Religious Conservatives More Generous than Secular Liberals

[Tuathalful]

So right-wingers have more money because their parasites who need to be right-wing to justify their parasitism to themselves, & thanks to corrupt capitalist government can escape their duty to pay tax through the symptom of an systemically unjust society know as charity. The Right only care about their tribe & themselves; if u hav any experience with religious charies you know they are mostly disgusting, condescending capitalist parasites trickling on ppl they hate to buy a way into heaven.

[nym685]

This is a myth. Conservatives think all poor people are lazy. That's why they don't want welfare, and other govt programs designed to help those who need it the most.

[govrom12]

@nym685 No, poor people don't have the incentive or drive to better their lives because the Democratic Party needs people buying into the class warfare act to stay afloat as a viable political institution. I don't care what wealthy people make and neither should anyone else. A ton of lefties make a boatload of money but I don't care because it's their money not mine. Take responsibility for your own lives and stop worrying what incomes the wealthy make. We'll be a better country for it.

[dex1391]

Does this REALLY shock anyone?

[winterstellar]

Isn't that fuckwit dead yet? Shit!!

[Keysteeze]

The 10% tite to the church is not considered in these statistics. So yes, religious people do actually give more, for whatever reason(s). Secularist would dispute the faith/philanthropy correlation, just like the religious will dispute the non-belief/education correlation. People love to accept things that are flattering to them, and try to dismiss them when they are not.

[doubleKlutch]

@Keysteeze "Secularist would dispute the faith/philanthropy correlation, just like the religious will dispute the non-belief/education correlation. People love to accept things that are flattering to them, and try to dismiss them when they are not."

I accept both those correlations, which is why I am not religious. I prefer to be pro-education and take a hit on charity compared to the other way 'round.

Choosing charity over education is like stabbing somebody and then giving them a band-aid.

[khybor]

Religious people have pressure put on them weekly to be charitable (something "secularists" may not). Religious people donate to organizations they are a part of; so... is that charity? If your church needs nicer pews, is it REALLY charity if you donate money for those nicer pews? I would like to see the breakdown of monies donated to exclusively secular organizations (I mean...just nonchurch ones).

But what's the point of trying to discuss a subject like this on fuckin' useless facebook?

[periechontology]

@khybor

No that's not what their talking about, it's actual charity. John Stossel did a more comprehensive report on the subject on 20/20 when he was still working for ABC,

[ryan84160]

What matters is not how much money is given to charity, but to what charities the money is donated . If these religious people are claiming that donating to religious foundations, pro life groups, tithing, or missionary work as charity, I hardly think that counts as this accomplishes fuck all for society.

[ellwyn]

liberals are so outspokenly generous with OHER people's money, but their actions prove them to be more greedy and selfish than those they accuse. even when a liberal goes from poor to rich, they are still envious of anyone who has a dollar more than they do, so they still hoard thier riches and dodge taxes. liberals are about jealousy, not personal sacrifice. when they do give, their donations are either political, or come at very little sacrifice to their lifestyle. liberals as despicable.

[retrocareermelted]

fuck this

[Kiahsobyk]

This is great testimony to the fact that just because someone tacks the word "progressive" on to their belief system, doesn't mean they embrace progress. Likewise someone who claims that they care more for the poor have done only that--claimed caring, rather than proving it.

Ask why it is that making an accusation of greed against someone carries the assumption that the accuser is somehow generous.

[CountArtha]

The rich carry 71% of the tax burden. They'd be giving away more otherwise.

[oloompop]

@CountArtha and also hold 97.5% of the wealth in the nation. Oh man, how generous of them to be giving away some money here and there.

[TheHigherVoltage]

Bill Gates is an Atheist...He now runs his own charity that he funded with his own money...to help bring the 3rd world out of the dark ages.

Go Atheists.

[jjKickerK]

@TheHigherVoltage It always amazes me when atheists try to use Bill Gates as an example of atheist virtue. I mean the man's net worth has surpassed $100 BILLION at times! I'm sorry but it would be absolutely shocking if he didn't give a large part of it away. Not to mention the fact that he only began to give considerably once he had been extensively and publicly criticized for his LACK of giving. Simply amazing that you would grasp at this straw.

[wildboy789789]

the republicans sure do give more... as long as your a white christian or trying to convert

i love how bush gave us this war hahaha

[Mikevdog]

God bless you Pat!

