89 Replies to “David Suzuki: International Man Of Irony”
I totally agree with batb: both the Fraser Institute and Theodore Dalrymple have empirical evidence that people of faith, mainly Christians, are responsible for the lion’s share of charitable givings, medical aid, and volunteer hours around the world.
That’s not conjecture or a mere “generalization”, as you allege: that’s a fact.
I’m pretty sure that batb would agree with me.
If you have proof of your magical thinking generalizations, be my guest: show me. Provide facts, not holier-than-thou tut-tutting about “sweeping morally-tinged conclusions”.
But pitting one religious group against another, and implying that one is more generous and compassionate than the other, is arrogant and offensive, not to mention demonstrably false, as the above organizations attest.”
Sorry to disagree with you but the name and religion on the door means nothing. What counts are the people donating time money or goods. Many of my Christian friends donate to the local food bank as well as the food bank run by our Church. Most would say that our Church doesn’t have a big enough outreach to help hungry and homeless so they have to help other organizations that have greater outreach such as foodbanks and homeless shelters. On the occasion I have had to donate at the non-church food bank I noticed that most of the workers are Christians. The staff’s religious affilliation may change when I am not there but I rather doubt it.
“I mean, we can go there if you want”:
“Conservatives who practice religion are the most generous Americans, by any measure.”
SYRACUSE, N.Y. — Syracuse University professor Arthur C. Brooks is about to become the darling of the religious right in America — and it’s making him nervous.
The child of academics, raised in a liberal household and educated in the liberal arts, 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.
In the book, he cites extensive data analysis to demonstrate that values advocated by conservatives — from church attendance and two-parent families to the Protestant work ethic and a distaste for government-funded social services — make conservatives more generous than liberals.
The book, titled “Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism” (Basic Books, $26), is due for release Nov. 24.
When it comes to helping the needy, Brooks writes: “For too long, liberals have been claiming they are the most virtuous members of American society. Although they usually give less to charity, they have nevertheless lambasted conservatives for their callousness in the face of social injustice.”
For the record, Brooks, 42, has been registered in the past as a Democrat, then a Republican, but now lists himself as independent, explaining, “I have no comfortable political home.”
Since 2003 he has been director of nonprofit studies for Syracuse University’s Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs.
Outside professional circles, he’s best known for his regular op-ed columns in The Wall Street Journal (13 over the past 18 months) on topics that stray a bit from his philanthropy expertise.
He’s a number cruncher who relied primarily on 10 databases assembled over the past decade, mostly from scientific surveys. The data are adjusted for variables such as age, gender, race and income to draw fine-point conclusions.
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.
Conversely, secular liberals who believe fervently in government entitlement programs give far less to charity. They want everyone’s tax dollars to support charitable causes and are reluctant to write checks to those causes, even when governments don’t provide them with enough money.
Such an attitude, he writes, not only shortchanges the nonprofits but also diminishes the positive fallout of giving, including personal health, wealth and happiness for the donor and overall economic growth. All of this, he said, he backs up with statistical analysis.
Harvey Mansfield, professor of government at Harvard University and 2004 recipient of the National Humanities Medal, does not know Brooks personally but has read the book.
“His main finding is quite startling, that the people who talk the most about caring actually fork over the least,” he said. “But beyond this finding I thought his analysis was extremely good, especially for an economist. He thinks very well about the reason for this and reflects about politics and morals in a way most economists do their best to avoid.”
– As I said, shredded.
“NEVER forget that.”
Wow.
No problem, Kate. I’ll delete you from my bookmarks forthwith.
Joe: Many of my Christian friends donate to the local food bank…
Have you ever asked your non-Christian friends whether or not they also donate? On the occasion I have had to donate at the non-church food bank I noticed that most of the workers are Christians.
How did you know they’re Christian? And assuming they are, how do you know they volunteer there because of their faith?
irwin daisy: As I said, shredded.
What exactly did you think you proved there, irwin? That conservatives are more compassionate and giving than liberals?
So if we combine the Brooks research with the data from the joint study I linked to at 5:07pm, are we then to conclude that African-American conservatives are more compassionate and giving than white conservatives?
