[synicalx]

It's funny really, outside of religion, people don't seem to be naturally inclined to be both charitable AND scrupulous. Personally, I'm ok with a charity associating their work with religion if the end result is positive.

You get a lot of "secular" charities that rake in a lot of money and yet don't produce much in the way of results (White Ribbon, for example), and you also see a lot of religious charities that have big budgets and also produce good results (Salvos are a good example of this).

Not to say this is the rule by any stretch, but it does seem to be a readily observable trend.

[Brotkrumen]

If you subsume Megachurches under religious charities, I can point you towards a few nice examples of abuse. Say pat Robertson funding an African diamond mine with donation money or pastors conning the poorest into sending their paycheck because "god will maybe repay them manifold in hard cash"

[Renaud]

Hmmm Doctors Without Borders ? Humanist and secular organisation that does pretty good?

[synicalx]

As I said, not a rule just a trend.

[WillReplyfFood]

Also notewhorty for there very small bureaucratic water-head- and even more notice-able for there doctors who do not apply following overly rigid rule systems.

One of them always gave away free soap bars, so that locals could sell them on the markets. Those guys are astonishing- my deepest respect to everyone who toured with them.

Also -if you look as NGOs, who get into troubles as a quality sign (if your NGO workers get into the thick of things, they are where people really need help), Doctors without borders are always where it hurts. (Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia).

[will_hughes]

> It's funny really, outside of religion, people don't seem to be naturally inclined to be both charitable AND scrupulous.

I think you can easily remove "outside of religion" and have this statement stand.

There are far too many examples of supposedly "charitable" religious organisations working almost entirely to benefit their own directors/employees.