Altar Welfare: Churches Steal $71 Billion A Year From Taxpayers, Spend Little On Charity

[KamaAina]

http://www.occupydemocrats.com/altar-welfare-churches-steal-71-billion-a-year-from-taxpayers-spend-little-on-charity/

There is a lot of hypocrisy going on in Washington, but none worse than what’s perpetrated on the American public by Republicans in the name of religion and vague appeals to “fiscal responsibility”. The Republican Party has the mendacity to stand in the way of legislation that would close hidden corporate and personal tax loopholes that are estimated to cost American taxpayers $38 billion a year. However, what always slips right through the cracks are the tax benefits to religious organizations, which overwhelmingly support Republicans, and are estimated to cost taxpayers nearly double those of hidden off-shore havens. The Secular Policy Institute estimates: “If religious organizations (ie. churches, synagogues, mosques, etc.) were taxed like for-profit agencies, it was found that this could generate upwards of $71 billion per year in tax revenue…even if churches were merely held to the standards of other non-profit agencies, this could generate $16.75 billion in tax revenue per year.”

According to Pew, folks affiliated with ties to religious organizations also overwhelmingly support the Republican Party: “Republicans lead in leaned party identification by 48 points among Mormons and 46 points among white evangelical Protestants, with younger white evangelicals (those under age 35) having similar partisan affiliation as their older counterparts.” This religious fervor can easily be seen in the recent battles over the fraudulent Planned Parenthood videos. Of course, their anger is exacerbated by the fact Planned Parenthood also provides family planning and contraceptive services, which also confound Republican religious sensibilities. Interestingly, government support for Planned Parenthood represents less than 0.5% of the more than $100 billion in combined tax benefits to religious organizations and off-shore tax havens.

What is particularly egregious about the tax benefits going to religious organizations is that they receive these benefits, ostensibly, because they are charities. Researchers at Secular Humanism have calculated: “The Mormon Church, for example, spends roughly .7% of its annual income on charity. Their study of 271 congregations found an average of 71% of revenues going to ‘operating expenses’…Compare this to the American Red Cross, which uses 92.1% of revenues for physical assistance and just 7.9% on operating expenses. The authors also note that Wal-Mart, for instance, gives about $1.75 billion in food aid to charities each year, or twenty-eight times all of the money allotted for charity by the United Methodist Church and almost double what the LDS Church has given in the last twenty-five years.”

Charities, whether they are religiously affiliated or secular, give for the benefit of those less fortunate – they give to whom they give by addressing the needs of the poor without compensation. There is no quid pro quo. While one might feel good about giving, one gives charity for the sake of giving – itself. On the other hand, religious organizations hire people whose purpose is to give salvation out of obligation “…for these religious functionaries,” are paid to do so. It is no more “charity” than a doctor performing a surgery to save a life or a social worker intervening in an abusive family situation. If the people you are helping are paying you to help them, it’s not charity, it’s labor, and these pastors are well compensated by their congregations – take as an example the recent story about the pastor who said of asking his congregation to pay for a $65 million jet: “Jesus wants me to have this jet.”

[Skittles]

1. it's all a scam

[Arugula Latte]

7. Totally agree. Religion is the biggest grifting scam ever perpetrated on humanity.

I can't believe modern people still believe in this utter nonsense.

[Skittles]

8. passing the plate to pay off the pedophile lawsuits

ugh

[Arugula Latte]

9. Yep...while lecturing the sheep on "morality"

which includes the notion that the gays and the wimminfolk aren't deserving of equality or power.

Sick.

[Skittles]

10. whenever someone talks of how charitable they are

the amount doesn't even come close to the costs incurred for their insane anti-birth control stance

[Arugula Latte]

47. I agree. The RCC has been a scourge on the planet,

inflicting suffering on literally millions of people, particularly women.

But, hey, how about that awesome Pope!!!

[ryan_cats]

45. ... Totally agree. Religion is the biggest grifting scam ever perpetrated on humanity.

... Totally agree. Religion is the biggest grifting scam ever perpetrated on humanity.

Next to altruism.

[SammyWinstonJack]

46. Neither can I. And to hard earned money to these greedy grifters....

[ChisolmTrailDem]

49. They even build great cathedrals where the people congregate in order to be told

they are going to burn in eternity if they don't pay up in order to appease the loving and compassionate creator dude in the sky!

[Arugula Latte]

64. Yes. Carlin nailed that in the clip hifiguy posted below.

[hifiguy]

56. Mark Twain analysed it

PERFECTLY:



No one has ever said it better, more clearly, or more truthfully.

