Ship of Fools: charitable conservatives

Thread: charitable conservatives Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023388

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

It's common knowledge that conservatives give more than liberals.

Apparently that's because conservatives give more to their churches. According to this discussion of a new survey by The Chronicle of Philanthropy:

quote:
But Utah is a bit of an outlier. The rest of the more generous states are dominated by the South – the country’s most Christian region and another faith that regularly emphasizes tithing 10%. Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee and South Carolina round out the top five.

Take away churches as charities, however, and red states no longer dominate the world of donations. Instead, New England – a region that leans Democratic, with far fewer religiously affiliated Americans but with more affluent residents – catapults toward the top.

The Chronicle of Philanthropy found that the South gives roughly 5.2% of its discretionary income to charity– including both religious and non-religious groups – while New England only gives 4%. But if churches are excluded, the South’s percentage drops to 0.9% and New England’s only drops to 1.4%. New York state would be second in the country in giving if religion was removed from the equation, while Pennsylvania would jump from No. 40 into the top 5.

So ... is it fair to say that conservatives are more charitable than liberals if the bulk of the conservative's charity is directed toward the church that they attend? Would it be appropriate to regard donations to your own church in the same way you'd regard dues and donations to your local golf club or other favorite activity? (I'm not saying that churches don't provide services to the poor. But the bulk of our parish budget involves mortgage payments, power bills, insurance, salaries, and the like. I'm sure that's true of most other churches as well.)

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

As Fred Clark of Slacktivist puts it "Study reveals church-goers give more to churches than people who don’t go to church give to those churches". This is not a particularly surprising result.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
It's common knowledge that conservatives give more than liberals.

That's probably false. Whose more charitable, liberals or conservatives?

The article indicates, among other things, that it depends on how you decide to analyse things, what you include or exclude, and how you adjust for disposable income or wealth. My take is that such a statement is utterly meaningless and another one of those ridiculous polarizations that tries to divide people into sheep and goats when many are birds or fish, and far too many are insects and fungi.

Posted by tomsk (# 15370) on :

There is a theory that if you give money to the Church you might as well stick it up your arse for all the good it does. But that is based on the premise that church is a pointless exercise. Giving money o churches is charitable, as churches are normally charities, with spiritual as well as practical objectives. A the same time, conflating giving to the Church with, say, giving to the poor is not completely accurate.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
... is it fair to say that conservatives are more charitable than liberals if the bulk of the conservative's charity is directed toward the church that they attend? Would it be appropriate to regard donations to your own church in the same way you'd regard dues and donations to your local golf club or other favorite activity?

Good point. I suppose to get a true picture you'd need to do some factoring calculation based on how much of the typical church budget is spent on social / charitable work and how much goes on the 'internal' church stuff. I imagine one could have a go at this calculation but it would be full of approximations.

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

Yes, but the charitable sector also includes things such as art, PBS, museums and historic buildings which are as subject to the same critique of being self serving.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
So ... is it fair to say that conservatives are more charitable than liberals if the bulk of the conservative's charity is directed toward the church that they attend?

No, I don't think giving that will be spent in Church upkeep should be counted as charity at all. It is necessary, of course, but it isn't charity giving imo.

An analogy would be income into our home - the money we spend on rates, food, upkeep of buildings etc etc is not giving - it's simply expenses.

When we have fundraisers at our Church we do half/half. Half goes to Church funds and half to proper charities. The punters seem very happy with this arrangement.

Keeping the club going can't possible be called a charitable act, in my view.

Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :

But give to any organisation and the major part of your donation is liable to go on keeping the show on the road.

Personally, I'm dubious that churches should be counted as charities. Given that they are, however, giving to a church is giving to a charity and the fact that most of your donation goes on repairing the roof doesn't stop it being giving to a charity.

Whether giving to that charity is a good way to spend money is another question, but not everyone would regard giving money to Battersea Dog's Home as a good use of money...

Might also be worth pointing out that some organisations that do (arguably) good work to which one might be inclined to give are not, in the technical sense, charities and so presumably wouldn't count in measures of charitable giving...

Posted by Nicodemia (# 4756) on :

quote:
But give to any organisation and the major part of your donation is liable to go on keeping the show on the road.

This does not apply to a charity whose accounts are open for all to see, at least to see the proportion of donations spent on actual help, administrations, fund-raising, etc. I would never give to a charity which spent more than they used to help or aid in internal costs.

