http://philanthropy.com/section/How-America-Gives/621/

8/20/2012 10:04:44 AM

Yeah, if donating to churches counts as "philanthropy".

8/20/2012 10:07:45 AM

I'm curious, does tithing count as charitable giving for the purposes of this study? I read the "how this study was conducted" bit on the linked page, but it's still unclear.

IMO, just giving money to a church shouldn't really be considered charitable giving since so much money is directed to things other than outreach/charities.

8/20/2012 10:10:41 AM

Given that Utah is *WAY* out on top I'd say tithing definitely was counted. Apparently "building more churches" and "brainwashing more people" are philanthropic too.

8/20/2012 10:20:46 AM

^

8/20/2012 10:30:35 AM

yea Utah is a good indicator that giving to a church is counted as philanthropy, especially since it is really close to 10%..

Mormons required giving 10%?

"Required to? No, but it is an expectation, a commandment" and they meet with their church leader to go over the tithes...

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100120224440AAD84p9

8/20/2012 10:34:50 AM

I'm also sure people would have money to give to charity if they didn't have to pay property taxes.

8/20/2012 10:36:09 AM

Quote :

"Yeah, if donating to churches counts as "philanthropy"."

yeah, i don't really consider donating money to build more churches, bigger sanctuaries, bigger parking lots, and pay church employees as "philanthropy". (if that's what this graph represents, which is seems like it is... i didn't read the article though)

8/20/2012 10:39:22 AM

Study: Less religious states give less to charity

http://www.wral.com/news/story/11446440/

(again, i don't have time to delve into the specifics, but i imagine this story considers "church" as "charity" (Church donations are an itemized decuction, right?) , which i find pretty misleading, since most of the money given to the "church" is spent on the "church", not other causes)

8/20/2012 11:24:19 AM

Let's be 100% honest here and realize that a significant portion of the money that goes to churches eventually makes it into some form of charity. Whether that charity comes with some bullshit religious baggage or not is another story but undeniably lots of good is done with that money.

8/20/2012 12:25:40 PM

I'm not sure if i agree with that.

I would assume that the vast majority of it goes to the church. Buidling and yard maintenance, new buildings and add-ons, new parking lots, paying the employees. My parents' church pays their pastor over $100,000 a year, and the only thing he really does is preach a sermon Sunday morning and night. He's got another job during the week. And there are dozens of other employess that are being paid pretty well for what they do.


I don't know, but I'd be willing to bet that more than half of tithings go to the actual church, not causes... I wouldn't be surprised if it was a lot more than half that went to the actual church.

[Edited on August 20, 2012 at 1:00 PM. Reason : ]

8/20/2012 12:36:28 PM

Ehhhh, in terms of % donated actually going to outreach/charitable work vs. what is spent on administrative nonsense, salaries, buildings, gold candlesticks, and everything else churches have a poor record.

Churches aren't really vehicles for charitable donations, and to be fair, most of them don't pretend to be. Granted, there are some churches which focus on outreach and put a lot of their money and efforts towards that end, but they are the exception, not the rule.

Now, that said, within the structure of the various denominations there are very, very good charities. If you give money to say, Catholic Relief Services, or similar faith based organizations they are very good at performing their mission. However, giving straight to the Catholic Church is a shitty way of getting your money to them if that's what you want your money to go to.

8/20/2012 12:50:47 PM

the study also showed that areas of lower income donated a larger % of disposable income than high income areas.


as said before, a lot of this money is for religion though... I would find it more interesting if the whole study just excluded religious donations.

8/20/2012 1:04:30 PM

1st point: churches prey upon the poor and downtrodden.

2nd point: Good luck finding that. Claiming charitableness exclusively is a hallmark of religion.

8/20/2012 1:37:12 PM

^^ that's really difficult to do because there are so many religious aid organizations that aren't actually churches such as Christian Children's Fund and Catholic Relief services (rated A- and A+ on charitywatch respectively).

donating to those organizations results in a much larger share of donations going directly to aid vs. regular church donations.

