Is It True That Christians Give More To Charity And Adopt More?

[Insightful]

Over the past couple of years, I've slowly moved from "Christian Fundamentalist" to "Liberal Christian/Agnostic".  I find myself still "settling" into this new worldview - and often rehashing things in my mind.

 

Something that still seems to me to be a point in favor of Christianity (at least in favor of the merit of Christianity, but even possibly a point in favor of the truth of it) is that based on my observation:

 

1.  Christians are more likely than non-Christians to give to charitable causes - Red Cross, child sponsorships, etc.

2.  Christians are more likely than non-Christians to adopt orphans.

 

IF, those points are both true, that would seem to me to add validity to the Christian worldview. 

 

It appears that belief in God and belief in a state of eternal bliss makes it easier to let go of earthly comfort.  For example, adopting (which I have done twice) is extremely costly - not just the initial money, but many years of setting aside my own pleasurable pursuits to sacrificially love and serve orphans.   For the Christian mindset, it is easier to count this life loss to serve others.  For the non Christian, if this is the only life, then I should value my own comfort and enjoyment of it, no??

 

It may sound like I'm building a case for Christianity...  really I am curious to get everyone's feedback on this question. 

 

Can y'all fact check me:  It it TRUE that Christians are more charitable than non-Christiains?  Do we have data on this?  Is it TRUE that Christians are more likely to adopt than non-Christians?

 

Some may argue that the driving agenda for Christian adopting is to proselytize so it shouldn't count as true charity-no-strings-attached.  But the Christian adoptive families I've know REALLY do seem compassionate toward the plight of the orphan...

 

I'd love everyone's perspective on this issue.

Thanks!

[florduh]

There are many good and generous people. Some are not Christians, but in this country most of them necessarily would be. Non-religious people don't organize, meet weekly and raise funds for causes the way churches can and frequently do. Still, I know that many atheists contribute to good causes that are run by Christian organizations besides having their own secular charities.

 

 

IF, those points are both true, that would seem to me to add validity to the Christian worldview. 

 

 

Hitler liked dogs.

[Insightful]

Florduh:

 

Totally hear you.  But wouldn't a disparity in the generousity suggest an advantage for humanity of the Christian worldview, at least in the area of compassion (playing Devils Advocate here)?

 

What about this report:

 

http://ethicsdaily.com/christians-more-than-twice-as-likely-to-adopt-a-child-cms-21267

[Brother Jeff]

There are lots of good people in the world who do what they can to make this a better place for everybody. That certainly includes non-Christians and atheists. Some good people are moved by their religious beliefs to do good in the world, but that's not really a point in favor of the beliefs being true. The flip side of that is that plenty of bad people in the world are moved by their religious beliefs to blow people up and fly airplanes into buildings. Those people do not see themselves as being bad or evil. They think they are making god happy by terrorizing and killing the infidels. Does that make their beliefs true? 

 

It is impossible to "build a case for Christianity". It's a myth and nothing more, and that's actually pretty easy to prove.

[florduh]

Christian churches push their membership to do many things; picket funerals, fund a new building, vote Republican, support a foreign mission, adopt and/or have little Christians for the fold. Ultimately, I think it's a game of numbers and possibly peer pressure. Note how Hollywood celebrities recently got on a kick about seeing who could adopt African kids. I know some non-Christians who have adopted but I personally know of no Christians who have. I'm sure there are many Christians who do, though. It's not a contest and I don't really take away anything from the numbers.

[mymistake]

There is a difference in perspective.  Christians are (of course) by far going to give more money to churches than non-Christians.  For the most part Christians see giving money to a church as a form of charity.  Non-Christians mostly see giving money to church as a scam.

 

If it is true that Christians give more to charity and adopt more orphans then that would mean Christianity does good things, not that Christianity has a valid world view.

 

To be sure there are good ideas within Christianity.  If liberal Christians have found a way to divorce the bad ideas and focus on the good then good for them.  As long as they don't hurt anybody they are free to worship whatever they want and however they want.  If they can make positive change in this world so much the better.

