3 ms·

I'd ask for actual stats including citing a study that is not geographically isolated to the inner city. This is another one of those soundbite arguments in th

I'd ask for actual stats including citing a study that is not geographically isolated to the inner city. This is another one of those soundbite arguments in the US. Also, dig up some stats on donation to charities by party members. Both sides in the US have reduced our services to the mentally ill. The Democrats don't like institutions and wanted in-community services to the point of cutting funding for institutions. The Republicans don't want mental treatment homes in the community and vote to cut there funding. Since they cannot agree we get a whole lot of problems.

FireBeyond 11y ago
It's a good point. Most studies show that charity giving by political affiliation to be nearly equal, or to put conservatives slightly ahead: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/10/21/study-conservatives-and-liberals-are-equally-charitable-but-they-give-to-different-charities/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/10/21/study... That being said, conservatives are far more likely to give to their church as a charity, and when churches (but not 'all religious organizations') are removed from the equation, the balance dramatically shifts. It could certainly be argued that while for many churches their charitable contributions are valuable and well used, but that for others they are used more for publicity/promotional/snowballing purposes. Certainly this is compounded too, by certain churches, of which LDS is the biggest, that mandate tithing of income, skewing the numbers substantially.
- protomyth 11y ago
  Is your argument that we give to a charity that we see the results in, that informs us where the money goes, we agree with the philosophy of the charity, and part of our beliefs might include mandatory giving, then that charity is invalid? "but that for others they are used more for publicity/promotional/snowballing purposes" You need proof of that. I would also point out https://philanthropy.com/specialreport/how-america-gives-2014/1 https://philanthropy.com/specialreport/how-america-gives-201... - please note the areas that vote Republican versus Democrat. It is a nice counterpoint to the MIT study.
  - FireBeyond 11y ago
    The challenge with that is that many churches, especially the "megachurches", actively resist revealing that information. A survey revealed a breakdown of 'senior pastor' versus other personnel relative salaries, without divulging any specifics: http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2014/september/how-727-megachurches-spend-their-money-leadership-network.html http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2014/september/ho... But it did say that most large churches spend "slightly less than half their givings on staffing costs". "The most strategic churches we work with are realizing that a premier children’s pastor/leader can become one of, if not the largest growth engines for the church. And such churches are paying accordingly. We are seeing an increasing trend of churches who pay the top person over children’s ministry more and more. In some cases, the children’s pastor is one of the top paid people on staff, higher than the student pastor, worship pastor or small groups pastor." This is from a site that is specifically pro-Christianity, and goes directly to that - whilst I might not believe in a religious organization, spending money on growing the church is in no way something I'd consider 'charitable giving'. "Elevation Church does post some financial records on its website, reporting that the church took in $33.5 million in offerings last year and gave away about $3.8 million in outreach, spent $9 million on personnel and reported $13.9 million in cash assets." (this after their pastor purchased a 'not that great' 16,000 sq ft home on 19 acres, and said that would be 'against Christ's teachings' to disclose what he was paid) - http://www.rawstory.com/2015/11/megamansion-building-megachurch-pastor-says-revealing-his-salary-would-violate-christs-teachings/ http://www.rawstory.com/2015/11/megamansion-building-megachu... A study by ECCU (http://web.archive.org/web/20141019033209/https://www.eccu.org/resources/advisorypanel/2013/surveyreports20 http://web.archive.org/web/20141019033209/https://www.eccu.o...) stated that churches use 3 percent of their budget for children’s and youth programs, and 2 percent for adult programs. Local and national benevolence receives 1 percent of the typical church budget. So I -do- place some skepticism on the idea of blanketing 'religious giving' as 'charitable contribution'.
    - protomyth 11y ago
      > So I -do- place some skepticism on the idea of blanketing 'religious giving' as 'charitable contribution'. So, you cherry picked the megachurches without showing how much of the Church going population they make up. I could throw in an equal list[1] of all the charities (some well known) that have horrible giving records . Also, yes, staffing costs are big at churches because these people do actual pastoral work. Of course a church tries to spread the word. That is not much different than a lot of secular charities. 1) http://www.charitynavigator.org http://www.charitynavigator.org

