Habitat for Humanity may be nominally Christian, and their leadership might be, but the volunteers are represented by all faiths and lack there of.
Myth: You have to be Christian to become a Habitat homeowner.
Fact: Habitat homeowners are chosen without regard to race, religion or ethnic group, in keeping with U.S. law and with Habitat’s abiding belief that God’s love extends to everyone. Habitat also welcomes volunteers from all faiths, or no faith, who actively embrace Habitat’s goal of eliminating poverty housing from the world.
That is, it's not Christians building those homes- Christians just happened to have started the organization, and it was propelled into the spotlight by former president Jimmy Carter.
You'll find with many of the largest religious-identified charities, the religion takes a back seat to the secular and interfaith charity aspects. If they pushed it hard, they would push away volunteers and support from those who disagree with them.
Secular charities usually do better for just that reason- because everybody, no matter religion or denomination, can come together to do good. Overwhelmingly, religious charities are smaller and sectarian, so have a more limited scope and potential.
Finding more large secular charities than religious ones would be expected. Particularly finding more than 20% secular charities (which is proportional to the population).
What you'd have to look at instead is the rates of contributions by way of donation and volunteering among the religious and non-religious, not the nominal affiliation or lack there of, of the charities. You'll also have to adjust for the percentage of those donations by the religious spent on church administrative and evangelism practices.
Hemant Mehta wrote a blog on one of the survey results:
Hemant Mehta wrote:Are Religious People Really More Generous Than Atheists? A New Study Puts That Myth to Rest
Last year, a study released by The Chronicle of Philanthropy suggested that the most religious states were also the most charitable:
Donors in Southern states, for instance, give roughly 5.2 percent of their discretionary income to charity — both to religious and to secular groups — compared with donors in the Northeast, who give 4.0 percent.
Before you jump to conclusions that religion and generosity were somehow connected, keep in mind that those numbers included giving “both to religious and to secular groups”… In other words, church counted as charity.
But when you excluded donations given to churches and religious groups, the map changed dramatically, giving an edge to the least religious states in the country:
Of course, that didn’t stop the media from using headlines like this:
Religious States Donate More To Charity Than Secular States
Earlier this week, a new report released by the National Study of American Religious Giving put a rest to that myth that religious people are more charitable than the non-religious. It turns out nearly 75% of charitable giving by all Americans… benefits places of worship and faith-based charities. A lot of the money isn’t helping the poor and less fortunate. It’s going to the church.
Jay Michaelson of Religious Dispatches explains:
… The study found that 65% of religiously-affiliated people donate to congregations or charitable organizations. (More on that statistic later.) 80% of Americans are religiously affiliated. And 65% of 80% is just about… 55% of the total. In other words, the religious people who are giving say they’re giving because of religion. And they’re overwhelmingly giving to religion as well.
…
Probably the most notable statistics, though, are those which compare religious and non-religious philanthropy. Religion is supposed to make us better people, which includes, I assume, being more generous. So, is it the case that religious people give more generously than the non-religious?
Well, yes and no. Remember that statistic, that 65% of religious people donate to charity? The non-religious figure is 56%. But according to the study, the entire 9% difference is attributed to religious giving to congregations and religious organizations. So, yes, religion causes people to give more — to religion itself.
A lot of religious giving, then, is self-serving, in the guise of helping others. Often, the donations benefit their faith.
Donations to religious congregations — primarily for religious activity or spiritual development — represent about two fifths of household giving nationally…
…
“Much of what has previously been thought of one-dimensionally as giving to ‘secular’ purposes actually goes to religiously identified organizations,” said report co-author Dr. Mark Ottoni-Wilhelm, professor of economics and philanthropic studies at the Lilly Family School of Philanthropy. He added that innovative research methods allowed for a clearer picture of the way religious ties shape the giving landscape.
It’s not like there aren’t secular alternatives to religious charities. There’s no shortage of secular groups that feed the hungry and house the poor and fight for the under-privileged. But religious people aren’t giving to those groups as much as they’re giving to groups that do good while also proselytizing. (Which means some of that money being donated is going toward spreading the faith, not actually helping other people.)
In any case, we now have even more proof that religion doesn’t make you any more likely to be generous or willing to help other people. What religious people have that people like us don’t are excellent vessels for giving. But if we can offer secular ways to give (insert plug for Foundation Beyond Belief), there’s no reason our numbers can’t match theirs — and be more cost-effective at the same time.
WARNING: beware of visiting this site without an ad blocker (unacceptable level of auto-playing video ads may crash your browser):
patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/11/28/are-religious-people-really-more-generous-than-atheists-a-new-study-puts-that-myth-to-rest/
Now, you can't really discount ALL contribution to churches, etc. as not really charitable, as Hemant suggests there, but a vast majority of that money IS administrative, pastor salary, or funding proselytism. We'd need a breakdown of the real spending of the typical church to figure out what percentage actually ends up going to a good cause.