When I first became a Christian I was taught that tithing was required. I dutifully tithed for years. But now I give a very much smaller proportion to my church (not the one where I was told to tithe!) and a very much greater proportion to charities which I can choose, and whose accounts tell me clearly where my money goes.

Not sure whether that puts me in the conservative or liberal camp! [Biased]

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
......Would it be appropriate to regard donations to your own church in the same way you'd regard dues and donations to your local golf club or other favorite activity?
Good point. I suppose to get a true picture you'd need to do some factoring calculation based on how much of the typical church budget is spent on social / charitable work and how much goes on the 'internal' church stuff. I imagine one could have a go at this calculation but it would be full of approximations.

Going the other way, all being equal the church needs to use 30% of it's income in a charitable way, less favours the liberals, more the conservatives. It's possibly easier to think how unlikely that is/loose a definition of charity.
However ES's & Boogies points are interesting, and rather spoil my attempt to get round.

Giving to the church is spent on humanitarian work (akin to-and often via Oxfam), society work (akin to symphony), political work (akin to BNP/Greens*), clubby work (akin to golf club) and expenses.
If we include 'lower' giving in the 1.4/0.9, then we need to include it in the church. Which makes 30% quite likely.
If we don't then the 1.4,0.9 will shrink, and it is quite plausible that some of the difference will be clawed back (e.g. if cons give and play at the churches football team while libs give and play in the secular football team).

In short we could instead try factoring for the non-church budget...but I'm not sure we're gaining much.

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

I propose an exchange; an end of the charitable status of churches - along with orchestras (including all government funding of the arts and sports), youth and sport organisations and art galleries. Oh, and the government would have to take over the cost of maintaining all listed religious buildings.

The secularists have found a new front: we need to turn the logic back on them.

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :

If you want to know how a non profit spends its money look at this site.

On the question of whether giving to a church is like club dues, in many ways that is true. Having been on budget committees, a major part of offerings goes to fixed costs. A church is an expensive place to run.

In another sense, it is not like club dues. We were challenged by Jesus to gather in His name. Perhaps that could be outside in the cold, or the heat, or the rain, or the snow. I mean after all, if we weren't wimps we would do that. But then, the frail and the sick might have a problem or two getting to service.

Church charitable activities is a factor. Programs like Room At The Inn, food banks, etc., are regularly sponsored by churches here in the Sovereign South. I dunno, something about being reminded weekly that all humans are your brothers and sisters in Christ might have something to do with it.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
In another sense, it is not like club dues. We were challenged by Jesus to gather in His name. Perhaps that could be outside in the cold, or the heat, or the rain, or the snow.

Or in someone's house. Without paid staff or expensive equipment. If we all did church like this, without the big buildings and staff teams, think of all the money we could instead give to social and / or missionary programmes!

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
In another sense, it is not like club dues. We were challenged by Jesus to gather in His name. Perhaps that could be outside in the cold, or the heat, or the rain, or the snow.
Or in someone's house. Without paid staff or expensive equipment. If we all did church like this, without the big buildings and staff teams, think of all the money we could instead give to social and / or missionary programmes!

Indeed, as Frank Viola strongly argues for. It's the usual problem; you wouldn't start from here if you had a totally clean sheet with which to work. The hard question is how radical / destructive of tradition / philistine you want to be...

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
I propose an exchange; an end of the charitable status of churches - along with orchestras (including all government funding of the arts and sports), youth and sport organisations and art galleries. Oh, and the government would have to take over the cost of maintaining all listed religious buildings.

The secularists have found a new front: we need to turn the logic back on them.

So you think orchestras and art galleries are to secularists what churches are to believers?

Good luck with that logic thing!

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
I propose an exchange; an end of the charitable status of churches - along with orchestras (including all government funding of the arts and sports), youth and sport organisations and art galleries. Oh, and the government would have to take over the cost of maintaining all listed religious buildings.

The secularists have found a new front: we need to turn the logic back on them.
So you think orchestras and art galleries are to secularists what churches are to believers?

Good luck with that logic thing!

I would argue that in terms of what they offer - aesthetic experiences as a source of entertainment - the equivalence is quite reasonable [Big Grin]

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Or in someone's house. Without paid staff or expensive equipment. If we all did church like this, without the big buildings and staff teams, think of all the money we could instead give to social and / or missionary programmes!

