Free, you bring up what was one of my biggest beefs with the SGI - there was *no* charitable activity whatsoever! I remember reading an experience in the World Tribune by this poor African American woman, who came into an SGI culture center asking where the "poor box" was, so that she could get a little help. She was told that there was no poor box; she had to chant to create her own fortune! And, of course, as the experience went, she DID manage to overcome all her own difficulties A A O!! It reminds me of this exchange:
Quote
MSNBC's Martin Basir: I know you're a long time member of the Methodist Church. Is that correct?
Republican Rep. Joe Barton: Yes, sir. That's a true statement.
Bashir: How do you square your approach with the Psalm 146, where the Psalmist writes this: "He gives food to the hungry. The lord protects foreigners. He defends orphans and widows." Isn't this the exact opposite of the cuts being proposed by Republicans in congress?
Barton: No, the lord helps those who helps themselves...
Bashir: Which verse of scripture is that, sir?
Barton: Well, it's uh..
Bashir: I don't think you'll find that in the Old or New Testament.
Barton: Well, that was taught to me by my father who is president of the United Methodist school board in Waco Texas, and Bryan, Texas.
So Bashir quoted scripture to make his case against the Republicans' policy, and Barton tries to defend himself by using a line, which he THOUGHT was also scripture, but actually doesn't exist in the Bible. And his father taught him that? Sounds like a pretty shitty teacher. I Wonder if his dad happens to be David Barton...
But what made that exchange worse was that here you have a guy who clearly thought that he was being clever with his rebuttal, and yet when it was made painfully apparent that he was full of shit, he remained absolutely unfazed. Not only was he not bothered by this, but he actually laughs about it ("Haha, so you mean one of the basic tenets of my religion, which I followed throughout my entire life was actually never advocated by the central figure of said religion? Boy is MY face red!") [
readingisforsnobs.blogspot.com]
How are *children* and the frail and often homebound elderly supposed to "help themselves", pray tell?? We as a society need to help each other in *tangible* ways, because that's the only way the needy are going to be helped. There is no magical pie in the sky that's going to magically cause food and money to appear. Just doesn't happen. Remember how "Buddhism is common sense"?? Even though I was poor myself, I would slip what money I could, sometimes as much as $5 (!), into the purse of a struggling single mom.
While I am here to discuss and share my experiences with the SGI, my greater purpose in life is to address society's injustices in general, where the rich take from the poor and tell the poor to suck it up and fix their own lives. I find the SGI a particularly egregious offender - *NO* actual tangible assistance is offered, to anyone! Certainly not to the members! Members *donate*. That's what MEMBERS do. And good SGI members are chanting their way to great floods of benefits that will inspire others to want to join - and DONATE to the all-important organization! There was never any pretense of charitable activity. I have a financial budget from my parents' former church - out of total income of $95,000, a mere $700 was earmarked for the poor. That's less than 1%! They allocated more than twice that much to self-promotion. That rate - about 0.7% - is exactly the same proportion that the large and rich Mormon Church gives to charity, BTW. But even that paltry pittance is more than the SGI allocates - and the SGI is *proud* of this fact! Even the disaster aid the SGI so proudly promoted in its publications, like after Florida's Hurricane Andrew, involved delivering bottles of water and the YMD Brass Band playing to entertain the stricken. Big whoop de do. It was actually embarrassing.
I agree with you - value can be found where you look for it, and different people are drawn to different religions and philosophies, which is as it should be. However, I take issue with religious groups that toot their own horns about how "charitable" they are, while claiming that giving *bibles* to the needy is just as important as providing food or clothing. I object to the religious charities that exploit the needy by requiring that they sit through a sermon before they can get the meal they came for. And I object to religious groups, like Catholic hospitals, that promote themselves as selfless and giving when, in fact, they are publicly funded with the tax revenues collected from you and me. Sure, maybe they were originally founded with church donations (but if you look into it, I think you'll find that their start-up money came from elsewhere, too), but now they are funded by government grants, not-for-profit status, and insurance. Whenever you receive health care at a Catholic hospital, you don't receive said health care for free, now do you?
