[loup-vaillant]

> Are they giving to charities ran by their church (or an affiliation)?

No idea, and I'm not sure it even matters. Such charities tend to help anyone afflicted by the plight they chose to alleviate.

> Are they giving to their church and it's called charity?

Since it was coming from a LessWrong contributor in Skepticon, I'd say this is improbable. Most likely, he scanned the study for such errors.

[ThrustVectoring]

Charitable activity provides a lot of political cover for really shitty religiously motivated behavior. For example, giving money to the Salvation Army is probably a net-negative effect on the world.

[alphapapa]

> For example, giving money to the Salvation Army is probably a net-negative effect on the world.

What?

[ThrustVectoring]

It funds anti-homosexual political activity, attaches onerous religious proselytization to their poverty outreach, subsidizes in-your-face guilt-tripping bell ringers, crowds out other anti-poverty efforts, and reduces the charitable effort that donators bring to more worthwhile causes.

It's not literally the worst charity - that probably belongs to Susan G. Komen - but it is pretty terrible.