And why stop there? How about gender? Urban/rural? Occupational category? Let’s keep parsing it down even more, hierarchies upon hierarchies of relative generosity and compassion, until we finally get down to the self-indulgent conclusion that everyone here is implying anyway: that “we” are better than “them.”
Selmer,
Conservatives give more to charity.
Conservatives favour individual (vs. state) responsibility, and therefore individual giving.
Liberals favour state giving. Or put another way, someone else giving.
Liberals like to talk a lot about giving (which gives them the sense that they are indirectly giving, when in fact their “indirect” giving is really a call for someone else to give). They still get the “I feel good about myself for trying to make a difference” without putting their money where their collective mouths are.
Such as Paul Martin’s Tsunami aid. Did it ever get there ?
Have you ever asked your non-Christian friends whether or not they also donate?
Yes I have and no they don’t.
Yes, biff, I know. Those are the standard talking points that have emerged in light of empirical findings like those of Arthur Brooks (see above).
So my question is, why stop there? In light of empirical findings like that of the Council of Foundations, shall we conclude that, when compared to Hispanics or blacks, white people also like to get the “I feel good about myself for trying to make a difference” without fully putting their money where their collective mouths are?
Give it up, Selmer. You’re out on a limb your insipid and self-serving platitudes are rapidly sawing off.
“Rock-a-bye [cry]baby on the treetop . . . when the bough breaks . . . down will come Selmer [sort of like those plumetting babies], [welfare] cradle and all.”
‘Bye.
Selmer,
you seem to be confusing differences in belief systems,
which is entirely relevent to human behavior,
with skin color,
which is not.
Do you always attempt to leverage the dispicability of racism as some pathetic shield to thwart scrutiny of your world view,
or do you just do it on Sundays?
djb, March 10, 2005…
****
jackson, hilton.
Mention them, get removed from my bookmarks.
Buh-bye.”
***
Now, this time – stay away.
Selmer is another vacuous, liberal/left moron.
Comes to a gunfight, pulls a pointy finger and is too stupid to notice the flying lead.
How did you know they’re Christian? And assuming they are, how do you know they volunteer there because of their faith?
I tend to be an inquisitive fellow and ask people which church they attend. Most of the volunteers in the food bank tell me about their church and then go on to describe their church experience and motivations for doing what they do.
Only because I have access to the records of people giving to the church I have noticed that there appears between giving and cultural background. This includes giving to projects. One person will give a lot of money to send kids to camp but not a penny toward helping the homeless. Someone else will give lots of money to alleviate hunger but not a penny to the running of the church.
To the true believers out there,
Christians give more to tax deductible charities, but that doesn’t mean that they give more. When I lived in Thailand (as a Rotary Exchange Student) the Thai (Buddhist) families I lived with gave food, water and shelter (alms) to monks making pilgrimages.
It’s ironic that Irwin or ET or whoever tried to show that percentage wise Islam is the largest growing religion, because in my mind, total population growth is a better indicator. Of Canada’s 35M people there was a 4% growth in no religions whereas there was a 1% growth of Islam. I don’t want to actually do math so I’ll just ball park it and say No Religion actually grew at a 400% greater rate than Islam.
The irony is that giving $10Gs of $100Gs to charity means nothing, you are giving 30% of your disposable income (or something like that) whereas the aforementioned Buddhists that I lived with gave 95% of their disposable income to the Wat (temple) or Alms (monks). Sure Christians give more money, but they give less of what is unneeded than Buddhists.
Also, nominally I am a RomanCatholic/Protestant according to Canada, however I haven’t been to a Church in years (after going twice (don’t forget youth group) every Sunday for 17 years). I haven’t changed my status on my census card because I’d rather not be targeted as a minority.
Christians (but more accurately Canadians and Americans) gave a lot to the Tsunami Funds not because we were helping our Muslim friends, but because we saw the images on our televisions (that we watch every day). By your logic one could say that North American Christians are better people than the Hill Tribes of Burma because we gave more to the Tsunami Fund. Where were the Christian Amish or Mennonite donations?