Though Mr Carlin's long-form explanation is also most righteous

[Arugula Latte]

63. Love those two dudes.

There's also Samuel Clemens' classic quote: "Faith is believing what you know ain't so."

[U of M Dem]

2. In the words of L. Ron Hubbard

founder of Scientology... "If you want to get rich, you start a religion."

He also said, "The only way you can control people is to lie to them."



K & R for exposure.

[ileus]

16. And his tomatoes screamed when sliced.

[hifiguy]

58. Leo Strauss, patron saint of neocons

also said the same thing: "The only way you can control people is to lie to them."

And Scientology was the result of a bar bet between Hubbard, Robert Heinlein and IiRC Clark Ashton Smith. Back in the late 1940s at a science fiction convention, over drinks, Hubbard bet Heinlein and Smith he could invent a bullshit religion and make a fortune. I heard the story face-to-face from a writer who was a longtime friend of Heinlein's, who told him the story: Gordon R. Dickson.

[niyad]

3. k and r for this soooooo-not-surprising piece.

[passiveporcupine]

4. No surprise here

We have needed to tax religious groups since forever. Many of the top echelon live like the 1%, and yet they pay no taxes.

I'd much rather see tax exemptions going to groups like doctor's without borders. They have no ulterior agenda.

Americans are fucking stupid. Especially republicans.

[KamaAina]

5. Or as Michael "Meathead" Stivic once proposed, commercial church property.

The Mormons alone would have to cough up a sizable chunk of cash.

[hifiguy]

59. Or, in lieu of cash,

most of downtown Salt Lake City.

[kwassa]

6. This is a very poor analysis. It is wrong in every aspect.

However, what always slips right through the cracks are the tax benefits to religious organizations, which overwhelmingly support Republicans

This is bullshit right off the top. This author only looks at Mormons and Evangelicals. He is upset that the Mormon church spends 71% of it's income doing it's job: operating as a church. Wow.

The job of a church is to be a church. If they choose to operate charities in addition to that, judge the charity by operating expenses versus money spent on services.

Catholic Charities has an office operating expense of $5.8 million, but distributes $2.15 billion.

http://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/topic/excellence_in_philanthropy/taking_the_catholic_out_of_catholic_charities

and where is proof that Walmart gives $1.75 billion to food charities? This is unbelievable, when they pay their own employees so poorly that they must file for food stamps!

[gollygee]

12. I have to agree with you

There are horrible churches, no doubt there, but the primary purpose of a church is not to do charity work. It's to operate as a church, which costs money. You can't compare a church's budget to a charity's budget because they are entirely different things that do different work and therefore have different expenses.

[trotsky]

14. Then I would seriously question what the point of a church is, if not to help others.

More important to have pretty stained glass windows and fancy candle holders, I guess?

[gollygee]

17. It helps others as well, but primarily it is a place to learn, worship, and find community

Churches also do charity work, but that isn't their primary reason for existence.

[trotsky]

20. "that isn't their primary reason for existence"

Wow, from what most Christians tell me what Jesus commands them to do, I find the fact you would admit this point shocking.

[gollygee]

22. I'm not a Christian

I'm recognizing what churches are. People in churches do charity work, but often the money church members give is outside the church's budget. The church organizes the charity work. The church's budget is not primarily for charity - it's for running the church. A food panty's budget is, however, primarily for charity. They don't have to hire a minister, or fund religious education, or any of those other expensive things.

[trotsky]

24. Then I think you should leave it to Christians to say what their church does.

I happen to agree with you, that the bulk of their money goes to things other than helping people. Which only serves to support the point in the OP - they should be taxed. The Red Cross has tons of buildings and equipment to maintain and staff to pay, yet spends the vast majority of its budget on helping people. Things that make you go Hmmm.

[gollygee]

25. I can state my opinion regardless of my belief/lack thereof. n/t

[trotsky]

27. You sure can.

Doesn't mean your opinion is right, though.

What makes a religion so special then, that it deserves tax protection, if it's not doing much to help others? Isn't that kind of the basis for the whole tax-exempt thing?

I mean, if I start a baking club and we buy a building and meet there once a week for community, we hire a lead chef to teach us things, and staff to buy supplies, etc., why can't that get the same tax advantages a church can?

[gollygee]

28. I have mixed feelings about that

It's supposed to be a part of the separation of church and state, and I agree that church and state should be separate. I'm not sure how important this is as a part of that.

