Charity: Who Cares?

@huh, the problem with the sentiment is that the liberal version of “charity” is not in fact charity. Charity is freely giving to someone in need. Forced governmental taxation to support people is the opposite, it is forced giving. It is only good for one side of the equation, it is only good for the person receiving. Charitable giving is actually beneficial to both people since it fosters community and virtue in the person giving and helps the person receiving. As soon as charity is mandated it is no longer charity.

The basic difference is: conservatives believe they are personally responsible for helping the poor and therefore they give of their own money. Liberals believe the government is responsible and so they force their neighbors to give so they don’t have to give as much. It is the same childish, I’m not going to if my brother doesn’t have to mentality that liberals are showing. They won’t give unless everyone else is forced to give as much.

One other thing:
You’ll notice in this whole discussion, that both liberals and conservatives are taxed the same amount and the same percentage of their taxes go to help the poor. By saying you voted for Obama and therefore you’ve done your part, you are not addressing the real issue which is that the conservative is paying the same taxes you are and is still giving more to charity than you. You have basically copped out of the argument by trying to say it is someone else’s problem, not yours.

Working at a public school for which you are paid is not charity. We, as individuals have a responsibility to take care of those who need help, especially locally. Charities are so much better with their money than wasteful government that encourages people to become dependent on them.

And yes, I volunteer at local charities, give financially to them & hold food drives.

So what we learn from your comment is that while conservatives are charitable with their own money, liberals prefer to be charitable with other people’s money. And while conservative religious folk volunteer their time with all kinds of charities, religious and secular, liberals don’t donate *or* volunteer but think that taking a paycheck from other people’s money is an appropriate substitute.

Thanks for making that comment. Now I can point to it whenever I make the argument I just made and I get shouts of outrage from my liberal friends.

My “social club” of worship provides a food pantry, free health care clinic for the uninsured, an intervention program for abusive men, a program to help people recently released from prison get back on track, an after school program for children, pregnancy counseling, and more. The dollars I give to it stretch way farther in actual aid and societal benefit than the dollars I give to the government.

Where does the word “hospital” come from? Who lead the charge in building hospitals in this country? Where do people go when they’ve hit rock bottom and just need some help?

Christians should, and regularly do, follow Christ’s teachings of caring for the poor. Now is as good a time as any to remember how (the real) Saint Nicholas did just that.

Your assumptions about what the major religions teach and their practitioners practice with regards to giving cause you to make an embarrassingly simplistic assumption of what motivates their giving. “Scoring points” has no value in what motivates the religious who give, in fact it’s quite the opposite, if your giving is to “score points” the teaching of the major religions is typically, keep your stuff “God” doesn’t need it. Further, based on the national statistics at most, 30% of US Americans attend religious services regularly (my direct observation in my local setting suggest that real %age is somewhat less), I’m not sure you can assume that all “conservatives” are religious nor that “conservatives” don’t expect the government to act in the common good any more or any less than “liberals” do.

Pure, cold, bloodless pragmatism is not all there is to the world. Showing a little compassion to those who are suffering while also working to cure that suffering is not going to prevent any disease from being cured or some nation remaining mired in poverty. Most of the problems with poor nations stem from their corrupt governments. Money doesn’t solve that. Nor does the money needed to take some kid to Disney World for his wish suddenly prevent some intellectual and scientific breakthrough from occurring. Or rather, having that money doesn’t guarantee the intellectual and scientific breakthroughs.

We don’t (and shouldn’t) regiment our lives and societies to accomplishing anybody’s list of prioritized problems. Following your logic, we shouldn’t even care for some dying child. Leave them on the street to die and spend the money on curing the disease.

I wouldn’t want to live in that world and I would resist efforts to turn this world into that kind.

You are free to give to whichever charities you like best, which I hope you are doing.

I can actually see how the religious end up being the on the higher end of giving based on what I see in our church. Each week or month, we have a committee that recommends different charity groups (both secular and religious) for our congregation to give to. During the time of collection, our Pastor reminds us of these groups, and many of us will pull out extra monies to help out.

Without this observance, I don’t think I would know of very many charitable organizations that need my help. And, I’ll be honest, I’m not sure I would think of these other organizations outside of church as I am fully dedicated in my spare time to two charitable organizations already.

Agreed. Statistics about anything can always “be a long way from accurate.”

Actually, ferridder, you’re wrong. The article states: ““religious people GIVE MORE to secular causes than secular people do.”

It’s not MORE religious people, but religious people GIVE MORE.

Might this statistic be because there are simply many more religious people in the country? So their numbers would naturally be higher than the total of secular? I’m secular, and I give even though I make below the poverty line. I am glad that everyone is giving, and if religious sentiment is contributing to something positive like secular charity, then I have absolutely nothing against that, and I’m not angry about it. I just think it seems a bit divisive for Mint to draw these blurry lines over religion. I don’t recall ever being asked about my religion, or lack thereof, when I donated, and I prefer it that way. So just out of curiosity now, can anyone answer my first question?

@Brent Bordelon
I think it is interesting that the majority of donations (“go to religion” as you so eloquently stated) when the facts are that the majority of good and charitable works are done by religious people. That outcome makes sense to me. Additionally, your comment is most revealing in what you don’t say as much as what you do. I would consider myself a wealthy and educated individual and my monetary giving and serving is no payment for a “pleasant afterlife.” As a Christian I give because I have received. I give because I am created in the image of the Giver. I give because I am most like my Father when I give. My security for the afterlife was secured for me not by me.

Your misunderstandings and mischaracterizations reveal both how little you know about the majority of givers in this country as well as your reasoning for why you give so little. Or in your own words “while wealthier (and more educated) people would refuse such rubbish.” So tell me then, in your education and wealth why exactly do you NOT give.

Then why do the wealthiest 10% give a total of 25% of all charitable gifts? because they don’t care as much about the poor? if there are 10 people and 4 apples (which represent charitable giving) one person takes 1 apple, and 9 people take 3. that speakes volumes for how much wealthy people give to charity. Steve, I’d suggest you look at the stats before making a statement not based in fact. Still, I agree with your JFK quote. Ask what YOU can do for your country.

Lolz, you are partly correct on the Christian giving thing. We are obeying, but not to avoid damnation. You cannot ‘work’ or ‘donate’ your way to Heaven. Christians, liberal and conservative alike, give out of gratitude, because of the belief that we have already received the supernatural reward. The debt has been paid by Christ on the cross.

So it’s not an investment – it’s a great feeling of joy to freely give, and I look forward to the day I can give double the amt that I do currently, to religious and secular charities both.

Your argument is flawed because conservatives even give more of their own blood. Not only is human blood not tax deductable, it also doesn’t help you get into heaven. Conservatives give because it is about personal responsibility.

I don’t think you are entirely wrong here, SeattleFundraiser. You do have to understand, however, that conservatives dislike INCOME taxes. Many of the things that you support such as public education, roads, fire departments, sewage, clean water, police, and what not are all funded from either gasoline excise taxes, sales tax, or property taxes. These taxes are okay in my mind, even as a conservative. If you do not wish to pay for highways or roads, you can simply stop driving or purchasing gasoline. If you do not like public water/sewer/education/police/fire you are free to move outside of a city, or to a rural state where you can be free from property taxes. You see, the Income tax, which you cannot escape, is often used for the most illegitimate purposes, such as war, government bailouts, or poorly run welfare programs plagued by fraud.