Also, regarding The Sudan, you are not helping out Muslims, you are impeding them from killing the Christian minorities in the south.
I guess there’s no point in letting a little fact get in the way of your holier than thou rhetoric.
Christians do not give more to charities because they are Christian; they give more because they have more disposable income to do so. Correlation != causation, regardless of how it bolsters your argument.
A tad off topic, but please go to the following site and vote no. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/
The question is ‘Do you agree that global warming is “an emergency unlike anything humankind has ever faced before?
Jon since by your own admission you haven’t been to church since you reached puberty I would suggest you have no idea why people of the Christian faith give and to what charity they give.
jon – you are mixing up values. The question was – what is the fastest growing ‘religion’ in Canada? Not the proportion of the population that it represents, but the growth rate. Don’t mix up apples and porkchops.
Statistics Canada: Major religious denominations, Canada, 1991 and 2001.
According to Statistics Canada, (google in ‘religious affiliation in Canada’ or the above title)the fastest growing religion is Muslim, where the rate of growth over a period of ten years is from 0.9 to 2.0; that’s an increase of 128.9%.
The no-religion changed from 12.3 to 16.2, which is an increase of 43.9%.
I don’t see where you get your figures from.
Oh – and ‘other christians’ (Not RC or Protestant or Orthodox) grew at 121.1%
Both the rate of growth and population proportion are important. It’s best to put these numbers in percentages; this enables one to model them on a graph and compare them.
“Christians do not give more to charities because they are Christian; they give more because they have more disposable income to do so.”
Bullbleep, selmer. One of the major charities around here (Texas, USA) is Leaning Tree Church, and at a LTC you would be hard-pressed to find a car newer than three years old. Hispanics give more than whites because Hispanics are overwhelmingly Roman Catholic (=Christian) and, like other Christians, give because they are Christians, whereas many whites are “other religions”.
You are simply trying to bluster your way around the cold, hard fact that you and the rest of the quasi-Left like to consider yourselves “kind” and “generous” on the ground that you encourage politicians to rob (other) people to accomplish what you claim to be your aims, because that leaves the cash in your pocket for your own self-gratification. It’s precisely the same effect as seeing “industrialists” support Government-run medicine and retirement: if somebody else pays those benefits they don’t have to, and that means more profits for them.
It would be funny if it weren’t quite so blatant. Nobody beats a self-declared Socialist for careful focus on their own personal Bottom Line.
Regards,
Ric
Jon said, “Christians do not give more to charities because they are Christian; they give more because they have more disposable income to do so.”
What poppycock! What about the vast numbers of non Christians with “more dosposable income” who give very little or nothing?
Speaking for myself, I give more because of my Christian belief. If I kept that money to myself, I’d be able to do a number of things–a foreign holiday, maybe–I can’t do because I give that money away.
I believe the average charitable givings of Canadians is less than $200 per year–vastly lower than the donations of Americans. Jon, many of the people who don’t give have loads of disposable income: they just aren’t motivated in the ME-ME society we live in to give it away. Committed Christians think differently. (Of course, a percentage of non-Chritians give generously. However, the percentage would be lower than that of committed Christians, most of whom give generously as a direct result of their beliefs.)
From Statistics Canada:
“Canada Survey of Giving, Volunteering and Participating
2004
“Canadians are extremely generous [sic: see below] with the money and time they give to charitable and other nonprofit organizations. But it is a relatively small proportion of the population that provides the bulk of the help, according to the latest survey on giving and volunteering.
“Although many Canadians give money, charitable and other nonprofit organizations rely on a relatively small group of donors for the majority of their support. The top one-quarter of donors (21% of Canadians) who gave $325 or more during 2004 provided 82% of the value of all donations, the survey showed.
“These top donors tended to be older, to have higher levels of household income, and to have higher levels of formal education. People who are employed or widowed, OR ATTEND RELIGIOUS SERVICES ON A WEEKLY BASIS [emphasis mine], also tended to be in this top group of donors.”
Think again–or at all–Jon.
I want to believe Bush is smart, convince me.
ET: According to Statistics Canada, (google in ‘religious affiliation in Canada’ or the above title) the fastest growing religion is Muslim, where the rate of growth over a period of ten years is from 0.9 to 2.0; that’s an increase of 128.9%. The no-religion changed from 12.3 to 16.2, which is an increase of 43.9%.
Except, of course, that choosing a 10-year timeframe (1991-2001) is entirely arbitrary. If you pick a 30-yr timeframe (1971-2001), then the population identifying as “Muslim” and “No religion” have increased about 1660% and 1790%, respectively. So depending on what timeframe you use, Moira Farr may be either wrong or right after all.
I’m wondering if ken melrose is smart: no evidence so far. Convince me.
Joe I would suggest you stick to facts. Your presumption is wrong (I won’t even tell you which one).
I’d also (hint) prefer if you left out the ad hominem… it’s embarrassing and mentally young. I’m pretty sure Christians give BECAUSE THEY CAN. So do my atheist friends, and my which friends, and my gay friends, and my Christian friends (Oh wait we covered that one already).
People give, and Christian Charity exists, because people want to help out their fellow man. A Christian Banker gives more than a Sudanese dirt farmer… surprise surprise.
ET,
The Math: (please forgive me oh lord for not knowing the population in 2001 or 1991, in His name I pray for forgiveness)
Total pop of Canada (est): 35M
Total Muslims (2001): 0.02 x 35M = 700,000
Total Muslims (1991): 0.009 x 35M = 315,000
Difference: +385,000
Total No Religion (2001): 0.162 x 35M = 5,670,000
Total no religion (1991): 0.123 x 35M = 4,305,000
Difference: +1,365,000
1,365,000 > 385,000.
Like I said in my previous post, giving as a percentage of disposable income is a much better indicator of who is the more compassionate.
Population growth as a percentage is useless if you’re talking about the fastest growing group. In the 10 year period we are speaking about there are 980,000 more new NO RELIGION than there are new MUSLIMS. I’m not a population expert but I think it’s safe to say that No Religion is growing 354.55% (divide the big one by the small one) faster than Muslims in real growth terms.
Your logic leaves out the Religions that only had 1 Canadian member in 1991 and now have 10. They in percentage terms are growing even faster than Muslims. Also, I’m pretty sure you can graph and compare real values as well as percentages.
For Example:
Percentage Growth:
Muslims:
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX%
No Religion:
XXXXXXXXX%
Or,
Real Growth:
Muslims:
XXXX
No Religion:
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
It all depends on whether or not you are desperately grasping at straws to defend your position.
I also disagree with you that No Religion is not to be considered as a Religion (I know… Irony… check the title of the post), but one who does not believe in a god or a religion requires the same faith as someone who chooses to believe.
Lookout,
“These top donors tended to be older, to have higher levels of household income, and to have higher levels of formal education. People who are employed OR [emphasis mine] widowed, OR [emphasis mine] attend religious services on a weekly basis, also tended to be in this top group of donors.”
When you try to act smart please make sure you understand what the word OR means. I also suggest as a Christian you read John 8:7.
If you only give because you are a Christian and not because you were born with a desire to do good, I’m glad you found god, otherwise you’d probably be out huffing gas or tripping the elderly. I know all my non christian friends do that because they don’t have the guidance of Jesus.
Just Wow.
Ken,
Bush is the President of the Most Powerful Nation in the History of the World. He has an MBA from Harvard and he was formerly the Governor of Texas.
If those qualifications do not make someone “smart” I don’t know what would.
To get back to the original post: Allow me to present…the ‘stupid’ Word of the Day. Metonymy.
Christians do not give more to charities because they are Christian; they give more because they have more disposable income to do so.
Christian societies have more to give because they’re Christian.
Hoss,
Please see my comment about causation and correlation.
Bah. Clearly Jon has never had to subsist by panhandling.
If he had, he would know what every bum on Queen Street learned the first day: the “generosity” of liberals consists entirely of voting for politicians who promise to collect the wherewithal for Good Works by fleecing other people. The pittance the liberal lives on is barely sufficient for payments on the Lexus and a daily latte.
