Installing mind control chips in people's brains could also be "a force for good" if the person in charge of the mind control chips just ordered everyone to be nice to each other and then left them alone.

Unfortunately the fact that you've installed a mind control chip in the first place presents the small problem of the potential for someone who would give different instructions getting their hands on the controls.



Religion has a similar problem. It actively and aggressively undermines rational thought and encourages obedience to commands and dogma based on faith alone that the person or organization or holy text communicating those instructions is accurately reflecting the will of some supreme entity whose actual wishes can never possibly be verified... and whose motivations are claimed to be beyond human comprehension but nonetheless invariably stemming from judgement far superior to that of some measly human, which means human judgement is by definition insufficient to second guess that entities wishes.


Which is bad. Period. No matter how many isolated instances of anecdotal evidence anyone wants to dig up of the people at the control panel telling everyone to be nice to each other.

And yes, "bigotry" is the correct word.

Many of the atheists who infest this forum dislike it when their bigotry is pointed out. I have been reported multiple times for this, because on DU, anti-religious bigotry is perfectly acceptable, but saying "this is a piece of bigotry" is not. It's my one major objection to DU, since it seems hypocritical.

You have zero credibility - you nuked it all!

But thanks for your post, I really needed a good laugh!

liars and trolls make accusations of "bigotry" that they can't back up with one shred of actual evidence. That's the only "infestation" that there's a problem with in this room.

But I'm sure YOU have evidence to back up your claims of bigotry, not just lame hand-waving and saying "it's out there..I already gave it!". Put up or shut up. Point to bigoted posts. Right now.

You don't want to admit it. And you want to repeat the slander that I am a liar -- which, as I proved from actual quotation, I am not. But libeling your opponents is a way of not answering them honestly.

is your apparent inability to understand that "bigotry" doesn't mean "a statement I don't agree with."

Oh, at least some of you atheists hate me because I denounce your bigotry for what it is. You falsely accuse me of lying, and literally laughed it off when I proved BY ACTUAL QUOTATATION that I had not lied. But then, dishonesty is part and parcel of your schtick, yours and skepticscott's and one or two others.

Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats or views other people with fear, distrust or hatred on the basis of a person's ethnicity, evaluative orientation, race, religion, national origin, gender, gender identity, disability, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics.

n did nothing of the sort.

"treats or views other people"

Whoops. Fucked up there, didn't you?

And more "I already proved that!!" You've been calling people here bigots for a long time, Stretch. Is that post of mine seriously the best and only example you have of actual bigotry? Really?

Sad. Pathetic, actually.

"Religion ... actively and aggressively undermines rational thought" is not bigoted. It is saying that religious people are incapable of rational thought because they are religious.

Come on, Scott, show me that is not bigoted.

But I see why you are so desperate to construe it that way.

From your definition of bigotry:

Which is a pretty disgusting stretch/misconstrual.

The person/place/thing distinction seemed simple enough.

of rational thought..but nowhere else, Stretch.

Seriously..that's the MOST bigoted statement you could dredge up out of years of posting by all of the alleged atheist bigots in here? I can see why you feel like you're up to your ass in bigots..

Oh, I can come up with far more bigoted statements. I just did a search for "religion ruins everything", and it gave me 73 returns. Admittedly, some of them were duplicates, but it seems to be a popular meme among at least some DU atheists. So is the repeated allegation that religion and insanity are congruent.

And, of course, your belief that religious people are incapable of rational thought.

No, at least some DU atheists are bigots, and you are defending them.

What a shock.

Apparently, you have no problem doing so. What a shock.

But thank you for finally admitting your bigotry.

Turning God into Big Brother from 1984 and justifying it in the name of "God's testing us to see if we obey" disconnects morality from the consequences of actions, and promotes ignoring or demonizing victims. It's a power grab for the gatekeepers declaring themselves the purest of them all.

It pins morality to an external entity, one whose "true nature" is unknown to all.

Because they claim that what God means by "love" is not what we mean by love. Other kinds of religion don't do that, and see God as love in the mundanity of helping whoever around you happens to need help, regardless of their supposed purity or group affiliation.

But then comes your question, how do we choose? Well, how would you personally like to be treated? "Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you."

would interpret the golden rule?

They proclaim do not murder, then murder abortion providers. They call it murder, until they or their daughter or wife needs an abortion. They call it murder, but don't believe in inherent rights to things like food, water, or healthcare. They believe in a inherent right to life, but not for women if they get pregnant. They believe that whether to take life is a prudential decision that can be proper if its war or capital punishment, but no circumstance justifies an abortion.

By their fruits, you will know them.

In theirs, they are protecting the unborn. Getting into the politics of welfare is completely irrelevant to this topic. They believe they are preventing the murder of a defenseless baby.

So while you judge them based on your own interpretation of your holy text, they are simply doing the same thing to you.

Last edited Wed Jun 18, 2014, 11:00 AM - Edit history (1)

They altered the way the Bible had been translated for centuries because it undercut their anti-cboice politics.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/03/22/mischief-follows-in-partisan-bible-translations/

Nothing new there.

because any reason you could give me for agreeing with you would just be your opinion again, with no authority for anyone but you. Thanks for the discussion, and have a good one!

I wish more religious people could realize that their beliefs are just that.

Whether it is the Lutheran/Calvinist traditions that stipulate faith is the path to salvation, or the Catholic tradition that good works as well as faith are required, there is little practical difference between how the major Christian sects treat morality. Their model is essentially a carrot on a stick; do the right thing, and you'll be rewarded.

I think we can agree doing the right thing because you expect a reward isn't quite the same thing as doing the right thing because it is the right thing to do.

Going further, as Trotsky mentioned, there is also the problem of viewing morality as externally mandated and absolute, and this problem is exacerbated by the relatively simple and poorly formed moral mandates expressed in the Bible. Take "Thou shalt not kill", just as an example. Ostensibly, the rule makes sense. Most of us would agree, I think, that killing people is wrong. But is killing wrong under every conceivable circumstance? What if you needed to kill a person to save the lives of many more? Or, less theoretically, what about abortion? The Christian model of ethics doesn't leave any wiggle room for these considerations. In both scenarios, taking a life, an action that may help more than it hinders, is absolutely wrong.

And, just as a carrot awaits those who do good, an eternal spanking of epic proportions awaits those who do bad. While I would argue the fear of hell does about as much to deter people from doing bad things as does the death penalty, it can produce intense guilt in good people who feel they have done wrong.

For another example, I give you my late grandfather. A staunch Catholic, he was drafted into the Army in 1941, and landed in Normandy on D-Day +6. For the next year or so, he killed people. And, what's worse, he knew he killed people. The last time I saw him, a week before he died of liver cancer, he was absolutely terrified. Not of death, but of Hell. Because "Thou shalt not kill" doesn't say shit about defending yourself with lethal force when you're surrounded by Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS.

I'm sorry, but the Christian models of morality are fundamentally broken. We can, and have, done better.

unknowable by declaring that the standard (love) does not have the same meaning for the standard producer (God) as it does for us. A tradition that asserted that God could be known better through reason would not have the same issue, because now morality is tied in to this world, not arbitrary and unconnected with everyday meaning.

Now, regarding what you are saying about rewards, it depends on what we mean by reward. If "reward" means "money, power, status, etc." that does have a different standing than if it means "building a community of love for you and everyone else to live in" or "strengthening the habit of being a better person". To do something without any kind of return, internal or external, in mind is to act senselessly.

You mentioned morality as externally mandated and absolute. Here again it depends on what we mean by "external" and "absolute". Suppose I decide as a matter of logic that murder is wrong. Is that an internal standard or an external standard? I didn't invent logic, so it could be external, but nobody is pointing a gun at my head telling me to do it, so it could be internal.

And with "absolute", does my logical rule against murder apply whether a person is rich or poor, whether they live in America or Timbuktu? Yes, because logic abstracts and universalizes. But suppose someone orders you to murder or they will kill your family? Well, we could make an exception, but that would also be an absolute rule, because the exception would exist for everyone as well.

So really, declaring "external, absolute" rules anathema turns out to be too simple.

Do you know what your grandfather's perspective was on the Catholic teachings concerning forgiveness, and did he ask any priest, theologian, Catholic philosopher, or spiritual director about his misgivings?

...I would refer you to Matt Daillhunty on the "Superiority of Secular Morality".

that many, many, many people are a part of. Why do you try to make it sound like that kind of religion is something only practiced on other planets, but is completely disconnected from real life here on the planet most of us actually inhabit?

Anything else you got out of what I said wasn't put there by me.

Here we have the predictable results when a religious group builds schools in Ghana.

http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/two-ghana-schools-expel-53-students-being-gay190413


It carries baggage. There are unintended distortions. Not always readily or immediately apparent.

Conservatives are losing the fight here, so they rush to export their hate, kind of like tobacco companies trying to hook the rest of the world in response to anti-smoking campaigns in the USA.

WOW.

That is the most deadly accurate metaphor I have seen in days, and it put words to a concept I couldn't articulate. That's EXACTLY how I would describe what I have observed.

Thank you for that.

I can understand the emotion behind it though.

Personally, I'd just nationalize the schools and kick the church out. But the current government doesn't appear to really want to help on this issue, so that's not going to happen.

People who happen to be religious (as most people are) doing good things. Not "religion". And what's the response from the religionists here when yet another of the countless examples of religious people doing bad things is brought up? That's just what people do. Religion is just and excuse, and if it weren't for religion, they'd just find another excuse to hate and kill each other. Etc. Etc. Funny how the same thinking is forgotten when they're trying to tout the good that "religion" does.

Is there even one thing on this list that could not have been done without belief in a supernatural being? Are the people involved doing these things simply because they're the right things to do, or only because they think their "god" expects it of them, and will be displeased and punish them if they don't do them?

But not as well. This could be people with freckles doing good things.

1) No, a lot of things aren't being done - by the non-religious OR the religious.

2) Do you have any evidence or is it just your opinion that without religion, none of the items would be done, or that overall things would be worse?

Providing a safe space for LGBT youth and allies

Saint Luke's Church, an Episcopalian church in New York City, has a number of outreach programs, including "The Church," which provides a safe space for LGBTQ youth and their allies on Saturday nights. Featuring art workshops, hot meals, social services and a non-judgmental atmosphere, The Church is committed to providing support for young people in need.

Congratulation to your congregation. Sounds like a fantastic program.

Are you involved in it?

We use professionals.

Why is it that if the charity is offered by a religion it seems to attract special praise? Would Medicine Sans Frontiers or Shelterbox or Sightsavers be praised as being a secular for the work they do?

The problem with any charity offered by a religious group is that all too often a quid pro quo in the shape of favour being shown to that faith and often this is "why don't you come to one of our services ..." The unspoken assumption of religious charity organisations is that they are providing this help either as a duty to God or because of His inspiration. At the core is often the assumption that humans "cannot be good without God."

it is a recognition of the kinds of things that religious groups do in this country (and around the world).

Of course non-religious organizations can do these things. There is no suggestion that they can't.

But they often don't.

When secular and governmental agencies fully step up to the plate and fill all the gaping holes in safety net that many of these organizations do, there may be a reason to be critical of them being recognized as religious.

While there is the chance that these groups will do some recruiting, they often do not. I have worked for and with many religiously based organizations that not only didn't do it, but prohibited anyone from working there from doing it.

Sometimes they are just driven by goodness but funded by religion.

(This is from a sub-thread about that Catholic Charities organization).

Checked the financial data. Most of the federal $ were disaster relief, HUD, commodities, etc.

Hurricane Katrina
Hurricane Sandy
Mid-west floods
Tornadoes

Housing assistance

Food and clothing assistance

Employment skills training programs

And, as with most governmental grants, they come with standard reporting requirements -
financial data on the grants' uses. The When, Where, What, Who and Why. Along with documented outcomes.

These funds appear targeted to situations where the public, private and religious sectors were all needed to support those directly impacted.

But cbayer repetitively smears the government and secular groups for "not stepping up to the plate" when that's patently false.

Nothing you posted here disputes what I cited, nor proves her correct.

I don't sign on to DU to read putrid right-wing memes about government ineffectiveness regurgitated.

Those grants go to a wide range of organizations. And, yeah, sometimes govt provides services directly. Same with secular organizations. Sometimes it takes all three - govt, secular and religious to meet the various needs in a situation.

(aside) I do a bit of grant writing, so that's where I'm coming from. My intent isn't to dispute you, trotsky, or prove cbayer correct.

I like to add some input if I feel I have something pertinent to contribute. Find it awkward, at times, with such a personalized atmosphere.

"filling the gaping holes" and "stepping up to the plate" for a failed government?

Do you agree that's a pretty lousy thing to have to read on a progressive website?

Don't insult me by trying to play that game.

I'm going to confront and disprove harmful right-wing memes wherever I see them.

You say it better than I could.

Didn't mean to insult you at all. And that's probably as far as I'm comfortable going on with this discussion. I'm not going to buy in to this long running personal squabble.

Support your efforts to confront RW memes.

"I'm not going to buy in to this long running personal squabble."

It's no squabble when I see someone buying into and worse - promoting right wing lies on this site. I want to contain the spread of bullshit. So either admit you're butting in repeatedly to defend your personal friend's statements, or do as you CLAIM you want to do, and stay away.

But hey, when has the logical fallacy of the Straw Man stopped Trotsky from attacking religion? Or when has mere fact stopped him either?

I love it, you are so funny!

What I actually said is that why should a religious charity attract special praise - emphasis added.

Secular charities do excellent work yet for some reason we are expected to give special status to religions doing such work when often (but not always) they expect a quid pro quo for their work or use it as a foundation for spreading the word.

They're charities, they do certain work: why should what they claim is the source of their goodness be of any importance? Why do they highlight their religion as the reason for their works?

Simple empathy and caring are sufficient reasons for secular charities. If these human emotions the drivers of the work done by these highlighted religions why bring religion into it at all?

Religious charities do wonderful work in this nation and world and the design of this article was to let people know that.

My parish is mentioned in here. We do a lot of good that others in the neighborhood because of the need.

Such charity does not justify religion and indeed saying that these are examples of "good" religion implies that there is much religion that is "not good"

It is irrelevant.

In fact all it does is dig the pit a bit deeper saying, in effect, that in general religions are not in the business of doing good.

Things are posted here all the time about how bad religion is. This is an article showing religion at its best.

Gods know there are enough posts here blaming everything from the bubonic plague to mass murder of infants on religion. Why shouldn't the opposite view get some exposure? Does that make you uncomfortable in some way?

And I'll add a note of experience here. Like pinto, I have done some grant writing, both for individual non-profits (most of them not religious) and for local government. It doesn't happen so much with the independent agencies, but local government admistration of grants and allocation of their resources can be incredibly corrupt. Things like air conditioners and fans intended for low-income homes going only to supporters of a particular politician. Or two-hundred dollar gift baskets from contractors at holidays for the head of the department who administers the home improvement grants and awards the contracts. Sickening.

- if I parse them incorrectly then tell me and I'll try to correct.

First my point is that the praise is going to these bodies not for the good works but because they are religions doing these works. The thing is any group can do these works so what, specifically, does being religious bring to the table?

You wonder why religions cannot attract praise for these works when, as far as you can see, they receive nothing but blame. The difficulty with that is that for 1,500 or more years the monotheistic faiths have been taking credit for good works and denying responsibility for the bad*. It is time to praise people for good works and not for the moral or ethical philosophy or theology that those people believe enabled them..

Your final paragraph I do find quite confusing. If I am right you are saying that corruption is endemic in the governmental administration of charitable giving; now I am sure that this is true but that goes to a culture where kick backs and political game playing are rarely punished. Now, the quid pro quo that I was talking about was is the the leverage to inveigle people into a church because the charity workers are from an associated church; remember the church worker does not only want to save the body, they want to save the soul.

[hr]

* The classic example is the claim by the Christian Churches that they preserved the learning of the Roman times, it is complicated but recent claims of the reality of that preservation do not hold water.

I see this article from an opposite angle. What I see here are religious groups being praised because they are doing good, not the other way around. I think anyone who undertakes the kind of outreach to marginalized populations these groups are doing deserves praise. One thing you might consider is that non-govs can undertake service projects that are not popular with the voters, whether it's distributing condoms and clean needles or feeding the homeless. My city had "a plan to end homelessness in XBurg in 10 years" 10 years ago. Guess what? Not only is there a larger homeless population than ever, the only agencies actually serving homeless people are church-based.

Yep, religions frequntly claim credit for the good they do and deny the bad. So do governments, private agencies, politicians and the guy who accidentally butchers your begonias while cutting the grass. That's human nature. So what?

I've inferred from your posts that you're in the UK, and I don't know what the norm is there. Here, churches regularly form separate non-profit agencies for the purpose of charitable work. These non-profits are explicitly forbidden by law to solicit the quid pro quo that concerns you. All government-originated grants and most grants from private foundations also explicitly forbid it.

But consider the title of the article "Yes, Religion Can Still Be A Force For Good In The World. Here Are 100 Examples How" (emphasis mine) and leave it there.

I have not suggested that "non-govs" should not do this work and this has to be linked back to the legislative environment in the UK which severely limits the ability of Churches to register as charities in their own right. Here secular charities are very much the norm and becoming a Charity requires registering with the Charities Commission. This body has to look at all groups wanting to register, looks at their funding and the proportion of income that is spent on administration, transport and fundraising (including advertising) compared to the amount spent on the object of the charity. IIRC at least 80% of the income has to go on the object of the charity. Accounts are supposed to be submitted every year with an auditors report, and complaints are tracked and usually investigated. If the charity does this then HMRC (the UK government tax collector similar to Internal Revenue) will:
1) entitle the Charity to "zero rating" on VAT (sales tax) so they can claim back VAT paid on capital items or consumables;
2) if the giver submits a claim form then the amount given is considered untaxed income and the tax goes to the Charity.

