-Submitted by David Drumm (Nal), Guest Blogger
The concept of charity most people have in mind is “serving the people’s physical needs.” How do religions stack up in performing this work? The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormon Church), which touts its charitable work, spent 0.7% of it overall revenue on charitable causes. Compare that figure with the American Red Cross which spends 92.1% of its revenue on the physical needs of those it helps.
The other side of this coin is the estimated $71 billion in annual government subsidies that are granted to religious establishments.
The $71 billion doesn’t include property taxes from which religious institutions are exempt. States are estimated to subsidize religion to the tune of $26.2 billion per year on property worth $600 billion.
The $71 billion doesn’t include religions’s exemption from investment taxes (such as capital gains taxes) on their investment portfolios. For example, the Presbyterian Foundation manages $1.9 billion in assets.
The $71 billion doesn’t include the exemption from sales tax when religions purchase goods and services.
The $71 billion doesn’t include the “parsonage exemption.” That’s where ministers are allowed to deduct mortgage or rent, utilities, furnishings, upkeep, etc. from their taxable income.
The best of the worst appears to be the United Methodist Church which allocated about 29% of its revenues to charitable causes in 2010. Any secular charity that posted a 29% rate would be given a score of “F” by CharityWatch.
Religions are quick to point to their “spiritual charity” that addresses the spiritual needs of their parishioners. However, “charity is the giving of something, not the exchange of something for something else.” Addressing spiritual needs is what religious functionaries are paid to do. The fundamental nature of a priest’s or preacher’s job is to provide the spiritual services in exchange for pay and benefits.
These tax breaks are laws and clearly directed at religious institutions and establishments in violation of the First Amendment.
H/T: Council for Secular Humanism, Pharyngula, CharityWatch.
bettykath
1, July 1, 2012 at 10:49 am
Pi Gwan,
You have some points that might be valid but your personal attack on nal is unwarranted. I’ll be happy to consider your points in a repost if you remove the personal attacks.
—————————————————————
I seconded bettykath’s admonishment. Pi Gwan does indeed make some valid points but the emotionalism of the personal attacks against David Drumm (Nal) makes it almost impossible to discuss the difference in the two points of view.
I, too, would be more than happy to enter a discussion with Pi Gwan as to the strength of many his/her points if Pi Gwan would repost.
I acknowledge that those attacks may indicate an unwillingness of Pi Gwan to engage in civil discourse. and accept that, if it is so.
“… the United States. It was founded for one reason above all else, freedom of religious expression. Separation of church and state was done for the protection of religion, not protection of the state. You are free to bash religion to your heart’s content, just as you are free to worship or not as you please.”
———————————-
Pi, well said……..
Dredd
1, July 1, 2012 at 10:29 am
Woosty’s still a Cat 1, July 1, 2012 at 9:56 am
What if churches had to spend 80% – 85% of their charitable donations on charity?
——————————————————-
apples and oranges.
===================================
There would be the same amount of charity from those who now feign charity.
That is because they would quickly get out of the charity business.
Nal has pointed out that they aren’t in that business anyway, they just say they are.
Nal also said:
Compare that figure with the American Red Cross which spends 92.1% of its revenue on the physical needs of those it helps.
So there are some altruistic oriented institutions that do charity properly.
Good on them.
———————————————————————–
=============================================
———————————————————————–
Dredd, again I say, Churches ARE the charity…..they usually have more than 1 focus of ministry. Often the failing health of Churches reflects the bloating of State because they are impacted by peoples waxing and waning disposable incomes. The American Red Cross has a mission but not a ‘ministry’ per se. There is a distinct difference. The American Red Cross, like many mission based charities, has a very narrow focus and exists by soliciting donations from people to give to that narrow focus group. You and I didn’t ‘build’ the American Red Cross but may support its mission with donations. I contribute to the building of my church when I deliberately give of my money and my time to its existence. I have a say in how our mission is developed and carried out. [So unlike the State….]
I am also, as a church member, allowed to use the facilities to establish and carry out my own ministry. But you know all this…..
Pi Gwan,
You have some points that might be valid but your personal attack on nal is unwarranted. I’ll be happy to consider your points in a repost if you remove the personal attacks.
What do the mormons do with all the money that they take in? With the Catholics I can see the expenses for nuns homes, pedophile priest expenses, golden chalices, upholstory in the sanctuary, but mormons dont have nuns, pedophiles, golden chalices.
If you are going to give to a charity, give to Dogs WOPS– Dogs With Out Papers. Get dyslexic, give to Dog.
You’re readily, knowingly, and maliciously lying in favor of your persistent attacks on religion. Indeed, you’re twisting statistics worse than a politician.
I’m not religious. But I find your prejudice and blind hatred of religion to be as annoying and childish and blindly stupid as any fundamental religious group’s hatred of “others”.
You make broad arguments using very narrowly selected statistics and poor assumptions as to the purpose of a religion. Your prejudice and hatred for religion is noted, consistent with your overall communist tendencies. Some pigs are more equal than others? Of course. Especially when the pig is afraid of competing sources of authority other than a group of superficially clever, fundamentally stupid liberal elitist snobs such as yourself. First, LDS is 1.7 percent of the population, which is hardly a good sample group. Secondly, LDS has provided some money to charity, but their primary purpose is conversion to a religion, not charity. Third, most religious institutions collect donations from members for the primary purpose of maintaining facilities and salaries for employees, not for charity, and I have seen no christian faiths that claim otherwise. You are also ignoring the titanic impact that people of faith have on charitable donations outside of direct contributions to their organization. You know this, but it doesn’t support your argument, so you are deliberately lying and misconstruing in order to support your position of irrational hatred.
