Thread: Compassion Gap
View Single Post
  #73  
Old 01-17-2010, 11:17 PM
Billybob Billybob is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Cape Cod Massachusetts
Posts: 1,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by kerry View Post
I resurrected the thread and the last time I checked, I was singular.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kerry View Post
This issue was raised in one of the recent threads on conservatives and Haiti so I thought I'd resuscitate it and make a comment.
I'd like to know more about the study itself. I think it's possible that conservatives might give more to charity than liberals but I suspect the data is skewed. Conservatives tend to be more religious than liberals and I'm betting that a considerable portion of the charitable giving in the study was to churches since they are non-profit institutions. Most of that money goes top pay for minister/priests/bishops/secretaries salaries and building maintenance and upkeep. I would not consider that 'charitable giving' in the same way as a donation to the Red Cross is charitable giving. Many churches in my experience do give a portion of their income to relief, disaster and the needy poor but that is a small percentage of their overall budget compared to something like the Red Cross or Red Crescent.
In addition, many if not all religions have a religious duty to give money to the institution which produces a strong social expectation and sanction that does not exist for non-church members.
In other words, a substantial portion of giving to churches amounts to tax deductible union dues and shouldn't really be factored into the 'charitable giving'. Perhaps it wasn't, but I suspect it was. Anyone have the details on the study?
While you can claim responsibility for starting the resurrection, you certainly can't now claim that you did so completely ignoring the subsequent contributions of your respondent fellow travelers can you? It would seem disingenuous at best if after having ended your post with a question, to later deny them equal credit as if their contribution where un-anticipatable rather than what was in truth inevitability.

Things must be mighty slow at the philosopher’s café if you’re reduced once again to arguing semantic hair splitting here with the unenlightened?
Reply With Quote