Comments on: Measuring Generosity: How Definitions Matter

By: FYouMudFlaps

FYouMudFlaps — Sun, 11 Nov 2012 18:48:00 +0000

Hell or High Water, I will not sit by while Maryland, Delaware, and DC get called Southern. The Census Bureau needs to get a clue there, but wait they’re too busy being confused over race. Pssh.

By: barbara

barbara — Tue, 18 Sep 2012 18:43:00 +0000

I just looked at the website http://www.charitywatch.org/toprated.html , which rates charities based on a number of important criteria (e.g. what proportion of donations are used for actual aid), and found that under the headings “Child Sponsorship,” “Hunger,” and “International Relief and Development,” church-sponsored organizations are not only rated very highly; they in fact comprise the majority of charitable organizations in those areas. While I was still a practicing Catholic, I donated large amounts, through fund drives at my parish church, to numerous causes, including the local food pantry, to Catholic Charities and to “The Bishops’ Annual Appeal”, both of which use the VAST majority of their funds to do actual good, NOT to pad anyone’s pockets (no, not to pay out bribes to pedophilia victims; yes, both or them report where the money goes). The other donations I made directly to my parish went to support numerous programs, including ones that aided parish members. I don’t consider that sort of donation to be “spending money on [my]self and calling it charity” (as “fork” accused), since I did not utilize most of the parish programs I was supporting with my weekly donations. If buying Girl Scout cookies can be considered a charitable donation, then why not count when you give money to support your parish’s youth group, especially when you don’t have a “youth” in it? While the operationalization issue is hugely important (see Minerva’s comment, especially), and while, as has been pointed out by others, there are lots of other issues with how donations get counted, the level of vitriol expressed by the non-religious towards religion, as if all religious charities are in fact mega-churches that enrich the guy at the top, means that the arguments become irrational. Yes, all of those religious charitable organizations report how much, where it goes, etc. Do individual parishes? No, for the most part, which DOES create operationalization problems. At the same time, I suspect that we all might have different ideas about where best to donate. Some give to their local police, fire, and rescue organizations, some to disease/health based charities, others to ones primarily serving children, and yet others to charities that help animals or try to protect the environment (Should we argue that it’s not really charitable since we can benefit from saving the environment or from advances made to cancer therapies?). We could all yell at each other about these various priorities, couldn’t we? But that wouldn’t serve much purpose. Can we instead discuss issues of operationalization without the hate-filled vitriol?

By: thatjohn

thatjohn — Tue, 18 Sep 2012 08:25:00 +0000

I am so glad I am not the only one who did a doubletake on that.

By: Kim

Kim — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 12:06:00 +0000

“Both to religious and to secular groups”… In other words, church counts as charity? Money you give to fatten your megachurch pastor’s wallet and proselytize to people counts as charity? Doesn’t that skew the results?”

…Because it is there… Rhetorical questions (as are used here) are meant to make a point to the audience through a question that doesn’t actual need an answer as the FA does here. I never said the author doesn’t make a point, I’m just raising another in the attempt to bring this all back around to the point of the post which is “operationalization”.

By: fork

fork — Sun, 16 Sep 2012 16:40:00 +0000

If we are “measuring generosity”, I think we need to further widen the scope from charitable donations (including volunteerism) to collective giving via taxation. A country might have generous social programs, with a general attitude that they are taking care of people and so individual donations aren’t necessary. I’ve read such explanations for the relative “stinginess” of Nordic countries compared to the US. But if we look at which model is better overall at helping people, good safety net with low individual giving vs. poor safety net with high individual giving, the former is superior:
http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2012/09/14/reducing-poverty-where-theres-a-will/
Individual donations never make up for solid social programs, and I think a country which relies on charity instead of welfare, such as the US, is much less generous.

In other words, simply looking at charitable giving does not accurately measure generosity.

By: fork

fork — Sun, 16 Sep 2012 15:11:00 +0000

” is going to make most readers say, “no.””
Evidence please. How do you know most readers will do as you did and read something into the statement that was not there?

By: fork

fork — Sat, 15 Sep 2012 18:36:00 +0000

Repeating an argument does not make it more convincing:
Kim wrote: many churches provide needed services to the community as well through homeless shelters, soup kitchens, and other resources for people with a variety of needs.
You wrote: many churches serve an important role in the greater community with food banks, donation drives for clothes and food, Habitat for Humanity builds.

You’re not saying anything different. And so what. Nobody has said that churches do not do humanitarian work.

“It is cynical to think a donation to a church is in no way a donation to a humanitarian or community development organization. ”
1)In no way? This is like the “all” strawman. Nobody has said that churches do not do humanitarian work.
2)It is arrogant in the extreme to spend money on yourself and call it a charitable donation.

By: Kim

Kim — Sat, 15 Sep 2012 14:15:00 +0000

My issue with the statement from the FA is that the rhetorical question of “…church counts as charity?” is followed with another Q that is going to make most readers say, “no.” While I think I was pretty clear in my statement that making a few individual pastors/leaders richer isn’t charity, I just wanted to raise the point that isn’t where ALL church giving goes. I think it’s important for organizations (secular or religious) to be open about where money in the budget is going. From a personal standpoint, I think we need much better social programs at a governmental level to address the needs of the community instead of relying on religious organizations and people’s altruism, but on the same token, I don’t think it’s fair to say all church-giving shouldn’t be counted as humanitarian in nature (even if it is 2%). Operationalization means to make a fuzzy concept clear and measurable… even 2% difference should be considered, though, as we know, it would be challenging to ever know for sure what all church donations are going to fund. It’s also important to note that many secular charity organizations also have staff/mortgages/etc they pay for as well so we can run into the same issue when considering where secular donations are going as well.

By: Heatherleila

Heatherleila — Sat, 15 Sep 2012 10:42:00 +0000

Churches are micro-communities. Often the facilities, which are supported by collective giving, include communal spaces which function as community centers – space for youth groups, concerts, gyms, industrial sized kitchens – things that bring people together. And while some missionaries focus only on conversions, many missionaries work in health, education and agriculture and are actively trying to do humanitarian work.

While I do see the issue with pastors with over-sized salaries and lifestyles, many churches serve an important role in the greater community with food banks, donation drives for clothes and food, Habitat for Humanity builds. It is cynical to think a donation to a church is in no way a donation to a humanitarian or community development organization.

By: ed

ed — Sat, 15 Sep 2012 08:32:00 +0000

Churches that think it would reflect positively on them to disclose statistics on what proportion of their cash inflow they spend on charitable causes could easily provide that information in a easily accessible and systematic format annually. Moreover, churches could agree on definitions and labels and standards of measurement. If they do not they have not much to complain about when people make their own assumptions, especially in light of obviously costly spenditure on church buildings and so on…

By: fork

fork — Sat, 15 Sep 2012 05:49:00 +0000

” I take issue with the fact that the author from the Friendly Atheist lumps all church-related charitable organizations together as “padding someone’s pockets”. ”

Let’s read what was said: “In other words, church counts as charity? Money you give to fatten your megachurch pastor’s wallet and proselytize to people counts as charity? ”

Does that say all? Nope. It’s an accurate statement. Also note the “megachurch”. Clearly not a generalization about all churches, but a specific example, one of many, of not-really-charitable charitable giving. Could just as easily said something like, “Money you give to keep the clubhouse running counts as charity?” That wouldn’t mean ze was saying that all of the donation goes toward maintenance of the church building.

I take issue with your suggestion that a significant proportion of donations to churches goes towards humanitarian work. It’s not a happy medium:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2012/05/are-churches-more-like-charities-or-country-clubs/

We can only guess at the numbers, since churches are not that forthcoming about where the money goes, but:

“Every year churches collect some $100 billion in donations. But most donors do not know that the average congregation in the U.S. gives only two percent of donated money to humanitarian projects. Some 98% goes to pay staff, upkeep of buildings, the priest’s car, robes, salary and housing.
This came from Roy Sablosky. But he’s on the board of the American Humanist Association of Greater Sacramento. Might he be biased?
Christianity Today is another source. A survey gave this breakdown of the average church budget: 43% for salaries, 20% for facilities (mortgage, etc.), 16% missions, 9% programs, 6% administration and supplies, 3% denominational fees, 3% other.
So where is the money to good works? Presumably “missions” includes this, but this is a nebulous category. A dollar spent on the First Baptist Church soup kitchen certainly counts as a charitable expense, but the dollar spent supporting a missionary doesn’t.
That estimate of 2% to humanitarian projects may not be too far off.”

By: Lunad

Lunad — Fri, 14 Sep 2012 21:14:00 +0000

I find it interesting how the IRS counts church donations. For instance, yearly synagogue dues count as a charitable donation – despite the fact that it is only sort of a donation.

By: pduggie

pduggie — Fri, 14 Sep 2012 20:26:00 +0000

yep. Needs more operational definition: what part of church-donations are for mercy ministries, and which are for paying salaries and building upkeep?

By: Mira

Mira — Fri, 14 Sep 2012 20:18:00 +0000

I was more surprised by the graph itself. Before my brain processed the numbers I thought the sections were similar to bar charts. And since the western region doesn’t use a darker color to create shading, I thought it was flat, making it the “stingiest” region.

After I read the whole thing it was much clearer, but my first glance really threw things off!

By: Yrro Simyarin

Yrro Simyarin — Fri, 14 Sep 2012 17:44:00 +0000

Heck, even state by state only vaguely shows trends. The county by county data shows islands of liberal/secular cities surrounded by conservative/religious countryside, consistent through pretty much every state in the country.