I am not so much opposed to churches being taxed though. I'm more opposed to the comparison between a church, that does charity work (often outside of their budget) but mainly does education, and worship, to organizations that are entirely about doing charity. It isn't a fair comparison. There are reasonable arguments for taxing churches, but that isn't one of them.

[trotsky]

29. Why isn't it a fair comparison?

As I noted, the Red Cross has a payroll, maintains buildings and equipment, has lots of things they need to pay for to maintain the institution itself and yet STILL gives the lion's share of its income away to assist people.

Although in that regard, I can see what you mean about it not being a fair comparison. Churches do so damn little compared to that, it's an insult to the charities.

[gollygee]

31. Because churches do other stuff than charity work

Charities only do charity work. When charities do services, religious education, and other educational programming (paid by their tithe but not with any other charge) then you can compare. Churches have large expenses outside charity work, and a large part of their budget goes to that other work.

Also, when churches raise money for charity, they ask congregants to support the charity, and then the money raised goes directly to the charity without going through the church's budget. The article doesn't account for additional expenses churches have, and also doesn't account for the way the majority of church charity money is raised.

[trotsky]

32. We seem to be going around in circles now.

Yes, churches do other stuff. My baking club does too. So why does the church deserve a bigger tax break?

And where is your evidence of this uncounted money that churches are secretly funneling to charity? If congregants are giving money directly, then THEY are supporting the charity, not the church.

[gollygee]

34. The church organizes it

The church asks for a tithe or pledge in order to fund the expenses of the church. The church also raises money for charity, but that's not what their budget is for.

And the congregants are the church. They give money to the church to fund the church, and then they also raise money for charities, often organized by the church. It's a different system but it's still the church raising money. Their budget isn't used for charity as much as for church business, but they still raise money outside their budget.

(I believe the Catholic Church is an exception? I think they tithe 10% and that supports Catholic charities as well. Same with Mormons I think, though both of those count missonary work as charity work, and I find that suspect.)

[Hortensis]

35. Religion is an enormous part of the lives of many Americans, critical

to their rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. IMO, as a society we need to accommodate and respect that as much as is reasonably possible -- but not to pay for it.

[trotsky]

36. OK, so back to my baking club.

We have dues. A percentage of them gets donated to the local food shelf.

When we have our weekly baking parties on Saturdays, we take all the baked goods and sell them, and give the proceeds to the food shelf.

So why does the church get a bigger tax break than my baking club would?

[gollygee]

37. Your baking club would qualify for tax exempt status.

The only reason I see why churches should get it is if it is a necessary part of the separation of church and state, however, as I said, I'm not convinced if it is.

[trotsky]

38. Yes it would. But it would not have the same status as a church.

Why? Especially when you admit that the primary purpose of a church isn't to do charity - which makes it the same as my baking club?

Just saying "separation of church and state" doesn't really help here.

[gollygee]

39. Separation of church and state is why churches aren't taxed

http://www.latimes.com/la-oew-lynn-stanley23-2008sep23-story.html

There is said to be an old Arabian proverb: "If the camel once gets his nose in the tent, his body will soon follow." This expression is especially pertinent in the tax exemption context. Churches are tax exempt under the principle that there is no surer way to destroy the free exercise of religion than to tax it. If the government is allowed to tax churches (or to condition a tax exemption on a church refraining from the free exercise of religion), the camel's nose is under the tent, and its body is sure to follow. But that's not just my opinion; it's the understanding of the U.S. Supreme Court.

In its 1970 opinion in Walz vs. Tax Commission of the City of New York, the high court stated that a tax exemption for churches "creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state and far less than taxation of churches. [An exemption] restricts the fiscal relationship between church and state, and tends to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other." The Supreme Court also said that "the power to tax involves the power to destroy." Taxing churches breaks down the healthy separation of church and state and leads to the destruction of the free exercise of religion.

[trotsky]

40. And yet your admission that churches really aren't in the charity business undercuts that argument.

That was kind of the deal. Churches provide help to the community, the state stays out of their affairs. But you claim that churches don't actually provide much help. So therefore the argument makes no sense, at least for you to promote it.

[gollygee]

41. The Supreme Court ruling doesn't rely on charity n/t

[trotsky]

42. And yet some churches DO pay some taxes, depending on the activities they are engaged in.

So "separation of church and state" doesn't really cut it as an argument, as you are presenting it.

Since this discussion appears stalled, I'll let you have the last word.

