Religious Charity ,How do religions stack up in performing this work?

Question

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.

Answer 1

As for the United Methodist, though it is a low number given directly to charitable causes out of church budgets, our apportionments pay for all our causes overhead.



So when individuals or a church donated directly to a United Methodist cause 100% of their money goes to the cause and 0% goes to overhead or administration.



For example if you go on Charity Watch and look under subjects under international relief and development you will see that UMCOR (United Methodist Committee on Relief) you will see that they recieve a grade of A.



Most secular charities and many religious charities at least 10% goes to overhead and in many cases it is more, I have seen some with as much as 55% in overhead.



So it is much better than what you might think.

Answer 2

I do not know about the USA but I happen to know that a considerable amount of the charitable work done by individual church men and women in Australia goes unrecorded and is not in cash. Catholic priests, Anglican ministers and no doubt pastors and ministers in other sects put quite a bit of time into assisting people to sort out their problems and trying to give good advice, which might not just be "Come to church regularly". No money involved.



A boyhood acquaintance of mine became a RC priest in the late 1970s. Not very long after he was ordained, I happened to meet him while visting his aunt, who was a long term friend of my mother. While he did not give details, he said that he would not have believed the messes that some people get themselves into except he had been told to expect it while in the seminary. They would come to him or other priests for assistant, comfort or advice. An Anglican minister told me much the same thing as well and some of the people he had helped were not Anglicans or Christians at all.



I also know of a young man in financial trouble who was assisted into a decent job by a church man.



Charity is not the only function of churches in any case and it is not just money handed out.

Answer 3

It's Ok to help people in need but better to teach people how to be self sustaining.



Throwing money at people does not solve the problem.





POVERTY and oppression are almost as old as mankind. While God’s Law to Israel sought to protect the poor and mitigate their suffering, that Law was often disregarded. (Amos 2:6) The prophet Ezekiel denounced the way the poor were being treated. He said: “The people of the land themselves have carried on a scheme of defrauding and have done a tearing away in robbery, and the afflicted one and the poor one they have maltreated, and the alien resident they have defrauded without justice.”—Ezekiel 22:29.



The situation was no different when Jesus was on earth. The religious leaders showed a complete lack of concern for the poor and needy. The religious leaders were described as “money lovers” who ‘devoured the houses of the widows’ and who were more concerned about keeping their traditions than caring for the aged and the needy. (Luke 16:14; 20:47; Matthew 15:5, 6) It is of interest that in Jesus’ parable of the good Samaritan, a priest and a Levite on seeing an injured man walked past him on the opposite side of the road rather than turn aside to help him.—Luke 10:30-37.

Answer 4

You are making several false assumptions here.

First you have assumed that the sole purpose of the the church is charitable in nature thus you have calculated the fraction of charity per total income. The reality is that this does not take into account operating cost and by this method of measuring most of these churches cited are doing way better than most (even government run) charities. In the case of the LDS church for example 100% of the money donated for charity is used for charity but 100% of the money donated for temple building is used for temple building yet you are counting it against them.



Second you have discounted the value of what you call "spiritual charity" or what the IRS calls "intangible religious benefits". It is not currently possible to put a price tag on a persons emotional well being. The value of having a priest visit your home and keeping an eye out for you when you are feeling down. The social activities and friendships provided by being a member of a congregation. The cost of having readily available basketball courts, wedding chapels, and meeting places, often available to the public that are a public good not provided by the government, and in many cases such as wedding chapels it would be a violation of the first amendment for the government to provide this public good.



You have said that tax breaks violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment. The concern and purpose of the First Amendment is to prevent the practice of taxing people directly and providing their money to an official state church. Or in other words it is to prevent the government from having an official state religion and collecting tithing on behalf of that religion. A practice common in every country in Europe at the time the First Amendment was written and one of the many reasons people immigrated to the United States in the First Place. This practice of collecting tithes through taxation is still to this day a practice in many countries throughout the world. You have suggested that by giving church members tax breaks for contributing to their church that the government is establishing that particular church in violation of constitutional principles. This is a flimsy argument since thousands of different churches and different congregations with different beliefs share this same benefit. It is impossible to establish a policy of Catholicism by providing Catholics extra benefits that you are also providing to Baptists in an attempt to establish a policy of Baptism, and Mormonism, and Methodism, etc, etc, etc. And these same benefits are even provided to atheists who believe in donating to local soup kitchens.



