Experts have spoken: conservatives give more

[dpakman91]

ah yeah, arthur brooks has been on my show

[AVengeance]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

I wonder to what extent he counted "donations" by religious conservatives to their own churches. I don't really consider it generous to donate money every week to support your local mega church to pay for the services and infrastructure you yourself are enjoying and to pay the salary of the guy whom you regularly listen to.

But isn't that was liberals gladly do? Only their "preachers" are called "politicians" and their "sermons" are broadcast on NPR and called "radio addresses".

Originally Posted by infinite loop

I'm sure the vast majority of those donations are made to their churches, which I always find ironic because churches aren't held nearly as accountable for their spending as the government is.

Uh, wrong. If a church doesn't pay its lease, or its electric bill, guess what happens? That's right, they're GONE. What happens if the government can't fund an electric bill for one of its buildings? That's right, money is redistributed, and then there's a new tax, a raised tax, or borrowed money (which will have to be paid back eventually from- you guessed it- taxes!). Any private organization has to be accountable to its debts. The ONLY EXCEPTION is the government, because when they run out of money, they can FORCE everyone to give more.

[AVengeance]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

And that's pretty much the problem with church donating in a nutshell. It is exclusive. YOU got help when YOU needed it because YOU are a member of the church. Christians taking care of Chrisitans. If you're NOT religious or Christian? If you REFUSE to be hearded into a church in order to receive charity? Where is the help to those people? Oh, that's right, soup kitchens at Thanksgiving. Way to give!

WTF?!? I have been to numerous churches that just had people come in off the street, and would walk out with clothes, coats, canned-goods, and other items, no "membership" required. Fresh with a wife and baby, I was one of those people. Two of my best friends over the years have been pastors, and neither of them had any requirement of any kind for giving, and, in fact, went into the community LOOKING for people to give stuff to that had been donated.

[7960]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

I wonder to what extent he counted "donations" by religious conservatives to their own churches. I don't really consider it generous to donate money every week to support your local mega church to pay for the services and infrastructure you yourself are enjoying and to pay the salary of the guy whom you regularly listen to.

Mega church? My wife's church as about 1,000 people, about 200 of them are really active in the church. My parent's church has about 700 people, about 50-100 of them are really active in the church. *Most* churches aren't "mega churches" but it was neat how you tried to lump them all together.

Now also consider that something like 40% of the money that's donated goes right back out to support people from the church and you've made what you might call a "mis-statement." The money, services, food/goods provided by the church keep those people out of govt programs. From what I've seen people in the church help other people in the church. They're not double-dipping, they're getting all they need from fellow churchgoers. It's sort of ignorant to think that all churches are massive money machines.

Most are barely scraping by, and they're using what little they have left to help people in the community. I don't go to church but I do give to my wife's church because they do good work. They put the money toward a school, they help people less fortunate, and they keep people from having to rely on govt services. If that's not a good thing, please explain what a good thing is.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by AVengeance

WTF?!? I have been to numerous churches that just had people come in off the street, and would walk out with clothes, coats, canned-goods, and other items, no "membership" required. Fresh with a wife and baby, I was one of those people. Two of my best friends over the years have been pastors, and neither of them had any requirement of any kind for giving, and, in fact, went into the community LOOKING for people to give stuff to that had been donated.

Thats correct. Its a few, and I mean very few bad churches that give the rest a bad name

[Thomas Crown]

This is disgusting. People have managed to turn information about charity in to church bashing. HOW?

Are some of you people THAT sad that anything that has a religious element to it must be insulted?

[7960]

Originally Posted by AVengeance

WTF?!? I have been to numerous churches that just had people come in off the street, and would walk out with clothes, coats, canned-goods, and other items, no "membership" required. ........ neither of them had any requirement of any kind for giving, and, in fact, went into the community LOOKING for people to give stuff to that had been donated.

