How Charitable are US Churches?

[peter grimes]

Not very, apparently. Thought I can't say that I'm too surprised.

I suggest everyone read both this blog post from Pharyngula as well as the source for his article at SecularHumanism.org [link currently down]

A few interesting bits:

For instance, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the LDS or Mormon Church), which regularly trumpets its charitable donations, gave about $1 billion to charitable causes between 1985 and 2008. That may seem like a lot until you divide it by the twenty-three-year time span and realize this church is donating only about 0.7 percent of its annual income.

Heck, even I am more charitable than that! But then again, I'm not sending out missionaries across the globe. Do the missionaries get some sort of financial support during their stay? I've met several of them, and I must be honest that I'm glad they're giving people a pleasant first-hand impression of the US. But we don't need religion to do that.

Wal-Mart, for instance, gives about $1.75 billion in food aid to charities each year, or twenty-eight times all of the money allotted for charity by the United Methodist Church and almost double what the LDS Church has given in the last twenty-five years.

This is a better way to incentive charitable giving, clearly. Consider it tithe on commercial activity!

[IMG=http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/files/2012/06/cragun-table-1.png]http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/files/2012/06/cragun-table-1.png[/IMG]

$71,000,000,000 per year. Every year.

Or, for a more digestible number:
$195,000,000 per day. Every day.

Oh, still to big to really understand?
$135,000 per minute.

Tick, tock!


As you can probably tell by now, I'd much rather see that money put to better use. Education, anyone?

 

[Quackers]

Just a quick thought about the LDS church comment - i'm quite certain that the LDS operate as a charity itself - so i think that the idea they don't give is misleading. Can our forum mormons clear this up for me?

Anyway I'll be wary of taking anything so literally from a blog and "secularhumanist.org"

 

[timtofly]

When the government can be charitable and stay in the black let me know. Subsidy is not charity either. It just means that the government gives people money to control the economy instead of letting the free market do it's job. Even though some here still blame the free market instead of the government.

It is a tragedy that some in modern churches are living lavishly while their fellow humans are suffering in poverty. There are fat cats in every institute of modern life and churches are not exempt in that area, no pun intended.

Like I said in another thread, there may be some churches that are just social clubs, but the majority of them, it seems to me struggle from day to day just like the rest of us. I could be wrong though, and have just not visited enough churches to get a better picture of their greed.

 

[peter grimes]

Just a quick thought about the LSD church comment - i'm quite certain that the LSD operate as a charity itself - so i think that the idea they don't give is misleading. Can our forum mormons clear this up for me?

Anyway I'll be wary of taking anything so literally from a blog and "secularhumanist.org"

It doesn't say that they don't give - it says that they don't give as much as people commonly assume they do. Unless, of course, you assumed that they only donate ~1% to helping the poor and less fortunate...

And of course you should be skeptical of a blog post. Just as skeptical as you should be towards a financial entity that gets lots of tax benefits with very little oversight or regulation

When the government can be charitable and stay in the black let me know. Subsidy is not charity either. It just means that the government gives people money to control the economy instead of letting the free market do it's job. Even though some here still blame the free market instead of the government.

It is a tragedy that some in modern churches are living lavishly while their fellow humans are suffering in poverty. There are fat cats in every institute of modern life and churches are not exempt in that area, no pun intended.

Like I said in another thread, there may be some churches that are just social clubs, but the majority of them, it seems to me struggle from day to day just like the rest of us. I could be wrong though, and have just not visited enough churches to get a better picture of their greed.

This isn't about the government - but since you brought it up, just look at past deficits and surpluses. The government CAN be solvent and 'charitable'. This isn't necessarily about 'fat cats', thought they are a clearly incongruous aspect of any organization that seeks tax exemptions because 'we do charity work'.

I'm a little confused by your free-market comment - are you implying that a free market would alleviate food distribution problems, income problems, and other targets of church charity?