[trotsky]

18. Evangelicals are the single largest religious group in the country, kwassa.

The full excerpt from the Pew results:

Republicans lead in leaned party identification by 48 points among Mormons and 46 points among white evangelical Protestants. Younger white evangelicals (those under age 35) are about as likely older white evangelicals to identify as Republicans or lean Republican. Adults who have no religious affiliation lean Democratic by a wide margins (36 points). Jews lean Democratic by roughly two-to-one (61% to 31%). The balance of leaned partisan affiliation among white Catholics and white mainline Protestants closely resembles that of all whites.

(All whites lean 9% in favor of Republicans.)

So add it all up, and the religious tilt significantly Republican. Just because you don't like that doesn't make it wrong. Sorry.

[muriel_volestrangler]

21. The point is that "operating as a church" should not be tax-free - it's a self-interested activity

as opposed to one for the benefit of others. When religions do charitable work, it's fine for that to get tax breaks, but "let us tell you whether you're sinful or not" should not.

[kwassa]

50. Churches are tax-free as a means of preserving the separation ....

of church and state.

The reasoning behind making churches tax-exempt and unburdened by IRS procedures stems from a First Amendment-based concern to prevent government involvement with religion. By avoiding initial inquiries into churches’ validity as houses of worship, government avoids violating the churches’ free-exercise right to define and regulate themselves. Legislators have also responded to public sentiment that churches provide a valuable function in the community, and therefore should receive benefits that other charitable organizations enjoy.

Specific IRS interpretations and codes distinguish between churches and
religious organizations. There are additional rules for religious institutions
that engage in business dealings unrelated to their ministry. Such business
ventures may be taxed by the government.

http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-01/05-tax-exemptions-of-religious-property.html

[muriel_volestrangler]

52. And such absolutism is taken advantage of

Treating religions like non-religious organisations is not discriminating against them. Giving them tax breaks is, however, favouring them, and thus just as much against your first amendment, if not more so, than making them pay normal taxes would be.

The key phrase is "public sentiment" - too many gullible people think clerics must be nice, deserving people.

[kwassa]

65. The clerics I know are nice deserving people.

And the majority of gay people, and gay married people, that I am currently around are clergy.

The picture painted of religion as practiced in the US, here on DU, is essentially false.

The mainline Protestent denominations, though declining, are predominately liberal. They tend to have both liberal and conservative members, and experience in some places and some denominations the same culture wars that the rest of society experiences. The liberals have the numbers, however.

A majority of Catholics voted for Obama. As virulent as the criticism of Catholicism gets here on DU, many US Catholics are liberal and share the same support for same-sex marriage as the rest of the country, and are as liberal on many other social issues.

and the founding fathers, in their wisdom, sought to create the separation of church and state, recognize the freedom of religion, and keep it separate as far from the affairs of secular government as possible.

[muriel_volestrangler]

74. I shpould have put emphasis on the 'must'

The problem is people think clerics are, *by definition*, people with the best intentions, and deserving of special status such as special tax treatment for their projects and themselves. But they're actually just people, with all the faults we all have, and 'public sentiment' has been formed by the same clerics telling them, over many years, that the clerics are a model of goodness that we should look up to and emulate. Giving them privileges is the opposite of "keeping it separate as far from the affairs of secular government as possible".

[trotsky]

26. Oh, BTW the proof about Walmart donations is this:

http://foundation.walmart.com/

Yeah they're a shitty company but they do give a lot of money to charities. This is from 2010:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/companies/2010-08-08-corporate-philanthropy-interactive-graphic_N.htm

Wal-Mart tops list of charitable cash contributors, AT&T No. 2

...

The biggest cash contributor was Wal-Mart, the largest company in the U.S. It gave $288.1 million in 2009. (The discount-store chain stepped up its commitment to charity even more in May, when it announced a $2 billion, five-year pledge to fight hunger.) AT&T was No. 2, donating $240 million, and Bank of America was No. 3, giving $209.1 million.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

30. Sadly, you're right. Churches aren't required to do charity. The IRS '14 points':

According to the IRS manual, Section 7.26.2.2.4(4), there is a 14 point test to determine if a religious organization can qualify as a “church”. These criteria are:

1. A distinct legal existence,

2. A recognized creed and form of worship,

3. A definite and distinct ecclesiastical government,

4. A formal code of doctrine and discipline,

5. A distinct religious history,

6. A membership not associated with any other church or denomination,

7. An organization of ordained ministers ministering to their congregations,

8. Ordained ministers selected after completing prescribed courses of study,

9. A literature of its own,

10. Established places of worship,

11. Regular congregations,

12. Regular religious services,

13. Sunday schools for religious instruction of the young, and

14. Schools for the preparation of ministers.

ETA - Obviously not every church meets all 14, but the more they meet, the more likely the IRS is to grant 'church' tax exempt status.

