Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Steve H on March 06, 2020, 10:16:05 AM
-
The Sally Army
The Trussell Trust
The ending of apartheid - Archbishop Tutu etc.
Tear Fund
Christian Aid
CAFOD
Etc.
Etc.
Every time I get annoyed by some nonsense posted on Facebook by some fundy nutter, and seriously consider abandoning Christianity and becoming a humanist, the member of this forum who started the other thread that this is a reply to comes out with some outrageous, one-sided slur against Christianity, and reminds me how bitter and negative I found myself becoming during my year out back in 1992-3, before I came back to a much more liberal version of the faith, which makes me decide not to throw it over just yet - so keep up the good work for the gospel, RJG! ;D
-
The Sally Army
The Trussell Trust
The ending of apartheid - Archbishop Tutu etc.
Tear Fund
Christian Aid
CAFOD
Etc.
Etc.
Every time I get annoyed by some nonsense posted on Facebook by some fundy nutter, and seriously consider abandoning Christianity and becoming a humanist, the member of this forum who started the other thread that this is a reply to comes out with some outrageous, one-sided slur against Christianity, and reminds me how bitter and negative I found myself becoming during my year out back in 1992-3, before I came back to a much more liberal version of the faith, which makes me decide not to throw it over just yet - so keep up the good work for the gospel, RJG! ;D
There are, of course, many charitable organisations established by christians with a christian ethos - you've indicated a few. But for every one you can match to other organisations that are acting in a similar charitable field (e.g. Homeless, emergency/developmental aid, etc etc) that are entirely secular in terms of formal designation and organisational ethos. And of course many of those organisations were set up by people who aren't religious and include non religious people as volunteers/donors etc etc.
So there really isn't any evidence that there are proportionately more christian charities than you'd expect given the proportion of christians in the UK. Nor of course is there evidence that christians are more likely to be volunteering more than non christians, nor giving more to charity than non christians (once you strip out donation to the church that active christian donors gain a direct benefit from in terms of attending worship).
However there is one difference - christians seem to require that charities are badged as christian, which doesn't happen in the secular world where most charities are named on the basis of the work they do, not the attributes/motivation of the people involved/setting up the charity. Why is this - well it seems to me that christians feel the need to be seen to be doing good work, while others have less need to seen being charitable, rather the fruits of that work are sufficient. You see this embedded in christian worship where the collection plate is clearly public (and of course there is no need for this).
So it seems to be that there is a mentality within christian tradition that needs to ensure that individual are seen to be doing good (rather than just doing good per se) and that they need very publicly to ensure that everyone knows that it is their christian faith that motivates them.
-
... and don't forget the Red Crescent element ..... "The International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement is an international humanitarian movement with approximately 97 million volunteers, members and staff worldwide which was founded to protect human life and health, to ensure respect for all human beings, and to prevent and alleviate human suffering. " Wikipedia
-
... and don't forget the Red Crescent element ..... "The International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement is an international humanitarian movement with approximately 97 million volunteers, members and staff worldwide which was founded to protect human life and health, to ensure respect for all human beings, and to prevent and alleviate human suffering. " Wikipedia
The red cross is not and never has been a faith-based organisation - I was secular from the start. The name and logo are linked to the Swiss flag not to anything overtly christian.
-
The ending of apartheid - Archbishop Tutu etc.
But the whole apartheid notion was based on christian teaching notably through the Dutch Reformed church which was intrinsically linked to the policy and to the dominant National Party who governed South Africa and developed and maintained apartheid from 1948 until it collapsed in 1994.
-
But the whole apartheid notion was based on christian teaching notably through the Dutch Reformed church which was intrinsically linked to the policy and to the dominant National Party who governed South Africa and developed and maintained apartheid from 1948 until it collapsed in 1994.
Apartheid wasn't ended by Archbishop Tutu in any case.
-
Apartheid wasn't ended by Archbishop Tutu in any case.
True - and there is pretty strong evidence that the key figure, Nelson Mandela, wasn't religious (albeit brought up in a christian household as so many were) and indeed may have been an atheist.
-
Apartheid wasn't ended by Archbishop Tutu in any case.
Obviously not - but he played a major part.