In my experience, churches are primarily social clubs with a little charity outreach sprinkled on top. That's fine and all, but I don't think it rises to such a level that it deserves priviledged consideration under the tax and legal codes.

 

[downtown]

Yeah, the LDS number is pretty bogus, since as Quackers pointed out, almost all of the church's activity could be written off as "charity".

One of the church's largest expenses is their well known, world-wide missionary program. Tithing money (church donations) helps support the hundreds of thousands of missionaries around the world, gives them health insurance, pays for their visas, their materials, subsidizes their housing, etc. While missionaries spend most of their time preaching, they're also constantly engaged in other service activities.

Missionaries who serve in Asia or Africa routinely give free (and seculuar) English lessons. When I served a mission in California, I was required to do X amounts of community service a week...we usually worked at soup kitchens, but sometimes did things for the salvation army.

The church also spends a lot of money subsidizing their education system. The LDS church runs 4 universities in the United States (BYU being the flagship, but also BYU-Idaho, BYU-Hawaii and the LDS Business College, which is like a community college in Salt Lake). These schools are WAY WAY below market price, and for certain majors, are really elite universities. The church also runs free k12 schools in latin america and in the pacific islands.

Finally, almost nobody who works for the church draws a paycheck. Regular pastors (called bishops) don't. Regional administrators don't. Sunday school teachers dont. A small percentage of other teachers do, but they checks are laughibly small. The church does keep a large amount of cash on hand, which is used in part for building construction (the LDS church pays cash for all property purchases), and for running those programs.

They don't give a lot of cash to charities, but that doesn't mean they aren't doing charitable things. I think the cash donations are usually for international disaster relief. I certainly feel quite comfortable donating money to them.

Also, if we're evaluating whether a church deserves a tax subsidy, there are a lot of other factors to consdier besides just "how much do their donate"...

 

[El_Machinae]

I often run into this when considering my charitable givings/efforts. I think that 'man-hours' is a very important aspect of charity work. I have friend who's salaried at works for the Red Cross as an educator. She's giving talks at community centers and schools a few times a week. I'd hope that there's some tangible benefit to this!

I work for a medical research organisation that requires charitable funding. I very much need a salary to support my efforts, and I also need funds to purchase my consumables and the rent (etc.) for my facility.

 

[cegman]

Can you explain to me why a charitable organization would give money to other organizations?

BTW I'm going to throw this out there but SecularHumanism.org is probably a bit biased against religious organizations.

 

[Farm Boy]

My local church is a small congregation and it struggles year to year with the maintenance on its modest building and the rather pitiful salary with some health benefits that it provides to its pastor and family.

If somebody is looking at only how much cash after expenses it has to directly donate in that form while ignoring the labor its pastor and members provide to local charity efforts, hospice, etc. they are at best underinformed and worst intentionally disingenuous.

 

[timtofly]

It doesn't say that they don't give - it says that they don't give as much as people commonly assume they do. Unless, of course, you assumed that they only donate ~1% to helping the poor and less fortunate...

And of course you should be skeptical of a blog post. Just as skeptical as you should be towards a financial entity that gets lots of tax benefits with very little oversight or regulation




This isn't about the government - but since you brought it up, just look at past deficits and surpluses. The government CAN be solvent and 'charitable'. This isn't necessarily about 'fat cats', thought they are a clearly incongruous aspect of any organization that seeks tax exemptions because 'we do charity work'.

I'm a little confused by your free-market comment - are you implying that a free market would alleviate food distribution problems, income problems, and other targets of church charity?

In my experience, churches are primarily social clubs with a little charity outreach sprinkled on top. That's fine and all, but I don't think it rises to such a level that it deserves priviledged consideration under the tax and legal codes.

It is about government when the word subsidy is in almost every line.

I have this little problem with the government being too big and stifling free enterprise or the ability of the church to even function as a church in conjunction with the word subsidy.

Charity is sprinkled on top and you want to add subsidy?

I was just trying to get my subsidy objection out of the way so as not to derail the thread when actual charity is mentioned.

