Ironically, is an important concept in most Abrahamic religions.
I'm not sure I see where the irony is....PFoster 16:36, 5 January 2008 (EST)
In reference to footnote 3, which reads in part:
"Gifts to religious causes totaled $93.2 billion in 2005, almost 36 percent of all contributions". This is a relevant foot note, because churches and religious organizations are EVIL and only do such EVIL things as food drives, soup kitchens, homeless shelters, mission projects, drug rehab centers, youth anti-gang programs, Christmas present drives, clothing drives, free furniture for the needy, visits to orphanages, retirement homes, hospitals and care centers, and many other EVIL activities.
This seems completely out of place in the context of the rest of the article. I feel like it is trying to draw attention to the absurdity of some claim along the lines of "It is a bad thing that 36% of all contributions go to churches", yet no such claim seems to be stated or even implied anywhere in the article OR the edit history of the article. What is this little hyperbole referring to? 220.127.116.11 16:53, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
- That looks like typical "edit war by footnote snarking" to me. We do that once in a while, when other routes of discussion fail us and our interlocutors. human 21:13, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
"how much of this was written by Proxima?"
A question asked by Zooguard. None of it seems to have been written by Proxima Centauri. I just felt like addressing that. Now, I don't like returning from my minibreaks (yes, I can already hear the usual few asking me why I don't make my minibreaks longer/more frequent/permanent- don't waste your breath) and wading into drama and controversy (really, I don't), but this whole article reads like an invective against Christianity. Maybe cutting it down to sections on "Charity and hypocrisy" and "Demographics of charity used as rhetorical firepower" would make us look less like bitter children and more like contemplative, emphatic humans.--"Shut up, Brx." 19:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- I agree, this article is junk. It conflates tithing with charity and then goes downhill from there: singling out outliers, facts and figures without appropriate comparisons to put them in context, straight up editorializing, etc, etc, etc. JazzMan 00:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
This article needs help.
 I believe in charity, but lets also look at charities that were scams. This page seems more appropriate than Catholithisms for mentioning embezzlement of millions of Euro's from the Catholic churches coffers, but maybe both should have it.  Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 18:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
And people have noticed 
While factually it is as about as accurate as Wikipedia, it is very selective about the facts that it is interested in. For example what would you expect from a site calling itself "Rational Wiki" to have on its page about charity. Do you expect information on how much good charity actually does? What kinds of charities do not do what they say on the label? How to avoid getting misled? The ethics of charity? The psychology, sociology or economics of charity?
I'm sorry to disappoint you but the article consists of some haphazardly arranged facts and stats on how much members of some religions give or are supposed to give to charity, a dig against Christianity and a non-sequitur unfavourable comparison of the US to Sweden. Contrast this with what you can find on the topic on sites like LessWrong or 80, 000 Hours. Basically the material presented is what a slightly left of centre atheist needs to win an internet debate. As is much of the rest of the site.
- I removed the religious jabs because charity abuse isn't limited to religious people.—チーズバーガー • めん (talk • stalk) 04:57, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Stuff to add to article
To do list for moi:
- Trump Foundation