Religion---where's all the money go??

[tech/a]

Last night at a dinner party and one of the topics which got a lot of attention was the Bush fires and Floods.

There was comment at the lack of financial support seen from religious bodies. Salvo's excepted.

One of the girls is employed by a church here and her job is to take care of donations. She contributed to the discussion saying how absolutely amazed she is on a weekly basis at the amounts of donations both anonymous and known amounting to many hundereds of 1000s. It basically never stops.

When quizzed as to what seems to happen to these millions over time the only thing she could see is that it was (in the vast majority) spent on church infrastructure and expansion. Investment particularly in property which was/is a high priority with Aged Care facilities being top of the agenda.

The general feeling was at this party that religion has become self serving, with no attempt to "Act like a charity" which after all thats how they are taxed.

You certainly hear of things like XYZ company donating its $$s and time to various needy situations large and small but I have to admit Ive NEVER heard of a Church or the like for running a worthy cause.

You hear and see wonderful foundations like the "Glen MC Grath foundation"
really making a difference.
The only thing I have seen from a religion view point are self serving---join the faith--type advertorials.

Come to think of it I've never heard of one case where a church has stepped up to the plate.
With so many worth causes around you'd think they would have an agenda which went beyond their own expansion!

 

[Trembling Hand]

Yes, when given the chance of building something meaningful for "their" people like emergency accommodation, relive centre for disadvantaged etc or building a monsterously whopping great building on prime real estate to worship their humble god that gets minimum use they will choose the later!!

Hypocity on full display on every towns best hill!! Just look up

 

[daisy]

Last night at a dinner party and one of the topics which got a lot of attention was the Bush fires and Floods.

There was comment at the lack of financial support seen from religious bodies. Salvo's excepted.

One of the girls is employed by a church here and her job is to take care of donations. She contributed to the discussion saying how absolutely amazed she is on a weekly basis at the amounts of donations both anonymous and known amounting to many hundereds of 1000s. It basically never stops.

When quizzed as to what seems to happen to these millions over time the only thing she could see is that it was (in the vast majority) spent on church infrastructure and expansion. Investment particularly in property which was/is a high priority with Aged Care facilities being top of the agenda.

The general feeling was at this party that religion has become self serving, with no attempt to "Act like a charity" which after all thats how they are taxed.

You certainly hear of things like XYZ company donating its $$s and time to various needy situations large and small but I have to admit Ive NEVER heard of a Church or the like for running a worthy cause.

You hear and see wonderful foundations like the "Glen MC Grath foundation"
really making a difference.
The only thing I have seen from a religion view point are self serving---join the faith--type advertorials.

Come to think of it I've never heard of one case where a church has stepped up to the plate.
With so many worth causes around you'd think they would have an agenda which went beyond their own expansion!

I'm fairly cynical about religions/churches but I always thought the salvos was slightly more philanthroic than the rest and did put money into their wooden boxes until I read that the bulk of donations were invested rather than disbursed to the people I thought my donations were going to.

Now I have a monthly direct debit arrangement with medicin sans frontier and that's it.

 

[Sunder]

To humble non-self aggrandising charitable works.

Youth off the streets (Catholic church) does not get a free truck fuel and food from the government. It comes from private donations.

Anglicare (guess) does not provide food packages, utility bill relief, and clothing to people out of government money.

Centacare only gets partial funding from DOCS to counsel and place abused kids into foster homes.

I actually approached the question from the other side years ago when considering my poure religious vs pure charitable giving. If you strip out all the Christian and Christian based charities, you get left with a whole lot of "Special interest groups" (e.g. MS Society, Greenpeace etc), and all you have left is Unicef, Amnesty, and a handful of other groups. I think we noticed about 70% of charities are either still religious or religious founded. (Red cross falls into the latter category - founded as a Christian movement, became secular early on).

The thing is, religion promotes humility and has their funding from people who are willing and humble about their donations. On the other hand secular charities must use advertising and big name brands in order to attract volunteers and donations. Is it a wonder that you only hear of the work of non-religious charities?

Turn your question upside down. If religions are collecting all this money, why are ministers only paid $35-45k a year, and church buildings are still by and large fairly humble things (heritage listed ones excluded). Who is benefiting? Where is the money going if not to charitable works?

 

[Macquack]

Yes, when given the chance of building something meaningful for "their" people like emergency accommodation, relive centre for disadvantaged etc or building a monsterously whopping great building on prime real estate to worship their humble god that gets minimum use they will choose the later!!

Hypocity on full display on every towns best hill!! Just look up

They are no different to "clubs" (golf, sporting, workers etc). They have their members and their passions. At the end of the day, these "clubs" do what their members direct.

If you want to look for some self fulfilling shrines, look no further than your local club and their disciples (poker machine players).

 

[Trembling Hand]

They are no different to "clubs" (golf, sporting, workers etc). They have their members and their passions. At the end of the day, these "clubs" do what their members direct.

If you want to look for some self fulfilling shrines, look no further than your local club and their disciples (poker machine players).

LOL!!

One is a business and not hiding it. The other is also business but hiding it behind judgement of others, lies and handing out of guilt to the masses.

 

[Julia]

When quizzed as to what seems to happen to these millions over time the only thing she could see is that it was (in the vast majority) spent on church infrastructure and expansion. Investment particularly in property which was/is a high priority with Aged Care facilities being top of the agenda.

Don't dismiss the aged care facilities as being unworthy recipients of donated money. There is a deficit of nursing home places throughout the country and religious organisations are responsible for developing and running a substantial percentage of these. Government funding is inadequate and many aged care establishments run at a loss. Particularly in view of our ageing population, there is a great need for more funding for this industry. If these funds come partly from donations then I would think that's a great use for the money.

Re the church having interests in other property, I don't see that the principle is any different from your own property interests, Tech. If they can turn a profit on property that profit can be put to community use elsewhere.

The general feeling was at this party that religion has become self serving, with no attempt to "Act like a charity" which after all thats how they are taxed.

I'm the last person to take the 'side' of religion in general, but in this case I absolutely disagree with this conclusion. The Catholic Church, via St. Vinnies, the Salvos, Anglicare and many other less well known church organisations contribute hugely to community care. There is a quite small church here "The Hervey Bay Christian Church" which runs a food bank offering food at massively discounted prices, and free if necessary. They also assist with electricity, rent etc and offer free counselling (not religiously based) and a addiction assistance programme.

You certainly hear of things like XYZ company donating its $$s and time to various needy situations large and small but I have to admit Ive NEVER heard of a Church or the like for running a worthy cause.

I'd say that's because you're just not mixing in the circles where this happens and it's unfair to conclude such community welfare doesn't exist on such a basis.

You hear and see wonderful foundations like the "Glen MC Grath foundation"
really making a difference.

This foundation has received huge media attention because of who Jane McGrath was and the work she did.
Many who do fantastic work in the community don't seek such a high profile.

 

[ghotib]

Fair suck of the sav Tech. They gotta pay for all those gorgeous dresses somehow!!

<GDRVVVVF>

Aside from that, I agree that the institutional religions probably do more good works than are visible in many circles. But I also note that they get enormous tax concessions from all levels of government and they're very bad at acknowledging or accounting for them. Catholic World Youth Day cost NSW taxpayers a boatload and the church won't talk about the size of the boat. Registered religious groups don't pay council rates and they occupy some of the most highly-valued land in the country. A bit of transparency would be good, but I ain't holding my breath.

Ghoti

 

[Sunder]

A bit of transparency would be good, but I ain't holding my breath.
Ghoti

I thought all charities who claimed charitable status had to publish annual reports, like publicly listed companies?

http://www.anglicare.asn.au/documents/AnglicareAnnualReport2007.pdf

 

[ghotib]

Thanks for posting this.

It's a start. But:

(a) Look at the size of the numbers. There's no way this is a comprehensive statement of the financial workings of Anglicare.

(b) I can't see any reference to premises, either as assets or rent. I presume the Anglican church owns or pays for premises, but then that's rather the point isn't it.

(c) Public disclosure is voluntary because this is a report to members of an association. Note 1 to the financial statements:

Anglicare Australia is not a reporting entity in terms of Australian Accounting Standards since the Council believes it is unlikely that there are users who are unable to command the preparation of reports to satisfy their information needs. This is therefore a special purpose financial report that has been prepared to meet the requirements of the Associations Incorporation Act and applicable accounting standards.

Anglicare Australia has applied Accounting Standard AASB 1025 which amends the application of existing standards so that they apply only to entities that qualify as reporting entities. However, the financial statements have been prepared in accordance with the disclosure requirements of the Regulations and applicable Statements of Accounting Concepts and Accounting Standards, with the exception of the following:

AASB 1005 - Financial Reporting by Segments
AASB 1017 - Related Party Disclosures
AASB 1033 - Presentation and Disclosure of Financial Instruments

I think there's a typo in the first paragraph, but I won't hold that against them. Indeed I don't hold anything against them. I think the problems probably lie much further back and higher up than the actual charitable organisations. Note the absence of Related Party Disclosures.

Ghoti

 

[Sunder]

Thanks for posting this.

It's a start. But:

(a) Look at the size of the numbers. There's no way this is a comprehensive statement of the financial workings of Anglicare.

Anglicare is an association, so each chapter is it's own entity, I believe, so each entity would have its own report. That report is for the small head office in Sydney city, which coordinates the other entities - the ones that actually do the "on the grounds" work.

More than that, I'm pretty fuzzy on, but I do remember some pretty tight reporting standards, when I was helping my church set up a deductible gift recipient status for a fund to pay for scripture teachers.

Sorry I can't find more info.

 

[Macquack]

LOL!!

One is a business and not hiding it. The other is also business but hiding it behind judgement of others, lies and handing out of guilt to the masses.

Clubs and churches are both "not for profit" organisations.

Membership to either is optional.

Some donate via the plate, others donate via the slot.

 

[freddy2]

Who is benefiting? Where is the money going if not to charitable works?

To pay off the victims of kiddie fiddling priests.

 

[Julia]

I'm a bit surprised to find myself defending the churches here, but aren't churches pretty much like any other private organisation?

So if their members want to donate money isn't it entirely up to the organisation what it does with these funds?

Isn't it like your golf club taking membership fees so they can spend it for the benefit of the golf club?

Maybe I'm missing something here.

I do take the point, though, about their tax free status.

 

[sails]

I think it's a mistake to tar all religious people with one brush. There is huge diversity between these organizations and even more between their people.

Problem is that all sorts of scammers and other less desirables con their way into positions of responsibility of religious organizations. Church people are generally too trusting and naive and so it's usually fairly easy for these types of predators to get what they want - be it money, sex or power. If caught, church people are usually forgiving and so they often get away with no more than an expulsion from the organization, but they simply go to another and start the process again.

I sometimes think there is a disproportionate number of undesirables who cleverly worm their way into religious environments and positions of power as opposed to secular environments and it is this type of person who causes so much bad publicity.

The majority would be generally honest, good and caring people and should never be lumped into the same category as those who have selfish motives, and take advantage of the trust and forgiveness of others.

 

[shaunQ]

I think it's a mistake to tar all religious people with one brush. There is huge diversity between these organizations and even more between their people.

I agree. I think there is good and bad across both Charity and Church - some take it seriously and are brilliant. Others 90% gets sucked to head office.

Many of the church "charities" are quite open about not being there to help the needy - simply about "saving" them.

"The primary function of the society," said St Vincent de Paul's lawyers, "is to inculcate the Catholic faith in its members."

World Vision is committed to the poor because we are Christian. We work with people of all cultures, faiths and genders to achieve transformation. Our mission is to be a Christian organisation that engages people to eliminate poverty and its causes.

So.. they engage people to help... nothing about actually helping.

 

[darnsmall]

I agree. I think there is good and bad across both Charity and Church - some take it seriously and are brilliant. Others 90% gets sucked to head office.

Many of the church "charities" are quite open about not being there to help the needy - simply about "saving" them.





So.. they engage people to help... nothing about actually helping.

agreed, there will be good and bad between both. COBRA is a great example of a charity group that is dirty as all hell and has nothing to do with religion. Religion hasn't dont any good charity; It's a broad generalisation that will get lots of input and support...not much substance

 

[Macquack]

I think it's a mistake to tar all religious people with one brush.

If you want to be the leader of the "free world" (USA) or the leader of Australia then you HAVE to be a christian.

If you are not a christian, the media will persecute you and you will have no chance what so ever.

 

[MS+Tradesim]

There was comment at the lack of financial support seen from religious bodies. Salvo's excepted.

Come to think of it I've never heard of one case where a church has stepped up to the plate.

 

[MS+Tradesim]

I realise "religion" (Read: Christianity) bashing is a fashionable past-time but this thread takes the cake. For all you people on your pedestals knocking churches (and yes, some churches are easy targets to bash), go donate a week or two of your time in the front-lines with those who work aiding the marginalised (often volunteers) and find out how just how involved those "hypocritical" churches and christians (and other religions) can be.

Ps. And reread Julia's post. Especially this comment:

"I'd say that's because you're just not mixing in the circles where this happens and it's unfair to conclude such community welfare doesn't exist on such a basis.'

Pps. And lest I be accused of starry-eyed bias, as a Christian, I don't know what makes me angrier - that some churches have distorted the teachings of Jesus into means to feather their own nests, or that the rather vast body of work done by many Christians and churches to aid those who can't help themselves gets dismissed out of hand by those who brush ALL churches into the same stereotyped caricature.