But my point is that you can't take out the church. Doing so means that you imbalance the giving in the favor of liberals who have a proportionally larger number of agnostics and atheists than the conservatives do. Churches (maybe not the one you were raised in, but we all know what a limited sample of one is - anecdotal evidence) and religious organizations do good work around the community and around the world. And considering that most donations to organization like LWR and the RCC charities are collected by the local congregations, you have no way to take out even just the local church part. When I get my tax statement for charitable donations each year, it isn't broken into "benevolence" and "church" donations. It is a lump sum of what I gave.

@Draug,
You know what? It probably is unfair to take out churches without also taking out art museums, political "non-profits", recreational things like land trusts, historical societies...

I'd love to see numbers on what people give to organizations whose primary focus is meeting primary human need. But I'm not sure that study exists, and "primary human need" is pretty subjective.

So maybe you're right. I guess all I'm saying is that the picture's muddier than just saying "these people are charitable and those aren't."

So I guess without conceding that you're completely right, I'm saying that I guess it is rather arbitrary to exclude churches without being able to delve more deeply into what other non-profits are being counted. I'm implying a false dichotomy when the reality is probably a lot more nuanced.

Thank you. Then we can agree after all. Because I really despise political contributions being tax exempt and "charitable". They are a self-serving means of getting your guy in office to do what you want done (you in the generic thrid person of course) and not charitable in any way. Museums and art programs and such are. I believe the need to record and preserve history and make art are worthy goals as I don't believe the only worthwhile charitable cause are feeding, clothing, and tending to the needy.

Maybe. And that's where the picture gets really complex. Because I'd argue that art museums and the like do serve the public good. But there are those (Krellin, I think, Stressedlines, for sure, and some others around here who may or may not make themselves heard here) who would argue that for-profit corporations also serve the public good by providing people a route to promoting innovation that makes people's lives better. So yeah... when you delve too far into it, terms like "charity," "public good," and "service" start to get really sticky.

That should have said, "providing people a route to improve their own condition and promoting innovation that makes people's lives better."

I think it would be hard to classify a museum as a charity, because it services everyone, not just the disenfranchised.

Yeah, like I said. I think museums serve a public good, but if your definition of "charity" is -I like yours, serving the disenfranchised- then yeah, I think there's some other amorphous class of groups, like churches, like museums, like environmental groups, that serve the community interest in some way, but not necessarily the disenfranchised.

So? Why does a charity have to only serve the dienfranchised? What in the definition of "charitable cause" or charity requires that it only serve the disenfranchised? I could see you saying that a "charity" that doesn't serve the disnefranchised (aka a local amusement park that regularly charges admission to everyone) isn't a charity, but if it is free access to the general populace without a required admission, then it is a charity.

That said, there are museums should lose that status (like the Creation Museum which charges an admission - despite what they say about a lvoe donation, you can't get in if you don't have the dough).

I think this conversation is getting a bit too pedantic to be constructive.

Would you consider a library to be a charity? It's a public service, but I don't think it would be considered a charity.

@hecks - Back to attacking the churches again, I see. Who do you think is behind Lutheran World Relief if not the Lutheran churches? Who do you think is behind Matthew 25 ministries if not the Christian churches in the local communities? Who do you think runs the majority of the food kitchens around the country? Who do you think takes donations of goods and designates a significant portion of their incomes to the hungry and the homeless and the orphans? Historically speaking, the church has provided for the widows, the orphans, the sick, the poor, and the homeless long before there were secular organizations caring for any of them.

It all depends on how you think about the word "charity".
Merriam-Webster:
1 benevolent goodwill toward or love of humanity
2 a : generosity and helpfulness especially toward the needy or suffering; also : aid given to those in need
b : an institution engaged in relief of the poor
c : public provision for the relief of the needy
3 a : a gift for public benevolent purposes
b : an institution (as a hospital) founded by such a gift

I think Abge and I lean toward 2a and 2b, whereas you seem more interested in 3b. They're both valid arguments. I just think there's a hierarchy of needs that is useful when considering what institutions do.

