Religious states most charitable again

[Avatar4321]

Most charitable states in America - Jun. 12, 2013

First, I'm always told by anti-religious people that people don't need God in order to do good and be moral. Yet looking at data always providences statistics showing a correlation with religious people providing more charity for their fellow man than the non-religious.

Now there are always religious people who are cold hearted b@$&@rds and wonder individuals who are non-religious. But the correlation here has been consistant for several years.

Second, our charitable givings are still way to low. People of faith need to step up their giving. It's a good start. But if we are truly going to limit the power of government, we need to make sure we are doing infinitely better.

 

[Osomir]

So I've worked with these types of data sets before and a couple of comments from me:

1.) These numerical sets often include within the "charity" label, religious based tithes which are tax deductible. So charity doesn't necessarily mean, in this case, gave money to the needy (what we commonly think of charity as) but also includes tithing, which to me is more of a payment for religious service consumption by congregation members. At the very least, it doesn't really fall into the category of what most Americans probably think of when they think of charity.

2.) Religious people may have a leg up even outside of including tithing amounts in the official numbers. Donating money can be hard. You never know if the charity you are donating to is a good one. I run into this problem a lot myself. Religious communities though help with that information asymmetry. The church or religious institution vets certain charities and provides information on charities that its community members can trust and easily take part in then. It lowers the risk associated with traditional charity giving so one might naturally see more charity given under those circumstances regardless of religious beliefs.

3.) Correlation doesn't equal causation.

 

[Glensather]

So I've worked with these types of data sets before and a couple of comments from me:

1.) These numerical sets often include within the "charity" label, religious based tithes which are tax deductible. So charity doesn't necessarily mean, in this case, gave money to the needy (what we commonly think of charity as) but also includes tithing, which to me is more of a payment for religious service consumption by congregation members. At the very least, it doesn't really fall into the category of what most Americans probably think of when they think of charity.

The difference there is that tithing is optional, and you can tithe any amount you wish should you choose to.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Religion can be a very powerful resource. I'm not religious myself but I know that churches and their congregations do a whole lot of good for their communities. People should let themselves see the good done by churches before deciding to blindly be against them.

 

[Agent.Tom]

Religion can be a very powerful resource. I'm not religious myself but I know that churches and their congregations do a whole lot of good for their communities. People should let themselves see the good done by churches before deciding to blindly be against them.

Yes. While this thread could be interpreted as the religious thumbing their nose at the non-religious, that doesn't change the facts. The fact is, and always has been, that those who are religious and see a purpose and meaning to this life, tend to feel obligated to contribute toward lessening the hardship of others.

Whether the bible and other religious texts are completely made up is irrelevant to this particular subject -- as most religious texts tell the reader it is a moral obligation to help others. Religious people take this seriously and whether they do it selfishly (to make themselves look good) or genuinely, it ultimately doesn't matter. What matters is a poor person being fed, clothed, and provided medical attention.

Not that is all that relevant, but it was the Christian Church that first built public hospitals. Before then, the diseased were removed and isolated from the general population. But the point is, hate the religion all you want but the Christian church has contributed quite a bit to society.

 

[Glensather]

Yes. While this thread could be interpreted as the religious thumbing their nose at the non-religious, that doesn't change the facts. The fact is, and always has been, that those who are religious and see a purpose and meaning to this life, tend to feel obligated to contribute toward lessening the hardship of others.

Whether the bible and other religious texts are completely made up is irrelevant to this particular subject -- as most religious texts tell the reader it is a moral obligation to help others. Religious people take this seriously and whether they do it selfishly (to make themselves look good) or genuinely, it ultimately doesn't matter. What matters is a poor person being fed, clothed, and provided medical attention.

Not that is all that relevant, but it was the Christian Church that first built public hospitals. Before then, the diseased were removed and isolated from the general population.

Ah, on that last bit, it was actually the Romans who built public hospitals, if I recall history at all correctly. Granted, the Christian churches did rebuild them after the fall of the Empire, so you're half right.

(Not being condescending or patronizing, so please don't take it as such.)

As for the rest of your post, I agree completely. I'm non-religious as well, and it always bugs me when people only speak of the bad things that people have done in the name of Yahweh/God/Allah/whathaveyou, but forget all the good things.

Ask one of those frothing mouth atheists next time what it is missionaries do, and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about.

 

[Agent.Tom]

Yes. While this thread could be interpreted as the religious thumbing their nose at the non-religious, that doesn't change the facts. The fact is, and always has been, that those who are religious and see a purpose and meaning to this life, tend to feel obligated to contribute toward lessening the hardship of others.

Whether the bible and other religious texts are completely made up is irrelevant to this particular subject -- as most religious texts tell the reader it is a moral obligation to help others. Religious people take this seriously and whether they do it selfishly (to make themselves look good) or genuinely, it ultimately doesn't matter. What matters is a poor person being fed, clothed, and provided medical attention.

Not that is all that relevant, but it was the Christian Church that first built public hospitals. Before then, the diseased were removed and isolated from the general population.

Ah, on that last bit, it was actually the Romans who built public hospitals, if I recall history at all correctly. Granted, the Christian churches did rebuild them after the fall of the Empire, so you're half right.

(Not being condescending or patronizing, so please don't take it as such.)

As for the rest of your post, I agree completely. I'm non-religious as well, and it always bugs me when people only speak of the bad things that people have done in the name of Yahweh/God/Allah/whathaveyou, but forget all the good things.

Ask one of those frothing mouth atheists next time what it is missionaries do, and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about.

I'll research more on the hospital thing, as I might be confusing "modern day hospitals" with yes, hospitals back in the Roman era.

I really appreciate your commentary about how some Atheists concentrate all their thoughts and efforts on the negative when it comes to believers. As if there was no positive to even consider.

 

[Glensather]

\
I'll research more on the hospital thing, as I might be confusing "modern day hospitals" with yes, hospitals back in the Roman era.

I really appreciate your commentary about how some Atheists concentrate all their thoughts and efforts on the negative when it comes to believers. As if there was no positive to even consider.

Exactly. It's really annoying. There's a reason I don't associate with many other atheists. Personally, I have great respect for all churches, and I never want to see them go. Other atheists don't seem to realize that if we squash the freedoms and glory of the church, then there's nothing stopping other people from squashing them.

(As an aside, if you really want to get your blood boiling, go here. As an atheist, this pisses me off more than anything.)

 

[Votto]

Most charitable states in America - Jun. 12, 2013

First, I'm always told by anti-religious people that people don't need God in order to do good and be moral. Yet looking at data always providences statistics showing a correlation with religious people providing more charity for their fellow man than the non-religious.

Now there are always religious people who are cold hearted b@$&@rds and wonder individuals who are non-religious. But the correlation here has been consistant for several years.

Second, our charitable givings are still way to low. People of faith need to step up their giving. It's a good start. But if we are truly going to limit the power of government, we need to make sure we are doing infinitely better.

It is a double edged sword. On the one hand, I've studied poll after poll showing that those of faith give more to the poor on average and donate more of their time on average than those who do not practice a faith. However, with the need being as great as it still is, it also shows a large degree of failure on our part.

 

[Votto]

\
I'll research more on the hospital thing, as I might be confusing "modern day hospitals" with yes, hospitals back in the Roman era.

I really appreciate your commentary about how some Atheists concentrate all their thoughts and efforts on the negative when it comes to believers. As if there was no positive to even consider.

Exactly. It's really annoying. There's a reason I don't associate with many other atheists. Personally, I have great respect for all churches, and I never want to see them go. Other atheists don't seem to realize that if we squash the freedoms and glory of the church, then there's nothing stopping other people from squashing them.

(As an aside, if you really want to get your blood boiling, go here. As an atheist, this pisses me off more than anything.)

What they need is an atheist Mother Theresa.

 

[Avatar4321]

What they need is an atheist Mother Theresa.

which they will never find because faith is necessary to do things like she did.

 

[Glensather]

which they will never find because faith is necessary to do things like she did.

I'm going to disagree with you there.
If Bill Gates can donate 90% of his net worth to finding a cure for AIDS, atheists can have a Mother Theresa. They wouldn't have the faith, of course, but the good works.

Now where to find one, on the other hand...

 

[Osomir]

The difference there is that tithing is optional, and you can tithe any amount you wish should you choose to.

I know that it is optional, but it still doesn't really represent the sort of charitable giving that one generally thinks of when say, one reads the title of this thread. I've tithed before, and as an economist it represents to me a voluntary payment for a service. Sort of like compensating street performers voluntarily when they ask for a few bucks after a show. You go to church and consume a religious service that helps to meet personal spiritual needs and even though the payment is voluntary, you are still tithing for the purpose of supporting this service. Many such communities general "suggest" that you give a certain amount or percentage of your annual income, and the OP article even gave an example of that with the Mormon church.

In short, some people like to include those numbers within their charity statistics, while I'm not really one of them because I don't think that those payments really capture the essence of what it is studies like this are looking for.