‘Religious Nuts’ Out Give Liberal Secularists
Are you tired of your secular, leftist friends claiming a monopoly on compassion? Ready to see if irreligious Democrats who mocks the “religious right” put their money where their mouths are?
It wasn’t too long ago that Al Gore called supporters of Oliver North, a largely Christian group, “the extreme rightwing, the extra-chromosome right wing”. Howard Dean, the Democratic Committee Chairman, said, “You know, the Republicans are not very friendly to different kinds of people. They’re a pretty monolithic party. Pretty much, they all behave the same, and they all look the same. … It’s pretty much a white Christian party.”
Interesting. Here are what some studies referenced by the Heritage Foundation’s familyfacts.org have found about the generosity of churchgoers:
Religious individuals are 57% more likely than non-church goers to help a homeless person at least once a month.
Committed religious give to the poor more than nominally religious (in name only).
Of the 25 states that had the highest number of houses of worship per capita, 19 had levels of households’ charitable donations that were above the national average. Conversely, 19 of the 25 states with the lowest number of houses of worship per capita had household levels of charitable giving that were below the national average.
The average donation given to non-religious charities by weekly churchgoers is 14% higher than donations given to non-religious charities by…ahem… non-religious people.
People who say religious beliefs are important were 19% more likely to volunteer (51% vs. 32%) than those who say religious beliefs don’t matter as long as one is a good person.
Regular churchgoers are 11% more likely to donate to causes related to the 9/11 terrorist attacks than their secular counterparts.
It’s also worth pointing out that in 2005, the Catalogue for Philanthropy, the National Generosity Index for 2005 reported the most generous states for charitable giving in the US were “Red States” (Republican states that voted for Bush) and Bible Belt states. The most miserly states were “Blues States” (Democratic states which voted for Kerry). Mississippi, which is also one of the lowest income states, tops the list as the #1 most generous whereas New Hampshire comes in dead last at #50. Massachusetts comes in at #49, New Jersey at #48, Rhode Island, Wisconsin and Connecticut rounding out the bottom 5.
But what about compassion?
Howard Dean said on Meet the Press last year that:
I’m a committed Christian. And the fact of whether I go to church or not, people can say whether I should or shouldn’t, I worship in my own way. It came out in the campaign that I pray every night. That’s my business. That’s not the business of the Pharisees who are going to preach to me about what I do and then do something else.
You know, I care about values a lot. And one of the reasons that I care a lot is because of my upbringing. And it was a–I grew up in a Christian household. Now, because I grew up–I’m a congregationalist. People say, “Well, those are liberals.” Well, since when do Christians get tagged liberal or conservative? You either believe in the teachings of Jesus or you don’t. I do.
Actually, it;s not just about believing, it’s about believing and doing. While liberals love hoarding the compassion of Christ without stepping foot into a Church, or occasionally visiting a liberal Church that flies in the face of basic Christian teaching of morality while maintaining a platform hostile to religion, the truth is a Christian must both believe and do the teachings of Christ. St. James called it “faith and works”, the evidence of faith.
The proof is in the giving. The litmus test of compassion is giving to others who cannot repay. Apparently religious faithful are rising to the task; are secularists? Apparently not.
Cross-posted @ Amy’s Blog: Bottom Line Up Front
December 18th, 2006 at 9:56 pm
A new low for you and your ilk: politicizing philanthropy. Didja notice that even Colin Powell says were losing in Iraq? But what does he know anyway, eh?
December 18th, 2006 at 10:16 pm
Billy, have you heard that the commanding generals WHO ARE IN IRAQ differ with the good Colin Powell? Those in the military and especially on the ground say we’re not losing. We’re just not. Be as negative as you please, but if you get your way and we leave Iraq plan on sending your son or grandson in 15-20 years to finish this.
As for philanthropy, I think I made valid points, which you seemed unable to dispute.
December 18th, 2006 at 10:17 pm
Mass if full of liberals and came in 49th.
