I see… a debate coming on….

Author: Statistics Show Religious Conservatives Are More Generous

Syracuse University professor Arthur C. Brooks is about to become the darling of the religious right in America — and it’s making him nervous.

Brooks has written a book that concludes religious conservatives donate far more money than secular liberals to all sorts of charitable activities, irrespective of income.

The book’s basic findings are that conservatives who practice religion, live in traditional nuclear families and reject the notion that the government should engage in income redistribution are the most generous Americans, by any measure.

Brooks says he started the book as an academic treatise, then tightened the documentation and punched up the prose when his colleagues and editor convinced him it would sell better and generate more discussion if he did.

To make his point forcefully, Brooks admits he cut out a lot of qualifying information.

I used to commend one minister I knew for giving away a tenth of everything he stole. :-)


The document



  1. Alvin says:

    Why is that a surprise? By definition, a liberal believes that issues such as poverty are best addressed by governments and work toward that end by voting for candidates who will encourage such programs (and will approve the necessary taxes to fund them). This is why there is a net income transfer from “blue” states to “red” states.

    By definition, a conservative believes that issues such as poverty should be addressed at the community level, and we would expect them to volunteer/donate accordingly.

    The title shouldn’t be “who really cares” – the fact is that the groups just believe in different mechanisms to achieve the same goals. We shouldn’t imply that one cares and the other does not, because it simply is not true.

    Now, how about the 80% of us in the middle? I’m sure the loudmouth ideologues at both ends of the spectrum will have alot to say about this, but most people who are able to think for themselves don’t fall into one camp or another and therefore can’t be so easily classified as “liberal” or “conservative.”

  2. SN says:

    It all depends on how they define charity. I don’t see how giving money to your church is a charitable act. Unless the church runs a soup kitchen for the poor, or something similar, the sole purpose of giving money to a church is to perpetuate the church.

    If a Christian church has any money left over after paying its bills, missionaries would be sent out to get more converts to get more money to open more churches to get more money to send out more missionaries, etc, etc, etc.

    Exactly how is that charitable?

  3. JimR says:

    It’s liberalism that give churches tax-free status with the provision that the donations be used as such. I always find it suspect that the Catholic church (for instance) is so wealthy when they should only be taking enough for themselves to cover their costs.

    As Alvin has pointed out above, providing assistance can be achieved through different philosophies. For instance, direct handouts don’t always net the best results (self sufficiency, or self worth).

    I also wonder if the contributions of Bill gates and other agnostics or atheists were factored in the book.

  4. JimR says:

    Correction to #3
    It’s liberalism that give churches tax-free status with the provision that the donations be used for self sufficiency and the rest be used for charity through church “associations”. I always find it suspect that the Catholic church (for instance) is so wealthy when they should only be taking enough for themselves to cover their costs.,

  5. bill says:

    HUH?

  6. Alvin says:

    Exactly right SN. I once had the opportunity to visit a MEGA church in a North Dallas suburb. This was more of a private club than a church – they had bowling, youth nights, shopping, dining, a sweet fitness center, tennis and so forth. All tax exempt I assume. It is hard to see how donations and volunteerism associated with being a member of such a church would count as charity any more than paying country club dues.

  7. rctaylor says:

    As other posters point out, it’s all in the definition of charity. Most Christians will tithe the full 10%, but a lot of that money is used to maintain the church and pay salaries.

  8. god says:

    “how about the 80% of us in the middle?”

    The only “moderate” term that comes to mind is “fence-sitter”.

  9. JimR says:

    Here’s a scenario I’ve always pondered. Say I belong to a designated charity that are all atheists. Our mission is to go to help the needy in third world countries and help while we’re there teach them about evolution and common sense and to dissuade them from their (often crippling) superstitions like religions and other voodoo.

    Imagine the backlash from religious groups who are supposedly there on a charitable mission but are also promoters of their church.

  10. Haywood says:

    Could it be they donate more due to the guilt they feel over the situation with the priests and little boys? Jesus is up in heaven thumbing through the bible wondering, “where the hell did I say build a fitness center?” (#6)

  11. Max Bell says:

    Um, wait a minute, I’m missing something.

    Politicizing philanthropy in favor of Christian conservatives is superior to secular liberal hand-wringing and sanctimony about philanthropy HOW, exactly?

    Admittedly, I don’t have a dog in this fight in as far as I reject philanthropy as an ethical practice anyhow. I still have an abiding respect of social contract but the whole idea of ethics as a social benchmark defeats the purpose to me. As a liberal atheist, however, I’m confident that I can claim equivalent or higher contribution as anyone and likely exceed the benchmark the same way I have to buy oversized condoms with expanded capacity.

    Some of us just have more to give.

  12. malren says:

    SN, why did you create a strawman here? Did you read the book and find out that conservatives give only to churches? Because what *I* read said the following: “all sorts of charitable activities.”

    Since you read the same article and could not have read the entire book yet, I’m curious to know how you figured out that was code for “conservatives only give to church so that’s not really charity.”

  13. James Hill says:

    As much as I enjoy railing on the left, I’ll take their side in this one.

    Most liberals believe that it’s the government’s responsibility to collect funds that charitable groups would use, while conservatives believe the government shouldn’t be doing this at all… and that charity is a personal thing.

    I see this as more a difference in ideologies than evidence that liberals are cheap.

  14. Calin says:

    Quite frankly, I agree. It’s why I prefer small churches to large ones. The church I currently attend built small gym with an indoor basketball court. They host a youth league for the underpriviliged children of the community there. They even have a couple of old beat up busses they go to the neighborhoods to pick the kids up. I think it’s worth my money. These kids can either sit at home playing video games watching their parents get stoned on the welfare check…..or they can be picked up and come play basketball indoors out of the cold. Every Wed night we pick the kids up and have a large dinner (all donated) and play Bball.

    I’d rather see my money at work I agree with, than have the government take it and do something or another with it. Of course, others think the government is better suited to run larger operations. To that, my answer is…….watch Congress. Those people can’t pour piss out of a boot with instructions on the heel. Doesn’t matter which party’s running the show.

  15. Alvin says:

    “God” wrote (#8): The only “moderate” term that comes to mind is “fence-sitter”.

    Why? Why does someone have to be one or the other? For example, I am socially liberal and fiscally conservative. I am anti-death penalty, and pro-life for the same exact reason.

    My point is that, unless one is following blindly, it is likely that one will not agree with every plank in a given party’s platform! That means most people are in the middle, not that they are “fence sitters”.

  16. WokTiny says:

    #2 #6 got us off track talking about Christian churches, when the article/book addresses Religious folk (not just Christians) and ‘all sorts of charities’ (not just churchs)

    Churches collect tithe for more than self perpetuation, plenty of churches have strong local ministries, in which they distribute money to help the communities they are in.

    MEGA churchs have lots of money because they have lots of people. What’s a $100,000 fitness room when you have 20,000 members?

    $5 / member … this does not seem like a tremendous financial mis-spend anymore. Churchs are communities, and if a community wants to spend $5/head on a gym so its members can save $40/month/head on gym fees, it looks like a good call to me.

    all that, and they can still give back to the communities.

    that said, is all tangent when the article/book addresses Religious folk and ‘all sorts of charities’

  17. Pekuliar says:

    Liberals believe in taking care of those in need but the dollars to do it should be from those that can afford it and have benefited from being part of our secure free enterprise system. And the mechanism to do that is big government. Economic redistribution through tax policy is the the liberals feel good religion and anything that gets in the way of that goal is either stupid or selfish. By the way if we can get the UN to be the international government body replacing nations we will have the solution to world wide poverty and injustice. If you disagree with social inevitability you are either stupid or jingoistic. Who needs religion with that kind of vision?

  18. Max Exter says:

    I have to wonder if the author is including mandatory church member dues in his study. If so, what happens to his figures once you factor those out?

  19. AB CD says:

    This author isn’t going to be the darling of anyone. This same thing has been said for years. Jeff Jacoby had an article about how it’s red states that give ma higher percentage of income to charity. I think Mississippi and Utah are at the top of the list.

  20. Calin says:

    I have to wonder if the author is including mandatory church member dues in his study.

    Mandatory church dues??? What church do you go to?

  21. Floyd says:

    20: he’s referring to mandatory tithing, practiced by many churches. You’re expected to pay n% of your income to the church.

  22. Angel H. Wong says:

    In my experience, people who do charity are not always kind. ’nuff said.

  23. Calin says:

    I’m aware of tithing. In the book of Malachi it refers to the 1/10th, hence the modern figure of 10%. However, that’s not tracked in any church I’ve ever been to. You are encouraged and expected…..but mandatory implies coercion. I’ve never seen anyone forced to donate anything to a church. They won’t kick you out, or deny your “membership” or anything else. Hence it’s not mandatory.

  24. Mr. Fusion says:

    I find it interesting that first he invites people to challenge the book’s findings then admits he purposely left out much of the facts and actual research and statistics. It is very difficult to challenge statistics if you only get to see the summary.

    My biggest concern though is what charities the religious conservatives are giving to.

  25. Abram Cove says:

    What about secular conservatives or religious liberals?
    Do they count, or are why breaking down the question into terms Bill O’Reilly can understand?

  26. joshua says:

    I read a lot of Christian and Church bashing here. Also some conservative bashing.

    The article is quite clear that the author is talking about religious conservatives, and the fact they give far more to a large range of charities, than liberals do. Thats it. Not one mention of the money going to churches or to gym’s or any of the bullshit mentioned above.

    You can leave out the **religious* part and what you have are 2 far different approaches to how those who need help should receive it.
    As a couple people above noted, there is a big difference in how aid should be delivered. Some of you are so wrapped up in Shrubs, and neocons, and red and blue states, and your usual belly aching about anything and everything, you apparently forgot to note one of the major differences between liberals and conservatives. That is……one thinks goverment is the be all and the end all…….the other thinks that PEOPLE are the be all and the end all. Simple stuff.

    Liberals are the first to whine when government spends their money foolishly, or stupidly, or badly. It never occurs to them that the government they want to be larger and larger is already so bloated it can’t do an effective job now, yet they want it to do more. I have never understood that. Conservatives prefer the local route, it’s small, easily controled, and far more effective as it is usually nearer to the problems. And doesn’t come with the dreaded Federal unfunded mandate monster.

    Fusion….what does it matter?? As long as the money, volunteering, and expertise is going for good works.

  27. Mr. Fusion says:

    #27, joshua,
    Not one mention of the money going to churchs or to gym’s or any of the bullshit mentioned above.

    And not one mention of where the money actually goes. To the best of my knowledge, religious donations usually are a charitable contribution. Then there is the quality of the charity. Many of the charities (these adopt a kid scams) poking the religious right end up using very little of their money for charity and most on “administration”.

    Many of these organizations refuse to register with the BBB or get a negative report.
    http://www.give.org/ (check out the “Christian” sites)

    The large “liberal” charities, such as Oxfam (83%+), Doctors without Borders (87%), Toys for Tots (98%) and Feed the Children (90%+) tend to actually use their money for their programs.

    Liberals are the first to whine when goverment spends their money foolishly, or stupidly, or badly.

    Conservatives just whine about the government spending ANY tax money on anything but their pet projects, such as bridges to nowhere.

    Fusion….what does it matter?? As long as the money, volunteering, and expertise is going for good works.

    The quality of the work given is not always reflective of the money raised. Paying for the 700 Club’s Pat Robert’s room and board is paid from the money his “charity” solicits. So is the printing and distribution of Christian literature and missionaries. Suggesting a hurricane is God’s wrath invoked versus helping the now ruined victim can in no way be considered equal.

  28. Dave says:

    What’s the deal with your blog today? Having a bad spelling day? I think that you have replaced the all the letter i’s with l’s. Does that have any religious significance? I like your technical savy. What happened to you John? Did you get mugged by a Jehovah’s wittness or something? Maybe you should start your own church of unbelief. Looks like you have plenty of followers.

    I have nothing to prove, but I do not appreciate someone that continues to throw up all the religious crack pots as if somehow trying to poke holes in my faith. You either believe or you don’t. Please blogg technology and cut the anti-religious trash. If you are ready threaten by the real truth, you could always just band me from your site.

  29. Alvin says:

    Joshua (#27) wrote: “one thinks goverment is the be all and the end all…….the other thinks that PEOPLE are the be all and the end all. Simple stuff.”

    Well, the U.S. government not “a government of the people, by the people and for the people”? Most liberals take this seriously and they don’t draw a distinction between, as you say, “PEOPLE” doing something and the people doing something via the government.

  30. Stiffler says:

    #17 – “… And the mechanism to do that is big government.”
    Because I’m sure that the overhead for that will be so much more economical; and we all know how efficient government organizations are; that sounds like a recipe for more paperwork.

    “By the way if we can get the UN to be the international government body replacing nations we will have the solution to world wide poverty and injustice.”
    Because the UN has been nothing but an outstanding paragon of social justice and integrity. Seriously, what planet are you from!? Every time the UN meddles in something, it gets screwed up; I’m sure that Kofi would be above bribes and would do everything in his power to ensure that the poor are being taken care of…

    (Unable to continue posting due to uncontrollable laughter)


1

Bad Behavior has blocked 4321 access attempts in the last 7 days.