So, no pay for the preacher. Meaning no one has incentive to go to school for a while to learn theology.

OK. No problem. We can all just read our favorite passages in the Bible and never have to deal with an uncomfortable interpretation. Cool.

Oh, wait a minute. With all this extra money you will be sending to charity, who will sort out where it goes and make sure it is actually delivered? Because, you know, all those NGO's ought to dismantle too so charities can be handled in someone's house to save money as well.

Who is going to pay the missionaries then?

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :

I would say that paying someone to work fulltime for the cure of souls in my local area is an extremely worthy charitable aim (and I hope the new converts thank me for my hard giving once they're in heaven [Biased]

) Seriously, one thing that has stopped me giving more to churches is when I've felt they've become too much of a social club and I've felt like my tithe could be better spent elsewhere.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Or in someone's house. Without paid staff or expensive equipment. If we all did church like this, without the big buildings and staff teams, think of all the money we could instead give to social and / or missionary programmes!
So, no pay for the preacher. Meaning no one has incentive to go to school for a while to learn theology.

Are you saying that the only reason why ministers study theology is so that they can make a good living out of it??

Well, if so, then that's an indictment of the system in itself!! The atheists would have a field day with that one!

quote:

We can all just read our favorite passages in the Bible and never have to deal with an uncomfortable interpretation. Cool.

One of the problems we have today is that many laypeople feel that they don't have to deal with the uncomfortable elements in the Bible, because they feel that they're paying a clergyman or woman to do all that hard work for them. Perhaps they might get more involved if it wasn't something hived off for the attention of specialists.

As for general giving to charity, I suppose that if you're an evangelical who gives a large amount to church, then you might have less money to give to humanitarian-type charities. But this assumes that money given to churches never reaches the poor/sick/abused, etc. This is untrue. In fact, I imagine that the richest evangelical churches probably have more money to devote to those things, after paying their bills, than many more liberal, smaller congregations, who are struggling to keep their doors open. But of course, taking our cue from the widow's mite, it's not the amount but the percentage that matters, and from this perspective, the smaller church might win.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

Where does the information that fuels these surveys come from? Surely people are not boasting about the extent of their generosity?

In any event, the tax breaks available make everyone a giver, as the rebates have to be funded from somewhere within the budget, either through lower spending or higher taxation, and if you can afford a good accountant then your personal giving can be made very efficient indeed!

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

Rather than worrying about whether church giving "counts," I would suggest we worry more about engaging in community. Anything that lifts our eyes above our own selfish interests should be encouraged ISTM. I say "good on them" for the conservatives to be actively engaged in the life of their church.

If you are liberal and feel that you are being out-given by conservatives, embrace the burn of your shame and dig deep, instead of trying to pony up some reason why those better souls who don't share your political slant are somehow every bit as foul as you are.

--Tom Clune

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Are you saying that the only reason why ministers study theology is so that they can make a good living out of it??

Well, if so, then that's an indictment of the system in itself!! The atheists would have a field day with that one!

As a matter of fact, the Episcopal church has what any businesslike analysis would call a clergy surplus. Yet people go to expensive and time-consuming seminaries to join their ranks, with a parochial "living" more and more a dream like winning the lottery. I'd call this a minor miracle, not to be taken for granted.

Of course, it depends on what you mean by a good living. A clergyman should not expect a mcmansion with a Mercedes and a powerboat in the garage, but is anything wrong with wanting a roof over your head? Show me an atheist who (a) is devoted to obtaining a degree, or the equivalent amount of knowledge, in philosophy; and (b) content to live in the gutter; and I will grant you a point. Truly would he or she be a successor of Chaucer's delightful Oxford scholar. But that's not the way things work anymore in the West and you know it. The Oxford scholar had very few possessions, but he had a bed, some books, and a shelf above the bed to keep them on. Nowadays he might find himself homeless, with neither a bed nor any place to keep whatever books he might be able to shelter from the rain and snow.

Who is prepared to live like that? There are plenty of homeless people today. It doesn't seem to be a particularly bizarre fate anymore. Even the standard of living of the Oxford scholar these days requires employability at more than minimum wage, which more and more requires a college education in a subject needed by the economy. Students who are in college only for the piece of paper that will offer them a decent living at the other end of the tunnel are the bane of every professor, but who can blame them for being there?

