religious vs secular charity organizations

[lsm1]

A while ago I was having an argument with an agnostic about religion. At some point he said something like "but you have to give this to religion, they are the ones that do all charity". This bothered me, since I know plenty well that even in religious organizations it is the secular side that is doing all the charity. But I started looking up religious vs secular organizations and the amount of "charity" work they do. To my surprise I could not find anything off the bat in the web, so I tried to list charities that I could remember the look them up to see their religious affiliations. So far I found the following (non-religious winning, but hey, I'm biased, I'm probably not accounting the religious ones since I don't know about them). Also the other problem is that I think every church qualifies as "charity", so I'm only looking up large organizations that offer substantial help to the very poor. If you can help me with this debate that would be awesome!

Non religious large aid organizations (obviously all conservation agencies are here too, but I'm not counting them).

Peace Corps
Doctors without borders
Smile train
Unesco
Unicef
Red Cross
Planned parenthood

Religious:

Heifer
Habitat for humanity

[brimstoneSalad]

Habitat for Humanity may be nominally Christian, and their leadership might be, but the volunteers are represented by all faiths and lack there of.

Myth: You have to be Christian to become a Habitat homeowner.
Fact: Habitat homeowners are chosen without regard to race, religion or ethnic group, in keeping with U.S. law and with Habitat’s abiding belief that God’s love extends to everyone. Habitat also welcomes volunteers from all faiths, or no faith, who actively embrace Habitat’s goal of eliminating poverty housing from the world.

That is, it's not Christians building those homes- Christians just happened to have started the organization, and it was propelled into the spotlight by former president Jimmy Carter.

You'll find with many of the largest religious-identified charities, the religion takes a back seat to the secular and interfaith charity aspects. If they pushed it hard, they would push away volunteers and support from those who disagree with them.

Secular charities usually do better for just that reason- because everybody, no matter religion or denomination, can come together to do good. Overwhelmingly, religious charities are smaller and sectarian, so have a more limited scope and potential.

Finding more large secular charities than religious ones would be expected. Particularly finding more than 20% secular charities (which is proportional to the population).

What you'd have to look at instead is the rates of contributions by way of donation and volunteering among the religious and non-religious, not the nominal affiliation or lack there of, of the charities. You'll also have to adjust for the percentage of those donations by the religious spent on church administrative and evangelism practices.

Hemant Mehta wrote a blog on one of the survey results:

Are Religious People Really More Generous Than Atheists? A New Study Puts That Myth to Rest

Last year, a study released by The Chronicle of Philanthropy suggested that the most religious states were also the most charitable:
Donors in Southern states, for instance, give roughly 5.2 percent of their discretionary income to charity — both to religious and to secular groups — compared with donors in the Northeast, who give 4.0 percent.

Before you jump to conclusions that religion and generosity were somehow connected, keep in mind that those numbers included giving “both to religious and to secular groups”… In other words, church counted as charity.
But when you excluded donations given to churches and religious groups, the map changed dramatically, giving an edge to the least religious states in the country:

Of course, that didn’t stop the media from using headlines like this:
Religious States Donate More To Charity Than Secular States
Earlier this week, a new report released by the National Study of American Religious Giving put a rest to that myth that religious people are more charitable than the non-religious. It turns out nearly 75% of charitable giving by all Americans… benefits places of worship and faith-based charities. A lot of the money isn’t helping the poor and less fortunate. It’s going to the church.
Jay Michaelson of Religious Dispatches explains:
… The study found that 65% of religiously-affiliated people donate to congregations or charitable organizations. (More on that statistic later.) 80% of Americans are religiously affiliated. And 65% of 80% is just about… 55% of the total. In other words, the religious people who are giving say they’re giving because of religion. And they’re overwhelmingly giving to religion as well.
…
Probably the most notable statistics, though, are those which compare religious and non-religious philanthropy. Religion is supposed to make us better people, which includes, I assume, being more generous. So, is it the case that religious people give more generously than the non-religious?
Well, yes and no. Remember that statistic, that 65% of religious people donate to charity? The non-religious figure is 56%. But according to the study, the entire 9% difference is attributed to religious giving to congregations and religious organizations. So, yes, religion causes people to give more — to religion itself.
A lot of religious giving, then, is self-serving, in the guise of helping others. Often, the donations benefit their faith.
Donations to religious congregations — primarily for religious activity or spiritual development — represent about two fifths of household giving nationally…
…
“Much of what has previously been thought of one-dimensionally as giving to ‘secular’ purposes actually goes to religiously identified organizations,” said report co-author Dr. Mark Ottoni-Wilhelm, professor of economics and philanthropic studies at the Lilly Family School of Philanthropy. He added that innovative research methods allowed for a clearer picture of the way religious ties shape the giving landscape.
It’s not like there aren’t secular alternatives to religious charities. There’s no shortage of secular groups that feed the hungry and house the poor and fight for the under-privileged. But religious people aren’t giving to those groups as much as they’re giving to groups that do good while also proselytizing. (Which means some of that money being donated is going toward spreading the faith, not actually helping other people.)
In any case, we now have even more proof that religion doesn’t make you any more likely to be generous or willing to help other people. What religious people have that people like us don’t are excellent vessels for giving. But if we can offer secular ways to give (insert plug for Foundation Beyond Belief), there’s no reason our numbers can’t match theirs — and be more cost-effective at the same time.

