Below is a link to a story I thought was interesting.
In the U.S., churches/temples/mosques (c/t/m) are tax exempt (in large part) because they “help those in need.”
I’ve often heard that religious organizations are a net positive because they benefit society via good deeds.
But do they really? Is there a difference across the brand of religion? Is there a difference based on the size of the c/t/m?
Your thought, experiences?
Damn, that’s some industrial strength hypocrisy (except, of course, the muslim congregation who actually stepped up to the task).
In contrast: I live in a part of the world where the primary means of getting help if you are in dire need is the governmental Labour and Welfare Administration. They will see to it that you will at least not die of hunger, by giving you money for food or otherwise see to it that you get it. As with any large organisation driven by bureaucracy, slip-ups or fuck-ups happen, but those cases are fortunately the exception rather than the rule. The private organisations that I am aware of that are handing out food do it irrespective of whether you are a member or not[1]. For example, the Salvation Army have a food bank as well as a “restaurant” where they serve warm meals to anyone in need. They also have shelters where homeless people can sleep. Sadly, they operate at capacity, and thus sometimes have to reject clients. I don’t particularly like the Salvation Army as such (mainly due to their policies regarding homosexual members), but they do deserve recognition for the work they are doing with helping homeless people. There are also other organisations — both religious and secular — that do the same thing or variations over the same theme. No questions asked, and the clients do not need to declare anything. They don’t care if you’re christian, muslim, or atheist. Or whether you’re a member or not. If you desperately need help, they will generally do their best to actually help you, within capacity.
There might of course be exceptions, for example with certain religious sects/cults ↩︎
The political argument I support is that the activities of any religious organization should be divided between taxable “member benefit” activities (religious services / rituals / ceremonies, any other member-specific services or products) and truly no strings attached public goods, like food pantries / kitchens, homeless shelters, etc. When it’s unclear, the bias IMO should be toward a thing being member-benefit. In my city for example the Episcopalian church has a separately incorporated non-profit that runs the area food kitchen (an excellent one BTW). They are already set up for a possible future world where not all church activities are tax-exempt.
Where things get unclear is that on paper you can, say, give the hungry a meal, but unofficially, you demand that they first sit through a religious pitch or service or some sort. That is “strings attached” and benefits members in that it tends to produce new ones over time or at least gains a degree of control over members of the public who do not conform to their religious ideal (e.g., always sober, gainfully employed, properly bathed, upwardly mobile) so that the religious can tell themselves that they are accomplishing “good” or opposing “evil”. Indeed, simply getting someone self-sufficient by itself wasn’t enough to be considered success by many of these orgs. What real success looks like is a profession of newfound faith in Jesus.
To your specific questions, @CyberLN, in my experience and observation, yes there are differences between religious organizations for sure. The one I came out of taught that “all the world needs is Jesus” and that providing material needs leads to the dreaded “social gospel”, the idea that non-spiritual things like money, food, clothing or shelter in any way elevate a person or solve their problems. It has to be magic all the way down or it’s not legitimate and approved. So when we would (grudgingly) help people in practical ways, it was always after first debasing them, telling them what horrible sinners they are, how they must embrace Jesus in a way acceptable to us in exchange for any longer term assistance – and even then, it was assumed that if you didn’t at some point not too far in the future pull yourself up by your own bootstraps, there’d be an end to the largesse.
I am skeptical of the blanket claim that all religious orgs, on balance, are a net positive. It is, in my view, a case of selection bias: just because liberal religious groups happen to be the vehicle for a lot of social good, does not mean that their religiosity is a necessary ingredient for that to happen. They could just as well be lodges, secular charities, or ad hoc groups of Concerned Citizens. I think that houses of worship get way too much credit just by virtue of proximity and pre-existing social structures.
I don’t see a size-based difference; that is just a matter of scale. I see a difference based on the amount of illiberal zero-sum thinking baked into the specific ideology.
I used to volunteer in a few church soup kitchens until I saw them turn away gay couples (and their children) who were hungry . . . please see below:
This is why I will now only volunteer with the Sikh temple, as their religion specifically forbids denying food to anyone who is hungry. They serve lacto-ovo vegetarian meals during a process called “Langar” which is a key part of their beliefs.
As you can see in the link, Catholic Charities accepts public money to feed people, yet has the recipients of food aid sign an affidavit that nobody in the family is gay and/or trans before they dispense food.
Yes and this is the kind of “on paper vs off the books” dichotomy that often exists in religious “charity”. Charity for we, but not for thee – however “we / thee” is divided in that particular case. Of course you can circumvent it by taking the charity as a closeted / covert gay person or whatever, or on behalf of some such person, but then you are participating in the oppression of that minority.
Thanks for posting this – I was not aware Catholic Charities was doing this. I used to give to them in part out of respect to my Catholic neighbors but between this and the fact they have retired from that involvement and are moving away, I am not inclined to continue. It is too bad, as much of the local safety net relies on them.
I might also add in fairness that sometimes the secular safety net can be as bad or worse. CC might turn away gay folks but they serve people here that fail the government means testing or who feel denigrated and shamed for being unemployed or poor and THOSE people feel less disrespected by CC. I suppose that is because the Catholic Church has a history, overall, of serving the poor and needy, just not the gay poor and needy. So CC probably works better for the 90+% of people who are heteronormatives.
I can probably do more universal good with my donations working with small peripheral orgs that have an overt policy of serving ALL in need, though.