It was the Christian character of the YWCA that made it great. It is a shame that it is turning its back on those values.
Those were the glum words of Mike Judge of the Christian Institute after he learned that The Young Women’s Christian Association has dropped its historic title after 156 years because “it no longer stands for who we are”.
Mike Judge
Instead the organisation – which is mainly funded by legacies left by Christian supporters over 15 decades – will be known as Platform 51.
According to this report, the decision to drop all mention of Christianity from the charity’s name and purposes has drawn flak from religious groups.
Other charities have dropped all references to Christianity from their names to win favour from those in charge of grants. Churches Action for the Homeless, based in Scotland, began a search for a new name in 2009 after its chairman said having a religious identity made it hard to get grants.
YWCA England and Wales told supporters:
During the 156 years since we were founded, we’ve had to evolve to reflect changes in society and the needs and expectations of women. This is true not only of the work we do, but also of our name. Our original name no longer stood for who we are or what we do and people often confused us with another charity.
The “other charity” is understood to be the YMCA, which, unlike the YWCA, continues to pursue its original objective of providing accommodation for young people. Platform 51 aims to:
Lobby for changes in the law and policies to help all women.
Said Mike Judge:
Many believe there is an anti-Christian bias among those who decide which charities get state funding.
The Freethinker was founded in 1881 by GW Foote, an outspoken critic of religion. After the publication of 
January 7th, 2011 at 11:04 am
Is Mike Judge actually on the staff of the Mail? He has a “news” item practically every single day now!
January 7th, 2011 at 11:25 am
Well, does that mean ‘Young Women’s Christian Association’ or similar name is now up for grabs? Let all those energetic and generous Christians out there form such a charity and make it work, instead of bleating about perfectly reasonable decisions by others. But of course, bleating is easier. Look, I’m doing it now, sitting in a chair typing on the intertrons! No real work needed.
January 7th, 2011 at 11:35 am
I have to admit, Platform 51 sounds more the name of an oil rig.
January 7th, 2011 at 1:05 pm
Platform 51! Not 50 or 52? “It was the christian character of YWCA that made it great.” Seems as if the “christian character” couldn’t be all that helpful as they are now ditching the name. I wonder what they do – the YWCA? Being christians, and uni sex, and don’t suppose they can be a marriage mart like the Young Farmers.
Encouraging that the description “christian” is now a negative for people who put their money into charities.
January 7th, 2011 at 1:34 pm
I would just like to clarify that the change of working name applies only to YWCA in England and Wales. YWCA Scotland and the independent YWCAs in Great Britain, including YWCA Glasgow and YWCA Sheffield will be keeping the YWCA name.
YWCA Scotland recognises and values its heritage – founded over 150 years ago based on the principles of social justice arising from the faith of its founders and members. However, for many years, YWCA Scotland has not been a specifically Christian-based organisation. We work for and with young women and girls from all faiths and those who express no faith or belief. We provide opportunities particularly for vulnerable and economically, socially and educationally disadvantaged young women to gain skills, knowledge and self-confidence. We seek to enable them to make informed life choices, achieve their full potential and make a positive contribution to their communities.
Kim Smith, YWCA Scotland National Co-ordinator
January 7th, 2011 at 1:47 pm
Is that a nod to the ‘Hangar 51′ so common to UFO conpiracy theorists then?
Of course, one of the other reasons godbothering parasites (sorry, ‘faith based charities’) take the C word out of their name is to make it less obvious when they’ve done yet another deal to take over a social service from government.
January 7th, 2011 at 5:44 pm
Kim Smith: That seems to me to be a fair and encouraging reply. Being Scots myself, and brought up in the Kirk which I abandoned in my teens when I became an atheist, I still retain an affection for the old Kirk where I was christened and happy memories of Sunday School picnics and Christmas Parties.
January 7th, 2011 at 7:28 pm
It seems to me that Christianity has been growing progressively less relevant to British life for most of my 52 year lifetime. It seems as if the last few remaining Christians have only just noticed and have suddenly started to panic. It appears to have been happening naturally but suddenly the idea that it is all a deliberate conspiracy hatched by militant secularists seems to have taken hold. This paranoia is most visible at Christmas when the militant secularists have militantly taken to referring to the festive period as Christmas.
@Kim Smith.
If your organisation is as inclusive and admirable as you say it is I would like to say well done and keep up the good work. You may have to forgive us for having a little too much cynicism here but we do get to hear a great many stories about religion doing harm. Possibly if you have a look at the archive here you may understand why we are naturally suspicious of faith based enterprises.
January 8th, 2011 at 1:59 am
If it was the Christian character of the organisation that made it great, I suppose all other charities that are not Christian might as well not bother. Is that what you are saying, Mike Judge? Of course, he’d deny such a thing with mealy mouthed circular drivel, but it is entirely the implication of what he is saying, and I am sick of these arrogant, pompous, insular, self-righteous twats patting themselves on the back and telling themselves and the world that they are good people because they are Christians, and their actions are good actions because they attach the term Christian to them.