Now you're suggesting that it is cringeworthy if a vocation to the ministry doesn't inspire one to go and get a graduate degree on top of that for holy poverty? Where does a secularist conjure up the standard giving him the right to make any such demand?

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Alogon

I wasn't suggesting that they should live in poverty - although the concept of the homeless holy man isn't exactly untried! I was simply responding to the idea that the noone would study theology unless they were in line for a job and a pension. What this tells the laity is that theology isn't for them, but for specialists. But maybe theology is worth studying even if you have to get a job doing something else?

And as South Coast Kevin implies, churches have become institutions that are increasingly expensive to maintain, whilst at the same time seemingly becoming less effective in their mission (depending on how they define their mission, I suppose) and less relevant to the surrounding culture. If we didn't have to spend so much money maintaining a monstrous infrastructure there might be more flexibility, more agility, a quicker response to local and national conditions, etc.

I accept that this is unlikely to happen, though, because it would signify a loss of status for churches and for religious professionals.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

What an oxymoronic thread title!

'Charity' is a euphemism for 'only giving to those causes of which I approve/ from which I will benefit, allowing me to complain about high levels of taxation.' We ought to be campaigning for a system which supports all basic human needs and redistributes the unjust allocation of wealth in our society, which means the rich paying more tax.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Yes, but the charitable sector also includes things such as art, PBS, museums and historic buildings which are as subject to the same critique of being self serving.

In what way? Did I miss somewhere an announcement that these corporations now distribute dividends to investors?

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Would it be appropriate to regard donations to your own church in the same way you'd regard dues and donations to your local golf club or other favorite activity?

I wouldn't mind in the least if in principle (the devil, of course, being in the details), this distinction were enshrined in law: To qualify as something other than a club, a church must (1) have all regular services open to the public; (2) have membership open to all applicants.

Every church should comply with enthusiasm. It's right there in the Nicene Creed: I believe in one holy Catholic and apostolic church. If a religious organization does not fulfil the implications of that word Catholic, meaning universal, then it is not part of the church described in this 1700-year-old statement, and it has no right to be considered such.

I'm not suggesting that most churches in fact fail to fulfil these conditions nowadays, unless they exclude or expel gays and the like. Churches make as big a point of being inviting and inclusive as clubs do of being exclusive. The difference ought to be vivid enough to answer critics. But any preferential treatment in tax terms should be contingent upon it. Therefore we/they had better make certain of staying away from the borderline.

quote:
Sioni sez:
In any event, the tax breaks available make everyone a giver, as the rebates have to be funded from somewhere within the budget,

Ebenezer Scrooge said something like that, too.

quote:
Jay-Emm:
Giving to the church is spent on humanitarian work (akin to-and often via Oxfam), society work (akin to symphony), political work (akin to BNP/Greens*), clubby work (akin to golf club) and expenses...

.

Ahh, so simple. Subsidizing poor kids so that they can attend school is clearly humanitarian work, and paying soloists in the choir is clearly society work. But what if one of those paid soloists is one of those poor kids in school (as is rather often, in fact the case)? Suddenly telling the two endeavors apart doesn't look like such a no-brainer, does it?

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
In another sense, it is not like club dues. We were challenged by Jesus to gather in His name. Perhaps that could be outside in the cold, or the heat, or the rain, or the snow.
Or in someone's house. Without paid staff or expensive equipment. If we all did church like this, without the big buildings and staff teams, think of all the money we could instead give to social and / or missionary programmes!

I don't think we ought to all do church alike. Without a semi-comfortable and accessible building to meet in, a lot of people (such as the disabled or the very shy) are never ever going to come. If you have no equipment, you're probably going to be excluding the deaf--and probably the visually impaired as well, who need larger print stuff. And if you have no paid staff, chances are there'll be nobody there to do emergency pastoral care during "normal working hours"--so be sure to schedule suicide attempts, accidents, family breakups and etc. for evenings and Saturdays. Oh, and forget the food pantry, you've got nowhere to keep it, and people in need won't be able to tell where to ask for help anyway (many of them only knowing the church from the outside of the building). Seriously, the bare bones house church idea is great for the young and able-bodied whose life is on a fairly even course. It doesn't work too well for people who are breaking down in any of a dozen was.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:

quote:
Sioni sez:
In any event, the tax breaks available make everyone a giver, as the rebates have to be funded from somewhere within the budget,
Ebenezer Scrooge said something like that, too.