WARNING: beware of visiting this site without an ad blocker (unacceptable level of auto-playing video ads may crash your browser):
patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/11/28/are-religious-people-really-more-generous-than-atheists-a-new-study-puts-that-myth-to-rest/


Now, you can't really discount ALL contribution to churches, etc. as not really charitable, as Hemant suggests there, but a vast majority of that money IS administrative, pastor salary, or funding proselytism. We'd need a breakdown of the real spending of the typical church to figure out what percentage actually ends up going to a good cause.

[Kanade]

Almost all charity organizations are secular and you'll notice that a lot of philanthropists are atheists such as Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Robert Wilson and George Soros.

The main problem i have with a religious focused charity is that they don't really do it for the sake of helping others, they do it to spread their religions reputation. While i'm sure most christians do it because they care about others organizations that is religious based usually prioritize their own religion over the charity itself which is something that concerns me.

But to me the most important thing is that charity is about helping others, it's not a competition over who's religion or ideology gives the most nor is it something you should do to promote yourself or your ideology.

[Shadow Fox]

I do not have "proof" of this per sey. But, I believe the great majority or at least some large chunk of the charity that churches do: they only do in order to get more members.

Look at all the bibles they give out and stuff they do in Africa while "helping them". An ex friend of mine who was homeless, had to stay in a homeless shelter....a Christian one.

The condition that they "help" you was not that they wanted to help you. It was that If you were going to stay there. You were forced to worship God as a member of their church and theirs only. If you did not prey 3 times a day with them ( yes this was a Christian church and not islam). Morning, one afternoon and once in the evening, They would kick you out. you also had to partake in every activity and reading of the bible.

I believe that a lot of them just do it for the members and the religion street cred then actually caring about those people.

As for where the money goes from the religious charities. We might not know, they are undoubtedly using a portion of it for themselves. Although, with the billions that are donated, tax free. You gotta be stupid not to thinking something is up with what they are really doing with the money. Because I do not see every homeless man with an apartment yet.

[brimstoneSalad]

I do not have "proof" of this per sey. But, I believe the great majority or at least some large chunk of the charity that churches do: they only do in order to get more members.

Not so much to get more members, but yes to "glorify god". They are transparent about this, and will admit it. Christians are commanded to proselytize, and taking advantage of the situation the poor are in, and offering something to draw them in to preach is a very efficient way to do this.

They don't necessarily want the poor people in their churches, they just want to convert them and send them on their way (the poor people can't afford to donate, so they don't need them taking up space there), and to make their religion look good to other rich people.

Churches publish a portfolio of the number of people they have proselytized to in order to get funding from rich Christians. "Souls saved" is advertised like investment return on the stock market.

I believe that a lot of them just do it for the members and the religion street cred then actually caring about those people.

Not so much to convert those people into members, as to get more money from existing members, and attract more wealthy donors.

Religious street cred, in a way, yes. They want to glorify god, and make Christianity look good.

These things are often first in the minds of the administration. Volunteers may be interested in helping people.

As for where the money goes from the religious charities. We might not know, they are undoubtedly using a portion of it for themselves. Although, with the billions that are donated, tax free. You gotta be stupid not to thinking something is up with what they are really doing with the money. Because I do not see every homeless man with an apartment yet.

The problem is not that the donations are tax-free, it's that churches are exempt from IRS auditing. They don't have to keep books and records of income and expenses like secular organizations do, so it's much easier for them to get away with things.

Only the individuals can get caught (because pastors CAN be audited), and there are a number of them who have gone to jail for structuring and tax evasion.

Corrupt multi-person organizations are less common, because of whistle-blowers. Usually when a church is corrupt, it's run by just a couple people who are the only ones with all of the details on the finances.