The Internet initiative and site “charity giving” has just been suspended by the Charity Commission.
Apparently, no accounts have been filed for three years (probably whilst the Charity Commission was fast asleep) and now no less than £250,000 might have been used by the organisation to feed … itself rather than those charities the money was meant to be given to, giving to the expression “charity begins at home” a novel meaning.
Yours truly observes these events and notices how the progressive, in the Anglo-Saxon country very advanced process of de-Christianisation has caused money traditionally given to religious organisations to be channelled to fully secular outfits instead. In fact, chariteeee giving being the substitute of religion for so many, this is not surprising. Even Atheists need to feel good about themselves. They generally need to shout it, too.
So, what was once done pretty efficiently and without clamour – then the left hand must not know what the right hand does – is now done in an extremely wasteful way – expenses ratios of 30, 40 or more percent aren't a rarity – whilst every nincompoop feels the need to shout to the world how good he or she or it is. “Help my chariteeeee” must be, surely, the most pronounced phrase after “good morning”.
Atheism begets selfishness, which in turn begets stupidity. Giving money to a church is just old-fashioned. Better give it to people you don't know and have never heard of.
As the donors of the missing £250,000 have just discovered.
William Oddie of the “Catholic Herald” has a very interesting article about the parallel stories of the USA (where a judge has overturned the popular decision on Proposition 8, as repeatedly reported here) and the UK (where the Charity Commission has decided against the right of the last Catholic adoption agency to only serve heterosexual couples).
Mr. Oddie poses some interesting questions:
what, precisely, is the authority of the Charity Commission to pronounce that same-sex couples can be successful adoptive parents? What does this dire quango actually KNOW about this or anything else?
The sad reality is that this dire quango (for you non-British: QUasi-Autonomous Non-GOvernmental organisation, that is: a sort of agency fed with taxpayer money but not part of the proper government activity) is the ideal screen to allow the British Government of the day (the fake conservative one actually in power not excepted) to have potentially controversial, highly political decisions taken by some organ not residing within the Government, thus letting it appear a “technical” decision. Bollocks of course, as the extreme political content of this last decision abundantly proves.
The author further asks:
And how can it be in the “interests” of children to be adopted, not by a stably married couple, but by a gay couple instead (apart from anything else, gay relationships are notoriously unstable), “through other channels”?
and here an interesting question is posed: the instability of homo couples cannot be overlooked. It is extremely clear here that the interest of the child is the pawn of an ideological orientation.
On the contrary, common sense tells us that, as the US bishops have declared:
same-sex union […] contradicts the nature of marriage: it is not based on the natural complementarity of male and female; it cannot co-operate with God to create new life; and the natural purpose of sexual union cannot be achieved by a same-sex union.
and that as a consequence of that
it is not unjust to deny legal status to same-sex unions because marriage and same-sex unions are essentially different realities.
The astonishing thing is that not more than a couple of decades ago this would have been considered purest common sense by believers and atheists alike. It would have been considered common sense, because it is. And in fact the author points out that
it surely requires the most extreme credulousness to believe [….] that marriage and same-sex unions are essentially THE SAME reality and that a gay couple can therefore give adoptive children the same benefits as a man and wife
Mr. Oddie observes that
Our descendants will look back in amazement at the gullibility of our age
and how can we disagree with him on both arguments (that we are in a phase of institutionalised madness and that the next generation will see the madness of our ways).
The author concludes with this words:
“Oh Liberty,” in the famous words of Madame Roland as she mounted the scaffold, “what crimes are committed in thy name.” It was, I fear, ever thus.
The fight against the madness of the “right to perversion” continues. It will be victorious in the end, but it might be after our time. Not a reason to avoid the fight anyway.