Send an atheist to church!

[BigBallinStalin]

What were the alternatives?

This is actually a fair point. At the time very little agriculture was done by people who actually owned the land.

Though the church was mainly running farms for itself, and not to feed poor people. (money to build more churches/ Icons and so on).


I suspect most organized religion has been similar throughout history. The main cause is the spread of their faith, charity is secondary.

Perhaps, you're right, but that's a big claim.

I don't think so. Religious organisations are about their faith. They might engage in charity as an expression of that faith but the main purpose will be observance of that faith.

It's like a corporation. They might engage in charity but their primary goal is the business.

Religious organisations primary goal is the religion.

That probably holds true for the history of Christianity and Islam... Those religions integrated with the political institutions greatly.

I know the Buddhists and Daoists differentiated their services to the community (basically, Daoists were kind of like alchemists during... I think, 6th to 9th Century China, but that's gleaned from Journey to the West, so it could be one drawn out straw man fallacy against Daoists).

I know Hindus offered religious services, e.g. prayers, ceremonies, etc. But they didn't proselytize... so maybe this argument doesn't apply to Hinduism?

[john9blue]

You came so close to the truth there, but just missed it....

They are indeed just like a corporation. The primary goal is also the business. Their product just happens to be religion, and the charity as with the corporation; marketing.

I should point out also, that this does not inherently make every religion evil. Just as a business that does not do business will not be a business, the same holds true for a church. Any perceived evil would be in the excess and waste, commonly a result of good ole fashioned greed.

wow.

being cynical is good sometimes, but being overly cynical for no reason at all is absolutely idiotic.

if you genuinely think most religious organizations are primarily in it for the money, then you are very heavily indoctrinated and closed-minded. it also indicates your lack of empathy: "i don't believe in god, therefore religion is ridiculous, therefore religious organizations can't truly form for the purpose of spreading a ridiculous worldview, therefore they must have an ulterior motive, which must be money"

does anyone else on this forum actually believe that religions form for monetary reasons? if so please identify yourself; i may finally start an ignore list.

yours is a perfect example of the "everything i dislike must be evil" worldview that is fucking up modern society and stifling any attempt at reasonable debate.

[BigBallinStalin]

that's true! In the Russia empire the church had it own farms with serfs and everything. They were probably just cutting out the middlemen.

Oh give me a break,I know you've got something against Christianity, but yes, churches do do other things than inquisitions and telling people that they are bad. The vast majority of charitable organizations are faith-based. The vast majority of food and other things given for free to the poor is part of some religious organization or another.

But anyway,that's what Phatscotty was talking about, but what Quirk was probably referring to is the "coffee fellowship" or some such that a lot of churches do after service to give people opportunity to talk, and hopefully welcome visitors and new members more informally. It can range from just coffee and donuts to a real meal, or something in between, like sandwiches.

In a Baptist church we went to in New York, we had English and Spanish speaking congregations. First one group would have their service in the church while the other had Sunday school in the classrooms, then we'd have the coffee and sandwiches and stuff, then we'd switch places.

Why does BVP's statement upset you?

He didn't mention anything about inquisitions or telling people that they are bad. You're being very emotional.

[BigBallinStalin]

John9blue, more money or being "in it for the money" aren't the main goals of a religious organization; superficially one could claim that businesses are in it for the money. But the money comes from customers; therefore, customer satisfaction is key. If you ignore customer demands, for nearly all businesses in competitive markets, this won't bode well.

This holds true for businesses and religious organizations, which are essentially businesses.

[john9blue]

John9blue, more money or being "in it for the money" aren't the main goals of a religious organization; superficially one could claim that businesses are in it for the money. But the money comes from customers; therefore, customer satisfaction is key. If you ignore customer demands, for nearly all businesses in competitive markets, this won't bode well.

This holds true for businesses and religious organizations, which are essentially businesses.

that holds true for literally any organization that requires money to function and isn't funded by the government.

fitz said that their primary goal was business. that's completely different.

[BigBallinStalin]

John9blue, more money or being "in it for the money" aren't the main goals of a religious organization; superficially one could claim that businesses are in it for the money. But the money comes from customers; therefore, customer satisfaction is key. If you ignore customer demands, for nearly all businesses in competitive markets, this won't bode well.

This holds true for businesses and religious organizations, which are essentially businesses.

that holds true for literally any organization that requires money to function and isn't funded by the government.

fitz said that their primary goal was business. that's completely different.