NH came in 50th because we are a very prosperous state and have LESS POOR PEOPLE.
We have the second lowest tax burden per person in the country, no sales or income tax!
Viva the Pledge!
December 19th, 2006 at 7:07 am
You men like some atheists claiming that Christians are greedy?
December 19th, 2006 at 8:31 am
The book Who Really Cares also shows that conservatives donate 30% more than liberals, even when adjusted for income!
December 19th, 2006 at 9:28 am
Some of you are obviously missing the point here. All philanthropy is good, regardless of the amount and, in my opinion, trying to make cheap political points out of it is low and mean-spirited. I live in a town loaded to the gills with liberals and never have I heard one person deride Christians as ‘cheap’ or ’stingy’ when it comes to philanthropy. In fact, many of them are the self-same Christians. I think some of you make up these little ideas just to make yourselves feel better. In summary, if you want to take issue with people’s political/economic ideas, then go ahead. In my view, demonizing people simply because they are ‘liberal’ or ‘less philanthropic’ isn’t an attitude I would want Jesus to see me practicing, nor is it something I would want to teach my children. Even if these same ‘liberals’ do the same thing to you, you’re supposed to be better than that, aren’t you? Maybe not, it seems.
December 19th, 2006 at 10:29 am
All philantrophy is good… unless it’s a conservative or someone like Bill Gates who gives billions to charity but is still “evil” big business.
I wonder how much Ted Kennedy, who is constantly complaining that there are hungry Americans, gives to US food shelters or hunger charities? He could single handedly solve whatever problem he thinks exists, whether it does or not. Instead, he’d rather finger point at a Republican administration and blame them for his lack of charity.
Charity is how these problems are solved, not through the government. The fact is that liberals claim to be all compassionate while Christians are hateful and judgmental, but the proof is that liberals who have more give less and Christians who have less give more.
I think that’s a valid point.
December 19th, 2006 at 12:16 pm
This meme is one of the topics floating around the right blogistan these past few weeks (what with the war on Christmas getting old, there has to be something to vilify the left). Amy, there are a couple of facts that you should be aware of before making any judgements.
First, the analytical methods used in this study are full of holes. For instance, “in the model liberals give significantly more than moderates, if a traditional .05 significance level is used, while conservatives do not differ significantly from moderates. Yet in Table 6 [SCCBS data (pp. 192-193)] , the significance level used as a threshold for identification with an asterisk is .01, not .05, as he uses in some of the other tables. In one table (p. 197), Brooks even reports significance at the .10 level, as well as at the .05 and .01 levels. ”
Follow that? Ever heard the quote “there are liars, damn liars, and statisticians”? This is a prime example. Moving the standard for what constitutes “significant” significantly alters the results through skewed data and conclusions.
Second, self-identified religious people tend to donate to religious charities. However, religious charities tend to spend more per person due to the fact that the religious charities foster combining, for example, rehabilitation with spiritual counseling, which sets a higher bar for success, and costs more. The reasons are self evident; dispensing of charity is a wonderful opportunity for evangelizing. More on point, non-religious people prefer a more economical and efficient approach. Help the drug addict get off drugs, and leave his spiritual healing to himself, his church and his God.
Finally, Amy, if you really start digging into this matter, you’ll find that there are many, many factors that contribute to what and how much people donate to charity. Vilifying liberals in this matter and manner serves only to drive a wedge between our peoples, and that is uniquely un-Christian.
December 19th, 2006 at 1:02 pm
Tara,
Well-reasonsed and well-said!
December 19th, 2006 at 2:11 pm
Tara,
The left doesn’t need vilification. One need only look as far as the leftists’ lifestyles; it incriminates itself.