FireBeyond 11y ago

It's a good point. Most studies show that charity giving by political affiliation to be nearly equal, or to put conservatives slightly ahead: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/10/21/study-conservatives-and-liberals-are-equally-charitable-but-they-give-to-different-charities/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/10/21/study... That being said, conservatives are far more likely to give to their church as a charity, and when churches (but not 'all religious organizations') are removed from the equation, the balance dramatically shifts. It could certainly be argued that while for many churches their charitable contributions are valuable and well used, but that for others they are used more for publicity/promotional/snowballing purposes. Certainly this is compounded too, by certain churches, of which LDS is the biggest, that mandate tithing of income, skewing the numbers substantially.

protomyth 11y ago
Is your argument that we give to a charity that we see the results in, that informs us where the money goes, we agree with the philosophy of the charity, and part of our beliefs might include mandatory giving, then that charity is invalid? "but that for others they are used more for publicity/promotional/snowballing purposes" You need proof of that. I would also point out https://philanthropy.com/specialreport/how-america-gives-2014/1 https://philanthropy.com/specialreport/how-america-gives-201... - please note the areas that vote Republican versus Democrat. It is a nice counterpoint to the MIT study.
- FireBeyond 11y ago
  The challenge with that is that many churches, especially the "megachurches", actively resist revealing that information. A survey revealed a breakdown of 'senior pastor' versus other personnel relative salaries, without divulging any specifics: http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2014/september/how-727-megachurches-spend-their-money-leadership-network.html http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2014/september/ho... But it did say that most large churches spend "slightly less than half their givings on staffing costs". "The most strategic churches we work with are realizing that a premier children’s pastor/leader can become one of, if not the largest growth engines for the church. And such churches are paying accordingly. We are seeing an increasing trend of churches who pay the top person over children’s ministry more and more. In some cases, the children’s pastor is one of the top paid people on staff, higher than the student pastor, worship pastor or small groups pastor." This is from a site that is specifically pro-Christianity, and goes directly to that - whilst I might not believe in a religious organization, spending money on growing the church is in no way something I'd consider 'charitable giving'. "Elevation Church does post some financial records on its website, reporting that the church took in $33.5 million in offerings last year and gave away about $3.8 million in outreach, spent $9 million on personnel and reported $13.9 million in cash assets." (this after their pastor purchased a 'not that great' 16,000 sq ft home on 19 acres, and said that would be 'against Christ's teachings' to disclose what he was paid) - http://www.rawstory.com/2015/11/megamansion-building-megachurch-pastor-says-revealing-his-salary-would-violate-christs-teachings/ http://www.rawstory.com/2015/11/megamansion-building-megachu... A study by ECCU (http://web.archive.org/web/20141019033209/https://www.eccu.org/resources/advisorypanel/2013/surveyreports20 http://web.archive.org/web/20141019033209/https://www.eccu.o...) stated that churches use 3 percent of their budget for children’s and youth programs, and 2 percent for adult programs. Local and national benevolence receives 1 percent of the typical church budget. So I -do- place some skepticism on the idea of blanketing 'religious giving' as 'charitable contribution'.
  - protomyth 11y ago
    > So I -do- place some skepticism on the idea of blanketing 'religious giving' as 'charitable contribution'. So, you cherry picked the megachurches without showing how much of the Church going population they make up. I could throw in an equal list[1] of all the charities (some well known) that have horrible giving records . Also, yes, staffing costs are big at churches because these people do actual pastoral work. Of course a church tries to spread the word. That is not much different than a lot of secular charities. 1) http://www.charitynavigator.org http://www.charitynavigator.org