Oh, I see. Yeah, I'm not sure exactly what he means by that.

Charity is a package deal with religious products. It's a club good. Religious organizations, like a community's church, are economic clubs. So, charity might be for marketing, but for many local religious groups, it's just a good provided by the club for whoever is deemed worthy of it.

It's a bit of a stretch to say that the production of charitable goods and services is for marketing purposes. It's really just a package deal of the production of religion because that's what most religions are about, charity. Sure, it has beneficial effects related to marketing, but that isn't the main motivation for charity.

I could see the Vatican behaving more like the model that AAFitz describes. Goal 1: "Business," Goal 2: marketing via charity. But again, what does "business" mean? Ehh... <shrugs>

[Baron Von PWN]

What were the alternatives?

This is actually a fair point. At the time very little agriculture was done by people who actually owned the land.

Though the church was mainly running farms for itself, and not to feed poor people. (money to build more churches/ Icons and so on).


I suspect most organized religion has been similar throughout history. The main cause is the spread of their faith, charity is secondary.

Perhaps, you're right, but that's a big claim.

I don't think so. Religious organisations are about their faith. They might engage in charity as an expression of that faith but the main purpose will be observance of that faith.

It's like a corporation. They might engage in charity but their primary goal is the business.

Religious organisations primary goal is the religion.

That probably holds true for the history of Christianity and Islam... Those religions integrated with the political institutions greatly.

I know the Buddhists and Daoists differentiated their services to the community (basically, Daoists were kind of like alchemists during... I think, 6th to 9th Century China, but that's gleaned from Journey to the West, so it could be one drawn out straw man fallacy against Daoists).

I know Hindus offered religious services, e.g. prayers, ceremonies, etc. But they didn't proselytize... so maybe this argument doesn't apply to Hinduism?

spread was perhaps a poor choice of wording. I more mean their primary concern is the conduct of their religion(which may or may not include proselytizing), not charity. So Hindus may not proselytize, but their religious organization's primary concern is the running of their religion. Not charity, charity if any is done, is a by-product.

[BigBallinStalin]

I'm largely in agreement here.

Question about Georgia!

[thegreekdog]

What if charity as a tenet of your religion?

[Symmetry]

What if charity as a tenet of your religion?

Indeed, it's a pillar of Islam. It's no side benefit, it's a core practice.

[thegreekdog]

What if charity as a tenet of your religion?

Indeed, it's a pillar of Islam. It's no side benefit, it's a core practice.

I believe it's also a pillar of Buddhism (although maybe not given that no one has said as much here). It's absolutely a pillar of Catholicism, although maybe some won't agree. Maybe it's a pillar of thegreekdog's version of Catholicism.

[Symmetry]

What if charity as a tenet of your religion?

Indeed, it's a pillar of Islam. It's no side benefit, it's a core practice.

I believe it's also a pillar of Buddhism (although maybe not given that no one has said as much here). It's absolutely a pillar of Catholicism, although maybe some won't agree. Maybe it's a pillar of thegreekdog's version of Catholicism.

Probably should have put a link in there. The Pillars of Islam is a term used in Islamic faith:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Pillars_of_Islam

One of them is charity.

[Baron Von PWN]

What if charity as a tenet of your religion?

Indeed, it's a pillar of Islam. It's no side benefit, it's a core practice.

I believe it's also a pillar of Buddhism (although maybe not given that no one has said as much here). It's absolutely a pillar of Catholicism, although maybe some won't agree. Maybe it's a pillar of thegreekdog's version of Catholicism.

It's a part of the religion, which I did not exclude, just that practice of the religion will take precedence over charity. In otherwords, charity is not their sole purpose.

If the choice is closing down the soup kitchen or keeping the mosque/church/temple open I'm willing to bet more often than not the soup kitchen gets shut down.

[Symmetry]

What if charity as a tenet of your religion?

Indeed, it's a pillar of Islam. It's no side benefit, it's a core practice.

I believe it's also a pillar of Buddhism (although maybe not given that no one has said as much here). It's absolutely a pillar of Catholicism, although maybe some won't agree. Maybe it's a pillar of thegreekdog's version of Catholicism.

It's a part of the religion, which I did not exclude, just that practice of the religion will take precedence over charity. In otherwords, charity is not their sole purpose.

If the choice is closing down the soup kitchen or keeping the mosque/church/temple open I'm willing to bet more often than not the soup kitchen gets shut down.