Regards,
Ric
That’s funny Jon I used John 8: 1 – 11 in my sermon this AM and since you want to toss out bits of Scripture I might suggest that you would want to read Matthew 19: 27-29. Please realize that there are many Christians who take this passage to heart and have based their ownership of material goods on this very teaching.
In your posting there is a false presumption. You think that having is cause for giving. This is not only faulty logic it is patently false. Having more enables one so motivated to give more but having more is not motivation to give more. If having were motivation then there would have been no need for Jesus to say “Of him who has much, much shall be required.” What you are blithely ignoring is that Christians give more regardless of income or wealth levels.
An auto parts heiress just gave away a million dollars for breast cancer research and the media fawned over her and her donation. I met a man who gives away the profits from his company so he can build churches in the poorer parts of the world. Yes he owns a profitable company with almost 100 employees but all the profits beyond his minimal living expenses (He like St Paul does not want to burden anyone) go to putting up churches in central America. Before he became a Christian he didn’t give any of the profits away. When he became a Christian he began by giving 10% away. Within a few years he was giving it all away. What changed? The heiress gave the money after she was diagnosed with breast cancer. The wealthy business man began to give after his conversion to Christianity. Who has given more? Not sure. I know that the autoparts heiress has more money available and while I don’t know of her other charitable giving I know that the business man has given millions away over the years. However there is one other difference between the heiress and the businessman.
The business man practices another teaching of Christ, “When you give, give in secret, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing. I found out about him and his giving practices through some of the churches that meet in the buildings he has built. When I finally met him he wouldn’t even speak about giving, instead he spoke about the churches meeting in church buildings he had put his sweat equity into building.
Congratulations Selmer! You succeeded in spinning everyone off the main topic. Proving G.Bush isn’t stupid! Good One!!
Fropm the Canada Council for (F)Arts
Discipline – SOFI
Program – Writing & Publishing – Supplementary Operating Funds Initiative
Recipient City Province Riding Grant
This Magazine TORONTO ON Trinity–Spadina 4,440
Discipline – Writing and Publishing
Program – Grants to Literary and Art Magazines
Recipient City Province Riding Grant
This Magazine TORONTO ON Trinity–Spadina 46,800
Please see my comment about causation and correlation.
The richest countires are, without exception, all Christian countries. In this case that might be a hint.
Oy vey!
Not only do we have to put up with the steady stream of propaganda from Dr. Sukooki, we have to pay for them, too.
Oh Canada!
ol hoss: “The richest countires are, without exception, all Christian countries. In this case that might be a hint.”
Well-spoken, ol hoss, and, unfortunately, a truth, a fact, that the lefties will just not posit. They refuse to concede that Christianity has anything positive to contribute to society and continue to denigrate, ridicule, and devalue those in our society who are worshipping Christians.
Lest we think this thread has gone hopelessly off topic, David Suzuki is one of the main proponents of anti-Christian propaganda in Canada. Check out “A Planet for the Taking,” one of Suzuki’s propaganda series for television–via, natch, the CBC–which made its way into nearly every Canadian public school classroom back in the ’80s. (I know otherwise thinking twenty-somethings, who are Christians, for heavens sake!, who have fallen hook, line, and sinker for Suzuki’s thesis.)
He blames cruelty to animals on Christians because the God of the Hebrew/Christian Scriptures told humankind to name and subjugate them and says that the Dark Ages were largely as a result of the Christian Church.
He completely, ignores, of course, that it is the Christian Church that kept civilization alive, barely at times, and the lamp of learning flickering, during the Dark Ages, when the barbarian hordes were invading Europe, burning and pillaging libraries and institutions of higher learning.
Monasteries and convents were preserving learned documents, while some monks spent their whole lives transcribing them and hiding them from the barbarous maurauders.
“Dr.” Suzuki does not do his homework. He jumps on the most current junk science bandwagon, hitches it to the latest government incentive cheques being handed out, and then dumps it on the largely unsuspecting public.
What we need to do is to educate ourselves about what’s really going on. Kate does an admirable job helping us do just this.
