So let's see about charitable giving.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

I must say that I am dumbfounded by the posts here that just skewer churches' attempt to do Christmas pageants, fund-raising, mega-churches, whatever.

All of this may or may be correct. All of this hand-wringing and finger pointing may or may not be the incredibly, nauseatingly hypocritical. So here it is:

We all know that Atheist (note: not non-denominational) charitable giving pales in comparison to Christian charities. It's not even close. Fine. Makes sense. I mean, what, are there 3 billion Christians out there? O.k., but has anyone found any per capita giving? That is, can anyone find any stats. on how much atheists give with regards to their percentage of population (I realize here on DU people like to give the 9% range, but I'm happy to do the more conservative number of 3-4%)?

This is all out of curiosity. I've only been able to find a few numbers on atheist charitable organizations and numbers out there. Of course, the Christian church, world-wide and multi-denominational, cannot be matched in terms of charitable giving (and this even after we deduct all of the lawyer fees for the Catholic Church and deduct all of the gay-deprogramming sessions for Protestants). The wrinkle: one could choose to cite various non-Church charities, but the question remains similar: who gives--Churches or individual members of churches.

Just a side note: I really do despise everyone (Christian and non-Christian alike) and have no dog in this fight. I'm just astounded by how little credit churches are given in their giving to charities. We seem to focus on Christmas pageants and how much MORE churches COULD be giving. Well, yeah, we could all be doing this.

And then the charge of hypocrisy. Well, mark me as the biggest hypocrite. I have the highest ideals and do not live up to them. Better a hypocritical idealist who does something (however little or big) than a pragmatist who has given up on ideals and is not hypocritical in the least (this is not directed at anyone in particular but is just a general sentiment).

[Warpy]

1. Giving to churches is charitiable giving

no matter whether the church is feeding the homeless on Thanksgiving or buying a second Rolls for the star preacher.

Should we differentiate what happens to the money once the church gets hold of it--how much goes to antiabortion groups and how much to PACS and how much goes to actual poor people--we'd have a better idea of the amount of charitable giving out there and who actually gives what.

My own faves this year have been Kiva loans, ARC, the Salvation Army, Second Harvest, and Doctors without Borders. My faves can change from year to year.

I don't give to churches except the SA because I don't trust what most will do with the money. The head of the SA does not live like a sultan, and I can be sure that whatever I give will go to their admittedly restricted charities.

[hfojvt]

4. In my study of some churches in Wisconsin

It seemed like they only gave about 10% of their budget to "social services". I only got the budgets for maybe a dozen churches, some of them were not very open about it. It's just a simple fact that things like salaries for pastor, secretary, organist, janitor, and utility bills are going to eat up their budget. But pastor salaries are fairly high, IMO, and they buy thinks like new carpets, sprinkler systems, bells, and so on. Still, those things provide employment too, and somebody would be much poorer if they did not have their job at the bell factory. Also, the Nazarene church had a Christmas dinner, but that was not part of their budget. Neither are things they do like having drives for the food pantry or encouraging members to volunteer there or having drives for hurricane victims, etc.

[AndyTiedye]

6. The Salvation Army Is Off My List

Charity Cites Bush Help in Fight Against Hiring Gays
Salvation Army Wants Exemption From Laws
By Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, July 10, 2001; Page A01

The Bush administration is working with the nation's largest charity, the Salvation Army, to make it easier for government-funded religious groups to practice hiring discrimination against gay people, according to an internal Salvation Army document.

The White House has made a "firm commitment" to the Salvation Army to issue a regulation protecting such charities from state and city efforts to prevent discrimination against gays in hiring and domestic-partner benefits, according to the Salvation Army report. The Salvation Army, in turn, has agreed to use its clout to promote the administration's "faith-based" social services initiative, which seeks to direct more government funds to religious charities.