For Muslims, at least in theory, regular prayer and charity are both pillars. You might be right in practice, but it's right there at the core of the religion. It is one of the sole purposes of Islamic practice. Maybe not soup kitchens, but charitable donations.

[Baron Von PWN]

What if charity as a tenet of your religion?

Indeed, it's a pillar of Islam. It's no side benefit, it's a core practice.

I believe it's also a pillar of Buddhism (although maybe not given that no one has said as much here). It's absolutely a pillar of Catholicism, although maybe some won't agree. Maybe it's a pillar of thegreekdog's version of Catholicism.

It's a part of the religion, which I did not exclude, just that practice of the religion will take precedence over charity. In otherwords, charity is not their sole purpose.

If the choice is closing down the soup kitchen or keeping the mosque/church/temple open I'm willing to bet more often than not the soup kitchen gets shut down.

For Muslims, at least in theory, regular prayer and charity are both pillars. You might be right in practice, but it's right there at the core of the religion. It is one of the sole purposes of Islamic practice. Maybe not soup kitchens, but charitable donations.

Charitable donations, which often go to the operation of the Mosque. It's the equivalent of passing the collection plate at mass. Some of it makes its way to charity, but most of it is going to operating the place of worship.

[Symmetry]

For Muslims, at least in theory, regular prayer and charity are both pillars. You might be right in practice, but it's right there at the core of the religion. It is one of the sole purposes of Islamic practice. Maybe not soup kitchens, but charitable donations.

Charitable donations, which often go to the operation of the Mosque. It's the equivalent of passing the collection plate at mass. Some of it makes its way to charity, but most of it is going to operating the place of worship.

Interesting, I didn't know that- where did you get that information?

[Baron Von PWN]

For Muslims, at least in theory, regular prayer and charity are both pillars. You might be right in practice, but it's right there at the core of the religion. It is one of the sole purposes of Islamic practice. Maybe not soup kitchens, but charitable donations.

Charitable donations, which often go to the operation of the Mosque. It's the equivalent of passing the collection plate at mass. Some of it makes its way to charity, but most of it is going to operating the place of worship.

Interesting, I didn't know that- where did you get that information?

well I can only speak to the material I've read in the course of my studies. One of the classes I took was on Central asia and their customs. Where making donations to mosques or shrines is seen as fulfilling the charity requirement.

However some extra research turns up this.
From Wikipedia,
There are eight categories of people (asnaf) who qualify to receive zakat funds, according to the Qu'ran:[17][18]
Those living in absolute poverty (Al-Fuqarā')
Those who cannot meet their basic needs (Al-Masākīn)
The zakat collectors themselves (Al-Āmilīna 'Alaihā)
Non-Muslims who are sympathetic to Islam or wish to convert to Islam.(Al-Mu'allafatu Qulūbuhum)
People whom one is attempting to free from slavery or bondage. Also includes paying ransom or blood money (Diyah). (Fir-Riqāb)
Those who have incurred overwhelming debts while attempting to satisfy their basic needs (Al-Ghārimīn)
Those working for an Islamic cause (Fī Sabīlillāh)
Travelers in need (Ibnus-Sabīl)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zak%C4%81t

I've bolded the ones which could easily be interested to mean those funds be used for maintenance of the Mosque or imam.

Zaqat is supposedly mandatory if you can afford it. There is also a system of voluntary donation on top of zaqat.

[Symmetry]

For Muslims, at least in theory, regular prayer and charity are both pillars. You might be right in practice, but it's right there at the core of the religion. It is one of the sole purposes of Islamic practice. Maybe not soup kitchens, but charitable donations.

Charitable donations, which often go to the operation of the Mosque. It's the equivalent of passing the collection plate at mass. Some of it makes its way to charity, but most of it is going to operating the place of worship.

Interesting, I didn't know that- where did you get that information?

well I can only speak to the material I've read in the course of my studies. One of the classes I took was on Central asia and their customs. Where making donations to mosques or shrines is seen as fulfilling the charity requirement.

However some extra research turns up this.
From Wikipedia,
There are eight categories of people (asnaf) who qualify to receive zakat funds, according to the Qu'ran:[17][18]
Those living in absolute poverty (Al-Fuqarā')
Those who cannot meet their basic needs (Al-Masākīn)
The zakat collectors themselves (Al-Āmilīna 'Alaihā)
Non-Muslims who are sympathetic to Islam or wish to convert to Islam.(Al-Mu'allafatu Qulūbuhum)
People whom one is attempting to free from slavery or bondage. Also includes paying ransom or blood money (Diyah). (Fir-Riqāb)
Those who have incurred overwhelming debts while attempting to satisfy their basic needs (Al-Ghārimīn)
Those working for an Islamic cause (Fī Sabīlillāh)
Travelers in need (Ibnus-Sabīl)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zak%C4%81t

I've bolded the ones which could easily be interested to mean those funds be used for maintenance of the Mosque or imam.

Zaqat is supposedly mandatory if you can afford it. There is also a system of voluntary donation on top of zaqat.

Would it be fair for me to say that that's a bit different from what you originally claimed?

[AAFitz]

You came so close to the truth there, but just missed it....

They are indeed just like a corporation. The primary goal is also the business. Their product just happens to be religion, and the charity as with the corporation; marketing.

I should point out also, that this does not inherently make every religion evil. Just as a business that does not do business will not be a business, the same holds true for a church. Any perceived evil would be in the excess and waste, commonly a result of good ole fashioned greed.

wow.

being cynical is good sometimes, but being overly cynical for no reason at all is absolutely idiotic.

if you genuinely think most religious organizations are primarily in it for the money, then you are very heavily indoctrinated and closed-minded. it also indicates your lack of empathy: "i don't believe in god, therefore religion is ridiculous, therefore religious organizations can't truly form for the purpose of spreading a ridiculous worldview, therefore they must have an ulterior motive, which must be money"

does anyone else on this forum actually believe that religions form for monetary reasons? if so please identify yourself; i may finally start an ignore list.

yours is a perfect example of the "everything i dislike must be evil" worldview that is fucking up modern society and stifling any attempt at reasonable debate.

I could easily just quote you and repost this. Clearly you vehemently disagree with my view, but that hardly makes it an example of saying everything I dislike must be evil or is in any what fucking up modern society.

In fact, you posting that, is more an example of it than anything I said. All I posted was my belief about what the actual powers in charge of religions have clearly done in the past, and clearly do now.

I suspect that your actual frustration with my post, and why you completely ignored every word and instead went on a rant is because it obviously rang so true for you, and you were just trying to disguise that fact. I don't blame you there. My post was very direct, but I did not post it to annoy, but only as my opinion. I also did add that obviously not all religions were solely in it for the money, but I suspect the red in your eyes prevented clear reading on this one.

I also understand your passionate response, and perhaps the ignore if you feel so inclined, but it means no more to me than a convicted convict who is guilty screaming about the injustice of incarceration. What else is he going to say really?

[AAFitz]

What if charity as a tenet of your religion?

I dont think the tenent of the religion is really the question here, I think what is important is the actual practice of the religions.

If the leaders of a religion actually follow the stated tenets, I would be very, very impressed. It is the sheer number of examples of those that go against them I think is why they get such general disrespect by some, and I suppose, in this case, by me.

As Ive posted many times, I absolutely adore and cherish my christian upbringing. I strive every day to live up to its standards and teachings. Its why I am so passionate against standing up for what is wrong, which in many cases, are the actual practices and even teachings of religions.

When I wake up to some evangelical suggesting people who have nothing to give, simply need to send in seed money to get their life in order, so that same evangelical can wear his $3000 suit in his Mercedes peeling out in the parking lot with a bagful of cash I absolutely am sickened. When I see a Church that cost millions of dollars, with people pretending to worship a God who was quoted as saying take care of my children and treat them as you would like to be treated, I simply cannot bear the hypocricy of it all. When I see those on this forum who claim to be strict believers, and then post against every real doctrine that is inherently obvious in every teaching of their religions, I again, am sickened by the hypocricy.

Its also when I see supposed believers and worshipers claim that atheists are evil and exemplify everything that is wrong with the world, I again, simply laugh at the hypocricy of the entire situation.

When religions start putting their money where there mouth is...or more precisely where the hungry mouths are, instead of in locked mahogany closets made out of gold with rubies, I absolutely will be impressed. Until then, their tenets mean nothing more than the responsible mission statement of a corporation, that fails to actually implement it.

Again, no doubt there are religions out there that are very charitable indeed, but for the most part, we dont know where they are, because they have not built cities, and multimillion dollar churches or temples, because they actually follow their teachings, and actually make the world a better place.

I equate Churches to Shindler from Shindler's list. He essentially used the remainder of all his wealth to simply save as many human beings as he possibly could. When I see a church do that, I will absolutely then become a believer. I may or may not believe in their God, but I certainly will have full respect for that religion. But when they pour wine into a golden goblet that could save human lives tomorrow, and suggest I should go find a way to make the world a better place....well....f*ck you jobu...Ill do it myself.

...that was fun..lol

[AAFitz]

John9blue, more money or being "in it for the money" aren't the main goals of a religious organization; superficially one could claim that businesses are in it for the money. But the money comes from customers; therefore, customer satisfaction is key. If you ignore customer demands, for nearly all businesses in competitive markets, this won't bode well.

This holds true for businesses and religious organizations, which are essentially businesses.

that holds true for literally any organization that requires money to function and isn't funded by the government.

fitz said that their primary goal was business. that's completely different.

Oh, I see. Yeah, I'm not sure exactly what he means by that.

Charity is a package deal with religious products. It's a club good. Religious organizations, like a community's church, are economic clubs. So, charity might be for marketing, but for many local religious groups, it's just a good provided by the club for whoever is deemed worthy of it.

It's a bit of a stretch to say that the production of charitable goods and services is for marketing purposes. It's really just a package deal of the production of religion because that's what most religions are about, charity. Sure, it has beneficial effects related to marketing, but that isn't the main motivation for charity.

I could see the Vatican behaving more like the model that AAFitz describes. Goal 1: "Business," Goal 2: marketing via charity. But again, what does "business" mean? Ehh... <shrugs>

I definitely am more describing the massive religions and without a doubt the Vatican would be a prime example, but hardly the only one. I certainly do not mean every individual church, because as with businesses, every single one varies, and Im sure in some cases, they do an amazing job of using their resources for the best possible good of their community.

As far as what business means, certainly there is some gray area, but when I posted that, I definitely was suggesting they offer their religion, in exchange for monetary support. The sheer reality of the situation is that every church needs some money to survive, so, if that is not addressed, that religion or church, simply does not, or will not exist. And as I said, its hardly evil to exist if one fully believes in whichever religion. However, there certainly is a point of excess of material goods and cash, that very much could actually be used to help Gods children and actually make the world a better place, and by not using these for that goal, some churches, and religions, absolutely go against the basic core of what they pretend to preach in my somewhat overstated opinion.

[AAFitz]

yours is a perfect example of the "everything i dislike must be evil" worldview that is fucking up modern society and stifling any attempt at reasonable debate.

You mean like some religious views on contraception, homosexuality, gay marriage, and women's reproductive rights?

Personally, I wouldnt say churches are fucking up modern society as you suggest they are, with the "everything I dislike is evil worldview". Id just say they arent in it, and society simply isnt modern yet.

[thegreekdog]

What if charity as a tenet of your religion?

I dont think the tenent of the religion is really the question here, I think what is important is the actual practice of the religions.

If the leaders of a religion actually follow the stated tenets, I would be very, very impressed. It is the sheer number of examples of those that go against them I think is why they get such general disrespect by some, and I suppose, in this case, by me.

As Ive posted many times, I absolutely adore and cherish my christian upbringing. I strive every day to live up to its standards and teachings. Its why I am so passionate against standing up for what is wrong, which in many cases, are the actual practices and even teachings of religions.

When I wake up to some evangelical suggesting people who have nothing to give, simply need to send in seed money to get their life in order, so that same evangelical can wear his $3000 suit in his Mercedes peeling out in the parking lot with a bagful of cash I absolutely am sickened. When I see a Church that cost millions of dollars, with people pretending to worship a God who was quoted as saying take care of my children and treat them as you would like to be treated, I simply cannot bear the hypocricy of it all. When I see those on this forum who claim to be strict believers, and then post against every real doctrine that is inherently obvious in every teaching of their religions, I again, am sickened by the hypocricy.

Its also when I see supposed believers and worshipers claim that atheists are evil and exemplify everything that is wrong with the world, I again, simply laugh at the hypocricy of the entire situation.

When religions start putting their money where there mouth is...or more precisely where the hungry mouths are, instead of in locked mahogany closets made out of gold with rubies, I absolutely will be impressed. Until then, their tenets mean nothing more than the responsible mission statement of a corporation, that fails to actually implement it.

Again, no doubt there are religions out there that are very charitable indeed, but for the most part, we dont know where they are, because they have not built cities, and multimillion dollar churches or temples, because they actually follow their teachings, and actually make the world a better place.

