Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
As I recall, that study included tithes. Kinda skews the results.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Christians: Is the Republican party God's party?
- Thread starter -Peacemaker-
- Start date
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
I don't know why. A large portion of church giving goes to mission work, which is basically charitable.
The gap in charitable giving between liberals and conservatives isn't small. It's significant.
And it's not like most conservatives TITHE a huge percentage of their charitable giving.
The gap in charitable giving between liberals and conservatives isn't small. It's significant.
And it's not like most conservatives TITHE a huge percentage of their charitable giving.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
A larger portion goes to upkeep of the church.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Do you have a source for that information?
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
That's how churches work, Kathryn. Don't play dumb.
work in progress
Well-Known Member
Not necessarily...at least not from my point of view. I didn't consider the numbskulls who went to Haiti after the earthquake for the purpose of handing out bibles and tape players with audio tapes of their sermons to be of any useful purpose for the multitudes who had no shelter, food or medical services.
Your source is identified as the president of the major conservative think tank - American Enterprize Institute. In other words, he runs an organization that is dedicated to the interests of the corporate elite above all else. His organization funds a small army of paid propagandists who fan out through and saturate the media with books, editorials and radio and TV interviews, all advocating lower taxes on the rich; removing restrictions on outsourcing manufacturing; removing consumer protection and environmental protection agencies and legislation; funds an array of propaganda groups to promote a false narrative of "controversy" regarding global warming research, and on and on....so how much trust should I put in Arthur C. Brooks to give me an unbiased assessment on the subject of charitable giving?
And, as already mentioned previously, he includes the mandatory charitable giving that many religious conservatives are bound by -- giving ten percent of their income to a church....for what it's worth, the non-denominational and evangelical churches that I've walked in to, who collect tithes from members, also pass the plate around for "love offerings," so I'm not surprised so many conservative fundamentalists complain about paying taxes! They're already getting hit with a flat tax that is demanded by their church. So, the lower income members of the church would have justified reason for feeling overtaxed. But, to call this "charity" is stretching the point, because churches have so many expenses they can spend on that secular, non-church affiliated charities do not have access to.
There are other studies you could have cited which indicate that Scandinavian and other Western European nations give less to charity than Americans, but that would also prove little or nothing about the relative sense of generosity, since Swedes of all political stripes have over the years, accepted a large social welfare system that covers most of the things we have to fund through charities; so the average high taxed Swede, who funds cradle to grave social programs, and also a much larger percentage of foreign aid than the U.S., could legitimately feel that he was demonstrating his generosity by paying his taxes and supporting the system.
And that's another point that makes me grit my teeth when conservatives and libertarians bring up charity -- a quick glance at the Republican debates shows that they would make everything optional and subject to the whims of charitable giving, including education, health care, caring for seniors etc.. The only thing they want a government for is to invade other countries and blow things up! How generous is that?
It has to be ten percent or it's not a tithe.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Don't resort to personal insults when you can't back up your claim.
Of course churches need tithes to operate. But many churches support huge mission and charity organizations. Also, most churches not only allow, but also encourage specific donations to specific charities, not just money thrown in the general fund via the offering plate.
I find that liberals who so quickly grasp onto the fact that the study included tithing - as a means to dismiss the unsavory fact that conservatives donate a LOT more to charity than liberals (30 percent more) - don't want to look too closely at this factoid.
My point is that it's pretty impossible to determine just what percentage of a person's "tithe" goes to charity. For starters, the study didn't ask people to specifically define what they were calling a tithe. I would tell you, for instance, that I tithe - but if I am pushed for specific details, you would quickly find that I consider a large portion of my personal giving to be a tithe, whether I give it directly to my church's general fund, or specify a particular mission, or write a check completely independent of my church, directly to the Salvation Army or Red Cross.
That's because I consider most of my charitable giving to be a form of tithing - not just what I give in the offering plate at church.
Many people would define their own personal tithing the same way.
Most religious people that I know do not limit their definition of tithing to simply what they put in the offering plate on Sundays. Very few limit their giving to that venue either. And the study didn't break down the definition of tithing, so all this arguing about this factoid is basically impossible for either side to "win."
The point is that conservatives are more generous in their giving than liberals - like it or not, that's the way it goes. In fact, the study goes on to point out that measuring by the percentage of income given, conservatives are more generous than liberals even in giving to secular causes.