He may have done, but to me it looks more like something Mr Micawber would say. Sadly Micawber couldn't manage his accounts, despite being able to calculate to the nearest farthing, as he wasn't willing to face up to the underlying problems, which IIRC was mostly Mrs Micawber, but in the context of my post is the inequalities caused by tax-breaks for non-profits.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

You seem to assume that the Micawbers do not benefit from any of these charities given tax breaks. The premise is that, as members of society, they do. And I don't think you need to look far to verify that. For starters, all they need these days is a $30 radio, and their minds can be nourished hours daily with various edification that they aren't likely to find on any commercial station. And it will be free of the ceaseless barrage of propaganda tempting them to go further into debt. Obviously the American corporocracy detests the existence of any such end run around its reach into our pockets. That's why they have pressed their legislative minions into cutting federal support below $1 per year per capita, unlike most other first-world (or even third-world) nations.

This being the case, yes, it's a blessing at least that contributions from the altruistic can more efficiently make up for our governments' refusal to fulfill this fiscally minor responsibility, as it did unstintingly in those awful socialist 1950s when I was a kid.

[ 24. August 2012, 03:56: Message edited by: Alogon ]

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Yes, but the charitable sector also includes things such as art, PBS, museums and historic buildings which are as subject to the same critique of being self serving.
In what way? Did I miss somewhere an announcement that these corporations now distribute dividends to investors?

Let's try again: if I give money to my local Catholic or especially Orthodox church, I will paying to enable people in funny clothes to say things from a script on a regular basis. The same description applies to the theatre. Yet relatively few people argue that that shouldn't be eligible for charitable status. (Protestant churches probably constitute performance art [Big Grin]

)

If I give money to my favourite cathedral, I am enabling them to maintain the fabric of an ancient monument. It's the same if I give money to the National Trust.

If I give money to some churches endowed with glorious art, I'm ensuring that those pictures are available to the public to be seen. The same is true of an art gallery.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

What Angloid said.

Why is it assumed that charity is a good thing?

I think it is a bad thing because it enables people to feel good when they have put a sticking plaster on a festering wound instead of getting to the root of the problem - what caused the would in the first place and how can we change just political structures so that people don't get wounded in the first place?

Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :

@Ender's Shadow

In the UK at least, charitable status is given to churches on the basis that they " advance religion", rather than that they preserve ancient monuments.

If you want the preservation of churches, start a charity for it. Why burden the church with that task?

Posted by angelfish (# 8884) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
What Angloid said.

Why is it assumed that charity is a good thing?

I think it is a bad thing because it enables people to feel good when they have put a sticking plaster on a festering wound instead of getting to the root of the problem - what caused the would in the first place and how can we change just political structures so that people don't get wounded in the first place?

Well put, but sadly "the poor you will always have with you". What you are striving for will not exist while humans are in charge, So we'd better get on with helping the ones who suffer as best we can, rather than shouting "it's the system that's broken!" with our wallets all the while clamped firmly shut. Charity may not be the ideal, but it certainly isn't a bad thing.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Both/and. It's got to be.

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
@Ender's Shadow

In the UK at least, charitable status is given to churches on the basis that they " advance religion", rather than that they preserve ancient monuments.

If you want the preservation of churches, start a charity for it. Why burden the church with that task?

Because in practice it seems that most churches own and meet in buildings that are at least local landmarks, if not actually listed. This has the result that large amounts of money and effort does get spent on maintaining them, however much we would like it to be otherwise. IF push comes to shove, it's an important burden that the churches ARE carrying, which any move to deprive us of charitable status should address. I suspect the pressure will be on to remove 'advance religion' as a charitable objective; what I'm seeking to offer is reasons to oppose such a move on secular grounds.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by angelfish:
rather than shouting "it's the system that's broken!" with our wallets all the while clamped firmly shut. Charity may not be the ideal, but it certainly isn't a bad thing.

NOT with closed wallets - use the money to support political parties and pressure groups that work to change the system.

Charity is harmful because seduces people into thinking that a little tinkering with corruption will make it OK

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

Interesting. I've seen several debates between famous atheists and thiests recently when the theist side produced data showing that Christians gave more to charity than non thiests. I didn't think they would have included church tithes. That's quite sneaky.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
I didn't think they would have included church tithes. That's quite sneaky.