[Ravenstar]

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/sep/08/charitable-giving-country

 

 

Interesting

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Perhaps it's true here in America, possibly even in The West.  But in India, charitable works would be more likely done by a Hindu; and in Arab countries children would be more likely to be adopted by Muslims.  Whatever validation charitable works lends toward christianity is negated by the compassion found in other religions.

[seven77]

Re:Charity

 

Christians give to groups like FOTF and count that as charitable giving. They sponsor women's health clinics that usually don't provide any services beyond pregnancy tests and Christian counseling. Some churches do run food pantries and other services, but most of these things come with strings attached.

 

So do Christians give more? Maybe.

 

Giving money to charity doesn't really tell us anything about the individual though. It's not hard to write checks if you have money to cover them. What's really hard is sharing when you don't have, or helping when it is hard. In my anecdotal experience, non-believers are more likely to help when it counts without a bunch of hoopla for Jesus like their Christian counterparts.

 

Also, it is worth noting that giving to charity is often a misplaced notion. It is better to give money or needed equipment directly to people or small groups than it is to mindlessly donate to behemoth organizations that distribute aid. Basically, a stack of bills sans Bible in the hands of the people leads to measurable improvements in the bush.

 

Re:Adoption

 

Christians tend to be more open to adoption. Churches will often help raise money for members who are adopting. In 2008-2011, there were adoption fundraisers at my church about every month or so. Several families adopted from Haiti; another from Ethiopia and one from China. I think (jmho) that many couples probably couldn't swing international adoption otherwise. I've seen Christian families who were financially struggling and already had several kids adopt internationally. That always chapped my ass, so to say. Most people who could afford international adoption at my old church were fucking miserly. Living in big empty houses, driving foreign cars, and not about to drop several grand adopting a child from abroad.

 

My family (irreligious) took in people when I was growing up. When I was a teen, my parents actually adopted one of my friends after her mom took off. They took in people, took care of them, didn't ask questions, didn't judge. So what if they didn't give money to XYZ group? They fucking cared about people and didn't try to change them, sell them some bs about a magic man named Jesus.

 

That is more honorable to me than the fostering/adopting/helping with evangelization strings attached. If you adopt a child, it should be because you care and want that child to be a part of your life. Not because GAWD. Or to "save" them from poverty.

[Overcame Faith]

Even if Christians are more charitable, it does not make the religion true nor does it erase the harm many Christian denominations cause. If a person suffers from a fear of hell, as many ExChristians on this very website do, then doesn't that factor in to the equation on how desirable their charitable giving is? I think it does. That religion gave us hell. How horrible is that?

[Sybaris]

The Christians I have known to adopt and contribute to charities do it mostly from peer pressure. For instance adopting Chinese babies. It's like a virus. Once one member gets one they all gotta get one. It's an instant visual status symbol among the caucasian flock.

 

What is intriguing though is you don't find nearly the generosity and adoption numbers among the black churchies.

[Insightful]

Sybaris - I can totally see the status-symbol tendency...

 

There is often a "you suck and God won't love you unless you _________" unspoken vibe at a lot of churches

[Fernweh]

How can you quantify adoptions? I have some anecdotal evidence my parents adopted my brother to score major brownie points with the church. That wasn't their only motivation but I know it definitely played into their decision. Does that mean christians adopt because of their worldview or to impress their pastor? No. It's just an anecdote and meaningless. 

[Orbit]

There are really two issues here. The first is yes, Christians in the US do more charity and adoption but that is because Christians outnumber atheists in the population. The second is the assumption that charity isn't important to atheists' worldviews, which is false. I am involved in just as much charity now as when I was as a Christian. Atheists do have secular charity organizations who are often turned away when they try to help because they are atheist.

 

Here is a list of secular charities, including the well-known Doctors Without Borders. http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Secular_charities

[★ Citsonga ★]

The vast majority of Christians' "charitable" giving goes to churches and next to missionaries. In other words, most of Christians' giving goes to fund church buildings and the salaries and personal expenses of people pushing their religion on people. In my estimate, very little of the average Christian's giving has any real charitable value.