I know the Catholic churches i've attended generally have a standard collection that funds church operations (upkeep, admin, and some outreach/service programs), and then a separate collection that's targeted at a specific charitable cause.

[Edited on August 20, 2012 at 1:45 PM. Reason : .]

8/20/2012 1:44:45 PM

Quote :

"I would assume that the vast majority of it goes to the church. Buidling and yard maintenance, new buildings and add-ons, new parking lots, paying the employees. My parents' church pays their pastor over $100,000 a year, and the only thing he really does is preach a sermon Sunday morning and night. He's got another job during the week. And there are dozens of other employess that are being paid pretty well for what they do."

you do realize that MOST charitable organizations have overhead and salaries to pay right?

I would also be willing to bet a lot of the church facilities you named are used in the charitable work.



you should smash the church where it is appropriate. but you should also be willing to give credit where it is due.

8/20/2012 4:06:23 PM

No one is really smashing church in this thread; we're smashing the idea propagated by the religious that tithing should count 100% as charity. Yes, secular charities have overhead and salaries to pay. But they're not spending most of their time preaching nonsense (best case scenario) or taking your money to build opulent palaces.

Hey, why don't we do like every other tax exempt organization and make churches publicize their books? Why, then we wouldn't have to speculate at all how much goes to charity and how much goes to the absolutely unnecessary! Whodathunkit?

8/20/2012 4:12:11 PM

lets get one thing on table first...I am not apologist for the church.

that said, its your opinion that they are preaching "nonsense." I would submit that most of what gets "preached" at charitable events held by the church are ambiguous things like hope and faith. the revival type setting you are thinking of is pretty rare. I think you are blowing this out of proportion.

I agree they should open their books.

8/20/2012 4:24:40 PM

If they opened their books, this could be put to rest. But based on my experience of the church i grew-up in and my that my parents still attend, I would bet that very little of the money that is donated weekly in the offering plates goes towards any sort of philanthropy. The vast majortiy is spent on the church and the staff. I'm guessing, but i imagine that's the case for most churches. There are a lot of expenses that go along with running a church.

And just for example, have you seen the mormon churches in utah? Those things are fancy. A lot of money is spent on the buildings and staff that could be used for philanthropy.

[Edited on August 20, 2012 at 4:48 PM. Reason : ]

8/20/2012 4:39:13 PM

Quote :

"that said, its your opinion that they are preaching "nonsense." I would submit that most of what gets "preached" at charitable events held by the church are ambiguous things like hope and faith. the revival type setting you are thinking of is pretty rare. I think you are blowing this out of proportion"

I'm not thinking "revival" type of thing. "Faith" is nonsense. "Hope" isn't, but it depends on what you're hoping for. I'd bet large sums of money the topic of hope at any given church at any given time is nonsense. Reading from an ancient book of myths like it's truth is nonsense. And yes, this is my opinion. It also happens to be right, unless the Bible is actually accurate, which it isn't.

8/20/2012 4:47:27 PM

Quote :

"I would submit that most of what gets "preached" at charitable events held by the church are ambiguous things like hope and faith."

What kind of charitable events are you talking about? Is that really "philantrhopy"?

8/20/2012 4:49:57 PM

charitable events off the top of my head:

soup kitchens, clothing drives, AA meetings (and the like), food drives, after school services, christmas gift drives, before school services, "safe" place staffing and location, and all types of interpersonal counseling are things that the church offered that I attended when I was a child.

Stu - many could successfully argue that faith and hope are very similar things that go hand in hand. having faith in a higher power - whether that be God or the universe, isnt limited to christian teaching. further, people read fiction all the time. fables (which the bible is, IMO) have a place in society. they arent evil. they are metaphors to teach lessons on how to deal with your fellow man.

for the record, I too have a problem with churches spending money on lavish properties and the like. I have always found that hypocritical.

however, you are not going to get most people on board with dogging their charitable efforts. I dont choose to spend my time or money at the church, but I can surely recognize the good they do.