Onto the matter of denial of responsibility. Yes bureaucrats and sleazy businessmen will duck dodge and dive but Churches make a claim to moral superiority beyond a simple "you can trust me, they call me Honest Frank." Churches often claim that they can be trusted because they believe that infractions will be punished after death or in some case will claim that the source of all morals is the deity they worship.

Now the quid pro quo. I did not mean to suggest that attendance at was solicited as such but ...
The Salvation Army will offer food and accommodation to the indigent at their Citadel where a service might be held and "you are welcome to participate if you wish";
A group taking food to the starving in Africa make it clear that they can only do so if people of their particular faith are welcomed;
The food truck offering soup on the street has servers who say "God Bless you," with each serving and has leaflets advertising events at local churches, "where all are welcome;"
Medical help is provided by those dressed in religious garb or who are constantly invoking the name of their deity.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree.

For one thing, it's obvious that charities in the US and UK have very different interactions with their respective governments. And it's been obvious for decades that the UK government has done better with social justice issues than the US--from public health to equal marriage. The same could be said of differences between the US and most Western governments, and we've been further set back by eight years of Bush and some really bad fumbles in Obama's first term. With a continuing war in Western Asia, I don't see government financial priorities changing any time soon. That means even greater slack will have to be taken up by non-profits, including religious non-profits.

As for the rest, sorry. I just can't get worked up about it. I understand why religious organizations won't send their workers into areas where they're not safe. Doctors Without Borders won't do that, either. I see nothing wrong with an invitation to attend a religious, political or civic event, as long as acceptance is voluntary. I do know for a fact that church-based food pantries in my area neither ask someone's religion when registering a new client nor discriminate in food distribution. -

As for medics in religious garb--I was born, and lived for several years, in a country where clerical clothing was illegal in public.

Strangely enough, that did nothing whatsoever to change the religious demographics. It was and still is an overwhelmingly religious--and strongly anticlerical; the two attitudes co-exist peacefully--nation.

But more to the point, habited nuns who were also RN's saved my life when I was six. Many years later, habited nuns came running when my dad coded and saved his life. I really can't give a damn what they wore.

"they want to save the soul."

I'm not sure what your experiences are, but based on mine, your claim is way off the mark. It might be hard to believe, but some religious people actually want to help others, and "saving their soul" is pretty low on the list of real world problems.

It's unreasonable to expect someone to be extolled because they could do it also.

and, unwittingly, you are implying in your body text that secular organisations cannot be so extolled. I don't think you meant to say that but it is the implication.

You can infer all you want if you find your inferences comforting but what I said I said plainly with no implications.

Why then mention or congratulate their faith for these persons works?

Not to be Pauline about it.

But you are saying it is because of their works

(off topic and no need to answer "faith" or "works" for salvation ???)

My takeaway from looking at this sub-thread is that you somehow think that by highlighting good projects being done by religious organizations, that somehow that says something negative about non-secular groups or gives credit where credit is really not due.

If you were to post an article about the good works being done by secular organizations here, would it also be the case that that somehow that said something negative about religious organizations or grave credit where it is not due.

I would love to see an article about all the things being done by organized groups of non-believers and look forward to the day that gets posted. Seriously.

Highlighting the work done by charities because they are religious comes down to special pleading; in essence saying "we're religious, aren't we good?" This assumption of virtue is then used to evade responsibility for the cruelties inflicted by those within a religion on others. The dreadful Bon Secours nuns in Ireland were a charity doing good works because of their faith - except those supposed good works were tainted by the victimisation and ill treatment of those they were, supposedly, helping.

Secular charities do not highlight their (lack of) faith they just get on with the work - is it too much to expect religious charities to do the same? Charitable work should be praised because it is praiseworthy not because it is a duty expected by a deity.

Special pleading is a debate tactic and generally considered a logical fallacy.

The article highlights religious organizations that are doing good things, not organizations doing good things because they are religious. You have turned it around because, as best I can tell, you think the underlying message is that non-religious organizations don't do good things.

And there is no statement or assumption in doing this that in any way evades responsibility for the bad things that have been done by religious groups.

I'd say that might fall under a number of logical fallacies.