The document offers a rare glimpse into the private dealings of the Bush White House, and it suggests President Bush is willing to achieve through regulation ends too controversial to survive the legislative process. It also underscores the close allegiance between the administration and conservative groups.
…
"It is important that The Army's support for the White House's activities occur simultaneously with efforts to achieve The Army's objectives," said the document, which was obtained by The Washington Post. "The White House has already said that they are committed to move on The Army's objectives when the legislation carrying the charitable choice provisions passes the House of Representatives."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A37723-2001Jul9

[China_cat]

2. Charitable to the CHURCHES

not the people who need it without a lot of strings attached. Every year about this time we get a flyer from the local church food bank. In small print on the bottom it states 'applicant must attend services to qualify'.

The churches take in the money but, just like insurance companies, they don't like to part with any of it. I'd rather go hungry than be pointed out in a church service as being a person in need of their help (which is what this church does). Helping someone because they need it, not as a way of telling people how good you are, just doesn't fit with most church 'charities'.

[knitter4democracy]

3. There's a reason many are upset with Christian charities.

Is it really charity to make someone sit through a service first? To sit through a prayer when they don't pray? To give someone medical care and then make them sit in a room and be told that they need to thank Jesus for the medical care and accept Him as their Lord and Savior before they can leave (Hubby saw this on a medical mission trip, so that one's true).

If a Christian charity gives in love with no strings attached, no special services, no prayers over the sinners, then I'm all for it (and I give to a couple). If they don't, then I'm not sure it's really charity but instead proselytizing.

[michaz]

5. The Catholic Church I work for does not do this!

We give out money, grocery cards, etc. to people who need them and we do not make them accept Jesus or thank him either! Not sure what church your hubby saw do this, but I can tell you ours doesn't!

[knitter4democracy]

7. It was a Pentecostal group on a Russian mission trip.

Catholic charities are usually quite well-run, in my experience. No, I would never lump them in with the bad guys. :hug:

[jwirr]

15. Most likely a right wing church. There are many individual churches

that are quite liberal in both their giving and their attitude toward the needy.

[knitter4democracy]

16. That's true.

It was a specific missions group through Pentecostal churches doing medical mission trips all over. Patients had to go through a visit with a pastor before leaving, though, which bothered Hubby (who was sent on the trip by his parents and grandparents as a graduation gift).

[uppityperson]

8. Does atheist/non-demoninational giving pale in comparison to Christian charities?

Are you talking the total amount donated to Christian vs non-Christian causes, or per capita (Christian vs non-christian), or how much each Atheist/non-demoninational person gives vs an organized Christian Charity? I am curious what this "we all know" is based on. Thank you.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

9. This was my question.

I can't find the answer.

"O.k., but has anyone found any per capita giving?"

The Catholic Church gives a buttload (I believe this is the proper terminology; I'm not Catholic, so I don't know) in global charities. I also know that Protestant giving in the Eastern Bloc is phenomenal. But I have no concrete numbers.

I just don't know why we can't unite on this board.

[NMMNG]

11. You just don't know why we can't unite on this board?

Re-read your OP and you might find the answer.

[uppityperson]

12. So you are saying that as a whole Christians give more than non-Christians/ non-denominational.

You mean by "We all know that Atheist (note: not non-denominational) charitable giving pales in comparison to Christian charities.", that Christian groups, Christian Churches (using capital letters on purpose) give more than christians, or non-denominational, or other religions since there are so many more Christians?

This leads me to 2 questions, again about what "we all know" assumptions.

How do you know this?

Can I be a non-denominational Christian yet still a Christian?

[Breeze54]

10. So, to give one must declare their religion or lack there of?

:crazy:

Who gives a flying fuck!?! As long as the people in need are getting
the help they need then who gives a rats ass who donated and how much?

"Who gives? The churches or the people in the churches?"

:P

Well, who the hell do you think is giving the cash to the 'churches'?

Most likely, the people that attend that church! :silly:

[uppityperson]

13. "who gives--Churches or individual members of churches?" is obvious, as you say

who gave the money to the Church? The people in the churches.

[Breeze54]

14. We concur, I see.

:crazy: