G Will Article about Austin and charity
- Thread starter texas_ex2000
- Start date
texas_ex2000
2,500+ Posts
Seems like the connection between religion and giving is stronger than the connection between conservatism and giving (secular conservatives are the most stingy, if I read that correctly).
Knowing if gifts to religious bodies are at the core would be nice. Likewise, knowing who received the monies would tell us something about the meaning of the disparity.
How many big cities are 'conservative' I wonder.
If the question is 'does private giving do better than government intervention', then the article leaves us wondering.
Knowing if gifts to religious bodies are at the core would be nice. Likewise, knowing who received the monies would tell us something about the meaning of the disparity.
How many big cities are 'conservative' I wonder.
If the question is 'does private giving do better than government intervention', then the article leaves us wondering.
I'd be very surprised if the "charitable giving" described did not include tithes. I think this article instructive. It helps fill out of full picture. People look at things differently, but very few are at their core heartless and cruel. And certainly, even those who are heartless and cruel generally don't want to appear that way in public.
texas_ex2000
2,500+ Posts
Bevo Incognito
5,000+ Posts
Mr. Deez ... God "wants" you to put your "financial trust in him?"
1) How do you know this?
2) How do you do this? In other words, how do you know that you're putting your financial trust in him?
1) How do you know this?
2) How do you do this? In other words, how do you know that you're putting your financial trust in him?
As someone who has had MUCH to do with charitable giving…I can affirm this wholeheartedly. In my own experience, the more liberal someone is politically, the less likely they are to be generous….I am not sure why this is (although some of the obvious reasons may apply) but I do know that studies bear this out. Still, as someone pointed out, the studies show that the LEAST generous are secular conservatives….which also seems to fit. Nonetheless, religious conservatives are the most generous in just about every metric one might use (donation of blood, donation of time, donations to secular charities etc etc). Arthur Brooks has written much on this topic, to the chagrin of liberals I am sure. The myth that liberals are compassionate and generous is quite false, although of course there are wonderful exceptions to this generally true rule.
Charitable giving by county (click once to enlarge)
Anyone surprised?
Every conservative should be armed with this type of information. Its time to dispel this false image of conservatives pushed by the media as being miserly, cruel, and uncaring. Plenty of data show that conservatives consistently give more of their blood, sweat, and money to charity than liberals. As stated earlier, liberals are very generous with other peoples money.
FIFY.
God wants us to put our trust in Him in *all* situations, including finances.
Mr. Deez has given a perfect example of stepping out in faith by tithing from his "first fruits", so to speak. He gives his tithe up front before worrying about if he has enough "left over", after the bills are all paid, to tithe. God does not desire our left overs. The idea is to trust Him by tithing right up front, BEFORE you pay the bills, and have faith that there will be enough money after that.
I can say that my experience in trusting God this way has been the exact same as Mr. Deez's.
as a former resident of Austin from the 70s and occasional visitor the thing that jumps out when visiting is the hedonistic culture which appears dominant there. Austintatious: we've got the best Tex-Mex, the most good pop music, the best this, the best that, the most active nightlife, etc.
Hedonists don't give away their money to others: why pizz away money on a church mission in Africa when you could be buying that $8,000 bike you noticed yesterday?
I don't think this has anything to do with liberal v. conservative.
Hedonists don't give away their money to others: why pizz away money on a church mission in Africa when you could be buying that $8,000 bike you noticed yesterday?
I don't think this has anything to do with liberal v. conservative.
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
The Travis County DAs Office does not appear to agree with you. They have been attempting to criminalize opinions they disagree with. And elections. And future elections even.
was referring to charitable giving, not politics in general
NJlonghorn
2,500+ Posts
I find some aspects of organized religion to be negative, but credit is due when it comes to motivating charitable giving. I don't believe in a divine, causal relation between giving and receiving. However, I do believe that that your experience (or perhaps your interpretation of your experience, but let's not quibble) is typical, and I appreciate the fact that those who observe the precepts of any major religion are motivated to help others.
Good post. Also, the idea that "we reap what we sow" is not exclusive to religion, it is found in other traditions and teachings. Whatever the underlying thing is I think we tend to experience what we choose to express in the world, good or bad. Anything that encourages generosity and compassion for others seems like a very good thing to me.
My post must have been interesting to get commented on after almost four years. lol
Nevertheless, I wouldn't call it a causal relationship. I'm not a Joel Osteen disciple, and I don't think you necessarily receive just because you gave. And you certainly don't necessarily receive money. I believe that we're supposed to tithe as an act of obedience to God, not as a financial investment in hopes of getting something in return. (Of course, Jewish and Christian theology agree on this, so you understand.) Furthermore, I believe that God takes care of those who are obedient to him. It might be money, but it might be other things as well. The point is that the causal relationship is between the obedient heart and God's reward. If one gave with a bitter spirit, I don't think God would look favorably on the gift.
As for religion helping others, my view is that if your religion doesn't motivate you to help others, then something is wrong. I think that's especially true if you claim Christianity as your religion. As Jesus said in Matthew 25:31-40, when you feed the hungry, clothe the naked, take in strangers, and visit the sick (or to summarize, when you aid the weakest and poorest), it is as though you did those things for Jesus himself. If that's not enough to motivate you, then consider that Jesus considered the second greatest commandment to be to love your neighbor as you love yourself. I can't imagine a much more direct charge for believers to help others.
I also think helping others is the most powerful and compelling example to attract others to your faith. I know you're not a fan of organized religion, and you have your own personal reasons for that. However, what would be more likely to restore your faith in organized religion? A church or synagogue that spent a lot of time condemning sinners or a church or synagogue that ran regular food drives, started homeless shelters, and helped provide medical care to the poor? I think the answer is obvious.
The question wasn't directed to me but for some it would confirm our faith in humanity. Religious belief can be a wonderful motivator of moral action but it is not required. So virtuous behavior can just as easily be exercised by a non-believer as anyone else.
Certainly virtuous behavior can be exercised by non-believers, and I didn't intend to suggest otherwise.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Not you, but others seem to suggest that. Honestly, it's a pretty dumb pissing match where everyone gets wet.
It is a dumb pissing match for two reasons. First, it's theologically wrong. The Bible has many examples of non-believers acting righteously and justly in various situations. Second, it's a pointless pissing match, because from God's perspective, we're all sinners and unrighteous relative to him. Accordingly, it's a bit silly to haggle over whether the believer is more righteous than the non-believer. That isn't the relevant comparison.
I think we have swerved from the political to the philosophical. There is a critical political issue here regarding the portrayal of conservatives as hostile to the poor and less fortunate. I know from personal experience that many voters are Democrats for no other reason than "Democrats are for the poor". The left has been very successfully been pushing this negative image of conservatives for decades. That caricature is simply not true and there is a lot of hard data to contradict it. I think it is critical that conservatives figure out how to get that message out in the future or our numbers will continue to dwindle.
NJlonghorn
2,500+ Posts
You may be right that conservatives are just as "for the poor" as liberals are. In fact, I think you probably are right, or at least not as far off as most liberals believe. However, I've never seen what I consider to be "hard data" on the topic.
Yes, conservatives give more to what the Internal Revenue Code considers "charity". But a large fraction of charitable contributions go to the operating budget of houses of worship, and a large fraction of the budget for houses of worship goes to operations (mortgage or rent, utilities, maintenance, clergy and lay salaries, parsonage, supplies, etc.). All houses of worship donate some fraction of their budget to charity for the poor, but that fraction is typically small.
Maybe there is data out there saying how charitable conservatives are with poverty-related charities, but I've never seen it. The aggregate "charity" data does not prove anything in this regard.
Of course, none of this really addresses the core dispute. Conservatives believe that relief for the poor (and other charitable causes) should be taken care of by individuals and private organizations, while liberals believe that the government should fill that role. To say that one of these philosophies is more caring or compassionate than the other is silly.
Fair point, but data also shows that conservatives donate more blood and time as well. Blood certainly does not go to the house of worship and will directly benefit someone in need. I would argue that most of the time volunteered is for direct service to others as well.
Back to the political, it's a matter of how much government vs. the people should be involved in helping the poor. That, in turn, goes back to why liberals want large government interference in the first place. As best I can tell based on writings on the subject, liberals instinctively feel they cannot control their lives if on their own, and as such, prefer to rely on big brother to enforce things that they cannot force on themselves. We have prime example of that: charitable donations. They apparently can't do so, ergo let's have the government to do it for us.
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
Black Lives Matter; The Cerebral Warlords of Our Time
- Started by iatrogenic
- Replies: 1K
- West Mall
-
New Jaguar TV Commercial!?
- Started by WorsterMan
- Replies: 3
- West Mall
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