Some secular charities do highlight their lack of faith and I would love to see more and more of that.

These charities aren't patting themselves on the back. This is merely an article showing what kinds of things are happening within religious organizations of all kinds. It also says nothing about them doing it because it is a duty expected by a deity.

It's often easier for religious organizations to do these kinds of projects. They have organizations, leadership and often have access to funds and facilities.

During the AIDS crisis, there were articles about various LGBT groups doing good deeds, even though there were also agencies that were not LGBT based. Was that objectionable?

During the civil rights movement, there were articles about various AA groups doing good deeds, even though there were also non-AA groups. Was that objectionable?

Honestly, I think you are making a mountain out of a mole hole and seeing insult where there is none.

Let's give these people some credit for doing things I think we can all support and let's give equal credit, or even more, when we see non-religious groups stepping up to the plate.

charitable endeavors? I'm pretty sure the people being helped don't give a rat's ass why someone is helping, only that they're helping.

Why is it so important to you that belief or non-belief be paraded during these acts of human decency?

that the legitimacy of, and the need for, religion and "faith" be promoted and defended at all costs, no matter how much dishonesty and hypocrisy is required.

Or some such thing, maybe.

The article does not pat the charities on the back - the patting it does is of the religions. This is exactly what I object to, the division into religious and secular followed by the cheering of only the religious side.

You claim that it is easier for religious foundations to provide that help; but I highlighted secular groups who are hugely successful in the provision of aid and for all the faults Live Aid and its successors raised far more money than any religious group. Oxfam, one of the largest famine and disaster relief charities in the world is secular, although I will admit Quakers played a huge role in its foundation. The Red Cross is now secular (at least in the UK), Shelter has long ago dropped its associations with religion and I do not think the RNLI has ever been anything other than secular; what is more I pointed earlier to Sightsavers, Medicins Sans Frontiers and Shelterbox as secular groups. These examples give the lie to your accusation that secular groups are not "stepping up to the plate".

You again assume that I am against charities being praised citing AA and LGBT groups and claiming I must be against those being singled out. That is irrelevant for singling out oppressed groups does much to both publicise those groups as normal and shame others into action and, of course, no-one at the time was led to think of those groups as the only ones providing help.

Lastly you add the idea that no-one else is interested, well even if that was true is that any reason not to point out the idealisation presented by this article.

see it patting religion on the back, but patting specific groups that happen to be religious.

There are articles posted here about good works by interfaith groups and groups of non-believers. This is a group where those kinds of distinctions are made. The fact that you can find a way to take offense at posting something good about religious groups is your issue.

Do you also object when there are lists of bad things done by religious organizations? Because that happens in this group as well, and i don't recall you ever objecting about them being singled out as being religious groups, even though there are clearly non-religious groups that do bad things, too.

This appears to be a pretty obvious double standard on your part.

Again, saying that there are religious groups that do good deeds does not in any way take away from secular groups that also do good deeds. Of course there are, but to deny that religious groups provide massive amounts of aid and services to the most marginalized around the globe is to be in denial about what they do.

This is not idealization. At a time when the obvious harms in the world done in the name of religion are everywhere, everyday, it's good to see that there is more than one side.

That's a great lesson, whether they use it later in another religious organization, a secular one, or a civil one. Learning that we can do more together than apart is a basic tenet of community. It also stands in contrast to the gop prevailing philosophy of lifting your own self by your bootstraps.

My involvement in church based community service organizations led to a deep support of those kinds of organizations, be they religious or not.

For me, it is the crux of a liberal/progressive religious organization.

There are people at hundreds (probably thousands) of churches across the US who support church-affiliated programs like these - soup kitchens, direct financial assistance, and the like. They might not be as unique or "news worthy" but they are important for the communities served.

And there are others serving communities outside of the US.

What pleases me is to see the growing number of "interfaith" projects, particularly those that incorporate the growing "nones".

These organizations should be lauded even though some don't want to.

Nt

It has arms, legs, is ambulatory, and physically doing stuff?

How many of those people wouldn't be involved/doing things of this nature, if they weren't religious?


'Founded by Father Greg Boyle in 1988, Homeboy Industries supports formerly gang-involved and incarcerated youth transition into a healthy and successful livelihood."

Sounds like it was founded by a dude, not by a religion. Who is to say what he would have done if not a religious person?

doing similiar things. The point of the article is to praise this. What is the problem?

that must be balanced against the harm, and in assessing that balance, it's important to consider how much 'good' religion is credited with, for whether the person is likely to perform that 'good work' anyway.