-
Obviously not - but he played a major part.
So what - you seem to be engaged in serious cherry picking. Picking one of many people involved in the fight against apartheid (and certainly not one of the key leaders) who happened to be a christian, while many of the others weren't active christians including the key globally iconic leader Mandela. Whilst also conveniently ignoring the fact that apartheid as an ideology was inextricably linked to an organiser christian denomination.
So the reality is that apartheid grew out of organised christian ideology, while its opposition in South Africa was not inextricably linked to christian ideology albeit some of the leading figures opposed happened to be christian.
-
Obviously not - but he played a major part.
So why is his part more important than:
Steve Biko - gave his life for the cause - non religious
Joe Slovo - from Jewish ancestry but overtly atheist
To name but two.
-
So why is his part more important than:
Steve Biko - gave his life for the cause - non religious
Joe Slovo - from Jewish ancestry but overtly atheist
To name but two.
So just be be clear I am being balanced.
We also have Mandela who wasn't religious in any conventional sense and Oliver Tambo, who as far as I'm aware was actively christian.
Point being that the coalition of people against apartheid was just that in terms of religion - involving people of all religions and none, the religion of an individual wasn't a key issue. They were however fighting an ideology that was inextricably linked to a specifically christian ideology (albeit I fully accept not one that come close to be universally accepted in christianity) aligned to an organised christian denomination.
-
The Sally Army
I certainly wont donate to them, and politely tell those who know the door trying to raise funds for them as such.
For many christian charities that are engaged in areas which are inherently non religious (e.g. aid or homelessness) there is always of concern that the money you put in their collection bucket isn't going to front line activity but to evangelising.
Well the Salvation Army are actually clear about this if you actually check their accounts that have to be submitted to the charity commission (not that most people read them) - so over 20p for ever £1 collected goes directly on evangelism. If I want to help the homeless (I do and I work to support organisations that also do so) I want as near to 100% of the money raised to go to help the homeless, not for over 20% to be syphoned off for evangelism, effectively to try to convert vulnerable people to christianity, which is ethically unacceptable.
Also worth noting that while the Salvation Army try to get you to put money in a bucket, tin or envelope their latest account release they are sitting on over £600M in reserves. Yup you read that right - they have not far off £1billion sitting in the bank.
-
The Sally Army
But for balance I love the brass band Christmas music thing - lovely and may make me cry.
But they need not one penny to support that.
-
I certainly wont donate to them, and politely tell those who know the door trying to raise funds for them as such.
For many christian charities that are engaged in areas which are inherently non religious (e.g. aid or homelessness) there is always of concern that the money you put in their collection bucket isn't going to front line activity but to evangelising.
Well the Salvation Army are actually clear about this if you actually check their accounts that have to be submitted to the charity commission (not that most people read them) - so over 20p for ever £1 collected goes directly on evangelism. If I want to help the homeless (I do and I work to support organisations that also do so) I want as near to 100% of the money raised to go to help the homeless, not for over 20% to be syphoned off for evangelism, effectively to try to convert vulnerable people to christianity, which is ethically unacceptable.
Also worth noting that while the Salvation Army try to get you to put money in a bucket, tin or envelope their latest account release they are sitting on over £600M in reserves. Yup you read that right - they have not far off £1billion sitting in the bank.
As you say, the SA are perfectly clear and open about donations: they go to the SA genersally, not specifically to their social work. Thast is because they regard all their work - feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, and evasngelising - as of a piece, all part of the same mission.
-
As you say, the SA are perfectly clear and open about donations: they go to the SA genersally, not specifically to their social work.
I don't think that is true - sure I'm aware that over 20p in every £ goes on evangelising. But that's because I've looked at the annual report on the Charity Commission site. Most people won't read their annual report or accounts - they will base their views on the outward publicity that the Salvation Army use to gain donations. So for example the link below:
https://www.salvationarmy.org.uk/donate?gclid=Cj0KCQiAqY3zBRDQARIsAJeCVxOPNELkZdMYTDqr1VmMxjYVVBJMKWbw6IhxYduNj4iSHDaCMfwIblQaAqhyEALw_wcB
Maybe even click on 'Ways we help' - it is entirely about their social work - the impression is clearly that all your donation (minus the obvious admin costs that apply to any charity) will go to that work. But in reality 20p in every £ goes on evangelising. In what way are they being clear and open about that?
