And Republicans claim to be Christians? What a hoax?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:god gives no credit for government action. conservatives give a much higher proportion of income to charity. personal sacrifice is what counts. communism is godless and humanist at its core.

This is true only because they give to their churches, which is mostly self-dealing. Most churches give only a small percentage of their donations to actual charity, and the vast majority goes to the donor's benefit. It pays for your minister and staff, the upkeep of your building, your church programs, maybe that tennis court and soccer field nearby. I know, I have read the annual reports from the parishes I have been a part of.

I think the charities to which Republicans contribute are not serving the poor, disabled, etc. Contributing to your church, your schools, and the arts is great but does little for the poor, disabled.

You must be one of these cynics who doesn't attend church, so I guess it stands to reason you don't know what you're spouting off about.

Churches by their nature are benevolent. I'll wait while you look up that word in Google..... So, my church contributions, in fact, do go to the needy.

Well I'm one of the earlier posters, lifetime churchgoer. I love Church but 95% of the money is spent in support of the members of the church itself. Only about 5% is real charity. That's not cynical. You have the ministers' salaries, maintenance of the building, an admin and Sunday School. Now if you want to call that charity, fine, but that money I donate largely comes back to me by paying for my place of worship.

Saying something is benevolent is not enough. If you find a church which gives 50% of its money to the poor, then you have a point. But I bet you'll have a hard time doing that.

[Anonymous]

when you give money to the church, you are giving it up to God. you are voluntarily making yourself less secure by giving away wealth and proving that you trust God is in control of your future. havig money taken from you by force has no religious relevance. One can always give more to the Government voluntarily if he really feels it i a good cause...of course, nobody feels goverment is worthy of voluntary contributions which basically says it all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:when you give money to the church, you are giving it up to God. you are voluntarily making yourself less secure by giving away wealth and proving that you trust God is in control of your future. havig money taken from you by force has no religious relevance. One can always give more to the Government voluntarily if he really feels it i a good cause...of course, nobody feels goverment is worthy of voluntary contributions which basically says it all.

Sorry, but that's just not true. God would not spend the money on Crystal Cathedrals and golden tabernacles. That's man's will, not God's. And seriously, do you think the amount you give to your church equates to "voluntarily making yourself less secure by giving away wealth?" Seriously, a few grand does not buy you the right to claim you have "[proved] that you trust God is in control of your future".

Write back and tell me you give half your paycheck to your church, and then we'll talk. Otherwise, save the platitudes for someone who doesn't know better. I think it's fine to give to Church, but your over the top response reminds me of the false piety of the pharisees.

[Anonymous]

Republicans keep showing their true colors: self-centered, mean spirited, bigots. But I guess that makes them true Christians! Not in my Christian Church.

[Anonymous]

A study done by the Aspen Institue found that churches spent on average 3% of their budgets on social services. Over 70% went to salaries for employees and building maintenance. The rest mostly went to fund Christian education. Economists classify churches as clubs (excludable, non-rival up to a threshold).

Relying on charity to help the needy is unworkable. Charitable giving is procyclical (people give more when the economy is good), but people have greater needs when the economy is bad, when mosr charities are tightening their belts. That reinforces a recession. By engaging in countercyclical spending, the government softens recessions (and booms). That's just freshman economics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:god gives no credit for government action. conservatives give a much higher proportion of income to charity. personal sacrifice is what counts. communism is godless and humanist at its core.

This is true only because they give to their churches, which is mostly self-dealing. Most churches give only a small percentage of their donations to actual charity, and the vast majority goes to the donor's benefit. It pays for your minister and staff, the upkeep of your building, your church programs, maybe that tennis court and soccer field nearby. I know, I have read the annual reports from the parishes I have been a part of.

I think the charities to which Republicans contribute are not serving the poor, disabled, etc. Contributing to your church, your schools, and the arts is great but does little for the poor, disabled.

Not being snarky, but have you ever attended a church, synagogue, mosque, etc on a regular basis and been involved with local missions? If not, then you might be amazed at what many congregations do to help those in need. I mean major donations, time, and personal assistance for the homeless, those with mental health issues, people who have lost jobs, families without food, etc. For example, the church we attend maintains a women's shelter that has made a remarkable difference in supporting and turning around the lives of homeless women and helping them get employment.

[Anonymous]

Of course, many churches do great things, including the Catholic Church and Catholic Charities. But I am confident that, for example, of all the donations received by the Catholic Church, only a small percentage is used for direct services to the poor and disabled. Nothing is wrong with that, but one can't claim that religious instutitions are an efficient means to serve the poor and disabled.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Republicans keep showing their true colors: self-centered, mean spirited, bigots. But I guess that makes them true Christians! Not in my Christian Church.

Actually, if I were to remove the word "Republicans" from your post and substititute another group of people (espeically one that you like and admire), I bet you'd call me out as a bigot . . . and rightly so. You don't sound any different than any other bigot. It's just that you're posting in a forum that is largely liberal, so you think it's alright to make such a sweeping generalization about Republicans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Of course, many churches do great things, including the Catholic Church and Catholic Charities. But I am confident that, for example, of all the donations received by the Catholic Church, only a small percentage is used for direct services to the poor and disabled. Nothing is wrong with that, but one can't claim that religious instutitions are an efficient means to serve the poor and disabled.

In your opinion, what is an efficient means to serve the poor and disabled?

[Anonymous]

That sounds very Christian. Evil, pure evil. All the more reason to go to church. Incurable though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Republicans keep showing their true colors: self-centered, mean spirited, bigots. But I guess that makes them true Christians! Not in my Christian Church.

Actually, if I were to remove the word "Republicans" from your post and substititute another group of people (espeically one that you like and admire), I bet you'd call me out as a bigot . . . and rightly so. You don't sound any different than any other bigot. It's just that you're posting in a forum that is largely liberal, so you think it's alright to make such a sweeping generalization about Republicans.

Sorry, when senior Republican leaders make mean spirited statements about the poor, illegal immigrants, and gays, and fail to call out others who say such things, I have no issues with the view that the dominate view in the current Republican Party is self-centered, mean spirited and bigoted. This, of course, does not mean all individual Republicans are same, but those who are NOT MUST SPEAK UP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course, many churches do great things, including the Catholic Church and Catholic Charities. But I am confident that, for example, of all the donations received by the Catholic Church, only a small percentage is used for direct services to the poor and disabled. Nothing is wrong with that, but one can't claim that religious instutitions are an efficient means to serve the poor and disabled.

In your opinion, what is an efficient means to serve the poor and disabled?

Simple answer. When more than a few percent of one donations directly serve the poor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course, many churches do great things, including the Catholic Church and Catholic Charities. But I am confident that, for example, of all the donations received by the Catholic Church, only a small percentage is used for direct services to the poor and disabled. Nothing is wrong with that, but one can't claim that religious instutitions are an efficient means to serve the poor and disabled.

In your opinion, what is an efficient means to serve the poor and disabled?

Simple answer. When more than a few percent of one donations directly serve the poor.

You did not give a simple answer--more like no answer. Please name a group that you think serves the poor and disabled efficiently.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course, many churches do great things, including the Catholic Church and Catholic Charities. But I am confident that, for example, of all the donations received by the Catholic Church, only a small percentage is used for direct services to the poor and disabled. Nothing is wrong with that, but one can't claim that religious instutitions are an efficient means to serve the poor and disabled.

In your opinion, what is an efficient means to serve the poor and disabled?

Simple answer. When more than a few percent of one donations directly serve the poor.

You did not give a simple answer--more like no answer. Please name a group that you think serves the poor and disabled efficiently.

New Poster: Partners in Health. 94% of donations go directly to services for the poor. Their administrative overhead is 2.5% and their fundraising cost is 3%

In contrast, my church has a $1 million budget, and only about $100,000 or 10% goes to serving the poor or other disadvantaged groups. The rest goes to the services that I receive - the minister, upkeep of the church, social events, sunday school, etc.

If you want to look at the efficiency of charitable organizations the best resource is http://www.charitynavigator.org

They have a statistic for every charity: Program Expenses. This is the money going directly to service work. According to their definition, "good" is spending 75% or more on the charitable service. There is no way that any church could touch that statistic. The simple fact is that most Church money supports the Church itself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course, many churches do great things, including the Catholic Church and Catholic Charities. But I am confident that, for example, of all the donations received by the Catholic Church, only a small percentage is used for direct services to the poor and disabled. Nothing is wrong with that, but one can't claim that religious instutitions are an efficient means to serve the poor and disabled.

In your opinion, what is an efficient means to serve the poor and disabled?

Simple answer. When more than a few percent of one donations directly serve the poor.

You did not give a simple answer--more like no answer. Please name a group that you think serves the poor and disabled efficiently.

New Poster: Partners in Health. 94% of donations go directly to services for the poor. Their administrative overhead is 2.5% and their fundraising cost is 3%

In contrast, my church has a $1 million budget, and only about $100,000 or 10% goes to serving the poor or other disadvantaged groups. The rest goes to the services that I receive - the minister, upkeep of the church, social events, sunday school, etc.

If you want to look at the efficiency of charitable organizations the best resource is http://www.charitynavigator.org

They have a statistic for every charity: Program Expenses. This is the money going directly to service work. According to their definition, "good" is spending 75% or more on the charitable service. There is no way that any church could touch that statistic. The simple fact is that most Church money supports the Church itself.

This certainly is my understanding as well. Nothing wrong with Churches. But the primary mission of any church or synague is not serving the poor or disable, but serving the congregation itself. Religious organizations do great things, but, if one were solely concerned about providing services to the poor or disable, one should donate to an organization whose primary purpose is to serve the poor or disabled.