-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.
Gene H. 1, July 1, 2012 at 1:05 pm
W=^..^
Simply put the power to tax something is the power to control something; to either destroy it by taxing it out of existence or to give favor to one player over another to the point that competition is impossible. Taxing religious institutions invites Establishment Clause issues to grow in frequency and in scope. As much as I dislike the inequities David points to, I just don’t think addressing them through the tax code is anything but asking for trouble. However, regulation of charitable activities does offer a remedial action. For example, if we simply mandated that all charitable institutions (secular and religiously based) must keep their operating expenses below X%, it would remedy much of what we see wrong in David’s example without inviting Constitutional challenge based on the Establishment Clause.
====================
Well said.
in Faith based systems, the other word for ‘charity’ is ‘love’. It is not of the prurient variety….but Agape…it is the thing that is worth protecting.
Gene,
“For example, if we simply mandated that all charitable institutions (secular and religiously based) must keep their operating expenses below X% …”
Not workable on any of the Mission/Charity/Outreach Church Boards I’ve served for reasons far too many to go into here. One example: endowments … another, Pastor’s Funds (wherein a congregant sees a need but wishes to remain anonymous in meeting that need so funnels the money through the Pastor’s Fund) … another, emergency within the community like fire, flood, storm etc met on the ground with immediate donations and man hours (think individual churches’ response to Katrina then localize it) … etc.
Best way to bring a charity’s operating expenses down … stop giving … see Susan G. Komen for the Cure and World Council of Churches back in the 80’s.
Dredd,
Charity is not just a verb,
from Merriam &Webster;
Definition of CHARITY
1
: benevolent goodwill toward or love of humanity
2
a : generosity and helpfulness especially toward the needy or suffering; also : aid given to those in need
b : an institution engaged in relief of the poor
c : public provision for the relief of the needy
3
a : a gift for public benevolent purposes
b : an institution (as a hospital) founded by such a gift
4
: lenient judgment of others
See charity defined for English-language learners »
See charity defined for kids »
Examples of CHARITY
The holidays are a time for charity and good will.
She refused to accept charity.
——————
——————-
Churches can be schools of charity….or they can be established AS A WORK.
also from Websters (and Merriam….);
church noun \ˈchərch\
Definition of CHURCH
1
: a building for public and especially Christian worship
2
: the clergy or officialdom of a religious body
3
often capitalized : a body or organization of religious believers: as
a : the whole body of Christians
b : denomination
c : congregation
4
: a public divine worship
5
: the clerical profession
See church defined for English-language learners »
See church defined for kids »
Examples of CHURCH
This is the oldest church in town.
They would like to be married in a church.
——————–
——————-
Not all Churches even DO outreach missions. Sometimes the mission of the Church is quite simply the well being of its members…..a world sans religion is a hell for many of us….even the founding fathers understood this. A world that is simply made of state is totally without meaning or worth….especially these days where the State has seemed to become so separate and blind to it’s people….
but you know this….
id707 nice find! very nice!
Woosty,
Roasted Marshmallows … handle with care … and love.
W=^..^
Simply put the power to tax something is the power to control something; to either destroy it by taxing it out of existence or to give favor to one player over another to the point that competition is impossible. Taxing religious institutions invites Establishment Clause issues to grow in frequency and in scope. As much as I dislike the inequities David points to, I just don’t think addressing them through the tax code is anything but asking for trouble. However, regulation of charitable activities does offer a remedial action. For example, if we simply mandated that all charitable institutions (secular and religiously based) must keep their operating expenses below X%, it would remedy much of what we see wrong in David’s example without inviting Constitutional challenge based on the Establishment Clause.
Certain tax exemptions for Churches are fine. I dont think they should get them for businesses that directly compete with private businesses. The town I went to school in had a printing operation owned by the Catholic Church. Not only did it do publications for the Church, it also did outside work. The private printers had to include thier taxes in figuring their bids, the Church did not. That just isn’t fair.
Pi Gwan 1, July 1, 2012 at 10:35 am
You’re readily, knowingly, and maliciously lying in favor of your persistent attacks on religion.
===========================
Don’t brag on us guys, it is not good for our egos. 😉
Woosty’s still a Cat 1, July 1, 2012 at 11:06 am
…
Dredd, again I say, Churches ARE the charity….
===========================================
I am not trying to be contrary, but church and charity are separate.
