4 ms·

I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s counting what religious Americans give to their church as “charity” though.

stronglikedan 8y ago
You mean the churches that, in turn, use that money to help their communities in a charitable way? I doubt that would surprise anyone anywhere in the world, since it happens everywhere.
- Frondo 8y ago
  This is a thing I've seen said a lot, but I'm curious if it's been studied. And I don't mean this as snark, but has anyone looked at what kind of "good works" churches do for their local communities? I'm very curious to know whether our government (state, local, etc) is getting a fair exchange for the tax benefits of being a church.
  - cr0sh 8y ago
    > And I don't mean this as snark, but has anyone looked at what kind of "good works" churches do for their local communities? Well - some of them provide political platforms to inform their members who to vote for. I think the IRS looked into this at one point, though it didn't go that well [1]. [1]: To this day, it's claimed that it was partisan and targeted only one party, when in fact all non-profits were looked into; it was just that certain non-profits, which attracted members of mainly one party, were the ones mostly engaging in such practices. That party, of course, made sure the IRS didn't have somebody (by not confirming anyone to the position - which is still the same today) to look into this issue; without that person, the law has no teeth, and they can continue to (illegally) promote their own politicians, in violation of the law for non-profit organizations. But they claim "free speech" rights and "religious freedom" rights...
JustSomeNobody 8y ago
And some of that goes out to support their surrounding communities by feeding/clothing homeless, supporting foster children, cleaning up yards for the elderly, paying people's rent, etc. A lot of churches don't require people to members in order to receive this help. So, if it is included, possibly this is why.
malchow 8y ago
You know that churches help people, right? In fact, they’re pretty good at it.
- TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
  They're even better at taking money from people. There are estimates that the Catholic Church spends around 3% of turnover on charity - which is far less than most charitable organisations do, and certainly far less than it could afford to. Given the age slant of its members a lot of donations are collected from the elderly, many of whom can realistically be considered poor themselves.
chillingeffect 8y ago
Many replies are vouching for churches, but while religious community work is certainly beneficial to selected parties, it's only a little better than other forms of private philanthropy in that the services are selected by a limited number of participants, to benefit a limited number of participants, rather than democratically as a government would do. [-1] For example, in cases like the Salvation Army, a portion of donated money goes toward lobbying against certain types of free speech. And they have been caught many times discriminating against LGBTQ. [0] [-1] Not that governments are uniformly perfect. They are at least beholden to the majority at numerous pressure points, unlike churches. [0] https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-salvation-armys-histo_b_4422938 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-salvation-armys-histo_b_4...

You mean the churches that, in turn, use that money to help their communities in a charitable way? I doubt that would surprise anyone anywhere in the world, since it happens everywhere.

Frondo 8y ago
This is a thing I've seen said a lot, but I'm curious if it's been studied. And I don't mean this as snark, but has anyone looked at what kind of "good works" churches do for their local communities? I'm very curious to know whether our government (state, local, etc) is getting a fair exchange for the tax benefits of being a church.
- cr0sh 8y ago
  > And I don't mean this as snark, but has anyone looked at what kind of "good works" churches do for their local communities? Well - some of them provide political platforms to inform their members who to vote for. I think the IRS looked into this at one point, though it didn't go that well [1]. [1]: To this day, it's claimed that it was partisan and targeted only one party, when in fact all non-profits were looked into; it was just that certain non-profits, which attracted members of mainly one party, were the ones mostly engaging in such practices. That party, of course, made sure the IRS didn't have somebody (by not confirming anyone to the position - which is still the same today) to look into this issue; without that person, the law has no teeth, and they can continue to (illegally) promote their own politicians, in violation of the law for non-profit organizations. But they claim "free speech" rights and "religious freedom" rights...

JustSomeNobody 8y ago

And some of that goes out to support their surrounding communities by feeding/clothing homeless, supporting foster children, cleaning up yards for the elderly, paying people's rent, etc. A lot of churches don't require people to members in order to receive this help. So, if it is included, possibly this is why.

malchow 8y ago

You know that churches help people, right? In fact, they’re pretty good at it.

TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
They're even better at taking money from people. There are estimates that the Catholic Church spends around 3% of turnover on charity - which is far less than most charitable organisations do, and certainly far less than it could afford to. Given the age slant of its members a lot of donations are collected from the elderly, many of whom can realistically be considered poor themselves.

chillingeffect 8y ago

Many replies are vouching for churches, but while religious community work is certainly beneficial to selected parties, it's only a little better than other forms of private philanthropy in that the services are selected by a limited number of participants, to benefit a limited number of participants, rather than democratically as a government would do. [-1] For example, in cases like the Salvation Army, a portion of donated money goes toward lobbying against certain types of free speech. And they have been caught many times discriminating against LGBTQ. [0] [-1] Not that governments are uniformly perfect. They are at least beholden to the majority at numerous pressure points, unlike churches. [0] https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-salvation-armys-histo_b_4422938 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-salvation-armys-histo_b_4...