8/20/2012 4:58:48 PM

All I'm saying is that it's misleading to say that all money donated to a church is "charity". I don't have numbers, but I bet most of it is used to keep the church running, not to help people who need help (literally, not "spiritually").

8/20/2012 5:13:41 PM

^^I think you missed the key point I made: "read as truth." But that's ok, Bullet made the main point to which my point was only ancillary.

I did enjoy you comparing religion to fiction though.

8/20/2012 5:46:21 PM

like I said, I am not a particularly religious person. I am not extolling the gospel. I am only defending the positive things that come from the church at a local level.

seems like I read that 60% of the donation is what the BBB requires the organization to be accredited in most cases.

I wonder if anyone here can say whether or not their church meets that requirement, or comes close?

8/20/2012 7:49:52 PM

I said what DaBird is saying earlier. Churches operate at a much more local, community based level. It's not flashy or glamorous, but it contributes a lot of value to actual peoples' lives. Just because they don't contribute 100% of it to charity doesn't mean that their impact is insignificant. They run homeless shelters and feed the hungry, clothe people and educate them (sometimes brainwash). The charitable work they do represents a significant portion of philanthropy. Of course, they also are the first ones on the scene at any major catastrophe and they support missions to third world countries.

Honestly, I think the institution of religious organizations in the community is important and irreplaceable. I am firmly anti-religion, but I can recognize when they actually do good. It would be a shame to lose all these valuable contributions to society if people stopped going to church.

8/20/2012 8:47:14 PM

Quote :

"Let's be 100% honest here and realize that a significant portion of the money that goes to churches eventually makes it into some form of charity. Whether that charity comes with some bullshit religious baggage or not is another story but undeniably lots of good is done with that money."

I don't think we can say for sure that it's a net positive, though. There are consequences when people perpetuate these archaic belief systems. They are not always consequences that can be immediately recognized since they often manifest outside of the church, but they are there.

8/20/2012 9:00:18 PM

I think we're all letting our hatred for people like the Westboro Baptist Church and these televangelists cloud our judgment on the issue. My grandfather was a preacher for the UCC and I have spent a fairly large amount of time in and around church settings until I was about 16. I've helped with Meals on Wheels and can drives. You don't have to spend 100% of the money on direct charity. Just having a building where you're willing to take on large projects has a significant, unquantifiable value. The majority of churches greatly benefit their communities. There are many more genuinely well-intentioned and good serving organizations than bad ones. The bad ones just get way more publicity.

Of course, I'm also into this as a political philosophy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_societarianism
So I try to realize the historical and practical importance of an institution such as church.

8/20/2012 9:11:19 PM

Yeah, as much good as the catholic church has done in africa there has been profound damage from their anti-condom message. Literally thousands of people dead for no reason except that condoms are against "god's will."

Religion's do a lot of good, shit tons if we're being honest here, but I'm still not sure they're a net positive given the wars, genocides, hatred, and ignorance they also perpetuate.

Yes, your local baptist soup kitchen is great, but what about the retardation of human development that they ever actively or tacitly support by being anti-science? Is it really a net good that they keep a sterno drinker alive for a few more years but make an entire generation of little girls ashamed of their bodies?

8/20/2012 9:13:58 PM

That first chart sort of reminds me of this chart that I've seen floating around on facebook, but I haven't examined if there is any truth to it.

8/20/2012 9:17:22 PM

^ That one is factual

8/20/2012 9:23:01 PM

The chart is also pretty deceptive. The money is taken from the states in the form of funds, and then some amount is returned in government services of some sort. What about the people that didn't want their money taken to begin with? If I steal 1,000 dollars from you, then give you a 1,200 dollar gift certificate to Taco Bell, are you still going to feel like you got the better end of the deal? No, you're going to wish that you still had your 1000 dollars; you know how to spend your money better than some guy working for the government does.