Nal’s contrasting of the Red Cross charity with church charity illustrates that point.
Churches are not just charity orgs, they do charity, preaching, evangelism, ministry, liturgy, wierd stuff, good stuff, and the rest of it.
Anyone can do charity whether they are a church or not.
Let’s narrow it down to this, then: what if churches that do charity were required to use 80-85% of the charitable donations directly on charity just like health insurance companies are required to do with health insurance premiums under ObamaCare?
Gene H.
1, July 1, 2012 at 12:27 pm
——————————
I wish I better understood what you said here …can you simplify for non-legal types like myself?
That double Return trap got me:
The beginning is near—–good music, captivating.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TQXmAWac7Y
Lastly, the use of freedom of speech may be misused seen in the eyes of many. But attacking motives of the speaker seldom gains respect for the objectors’ case.
” It’s an open secret that the crusty-old-guy quietly gives the most to Outreach.”~Blouise
——————–
🙂
Je t’aime les Curmudgeons…they are trustworthy most of all…
The viciousness of the attack even invites my use of prejudice as a counterweapon.
“Methinks we have a Korean convert amongst us. A North Korean to boot.”
Regard it as unsaid.
Someone jokingly said the other day here, that politics and religion were the two subjects NOT to be discussed at JT’s. This seem to show why there was some truth in the comment after all.
So far no one has mentioned heresy, blasphemy or inquisition. Will the bishops gather to discuss it?
Woosty: you are within your rights, and lose no value in my eyes for your faith, nor does anyone “of faith”.
Just to show that take a look at what I’ve found so far searching. No hand on a mons pubis, I swear. Safe even for children: “Mama, what’s he doing on the
ladder?”
Pi,
you may want to check your facts. When a government gives a tax exemption to a church it is giving them a financial benefit that other non-profits do not enjoy. Secondly, if we are talking about Federal monies, the government gives millions to religious charities to do charitable work. Thirdly, if it is a Christian church, Jesus implored Christians to feed the poor and take care of those who need help. Shouldn’t charity be all church’s first priority instead of maintaining their infrastructure?
Finally, your personal attacks on the author of this article are not welcome and reduce the impact of any points that you are trying to make.
David,
In all fairness, what you point to a valid inequity. However, the counter-argument against taxing religious bodies based on the Establishment Clause I think outweighs the inequity in upholding the Doctrine of the Separation of Church and State and thus protecting everyone makes the making the point tragic but moot. Consider the unbalancing of the tax system as it currently exists in favor of big business and multinationals that lobbyists and amoral politicians have wrought as your example. If we started taxing religious organizations, how long do you think it would take an organization flush with cash like the RCC to twist the system in their favor? A sword can have two sides, but often one is sharper than the other.
pi gwan wrote; Not taxing someone is not subsiding them. Period. There is a difference between giving someone money and not taking money from them.
========================================================
in those areas that have a separate fee for fire fighting services i wonder if the fire dept would stand and watch a church burn that had not paid the fee.
i would imagine the morman church considers sending kids to france as missionaries to be charitable work.
I have worked with many churches over the years and have found, generally, a real and abiding dedication to charitable giving and works.
Mission (I think the newest word is “Outreach”) Boards within Protestant churches were part and parcel of each congregations’ startup. They would hold bake-sales to raise money to feed the hungry, yard-sales to raise money to help a family that had been burned out of their home, square-dances to fund nursery schools on site or raise money to buy school supplies for children whose parents could not afford pencils. They opened “thrift-stores” and used the small profits after overhead for mission work here and abroad.
Certain Sundays were declared Mission/Outreach Sundays and the entire collection plate was given to the Board to spend on Mission/Outreach work. It is not uncommon to hear the crusty-old-guy who is part of every congregation complaining to all who will listen that those Mission folk always want more money or joking, “grab hold of your wallet, the mission folk are loose.” It’s an open secret that the crusty-old-guy quietly gives the most to Outreach.
When I join a congregation the only Board I will agree to be part of is the Mission/Outreach … then I go looking for the crusty-old-guy. 😉
Pi Gwan,
I believe a link to an oration of your posted riposte would be fascinating.
A video would be more intense. I can imagine George C. Scott standing with a full screen shot of the Mormon temple in the background,
Full of Sound and Firey, signifying anger.
Your rant was a truly great one. Your point would be better served with more fact and less vituperation.