?????? The list should include only George Spigot-approved charities? How strange.

--Tom Clune

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
I didn't think they would have included church tithes. That's quite sneaky.
?????? The list should include only George Spigot-approved charities? How strange.

--Tom Clune

Oh well I'm sure all that money goes to feed the poor and house the homeless.

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

I've just never seen churches as charity's. A lot of them give to charity I'm sure but that's not the same thing.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
I've just never seen churches as charity's. A lot of them give to charity I'm sure but that's not the same thing.

Apparently this is a pond difference. On this side of the Atlantic, "charity" is a tax designation. Some things that do not count as charities do good work, and some things that do count as charities may do work that you see as less than helpful. It has absolutely nothing to do with how you may feel about the group.

--Tom Clune

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

In Canada, the tax authorities do recognise that some of the stuff churches do is not "charitable" in the sense of giving stuff/money to someone else.

Expenses for the worship space, for instance, get a rebate of the HST (sales tax), while expenses on the hall/kitchen/whatever are not considered to be for "worship"

The salaries of ministers and other workers are taxed just like anyone else's, while the outright gifts are not.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by angelfish:
rather than shouting "it's the system that's broken!" with our wallets all the while clamped firmly shut. Charity may not be the ideal, but it certainly isn't a bad thing.
NOT with closed wallets - use the money to support political parties and pressure groups that work to change the system.

Charity is harmful because seduces people into thinking that a little tinkering with corruption will make it OK

leo.

Can you please tell us what changes are needed so we can direct our efforts in that direction? Or could you possibly STFU and let such decisions be made through the ballot-box and if people want to give to charity, let them do so.

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

@tclune

It must as you say be a pond difference. When I think of charity's the sort of things that come to mind are oxfam, the NSPCC and famin relief efforts.

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
I've just never seen churches as charity's. A lot of them give to charity I'm sure but that's not the same thing.
Apparently this is a pond difference. On this side of the Atlantic, "charity" is a tax designation. Some things that do not count as charities do good work, and some things that do count as charities may do work that you see as less than helpful. It has absolutely nothing to do with how you may feel about the group.

--Tom Clune

True. Qualification as a charity under US law is governed by the Internal Revenue Code. Once qualified, the charity has special tax treatment allowing donors to take a credit on their taxes for their donations. Additionally, charities do not have to count passive income, among other things.

Churches qualify as a charity unless they do something to mess with that status, like try to influence politics - unless they are conservative and support Republican candidates.* Here. Section 501(c)(3), is what governs what can be a charity and what can't be a charity. The rules have tightened lately.

That being said, giving something of value to some community (goods, services, money) is definitional for a charity.

____________________
*OK, that statement was not entirely true. Churches are no supposed to indulge in politics. The fact that some ministers do, is largely overlooked by the IRS.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
@tclune

It must as you say be a pond difference. When I think of charity's the sort of things that come to mind are oxfam, the NSPCC and famin relief efforts.

Like other charities, churches are non-profit making organisations. If they had to pay tax, as things stand, most of them would have to close. (I'm talking about the UK.) Lots of people would be happy with this outcome, of course.

[ 25. August 2012, 15:28: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
@tclune

It must as you say be a pond difference. When I think of charity's the sort of things that come to mind are oxfam, the NSPCC and famin relief efforts.

This is quite a useful guide to what constitutes charitable purposes this side of the pond. Our charity law (like the US's) has its origin in Queen Elizabeth I's Statute of Charitable Uses of 1601.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by angelfish:
rather than shouting "it's the system that's broken!" with our wallets all the while clamped firmly shut. Charity may not be the ideal, but it certainly isn't a bad thing.
NOT with closed wallets - use the money to support political parties and pressure groups that work to change the system.

Charity is harmful because seduces people into thinking that a little tinkering with corruption will make it OK
leo.

Can you please tell us what changes are needed so we can direct our efforts in that direction? Or could you possibly STFU and let such decisions be made through the ballot-box and if people want to give to charity, let them do so.

The OP suggested that conservatives give more to charity than so-called liberals.

My responses were on the lines that conservatives have a vested interest in charity - they can feel good and rest in the knowledge that nothing will really change - the world will continue to have its unjust structures - what tomorrow's epistle calls 'the principalities and powers.'

Those at the top can throw a few crumbs to those down below, wile staying at the top.

What needs to be done? To take our lady seriously in her liberation song, the magnificat - about casting down the rich from their thrones.