I'm not a religious person but this is one of the two reasons why I support a church. The one I support really doesn't care who you are, if you need help, you'll get help.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

And that's pretty much the problem with church donating in a nutshell. It is exclusive. YOU got help when YOU needed it because YOU are a member of the church. Christians taking care of Chrisitans. If you're NOT religious or Christian? If you REFUSE to be hearded into a church in order to receive charity? Where is the help to those people? Oh, that's right, soup kitchens at Thanksgiving. Way to give!

Of course.......... if you can't help everybody then don't bother helping anybody .

[Thomas Crown]

I often think about the things I could do with my money if I had a lot of it. I once, out of shear boredome, made up a rather complex spread sheet about what I would do with my money if I won the 398mm dollar megamillions a year or so ago.

It broke down the cash value, less the taxes, I made initial expenditures and then investments and how they would mature over a period of ten years turning the 178 million dollar cash prize in to nearly a billion over a period of 10 years (assuming I didn't overspend and lived on a rather healthy 500k a year budget).

At the end, it summarized all of my expenditures for housing, cars, incidentals, vacations, discretionary, etc including charity. I had set aside more than 200k a year for scholarships to a local private elementary and high schools alone. Additionally I put aside money to build multi-family homes on private property for temporary housing for families trying to get on their feet. It provided for lodging, food, training, clothing and transport. The budget also provided full ride scholarships for children that excelled in the elementary and highschool scholarship programs. There were "blind" hand outs to organizations like soup kitches and shelters for battered wives, and organizations that support research for cancer and heart disease. Another included aid for African schools (something as simple as a 8,000 dollar water well to keep kids from getting sick and a 600 dollar bathroom, as demonstrated by UNICEF).

All of this was done theoretically, but it wouldn't have impacted my quality of life negatively and barely affected the bottom line. I was able to do all that (on paper) and still turn 178 million dollars in to 898mm in 10 years. If I had made it 11 years, it would have been over 1 billion. Woot.

I need to get rich.

[Thomas Crown]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

And that's pretty much the problem with church donating in a nutshell. It is exclusive. YOU got help when YOU needed it because YOU are a member of the church. Christians taking care of Chrisitans. If you're NOT religious or Christian? If you REFUSE to be hearded into a church in order to receive charity? Where is the help to those people? Oh, that's right, soup kitchens at Thanksgiving. Way to give!

This is not the case in general. Most church organizations give regardless of whether or not you are a member. The church I 'belong' to gives to both. Families in need, members or not, can shop at the churches food warehouse at no cost to them. Food, clothes, etc. Members might get a little more personal attention because they are known, but they do not discriminate against those who are or aren't members.

This is true in most cases (not all, but most).

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by 7960

Mega church? My wife's church as about 1,000 people, about 200 of them are really active in the church. My parent's church has about 700 people, about 50-100 of them are really active in the church. *Most* churches aren't "mega churches" but it was neat how you tried to lump them all together.

Now also consider that something like 40% of the money that's donated goes right back out to support people from the church and you've made what you might call a "mis-statement." The money, services, food/goods provided by the church keep those people out of govt programs. From what I've seen people in the church help other people in the church. They're not double-dipping, they're getting all they need from fellow churchgoers. It's sort of ignorant to think that all churches are massive money machines.

Most are barely scraping by, and they're using what little they have left to help people in the community. I don't go to church but I do give to my wife's church because they do good work. They put the money toward a school, they help people less fortunate, and they keep people from having to rely on govt services. If that's not a good thing, please explain what a good thing is.

Bottom line: People consume church like they consume any other product. All of these TV preachers you see publish self help books and whatnot that people buy like any other product. Even small time preachers who don't publish books still sell their product on stage every Sunday to a small audience. Churches and their preachers are a product that people consume. It should not be considered generous to pay for a product that you yourself are consuming.

So...to the extent that church donations pay for the very product the donor consumes, that shouldn't have been counted in this study. However, to the extent church donations go to help the needy outside the church "product," it should be counted.

No one here has posted any concrete numbers about how much of the average church donation goes to the church itself and to the community. If it turns out that, on average 70% of all donations support the church "product" itself, then the generosity of those donors should be reduced by 70%.

