On his April 27 broadcast of "Real Time" on HBO, while challenging whether the Mormon Church is a charity, Bill Maher told viewers that donating to the arts also does not qualify as charitable giving. He brought up the Walt Disney Concert Hall in Los Angeles, and how people who give to it get tax deductions for their charitable giving. He argued that this, too, does not qualify as a charity, because "unlike food and water, access to Mozart is not a basic human necessity."
I did not initially see the show since HBO is available only to those who pay to subscribe, but I saw some of it online. It has been eating at me all week. As a person who depends on the not-for-profit sector for my livelihood and for my connection with a world larger than myself, I find it disappointing to hear this line of reason coming from Mr. Maher.
The few times I have seen his show I have often been entertained by him and in agreement with his logic. I do not wish to and am not qualified to argue the tax status of religious organizations. Needless to say, I also do not want to get into a "pissing fight with a skunk."
However, I am qualified to share what I think of the arts and of non-profit arts organizations and their place in our society. I might add that unlike commercial art endeavors -- Broadway, movies, or commercial music -- the non-profit arts for the most part are devoid of greed, excessive income, and the obsession with the bottom line. As a matter of fact, many end the fiscal year in the red. They always have but at another time they were still considered "worth it" and donors stepped up to the plate rather than lose the group.
We artists are in this world to make a difference and rarely do it solely for the money. The majority of arts organizations survive with small budgets and depend on volunteers. Many are grass roots groups in small communities. They are light years away from commercial art yet they make a big impact. Certainly, I have been fortunate enough to work for large budget organizations but if I had remained at a grass roots level my motivation would be the same.
In 2009 Michelle Obama gave a speech in Pittsburgh:
It is through our music, our literature, our art, drama and dance that we tell the story of our past and we express our hopes for the future. Our artists challenge our assumptions in ways that many cannot and do not. They expand our understandings, and push us to view our world in new and very unexpected ways...
It's through this constant exchange -- this process of taking and giving, this process of borrowing and creating -- that we learn from each other and we inspire each other. It is a form of diplomacy in which we can all take part... And... people who might not speak a single word of the same language, who might not have a single shared experience, might still be drawn together when their hearts are lifted by the notes of a song, or their souls are stirred by a vision on a canvas.That is the power of the arts -- to remind us of what we each have to offer, and what we all have in common; to help us understand our history and imagine our future; to give us hope in the moments of struggle; and to bring us together when nothing else will...
Trying to find my own words to express the same thoughts, I am not as eloquent as the First Lady, and for that matter nor am I as ironic or witty as Bill Maher.
I have always been amazed by charitable giving, especially by incredibly generous donors. We never had much money when I was growing up so we volunteered rather than making financial donations. Sometimes I have been guilty of wondering why people give to the arts when there are so many causes directly addressing the basic needs of human beings. I even struggle with this when making my own donations. But the idea of giving anything freely -- time, money, attention, goods -- is a one to be encouraged, not discouraged. Where one gives is a personal choice and most causes are worthy.
Many people find peace and solace through the arts. Music and art therapy are noble professions that help so many. There is a reason for this: the arts are a reflection of humanity and for many are a basic emotional need. If we only look at all humans as only needing food, water, and shelter, we are diminishing not only ourselves but also those we intend to aid.
The Oxford English Dictionary online defines charity as:
1. an organization set up to provide help and raise money for those in need: the charity provides practical help for homeless people [mass noun] the body of organizations viewed collectively as the object of fundraising or of donations: the proceeds of the sale will go to charity 2. [mass noun] the voluntary giving of help, typically in the form of money, to those in need: the care of the poor must not be left to private charity help or money given to those in need: an unemployed teacher living on charity 3 [mass noun] kindness and tolerance in judging others: she found it hard to look on her mother with much charity 4. archaic love of humankind, typically in a Christian context: faith, hope, and charity
I suppose if Bill Maher was using the OED definition he might glean that the arts are not a charity. Many folks do fund the arts and take a charitable deduction. Some fund the arts and choose not to take the deduction. My own parents never declared to the IRS their contributions to their church or other charities, as they felt it was the antithesis of altruism. That said, if people want to be generous to the arts and are benefited or even motivated by the tax deduction, more power to them. OED definition of altruism -- disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others:
For the record, the IRS website states:
Generally, organizations that are classified as public charities are those that
• Are churches, hospitals, qualified medical research organizations affiliated with hospitals, schools, colleges and universities,
• Have an active program of fundraising and receive contributions from many sources, including the general public, governmental agencies, corporations, private foundations or other public charities,
• Receive income from the conduct of activities in furtherance of the organization's exempt purposes, or
• Actively function in a supporting relationship to one or more existing public charities.
