Your original comment said:
> When run well, those do far more good than even government programs.
Can you prove this? Because Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and food stamps do more good for 100+ million Americans than your local charities and churches, nor do faith based organizations have anywhere near the resources available to them government does.
Do more good because their have much bigger budgets? - Maybe. More good per every dollar spent? I doubt it.
On the other hand, thrift stores also have an important role for getting used stuff like clothing to people who need it, and charities do some of that.
Then there are various services that charities do, which is a whole different thing and not easily replaced. But some of their funding comes from the government.
Also, when discriminated against by faith based services, you have no recourse. This is unacceptable, and can be monitored and governed more effectively when government provides services.
Btw, you used "professional" word as if it's something good in itself. That's far from truth. Professional bureaucrats, and state officials quite often are directly interested in growing inefficiency because it can be exploited to expand budgets, and staff.
Also, preparedness/trainings are not exclusive feature of gov't system. I know what I'm saying here because I volunteered in private charity (not in US, so American mileage may vary), and I dare to say people who worked there were more competent then relevant state officials, at least target group always preferred them.
Present an argue against what? “Is not!” doesn’t give a lot to work with. “Doubt it” does a fine job of presenting one’s biases, but it is most certainly not an invitation to stimulating discussion, quite the opposite.
Starting point: A produces more good then B.
Me: A can produce more good than B, but not necessary more per dollar spent, and I think it's not the case.
--Here was a place to to try to prove it's more per dollar spent--
You: You are biased!
Me: You are invited to present arguments.
You: You are biased!
Paying a pastor a median wage (if he’s full time—many have a job besides pastoring), having a building to meet in, and helping needy people in the church adds up quickly. For small and/or rural congregations, that might be most or all of what they can manage.
Do you have any data or personal experience (not just one example) to back that up?
The truth is, the vast majority of churches and local faith-based charities just quietly do their thing and usually aren’t big enough to garner any recognition or attention at scale.
Actually, it’s the big operations with money flowing to a central hub that are usually the most suspect - when those at the top have less accountability and more temptation to not put all that money where it ought to go. The American Red Cross comes to mind. The only exception is large charities with a “100% of donations go to help people” policy (i.e. employees and leaders have to raise their own support to work there).