Who Really Cares?

[Guest xyz3]

What do you folks think of the data in Arthur C. Brooks "who really cares"?

 

"Brooks's first foray into the limelight was in 2006 with Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth about Compassionate Conservatism.[4] Originating in his research on philanthropy and drawing on survey data, he articulates a charity gap between the 75 percent of Americans who donate to charitable causes and the rest who do not. Brooks argues that there are three cultural values that best predict charitable giving: religious participation, political views, and family structure. Ninety-one percent of people who identify themselves as religious are likely to give to charity, writes Brooks, as opposed to 66 percent of people who do not. The religious giving sector is just as likely to give to secular programs as it is to religious causes. Those who think government should do more to redistribute income are less likely to give to charitable causes, and those who believe the government has less of a role to play in income redistribution tend to give more. Finally, people who couple and raise children are more likely to give philanthropically than those who do not. The more children there are in a family, the more likely that a family will donate to charity. One of Brooks's most controversial findings was that political conservatives give more, despite having incomes that are on average 6 percent lower than liberals.

 

Brooks adopts what he calls a "polemic"[1] tone when offering recommendations, urging that philanthropic giving not be crowded out by government programs and that giving must be taught cultivated in families and communities. He admits being surprised by his conclusion: "These are not the sort of conclusions I ever thought I would reach when I started looking at charitable giving in graduate school, 10 years ago. I have to admit I probably would have hated what I have to say in this book."[4]" (from wikipedia)

 

I understand that much of this giving from religious people may be geared towards religious institutions, but I've heard that if you remove purely religious giving from the mix, religious people still give more proportionately than the non-religious, and that they are also more likely to give to organizations that help people in need, whereas non-religious people give more to the arts and such, which is well and good but mostly benefits people who can afford to go to museums and concert halls.

 

I find this very troubling. Much of anti-Christian polemic, and the extimonies here, revolves around showing how Christians aren't really any better than non-Christians. This data would seem to indicate otherwise. In fact, the more conservative Christian someone is, the more likely they are to be giving to those in need.

 

What do you folks think of this?

[Kathlene]

I think a lot of religious people do give to charitable causes. However, look at how much they have been persuaded to do so by their churches through fear, or the hope that if they give over and above their 10% tithe, god will give it back one hundred fold. If you look closely, they are probably giving more out of fear, or in the hopes that they will be rewarded for it later in life. Not that that makes any difference at the end of the day, the money is still money and it helps out with all the worthwhile causes.

 

There is a huge delusional doctrine and bible thumping faith that says you can get rich by giving, and giving more and more, even when it hurts! I remember a time in my life I hardly had any money, but I still faithfully tithed a huge amount of money in proportion to what I had. I think I did it mainly out of fear, that my life would come crashing down my ears unless I showed god how much I trusted him with my money. How foolish was I. I am no longer a christian, but I still maintain my monthly giving to a nonchristian organisation for children because I want to. Its not out of fear, or making me feel like I am adding brownie points to my image like a lot of christians do, or to rack up goodness points with god. I do it in the hopes that it will help life get better for one other person in this world.

[R. S. Martin]

I haven't read the book. It would be helpful if you had posted a link to the wikipedia article so I could check it out myself. However, you post one quote that raises red flags for me. Or maybe it's your own statement; I'm not quite sure but here's what I'm referring to:

 

I understand that much of this giving from religious people may be geared towards religious institutions, but I've heard that if you remove purely religious giving from the mix, religious people still give more proportionately than the non-religious, and that they are also more likely to give to organizations that help people in need, whereas non-religious people give more to the arts and such, which is well and good but mostly benefits people who can afford to go to museums and concert halls.

 

I underlined the part that is the red flag: "I've heard...." That is hearsay. Who said it? The majority of the North American population is Christian, or biased toward Christianity, esp. in the United States. Thus, the churches say it, the media says it, the person on the street says it. QUESTION: Has anyone ever audited anything?

 

Another perspective. I've been reading some of Dan Barker's literature about Freedom From Religion Foundation. It seems they fight many legal cases where church and state are meshed. In his book Godless he mentions religious institutions that claim to be social work organizations but they are at least as much into proselytizing. I think Barker et al fight only organizations that use taxpayer money for religious purposes. However, if Christians do this with tax-payer money, what keeps them from converting "bread" money into Bibles?

 

Those are a few critical questions I would raise before I swallowed it all. As stated, I have not read Brooke's book or the wikipedia article.

 

Another thought occurred just before I hit the submit button. There are many more Christians than atheists and agnostics in North America. Is he calculating dollar value or percentage of income or is he using some other criteria?