I reject the premise that our core problem is a dearth of charity, though. Our situation is much more serious than simple scarcity or poor allocation of resources. You can't fix the breakdown of families and communities by throwing around money. Our culture is dominated by violence. As long as force is widely considered to be an acceptable way of getting what you want, we will have the society (and the government) we deserve.

8/20/2012 9:57:53 PM

Charity should be looked at based on the value created, and yes, I do think this is objectively quantified. I'm a fucking snob, so I wouldn't personally classify something as "charity" unless it was actually selected from a competitive selection of projects. It you don't have some good to optimize, then you're just trying to make yourself feel good.

I have seen millions upon millions go to foundations that in the end didn't change the world for the better. Say you set up a college scholarship with a foundation, so what? You reduced the debt of someone who was already going to go to college? Your money will run out and the next generation of graduates will be entering a work-world with higher and less reachable standards of education that's divorced from actual practical knowledge in most cases. A college degree is a ticket to privilege, which by definition, only works by reducing the opportunity for others. The money would be better spent tearing the entire system down. This is the best case for the fraction of church revenue that goes to charity. The only useful kind of social investment is disruptive social investment.

Bad investment isn't only useless, it's often worse than useless. The more money an institution gets from giving, the more beholden they become to those givers. In some cases this makes sense, but in most cases it distracts from satisfying the needs of the people they are supposed to be serving.

The real world is a dark place. There's no way to actually anyone out there beyond living your own life with integrity. Extra money is a blight on us all. It should all be spent on science.

8/20/2012 10:52:30 PM

Quote :

"A college degree is a ticket to privilege, which by definition, only works by reducing the opportunity for others."

Sigh. Sorry, life is not a zero sum game.

Quote :

"Bad investment isn't only useless, it's often worse than useless."

This is true, but your follow up... well, I'm just going to assume you're drunk.

Quote :

"There's no way to actually anyone out there beyond living your own life with integrity. Extra money is a blight on us all. It should all be spent on science."

Dude, c'mon.

8/20/2012 11:01:56 PM

Quote :

"The chart is also pretty deceptive. The money is taken from the states in the form of funds, and then some amount is returned in government services of some sort. What about the people that didn't want their money taken to begin with? If I steal 1,000 dollars from you, then give you a 1,200 dollar gift certificate to Taco Bell, are you still going to feel like you got the better end of the deal? No, you're going to wish that you still had your 1000 dollars; you know how to spend your money better than some guy working for the government does."

Except the Federal government doesn't give money back to states in the form of burrito securities so your entire argument is simplistic and untrue.

If resource allotment were done the way you think it should be done, then the richest states would have all the infrastructure, technology and associated Jobs while state's like tennessee still wouldn't have electricity or running water outside of a handful of major townships.

8/20/2012 11:14:16 PM

mrfrog sippin on that purple drank tonight

8/21/2012 12:11:13 AM

mrfrog sippin on that purple drank tonight

8/21/2012 12:11:13 AM

Quote :

"Sigh. Sorry, life is not a zero sum game."

Well we have a problem with word usage. If college bestows you with something useful, then it wouldn't be called privilege. The word is there to signal a specific thing. The correct way to frame this is that you're disagreeing with my claim that the value of a college degree is privilege.

I think a meaningful protest of the system would be to finish the requirements for a college degree and then refuse acceptance of the degree. You keep the real value of the education, but turn down the privilege.

Quote :

"If resource allotment were done the way you think it should be done, then the richest states would have all the infrastructure, technology and associated Jobs while state's like tennessee still wouldn't have electricity or running water outside of a handful of major townships."

I admit that sometimes I wander off into crazy land, but there are real valid economic arguments that federal money flowing into a state can harm economic activity that would have otherwise happened there. In other words, pork barrel logic may be fundamentally wrong. That's not crazy talk.