 

A lot of other charities also pay their top staff exorbitant salaries, which has curbed my interest in giving much to such organizations, though I have given to some of them.

 

More importantly, I have given directly to people I know personally who were in need, but that will never be catalogued as charitable giving in any study simply because it didn't go through an organization. The more that people do this kind of giving, the less accurate a charitable giving study will be.

 

I also give blood a few times each year.

[miekko]

The ethnoreligious group that gives the most to charity per person is the Jews. So if Christian charitableness would increase the validity of Christianity, then Judaism would be even more valid, no? Better get an appointment with a mohel!

 

(This isn't meant to claim that Judaism is true, this is a reductio ad absurdum.)

[★ Citsonga ★]

I should add that I love the idea of adopting children and giving them a good, loving home. I'm just not in a good enough financial situation to do it right now. My wife and I would like to sometime, though.

[RipVanWinkle]

I read statistics in a book about Xtiaity v. the non-religious which showed that as to divorce rates, the non-religious had less divorces than Xtians by a small amount. Also, fundamentalists churches give less to charities than the more liberal churches. But more importantly you make a mistake when you draw firm conclusions based upon casual observations rather than mathematically accurate statistics which are available from most public libraries. Further, what kind of charities are we talking about? Spreading fundamentalist ideologies? Building a new or improved church building? Or supplying food and medical care to the people living in abject poverty? Actually, my gut reaction is the opposite of yours. I think the more a church believes in the strict literal interpretation of the bible, the less generous they are because. "God will take care of the poor in the afterlife".  bill

[Brother Jeff]

Re:Charity

 

Christians give to groups like FOTF and count that as charitable giving. They sponsor women's health clinics that usually don't provide any services beyond pregnancy tests and Christian counseling. Some churches do run food pantries and other services, but most of these things come with strings attached.

 

So do Christians give more? Maybe.

 

Giving money to charity doesn't really tell us anything about the individual though. It's not hard to write checks if you have money to cover them. What's really hard is sharing when you don't have, or helping when it is hard. In my anecdotal experience, non-believers are more likely to help when it counts without a bunch of hoopla for Jesus like their Christian counterparts.

 

Also, it is worth noting that giving to charity is often a misplaced notion. It is better to give money or needed equipment directly to people or small groups than it is to mindlessly donate to behemoth organizations that distribute aid. Basically, a stack of bills sans Bible in the hands of the people leads to measurable improvements in the bush.

 

Re:Adoption

 

Christians tend to be more open to adoption. Churches will often help raise money for members who are adopting. In 2008-2011, there were adoption fundraisers at my church about every month or so. Several families adopted from Haiti; another from Ethiopia and one from China. I think (jmho) that many couples probably couldn't swing international adoption otherwise. I've seen Christian families who were financially struggling and already had several kids adopt internationally. That always chapped my ass, so to say. Most people who could afford international adoption at my old church were fucking miserly. Living in big empty houses, driving foreign cars, and not about to drop several grand adopting a child from abroad.

 

My family (irreligious) took in people when I was growing up. When I was a teen, my parents actually adopted one of my friends after her mom took off. They took in people, took care of them, didn't ask questions, didn't judge. So what if they didn't give money to XYZ group? They fucking cared about people and didn't try to change them, sell them some bs about a magic man named Jesus.

 

That is more honorable to me than the fostering/adopting/helping with evangelization strings attached. If you adopt a child, it should be because you care and want that child to be a part of your life. Not because GAWD. Or to "save" them from poverty.

 

My extremely religious aunt once told me about her church giving out food to the poor/homeless. Of course, they had to hear the Glorious Bullshit about Kryasst before they could get the food. WHY NOT JUST GIVE THEM THE FOOD, and skip the ridiculous fear-based mythology? That was my thinking, anyway... Glory!

[pratt]

i live in this pary of the world where christians are not majority,,,,

 

christians here are more vocal and blow their own whistles to be heard, the charities of other religions tend to be low profile,,,,

christians tend to be more hiding behind secular names to gather money,,,,

tax free and just a small portion going to the target people,,,,,

 

christians more charitable? thats what they think so,,,,,,

 

have you heard of red crescent?