[Hammurabi]

Well right off the bat, a few questions pop up:

 

First off, how was this survey conducted? How did he determine if the people were religious or not? Clearly there would be a strong pressure towards someone who self-identifies as being religious to also self-identify as charitable. How was this controlled for? Was it controlled for at all? Also, did they include the money donated to churches? I think most of us can agree that a dollar to a church doesn't go as far as a dollar to a charity (if it goes anywhere at all). Does this include corporate donations? How does the survey account for anonymous donations? Where did he get his figures for how much was donated, did he collect it from the donor, the charity, or some third entity? Did he account for the bias in any of those different data gathering methods? If his book accounts for all these things, then great, however we all know there are three types of lies; "Lies, damned lies, and statistics"

 

Even if his methods were sound and his data was gathered in a reputable, repeatable way, I'm not too surprised at a few of Mr. Brooks' conclusions. It's not surprising at all to me, for example, that conservatives give more than liberals. It is a cornerstone of liberal political ideology that the government should use it's power and influence to support the less fortunate, an interesting question to ask would be "Does the money gathered through increased taxes proposed by liberal policies account for the deficit in liberal charitable giving when compared to conservative giving?" Beats me, but it is something to take into account.

 

Also, it doesn't surprise me that people with children give more. Once again I need to ask a few questions, though: Increase in number of children is directly correlated with an increase in age, was this accounted for? (i.e. a 40 year old has 3 kids and gives a lot to charity, a 20 year old has no kids and doesn't give to charity, are people with kids more charitable or are 40 year olds more charitable? I suspect the latter...) Also, married people are more likely to have kids than single people, so do married people give more than single people? That also seems likely, and when examining donations, is it by household or by individual? We should expect a single person to give less than two married people, right? Accounting for all of this, I still don't have any problems believing that people with kids give more, as long as the data is valid and properly accounted for.

 

I suspect that Mr. Brooks' study did more to measure correlation and not causation. However, I can still believe that the religious would be more likely to give, even if that's just a little bit more. The reason is that people who are organized and directed tend to pursue their goals more than people who are left unorganized and undirected. Religious and non-religious people may want to give at equal rates, but religious people have a large social structure behind them that provides support and pressure, whereas the non-religious do not. (Incidentally, this would be the same pressure that would encourage a religious person to claim they are charitable on a survey, even when they are not...)

 

I think the more important question, beyond all of this is "So what?" If my religious neighbors give more to charity than me does that make them better people? Maybe, maybe not. This isn't a competition. I grew up in a very religious home and my parents made sure to give 10% to the church every Sunday, even as their own children were wearing torn clothing, had very little to eat, and didn't get to have birthday or christmas gifts. Is it a morally good thing to take food and clothes from your own children and give them to strangers? The bottom line is that people are people, some people are jerks and some people are saints. Some saints act like jerks in some situations, and some jerks act like saints in some situations. A simple study of people's giving habits isn't a good indicator of their moral compass. Charitable organizations are good things, most of the time (except when they are denying contraceptives to people in AIDS prone countries, or trying to confuse the public with pseudoscience and misinformation, or when they are an outright scam) but there are many other ways to be good in the world, they just might not end up in a book.

[Yrth]

Thank you for posting this. I had a long back-and-forth about Brooks' book, and its good to see that it isn't being overlooked by the people on this site.

 

I think Hammurabi made some excellent points: 1) The major difference between liberal and conservative political ideologies with respect to government involvement, & 2) The support & pressure in established religious groups (which is also Brooks' point!).

 

I also think Ham asked two very good questions: 1)Does the money gathered through increased taxes proposed by liberal policies account for the deficit in liberal charitable giving when compared to conservative giving?, & 2) So what?

 

I'd like to add another question: Ham said, "A simple study of people's giving habits isn't a good indicator of their moral compass." Ok, well, would a *complex* study work instead of a simple one? I think what I'm really asking is whether we can agree that giving itself is generally a good thing. I do think it is, which is why I also think that Brooks' claims are important/incendiary.

 

 

 

Something xyz3 said really needs to be addressed the most:

Much of anti-Christian polemic, and the extimonies here, revolves around showing how Christians aren't really any better than non-Christians. This data would seem to indicate otherwise. In fact, the more conservative Christian someone is, the more likely they are to be giving to those in need.

I don't think it's very constructive to think about people in terms of better/worse, and I think people make trouble for themselves when they try. I think that it's enough to say that, apparently, a fortunate byproduct of American Christian conservatism is that it's adherents are very prone to charitable giving. Surely that's not too controversial to accept--- unless, of course, you spend your time finding new ways to villainize Christians, and the thought of something good associated with religion is so unacceptable that you simply can't believe it. *shrugs*

 

good post

[Purple]

Why is it not as good to give to the arts? Yes, people need food a shelter first, but no art? Also "only available to those that can afford to go to museums" that's not entirely true. Some museums are free, some have fairly small entrance fees, and many will bring public schools in for free or close to it.