Some Christians do good things, and some Christian organisations are good organisations. But let’s not kid ourselves that the ‘Christian character’ does anything – do these people who feed and clothe and shelter the destitute really only do it for brownie points with their deity? Do they honestly think they’d be raping women instead of fighting for their rights if it weren’t for going to church every Sunday? That’s absurd. But there are plenty of people who would feed the hungry and clothe the naked out of the goodness of their heart who would cut their daughters’ genitals, prevent their sons marrying who they love or let women die in hospital corridors because of what they think their deity wants.
January 8th, 2011 at 3:24 am
I am immediately reminded of “Christian Children’s Fund”. Now it’s called “Child Fund” but you are left wondering if your contribution would buy the child a meal or a copy of the bible.
Can I get an “amen”? Churches are rich beyond belief, but they continue to lobby for government support for their shallow efforts to proselytize. Bush proposed the faith based initiative where all religious charities would receive the same federal support as secular charities.
Thankfully, I’m going to die. I won’t be here when humanity dies of it’s own greed and ignorance. Our science was cutting edge, but our wisdom was way too late. Sad.
NeoWolfe
January 8th, 2011 at 9:16 am
So funding organizations are being accused of bring anti
christian, why is that a big deal, its a free country? Are
Christian funding organizations obliged to donate money to
charities that is against their ethos etc? Bleating indeed! Well
done Platform 51.
January 8th, 2011 at 12:45 pm
I wonder what this “christian character” comprises. From ancient times the christian character led to the theft of rituals, philosophies, ways of life from pagan society and claiming this was christian. The lack of a christian character, presumably, caused thousands to be racked, thumbscrewed and burned alive. In Victorian times the christian character meant that men, often brutal, inflicted abuse on women: “you may beat your wife as long as the stick is not thicker than your thumb” was the legal statement of a judge.
As for the christian character exhibited by missionaries in the South Seas – as exemplars of their religion we must assume they had it – this destroyed a way of life, the culture and customs, of entire peoples and inflicted them with venereal disease. Lots of chistian character shown by the slave owners in the deep South USA who found time to ensure their slaves heard the promise of rewards in heaven. Coming up to date we have the christian character exhibited by Ratzi and his priests.
Christian character, accepted as a given by many, crumbles and rots on examination. As an example of the duplicity of those imbued by christian character we have an entire day devoted on Radio 4 to readings from the St James bible. They will be highly selective and we may assume they will avoid the brutalities, the contradictions, the endorsements of slavery, the idiocies and the audience will be encouraged to a passive acceptance of a dishonest charade.
January 8th, 2011 at 10:01 pm
Lovely post again broga, you rational twat.
January 9th, 2011 at 10:24 am
@stargraves: You are too kind.
Happy New Year.
January 9th, 2011 at 10:35 am
Sorry to post off topic but I feel this is important.
Here is a link to comments from the crazy religious fundies who are trying to have Shanda Sharer’s murderers released from prison because they have been “born again†while incarcerated.
Read the last two posts:
http://www.topix.com/forum/cit.....L#lastPost
They enter the Prisons and preach to the prisoners and if one drinks their kool-aid they will use their political connections to help them. Shanda’s murderers are high profile offenders and why they wish to save their souls. I guess they think they will receive an extra credit for this.
They are using the State of Indiana’s taxpayer dollars to stalk, slander, and harass citizens who have protested the early release of Shanda’s killers, including her family. And another good reason religion and politics do not mix.
12-year old Shanda Sharer was kidnapped, tortured for ten hours, molested, than burned alive by four older teenage girls in 1992. Her father literally drank himself to death after the horrific loss of his only child. Like vultures they waited for his demise knowing he would be their biggest adversary, after his death the fundies kicked it into high gear to get her murderers released, and they succeeded with Hope Rippey. But thousands got together on the Internet and spread the word when they tried for another’s release, including signing petitions. Now they are after the leaders of the protesters while hiding under anonymity.
It should not be surprising to you people that the most violent of the girls, Laurie, Melinda, and Hope, were raised with religion and believed god would forgive them if only they asked. The only girl who showed compassion and tried to help Shanda was the atheist Toni Lawrence who has served her full sentence that was less than the others because she went to the police.
If you wish to help call the Indianapolis press and ask them to investigate who is really funding the early release of Hope Rippey and Melinda Loveless.
January 9th, 2011 at 10:43 am
Mark: You’d think that true believers would actually want to serve out their whole sentence as penance for the crime that they had committed, wouldn’t you? Strange logic. The Christians with whom I associated were very keen on “prison work”, and I thought, from my experience as a schoolteacher, that they were extremely gullible to believe that all those recalcitrants had really “accepted Christ”!
January 9th, 2011 at 4:24 pm
Christian religious extremists always get angry when anyone tries to be inclusive of non Christians.
January 10th, 2011 at 3:08 am
They’re probably more concerned with limiting their market to the dwindling number of xians. Read recently of a poll in the UK that had 51% indentifying as non believers. If your market is diminishing, you need to move with the times and present a ‘moder’ image. Referring to baby jesus and his ‘orrible dad would limit the organisations appeal to those that subscribe to the amusing nonsense of religious belief and in 2010, that’s just too few to be viable.
January 10th, 2011 at 3:09 am
ooops…2011 and er.. ‘modern’.