[7960]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

So...to the extent that church donations pay for the very product the donor consumes, that shouldn't have been counted in this study. However, to the extent church donations go to help the needy outside the church "product," it should be counted.

The "product" you're talking about is available to anyone. If only churchgoers use it that's other people's fault, not the church's.

Also, church donations are just as much a donation as any other donation in that they keep church members from needing and/or using govt services. If my mother-in-law's neighbor gets her food donated from a church then it's that much food that she didn't get from being on welfare.

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by 7960

The "product" you're talking about is available to anyone. If only churchgoers use it that's other people's fault, not the church's.

But surely you agree that there's a difference in generosity between handing money an organization whose services you enjoy yourself vs. handing money to organizations which will never give you anything in return.

After all, isn't the very definition of a donation vs. a purchase that you're not supposed to get anything in return from a donation? Isn't the difference between an altruist vs. a businessman not the amount of money that each spends, but in how little he himself gets in return? If that's the case, then giving to your own church could only loosely be called a "donation," because you are receiving things in return, which takes it into "purchase" territory.

I'm not saying that makes donations to your church completely ungenerous. I'm simply saying you're comparing apples to oranges by comparing pure donations to, for example, the Red Cross vs. "donations" to pay the guy's salary whom you enjoy listening to every week.

This all reminds me of buying your "wife" a Playstation for Christmas. Yes, it was a gift to her...never mind you end up using it yourself a lot. That's not your fault, it's hers.

[TheScatman]

Private charity is always better than public charity...for example habitat humanity can:

- Check for fraud better
- Make demands in return for funds, such as gettting another job, quitting drugs, no criminal record (or require an explanation or show repentence)
- Be more flexible on a case by case basis
- No overhead losses due to being sued (since the government is always being hounded with claims of discirmination or over complex regulations)

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

There's been numerous studies that show this but perhaps its just because liberals would rather have the government do it where we'd rather have charities do it?

In short their gererosity is best expressed with other peoples money!

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by TheScatman

Private charity is always better than public charity...for example habitat humanity can:

- Check for fraud better
- Make demands in return for funds, such as gettting another job, quitting drugs, no criminal record (or require an explanation or show repentence)
- Be more flexible on a case by case basis
- No overhead losses due to being sued (since the government is always being hounded with claims of discirmination or over complex regulations)

Another point would be that small and local is better. It makes all of your points more possible and helps to sort out and give priority to real needs.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by infinite loop

I'm sure the vast majority of those donations are made to their churches, which I always find ironic because churches aren't held nearly as accountable for their spending as the government is.

[kinggovernor]

from his website:







People who are religious give more across the board to all causes than their non-religious counterparts

There is a huge “charity gap” that follows religion: On average, religious people are far more generous than secularists with their time and money. This is not just because of giving to churches—religious people are more generous than secularists towards explicitly non-religious charities as well. They are also more generous in informal ways, such as giving money to family members, and behaving honestly.


Giving supports economic growth and actually creates prosperity

Many studies show that giving and volunteering improve physical health and happiness, and lead to better citizenship. In other words, we need to give for our own good. Cultural and political influences—and the many government policies—that discourage private charitable behavior have negative effects that are far more widespread than people usually realize.


The working poor in America give more to charity than the middle class

The American working poor are, relative to their income, some of the most generous people in America today. The nonworking poor, however—those on public assistance instead of earning low wages—give at lower levels than any other group. In other words, poverty does not discourage charity in America, but welfare does.


Upper level income people often give less than the working poor

Among Americans with above-average incomes who do not give charitably, a majority say that they ‘don’t have enough money.’ Meanwhile, the working poor in America give a larger percentage of their incomes to charity than any other income group, including the middle class and rich.


Plus:

People who give money charitably are 43 percent more likely to say they are “very happy” than nongivers and 25 percent more likely than nongivers to say their health is excellent or very good.
A religious person is 57% more likely than a secularist to help a homeless person.
Conservative households in America donate 30% more money to charity each year than liberal households.
If liberals gave blood like conservatives do, the blood supply in the U.S. would jump by about 45%.

[7960]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo