I’m always a bit conflicted on this point. On one hand, a huge amount of church finances go towards sustaining the church (and in many denominations, paying for grand, ostentatious buildings and clothes and even jets for its owner).
On the other hand, every single homeless shelter in a pretty massive radius of me is funded by a church. Like… literally all of them. Without them we would have none in a huge area.
That’s not really an endorsement of churches, its just kind of a critique of the idea that secular groups are a lot more charitable - which I also don’t think is true
I wish I could remember the book that talked about this. But basically, the idea is that Christians would rather give their money to the church and then have that money be used for charitable purposes than to pay taxes, even if that amount would be less.
The main reasons are that Christians feel like they can “control” where the money goes better and, because their giving is optional, they feel good that their money is going toward something good.
Oh and it doesn’t hurt that whatever good they do is a shoehorn for them to proselytize.
i think it is not a problem of the concept religion. I think that almost every “church” or gathering or deed that came naturally by the followers is a lot of the time in good faith, because of religion. The less power you have in a religion the more likely you are to be there for less selfish reason.
now, second generation of churchgoers are no different, but some have become aware of the capitalistic incetives in there resulting in general corruption. Now they still need do something to appease the follower, but does anyone actually know the real financial books of you congregation? No, if they hide anything there is always corruption at play.
i do think that the autonomy of the church results in there always being some charity that actually does do good sponsored by churchly orgs.
for government however there is no deeper foundation to any instance that tries to do good without backin by faith. these programs can be much more effective possibly, but funding can dissapear like that, and more importantly, key people who make the effort a success get shipped/laid of once that happens.
A lot of work that some non-profits do is literally impossible to get normal workers for. It is always very emotional work with a round the clock awareness required. ofc everything is a gradient and nothing is black or white.
i think that just the overburden off being a productive capitalist has made it 10x as exhausting to exists
I’m always a bit conflicted on this point. On one hand, a huge amount of church finances go towards sustaining the church (and in many denominations, paying for grand, ostentatious buildings and clothes and even jets for its owner).
On the other hand, every single homeless shelter in a pretty massive radius of me is funded by a church. Like… literally all of them. Without them we would have none in a huge area.
That’s not really an endorsement of churches, its just kind of a critique of the idea that secular groups are a lot more charitable - which I also don’t think is true
If only there were other entities that could find public services…
I wish I could remember the book that talked about this. But basically, the idea is that Christians would rather give their money to the church and then have that money be used for charitable purposes than to pay taxes, even if that amount would be less.
The main reasons are that Christians feel like they can “control” where the money goes better and, because their giving is optional, they feel good that their money is going toward something good.
Oh and it doesn’t hurt that whatever good they do is a shoehorn for them to proselytize.
People would be livid to pay an additional 10% in tax. It’s fine when it’s the church though.
Hey as long as it’s not you, am I right??
i think it is not a problem of the concept religion. I think that almost every “church” or gathering or deed that came naturally by the followers is a lot of the time in good faith, because of religion. The less power you have in a religion the more likely you are to be there for less selfish reason.
now, second generation of churchgoers are no different, but some have become aware of the capitalistic incetives in there resulting in general corruption. Now they still need do something to appease the follower, but does anyone actually know the real financial books of you congregation? No, if they hide anything there is always corruption at play.
i do think that the autonomy of the church results in there always being some charity that actually does do good sponsored by churchly orgs.
for government however there is no deeper foundation to any instance that tries to do good without backin by faith. these programs can be much more effective possibly, but funding can dissapear like that, and more importantly, key people who make the effort a success get shipped/laid of once that happens.
A lot of work that some non-profits do is literally impossible to get normal workers for. It is always very emotional work with a round the clock awareness required. ofc everything is a gradient and nothing is black or white.
i think that just the overburden off being a productive capitalist has made it 10x as exhausting to exists