, infants and children), State Children's Health Insurance Program, known as SCHIP, Food Stamps, Veterans' hospitals and benefits, Federal and state earned income tax credits, FEMA, Peace Corps, America Corps, NEA, Federal, state and local educational programs, Public Schools, Public libraries, etc.

LOCOMOCO sez:
"Those who are citing Doctors without Borders, Amnesty International, Oxfam, etc. are comparing apples and oranges. The original question was: Where are the AVOWEDLY atheist organized charities? Y'know, like the "Atheists Childrens' Fund".

"But those who insist that this settles the matter are likewise begging the original question: Where are the avowedly atheist ORGANIZED charities?"

More linear thinking.

80-90% of Americans identify themselves as religious. Religious-based charities know this and make an effort to include an obvious clue as to how they are religious-based, Ex: Christian Children's Fund. Such labeling helps them raise money. Sticking with religious-based charities in the USA, I would imagine that a charity with the word "Christian" in it would easily raise more money than a charity with the word "Muslim" or "Wiccan" in it. Indeed, a charity with the word "Christian" in it will appeal to a broader base of religious types than would a charity with a sectarian label like "Catholic" or "Baptist."

Atheists are held in contempt in this country by the religious. What success would an organization that called itself "Atheist" have in raising money from the general populace? I'd imagine none.

The framing of the question by Land and Loco clearly shows their prejudice and stilted thinking. While religionists all organize around their particular interpretations of their magic books, atheists don't do so. Stamp collectors may well organize a charity to help disadvantaged fellow stamp collectors, but that doesn't mean that a-collectors could also organize under the banner of not collecting stamps to aid those who also don't collect stamps. In short, there's no reason for atheists to organize a charity under the banner of atheism anymore than there would be a reason for Land to organize a charity under the banner of his not playing soccer.

Rev Land likes having it both ways. First, by defining non-believers as "atheists" by viewing them through the prism of his fantasy world, and then condemning them for not organizing themselves along the lines of the organizations that Land says they aren't like.

One may as well condemn the local ballet company for not winning any Super Bowls.

Those who are citing Doctors without Borders, Amnesty International, Oxfam, etc. are comparing apples and oranges. The original question was: Where are the AVOWEDLY atheist organized charities? Y'know, like the "Atheists Childrens' Fund".

Individuals of all beliefs/nonbeliefs contribute time, talent and treasure individually. I would never be so presumptuous as to suggest that nonbelievers do this less frequently or less generously than believers.

But those who insist that this settles the matter are likewise begging the original question: Where are the avowedly atheist ORGANIZED charities?

(Indeed, a number of nonbeliever respondents above have stated that they contribute to faith-based charities because they are well-organized and effective.)

Surely you folks who cited the above-listed organizations (and many others) are not suggesting that atheism is part of these organizations' charters, or that there are no believers among their ranks?

The mention of the Red Cross above merits some special attention, given that its symbol is generally viewed as a Christian one. (The symbols of its Middle Eastern counterparts -- the crescent and the star of David -- echo this imagery.)

Clara Barton herself was blessed with an inquiring mind that did not reject any possibilities. Her personal beliefs evolved over the course of her life, but a 1905 letter to a friend seems to land her in the camp of the believers:

"Your belief that I am a Universalist is as correct as your greater belief that you are one yourself, a belief in which all who are privileged to possess it rejoice. In my case, it was a great gift, like St. Paul, I 'was born free', and saved the pain of reaching it through years of struggle and doubt."

My old rockribbed Maine-Baptist-turned-Episcopalian priest told me at an early age, "It isn't only Christians who are supposed to perform good works. Charity is the responsibility of all decent humans." Amen.

Doctors without borders?
The Red Cross?
The Nobel Peace Price?

How religiously motivated are these helping hands?

How about secular countries, where most people are NOT religious? My country, Norway, for instance, is considered non-partisan in most of the world, we have the role as negotiator in numerous countries, Sri Lanka etc, The Oslo agreement is also about as close as the middle east has ever been to peace, eventually it failed of course, but it was an effort, was that religiously motivated? No.

The reason you dont see atheist fundraisers in the US is

1. There is no reason to "sponsor" fundraising or helping people with a label ,