http://the-before-life.livejournal.com

Having just now looked at their position statements, I can safely say that they will never see a penny from me (which is too bad, as my position at work allows me to see that they help a lot of people in my community; but I just can't support an organization that takes many of the positions that they do).

(* - Listening to the bell ringing for 4+ hours straight while at work is beyond aggravating. The bell ringers themselves may not be annoying.)

Christopher "...but yes I would much rather die in position of strength that continue living in a position of weakness: better to die a king than live as a pauper."
How's that working out for you? Still reading Rand in the "apartment" in your parents' basement?

...
On topic: to be fair, the Bowery people are fairly liberal (theologically) and follow the Social Gospel. To True Christians they're practically heretics, but as far as I'm concerned the Social Gospel isn't bad. I don't really care if the plate of food comes with a prayer, as long as the plate of food comes with food. It's better by far than using your donations to send bibles to Iraq or buying the pastor a new Lincoln, but it's unfortunate that they aren't more up front about their motivation (and the attached strings).

I don't know. The Salvation Army seems to do all right, but maybe people forget that they're a specific denomination since their charity work is so famous.

I suspect you're largely correct though, but I don't think it explains the situation entirely.

(a) More people support helping the poor than support proselytization.

(b) Those people who do support proselytization would prefer to be supporting proselytization by someone who agrees with them in as many respects as possible.

Admit to trying to convert people, and you'll find that only those who agree with your theology will donate to you.

Your gift may not be put towards the ends you expect.

Christopher has made a similar point. In abundence, yes, but relevant here as well in that we are talking about the well-being of the poor. Should he not talk about that on this post?

Also, I agree that blind charity isn't always useful, and is even detrimental. Personally, I would like to see charity spent on helping people become economically and mentally independent. This helps both society and the individual in the long run. For example, I remember Google expanded a free phone number and voice mail project:

For homeless individuals, a phone is a luxury, and yet, telephony communications is an essential tool in our society. Without a phone number you can't apply for a job or even get on a waiting list for low-income housing.

The other services associated with the homeless shelters are debatable. Another, more globally broad initiative is known as "microcredit" or "microfinance," where the poor are given avenues in which to obtain financially sustainable circumstances. The Christian organization Habitat for Humanity is such an organization. Once again, the efficacy of these types of initiatives is debatable. This leads me to suggest, Ebonmuse, a post on what you think of Catholic Social Teaching's main tenets from a humanist perspective. Note that CST is not a specific and minute part of religion, it is actually very broadly accepted.

I don't wish to drag this further off topic, so I'll ignore your "king" comment, except for this:

I prefer to have my name spelled correctly. It's common courtesy.