-
As you say, the SA are perfectly clear and open about donations: they go to the SA genersally, not specifically to their social work. Thast is because they regard all their work - feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, and evasngelising - as of a piece, all part of the same mission.
I suspect most donors putting a few pounds in a collection tin on the street or in an envelope when the Salvation Army know on your door are blissfully unaware (and would probably be rather shocked) that the organisation is sitting on over £600 million in reserves. They don't seem to be perfectly clear about that either.
-
So just be be clear I am being balanced.
We also have Mandela who wasn't religious in any conventional sense and Oliver Tambo, who as far as I'm aware was actively christian.
Point being that the coalition of people against apartheid was just that in terms of religion - involving people of all religions and none, the religion of an individual wasn't a key issue. They were however fighting an ideology that was inextricably linked to a specifically christian ideology (albeit I fully accept not one that come close to be universally accepted in christianity) aligned to an organised christian denomination.
Talking of points, you are missing it. This thread is about people who have been inspired by the bible to do good, and Tutu and others were inspired by it to help end apartheid, and to be remarkably forgiving once it had fallen. I don't deny that the bible has been (mis) used to justify all sorts of wickedness, including apartheid. However, as I said earlier, it is quite clear that doing good is in line with the teachings of Christianity, and doing evil isn't. I just wanted to put the other side of the argument, in reply to LR's typically bile-filled, one-sided thread.
-
If that is true about the Salvation Army, I am more than disgusted. >:(
It is true - and plain to see for anyone (in other words virtually no-one) whose chooses to read their accounts.
-
If that is true about the Salvation Army, I am more than disgusted. >:(
Oh, how happy you must be - you've discovered something else to blow up out of all proportion, and harp tiresomely on about for evermore.
It turns out that it's bollocks, anyway. https://www.salvationarmy.org.uk/Fundraising-Q-and-A
"How much of my donation will go to good work?
91 pence in your donated £1 goes to the delivery of caring services and the support of those services. 9 pence in your donated £1 is invested in fundraising to generate those funds and governance. These figures exclude the cost of running our charity shops and trading operations which contributed an additional £16.9 million to our income in 2017/18. "
Like all churches, the SA has a collection at every service, and presumably that is used for the evangelism.
-
Oh, how happy you must be - you've discovered something else to blow up out of all proportion, and harp tiresomely on about for evermore.
In what way am I blowing it out of all proportions. I suspect a large proportion of the population would be rather shocked to learn that the Salvation Army send over 20% of your donations on evangelising. And that they are effectively holding 3 years worth of reserves when the government recommendation for charities is 3-6 months with the average reserves being 4 months.
And I haven't just discovered this - I've known about it for years and indeed I think I've posted about it here before.
So if you want to help disadvantaged people give your money to a charity that will spend 100% (after admin costs) of your donations on helping people. And give to organisations that believe your donation is there to be spent on helping people not of building up astonishing levels of reserves.
-
In what way am I blowing it out of all proportions. I suspect a large proportion of the population would be rather shocked to learn that the Salvation Army send over 20% of your donations on evangelising. And that they are effectively holding 3 years worth of reserves when the government recommendation for charities is 3-6 months with the average reserves being 4 months.
Not you - LR.
As my post above makes clear, with a link to and quote from the SA website about their fundraising, you're wrong, anyway.
-
I agree with you. Also maybe the oh so HOLY Steve, might help in a practical way to assist those in need.
How do you know I don't?
-
Some years ago when I was taking some stuff to the local tip, which also had charity clothes bins belonging to the SA. I was shocked to see a person in the SA uniform emptying those bins and chucking a load of the bags into the waste tip! I have never donated clothes to them since then.
All charities which receive donations of goods, mainly charity shops, chuck away a lot of what they're given because it's unsellable. Some people use charities as a convenient dumping-ground. When I volunteered in an Oxfam bookshop, we chucked out huge amounts of unsellable stuff into big commercial rubbish containers.
-
Well do you?
Mind your own business.