The Merriam Webster online dictionary defines charity as:
1: benevolent goodwill toward or love of humanity
2a: generosity and helpfulness especially toward the needy or suffering; also: aid given to those in need
b: an institution engaged in relief of the poor c : public provision for the relief of the needy
3a: a gift for public benevolent purposes, b: an institution (as a hospital) founded by such a gift
4: lenient judgment of others
The arts go back to early civilization, a word rooted in the latin: "civis" -- "citizen". Let me share the definition of civilization from the OED online:
1. the stage of human social development and organization which is considered most advanced 2. the process by which a society or place reaches an advanced stage of social development and organization. 3. the society, culture, and way of life of a particular area 4. the comfort and convenience of modern life, regarded as available only in towns and cities
Perhaps through the arts we as citizens can realize a larger picture of humanity and need in our world and our place in society. The arts can span an infinite number of topics and ideas. The arts can actually give some people a sense of purpose. Even better, the arts can soothe a troubled soul by putting things in perspective. For some, the type of self-expression that is an intrinsic part of music, art, drama, comedy and dance is a basic human need.
Unlike food and water, access to Mozart may not a basic human necessity, but why should we limit ourselves to basic human necessity when we are a socially developed and civic-minded society? I rather like the first definition of charity in the Merriam Webster: "benevolent goodwill toward or love of humanity."
The OED definition of humanity is:
1. human beings collectively; the state of being human 2. the quality of being humane; benevolence 3 (humanities) learning concerned with human culture, especially literature, history, art, music, and philosophy.
'Nuff said.
Follow Susanne Mentzer on Twitter: www.twitter.com/susannementzer
But, it wouldn't be self serving for you, so I imagine you'll just ignore that."
GZ s version is that he lost sight of
Have you even seen some of the churches, cathedrals, tabernacles, temples, and super churches? They didn't build themselves, and they didn't come free.
Everytime you see one of these gorgeous buildings, ask yourself how many starving children it could have fed.
Jesus would be extremely ashamed if he were around today to see that they have built these great and costly buildings in his name while so many people go wanting from basic necessities every single day.
Now, I don't want to come across as someone who doesn't like the arts or sees it as unnecessary. As a matter of fact, I love the arts. To the point, on Wednesday I spent the entire day listening to Mozart's Requiem while I did my work.
I frequently visit the museums with my four year old daughter to teach her how to appreciate the arts, and I often play classical music to her to expose her to the great composers in music history.
But, we have to be objective and ask ourselves, especially in these dire times, where there is a greater need. And, I think this is what Maher was trying to get at. As much as I love the arts, helping those who are hungry or in need of medical attention is much, much more important than the arts will ever be.
I don't think he was saying that people should not donate to the arts. He just pointed out that the absurdity of building a multi-million dollar building for the arts while people starve and die from lack of medical attention.
If you can say that it is ethical to do so, then you've just welcomed yourself into that elite echelon of our country's society.
No one is saying that we need to do away with the arts, not even close. Maher didn't say that and he didn't even insinuate that.
What he did say is that the wealthy would better using their monies as tax deductions by donating them to charities that help those in need, rather than donating to entities that will only benefit them and those like them.
If you die from hunger or sickness that could have been prevented, you're not around to be inspired.
Isn't part of the point of the Arts that Human life is sacred? We should not incentivize giving to the arts at the same level as feeding the hungry, treating the sick.
They are simply not the same.
Perhaps the distinction should be between the capital "A" Arts and the other "arts." For example, if an arts organization organizes free or low-cost showings to their community or outreach to schools or exposure for artists building their careers, it feels very different to me than larger arts organizations that can be argued are more like a business. They charge high ticket prices that exclude the majority of people from attending and rarely offer much in the way of public programming.
