Religion, charity and stupidity

[Rum]

On a Sunday morning on that most civilised of all radio stations BBC Radio 4, they have a religious programme called 'Sunday'. I sometimes listen to it as I make breakfast or wash up because they do have some interesting items now and again, though often I turn it off with a loud 'fuck off' at something stupid some twat has said.

This morning there was a discussion about the poaching of 'high' Anglicans by the catholic church which was quite funny because they had a Catholic bishop and a Church of England bishop bickering over the rights and wrongs of it and getting quite heated by it all. I was close to a 'fuck off' moment when it ended though the absurdity of it was also close to giving me the giggles.

The programme was immediately followed by a short charity appeal, which they regularly have on BBC 4. The appeal was for a meningitis charity as it happens, but that's not the point.

The point was that it suddenly occurred to me that the programmers had deliberately put a charitable appeal after a religion programme assuming that naturally fitted together.

That actually is outrageous when I think about it.

[Ayaan]

Well it is quite frequently claimed that that religious people give more to charity than nonbelievers (especially by believers). However, money given to the church is counted as a charitable donation, so I don't really accept the claim - especially since little of that money goes for anything beyond church expenses. Once you take that out of the equation, I seriously doubt that believers are more likely to give to charity than nonbelievers.

[Thinking Aloud]

... they had a Catholic bishop and a Church of England bishop bickering over the rights and wrongs of it ...

My version of the exact same god in the exact same story is better than yours.

[Rum]

... they had a Catholic bishop and a Church of England bishop bickering over the rights and wrongs of it ...

My version of the exact same god in the exact same story is better than yours.

And the best one thinks that women are not holy enough to be mumbo jumboers!

[Gawdzilla Sama]

That actually is outrageous when I think about it.

However, it will probably work, which puts it in the "quite practical" zone.

[Rum]

That actually is outrageous when I think about it.

However, it will probably work, which puts it in the "quite practical" zone.

Why would it work? You seem to be agreeing with the notion that scheduling it there and therefore hitting an audience of mostly religious people will get more of a response/ Am I misunderstanding your point here?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

That actually is outrageous when I think about it.

However, it will probably work, which puts it in the "quite practical" zone.

Why would it work? You seem to be agreeing with the notion that scheduling it there and therefore hitting an audience of mostly religious people will get more of a response/ Am I misunderstanding your point here?

Advertising plays on people's prejudices. The mission there was to get money for the charity. Passing up a likely target, like the people who would listen to that entire program, is not something an advertising company would do. They get paid for getting results, like just about everybody else, and they know how to manipulate people. It's been pointed out that the people who schedule the adverts during the Women's Basketball League games over here are missing an obvious target, lesbians.

[Animavore]

I think its absurd also that they claim religious people give more than non-religious.

I may not be at mass giving money to the church (as said, not charity) or to the numerous charities that hang outside (usually religious institutes that I would give money to anyway given their ulterior motive) but I'm giving money to the various people that come into the pubs looking for donations or on the streets of Dublin or even dropping change into the poor boxes in the shops and I'm (pretty) sure many other people do too.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I think its absurd also that they claim religious people give more than non-religious.

I may not be at mass giving money to the church (as said, not charity) or to the numerous charities that hang outside (usually religious institutes that I would give money to anyway given their ulterior motive) but I'm giving money to the various people that come into the pubs looking for donations or on the streets of Dublin or even dropping change into the poor boxes in the shops and I'm (pretty) sure many other people do too.

The difference between religious givers and non-religious givers is that the non's aren't compelled by guilt. Being threatened, overtly or covertly, with going to hell if you don't pony up some gelt doesn't work on me.

[Animavore]

There's a story in the Bible the Catholic Church used to love telling, both in the church and the schools, about Jesus in some temple and the rich people were all giving up alms, giving up a small portion of their wealth, and this crabby old woman who only has a couple of sheckles throws the two coins in the plate.
A few people laugh at the pittance she gives in so Jesus intervenes and says something like You people have only parted with a small amount of your wealth. This woman has given everything she has to the church.
(I'm going by memory here so forgive me for only giving the gist of it)
When I was a kid I thought this was a very nice story but now I'm older and (slightly more) wiser I realise the reason and motive for the Catholic Churches fondness of this story. In other words give up your self to the church.

What a bunch of wankers.

[Rum]

The BBC isn't commercial by the way. The adverts, or appeals as they call them, for charities are free (info for our Mericans). We pay an annual license fee to fund the BBC.

My point is simply that there is an assumption in the programming that religious people are more charitable than non-religious people. As pointed out earlier there is some evidence that this is so, but solely because giving to churches counts as charity. Personally I donate to charity - because I am a humanist and want to. The placing of the appeal in this case would make no difference to me (not that I intend to donate to that particular one).

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The BBC isn't commercial by the way. The adverts, or appeals as they call them, for charities are free (info for our Mericans). We pay an annual license fee to fund the BBC.

My point is simply that there is an assumption in the programming that religious people are more charitable than non-religious people. As pointed out earlier there is some evidence that this is so, but solely because giving to churches counts as charity. Personally I donate to charity - because I am a humanist and want to. The placing of the appeal in this case would make no difference to me (not that I intend to donate to that particular one).

I know the BBC is non-commercial, but they still have people who decide where the appeals are to be placed. Question: Have you never heard such appeals placed after secular topics?

[Animavore]

The difference between religious givers and non-religious givers is that the non's aren't compelled by guilt. Being threatened, overtly or covertly, with going to hell if you don't pony up some gelt doesn't work on me.

Not true at all. Lots of advertisements on TV for secular charities do use the guilt trip technique whether its showing a starving or sad and abused looking child or a sad eyed puppy with a sickeningly compassionate and pleading voice over saying Jamie's father comes home drunk every night and fights with Jamie's mother. Jamie is too young to understand what's happening...etc (notice the constant use of child's name).
To be honest, I flick the station over when these ads come on. I don't need to be seeing gross river blindness eyes or cancer children when I'm trying to relax and watch the small bit of TV that I do.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The difference between religious givers and non-religious givers is that the non's aren't compelled by guilt. Being threatened, overtly or covertly, with going to hell if you don't pony up some gelt doesn't work on me.

Not true at all. Lots of advertisements on TV for secular charities do use the guilt trip technique whether its showing a starving or sad and abused looking child or a sad eyed puppy with a sickeningly compassionate and pleading voice over saying Jamie's father comes home drunk every night and fights with Jamie's mother. Jamie is too young to understand what's happening...etc (notice the constant use of child's name).
To be honest, I flick the station over when these ads come on. I don't need to be seeing gross river blindness eyes or cancer children when I'm trying to relax and watch the small bit of TV that I do.

Okay, I did badly there.

[Thinking Aloud]

The difference between religious givers and non-religious givers is that the non's aren't compelled by guilt. Being threatened, overtly or covertly, with going to hell if you don't pony up some gelt doesn't work on me.

Not true at all. Lots of advertisements on TV for secular charities do use the guilt trip technique whether its showing a starving or sad and abused looking child or a sad eyed puppy with a sickeningly compassionate and pleading voice over saying Jamie's father comes home drunk every night and fights with Jamie's mother. Jamie is too young to understand what's happening...etc (notice the constant use of child's name).
To be honest, I flick the station over when these ads come on. I don't need to be seeing gross river blindness eyes or cancer children when I'm trying to relax and watch the small bit of TV that I do.

Okay, I did badly there.

We're all here for you, Zilla.