[equalityboy81]

Maybe conservatives are more generous. I dunno. I figure Republicans are NOT generous though. Republicans and conservatives are not always one and the same. There are plain conservatives but most Republicans are conservative.

[ryanarius]

Did anyone find it suspicious that the guy mentions the lower class gives the largest percent, but then he went on to argue that those who give prosper financially?

[grantsinmypants2]

Of course religious conservatives are more altruistic than liberals are. Where do you think liberals got the idea?

Liberals arent "secular"; they just take the old religious (unreasonable, unprovable) assertion that man is his brother's keeper and try to give it scientific justification. It can't be done, but they try, and that takes time away from being actually altruistic.

It's exactly the same inconsistency that conservatives have when they try to be both capitalists and altruists

[FurryAR]

Political donations are more of a gamble, like handing out money to a beggar instead of a poorhouse.

[corsair0001]

I'm sad to say that is the case. one day there will be an honest politition...dare to dream.

[ToroQ3000]

So I guess my blood is just nothing? I'm still a heartless liberal? I need "cold hard cash" to give? Or do I need a check so I can write it off from my taxes? What a bunch of crap false statistics. All the 700 club does is manipulate data and findings to suit their needs in the Almighty effort to win the on-going pissing match with just-as-ignorant liberals who have nothing to do (as well) but talk about how they're more right than the right. Why can't we be good for goodness sake?

[badmuffy]

If this is true then why is it the conservative states which are the poorest ones? In my job I do business with alot of conservatives and I have found them to be extremely greedy. (Most won't even tip a waitress.)

[corsair0001]

finaly found what I was looking for: Where households contribute 1998 youth development:4.9% arts etc:3.3% education:6.4% enviroment:3.2% health:6.5% Human services:9% other6.4% religious:60.1% Religious includes religion related & spiritual development groups(churches,synagogues etc) excludes parochial schools and faith based human services. religion is non-profit, it is hardly a charity. Some like catholism go so far as to hurt aid being given.

[corsair0001]

I have found that through all the data there are three sources. the irs, those who have put donations on tax forms, the organisations which receive the funds and through surveys which take people at there word. Though the first is reliable it omits many donations from those who do not add it to thier tax forms. The second is excellent but doesn't tell about the donator and the last is poor at best as I'm sure many would state larger numbers than the true ones.

[corsair0001]

another interesting find:

The 3 Most Generous States (by total amount given)

California ($18.4 Billion)

New York ($12.4 Billion)

Texas ($8.3 Billion) I understand the top two to be blue states yes?

[FurryAR]

Yes, but that's not a useful fact for those peculiar states and the find isn't actually that interesting considering that New York and California are both very populous and politically diverse compared to other American states. In order for this to be helpful data the numbers would need to be elucidated by proportional contributions per region, such as the amount coming from the bluer Californian North versus that of the redder South.

[corsair0001]

I agree that that data is just corelation. The real tell I think is that donating to a church is concidered a donation/philanthropy. It should not be. If you took that out I imagine the figures would be very different in every state. When you take away 60.1% of the USA's 'giving' it looks very different.

[FurryAR]

Church donations should be considered charitable donations and philanthropic acts. They are motivated by comparable sentiments and altruistic goals expressed in the support of secular institutions. Your personal opinion on the worthiness of the cause does not factor into the matter.

[corsair0001]

'secular institutions' ? it's the exact opposite, not important though. They are non-profit, officialy anyway. Though as I see them they are along the same line as a club (because of that I have no issue with there tax exemption as many seem to these days). Though technicaly it is giving and therefore philanthropy, when people talk of charity and philanthropy they tend to be refering to organisations which exist to help people in bad situations. I therefore wouldn't include clubs nor churches.

[corsair0001]

To elaborate, Paying a club to which you belong isn't really charity, though its is a donation. (I'm excluding organisations like Red Cross when I say club)

I could maybe say altruistic giving to avoid confusion. Giving to a sports club or church you belong to isn't so altruistic as a donation to likes of the red cross or others.

[sofiamarmeladova]

My church makes charitable donations to worldwide organizations, as well as conducts its own volunteer activities using the money given to it by it's members. So giving money to your church does help needy people. Plus many people feel more comfortable making donations through their church rather than to the organizations themselves, as they trust their church to handle money with integrity, which is not always the case with individual charity groups.