The nearest we have got to this ion the UK is the welfare state. The conservatives are busy dismantling this.

Charity aids and abets this dismantling - the more people give charity to local hospitals, the less pressure there is on the state (that's us, the taxpayers) to fund them. That is why i think charity is dangerous and why i believe that Christians should not give to 'charity'.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
use the money to support political parties and pressure groups that work to change the system.

In the footsteps of Christ, I suppose.

No, thanks. I do some of that (ACLU etc.), but by and large would rather devote my disposable income to something better than a tug of war. Your opponents will only contribute more to lobbying on the other side of the issue and it's a stalemate again. The only winners in that game are profit-making ad agencies, commerical media, and corrupt politicians.

[ 25. August 2012, 17:25: Message edited by: Alogon ]

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
use the money to support political parties and pressure groups that work to change the system.
In the footsteps of Christ, I suppose.

No, thanks. I do some of that (ACLU etc.), but by and large would rather devote my disposable income to something better than a tug of war. Your opponents will only contribute more to lobbying on the other side of the issue and it's a stalemate again. The only winners in that game are profit-making ad agencies, commerical media, and corrupt politicians.

I'm not so sure. Changes have occurred in the last century because people campaigned and donated and joined political parties. Britain has a national health service because the population demanded it. Apartheid no longer exists, largely because of political activism, even when governments were busy sucking up to the regime and right wing students were walking around with "hang Mandela" badges. The Jubilee debt campaign got wealthy nations to write off billions in debt. It's not perfect but it is progress. If you refuse to engage in political action then you cede the field to those who will and, to put it bluntly, the Nazis and their fellow travellers are just waiting for the opportunity.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I'm not so sure. Changes have occurred in the last century because people campaigned and donated and joined political parties.

Don't forget voted. Nothing happens without a majority voting for it. At least let us hope so.

quote:
Britain has a national health service because the population demanded it...

I.e., voted for it. See what I mean? Do you think that the money spent on propaganda by either side at that time approximated what we see thrown around nowadays?

quote:
right wing students were walking around with "hang Mandela" badges.

One per person, each costing how much, do you think?

quote:
It's not perfect but it is progress. If you refuse to engage in political action then you cede the field to those who will and, to put it bluntly, the Nazis and their fellow travellers are just waiting for the opportunity.

I'm not advising that we ignore political action by any means. We should inform ourselves, speak as convincingly as possible to people in power and to one another, maybe even demonstrate and protest, and of course vote thoughtfully at every opportunity. But none of this is the same as shouting, which is essentially all that contributing large amounts of money accomplishes. If anything, the atmosphere results in less interest and respect for the political process on the part of citizens, not more. The din has become so great that folks understandably just become cynical and hold their hands over their ears.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

I see your point, but isn't that exactly how we got into a situation where a significant fraction of the population think that evolution is a lie and climate change isn't happening, and the US found itself with a position where most people oppose the ACA but support every major policy contained within it? Wingnuts and corporate vested interests DO spend large amounts of money because they've discovered that the political process is for sale. In both former cases intelligent people assumed that being right was enough to win the argument. Turns out it isn't. Grass roots campaigns only work if the media pay attention, and the media, particularly in the US but to a lesser extent in the UK, is corporate owned and serves corporate interests. Money is how you get your voice heard in a capitalist system. Money buys you a megaphone through which to persuade others.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I'm not so sure. Changes have occurred in the last century because people campaigned and donated and joined political parties.
Don't forget voted. Nothing happens without a majority voting for it. At least let us hope so.

quote:
Britain has a national health service because the population demanded it...
I.e., voted for it. See what I mean? Do you think that the money spent on propaganda by either side at that time approximated what we see thrown around nowadays?

The commitment to policies and inclusion of these in election manifests usually follows campaigning outside parliament, congress or whatever the legislative assembly is called. Only then does voting come into it. Some of that campaigning is quiet. almost passive, some is more active and, depending on the freedom allowed by the state and the issue in question, sometimes the action is illegal: in the case of anti-apartheid action in South Africa it was almost all illegal, but there was hardly any alternative.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
use the money to support political parties and pressure groups that work to change the system.
In the footsteps of Christ, I suppose.

Jesus lived at a time of an overpowering Roman Empire where any opposition was crushed. And it crushed him.

His preaching was in opposition to that empire. So maybe it is in his footsteps, though in a very different situation - America is now the place with imperial claims.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
isn't that exactly how we got into a situation where a significant fraction of the population think that evolution is a lie and climate change isn't happening,

I suppose it is, yes. If these positions are false and unreasonable, as we agree they are, then obviously people didn't reach them by being reasoned with and taught how to think. They were lied to and shouted at. We can't win that way, and I don't see why we should. I don't even want to try. We're outgunned and the game is undignified for all concerned. If the electorate is so deluded that the country goes to hell in a handbasket without our shouting at them more loudly than our opponents shout, then it goes to hell in a handbasket. We exercise Morris Berman's monastic option, quietly feed the poor (both literally and figuratively) as Our Lord would wish, and preserve as much of what is good as we can across the chasm for better times.
The political order is not our only concern. There is no article of faith saying that it will save us.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

His preaching was in opposition to that empire.

Absolutely. He preached and taught by example. I forget where in the gospels he raised lots of money for ad campaigns.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

His preaching was in opposition to that empire.
Absolutely. He preached and taught by example. I forget where in the gospels he raised lots of money for ad campaigns.

A fair few of his followers did give money to support and enable his ministry, however (Luke 8:3). Not all of us are called to be the leaders.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Ministry support is not charity. it is enabling.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Ministry support is not charity. it is enabling.

In some cases, that is precisely the word I would choose, too.

--Tom Clune

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

Charity is also problematic because in the absence of systemic change, charitable organizations can perpetuate poverty - they feed the hungry, but do nothing to address the reasons people are poor. We need political solutions for systemic problems. But the system of voluntary charity uses the poor as a means to practice individuals' Christian duty, and that's just obscene.

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
... is it fair to say that conservatives are more charitable than liberals if the bulk of the conservative's charity is directed toward the church that they attend? Would it be appropriate to regard donations to your own church in the same way you'd regard dues and donations to your local golf club or other favorite activity?
Good point. I suppose to get a true picture you'd need to do some factoring calculation based on how much of the typical church budget is spent on social / charitable work and how much goes on the 'internal' church stuff. I imagine one could have a go at this calculation but it would be full of approximations.

Of course, many conservative Evangelicals and Fundamentalists believe social/charitable work by churches comes too close to a "social gospel." They'd rather spend money on evangelizing. Some even believe Jesus only intended fellow Christians when he said to care for "the least of these my brethren."

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
Charity is also problematic because in the absence of systemic change, charitable organizations can perpetuate poverty - they feed the hungry, but do nothing to address the reasons people are poor.

Not all of them. Schools don't, for example. That's why I want my estate (if I'm lucky enough to leave one) to go to a school rather than a soup kitchen. But even students need to eat while they are studying.

And I'm not going to turn myself into too much of a pretzel worrying about whether good deeds are really bad deeds. You can engage in that exercise around anything except maybe impulsively jumping into the water, at the risk of your own life, to save someone from drowning.

quote:
Of course, many conservative Evangelicals and Fundamentalists believe social/charitable work by churches comes too close to a "social gospel." They'd rather spend money on evangelizing. Some even believe Jesus only intended fellow Christians when he said to care for "the least of these my brethren."

Do you realize how profoundly your second paragraph here is at odds with the first? First you lament charity performed by some which does nothing towards systemic change, and then you reject the systemic change that others propose to accompany their charity.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Do you realize how profoundly your second paragraph here is at odds with the first? First you lament charity performed by some which does nothing towards systemic change, and then you reject the systemic change that others propose to accompany their charity.

They're only at odds if the fundamentalists in question are actually interested in bringing people the Good News rather than simply ranting long enough to have an excuse to knock the dust from their feet and feel superior to the unbelieving hell-bound masses. From what I've seen of their evangelism techniques, I think the jury is still out on that one (I want to say that they're well meaning but incompetent, but I'm not sure the evidence fits).

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
They're only at odds if the fundamentalists in question are actually interested in bringing people the Good News rather than simply ranting long enough to have an excuse to knock the dust from their feet and feel superior to the unbelieving hell-bound masses.

I share your misgivings. But do they want their effort to fail? The premise is, per Churchgeek, that they spend their money on it-- too much of their money, perhaps. Not everyone is converted before the money runs out. At some point we/they must allow a stubborn or invincibly ignorant person to dig his own grave.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0