-
PVJ,
Talking of points, you are missing it. This thread is about people who have been inspired by the bible to do good…,
Just out of interest, what makes you think they were “inspired by the bible to do good” rather than by their innate decency or fellow feeling? Had they not been religious do you think they’d just have sat on their hands or gone down the pub, or would they perhaps have done good things anyway just a many non-religious people have done?
-
PVJ,
Just out of interest, what makes you think they were “inspired by the bible to do good” rather than by their innate decency or fellow feeling? Had they not been religious do you think they’d just have sat on their hands or gone down the pub, or would they perhaps have done good things anyway just a many non-religious people have done?
We've had that from LR as well, but it cuts both ways: no doubt all the wicked Christians whom LR never tires of telling us about would have been just as wicked if they'd not been Christians. What is clear, though, is that people who are kind and do good, Christians or not, are acting in the spirit of Christs teachings, and evil-doers, Christian or not, are acting contrary to them.
-
As my post above makes clear, with a link to and quote from the SA website about their fundraising, you're wrong, anyway.
In what way am I wrong PVJ?
So just to put it into context - from their accounts, in 2019 their income was £237million. Their expenditure on their social charitable activities (i.e. excluding evangelising) was just £99million. So if you put £1 into a Salvation Army collection thinking that money is going to help the homeless or disadvantaged etc, etc, in fact just 40p is spent on those activities. The rest is going on evangelising, admin and building up yet more reserves. The level of reserves increased by £16m between the 2017/18 and 2018/19 accounting years and increased by £35million between 2016/17 and 2017/18.
-
PVJ,
We've had that from LR as well, but it cuts both ways: no doubt all the wicked Christians whom LR never tires of telling us about would have been just as wicked if they'd not been Christians. What is clear, though, is that people who are kind and do good, Christians or not, are acting in the spirit of Christs teachings, and evil-doers, Christian or not, are acting contrary to them.
She’s right, it does cut both ways. If you want to claim Christian (or any other religious) belief as causal of behaviours, you can’t pick and choose the behaviours you think were and weren’t “inspired”. For every positive you pick I can cite the Crusades, numerous holy wars, forced conversions, the Inquisition, violence against Jews, the enthusiastic support for slavery etc all done “in the spirit of Christ’s teachings” as those people thought them to be.
Your argument by the way is the corollary of looking for genocidal monsters who were atheists, and then claiming atheism to be causal of genocides as if not believing in gods somehow entails murdering lots of people. The most you can say I think is, “here are some people who were religious/atheists, and here are some of the good/bad things they did". Building a logical path from the former to the latter though is a whole different issue.
-
The Sally Army
The Trussell Trust
The ending of apartheid - Archbishop Tutu etc.
Tear Fund
Christian Aid
CAFOD
Etc.
Etc.
Every time I get annoyed by some nonsense posted on Facebook by some fundy nutter, and seriously consider abandoning Christianity and becoming a humanist, the member of this forum who started the other thread that this is a reply to comes out with some outrageous, one-sided slur against Christianity, and reminds me how bitter and negative I found myself becoming during my year out back in 1992-3, before I came back to a much more liberal version of the faith, which makes me decide not to throw it over just yet - so keep up the good work for the gospel, RJG! ;D
There are a number of Secular Humanists that hold religious beliefs, I think most religion based organisations mainly try try to represent the Secular Humanist section of society as their sworn enemies mainly because we keep on hitting at the many privileges the various religions have and in a lot of these cases it involves the financial advantages that accompany these privileges.
Secular Humanism's main aims are for a level playing field like at the moment we're trying to rid the The Bishops Bench from the House where 26 of these Bishops sit there in the H o L as of right whilst having no objection to Bishops being there on merit.
Then the Chaplaincy in the services, prisons and the N H S, whilst as far as I know there's no objection to the chaplaincy services in these places whilst they do some very good well intended helpful works for people in these places it also happens to be a nice, not so little, earner for mainly the C of , E in the UK where these services, are 100% government funded.
Any of the Secular Humanists I know have no wish to curtail any of the chaplaincy services they generally do a good job I don't think the whether of if they do a good job or not is a up for discussion in any way, it's the the source of where the funding comes from, surprisingly, doesn't come out of any of the religion based organisation's coffers.