I equate Churches to Shindler from Shindler's list. He essentially used the remainder of all his wealth to simply save as many human beings as he possibly could. When I see a church do that, I will absolutely then become a believer. I may or may not believe in their God, but I certainly will have full respect for that religion. But when they pour wine into a golden goblet that could save human lives tomorrow, and suggest I should go find a way to make the world a better place....well....f*ck you jobu...Ill do it myself.

...that was fun..lol

I trust you apply similar logic to other entities and institutions. I don't disagree with BvP's point that organized religions are mainly about practicing the religion. I do disagree with the logic behind your lack of respect for religion. Does your reasoning for your lack of respect apply to other institutions? Does it apply to individuals? If I don't give all of my money to charity, does that make you not respect me? Do you give all of your money to charity?

[john9blue]

I suspect that your actual frustration with my post, and why you completely ignored every word and instead went on a rant is because it obviously rang so true for you, and you were just trying to disguise that fact. I don't blame you there. My post was very direct, but I did not post it to annoy, but only as my opinion. I also did add that obviously not all religions were solely in it for the money, but I suspect the red in your eyes prevented clear reading on this one.

I also understand your passionate response, and perhaps the ignore if you feel so inclined, but it means no more to me than a convicted convict who is guilty screaming about the injustice of incarceration. What else is he going to say really?

yes, i'm angry because i SECRETLY KNOW YOU'RE RIGHT honestly, when that is someone's first line of defense, then i wonder if i should bother having a discussion.

you did NOT "add that obviously not all religions were solely in it for the money". you agreed with his "big claim". why don't you give examples of religions that are primarily in it for the money? clearly there are so many of them that it should be easy.

also, i'm not part of an organized religion; i go to church a few times a year at most. next time, try refuting my ideas instead of playing freud and attacking my motivations (and completely failing)

yours is a perfect example of the "everything i dislike must be evil" worldview that is fucking up modern society and stifling any attempt at reasonable debate.

You mean like some religious views on contraception, homosexuality, gay marriage, and women's reproductive rights?

Personally, I wouldnt say churches are fucking up modern society as you suggest they are, with the "everything I dislike is evil worldview". Id just say they arent in it, and society simply isnt modern yet.

yes, exactly like those. you are hardly better than the worst practitioners of the religion that you claim is so greedy and evil

[Baron Von PWN]

For Muslims, at least in theory, regular prayer and charity are both pillars. You might be right in practice, but it's right there at the core of the religion. It is one of the sole purposes of Islamic practice. Maybe not soup kitchens, but charitable donations.

Charitable donations, which often go to the operation of the Mosque. It's the equivalent of passing the collection plate at mass. Some of it makes its way to charity, but most of it is going to operating the place of worship.

Interesting, I didn't know that- where did you get that information?

well I can only speak to the material I've read in the course of my studies. One of the classes I took was on Central asia and their customs. Where making donations to mosques or shrines is seen as fulfilling the charity requirement.

However some extra research turns up this.
From Wikipedia,
There are eight categories of people (asnaf) who qualify to receive zakat funds, according to the Qu'ran:[17][18]
Those living in absolute poverty (Al-Fuqarā')
Those who cannot meet their basic needs (Al-Masākīn)
The zakat collectors themselves (Al-Āmilīna 'Alaihā)
Non-Muslims who are sympathetic to Islam or wish to convert to Islam.(Al-Mu'allafatu Qulūbuhum)
People whom one is attempting to free from slavery or bondage. Also includes paying ransom or blood money (Diyah). (Fir-Riqāb)
Those who have incurred overwhelming debts while attempting to satisfy their basic needs (Al-Ghārimīn)
Those working for an Islamic cause (Fī Sabīlillāh)
Travelers in need (Ibnus-Sabīl)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zak%C4%81t

I've bolded the ones which could easily be interested to mean those funds be used for maintenance of the Mosque or imam.

Zaqat is supposedly mandatory if you can afford it. There is also a system of voluntary donation on top of zaqat.

Would it be fair for me to say that that's a bit different from what you originally claimed?

Yes. My statement that Zaqat could just as easily be donations to the mosque/maintenance or expansion of the Religion remains accurate. However the second part 'most of the donations go to that" I cannot currently verify.

That aside, I think that my original premise, religions are primarily concerned with maintaining their religion and not charity, remains sound.