[corsair0001]

Basicaly what I'm getting at is that donating to churches along with other clubs, though they are non profit isn't really altruistic. If said club then donates money to an altruistic organisation that should be counted.

Point is that all the money should be used for helping if it is to be concidered altruistic. let me know when the vatican starts selling unnecessarily extravagant items and using it for charity. oh and stop helping to encourage HIV spread in the 3rd world

[corsair0001]

To be fair, your church could be the exception. Tell me, are the churches accounts transparent?

[sofiamarmeladova]

The church I belong to is Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. At bi-annual meetings (called General Conference) church leaders give an account of how tithes were spent. Tithing money (1/10 of your income) is used for the Lord's purposes which (building & temple maintenance/construction, missionary work, educate members, and carry on the Lord's work).

[sofiamarmeladova]

The Church holds one Sunday fast each month, usually the 1st Sun. Proper observance of fast Sun includes going without food and drink for two consecutive meals, attending fast and testimony meeting, and giving a fast offering to help care for those in need. A fast offering should be at least the value of the two meals not eaten. If possible, we should be generous and give much more than this amount.

Also, my church is entirely volunteer run, so there is no 'overhead' to pay clergy, etc.

[FurryAR]

Paying extra to a club out of respect to the useful, constructive activities of that club is as charitable a donation as slipping bills into a collection jar. Nobody is counting membership dues. Yes, it is as altruistic. The motivation of placing a higher premium on another pereson's material benefit is the sole arbiter of that question. It's an asinine analogy to put a temple and a sports club in the same league. Don't you think Red Cross donors might expect a return on the investment some day?

[corsair0001]

''Nobody is counting membership dues.'' this is what I am sort of classing the church donations as.I agree that it is donations.I should elaborate.I was listening to an american who was petting himself on the back for how much america gives.When I found out that most of what america gives is to thier churches that put a bit of a dampner on it. red cross donations that I've made I don't expect a return,I do expect the money to reach the people it should.Most church money just reaches the church

[FurryAR]

And counting wrongly. Membership dues are mandatory, hence not considering them. I meant that people would expect the Red Cross et al. to help them some day if they need it. Furthermore, you want society and in a roundabout way, you, to benefit from that donation You kid nobody but yourself by excluding those expectations. You act as if chruches are repositories with ornate superstitious icons scattered around. Anyhow, it's still "reaching the people it should." The church isn't a fez lodge.

[corsair0001]

I don't think I understand what you are saying here. Yes I expect donated money to help those who need it. One day if I needed it I would expect help from those places. What I'm saying is the church only helps themselves and there congregations for the most part. There are exceptions obviously but the majority of money stays in the church to help them with thier own thing be it spreading Gods word or anything else.

[corsair0001]

so even though clubs, churches etc may make people happy or do good, they are not purly altruistic I put them together only because they are in effect both clubs. Red cross for instance wouldn't be described as a club. They don't demand specified fees which is why I agree that it's a donation. Most of the churches money doesn't go to ateristic purposes though. This is the difference that I'm trying to show. Also secular charities with public accounts are more trustworthy.

[FurryAR]

Pure altruism is as real as a unicorn's horn. Why? Because you say so? Wrong. You've shown no differences except those derived of individual bias.

Given the press-worthy scandals and ineptitude that surrounds many secular charities with public accounts, I disagree. Anyhow, it's the public account and not whether or not they're religious (unless the perspective is chauvenistically anti-theist).

[corsair0001]

pure altruism doesn't exist I agree, if only because it feels 'good' to give so you imediatly get a payoff. To be clear I would also say other clubs shouldn't be concidered alturistic either even though they accept donations.

[corsair0001]

to nip this in the but, the churches accept donations and often use it for negative purposes. sometimes they do good but they don't even register on the same chart as those like the red cross etc.

[FurryAR]

What negative purposes do churches appy their funds toward? Printing salvation pamphlets? The madness.

Red Cross. 9/11 donations. You can call anything you agree with a positive purpose and whatever you disdain negative. The important thing is that they sacrifice time and channel funds into a principled effort with the belief of doing good. Abortionist and anti-abortionist causes are both charities, even if a relative moral judgement of either varies widely by person.

[corsair0001]

A question I must ask on this. Does donating to your church count as charitable giving? because I think that would tip the balance a lot as I understand it to be in the billions

[FurryAR]

Did this statistical crunching demonstrate any disparity between secular conservatives and religious liberals in generosity?