Trey Smith
The concept of charity most people have in mind is “serving the people’s physical needs.” How do religions stack up in performing this work? The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormon Church), which touts its charitable work, spent 0.7% of it overall revenue on charitable causes. Compare that figure with the American Red Cross which spends 92.1% of its revenue on the physical needs of those it helps.Okay, I already know what some of you will say: You can't put a price tag on the benefits of religion. The emotional or spiritual support that religion delivers has an intrinsic value all its own.
The other side of this coin is the estimated $71 billion in annual government subsidies that are granted to religious establishments.
The $71 billion doesn’t include property taxes from which religious institutions are exempt. States are estimated to subsidize religion to the tune of $26.2 billion per year on property worth $600 billion.
The $71 billion doesn’t include religions’s exemption from investment taxes (such as capital gains taxes) on their investment portfolios. For example, the Presbyterian Foundation manages $1.9 billion in assets.
The $71 billion doesn’t include the exemption from sales tax when religions purchase goods and services.
The $71 billion doesn’t include the “parsonage exemption.” That’s where ministers are allowed to deduct mortgage or rent, utilities, furnishings, upkeep, etc. from their taxable income.
The best of the worst appears to be the United Methodist Church which allocated about 29% of its revenues to charitable causes in 2010. Any secular charity that posted a 29% rate would be given a score of “F” by CharityWatch.
~ from The Myth Of Religious Charity by David Drumm ~
Fine. I [begrudgingly] give you that point. Not everything in life can be boiled down to dollar figures, BUT, when dollar figures are utilized, as Drumm presents above, religion doesn't come out smelling much like a rose! It would seem that religious institutions are takers, not givers.
As an atheist, I don't understand why I am required to support religion. Most religions -- by their very nature -- are exclusive, not inclusive. Almost all of the fundamentalist churches in this nation hold views that I find vulgar and repellant. Yet, because they receive oodles of exemptions (while piling up mountains of money and wealth), taxpayers like me must make up the difference for what they get out of contributing to the general good.
While you won't find me stepping inside a church, synagogue or mosque anytime soon, I have no problem with you doing so. It's your life and you can choose to worship what you will. You can refuse to marry gay couples, rail against abortion, teach the creation story in place of science and treat women like second class citizens within the walls of your church all you want.
It's just that I don't understand why I should be mandated to provide you with the financial support to do these things. It's your church and your faith, so why don't you pay for the whole shebang!
Worst of all is how many oppose socialism, and how many of them spend money on silliness like same sex marriage. For example. Stephen R. Covey, the writer of 7 Habits of Highly Effective people, donated some thousand dollars to keep same sex marriage illegal. Couldn't have he used them, I don't know, in something much more relevant, to say the least? or the USCCB which has a budget of some 100 Million dollars.
ReplyDelete