The YMCA was in a trouble a while back because gyms thought they were being offered an unfair business advantage in using their nonprofit status to unfairly offer more reasonable fees while discontinuing many of their social welfare oriented programming.
It seems to me a similar argument might be made for organizations like operas and symphonies. Are they much different the hollywood movies or television? They too serve an "arts" purpose in society but they rely on adverstising dollars for their sustainance.
Not sure of the solution but I certainly can see the problem Bill has with "Castle building."
I donate money to college scholarships, however, I do not take deductions on those contributions. I certainly could, but I am not interested in subsidizing it, because I believe that both have intrinsic reasons for being paid.
When rich people give, they act as the patrons of old, and God Bless Them! Nevertheless, I've worked in these circles, and the contributions seem to be the guilt money for the fabulous parties, expense accounts, political favors ... the rich do support the arts, but they get a ***** lot out of their efforts. A whole lot more than my metaphysical pleasure. They get tax breaks and political favors and the potentially guilt-free opportunity to spend tons of money on self-indulgent parties.
But, in defense of Maher, many times the arts can seem to be rather elite.
For example, one ticket alone to see the symphony will put me out $75. When you add my wife and daughter, that's a whopping $225 for one night. Meanwhile, a night out at the movies will set me back less than $50.
The fact is, the general populace, more often than not, can't afford to to take part of the arts because the cost is prohibitive. So, only those with the means to purchase those tickets can enjoy the events.
Maybe the best way to shed the "elite" is to make events more accessible to the general populace.
If you expect something in return from your"charity" then it isn't charity. Mormons expect "goodwill" publicity, like erasing the damage of Prop 8 and other anti-gay Mormon efforts.
So we know Mormon "charity" isn't Christian charity - therefore it is a marketing tool; a commercial.
"Here we are, the good Mormons coming to the rescue."
Mormons wait for a chance to send press releases to announce humanitarian aid, hoping to get the good will, and possible acceptable of Missionaries in the area, and Book of Mormon placement.
Charity expects nothing in return.
Marketing/Commercials are designed to get a return on the investment.
Pretty pathetic that Mormons used Mormon Helping Hands extensively in California this last month to try to erase the damage of Prop 8.
As for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints specifically, note the following: there are no career clergy among Mormons. The bishop of a local congregation, and the president over groups of congregations in a city, are all unpaid parttime workers who donate their service. That service includes giving aid to the unemployed as food and financial support such as a rent payment. The food comes from farms operated by the church with labor donated by church members. Food is also donated in disaster areas like Haiti and the Gulf Coast. Mormons have fed millions of people.
The funds to aid the poor come from Mormons fasting for 24 hours once a month and donating the food money saved to aid the poor. Mormons go to the homes of widows and do house repairs, and help people pack household goods for moves to other cities. Mormons serve as.missionaries teaching health practices and building clean wells for remote communities. They donate to an education loan fund for members in developing nations.
Could be less than 1 percent; and from the latest cook the books of how many Mormons are in the church, we know, collectively, any numbers supplied by Mormons are suspect.
I think Ms. Mentzer however justifiably missed that point.
Romney's donation to the church, lowered the treasury operating budget by the tax amount on that much of a deduction - - how is that money spent? is it spent on political campaigns like Prop8?
Is it used to pay for the lifestyle of the Mormon ruling elite? The last prophet lived rather well as a General Authority, Apostle and Prophet. Sure, they threw some bones, he sat on LDS owned company boards to hide how he really gets paid - but it isn't non-paid. Only at the lowest local level are Mormons non-paid clergy - the rest live pretty well on tax payer funded deductions.
Deductions to all religious organization should not be tax deductible. That is not violating the First Amendment, that is why churches APPLY for 501c3 status, and can be DENIED, it is not automatic.
Carter was aiming at the Mormons tax exempt status in 78 when the Mormons gave in and gave blacks the priesthood.
Churches could still get a different tax status, which doesn't allow for the donations to be tax deductible, but the church itself wouldn't have to pay tax on the donations it receives.
If Mormons are truly faithful. will they still give a ten percent tithe, if it doesn't come with a tax deduction.