 

[ParkCungHee]

I often run into this when considering my charitable givings/efforts. I think that 'man-hours' is a very important aspect of charity work. I have friend who's salaried at works for the Red Cross as an educator. She's giving talks at community centers and schools a few times a week. I'd hope that there's some tangible benefit to this!

I work for a medical research organisation that requires charitable funding. I very much need a salary to support my efforts, and I also need funds to purchase my consumables and the rent (etc.) for my facility.

Man hours are another thing this doesn't take into account. The role churches play in organizing man hours. When I go volunteer at a soup kitchen, I do so because Brother Padraig at the campus Newman Center volunteers there, made it known to the Newman Center, and taught me how to volunteer, in the time he spends at the Newman Center playing therapist/tutor/nurse/anything else that's needed.
All of that is covered, financially, under the tiny stipend that his religious order gives him, and would, on the big spreadsheets, simply be covered under the amount the Church gives to Holy Orders, which would presumably be exactly the sort of thing that this study considers "non-charity".

 

[Save_Ferris]

A lot of churches in my area have community service projects and food drives for the poor, which doesn't come directly from money but from food donations and participation.

A big misconception is that every American church is has gold statues and rich ministers like it's the Vatican

 

[NedimNapoleon]

Nowhere near the Saudi Mosques donations.

 

[metatron]

One of the church's largest expenses is their well known, world-wide missionary program. Tithing money (church donations) helps support the hundreds of thousands of missionaries around the world, gives them health insurance, pays for their visas, their materials, subsidizes their housing, etc. While missionaries spend most of their time preaching, they're also constantly engaged in other service activities.

Erm... by this standard Blackwater is a charity.

The church also spends a lot of money subsidizing their education system. The LDS church runs 4 universities in the United States (BYU being the flagship, but also BYU-Idaho, BYU-Hawaii and the LDS Business College, which is like a community college in Salt Lake). These schools are WAY WAY below market price, and for certain majors, are really elite universities.

I am sure they have very egalitarian admission policies...

Finally, almost nobody who works for the church draws a paycheck. Regular pastors (called bishops) don't. Regional administrators don't. Sunday school teachers dont. A small percentage of other teachers do, but they checks are laughibly small. The church does keep a large amount of cash on hand, which is used in part for building construction (the LDS church pays cash for all property purchases), and for running those programs.

So what you are saying is that if a fraudulent rich bastard (i am thinking of noone in particular...) donates some 7 to 8 figure sum to the church and gets a huge tax break for that the church doesn't actually use much of that money for the (debatable) charity, cause that charity is mostly "free" anyway, but rather spends that money for building humongous temples?

Wait, what?

Missionaries who serve in Asia or Africa routinely give free (and seculuar) English lessons. When I served a mission in California, I was required to do X amounts of community service a week...we usually worked at soup kitchens, but sometimes did things for the salvation army.

That's of course very nice of you, but couldn't you have done that without the LDS church?

Anyway...
The way i see it virtually all the "charity" LDS does comes with a direct (and probably much anticipated) return on investment. It either aids recruitment or further fundraising or providing opportunities for church members.
To me it all sounds - on the bottom line - much more like a corporation than like a charity.
Everybody should try to do that. McDonalds allready doles out "laughable" paychecks. All they have to do is invest a token effort into sending some employies to Africa to educate some children about nutrition or something and baptise some holocaust victims.
I'm sure that would be rather profitable if it nets them a huge tax break.

Edit:

A lot of churches in my area have community service projects and food drives for the poor, which doesn't come directly from money but from food donations and participation.

I still don't get this food drive thing.
The point is giving poor people food, right?
So you have to have people donating food, people volunteering to gather the food, the city to (temporarily) provide a venue to hand out the food, people volunteering to do the actual handing out of the food.
Period.
That's the way it is usually done around here. Nobody involved feels religion has to enter into the whole thing to make it work. And nobody gets a tax break for "charity".

