Obviously as a socialist I view charity as a necessary evil. It's something that has to be done because socialism hasn't yet arrived to take care of things properly and see that no one starves to death.

Charity is an institution with rather noxious moral implications because it absolves the rich, who give a minute percentage of their income, if they give any at all, to ameliorate problems caused by their existence. Although it's even more insidious than that because people on lower incomes give larger percentages of their incomes and as a class their generosity outstrips that of the rich by some way anyway - so 'individuals of high net worth' (as they're called in the trade) get the PR and the ragged-trousered philanthropists foot the bill as usual.

None of this is new or controversial, but as with everything in capitalist society, all charities are bad, but some are worse than others. Ladies and gentlemen, I present noxious charity of the day, Compassion TM.

Are you a child growing up in a war zone? Have you been orphaned? Are you not in education, or merely living in desperate poverty? Well, CompassionTM can help. All you have to do to receive their generosity is get lectured on why you should believe in somebody else's invisible friend. Come on now, it's say the mumbo jumbo or no din dins! Or, as the Compassion TM people put it themselves:

"Ways to Sponsor a Child
Just $32 per month connects you with a child in a loving relationship that will change his or her life -- and yours! Exchange letters, photos, prayers. Become a friend. Provide opportunities for education, health and personal development. Most important, your child will learn about Jesus in a church-based program in his or her neighborhood. Compassion offers numerous ways for you to sponsor a child in need."

Yes folks, 30 years of widening the economic divide back to the nineteenth century has left us growing mutton chops, looking for stovepipe hats and trying to remember where we left our deference: Sure you can have help, but first you've got to agree to acknowledge my invisible friend. Then you've got to worship my invisible friend.

Because that is the nature of charity, isn't it? "Sure I'll help, but it'll cost you!

Anyone considering giving money to a charity aiming to help people in the third world should follow my 3 helpful tips:

(a) are they making their help conditional on grateful supplicants agreeing to believe in a morally dubious deity who won't do anything to actually help, but will be very angry at you if you don't like him?

If so, I recommend you go elsewhere with your money: Oxfam, say, or Water Aid.

(b) Is their domain name a .com or a .org?

Proper charities are usually .orgs - .coms are for money-making enterprises.

(c) have they tried to trademark a noun?

If so beware. Next thing you know they'll be declaring war on plants and abstract nouns alike...