Those of you who know me well will be aware of my policy, held for quite a few years now, of not giving money or support to charities with strong religious affiliation. Some people have called this personal policy into question, pointing out that they're still charities, and surely they're still doing good things. Others have just shrugged and called me a curmudgeon.
I commend those people into the care of the Sydney Morning Herald, particularly this article on the
St Vincent De Paul Society's real mission.
Finally the truth is out
"The primary function of the society," said St Vincent de Paul's lawyers, "is to inculcate the Catholic faith in its members."
What, really?
Oh, OK, I kid. I knew this all along, but it's very nice to see it in black and white, finally. An admission by a major Xtian charity that they don't do their work out of christian altruism, but as a means of increasing the stranglehold over their own flock and indoctrinating new members.
Is anyone really that surprised? Well, the people who've questioned my "no money to religious charities" policy might. And clearly the rather naive Linda Walsh, who the story focuses on due to the legal battle that's gone on for the last several years, was surprised enough when thrown out for not being catholic enough that she fought a case for several years.
On a personal note, someone quite close to us is a member of the Salvation Army, you know, the ones who take out adverts in New Scientist around mid december, looking all compassionate and caring, complete with battered wives and homeless children.
The main activity within this particular church (and yes, it is primarily a church and not primarily a charity) appears to be enforcing church morality, gossiping about other members, politicking about rank and rehearsing the choir. All these things are just like any other church, I'd guess, except this church generates literally millions of dollars from non-members through presenting a media image as some kind of guardian angel to the poor and needy, while actually their main focus is on keeping members entirely on-message with a secondary helping of proselytising to the people they help. The 'charitable arm' is quite large, but staffed by volunteers who are viewed as fresh meat for the church itself.
Religious groups like this are the pilot fish of the charitable world, dangling a brightly-glowing glimmer of charity and altruism to lure victims closer to the jaws of faith.
Count me out.
The only good thing to come from this blog post? I have another reference to point people to when they scowl at me for sending a religious charity on its merry way with empty pockets.
@stilgherrian gets the hat tip for the link, by way of twitter
posted @ Saturday, January 3, 2009 1:02 PM