More interesting facts from the study:
Other findings from the data:
- Conservatives are more likely to donate blood, and more likely to volunteer
- If liberals and moderates donated blood as often as conservatives, the U.S. blood supply would increase by 45 percent
- Conservative donations tend to support religious institutions, while liberal donations shade toward the arts and education (Kristof argues that the former is more likely to help the needy, citing research showing that donations to education disporportionately favor wealthy Americans)
- Conservatives give more to non-secular charities than liberals (when proportion of income is considered)
- The middle class gives less than the working poor
Study: Conservatives More Generous Than Liberals - Bright Hall
To test what types of people give more, "20/20" went to two very different parts of the country, with contrasting populations: Sioux Falls, S.D. and San Francisco, Calif. The Salvation Army set up buckets at the busiest locations in each city -- Macy's in San Francisco and Wal-Mart in Sioux Falls. Which bucket collected more money?
Sioux Falls is rural and religious; half of the population goes to church every week. People in San Francisco make much more money, are predominantly liberal, and just 14 percent of people in San Francisco attend church every week. Liberals are said to care more about helping the poor; so did people in San Francisco give more?
It turns out that this idea that liberals give more is a myth. Of the top 25 states where people give an above average percent of their income, 24 were red states in the last presidential election.
Arthur Brooks, the author of "Who Really Cares," says that "when you look at the data, it turns out the conservatives give about 30 percent more." He adds, "And incidentally, conservative-headed families make slightly less money."
And he says the differences in giving goes beyond money, pointing out that conservatives are 18 percent more likely to donate blood. He says this difference is not about politics, but about the different way conservatives and liberals view government.
"You find that people who believe it's the government's job to make incomes more equal, are far less likely to give their money away," Brooks says. In fact, people who disagree with the statement, "The government has a basic responsibility to take care of the people who can't take care of themselves," are 27 percent more likely to give to charity.
Rich vs. Poor
The second myth is that the people with the most money are the most generous. You'd think they'd be. After all, the rich should have the most to spare and households with incomes exceeding $1 million (about 7 percent of the population) make 50 percent of all charitable donations.
But while the rich do give more in overall dollars, according to the Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey, people at the lower end of the income scale give almost 30 percent more of their income.
The Church Connection
Finally, the single biggest predictor of whether someone will be charitable is their religious participation.
Religious people are more likely to give to charity, and when they give, they give more money: four times as much. And Arthur Brooks told me that giving goes beyond their own religious organization:
"Actually, the truth is that they're giving to more than their churches," he says. "The religious Americans are more likely to give to every kind of cause and charity, including explicitly non-religious charities."
And almost all of the people who gave to our bell ringers in San Francisco and Sioux Falls said they were religious or spiritual.
Who Gives and Who Doesn't? - ABC News
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Arthur C Brooks has been a registered Democrat, Republican, and now considers himself an independent.
Many people have tried to debunk his study, with little success. The study was very well done and documented, much to the chagrin of many liberals.
And for a less bombastic, more even handed definition of the American Enterprise Institute than the hysterical one you gave, here's this objective article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Enterprise_Institute
The study didn't ask for participants' definition of what they would call "tithing." As I stated in my earlier post, I personally consider ALL my charitable giving to be tithing, whether it goes directly to my church or not. Heck, if I give money to the Sierra Club I consider it a part of my tithe.
Last edited:
JacobEzra.
Dr. Greenthumb
Since were talking of Charity, Catholic Charities is one of the best. Do liberal churches have such great programs? http://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/page.aspx?pid=1174
Charitable contributions aside, I still don't like politics and I don't believe God to have any political party. I am neither a democrat nor a republican. My husband talks about politics and talks about little else, and he is a conservative- I think my husband's nonstop talk about politics is why I don't like it. 
JacobEzra.
Dr. Greenthumb
LOL yeah. But he wouldn't be a Liberal
Alceste
Vagabond
Non-theists don't consider giving money to your church "charity".
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
And churches probably give a lot of that back to political causes.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
Kathryn, first off, I didn't insult you.
More importantly, giving to your church to pay the minister and the rent is not charity.
Yes, many churches support charities... my own included. But that doesn't make them charities in their own right. Furthermore, many don't.
More importantly, giving to your church to pay the minister and the rent is not charity.
Yes, many churches support charities... my own included. But that doesn't make them charities in their own right. Furthermore, many don't.
Alceste
Vagabond
When I worked for a shipping cimpany, I was asked by a friend's father who is a Christian minister if I could arrange a discounted rate for a 40 foot container of BIBLES to Africa. My thoughts were "not unless they're edible". What an enormous waste of resources and helpful intentions! This guy does "mission work" all over the world, but it's nothing useful. Just preaching. Nobody in their right mind would call anything he does "charity". It takes a special kind of person to make these incredibly expensive, useless, self-serving follies of the church part of a calculation of "charitable" giving.
work in progress
Well-Known Member
I'm still waiting for a right wing Christian to explain how Acts ch.4 fits in with their notions of free enterprise Christianity.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
It's a fact that conservatives made up.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
What about blood? People can't give blood to churches. Conservatives donate blood at a much higher rate than liberals do as well.