[Thrive]

Thank you for the link Orbit.  Lots of great information there.

 

There are really two issues here. The first is yes, Christians in the US do more charity and adoption but that is because Christians outnumber atheists in the population. The second is the assumption that charity isn't important to atheists' worldviews, which is false. I am involved in just as much charity now as when I was as a Christian. Atheists do have secular charity organizations who are often turned away when they try to help because they are atheist.

 

Here is a list of secular charities, including the well-known Doctors Without Borders. http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Secular_charities

[Vigile]

Florduh:

 

Totally hear you.  But wouldn't a disparity in the generousity suggest an advantage for humanity of the Christian worldview, at least in the area of compassion (playing Devils Advocate here)?

 

What about this report:

 

http://ethicsdaily.com/christians-more-than-twice-as-likely-to-adopt-a-child-cms-21267

 

That same group that adopts at a higher rate also fights tooth and nail against abortion, which contributes to more adoptions and unwanted child in the first place, so as a world view by this measure, it's incredibly counterproductive and easily ends up massively net negative; particularly if you factor in Africa and other 3rd world areas where xians have preached against birth control methods, etc...

 

And do they really give more to orgs like Red Cross or is the money going to church coffers and more counterproductive missionary efforts? 

[ExCBooster]

So, wait. What are the parameters, here? Most to charity per person? Most per person as a percentage of income? Most people in that religion giving to charity? What counts as a charity, any non-profit (in which case churches would count?), or any organization that does a lot of good. All "charities" are not made equal.

 

So, I guess if it's "most people in that religion giving to charity" then it's Islam, actually, no contest. It's a pillar of the faith (as in, actually required) to give to charity, if you are able. You don't find a lot of smug Christians mentioning that little fact. [To put this in perspective, Zakat means that a muslim must give a minimum of 2.5 % of income to charity. So, for, say the Sultan of Brunei, worth about $20 Billion... yeah, that's a LOT of money.]

 

If, however, it's most "bang per buck" then I'd say secular organizations like Doctors Without Borders. No money wasted building churches, and committing what amounts to cultural genocide. Consider all of the information lost to humanity forever, when people abandon their previous systems for Christianity, or any other homogenized import. So much has been lost that we're not getting back, even for reference...

 

Christian "charities" have been involved in some horrific things, like the influence of American missionaries in Uganda. This stuff literally kills people.

 

I'd rather my money went to eradicating polio or treating malaria, or improving infrastructure in a sustainable way, than giving people Bibles.

[VacuumFlux]

Another point about adoption, other than the status symbol: churches also provide a support network that makes it easier on the parents. Say you've got a lot of kids (especially adopted ones that give you a higher status in the church) and someone in the family gets sick, then people in the church will bring meals over for a while. Or if you want to adopt but can't afford it, the church is your fundraising mailing list. In the US that sort of social group is most often found in a church, and it's harder to build that sort of support network without it.

 

Though I guess we do have secular mutual aid organizations like the Masons that people regularly give money to, participate in ceremonies to increase group cohesion, and spend the collected money helping out the members and people closest to them. But the churches don't like the competition and claim that those groups are cults or satanist (I remember one instance of someone not being allowed to become a deacon in a church becuase they were a Mason).

I also try to have enough extra money around to help my friends if they need it, since I make more money than a lot of them (and no, not because I work any harder than they do, just because I got lucky enough to be sufficiently healthy, and to have a family that values education which made getting through college easier). But that's personal, not going through an organization, so it won't show up on surveys about charity. I have no idea how christians compare to nons on being generous on a personal level, nor how you could find out without risking the people lying to you (intentionally or not) and stating how much they think they should be giving instead of how much they actually do. And do you count loans to friends? I give some of my friends small loans that I'd like if they'd pay back but won't cause me financial hardship if they don't. That sort of stuff is a lot harder to get statistics on.

[★ Citsonga ★]

And do you count loans to friends? I give some of my friends small loans that I'd like if they'd pay back but won't cause me financial hardship if they don't.

 

I suspect you don't charge them interest either, right?