The last two paragraphs of this article isn’t at all wrong. However, I’d argue that it’s claim that ending the practice of funnelling aid through religious organizations would be a catastrophe… just because the funds aren’t being pushed through a religious filter does not mean that the funds aren’t coming through, they’d just be becoming through no strings attached.

In my opinion, the point that “liberals” (or atheists as I feel this article really means) are less likely to spend vacations volunteering at, say, a school or clinic in Rwanda may be true, but it’s also moot. Most people who volunteer in developing countries at schools or clinics are not doing so because they’re caring people, they’re doing so to “spread the word” or because they “love Jesus”. If there were more international volunteer organizations that were well funded, well advertised, and secular, I think we might see a change in this trend. I’ve volunteered overseas with Habitat for Humanity, and, while it’s a great organization, it is still, unfortunately, a Christian one, and it’s uncomfortable to attend the daily church services and biblical home dedications that accompany the work in developing countries.

I volunteer weekly at the local homeless shelter, and after I’d become well known around there, one of the staff members commented on how often I came around and noted that I must “Really love Jesus”. I responded to him with “I don’t believe in Jesus, and frankly, I’m offended that you think I need a religious belief to help out my fellow human beings”. He certainly looked sheepish after that.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

This shouldn’t be in the hall of shame. Kristof’s point is perfectly valid. An automatic bias against anything critical of liberals hardly promotes reason.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

This guy was a Rhodes Scholar, for chrissakes.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

@2: Your comment seems to lack content, as I do not know why you think Kristof’s point is perfectly valid (nor, really, even after rereading his article, what his point even is). I don’t know where you’ve gotten your impression that there is an automatic bias against anything critical of liberals on this website.

There are several misdirections and/or factual inaccuracies in this column. Here is a story on World Vision’s hiring practices, to just target one of them: http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/ngos/100110/world-vision-religion-foreign-aid

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

History is just so filled with evangelicals traveling to other countries concerned with maternal mortality. Forgive my skepticism.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Harris will put this kind of article in the Hall of Shame because of his “we don’t need religion to do good” shtick. The real-world fact that religious people tend to be more generous than conservative people in the United States doesn’t matter to him - he just cares about how things should be in theory.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

As far as i’m concerned these religious associations are not doing enough and they’re not spending enough on these impoverished people around the world. Compared to what they take in weekly they are by no means spending enough.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I recently read Arthur C. Brooks’ 2006 book “Who Really Cares”—
he shows some fairly strong correlations between both conservative religiosity and amount of charity performed—both in terms of time and money and in terms of giving to secular organizations.

To me, this is a real challenge to those of us who want to show that those of us who are non-theist and politically liberal “care” as much as those who tie their altruism irrational superstitious religion.

I’m not sure Brooks “proved” his case—correlation does not imply causation and all of this is post-hoc reasoning. But, I am hoping someone can provide some more objective data debunking his claims.

Does anyone know of any research in the works?

Maybe something Project Reason could fund, yes?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

As Sam Harris has previously pointed out, many people give quite a bit of money, time, goods, and energy to charity without much regard to accreditation.  As a result, the organized charities (predominantly managed by what are considered conservative or religious organizations) will tend to show that the conservative and religious contribute more even though an undetermined though likely substantial portion comes from progressives and rationalists.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I’ve heard that believers are more charitable than us non-believers.

I wondered about this.  My mother was a radical atheist, and she did lots of volunteering and good works.  I followed in her footsteps.

I thought about this, and I wondered if it’s because believers have churches.  They have visible organizations, and their christianity shows.

We don’t have churches, so any good works we do tend to be religiously - or irreligiously - invisible.

I volunteered at a soup kitchen.  It was in an Episcopal church.  My atheism and the agnosticism of the man who took care of the compost were invisible and uncounted.  We were seen as part of the church.

I did considerable work for secular charities.  There was no mention of atheism.  Once again I was invisible.

I wonder just how many hidden atheists there are doing good works.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

If being overly snobbish is the worst insult this person can hurl, I’m flattered.  Also, I feel no need to advertise my charitable work under the umbrella of a religious directive.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

make no mistake about it the religous folks have an agenda.

europe does not want the religion of america in their nations.

this is a country that calls itself a christian nation. lets look at these so called religious values.

mega profits off the sick and needy.

wars for profits.

imperialism.

private armies and hit squads.

prisons overflowing, now private prisons for $$$.

corp fascism control of congress, white house and now supreme court and reelection process.

breaking up of unions. workers rights non existent.

open borders for cheap and disposable labor.

wall street greed in bed with washington.

who can blame them for saying no to the religious of america. they should kick out our religious butts tomorrow.

we are not their to help them but to change them to our immoral values of capitalism.

no one promotes the capitalist agenda more then the religious right.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Laura—
I think you’re right on the money—I think the non-religious charitable work gets lost or overlooked in the mix.  Churches are far more numerous and organized than secular organizations, and, for many Americans, they are the primary means to do charity,  but I’d be willing to bet that if they didn’t exist, those charitable impulses (which really is humanistic altruism) would find an outlet through secular organizations.

I’ve had some interesting conversations with a few thoughtful religious people who do charity work—the ones I’ve spoken to really sound generally interested in the welfare of those they help—rather than being interested in converting them.  When they do, the motivation is humanistic which they simply automatically equate with devotion to their god, which is poor reasoning.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Isn’t Red Cross secular?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

As mammals we are cared for by our parents until we’re capable of caring for ourselves.  Our care for our own offspring comes first and then it radiates outward toward our friends, neighbors, community, state, nation etc. It’s a mammalian trait—to care for—it just depends on how far we can extend it. it’s not a divine instruction. it’s just a part of being a mammal.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I am amazed to see so many of these posts talking about the religious being more generous than the secular. It is almost presented as a given truth! I thought this had been put to bed a long time ago because I have read that the more secular a country is the greater the charitable contributions.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

This is the first article I’ve seen in this section that I don’t think belongs.  I’m not a fan of Kristof, I’m definitely not a fan of Evangelicalism.  If I could wipe religion off the earth I would.

But for the first time (in following this site), I’m concerned to see the glimmers of something I would think we would all be against: labeling.  I think a world without religious dogma would be a much better place.  But a world in which religion, instead of building megachurches and stoning people, functions to funnel freely donated money to people who could use it, would be a great step in the right direction.  Let’s focus on that.  It’s a good thing that modern Evangelicals are getting more concerned with helping others, and therefore relatively less concerned with the speck in their neighbor’s eye.  We should celebrate that; it means that secular thinking: philosophy, science, objective human decency continue to seep into religion, leading even the most religious away from the literal meaning of their own scriptures.  That’s great!

I say we join Kristof in celebrating religion actually doing something objectively good for a change.  I say to people like World Vision ‘keep it up’.  Your ideas on evolution and metaphysics might be beyond useless; and for every World Vision there’s an Intelligent Design Institute, but that doesn’t mean the former can’t help make the world a better place.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.