Not For Profit?

The other day when I was in the post office, I saw that someone had left lots of leaflets on all the tables, inviting the public to a religious service at a local mega-church (of which Tulsa has dozens). A certain Dr. Don (no last name) was going to be miraculously healing people. I considered this to be an example of soliciting for private profit on federal property, and as a patriotic citizen I helped the leaflets find their way into the recycling slot.

Environmental organizations have nonprofit (or not-for-profit) status, which relieves them from the tax burden that private businesses bear. And in most cases, this is beneficial to the whole country. NGOs (non-governmental organizations), often filled with motivated volunteers, can do a lot more good work than can a government agency and for a lot less money. By letting NGOs do some of the work, in return for tax breaks, the government comes out ahead.

Religious organizations such as churches also have nonprofit status. It is, however, not as clear what the social benefits are that churches confer upon the community as in the case of environmental organizations. It is true that many churches perform valuable services—counseling, food kitchens, literacy programs. But for the most part, churches proclaim very specific doctrines, collect money from people who have been convinced of those doctrines, and use the money to proclaim their doctrines to yet more people. If the doctrine so replicated is Jesus’ message of love, it clearly confers an advantage on society. But at least here in Tulsa, the doctrine is frequently this: Our church has the truth, and you should give us your money, because God wants you to, and you are going to hell if you don’t. The purpose of many churches is to enlarge themselves, not to help the community.

It becomes most troublesome when you hear about what some of the mega-churches do with their money. There appears to be no meaningful federal restrictions on compensation given directly to the preachers, nor to the perks that these churches provide to their leaders, who act as if they are little gods upon the face of the Earth. One of the most famous Tulsa evangelists ran a university which has a private jet that he and his family could use for almost any purpose (since wherever they go or whatever they do, they are evangelizing by their mere presence). Technically, such organizations are operating “not for profit,” but clearly these churches are just methods of scraping money up from gullible people and shoveling it into the coffers of rich evangelists. Just what good are they doing for society? Clearly they are doing a lot less good, tax-free, than do most corporations that pay taxes.

Corporations do not pay taxes on money they donate to the public good. But there are strict rules about how they can do this. Imagine what would happen if a corporate CEO decided to create a spin-off foundation to “help the environment,” appointed himself director, and gave himself a big salary or a tax-free house. This would be considered illegal. I think. But how is this different from what rich evangelists do?

I modestly propose that churches no longer receive tax-free status. If they are in the business of raising funds for their own expansion, let them pay taxes for it like the rest of us. This would also apply to all NGOs. But big churches abuse the privilege of freedom from taxes much more often than do environmental NGOs. The Botanical Society of America, for example, does as much good for the world as the big Tulsa ministries, with a thousandth the budget. And most NGOs are run by qualified people, not by some Dr. Don who is not required to prove where his title came from.

Churches claim to be concerned about, for example, the health of American citizens. If churches paid taxes, except on specific social programs, the federal government might be able to afford health care after all.

This essay was recycled from my website (November 9, 2009).

A Brief Note About Bleeding Hearts

You have probably heard the term “bleeding heart liberals.” It is one of the Republicans’ favorite attacks. Remember that Republicans are also the most vocal defenders of Christianity.

I remember a 60 Minutes interview of Studs Terkel back in the 1970s. Studs Terkel was a politically liberal activist who died in 2008 at the age of 96. He is someone the conservatives have long loved to hate. He said something to the effect that he did not mind being called a bleeding heart; this phrase refers to the bleeding heart of Jesus Christ, of which he was not ashamed.

I wonder what the Christian Republicans would have to say about that.

Do Conservatives Need Someone to Hate?

My last entry was August 5. The announcement that Russia would stop exporting grain was on that date, but so also was the announcement that a federal judge overturned the California law banning same-sex marriages.

I have very little personal interest in this topic. I like women. I really like women (and, if you didn’t check my bio, I am a man). On the one hand, what do I care if some men like men, or some women like women? I will not go as far as Thomas Jefferson and say that it does not matter so long as it “neither picks my pocket nor breaks my bones,” but almost.

On the other hand, I do not feel that gays and lesbians are being severely abused if they are denied the opportunity to call their civil unions marriages. Perhaps it would just make sense to allow privileged tax status to go to civil unions, without using the term marriage. There are many more important things to talk about, like how to stop global warming. So, until now, I have never written on this topic.

And I have little to say about it now except regarding what the issue tells us about conservatives. The federal judge was unable to find any reason why gay marriages would harm other people, or why the state of California would have any legal interest in the matter. Exactly what is the harm that a gay-marriage-ban law is designed to prevent? No answer from the conservative side except this. Legalizing gay marriage would prevent them from foisting their views on others. That is what they said, only they didn’t use the word foist.

I think conservatives either need to have someone to hate, or else want to use this issue to divert our attention away from global warming, and financial reform, and health care, all of them problems that have lots and lots and lots of victims. From what I have observed of the psychology of conservatives that I have known, I would tend to favor the first explanation, but the second is more likely to be true.

Conservatives and their Alternate Planet

Have you noticed that conservatives live on a different planet? This is nowhere more evident than in their response to global warming. They deny the reality of one of the best attested facts in human existence. And they bolster it with appeals to religion, making things up that are not even in their scriptures.

In fact, we are all living on a different planet. As Bill McKibben points out in his new book, Eaarth, we no longer live on the old, comfortable planet Earth, but on a planet (which he calls Eaarth) in which global warming and its consequences have already become the norm. Political and religious conservatives have not yet reconciled themselves with the reality of Earth, much less of Eaarth.

The events of this week illustrate the fact perfectly. Three events have occurred that, while ignored by many people, are hugely ominous for the future of our planet.

First, climate scientists have predicted that areas near the oceans would get more rainfall, and get it in the form of big storms. They intended this as a future prediction, but it is the major fact of reality right now in Pakistan, which is having the worst floods in its history.

Second, climate scientists have predicted that areas in the middle of continents would experience droughts and heat waves. This is happening right now in Russia, at the same moment that Pakistan is flooded. Russia had not experienced temperatures of 100 F during the time that reliable records have been kept, but they have had temperatures over 100 F for almost two weeks now. The result has been a massive drought, with the biggest outbreak of forest fires in their history.

Third, climate scientists have predicted interruptions in agricultural productivity and international trade in agricultural products. This has just happened, today. On August 5, 2010, Russia announced that it was banning grain exports for the rest of the year. Add this to the near collapse of Australian grain production, and the price of grain on the international market will get even higher—which will, of course, affect poor people the most. Most Americans may not notice, because we can afford to pay almost any price for food, or so we think.

There are three stages of conservative response to global warming. The first stage is to deny that it is happening. The second stage is to claim that it is happening but is not being influenced by human activity. They are already beginning this second stage. The third stage is to just say that, oh well, we can’t do anything about it so we might as well go ahead and burn all the oil we want to.

These three viewpoints all contradict one another, but conservatives can comfortably accommodate them, because evolution has given us brains capable of maintaining mutually contradictory thoughts. Science has given us a way to transcend the limitations of our ape brains, but conservatives appear in this case to have no use for science.

This essay also appeared on my evolution blog.