Charity is ill-conceived

When I look at charity it is readily apparent that it is such a flawed concept because it assesses the moral worth of any action on the basis of intentions rather than performance. A business man would not make such a mistake. He would not invest money in a project if the sponsors had no credibility. Yet religion will teach you that the 'neediest person is the most deserving'. Really? By whose standards?
Charity is flawed because it is based on altruism rather than selfishness. You should not give because you feel guilty or you want some moral sanction or credibility. You give because you take selfish pride in helping others, because you have been validated, and helping others is just one more problem to solve, and perhaps you don't need the money. Frankly I can't see why anyone would want to give money away when you can help people by enlisting them in productive effort. If you give people money there is a transfer of wealth. If you enlist them in productive effort you are giving them a capacity not only to help themselves for a lifetime, but you are contributing to wealth creation, and reinforcing healthy values.
The altruistic base upon which philanthropy is based is actually undermining virtue. You don't help people through self-sacrifice, by thinking less of yourself. You make your own enslavement more likely in your lifetime. Religious institutions are basically taking advantage of their followers so that they can profit from book sales. If they were selling healthy values, and honestly disclosing their real intent, and that that intent was consistent with their philosophy, and if their philosophy had any applicability to the real world, then that would be ok. But as you will read in my religious blog, religion is highlly flawed. Well meaning? Not at all. Its perhaps the biggest fraud perpetrated on humanity for the sake of power. Its closely followed by democracy. See my political blog.