Why dont ookie pukie DAVID SUZUKI just quit his idiotic babbling and keep his flapping piehole closed and quit producing all that HOT AIR
Islam as the so-called ‘fastest growing religion’ is a ridiculous claim. The entire emphasis must be placed on the ‘fastest growing through immigration.’ It has nothing to do with conversion.
‘Other’ Christian holds that place, meaning protestant evangelical/charismatic/pentecostal. As it does throughout the world.
Islam doesn’t even come close. It’s methods of growth are procreation and immigration. Other than that it appeals to the lowest common denominator, ie violent prison inmates. Or, conversion by the sword.
I totally agree with batb: both the Fraser Institute and Theodore Dalrymple have empirical evidence that people of faith, mainly Christians, are responsible for the lion’s share of charitable givings, medical aid, and volunteer hours around the world.
That’s not conjecture or a mere “generalization”, as you allege: that’s a fact.
I’m pretty sure that batb would agree with me.
If you have proof of your magical thinking generalizations, be my guest: show me. Provide facts, not holier-than-thou tut-tutting about “sweeping morally-tinged conclusions”.
But pitting one religious group against another, and implying that one is more generous and compassionate than the other, is arrogant and offensive, not to mention demonstrably false, as the above organizations attest.”
Sorry to disagree with you but the name and religion on the door means nothing. What counts are the people donating time money or goods. Many of my Christian friends donate to the local food bank as well as the food bank run by our Church. Most would say that our Church doesn’t have a big enough outreach to help hungry and homeless so they have to help other organizations that have greater outreach such as foodbanks and homeless shelters. On the occasion I have had to donate at the non-church food bank I noticed that most of the workers are Christians. The staff’s religious affilliation may change when I am not there but I rather doubt it.
“I mean, we can go there if you want”:
“Conservatives who practice religion are the most generous Americans, by any measure.”
SYRACUSE, N.Y. — Syracuse University professor Arthur C. Brooks is about to become the darling of the religious right in America — and it’s making him nervous.
The child of academics, raised in a liberal household and educated in the liberal arts, 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.
In the book, he cites extensive data analysis to demonstrate that values advocated by conservatives — from church attendance and two-parent families to the Protestant work ethic and a distaste for government-funded social services — make conservatives more generous than liberals.
The book, titled “Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism” (Basic Books, $26), is due for release Nov. 24.
When it comes to helping the needy, Brooks writes: “For too long, liberals have been claiming they are the most virtuous members of American society. Although they usually give less to charity, they have nevertheless lambasted conservatives for their callousness in the face of social injustice.”
For the record, Brooks, 42, has been registered in the past as a Democrat, then a Republican, but now lists himself as independent, explaining, “I have no comfortable political home.”
Since 2003 he has been director of nonprofit studies for Syracuse University’s Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs.
Outside professional circles, he’s best known for his regular op-ed columns in The Wall Street Journal (13 over the past 18 months) on topics that stray a bit from his philanthropy expertise.
He’s a number cruncher who relied primarily on 10 databases assembled over the past decade, mostly from scientific surveys. The data are adjusted for variables such as age, gender, race and income to draw fine-point conclusions.
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.
Conversely, secular liberals who believe fervently in government entitlement programs give far less to charity. They want everyone’s tax dollars to support charitable causes and are reluctant to write checks to those causes, even when governments don’t provide them with enough money.
Such an attitude, he writes, not only shortchanges the nonprofits but also diminishes the positive fallout of giving, including personal health, wealth and happiness for the donor and overall economic growth. All of this, he said, he backs up with statistical analysis.
Harvey Mansfield, professor of government at Harvard University and 2004 recipient of the National Humanities Medal, does not know Brooks personally but has read the book.
“His main finding is quite startling, that the people who talk the most about caring actually fork over the least,” he said. “But beyond this finding I thought his analysis was extremely good, especially for an economist. He thinks very well about the reason for this and reflects about politics and morals in a way most economists do their best to avoid.”
– As I said, shredded.
“NEVER forget that.”
Wow.
No problem, Kate. I’ll delete you from my bookmarks forthwith.