@abge - YEs, a public library would be a charitable cause to me the same as a Goodwill store or the Zoo or the Museum of Natural History or an Art Museum. If the opera or symphony made all their concerts open to everyone regardless of ability to pay, I would classify them as well. So long as it serves the public good and doesn't require an admission of everyone, it is a charitable cause in my book.

Alright fine. We just view charity a bit differently. Doesn't really matter.

Actually, I view #1 as the most important aspect. Does the organization serve the public (i.e. provide benevolent goodwill toward or love of humanity) without especting anything in return, then it is a charity.

Who's attacking the churches? Not me. I said they provide a community service. Their provision for the poor is an outgrowth of their primary religious service, but I don't think many people would argue that their primary function is to serve the poor.

But with regards to most churches and religious organizations 9
not all admitedly as many can have an agenda and are self serving), I believe 2a/b applies. I know it does with regard to my lifetime in the Lutheran church.

"... without especting anything in return..."

Interesting distinction. But a Goodwill store expects you to pay, as do most art museums. Are they then not a charitable cause?

@hecks - You may not have consciously did it but...

"there's some other amorphous class of groups, like *churches* [emphasis mine], like museums, like environmental groups, that serve the community interest in some way, but not necessarily the disenfranchised. "

@Draug,
I think it would be hard to construe that as an "attack".

@hecks - Goodwill stores do not expect you to pay. The stuff out in front that people generally buy is not sold to the poor. It is used to raise money for the poor and needy. But they then take much of what they collect and give it directly to the porr as well. Only the stuff they think could serve a better purpose as cash gets sold. Ive worked with them along with Matthew 25 Ministries.

But Abge is right, my distinctions have become a bit pedantic.

Still, it's more productive than the concurrent Global Warming discussion on the forums. It's distracting the trolls to allow us to fight like civil people.

I'll let it go on the church thing, but you have to admit you suddenly reclassified them as not being a charity along with the museums despite my showing the organizations these churches support with their collections that do care for the needy.

I wouldn't say I reclassified them... do you think your primary role is to serve the needy?

I would say our primary role is to serve the world as Jesus did. That means feeding and clothing the needy without any expectation. But that is just part of it. We also spread the Word through our actions (not through preaching to the needy but by demonstrating his love to them).

And why does the charitable aspect have to be the sole or primary aspect? Even if the primary is spreading God's love, the fact is we do it through our charitable actions. We do it by participating in Habitat for Humanity. We do it by collecting monetary and goods donations for Bread of Life Food Pantry. We do it by adopting families year round and participating in the Marine Corps Toys for Tots program. We do it through many non-preaching means. Our stated mission is to love the World as Christ loves us.

Sorry, now I feel like I'm starting to preach on a certain level and that is not how I go about spreading his Love. It's just that I respect you for working for a museum rasining funds. I'm used to the atheists attacking me for my views but I write most of them off as bitter and not understanding loving the worlkd. But you clearly understand the concept of caring for the people of the world and what it means to be good stewards of the people around us.

@Draug,
Thanks for recognizing that. It's a common misconception that people who don't believe in God are misanthropic. It's why I refer to myself as a Secular Humanist. I believe, regardless of whether or not there's a divine being, it's our responsibility to enrich each other's lives better and minimize suffering, and that our best hope of doing so is by working together logically to come up with cooperative solutions.

And that is exactly why I find my own faith gels with that of the faith I was raised in, Lutheranism. I've gone through other churches (UCC, Church of God, Southern Baptist) in my youth, but found my way back to the Lutheran Church because of my lack of desire to go pound on doorsd or hand out pamphlets at a mall. What we do in life *is* echoed in eternity and I want that echo to be that I served my fellow man, not antagonised him (except when I troll here :-) ).