'Tis the Season

[SueNC]

I borrowed this from a friend's site [he borrowed it from somewhere else]. i thought it was worth passing along. interesting read [stuff i knew already, though].

Charity begins at (a Red State) home:





'Tis the season to give. Our mailboxes are filling with appeals from fine organizations and worthy causes, competing for our holiday spirit and tax-deductible dollars. Millions of Americans will answer the call, donating in December as much as a third of the quarter-trillion dollars we give away each year. Per capita, Americans give more in this single month than most nations give all year long.

Before congratulating ourselves too heartily, however, note that charity is not a virtue shared by all. While 85 million American households give away money each year to nonprofit organizations, another 30 million do not. And this distinction goes beyond "formal" giving. Recent survey data reveal that people who fail to donate money to charities are only a third as likely as donors to give money to friends and strangers. Non-donors are half as likely as donors to give blood. They even are less honest: Non-donors are much less likely than donors to return change mistakenly given to them by a cashier. When it comes to charity, we are two nations.

...

Nowhere is the divide in values more on display than in religion, the frontline in our so-called "culture war." And the relationship between religion and charity is nothing short of extraordinary. The Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey indicates that Americans who weekly attend a house of worship are 25 percentage points more likely to give than people who go to church rarely or never. These religious folks also give nearly four times more dollars per year than secularists, on average, and volunteer more than twice as frequently.

It is not the case that these enormous differences are due simply to religious people giving to their churches. Religious people are more charitable with all sorts of nonreligious causes as well. They are 10 percentage points likelier than secularists to give money to explicitly nonreligious charities like the United Way, and 25 points more likely to volunteer for secular groups such as the PTA. Churchgoers were far likelier in 2001 to give to 9/11-related causes. On average, people of faith give more than 50% more money each year to non-church social welfare organizations than secularists do.

A second core value affecting charity shows up in the belief citizens have about the government's role in their lives. Some Americans (about a third) believe the government should do more to reduce income differences between the rich and poor -- largely through higher taxation and social spending. Others (about 40%) do not favor greater forced income redistribution. This is a major difference in worldview -- not just about taxation, but also about the perceived duty of individuals to take personal responsibility for themselves and others. This difference affects people's likelihood of voluntarily giving to charity. The General Social Survey shows that people who oppose government income redistribution donate four times as much money each year as do redistribution supporters. (emphasis ours)

Note that the charity gap is not due to anything the government is actually doing; rather, to what people think the government should be doing -- in other words, nothing more than a political opinion. This fact throws a wrench into the traditional stereotype that conservatives in America are hardhearted while liberals are the compassionate ones. In the words of one common 2004 campaign yard sign in my town, "Bush Must Go! Human need, not corporate greed." However, the General Social Survey indicates that people who opine that government is "spending too little money on welfare" -- not a viewpoint typically associated with George W. Bush's supposedly venal supporters -- are less likely to give food or money to a homeless person than people who oppose greater welfare spending. Regardless of which view on welfare is superior, ask yourself this: Who will personally do more for a poor person today?

...

As you probably noticed, the values predicting private charity in America tend to smile on the political right. Conservatives are twice as likely as liberals to attend a house of worship regularly; conservatives are one third as likely as liberals to say the government should "do more" to reduce income inequality; conservatives also have about 40% more children than liberals. Furthermore, there is a fringe on today's political left that goes beyond simple neglect of charity, and openly condemns it, claiming it lets governments off the hook from having to pay for services. So while there may be nothing inherently charitable about political conservatism, today's conservatives do outperform liberals on most measures of private giving.

...


But an even greater moral test is personal, not political. Left or right, secular or religious, single or married, the cultural forces of giving and non-giving are not destiny for any of us. Private charity is a choice: a choice to express our values in a private and singularly humane way. This is worth remembering as we hold requests for charitable support in our hands this month -- and make the right choice.

Mr. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Public Affairs, is the author of "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism," published this week by Basic Books.

 

[Hell_Awaits]

Could you paraphrase that for me

 

[Jurched]

Could you paraphrase that for me

Sure!

"Liberals are cocksucking double-crossing, back-stabbing, treacherous, lying indian-givers."

Jurched

 

[schenkadere]

Could you paraphrase that for me

That is a lot to read!

 

[SueNC]

Could you paraphrase that for me

basically, it's saying that those liberal lefties, who howl over the 'evil' church going conservative types and who feel that fleecing the citizens with heavy taxes, in order to pay for welfare and 'special interests,' are less likely to dip into their personal funds to back up all their bleeding heart sentiment.

church goes and right wingers, in general, have proven far more generous, on a personal level, when it comes to charitable giving.

leftist are all for charity and giving when it's somebody else's money.

 

[Hell_Awaits]

Do you think Jesus was a liberal?

 

[MyHatred]

Bah Bah Bah Bah

You sheep can believing that OPINION articles are fact.

Lame...

Pathetic....

 

[SoundMaster]

The article may be true.

Or it may be utter bullshit.

What's the source, please?


Anyway, if true, this 'proves' that righties give money to church/religious causes. Nothing new there.

 

[SoundMaster]

church goes and right wingers, in general, have proven far more generous, on a personal level, when it comes to charitable giving.

leftist are all for charity and giving when it's somebody else's money.

Care to back this claim with some evidence?

 

[Jurched]

Do you think Jesus was a liberal?

Cmon, that's a loaded question!

For the year c. 700 of the Roman calendar, he was liberal enough to crucify.

For the year c. 2000 of the "common era" (ha ha ha, that's a good one!), he was conservative enough to have little statues of him sunk in vases of urine.

Jurched

 

[SueNC]

The article may be true.

Or it may be utter bullshit.

What's the source, please?


Anyway, if true, this 'proves' that righties give money to church/religious causes. Nothing new there.

i realize you're only barely literate and a lot of this got past you, but i'll try to break it down to where even somebody like you can grasp it.

the 'source' was the writer of the article [a professor with Syracuse University, i believe it says. i actually put that part in bold, just for people like you. apparently, it didnt work]. had you read it, you'd realize that.
he got his info by doing research for the book this particular piece is taken from.

he also says in the piece i posted above that it WASNT just giving to churches and church organizations, but to all sorts of charitable causes outside of church, even giving blood!

It is not the case that these enormous differences are due simply to religious people giving to their churches. Religious people are more charitable with all sorts of nonreligious causes as well. They are 10 percentage points likelier than secularists to give money to explicitly nonreligious charities like the United Way, and 25 points more likely to volunteer for secular groups such as the PTA. Churchgoers were far likelier in 2001 to give to 9/11-related causes. On average, people of faith give more than 50% more money each year to non-church social welfare organizations than secularists do.

of course, you would have had to have had the ability to read and comprehend to get all that, so you're excused.

 

[ZeeZooZum]

The amount of money Bill Gates has given to charity beats about any stupid church.

Oh wait, I mean liberals are stupid.

 

[SueNC]

The amount of money Bill Gates has given to charity beats about any stupid church.

Oh wait, I mean liberals are stupid.

i was just talking with somebody the other day about Bill Gates' giving, and he's cool for doing that, BUT, Bill Gates is just one person!
i'm sure the professor wasnt researching all the big money-bag libbies out there. instead, i think he was talking about the average, everyday, whiney, self-righteous leftist.

as for your second comment, glad to see you finally jumping on board with the program.

 

[SoundMaster]

i realize you're only barely literate and a lot of this got past you, but i'll try to break it down to where even somebody like you can grasp it.

the 'source' was the writer of the article [a professor with Syracuse University, i believe it says. i actually put that part in bold, just for people like you. apparently, it didnt work]. had you read it, you'd realize that.
he got his info by doing research for the book this particular piece is taken from.

he also says in the piece i posted above that it WASNT just giving to churches and church organizations, but to all sorts of charitable causes outside of church, even giving blood!



of course, you would have had to have had the ability to read and comprehend to get all that, so you're excused.

Thanks for clarifying. Now I know where this opinion came from.

 

[ZeeZooZum]

i was just talking with somebody the other day about Bill Gates' giving, and he's cool for doing that, BUT, Bill Gates is just one person!
i'm sure the professor wasnt researching all the big money-bag libbies out there. instead, i think he was talking about the average, everyday, whiney, self-righteous leftist.

as for your second comment, glad to see you finally jumping on board with the program.

Uh, I meant to your pointless generalization

 

[MyHatred]

i was just talking with somebody the other day about Bill Gates' giving, and he's cool for doing that, BUT, Bill Gates is just one person!
i'm sure the professor wasnt researching all the big money-bag libbies out there. instead, i think he was talking about the average, everyday, whiney, self-righteous leftist.

as for your second comment, glad to see you finally jumping on board with the program.

So how does one research "money-bag libbies"? If you cannot grasp the fact that this is nothing more than an opinion article, then you are a lot more ignorant than I thought.

 

[Jurched]

So how does one research "money-bag libbies"? If you cannot grasp the fact that this is nothing more than an opinion article, then you are a lot more ignorant than I thought.

Dooonn't you be dumpin on my favourite Southerner, now! Ya hear?

The article is as opinionated as any involving statistics. My wife is a statistician, and its incredible what can be done with numbers. It's pointless to debate whether something is fact or opinion these days.

The real gist of Sue's article is that faggy libs are empty-hearted swine with big mouths.

Evidence, you ask?

Every time Barbra Streisand glides onto a stage in front of a crowd who paid $250 a ticket and $120 a t-shirt just to hear the gold-dripping bitch lecture everyone on how the government needs to spend more money on this social program or that welfare institution.

In other words, hippy libs are happy to spend YOUR money and MY money on THEIR favourite charity: the overwhelming, brutal government bureaucracy filled with fat, useless government workers collecting FAT paychecks and bulging pensions, all while telling everyone "I like to help people. My job is all about helping people."

It's kinda simple. Just like a lib's brain.

So don't be dumpin on Sue, MyHatred. Tisn't the Season to be naughty to one of our more enlightened contributors!

Jurched

 

[MyHatred]

Fuck that. The second someone doesn't agree with her opinions, she will call them dumb, stupid, pathetic, blah, blah or whatever. She loves to call other people names but can't seem to handle it when someone does the same to her. I am tired of her bullshit articles (with little facts to back them up) and her bullshit opinions. So Tis the Season for me not to give a fuck about her and her dumb fucking articles .

Sorry, but I am just fed up with her bullshit. She seems to forget that we are ALL Americans. Her pathetic world seems to be more focused on what the "evil" Democrats are doing than on real issues.

 

[SoundMaster]

Fuck that. The second someone doesn't agree with her opinions, she will call them dumb, stupid, pathetic, blah, blah or whatever. She loves to call other people names but can't seem to handle it when someone does the same to her. I am tired of her bullshit articles (with little facts to back them up) and her bullshit opinions. So Tis the Season for me not to give a fuck about her and her dumb fucking articles .

Sorry, but I am just fed up with her bullshit. She seems to forget that we are ALL Americans. Her pathetic world seems to be more focused on what the "evil" Democrats are doing than on real issues.

That's why know-nothings such as Rush & Coulter have such huge audiences. They cater to those who don't want to hear facts/numbers/reality. They tell the rabble exactly what the rabble wants to hear.

Hitler was good in doing that, too.

 

[Arg_Hamster]

That's why know-nothings such as Rush & Coulter have such huge audiences. They cater to those who don't want to hear facts/numbers/reality. They tell the rabble exactly what the rabble wants to hear.

Hitler was good in doing that, too.

So is our new primeminister in Sweden, fucking chromedome Reinfeldt. Ups, I just called him something... well that´s okay cus he calls me a burden to society.