Atheists Working with Religious Groups

[EquALLity]

How do you guys feel about doing volunteer work with religious organizations?
All other things being equal, would you find volunteering with a secular organization better than with a religious one?

I voted for the second one. I think that supporting secular charities is best because it helps support the fact that religion isn't necessary to be moral. However, I wouldn't skip out on doing something good because it has religious ties.

*Obviously, the volunteer work isn't religious in nature (like handing out Bibles).

[Cirion Spellbinder]

It depends on the work being done and its consequences.

If I am in an area with a highly religious population and hand out leaflets for vegetarianism with a religious twist, I may do more good than with secular leaflets. On the other hand, if I participate in a charity event hosted by a religious institution that advocates for making homosexuality illegal, perhaps I will do more harm by getting them publicity.

[brimstoneSalad]

It depends on the work and the organization. Do you have a specific example?

I tend to doubt that any religious organizations are really effective.

[EquALLity]

It depends on the work being done and its consequences.

If I am in an area with a highly religious population and hand out leaflets for vegetarianism with a religious twist, I may do more good than with secular leaflets. On the other hand, if I participate in a charity event hosted by a religious institution that advocates for making homosexuality illegal, perhaps I will do more harm by getting them publicity.

Well, like I said, the religiosity isn't apart of the volunteering. For example, if you're giving food to the homeless, you're not also giving them Bibles or something.

If it was like that, though, I'm not necessarily opposed to doing it if there aren't other options. I think it'd generally still more good than harm, as long as the charity isn't only to advertise a religion (and really, therefore, isn't charity at all).

[EquALLity]

It depends on the work and the organization. Do you have a specific example?

I tend to doubt that any religious organizations are really effective.

Why?
Do you figure that because they're (likely) very religious that they're too stupid to run a legitimate charity or something?

Here's one example I found: http://www.givingtreeglobal.org/bread-of-life

Oh wait, there's also religious stuff tied in.

Bread of Life’s beneficiaries are not only physically hungry, but are also in need of assurance that their lives are matter. Bread of Life does not simply bring food to the hungry, but also the love of God in Jesus Christ.

That's too bad.

This one might be better, but I'm not sure: http://www.citiimpact.org/

Maybe I'll just try to find a secular one.

[brimstoneSalad]

Why?
Do you figure that because they're (likely) very religious that they're too stupid to run a legitimate charity or something?

Yes.
They do things that feel good to them, or that look good and reflect their religion in a positive light, not based on effective altruism.

Maybe I'll just try to find a secular one.

That would be my suggestion. Also make sure it's effective altruism, or you're probably wasting your time.

[EquALLity]

Yes.
They do things that feel good to them, or that look good and reflect their religion in a positive light, not based on effective altruism.

Well, that's not necessarily all of them. They're trying to be good people, they aren't just trying to promote their religion, and some of the religious charities seem to have strong success rates.

That would be my suggestion. Also make sure it's effective altruism, or you're probably wasting your time.

How would I determine if it's effective altruism?

[brimstoneSalad]

Well, that's not necessarily all of them. They're trying to be good people, they aren't just trying to promote their religion, and some of the religious charities seem to have strong success rates.

One of the big problems is, even when they try, religious people tend to be deontological which tends to make them ineffective.

It's something probably best illustrated by an exception to the rule, like reverend Jeffrey Brown's Season of Peace:
http://veganstrategist.org/tag/incrementalism/ Vegan strategist talks about it here.

“I had them in a room, and I made the pitch for the season of peace and asked for their approval. And that’s when I got my first indication that this might work, because a young guy gets up, and he says, ‘All right, so do we stop shooting at midnight on Wednesday night? Or do we stop on Thanksgiving morning? And do we start shooting again on December thirty-first or on January first?’
“And it was a conflict for me,” Jeffrey said, “because I was like, ‘I don’t want you to start shooting at all.’ But I said, ‘Okay, you stop shooting Wednesday night and you can start again after New Year’s Day.’ Now, you know, ethically I was like, ‘I can’t believe you told them they could start shooting after the first of the year.’ (…)*

Some religious people can overcome that tendency, and even put their religious beliefs in the back seat, but that's rare (that's even rarer with any kind of charity, where they spend a lot of effort on proselytism). They literally believe that the greatest good you can possibly do is to save a soul. And in the context of that belief, even when they try for effective altruism they can rarely achieve it because they focus on inserting ministry.

That would be my suggestion. Also make sure it's effective altruism, or you're probably wasting your time.

How would I determine if it's effective altruism?

There are organizations that evaluate charities, but you also have to look at the target.
Animal charities encouraging reduction in meat consumption are the most effective in terms of dollar/hour spent to impact.
If you're dealing with human issues locally, you want to focus on something that's going to teach people how to take care of themselves and reduce violence to give them a way forward. Addressing gang violence like Brown did is probably the most effective form of local activism.

[EquALLity]

There are organizations that evaluate charities, but you also have to look at the target.
Animal charities encouraging reduction in meat consumption are the most effective in terms of dollar/hour spent to impact.
If you're dealing with human issues locally, you want to focus on something that's going to teach people how to take care of themselves and reduce violence to give them a way forward. Addressing gang violence like Brown did is probably the most effective form of local activism.

I don't know of any animal charities near me about veg*nism., unfortunately. There are animal charities, but they're pet oriented, and I don't see those as that important in comparison to other issues.

There are some interesting environmental volunteering projects about recycling. I've looked into one of those (it's secular). Those might be really helpful.

As for direct human issues (the environment is a human issue, it's just less direct), I'd think things like food pantries are the best in my area. There aren't really gangs in the suburbs.

[EquALLity]

Out of curiosity, who voted for the last option, and why?