[The-Captain]

I've never given money to an organized charity. But I've worked some 200+ hours for the Red Cross as a volunteer doing hurricane cleanup and I endeavor to be charitable to the people I come across in whatever way I can. And I know a lot of other people like me. I'd wager that most active "charity" is of the sort that can't be accounted for in census data. It's giving someone a lift, spotting someone change for a payphone, letting the other person take that taxi, buying a meal for someone who couldn't afford it, giving a bloke on the street your coat. It's ridiculous to try to quantify which group is more charitable, and smacks of false piety and pride on the part of those claiming the moral high ground. Jesus had some choice things to say about that sort of thing.

[MaleficVTwin]

I agree with Kathlene, it's a fear thing that drives the deluded to give so much. When I was wee I saw an old lady at my church (that term sounds very strange to me now) put a $100 bill in the collection plate. I was stunned, even at that age I knew this old bat had nearly nothing. Her clothes were old, her car was old and falling apart, and she took canned food from the food bank that the congregation had set up. By all accounts she was poor, yet here she was in the early '80's putting $100 in the collection plate! Nutter.

 

I give to causes that I think will truly benefit from the limited amount I can spare, such as Toys for Tots, Food Banks, and the like. Salvation Army surely does good work, but until they sever ties with Jeebus they get not a dime from me. Not anymore.

 

I also donate old clothing to my local Association for Retarded Citizens. Little things like that that can truly help people.

[pitchu]

As The-Doctor points out, so many things which are charitable acts, but which aren't necessarily directly monetary, are left out of the equation.

 

Does adopting kids out of foster care and loving them and raising them to adulthood and still being there for them count? If it does, screw other people's ideas of a "giving and charitable heart" -- Hubby and I have given and given and given.

[MaleficVTwin]

My aunt did foster care when I was younger and also adopted several foster children. Most people don't understand the sacrifice involved. good on you.

[The-Captain]

Does adopting kids out of foster care and loving them and raising them to adulthood and still being there for them count? If it does, screw other people's ideas of a "giving and charitable heart" -- Hubby and I have given and given and given.

 

More than anything! If that's not a generous heart I don't know what is.

 

This whole thing makes me a bit angry, "surprised at the results" my ass. I'm sure this guy had no agenda whatsoever when compiling this data

[Vigile]

The whole premise of the study is wrong. Who says that giving to charity is the best way to measure morality or even contribution to humanity?

 

For example, it's well known that religious fundamentalists are first in line to support wars, they have historically stood in the way of scientific progress, they have historically extended the reigns of bigotry. So, they give 10% to their local Catholic charity so that the homeless can get a dose of the gospel before they get a bowl of gruel. Or they give to the children's fund so that missionaries can go and indoctrinate the hungry and unguarded ignorant.

 

The world is not a better place because people are led around by the nose by these memes.

[Thurisaz]

What do you folks think of this?

 

Can't tell from my own experience - Germany is probably very different from the US here - but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that they may give more, but not out of any true compassion, but because their cult führers told them so.

 

In fact I pretty much expect that if you reduce all that to those who give because they want to give, the non-morontheists look better again.

[bush country]

When I read the OP I thought...those statistics are bs.

 

Here is a link to a Barna report: http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=Ba...rnaUpdateID=296

 

Take that with a grain of salt because Barna is going to be skewed to show christians in a good light. The study points out that about 5 - 7% of adults tithe. If I understand their study correctly, they are defining tithing as donating to a church or other non-profit charity. As a church member (SBC) I knew that about 20% of the membership donates almost all the money. Only about 30% of Baptists ever donate anything. So how could Brooks come up with 91% donating? Yeah, sure they do.

[pitchu]

Just want to make it clear that in adopting our kids we got plenty in return, too.

 

(But then, the kinds of feelings we got in return are supposed to be what you feel when you do right, right? This whole "charity" notion is such a convoluted, twisted and suspect area of human endeavor and, ultimately, unmeasurable. How can Acting With Humanity, itself, be measured?)

[chefranden]

Does this Charitable giving include the church and church related organizations such as missionary societies?

 

One of the reasons I gave more as a Christian is that I expected that God would sooner or later return it 100 fold. But I also thought about it more because it was talked up. All my giving went to something church related like the church, bible camp, missionaries, and so forth. AC, I continued my giving by giving to the food shelf, but I wouldn't support anything church related (except the Salvation Army).