[Major Nikon]

51. Catholic Charities and the RCC are two different entities

$2 billion of their budget comes from the federal government.

Not sure what you're calling bullshit on. Do you contradict that religious organizations overwhelmingly support Republicans? The tax benefits they receive for "running a church" would not qualify for a tax exemption but for the singular reason that churches receive a blanket exemption under section 501 of the tax code. Other non-profits have to qualify their activities under specific categories that are in the public's interest. Otherwise they don't get tax exempt status.

[kwassa]

66. How do religious organizations overwhelmingly support Republicans?

Supporting any specific candidate is grounds for the loss of a tax-exemption.

Today, there are religious groups on both sides of the same-sex marriage debate. Public Religion Research Institute’s American Values Atlas—based on 40,000 interviews—shows some striking realignments over the last decade. A number of major religious groups have joined the unaffiliated in supporting same-sex marriage. In addition to the more than three-quarters of the religiously unaffiliated who support same-sex marriage, 84 percent of Buddhists, 77 percent of Jews, approximately six in ten white mainline Protestants (62 percent), white Catholics (61 percent) and Hispanic Catholics (60 percent), and 56 percent of Eastern Orthodox Christians now support allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry legally.

..........................................................

Conceding the loss of some religious groups in their ranks, many conservative religious leaders nonetheless continue to assert that religious Americans overall continue to oppose same-sex marriage. Even among religiously affiliated Americans, however, supporters today actually slightly outnumber opponents. Among all religiously affiliated Americans, 47 percent favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry, compared to 45 percent who oppose. (The survey’s huge sample-size makes even this narrow margin statistically significant.)

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/religious-americans-support-gay-marriage/391646/

[Major Nikon]

67. Sure, in theory

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/federal-eye/wp/2014/11/04/political-pastors-defying-irs-rules-on-candidate-endorsements/

[kwassa]

69. and they should be prosecuted.

[Major Nikon]

71. But they won't be

Meanwhile churches have been less obvious about it for decades. Here in Texas the churches run the government, and this is especially true of local governments where the elections have a lower turnout and churches can have a much larger influence. We even had a set of county commissioners that just said fuck it, we aren't hiring anyone who isn't Baptist and there's nothing you can do about it.

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/texas-lawyer-exposes-religious-hiring-test-for-peace-officers-county-only-wanted-baptist-constables/

[kwassa]

72. Do the churches directly run the government in Texas?

The Baptist church doesn't have a Pope running the operation. Do certain pastors get specific officials elected? How high in state offices is the influence?

Texas is not the whole country, by the way.

[Major Nikon]

73. They run more than the government in Texas

The Pope doesn't even run the RCC. Local dioceses are largely independent. Just because there's no central figure pulling the strings, doesn't mean there isn't local consensus on control of all sorts of political issues.

The schoolbooks in Texas claim Moses was one of the founding fathers and once Texas sets the standards they are distributed to many other states. So yeah, what goes on in Texas often does affect quite a bit of the country, and the example certainly isn't limited to Texas, by the way. There's no shortage of silly religious influence in many other states. Alabama removed their Chief Justice over silly religious shit only to have him reelected.

[kwassa]

75. I know about Ray Moore, and the absurdity of the Texas history books.

I was wondering if there were any direct church-government connections in local Texas jurisdictions.

I know also about the religious pressures in Air Force Academy.

and then there was this:

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/13939970/clinton-portis-says-washington-redskins-became-divided-jim-zorn-religion

WASHBURN, Va. -- Former Washington Redskins running back Clinton Portis on Tuesday said ex-coach Jim Zorn lost the players' support because he split the locker room based on faith.

Portis, during his weekly appearance on ESPN980, said Zorn, who coached the Redskins in 2008-09 before being fired, divided the locker room between "Christians and ballplayers."

"So if you didn't believe in what he believed in, if you weren't Antwaan Randle El, if you weren't the guys who sat and prayed with him and did everything the way they thought your life should be, you kind of got, 'Well, you're not doing right' speeches directed toward you," Portis said.

The Redskins suck for many reasons, but this one is really ridiculous.

[quaker bill]

11. Government promotes the businesses it taxes

I do not think you really want to go there.

Churches do not steal anything, they are simply not taxed.