 

[Farm Boy]

All of the work I have participated in comes with an anticipated return on investment. It hasn't drummed up any membership in our congregation that I'm aware of, but I think it helps my town be a better place.

I do much the same sort of work through involvement in my local Lions Club. They're secular, share many of the same goals, and receive the same tax breaks. Is that, as you put it, "charity" equally as odious in its tax exempt status for you?

 

[Winner]

As you can probably tell by now, I'd much rather see that money put to better use. Education, anyone?

Never, education makes people not believe in God!

 

[ParkCungHee]

Never, education makes people not believe in God!

What about overeducation?

 

[downtown]

Erm... by this standard Blackwater is a charity.

Blackwater employees aren't engaged in service 100% of the time. By our corporate code, missionary work can be counted as service.

I am sure they have very egalitarian admission policies...

They sure do. 3 out of the 4 are completely open enrollment. BYU-Idaho actually just launched a nationwide program specifically centered on bring kids who do not have a GED into college-readiness, and then giving them a discount on finishing their bachelors degree. BYU-Provo is the only selective enrollment school. You don't have to be LDS to attend, and considering it's the only private school in the US top 200 that's under 8,000, I consider that pretty egalitarian.

So what you are saying is that if a fraudulent rich bastard (i am thinking of noone in particular...) donates some 7 to 8 figure sum to the church and gets a huge tax break for that the church doesn't actually use much of that money for the (debatable) charity, cause that charity is mostly "free" anyway, but rather spends that money for building humongous temples?

It depends entirely on what you call charity. Will they send the majority of that money in a check to say, the Red Cross? No. They'll send some of it. Some of that money will be used towards the Church Educational System. Some of that money will be spent on English lessons. Some of it will go towards temple contruction, that's true...but the majority of it goes towards meetinghouses, which are for general community use. This is the building where I go to church.

Two different congregations meet here, but anybody can use it. It's a polling station for when folks in Chicago vote. It's a tutoring location for kids without GEDs to get ready for college. Mormons and Non-Mormons play basketball here. It's pretty small.

That's of course very nice of you, but couldn't you have done that without the LDS church?

Couldn't you say that about any charity that employs people?

 

[metatron]

I do much the same sort of work through involvement in my local Lions Club. They're secular, share many of the same goals, and receive the same tax breaks. Is that, as you put it, "charity" equally as odious in its tax exempt status for you?

Not on the same level, no.
But if you want to put a very fine point on it the same arguments still apply.
See, the food drives i know, do nothing else. They hand out food. They don't promote any organisation as a byproduct. They don't even have a name (sure, technically they have, but they are known as "that local food drive").
Of course that's a horrible waste - an exellent advertisemment opportunity evaporates into thin air.
Actual people get all the credit. Sad...

Edit: cp with dt

Two different congregations meet here, but anybody can use it. It's a polling station for when folks in Chicago vote. It's a tutoring location for kids without GEDs to get ready for college. Mormons and Non-Mormons play basketball here. It's pretty small.

Sure. That's nice.
Here pub owners often provide a venue for elections (dancing rooms and such). That doesn't make them charities.
A lot could be said about the other purposes. But i am sure we each understand each others points, and i feel they don't necessarily contradict each other.
All those things can help render an organisation a charity but they don't automatially do.

Couldn't you say that about any charity that employs people?

Sure. But secular charities often face scrutiny regarding that matter. People tend to be rather suspicios about the possibility of "waste" regarding that matter.
People typically drop that suspicion as soon as religion is involved.

 

[Save_Ferris]

If you're saying that you don't need religion for charity, are you saying that churches shouldn't donate? I thought you wanted them to donate more.

 

[metatron]

If you're saying that you don't need religion for charity, are you saying that churches shouldn't donate? I thought you wanted them to donate more.

Erm, i am presuming that if religion was cut out, people who otherwise would donate to churches (or volunteer) in the name of charity would donate directly.

That is unless people actually want to donate to the churches and charity is merely a pretext. I guess we all want to asume that that is very rarely the case.