Sure, the analytical methods are full holes; a convenience frequented by leftists when it comes to charity but not, say, foreign affairs that affect human lives like the endeavor in Iraq. Instead of looking for holes in the negative “analysis” there, liberals joyfully (and erroneously) seize the faulty “analysis” without even checking the sources. It is only when their appearance of benevolence is questioned that there’s a full scale look into the “analysis”. Isn’t that convenient!
What’s unchristian, dear, is people like Ted Kennedy hiring a team of accountants and lawyers to dodge the tax laws, something the poor he claims to represent can never aspire to. Unchristian is promoting a woman’s sexual preference over human life. Unchristian is promoting immoral lifestyles that lead to people’s enslavement and death. Unchristian is lobbying against moral issues that Jesus promoted, like chastity, marriage, large families and children, leading by personal example and truth telling. Before trying to claim Jesus would have been an advocate for homosexuals, remember he was a good Jew and good Judaism has always traditionally condemned the practice of homosexuality. One need look no further than the Old Testament to bear this out.
Now let’s delve into personal experience. How many of you know good average everyday liberals who give a lot of money to the poor, orphaned and widowed? Christians promote a minimum expectation of at least 10% of all Christian gross income be given to charity. All the Christians I know give a lot of money in comparison with their incomes to foreign orphanages or charities, or like my family, to supporting several poor children in poor countries. That on top of hundreds of dollars a month to local churches, churches in Baghdad, Iraq, to help our fellow Christians (from there the $$ goes to support orphans and suffering of all faiths… the Christian churches in Baghdad we support assist Muslim families, not just Christian families).
How many of you leftists give until it hurts, or give to those who cannot repay? My point is that Christians are more benevolent than secularists. No one can disprove this and there is ample evidence to the contrary.
Try to poke holes in the evidence that points to a lack of military service from men in New England states. I have the stats around here somewhere that show the military doesn’t recruit well in California or Blue States…. secularism and a lack of patriotism go hand in hand. You can try to dismantle that, too, but why not just embrace who you are instead of being ashamed of it? Do you give to charity, and not just $1 at Christmas time to a bell ringer outside the mall? We should all question our own charity, what we can give to others in need and what sort of personal sacrifice we are willing to make for the sake of others. Unfortunately, liberals don’t well in this category. Don’t hate me for pointing it out, CHANGE IT.
December 19th, 2006 at 2:17 pm
PS… Tara, you said that self-identified religious people tend to donate to religious charities… yet the studies show that religious people give more to SECULAR NON-RELIGIOUS CHARITIES THAN NON-RELIGIOUS DO. See the original article above.
December 19th, 2006 at 2:48 pm
In fairness Amy you have totally dodged the points that Tara mentioned. She made very specific points about the data in the report which you chose to totally dodge and instead engage in a rant at Ted Kennedy. I would not totally surprised if your premiss was true. But by totally ignoring a valid point and ranting. You are just not winning the argument.
December 19th, 2006 at 2:53 pm
Amy, ask yourself “What’s the point of this “study”?
Is it to influence political policy?
No
Is it to influence economic policy?
No
Is it to influence educational policy?
No
Is it to influence federal state spending?
No
What’s the point of this ’study’ (regardless of whether the results are true or not) if it isn’t to vilify one group of people and to make another group ‘feel good’ about themselves? Like I said, argue against liberal positions all you want in a reasoned and cogent manner, but this smacks to me of taking the low road. It really makes you no better than the liberals you deride. Does WWJD now mean “Where Would Jesus Donate?”
December 19th, 2006 at 2:57 pm
Simon, I would have to see the context before evaluating the analysis. A link or something would suffice. She can use what appears to be an insignificant quote, which still states Conservatives out give, and I can point to what I’ve already listed in the orginial article.
December 20th, 2006 at 12:23 pm
[...] Original post by Amy Proctor and software by Elliott Back [...]
December 20th, 2006 at 4:14 pm
Ya I could also point out that compared to GDP America gives the 22nd most of the 22 richest nations in the world. Including private donations America jumps to 21st.
Also Tara did mention specific examples