Quote
Given the context of Christians’ past and current treatment of those with contrary religious opinions, it is outrageous for anyone to point to Christian educational and charitable organizations as “proof” that Christianity excels at promoting compassion and humanitarianism. Those who make such fraudulent claims are like those who said, a century ago and more, that the absence of blacks and women in political office or other positions of responsibility “proved” that they lacked the character and intellect to vote or pursue professional careers. Then, as now, faith-blinded Christian apologists who are unwilling or unable to think excel in circular reasoning and question-begging, not in generosity or human feeling.
If Christianity were so spectacularly marked by the urge to give to others without asking anything in return, Christian institutions would have done far more than they have. As it is, almost all religious hospitals, clinics, schools, and colleges charge and collect fees that are the same as, or very little different than, similar non-religious organizations. Those associated with religious groups may receive modest or token subsidies, either in the form of cash from generous believers (and unbelievers!) or in the form of free labor provided by an order of monks, nuns, priests, and other volunteers. But the secular organizations engaged in the same activities manage not only to survive without such help but pay taxes to the state and dividends to their shareholders as well. A reasonable person would conclude that the religiously-affiliated schools and hospitals, far from being praiseworthy examples of altruism, are, in fact, inefficient and wasteful of money and resources. [
www.positiveatheism.org]
THAT's what's keeping those hospitals going, not the largess of the generous Christians. Overwhelmingly, most donations to churches go to the upkeep and expenses of keeping those churches going. A charitable contribution rate of 1.7% is actually about average for churches - all the rest of everything they collect, they spend on themselves. Charity has as its purpose improving the lot of those suffering within society; church "charity" typically involves a heapin' helpin' of proselytizin' - attempting to take advantage of the desperation of the needy to collect more members for themselves. The SGI likewise preys upon the desperate and needy. Remember - anything that is referred to as a "ministry" has marketing Christianity as its purpose. The Red Cross gives over 92% of what it collects to the needy; you'll be hard pressed to find a church that can demonstrate that it gives even 50% of what it collects to the needy.
Just as many people are initially drawn to the SGI because they want to work for world peace (ha ha ha), many people gravitate toward churches because they want to join a group that does charity. But this carefully crafted image of the church as a charitable institution is identical to the SGI's carefully crafted image as a force for world peace. If you are interested in the reality, here are a couple of really good articles I recommend: [
yashwata.info] and [
yashwata.info]
Quote
But please remember to compare apples to apples. When it comes to the delivery of charitable services, a strongly religious organization necessarily embodies certain inefficiencies as compared to a secular one. For example, religious observances cost money, and those costs will have to be deducted from the charitable effort. More silver chalices, more ceremonial wine and wafers, more statues of Jesus means less medicine or food or whatever the charity was supposed to be about. Promulgation, too, siphons away resources from humanitarian projects. More priests on the plane to spread the Good News around means fewer doctors on the plane to treat malaria or tuberculosis or AIDS.
Evangelism is routinely considered part of the mission. When churches list their charitable efforts, I would bet you a million dollars that most of them include “spreading the Good News” on that list. But it is not charity, it is marketing.
When you donate to (or volunteer for) a church, the primary beneficiaries are the church and the people who run the church. This does not help children in Africa. It does not even help children in the church’s own neighborhood. You must keep these considerations in mind when comparing charitable work by religious organizations to charitable work by secular organizations.
Finally, so many Christians are personally invested in their image of being charitable because they're Christians that they'll claim the Red Cross as a Christian charity! It's not - it's purely secular
.
I remember years ago, back when I was just a starry-eyed group member, this friend of mine that was in the diving group I sometimes went out scuba diving with was telling me that the old house he owned was in danger of being cited or even condemned because the trim on the windows was in such bad shape. I brought this concern to my (then) NSA discussion group: "Can we take on a charitable project to help him?" My MD group chief snorted in contempt and said, "I'm not going to work hard for some moron who won't even chant!" He wasn't about to do anything for any moron who DID chant, either - I can tell you that much! It's hard-core capitalism to insist that everyone needs to somehow attend to his own needs, and it's bad for society. There are some people who simply *can't* help themselves.
Next time a Christian is crowing about how much "charity" his church does, ask him how big a grant his church would give him if he were to suddenly find himself unemployed. The look on his face will be priceless. Pricelessly sad. Choose whatever religion you like. But don't think that your preferred religion is somehow exempt from scrutiny and deserved/earned criticism just because it's the one YOU happen to like. Physician, heal thyself.