I’d like to suggest that some of the worst people out there, to hide their true side, or maybe to compensate for their evils, give money to charity and volenteer. After all, when was the last time a serial killer was caught, and his neighbors said, “I knew it, he was always an asshole. Why didn’t I put two and two together?” I’m under the impression they are way more likely to say “I never would have guessed. He was the sweetest man, always giving to the community”.

Other questions that appear in my mind is: What is defined by giving to charity? Usually, charity is usually defined as a non-profit organization. If that’s correct, then wouldn’t that make tithing “giving to charity”?

Lets have a look at how they deal with the Daniel Hauser story. Apparantly, according to the author, the circumstances around the Hauser case raise “complex ethical questions”, that apparantly were missed by atheist bloggers. For instance should: parents be allowed to neglect their ill children, courts protect children, children be allowed to refuse important treatment. No, yes, and no you religious monster, that’s not complex at all.

The news media is criticized for not making it clear that most conflicts between religion and medicine are resolved without the parents fleeing to avoid court ordered treatments. The author mentions religious families working with doctors but doesn’t go into detail, that could mean not giving blood tranfusions despite professional medical opinion. Apparantly the US government won’t step in unless it’s life threatening or could cause severe or permanent harm.

Note that the beliefs aren’t criticized for being irrational. There’s no dismay at the harm these beliefs that involve denial of medical treatment cause. The parents aren’t criticized for actively withholding life saving treatment. Sites like this don’t combat harmful religion, they seem callously indifferent to the harm it causes, despite having no problem with non-religiously motivated harm (even imaginary). Atheist blogs don’t have this problem.

So the interesting aspects brought up by such research are: why are the religious helpful moreso in planned contexts where they can choose what to give or whom to help, whereas the non religious are less discriminating about who is being helped.

They need to factor in the negative impact of religious activity. For example, if you give to your church, and the money ends up funding a witch hunting minister in Africa, or if your volunteer activity is protesting at a reproductive services clinic, that’s a bad thing, not a good thing.

I think it’s good to point out that religion is not benign. However when you take an extreme position you end up marginalizing yourself.

This is after you exclude donations that are purely for support of the church. Money for your church’s food bank counts as charity, money for new stained-glass windows doesn’t.

How can a movement that, as represented in public, focuses almost exclusively on squabbles with fundies while staying mum on poverty, racism, genocide, etc. ever seem on an equal moral level with, for example Unitarians advocating for policies that reduce poverty and an end to the genocide in Darfur, or the churches involved in the civil rights movement?

Can’t we do a little better?

Besides, the New Atheism doesn’t say NOTHING good ever comes from religion, so this is basically a straw man, to boot.

I always found it ironic, of course, that those religious folk who proudly give to their church will rail at length about how horrible welfare is. I really don’t understand such a cognitive gap.