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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.