How Christian is this? Church keeps 1/2 of donated millions, saying "Donors didn't say it was to go to viticms"

[bUU]

Originally Posted by cupper3

The point is that is an organization, in this case a church, purports to use the money raised for one purpose, and then uses that for any other, it is at the very least unethical, and possibly criminal.

Good thing Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church didn't do that.

[cupper3]

Originally Posted by bUU

Good thing Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church didn't do that.

The court case will cast some light on that. Once it gets to dispositions, they can't hide behind the veil of "religious freedom" as they can with the IRS.

I see you no longer are beaking off about "what have you done for charity" so I assume I have fulfilled your curiosity.

[bUU]

Originally Posted by cupper3

The court case will cast some light on that.

The court case will cast light on whether the money our church donated to EAMEC was under the pretense of victim relief? That would be remarkable.

Originally Posted by cupper3

I see you no longer are beaking off about "what have you done for charity"

Seriously: Do you have some kind of memory issue affecting you this week? I've never said Word One to you about anything like that. That's a completely different poster, with a perspective on religion diametrically opposed to mine, and a user name that does not resemble anyone else's, much less mine.

[cupper3]

Originally Posted by bUU

.....
Seriously: Do you have some kind of memory issue affecting you this week? I've never said Word One to you about anything like that. That's a completely different poster, with a perspective on religion diametrically opposed to mine, and a user name that does not resemble anyone else's, much less mine.

My apologies. The other poster also started with a "B", and I answered you on a new page. A mistake.

[bUU]

Appreciated.

[The Last Amalekite 1Sam15]

Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144

You (atheists) are such hypocrites. You spend all your time tearing down people for keeping some of their money. They have expenses and overhead, you know. Mebbe they were a bit selfish.

So tell me again the last time you donated anything to any organization that was for the public good?

It's easy to criticize, but that begs the question of what you contribute. How much of your income goes into something you believe in, or even something that just helps people? Before you talk about the church keeping some of their proceeds, let's talk about secular organizations that do little good and raise alot of money.

Komen for instance.

But there is a whole list of secular charities that contribute less than 10% (some, less than 1%) on the actual program.

25 of America's Worst Charities

In contrast, let's look at a church.

http://www.churchlawandtax.com/images/46049.jpg

I know, this looks mismanaged. But try to remember that it isn't just the priest who has a salary. There are board members. Part-time retired priests. Treasurers. The provost/maintenance people. Landscapers.
Then the church often has debt (from things such as trying to update the building or outreach that was beyond their means), travel expenses, cash reserves (what are those for, you ask? In case the church has years where nobody comes to the church, or years where there is a massive recession and nobody can scrape together enough money to donate, to keep the place open. Yes, it happens,especially in secular areas. Thanks), denominational contributions (your church gives to other churches too), insurance, supplies (those papers that tell you what's going on in the service? They cost money), domestic/international missions, maintenance/utilities (that potluck supper costs money too, unless you want cold food), the building itself, and ministry.

Okay, so what did we learn here? The church isn't actually being greedy, it's loaded with overhead. Even so, it still gives back about 21% after salary and building expenses.

Yes, we need a cheaper model, possibly holding services in homes. Yes we could stand to pay priests less, if they did not have their own expenses to worry about. But when compared to Woman to Woman Cancer Foundation, which donates about 0.3% of its funds on the actual project, they're pretty good.

Why does jesus allow his business to be so mismanaged?

Jesus should be fired for f'ing up as a CEO. He and himself (Yahweh) can't seem to get anything right.

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144

You (atheists) are such hypocrites. You spend all your time tearing down people for keeping some of their money.

Nice of you to generalize atheists falsely inside one of your JeffBase like anti atheist narratives. The fact is however that having an issue with people saving their money is A) nothing to do with atheism and B) not a common trait of atheists.

But do not let reality get in the way of a good rant whatever you do!

Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144

So tell me again the last time you donated anything to any organization that was for the public good?

Quite often actually thanks very much. Both personally and as part of a group. In fact Atheist Ireland have a KIVA group too which the members have maintained for awhile now. And charity per capita has been shown in some studies to be higher in less religious or more secular nations. So your rant is as baseless as much of the rest of what you say.

You would be better off realizing that mis-use and mis-management of charity funds is a charity issue in general, not a theist or atheist issue. You are looking for a fight where no fight exists. Being divisive where there is no cause to be. ANY charity that is mis-using or mis-allocating it's funds is one that atheists and theists should be united in decrying.

But those of you like yourself and Jeff Base who are desperately in need of material to fuel an "us against them" narrative between atheists and theists are not going to see the wood for the trees on that.

Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144

Then the church often has debt (from things such as trying to update the building or outreach that was beyond their means), travel expenses, cash reserves (what are those for, you ask?

Oh and little things such as paying out masses of compensation to victims of physical abuse and rape instigated and facilitated by their staff. Quite expensive that for some churches.

Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144

Okay, so what did we learn here? The church isn't actually being greedy, it's loaded with overhead. Even so, it still gives back about 21% after salary and building expenses.

So what do we learn? We learn that the church is.... at best.... a charity broker with over heads that mean the % efficiency of a donation to them is relatively low compared to many other outlets one might use. So if someone really is interested in giving charity in ways that will actually effectively reach the people one hopes it will reach...... there are MANY more efficient methods for doing so.... and one should not actually donate to the big churches.

So yea, thanks for telling us what many of us knew already.

But your expenses and over heads are no excuse. What you describe is a church dipping into charity donations to fund other areas of its public services. Usually without making it clear to any donator where the money will be used, how, and why. An awful way to run a system. Even the fishing club I am a member of does it better. It is VERY clear to anyone giving money in different ways what their money is stream lined for. If they donate to our charity fund which goes towards public life boat services for example.... they do so knowing 100% of that money goes there and at NO point do we dip into it to fund a rood repair of the fishing clubhouse roof for example.