Many very profitable secular corporations pay little to no taxes, while being entirely taxable. Churches seem taxable because they are not subject to taxes and therefore do not need the corporate tax shelters used by many businesses to avoid nearly all tax liability. If you apply taxes to them, I expect that many will use the tax shelters abundantly available to others.

As a bonus under this notion we could finally have the American Taliban become an overtly religious party, with candidates sanctioned by pastors and funded from the pews.

The reason the founders did not tax Churches was not to protect the Churches, it was to protect a brand new and virtually never tried before experiment in democratic self-governance. The Monarchs in Europe established Churches and taxed them, they made laws to require attendance and the payment of tithes. You could go to prison for not attending and "donating" to the state approved "established" church. Only state approved licensed and taxed ordained ministers could marry anyone.... The founders thought they had a better idea, separating church and state.

[progressoid]

62. Ironically, many ARE operated like businesses.

[davidpdx]

13. I believe this is one of the things on a long laundry list we need to get done

1) tax churches like any other entities
2) take away the exemption of the NFL (I'm talking about the league itself)
3) return tax rates to what they were under President Clinton
4) repeal all tax exemptions for dirty energy industries
5) put a tax on trading
6) eliminate the loopholes for hedgefund managers

etc, etc, etc.

[xenoturkey]

23. #2

The NFL rescinded its tax exempt status voluntarily this year. Its a surprisingly paltry sum, but progress is progress.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/28/news/companies/nfl-tax-exempt-status/index.html

[hifiguy]

60. Yup.

The REAL money in the NFL is held by the team owners. The NFL itself is just administrative and money-channeling organization. It's functionally the trade group of the individual teams.

[ileus]

15. "steal"...If only we could ban religion.

I would dare say non-profit hospitals "steal" a lot more from us than churches "steal" from those that volunteer to show up on Sundays and volunteer to write checks when the pot is passed.

[kelliekat44]

19. Time to means test churches based on proven contributions to charitable organizations and their own

charitable activities. At least the portion not proven to be used for direct charity should be taxed.

[Vinca]

33. Tax them.

Unlike schools and other public structures, you don't require a building, land, artwork, etc., etc., etc., to worship whatever you worship. Communities cannot afford the tax breaks churches get on property taxes and people like me who have no interest in religion are not thrilled to pieces to be footing what should be their part of the national tax bill. And I'm talking only of the "legit" churches. There is another entire category - recently covered by John Oliver - of scamster churches. Any of us could become churches and tax exempt. (Contact me at the "Church of Our Lady Owned By Cats" . . . cash only.)

[smirkymonkey]

43. Hear, hear!

[ryan_cats]

44. I thought

I thought this was about United Way or those other charitys where there is a 90% admin overhead but as long as I feel virtuous in giving, I guess it's OK. As long as the CEO isn't embezzling the funds.

How much does the Clinton foundation give back I wonder?

[LanternWaste]

48. Churches as well as museums, hospitals, libraries...

Churches as well as museums, hospitals, libraries, charitable organizations, professional associations, and the like, all non-profit, and all having a beneficial and stabilizing influence in community life, were to be encouraged by being treated specially in the tax laws. The primary effect of the exemptions was not to aid religion; the primary effect was secular and any assistance to religion was merely incidental.

(The Church and State in American History by John Wilson)

[Major Nikon]

54. Not all non-profits qualify for a tax exemption

The majority of them do not. The other organizations you mentioned perform a service to the community which is why they receive tax exempt status. It's simply assumed that churches benefit society and many of them only benefit their membership.

[lpbk2713]

53. Keep them tithes comin' in friends and neighbors.

An' don't forget I can heal you through the TeeVee. And if
you don't get healed it's because you didn't tithe enough.

[hifiguy]

61. Why does gawd always need money?

For all time gawd has been demanding money and never ever has enough. He must be the universe's shittiest money manager.

See the George Carlin clip posted above.

[hifiguy]

55. Let me venture a guess...

The reichwing "evangelical" Protestant churches - i.e., fundies - will have by far the worst metrics on this scale and the highest preachercreature salaries, running close or into seven figures. Yep, Jebus wants his ministers to have jets, new Benzes and 20,000 square foot houses to gloooooorify gawd!!!

Why do I guess this?

[KamaAina]

57. "preachercreature" FTW!

[Initech]

68. John Oliver nailed these crooks and moochers a few episodes back.

Here is that amazing segment in all its glory (pun intended) :

[mountain grammy]

70. Tax the churches!