CelticBear’s Musings

When one remarks, as I have in past blogs and on others’ blogs, and more educated and intelligent people such as Christopher Hitchens remark, that religion is fundamentally harmful and the world would be better off without it *, one of the few counters I hear is how religion is responsible for charity and food kitchens and homeless shelters and whatnot–without religion (specifically Christianity,) this would not be.

Bullhockey. That’s a patently untruth. People were taking care of the “least among them” for centuries before organized religion, in all cultures and places. From Celtic Ireland to deep Africa, people took care of each other. Once The Church took over greater Europe, the charity work it controlled wasn’t an addition to a culture, but rather an administrative and organizational change in a behavior that already existed. Where there’s need, people will fulfill it. If The Church and its megalomaniacal control of everything didn’t exist as villages and tribes and small town began to grow and people started to spread out and become more “urban,” people would STILL have filled the need for shelters and kitchens and charities–as they do in all cultures and faiths.

Chad Orzel, blogger of Uncertain Principles, has a post today:
<> Atheist Charity Results
where he posts 11 of the results of his search for specifically non-religious charities that focus on the poor and hungry, are international, and push no political or (non)religion agenda.

I bet, unlike a lot of the Christian charities, they don’t proselytize are part of their charity or teach people in disease and overpopulation stricken areas that condoms are a sin.

* Think about this: Without religion, would 9/11 have been possible? Would it have been as easy as it was to get 10 people together and willingly murder-suicide? To paraphrase a Nobel Prize winner: “Regardless of religion, good people will want to do good, and bad people will want to do bad. But for good people to want to do bad, that takes religion.”