Your claim that states are subsidizing them is a complete lie.
Not taxing someone is not subsiding them. Period. There is a difference between giving someone money and not taking money from them. Not one state dollar that I’m aware of (and if there is, it needs to stop) goes to fund religious groups, other than a few NFP homeless shelters where state and federal grants are set up for both religious and non religious NFP organizations to provide care to homeless.
The laws do not violate the First Amendment. Taxing them would. Notice that there hasn’t been a whole lot of Supreme Court Justices agreeing with your position.
To put it short, Nal, you are an elitist clown with no real intellectual arguments against religion. Just unthinking hatred. Did a priest fondle you when you were a child or something? Get over yourself. Your entire article was an exercise in transparent propaganda against a system of belief that happens to be different from your own, and my response is in the nature of venting at your prejudice, not because I think I’ll convince you otherwise. Thankfully you are not now nor ever will be in power in the United States. It was founded for one reason above all else, freedom of religious expression. Separation of church and state was done for the protection of religion, not protection of the state. You are free to bash religion to your heart’s content, just as you are free to worship or not as you please.
Just as I’m free to tell you what a complete prejudiced, hateful, blind, stupid, and transparent excuse for a liberal you are.
Have a nice day.
P.S.- Aren’t liberal schmucks like yourself typically proud of just how “tolerant” of different cultures and beliefs you are? Just a thought.
Woosty’s still a Cat 1, July 1, 2012 at 9:56 am
What if churches had to spend 80% – 85% of their charitable donations on charity?
——————————————————-
apples and oranges.
===================================
There would be the same amount of charity from those who now feign charity.
That is because they would quickly get out of the charity business.
Nal has pointed out that they aren’t in that business anyway, they just say they are.
Nal also said:
So there are some altruistic oriented institutions that do charity properly.
Good on them.
woosty:
good points.
Great stuff David. It is sad to think that these so-called Christian religions do so very little of the work that Jesus espoused.
“Hmmmm, so if I get a mail order certification as a member of the clergy, I could declare my home a church if I hold a meeting of some sort there once in awhile. Sounds good to me. [sarcasm]”~bettykath
—————————————————————-
There are people that operate ministries out of their homes and do it for ‘love offerrings’ etc and nothing else. They do good works and a lot of people are helped by it. I would not be averse to them getting something back to help make their way easier…. especially since the ‘State’ has seen fit to cut drastically back on the services it has used over the years as excuses to increase revenue…..and yet the taxes are not decreased to reflect that shunting off of obligation. Social Security is the new target…..the keep the money but screw the donors of the money shifty dance is real old. There is corruption in both the House of Church and the House of State…….that is where collective eyes could be to affect a betterment……
also, to declare a home a ‘church’ probably would entail a lot of risk if you didn’t have the appropriate credentials….including land use stuff and all that…
to put it more plainly….churches ARE the result of charitable donation…..
“and I usually don’t gamble except to drive.”
I drive the interstate to church. I’m more appreciative of angels n the car with me than in the pew.
BTW, gotta go you know where
But how much assets or income do theses institutions — let’s take the RCC, the SBC, and the LDS — actually control, not counting their places of worship, learning institutions, and hospitals, or their contributions by members? Maybe all they have is a widow’s mite to give.
.otherwise you are skewing reality and creating predjudice.
(it’s my naughty grammar again, sorry…)
What if churches had to spend 80% – 85% of their charitable donations on charity?
——————————————————-
apples and oranges.
Churches exist because people, in their need to express community which reflects an aspect of themselves,, pool their resources and build them. They are not like the State which unilaterally sets taxes and spends as it sees fit. They are not families which exist as a pure social contract and by bonds unseen. When you speak about the Church of Latter Day Saints(as you did) you are speaking of a denomination….not the individual churches which make it up. A more appropriate comparison would be to compare the arm of that denomination that is defined as its charitable mission and extrapolate the percentage of gifting and mission from that statistic. Or, you could compare politicians and private practice lawyers with ministers salry and behavior-wise or corporations and single churches in their income and outputs as a statistical class in which to compare with all inferential data that implies….otherwise your skewing reality and creating predjudice.
where does the exemption from taxes (for religious organizations) come from?
Religious (and educational) institutions should be taxed on certain income, Rent and capital gains are two sources that come to mind. They should also pay property tax on property that provided income, besides the church itself. I can see giving a pass on the church property.
Hmmmm, so if I get a mail order certification as a member of the clergy, I could declare my home a church if I hold a meeting of some sort there once in awhile. Sounds good to me. [sarcasm]
They control way too much….. And be careful in donating to charities…… Sometimes they employ for profit people to do the fund raising….. And as much of 95% is taken before any money actually goes to the charity donated to…… Ask for a breakdown of costs before agreeing to donating….. Ask them to fax or mail it….. If they won’t or can’t…. Then your money is better spent at the casino…..and I usually don’t gamble except to drive…..
Strong stuff Nal.
Perhaps an Affordable Care Act concept would apply, i.e., the Obamacare law requires Insurance Companies to spend 80% – 85% of their health care premium income on direct health care.
What if churches had to spend 80% – 85% of their charitable donations on charity?
Enlightening stuff there Nal. Some pigs are more equal than others.