Again, please read my posts before running off your mouth. To express it yet again, NO. I am not happy to see that. It should be stamped out. My point yet again is that it can be stamped out without destroying the good that faith-based organisations do.
Except that you're rather missing the point here.
Religion, as an entity such as it can be described as one, can provide a framework for charity. It is well known to provide a network of people who are ready to help, and indeed many religious organisations make good use of this to provide charity to many.
However, the problem comes when you declare that you can keep the aforementioned good work separate from the bad things religions do. This isn't possible. Not because "religion" is a bad thing, but because individual religions are not set up in such a compartmentalised way. An example of this is Operation Christmas Child.
On the surface, a wonderful, benevolent organisation that supplies children in 2nd and 3rd world countries with Christmas gifts, toys and games that they would otherwise not receive due to their poverty, or lack of family. On the surface, I can't think of a better way to use a religious foundation (the organisation itself and the giving spirit of the religious festival Christmas). However once you dig a little deeper, you find out that this organisation, which portrays itself as a benevolent force for good is actually a disgusting and base taint. In addition to the donated gifts, this organisation packs the present boxes full of Christian propaganda, of the sort which condemns and threatens the very people they claim to help with hell-fire and torture if they refuse to convert. Indeed, the organisation uses the generous gift giving as a cover for its real mission, the spread of its own particular brand of Christianity.
There is no denying that the gifts given to these impoverished children are wonderful, generous and a worthy act of charity from those who give them, but when it comes to OCC, you can't have the good without the foul. Similarly, most (although not all) religious charity work is done either with the express goal of, or with the additional benefit of pushing the specific religious ideology of that charity. When a group called "Christian Whatever Group" comes and provides a well, the message is that Christians are providing the well. When that group provides sect specific literature as well, the intent was clearly not even to provide the well in the first place. The well is a bargaining chip, or the sugar to sweeten the pill of the actual mission. Conversion.
Also, not to belabour the point but when it comes to the works of great religious organisations like the RCC, there truly is no way to separate the good works it does from the foul, harmful crap it spews. There simply is no way to remove one without the other, not because they are totally inter-connected as entities, but because the minds of those who lead the great moves towards providing clean water are the same people who push anti-condom nonsense and because of their religious beliefs both acts are seen as vital charity work. Whereas if you took one of the numerous secular groups who do similar charity work, there isn't the same scope for pushing ideas on to these people.
Of course there are organisations that are essentially wholly benevolent such as (as far as I'm aware) the Salvation Army who are religious and do good because they are good people, and you could say that the religious aspect was the framework for such an organisation, but in reality, religion is a frippery. A useless appendage that could be replaced by anything else which brings people together, or indeed nothing at all. That there are plenty of secular movements like Médecins Sans Frontières proves that the last true argument in favour of religion as a great motivator for charity is false. If people, diffuse wholly different and unique people can come together and form a group that's as far reaching and noble as MSF, then what is religion for?
Sure, religion
can bring people together to do good, but it isn't
necessary. It
can provide a ready made network of charitable types, but so can lots of other things. Thus, religion is
not a force for good, merely one in any number of groupings that can potentially bring people together. Even if you ignored the evils of the world caused by religion, it's a wholly worthless artefact when it comes to doing good.
Religion isn't evil, it's just that it's an utterly worthless and extraneous thing that is wholly separate from the notion of charity, but too often not the brutality that it inflicts. Since it's so worthless when it comes to the good and so active and vital when it comes to the bad, why on Earth defend it?
... if I'm threatened by someone or something or taking it personally I'm usually more direct with my release of aggression. Plus, I'm not much for "boxing" where there's rules and mouth guards in place. I either walk away or I like the result of my punches to be where the thing I'm punching doesn't get up again. And treating something like crap ... I personally don't like playing with crap. Flush it away and get it TFA from me 