Just as one can argue donations to the Catholic church establishes the Catholic church in violation of the establishment clause one could also just as easily argue that the act of taxing donations to the Catholic church discourages Catholicism which is just as wildly (if not more so) in contradiction to the establishment clause.



So what do you do? You do what we are doing. You tax sales, you do not tax donations in which you receive "intangible benefits" and you trust people and not the government to decide the best way to donate their property for improvement of the public.

Answer 5

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints do a lot more than what you think. Brigham Young University has solved a major problem with getting people who are past starving to get nutrition into the body by developing a type of meal that you add water to. They serve health missions everywhere in the world and the people pay for their housing and meals themselves. The church has given millions of pounds of food to countries where a disaster has happened along with tents wheelchairs and whateverelse is needed.

Answer 6

I do not know where you get your information but our church pays $17,000 a year in taxes, priests are not entitled to any government pension plans. One in four medical treatments in the US are given by Christian funded hospitals.

Religious charities are in every city in the US providing shelter and food for the thousands of American with no basics of life.

Sikh temples are open to everyone - walk in and they will provide you with food - no cost.

Please double check your American Red Cross figure - I think you will find that slightly over 20% goes into administration cost and therefor only 80% goes to serve the needy.

Religious organizations have always been at the forefront of working with the poor.

Mother Teresa who was born into a privileged family went to work not just with the poor but with the poorest of the poor in the Indian slums.

I wish that all these religious charities could charge the government for the million on man hours that members dedicate to the communities. These religious organizations are in fact subsidizing the government.

Answer 7

Tao Man knoweth not where of he speaks.



Very Interesting question and if your statistics are correct, and they seem to be, then the religious community does fall way short of where we need to be.



Most cities of any size, have local organizations that administer charity in such a way as to not "enable" recipients. There are those today who take advantage of the charitable, taking charity away from those who deserve it. These organizations become familiar with the "moochers" and know how to determine where there is actual need.



My Church supports at least two organizations in our city who deal direct with the homeless and those in need. I know of funds that are sent out of country to help those in need. Any church who believes that their sole purpose is to save the lost, is not following Jesus example. He not only offered salvation, but he healed the sick, and gave to the poor.



Thanks for your question. I am going to find out how much of my churches budget goes to charity. As to our well paid staff, we have hired the best, and therefore must pay the most. A man is worthy of his pay, or he does not work for us. God Bless.

Answer 8

I'd bet that the LDS church has kept tens of thousands off of government welfare. The Red Cross never volunteered to pay my rent when I lost my job. They didn't send me any food, or hook me up with free training. They have never offered to pay my utilities. The LDS church has. Sure, the church asks for 10% of my income, but that is far less than what the government asks.

Answer 9

Sources! Sources!



Why are you bashing all these groups and quoting figures when you havent provided sources??????



Until you provide sources I hereby pronounce you a Silly Fool



BTW: to establish a new church you need at least 6 members.

Answer 10

Of course if you take into account that churches are not charity organizations . . . but yeah I mean you're an atheist . . . letting reality get in the way of what you think would be like an atheist worshiping God . . .



You just can't expect that to happen can you?

Answer 11

Charity is about love. It may be expressed in material assistance, spiritual aid, in kindness to others, in visiting prisoners or the sick, or in just praying for others. It is expressed today in China and India and Africa by those who are being martyred for their faith.

Answer 12

The religious do nothing out of altruism, they do what little good they do so they can earn a ticket into "heaven". Then, of course, there is the damn preacher to support in a lavish lifestyle.

Answer 13

Religion is all about money