Joe: Many of my Christian friends donate to the local food bank…
Have you ever asked your non-Christian friends whether or not they also donate?
On the occasion I have had to donate at the non-church food bank I noticed that most of the workers are Christians.
How did you know they’re Christian? And assuming they are, how do you know they volunteer there because of their faith?
irwin daisy: As I said, shredded.
What exactly did you think you proved there, irwin? That conservatives are more compassionate and giving than liberals?
So if we combine the Brooks research with the data from the joint study I linked to at 5:07pm, are we then to conclude that African-American conservatives are more compassionate and giving than white conservatives?
And why stop there? How about gender? Urban/rural? Occupational category? Let’s keep parsing it down even more, hierarchies upon hierarchies of relative generosity and compassion, until we finally get down to the self-indulgent conclusion that everyone here is implying anyway: that “we” are better than “them.”
Selmer,
Conservatives give more to charity.
Conservatives favour individual (vs. state) responsibility, and therefore individual giving.
Liberals favour state giving. Or put another way, someone else giving.
Liberals like to talk a lot about giving (which gives them the sense that they are indirectly giving, when in fact their “indirect” giving is really a call for someone else to give). They still get the “I feel good about myself for trying to make a difference” without putting their money where their collective mouths are.
Such as Paul Martin’s Tsunami aid. Did it ever get there ?
Have you ever asked your non-Christian friends whether or not they also donate?
Yes I have and no they don’t.
Yes, biff, I know. Those are the standard talking points that have emerged in light of empirical findings like those of Arthur Brooks (see above).
So my question is, why stop there? In light of empirical findings like that of the Council of Foundations, shall we conclude that, when compared to Hispanics or blacks, white people also like to get the “I feel good about myself for trying to make a difference” without fully putting their money where their collective mouths are?
Give it up, Selmer. You’re out on a limb your insipid and self-serving platitudes are rapidly sawing off.
“Rock-a-bye [cry]baby on the treetop . . . when the bough breaks . . . down will come Selmer [sort of like those plumetting babies], [welfare] cradle and all.”
‘Bye.
Selmer,
you seem to be confusing differences in belief systems,
which is entirely relevent to human behavior,
with skin color,
which is not.
Do you always attempt to leverage the dispicability of racism as some pathetic shield to thwart scrutiny of your world view,
or do you just do it on Sundays?
djb, March 10, 2005…
****
jackson, hilton.
Mention them, get removed from my bookmarks.
Buh-bye.”
***
Now, this time – stay away.
Selmer is another vacuous, liberal/left moron.
Comes to a gunfight, pulls a pointy finger and is too stupid to notice the flying lead.
How did you know they’re Christian? And assuming they are, how do you know they volunteer there because of their faith?
I tend to be an inquisitive fellow and ask people which church they attend. Most of the volunteers in the food bank tell me about their church and then go on to describe their church experience and motivations for doing what they do.
Only because I have access to the records of people giving to the church I have noticed that there appears between giving and cultural background. This includes giving to projects. One person will give a lot of money to send kids to camp but not a penny toward helping the homeless. Someone else will give lots of money to alleviate hunger but not a penny to the running of the church.
To the true believers out there,
Christians give more to tax deductible charities, but that doesn’t mean that they give more. When I lived in Thailand (as a Rotary Exchange Student) the Thai (Buddhist) families I lived with gave food, water and shelter (alms) to monks making pilgrimages.
It’s ironic that Irwin or ET or whoever tried to show that percentage wise Islam is the largest growing religion, because in my mind, total population growth is a better indicator. Of Canada’s 35M people there was a 4% growth in no religions whereas there was a 1% growth of Islam. I don’t want to actually do math so I’ll just ball park it and say No Religion actually grew at a 400% greater rate than Islam.
The irony is that giving $10Gs of $100Gs to charity means nothing, you are giving 30% of your disposable income (or something like that) whereas the aforementioned Buddhists that I lived with gave 95% of their disposable income to the Wat (temple) or Alms (monks). Sure Christians give more money, but they give less of what is unneeded than Buddhists.