8/21/2012 9:03:43 AM

Quote :

"If resource allotment were done the way you think it should be done, then the richest states would have all the infrastructure, technology and associated Jobs while state's like tennessee still wouldn't have electricity or running water outside of a handful of major townships."

Don't be daft. Nearly all the roads and absolutely all the water treatment plants in Tennessee were built with local revenue. Infrastructure is a product of mixing labor with land and resources, Tennessee has all three.

And if the voters of Tennessee turn out to be anarchists then the low wages and low taxes of the area would make it profitable for businesses to build their own infrastructure if needed.

However, since much of the resource diversion the federal government provides is taking money from those that work and giving it to those that don't, infrastructure poor states are hurt most because now the labor to build their infrastructure will cost them more than it otherwise would have.

8/21/2012 9:09:28 AM

Quote :

"Yeah, as much good as the catholic church has done in africa there has been profound damage from their anti-condom message. Literally thousands of people dead for no reason except that condoms are against "god's will." "

They didn't listen to the church when they said "don't have sex with dozens of random people" so what makes you think they listened to the church about condoms?

8/21/2012 9:24:09 AM

^ well in defense of condoms, you can keep a nation from importing them or communities from distributing or selling them. The same can not be said for the naughty bits themselves.

8/21/2012 9:31:20 AM

The Catholic church has seen the error of its ways, and changed their stance on condoms two years ago.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/the-pope/8148944/The-Pope-drops-Catholic-ban-on-condoms-in-historic-shift.html

8/21/2012 9:31:56 AM

Quote :

"Except the Federal government doesn't give money back to states in the form of burrito securities so your entire argument is simplistic and untrue."

The point you should draw from the analogy is that the individuals residing in the state get goods/services that are subjectively less valuable than the funds that are extracted from them by force. Maybe you eat 5 grande meals a day, I don't know. Most people would rather just keep the money and spend/invest it on their own, though.

Quote :

"If resource allotment were done the way you think it should be done, then the richest states would have all the infrastructure, technology and associated Jobs while state's like tennessee still wouldn't have electricity or running water outside of a handful of major townships."

I don't view states as standalone entities, so that's one of the problems with this discussion. We're talking about a state like it's a person. In reality, a state is often millions of people with demographics that vary wildly based on city and region.

The fundamental question we have to ask is this: why does someone in New York City owe a functioning sewer system, public school system, and roads to some dude in bumfuck Tennessee? Because they're both "American"? What is preventing the people in these smaller, rural areas from creating infrastructure? Well, as LoneSnark pointed out, these areas have often managed to put up infrastructure with little or no federal government assistance.

Quote :

"I admit that sometimes I wander off into crazy land, but there are real valid economic arguments that federal money flowing into a state can harm economic activity that would have otherwise happened there. In other words, pork barrel logic may be fundamentally wrong. That's not crazy talk."

It's definitely not crazy. Sustainable growth has to occur at the grassroots level. "Lifelines" from external sources are temporary solutions at best. I just don't understand this concept that every corner of society has to progress at the exact same rate.

[Edited on August 21, 2012 at 9:36 AM. Reason : ]

8/21/2012 9:35:38 AM

This doesn't totally kill ya'lls Tennessee metaphor but it really is probably the worst possible state you could use as an example.

Tennessee has probably had hundreds of billions (todays dollars) funnelled to it through the TVA, literally one of the only examples of a federally owned utility in the US.

The TVA isn't perfect but it is widely cited as one of the most important factors in bringing Tn up from a third world country (which it legitimately was in the '30s) by providing cheap electricity, water for irrigation, etc.

8/21/2012 9:55:53 AM

Quote :

"The Catholic church has seen the error of its ways, and changed their stance on condoms two years ago."

Changed it to "“There may be justified individual cases, for example when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be … a first bit of responsibility, to redevelop the understanding that not everything is permitted and that one may not do everything one wishes.