The unwanted Catholic academy in Peterborough just over 80% of the local population don't want a religious educational type anything in their area the point being when opening these places the religions only need to supply 20% of the funding to open it up for use and then our government funds the rest from then on, why should we, UK citizens be funding the promotion of Catholicism in this academy or anywhere else for that; just another case of religious privilege that the secularist humanist organisations are trying to gain a level playing field, no small wonder the religious organisations do their best to demonise Secular Humanism.
On the other hand the secular society has been collecting donations for the relief of the predicament the Rohingya are in, in Myanmar, it's Secular Humanist approach of where it should be a case of freedom of religion for all people and freedom from religion as well, that's roughly my understanding of Secular Humanism.
Regards, ippy.
-
If Jesus was all that is claimed for him, I suspect if he ever met up with you, he might greet you with the phrase, 'Depart from me for I never knew you.' Your nit picking posts are not doing Christianity any favours at all. You should be ashamed of yourself, people looking in on this forum who are interested in the faith, would more than likely be put off by your constant jibes. I know some very good and decent Christians, but you aren't one of them. I wonder if you are actually Satan's little helper, he would certainly be very proud of the way you are behaving on R&E. ::)
I disagree with Steve on many things but at base he seems like a decent person.
-
In what way am I wrong PVJ?
So just to put it into context - from their accounts, in 2019 their income was £237million. Their expenditure on their social charitable activities (i.e. excluding evangelising) was just £99million. So if you put £1 into a Salvation Army collection thinking that money is going to help the homeless or disadvantaged etc, etc, in fact just 40p is spent on those activities. The rest is going on evangelising, admin and building up yet more reserves. The level of reserves increased by £16m between the 2017/18 and 2018/19 accounting years and increased by £35million between 2016/17 and 2017/18.
For context for every £1 of income Shelter spend a little over 70p on helping the homeless, the rest being used for admin and fundraising activities. Shelter also spend their money - holding about 6 months worth of normal expenditure as reserves (in line with the government/charity commission recommendation) rather than the 3+ years (and growing) that the Salvation Army have sat in reserves.
-
I disagree with Steve on many things but at base he seems like a decent person.
I agree with that comment. And he's certainly given details of his own fundraising activities in the past (I think - wasn't it a bike ride), so I don't doubt he is active in supporting good causes. But then so are many people in various ways.
-
'O wad some Pow'r the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!
It wad frae mony a blunder free us,
An' foolish notion:
What airs in dress an' gait wad lea'e us,
An' ev'n devotion!"
-
I disagree with Steve on many things but at base he seems like a decent person.
Ditto
-
In what way am I wrong PVJ?
So just to put it into context - from their accounts, in 2019 their income was £237million. Their expenditure on their social charitable activities (i.e. excluding evangelising) was just £99million. So if you put £1 into a Salvation Army collection thinking that money is going to help the homeless or disadvantaged etc, etc, in fact just 40p is spent on those activities. The rest is going on evangelising, admin and building up yet more reserves. The level of reserves increased by £16m between the 2017/18 and 2018/19 accounting years and increased by £35million between 2016/17 and 2017/18.
91p in every pound goes on their social work, as my link makes clear. Their income is not just from donations, presumably. They also sell stuff, and probably have investments as well.
-
91p in every pound goes on their social work, as my link makes clear. Their income is not just from donations, presumably. They also sell stuff, and probably have investments as well.
Their accounts tell a different story. In 2018/19 their income was £237million and their spend on social work was just £99million.
And at 31st March 2019 they were sat on reserves of £640million.
-
Thanks to NS, PD, and BHSR for the kind words!
LR - I will do my best to completely ignore you from now on, unless you say something exceptionally stupid or outrageous even by your egregious standards. I hope that will ease your mind.
-
91p in every pound goes on their social work, as my link makes clear.
I have no idea how they derive that figure - must be some serious sleight of hand because it simply isn't consistent with their published accounts.
Their income is not just from donations, presumably. They also sell stuff, and probably have investments as well.
Of course, hence I talk about total income - but unless you use creative accounting to imply that donations are spent on one thing, but other income is spent on another thing then you can reasonably assume that the proportionate spend on various expenditure elements is the same across each income stream.
The only way in which this wouldn't be the case would be is certain income streams were 'restricted' rather than 'unrestricted', but virtually all the public donations are indicated as 'unrestricted' and where restricted this appears to align to spending in the local area rather than spending on a particular activity. So as far as I can see the Salvation are free to spend donations how they wish, and just 40% of their expenditure is on social programmes.
-
I have no idea how they derive that figure - must be some serious sleight of hand because it simply isn't consistent with their published accounts.
Of course, hence I talk about total income - but unless you use creative accounting to imply that donations are spent on one thing, but other income is spent on another thing then you can reasonably assume that the proportionate spend on various expenditure elements is the same across each income stream.
The only way in which this wouldn't be the case would be is certain income streams were 'restricted' rather than 'unrestricted', but virtually all the public donations are indicated as 'unrestricted' and where restricted this appears to align to spending in the local area rather than spending on a particular activity. So as far as I can see the Salvation are free to spend donations how they wish, and just 40% of their expenditure is on social programmes.
Let's say, to keep things simple, that they get £100 per annum from donations, and another £100 from investments, sales, etc., and they spen £91 on social work, the other £109 going on admin, evangelism, etc. They can then say, quite truthfully, that 91p in every pound donated goes on social work. No deceit, no need to split the income from donations from the other income, or restrict any portion of it. You are trying hard to accuse them of dishonesty, but it won't wash, I'm afraid. The SA is signed up to the fundraising watchdog, who would be on to them if they were doing anything dodgy.
-
Let's say, to keep things simple, that they get £100 per annum from donations, and another £100 from investments, sales, etc., and they spen £91 on social work, the other £109 going on admin, evangelism, etc. They can then say, quite truthfully, that 91p in every pound donated goes on social work. No deceit, no need to split the income from donations from the other income, or restrict any portion of it. You are trying hard to accuse them of dishonesty, but it won't wash, I'm afraid. The SA is signed up to the fundraising watchdog, who would be on to them if they were doing anything dodgy.
Not really because unless the funds are restricted in some way, this is smoke and mirrors creative accounting as they would need to justify why the monies raised through other mechanisms (e.g. legacies, which are effectively just donations from dead people) are all spent on admin and evangelising. I doubt those legacy donors would be happy about that.
Regarding the fundraising watchdog (who exactly is that pray tell), well the oversight is via the charities commission and it is the account they provide to that organisation that tell the story I'm telling - 2018/19 - Income £237M, expenditure on social programmes £99M, reserves (i.e. funds unspent at 31st March 2019) - £640M.
Those are the figures.
And my comparison with Shelter used exactly the same source - annual accounts on the charity commission site and the same approach - proportion of income spent on social activities (in their case homelessness). For every £1 of income Shelter spends 70p on social programmes, for every £1 of income the Salvation Army spends 40p on social programmes. Those are the facts.
-
bluehillside Retd. Today at 12:46:33 PM
Quote from NS
I disagree with Steve on many things but at base he seems like a decent person.
Ditto
____
Ditto from me.
-
The SA is signed up to the fundraising watchdog, who would be on to them if they were doing anything dodgy.
Just checked this out - it is the Fundraising Regulator. They only started publishing the names of organisations it is investigating last September and they produce quarterly reports. So there have been only two reports so far - Sept and Dec.
The Salvation Army has been found to be in breach of the Code of Fundraising Practice in both of the reports. To given context - so far only 15 complaints have been upheld (i.e. the charity breached the code) - two of those, 13% of all breaches, are from Salvation Army. Remember that there are 185,000 registered charities so for one to be responsible for 13% of the upheld complaints is astonishing.
Now there is no suggestion that either of those upheld complaints related to creative accounting in relation to the proportion of money going to social programmes, but it does demonstrate that the charity plays fast and loose with the rules.
-
Both complaints were about them failing to update their records quickly enough, causing people who had asked not to receive mailings to continue to receive them. Big deal. The regulator said:
We were encouraged to see how proactive the charity was in acting on the learning from this complaint in order to ensure its future compliance with the code.
As for the percentage of their donation income used for their social work, I repeat: their income comes from donations and from other sources. 91% of the donated income goes on their social work. The other income goes on other things. What's deceitful, or hard to understand, about that?
-
Both complaints were about them failing to update their records quickly enough, causing people who had asked not to receive mailings to continue to receive them. Big deal. The regulator said:
It shows they don't comply with the regulations. And to be found to have breached the regulations twice in as many reporting periods when there were a total of only 15 such upheld breaches suggests that they are likely to be the worst offender of the 185,000 charities.
As for the percentage of their donation income used for their social work, I repeat: their income comes from donations and from other sources. 91% of the donated income goes on their social work. The other income goes on other things. What's deceitful, or hard to understand, about that?
Of course it is deceitful, because you cannot make that kind of link between income and expenditure unless the income is restricted, which isn't the case.
For most people the key statistic is the proportion of income spent on social programmes - most people would assume the 91% meant that but in fact it is just 40%.
And of course there is no detail to back up that 91% stat - come back to me when you've found the 'working out'. I on the other hand have demonstrated, using the Salvation Army's own published accounts that from an income of £237million in 2018/19 they spent just £99million on social programme type activities.
-
And of course there is no detail to back up that 91% stat - come back to me when you've found the 'working out'.
Don't bother - I've worked it out, and yes it is completely dishonest. Effectively it is just the ration of expenditure on total 'charitable' activities as a proportion of that plus the cost of fundraising.
But that includes the money spent on evangelising which isn't in my mind and I suspect in most people's minds when they talk about '91 pence in your donated £1 goes to the delivery of caring services and the support of those services.' Nope - £50million of that expenditure is evangelising activities.
Also it doesn't cover the monies unspent which have been used to increase their reserves by tens of millions per year to reach an eye watering £640million. With well over half a billion £ in the bank it is rather hard to justify one of their other Q&A answers, 'We need to raise funds to keep us going.' They could fund their social programme activities for 6 and a half years just from their reserves without raising a penny.
-
The proportion of donations which go to their social work is 91%. That is perfectly clear to anyone except those who, like the prof., are determined to find fault. As for the size of their reserves compared to shelter - the SA is a much bigger organisation than Shelter. It has to maintain citadels (or churches - I think they've dropped the name "citadel") in most towns and cities of any size, and pay a full-time officer in each (though they are not paid much). The size of their reserves compared with their total income is probably proportionate to Shelter's. I can't be arsed to check that out, but I bet you do, and find some other ridiculous excuse to criticise them. You may not be a Christian, but you don't have to go out of your way to find fault, and could acknowledge goodness wherever it springs from. Leave the mean-spirited carping to another poster I don't need to name.
-
The proportion of donations which go to their social work is 91%. That is perfectly clear to anyone except those who, like the prof., are determined to find fault. As for the size of their reserves compared to shelter - the SA is a much bigger organisation than Shelter. It has to maintain citadels (or churches - I think they've dropped the name "citadel") in most towns and cities of any size, and pay a full-time officer in each (though they are not paid much). The size of their reserves compared with their total income is probably proportionate to Shelter's. I can't be arsed to check that out, but I bet you do, and find some other ridiculous excuse to criticise them. You may not be a Christian, but you don't have to go out of your way to find fault, and could acknowledge goodness wherever it springs from. Leave the mean-spirited carping to another poster I don't need to name.
The SA bought a redundant CofS building in Ayr a few years' back.
I can absolutely guarantee that the purchase costs, and the running costs, were not, nor ever could be, taken from monies raised for work with homeless or other vulnerable groups.
I was on the Presbytery committee which oversaw the transfer of the building; we were concerned that givings from the general public would be used to run the building, rather than congregational giving. However, the SA opened their books, and OSCR (the regulatory body which oversees charities in Scotland( confirmed by letter that the two branches of fundraising were entirely separate.
Indeed, wheras we in the Kirk, hve only to submit one set of accounts, OSCR insists that each SA congregation submits two - one for the general running of their congregation, and one showing charitable giving for purposes outwith the running of the congregation.
-
The SA bought a redundant CofS building in Ayr a few years' back.
