Yes, Religion Can Still Be A Force For Good In The World. Here Are 100 Examples How

[intaglio]

73. If you actually check my posts I have said, explicitly, that good should be extolled

The article does not pat the charities on the back - the patting it does is of the religions. This is exactly what I object to, the division into religious and secular followed by the cheering of only the religious side.

You claim that it is easier for religious foundations to provide that help; but I highlighted secular groups who are hugely successful in the provision of aid and for all the faults Live Aid and its successors raised far more money than any religious group. Oxfam, one of the largest famine and disaster relief charities in the world is secular, although I will admit Quakers played a huge role in its foundation. The Red Cross is now secular (at least in the UK), Shelter has long ago dropped its associations with religion and I do not think the RNLI has ever been anything other than secular; what is more I pointed earlier to Sightsavers, Medicins Sans Frontiers and Shelterbox as secular groups. These examples give the lie to your accusation that secular groups are not "stepping up to the plate".

You again assume that I am against charities being praised citing AA and LGBT groups and claiming I must be against those being singled out. That is irrelevant for singling out oppressed groups does much to both publicise those groups as normal and shame others into action and, of course, no-one at the time was led to think of those groups as the only ones providing help.

Lastly you add the idea that no-one else is interested, well even if that was true is that any reason not to point out the idealisation presented by this article.