 

Lately though I've let the giving fall off. What used to cost me a hundred bucks at the grocery store a year or so back now costs nearly $150. Being on a fixed income, I just don't have it to give anymore. I don't even buy used books anymore. If it is not at the library, I don't read it. Maybe that is just an excuse?

[Guest QuidEstCaritas?]

I've never given money to an organized charity. But I've worked some 200+ hours for the Red Cross as a volunteer doing hurricane cleanup and I endeavor to be charitable to the people I come across in whatever way I can. And I know a lot of other people like me. I'd wager that most active "charity" is of the sort that can't be accounted for in census data. It's giving someone a lift, spotting someone change for a payphone, letting the other person take that taxi, buying a meal for someone who couldn't afford it, giving a bloke on the street your coat. It's ridiculous to try to quantify which group is more charitable, and smacks of false piety and pride on the part of those claiming the moral high ground. Jesus had some choice things to say about that sort of thing.

 

I agree with this so much dude. It felt good to read your words, and it felt liberating.

[PaulQ]

Why is it that, whenever these surveys are conducted, neither myself nor anyone I know are invited to participate? Just how big (or rather, how small) was the sample group?

[babysealclubber]

A few thoughts...

 

I read the book "Bowling Alone" about a year ago. It went into some detail on this subject, and if I recall correctly, used basically the same numbers, concluding that even excluding religious contributions, christians and conservatives gave more than their secular cousins. Even among the religious segment, charitable contributions represented a very small amount of total income, something like three percent. Actually, it broke it down between Protestants and Catholics! I need to read it again. It really was a fascinating book, if a bit repetitive. Lots and lots of statistics.

 

In any event, I may be too trusting an individual, but I'm willing to accept the validity of the survey, and think that research in this area is worthwhile, whatever the results may be.

 

I've heard it postulated (I can't remember where, or if this was backed up by research or not, sorry) that a secular donator tends to give money and time more directly to those who need it, so that they can see a real impact, and feel the reward. The religious are more likely to donate anonymously. Secular citizens also tend to be much more supportive of government based social welfare programs than religious types. Contributions to these programs are not voluntary, and are certainly not donations, but they are significant in terms of dollars and total impact, regardless of whatever inefficiency may be incurred through the process. (I don't know how that is measured, but if someone has information, I would very much like to hear it.)

 

I've donated very little of my income or time to charities of any sort since my de-conversion. I'd like to change that in the near future, but I've been trying to keep my own head above water lately.

[babysealclubber]

Take that with a grain of salt because Barna is going to be skewed to show christians in a good light. The study points out that about 5 - 7% of adults tithe. If I understand their study correctly, they are defining tithing as donating to a church or other non-profit charity. As a church member (SBC) I knew that about 20% of the membership donates almost all the money. Only about 30% of Baptists ever donate anything. So how could Brooks come up with 91% donating? Yeah, sure they do.

 

I'm pretty sure that tithing, as defined in this survey, are religious donations totaling 10 percent or greater of household income. The 91% refers to donations of any amount, to any organization.

 

At least that's my understanding.

[PaulQ]

Which is more noble: To be charitable because of a belief that you will reap the reward of going to heaven after you die, or to be charitable simply for the sakes of making the world a little better for those less fortunate? We often equate being charitable with nobility, but is it truly charitable if one expects a reward afterward at a certain point?

 

I extend my own charitable donations whenever I can afford to do so, and only to secular organizations that are genuinely interested in helping others, rather than use the money to peddle their religion. This is why I would donate to Goodwill or Value Village before I'd donate anything to the Salvation Army (I confess; there is a reward in that I de-clutter), and when I had a well-paying job, I made sure a little bit was deducted from every paycheque to the United Way (which did bring with it a rather insignificant tax break). That aside, the truly charitable acts are the ones I do every day without thinking: Letting someone into traffic. Helping someone clean up a mess they've just made. Essentially, the things that put me out a little to make someone else's life better, when I would expect nothing in return.

[babysealclubber]

Speculation on why Christians might give more than regular folk, in no particular order:

 

1. Obligation

2. Social posturing

3. Trust that God will provide for them

4. Belief that they will be rewarded financially or in the afterlife

5. Increased opportunity to give

 

The last one I think is overlooked.

 

In church life, there are constant reminders to give time and money. I think that secularists would appear more generous if they got together once or more per week, passed an offering bag/plate around, were nominated for leadership positions, received letters and phone calls asking for assistance with a project. Church going christians get these prods in addition to anything in their daily lives.

 

Without going to church, it's usually (at least in my experience) incumbent on the individual to seek out opportunities to give.