“But it is not the proper way to deal with the horror of HIV infection.”"

Something tells me they're not distributing condoms to poor Africans anytime soon. Just trying to make their position so nuanced that they can say "see, we're not responsible for those deaths we didn't *say literally 'no condoms'* (wink wink)" while still pushing their dogma.

8/21/2012 10:19:24 AM

Quote :

"I just don't understand this concept that every corner of society has to progress at the exact same rate."

But every corner of society does have to reach the state of ubiquitous health insurance coverage at the same time and at the same standard. ... because we passed a national mandate requiring this.

8/21/2012 10:28:37 AM

Quote :

" I just don't understand this concept that every corner of society has to progress at the exact same rate."

Because the crapshoot of "who and where your parents happened to be" is something some reasonable people would like to mitigate (but not at the cost of all freedom).

8/21/2012 11:41:09 AM

I don't know about y'all. But if I grew up in bumfuck wherever and struggled for things that people in other parts of the same country I live in completely took for granted, I would be pretty pissed and extremely resentful that those people had so much and I had so little. Sure, I could eventually educate myself to the point where I might one day have all those things, but more than likely I would already be so far behind that it would be impossible to catch up. I would hate my parents a lot too, but it's extremely possible that they were a victim of their circumstances as well. Why shouldn't everyone have access to utilities and education (unless they've made it clear that they don't want those things, in which case fuck em)? America is only as strong as it's weakest link. The constitution literally says one of the reasons were have come together as a nation is to promote the general welfare.

We shouldn't be having a debate about whether or not were should do these things. Were should be having a debate about the best way to go about doing so. But conservatives are so ideologically stubborn and backwards that I honestly can't even tell if they want any sort of federal government at all. About whether they even want the states of America to be united?

8/21/2012 6:13:28 PM

Quote :

"Because the crapshoot of "who and where your parents happened to be" is something some reasonable people would like to mitigate (but not at the cost of all freedom)."

Why is it that this attempt to mitigate privilege is confined to national borders, then? The policies in the United States that you believe are beneficial often have international consequences. The men you entrust to carry out these grand humanitarian policies are easily bought out by corporate interests, and they won't hesitate to drop the hammer on the third world if they stand to benefit from doing so.

This obligation that you feel towards people that have been born into less-than-ideal circumstances shouldn't be restricted to U.S. citizens. Whatever rights you think should be afforded to human beings have to universal; human rights cannot be tied to nationality. They have to transcend man-made boundaries.

Quote :

"We shouldn't be having a debate about whether or not were should do these things. Were should be having a debate about the best way to go about doing so. But conservatives are so ideologically stubborn and backwards that I honestly can't even tell if they want any sort of federal government at all. About whether they even want the states of America to be united?"

The debate isn't about whether we should do these things, whether it's health care, education, or whatever. Of course we should have those services.

The real debate here, as you admit, is how we should go about providing these services. We are not the government; the government is not synonymous with "society". That's the first thing you have to understand. Once you've accepted that the government does not represent us, we can talk about ways to provide education and health care without pointing guns at people.

[Edited on August 21, 2012 at 8:50 PM. Reason : ]

8/21/2012 8:44:10 PM

Quote :

"Why is it that this attempt to mitigate privilege is confined to national borders, then? The policies in the United States that you believe are beneficial often have international consequences. The men you entrust to carry out these grand humanitarian policies are easily bought out by corporate interests, and they won't hesitate to drop the hammer on the third world if they stand to benefit from doing so. This obligation that you feel towards people that have been born into less-than-ideal circumstances shouldn't be restricted to U.S. citizens. Whatever rights you think should be afforded to human beings have to universal; human rights cannot be tied to nationality. They have to transcend man-made boundaries."

I totally agree. Since we live in a world of nations I'm not sure how it could be achieved. I'll just have to settle for changing what I can in the time I have.

8/21/2012 9:19:36 PM