I can absolutely guarantee that the purchase costs, and the running costs, were not, nor ever could be, taken from monies raised for work with homeless or other vulnerable groups.
I was on the Presbytery committee which oversaw the transfer of the building; we were concerned that givings from the general public would be used to run the building, rather than congregational giving. However, the SA opened their books, and OSCR (the regulatory body which oversees charities in Scotland( confirmed by letter that the two branches of fundraising were entirely separate.
Indeed, wheras we in the Kirk, hve only to submit one set of accounts, OSCR insists that each SA congregation submits two - one for the general running of their congregation, and one showing charitable giving for purposes outwith the running of the congregation.
Thanks for that backup! (Love the Scottish "outwith"!)
-
Thanks for that backup! (Love the Scottish "outwith"!)
Love it?
It drioves me to distraction!
The combination of eighteenth century Scottkish legalism and bits of Latin left over from pre-Reformation legalism which still peppers 'Practice and Procedure' in Presbytery makes my hair ache!
-
The SA bought a redundant CofS building in Ayr a few years' back.
I can absolutely guarantee that the purchase costs, and the running costs, were not, nor ever could be, taken from monies raised for work with homeless or other vulnerable groups.
Obviously I cannot comment on a single project, but that absolutely isn't the case for the main Salvation Army work.
And just to hammer home the point in 2018/19 the Salvation Army raised just £19million from its congregation (defined in the accounts as Donations - members), yet it spent £49million on running the church defined in the accounts as Church and Evangelism programmes). Even I can work out the the amount the congregation is giving is £30million shy of supporting the costs of running the church.
I was on the Presbytery committee which oversaw the transfer of the building; we were concerned that givings from the general public would be used to run the building, rather than congregational giving. However, the SA opened their books, and OSCR (the regulatory body which oversees charities in Scotland( confirmed by letter that the two branches of fundraising were entirely separate.
Indeed, wheras we in the Kirk, hve only to submit one set of accounts, OSCR insists that each SA congregation submits two - one for the general running of their congregation, and one showing charitable giving for purposes outwith the running of the congregation.
The Salvation Army is a cross border charity and is based in London - therefore it is regulated, regardless of whether activity is in England or Scotland, by the Charities Commission, not the OSCR. In fact if you got to the OSCR and search for Salvation Army, you will find them, but click on it and it links to the Charities Commission. So the OSCR do not and will not request separate accounts for the simple reason that the Salvation Army does not submit accounts to them.
-
You are obviously determined to think the worst possible of the SA, and your blatant manipulation of the figures proves it. Reason doesn't work with bigots, so I'll say no more, except that you have provoked me into making a one-off donation to the SA next pay-day, out of sheer bloody-mindedness.
-
You are obviously determined to think the worst possible of the SA, and your blatant manipulation of the figures proves it. Reason doesn't work with bigots, so I'll say no more, except that you have provoked me into making a one-off donation to the SA next pay-day, out of sheer bloody-mindedness.
I'm not manipulating anything - I am simply using the Salvation Army's own formal accounts.
And on your donation - well if you're happy that just 40p of every £1 of that donation is going into charitable work to support vulnerable people, fine. Personally I'm not and I wont donate to them because there are plenty of other charities (e.g. Shelter) where genuinely 90% of the funds go to help vulnerable people. I'd encourage anyone thinking of donating to the Salvation Army to think again if they want their donation to achieve the maximum benefit.
-
Prof; Like the Kirk nationally, the SA will submit accounts. Each congregation will also submit accounts, as in the Kirk locally, to OSCR. As a matter of tedium, we just had our ASM (Kirk version of AGM) last week, where our accounts were approved by the congregation before sending copies to Presbyter for presbyters to fall asleep over, and OSCR. The Ayr citadel of the SA do the same - except that they have to submit two sets, since the charitable giving for purposes outside congregational expenses has to be scrutinised separately. I myself saw both set of accounts - well three years of them, anyway, as did the rst of the sub-committee I was volunteered to serve in. Both sets came with the typical OSCR approval note we ourselves get each year.
-
Obviously not - but he played a major part.
To be honest, I think it was more the international sanctions and the ostracism. A friend of mine who is South African is convinced it was mainly the fact that the Springboks were denied international rugby.