Also, nominally I am a RomanCatholic/Protestant according to Canada, however I haven’t been to a Church in years (after going twice (don’t forget youth group) every Sunday for 17 years). I haven’t changed my status on my census card because I’d rather not be targeted as a minority.
Christians (but more accurately Canadians and Americans) gave a lot to the Tsunami Funds not because we were helping our Muslim friends, but because we saw the images on our televisions (that we watch every day). By your logic one could say that North American Christians are better people than the Hill Tribes of Burma because we gave more to the Tsunami Fund. Where were the Christian Amish or Mennonite donations?
Also, regarding The Sudan, you are not helping out Muslims, you are impeding them from killing the Christian minorities in the south.
I guess there’s no point in letting a little fact get in the way of your holier than thou rhetoric.
Christians do not give more to charities because they are Christian; they give more because they have more disposable income to do so. Correlation != causation, regardless of how it bolsters your argument.
A tad off topic, but please go to the following site and vote no.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/
The question is ‘Do you agree that global warming is “an emergency unlike anything humankind has ever faced before?
Jon since by your own admission you haven’t been to church since you reached puberty I would suggest you have no idea why people of the Christian faith give and to what charity they give.
jon – you are mixing up values. The question was – what is the fastest growing ‘religion’ in Canada? Not the proportion of the population that it represents, but the growth rate. Don’t mix up apples and porkchops.
Statistics Canada: Major religious denominations, Canada, 1991 and 2001.
According to Statistics Canada, (google in ‘religious affiliation in Canada’ or the above title)the fastest growing religion is Muslim, where the rate of growth over a period of ten years is from 0.9 to 2.0; that’s an increase of 128.9%.
The no-religion changed from 12.3 to 16.2, which is an increase of 43.9%.
I don’t see where you get your figures from.
Oh – and ‘other christians’ (Not RC or Protestant or Orthodox) grew at 121.1%
Both the rate of growth and population proportion are important. It’s best to put these numbers in percentages; this enables one to model them on a graph and compare them.
“Christians do not give more to charities because they are Christian; they give more because they have more disposable income to do so.”
Bullbleep, selmer. One of the major charities around here (Texas, USA) is Leaning Tree Church, and at a LTC you would be hard-pressed to find a car newer than three years old. Hispanics give more than whites because Hispanics are overwhelmingly Roman Catholic (=Christian) and, like other Christians, give because they are Christians, whereas many whites are “other religions”.
You are simply trying to bluster your way around the cold, hard fact that you and the rest of the quasi-Left like to consider yourselves “kind” and “generous” on the ground that you encourage politicians to rob (other) people to accomplish what you claim to be your aims, because that leaves the cash in your pocket for your own self-gratification. It’s precisely the same effect as seeing “industrialists” support Government-run medicine and retirement: if somebody else pays those benefits they don’t have to, and that means more profits for them.
It would be funny if it weren’t quite so blatant. Nobody beats a self-declared Socialist for careful focus on their own personal Bottom Line.
Regards,
Ric
Jon said, “Christians do not give more to charities because they are Christian; they give more because they have more disposable income to do so.”
What poppycock! What about the vast numbers of non Christians with “more dosposable income” who give very little or nothing?
Speaking for myself, I give more because of my Christian belief. If I kept that money to myself, I’d be able to do a number of things–a foreign holiday, maybe–I can’t do because I give that money away.
I believe the average charitable givings of Canadians is less than $200 per year–vastly lower than the donations of Americans. Jon, many of the people who don’t give have loads of disposable income: they just aren’t motivated in the ME-ME society we live in to give it away. Committed Christians think differently. (Of course, a percentage of non-Chritians give generously. However, the percentage would be lower than that of committed Christians, most of whom give generously as a direct result of their beliefs.)
From Statistics Canada:
“Canada Survey of Giving, Volunteering and Participating
2004
“Canadians are extremely generous [sic: see below] with the money and time they give to charitable and other nonprofit organizations. But it is a relatively small proportion of the population that provides the bulk of the help, according to the latest survey on giving and volunteering.
“Although many Canadians give money, charitable and other nonprofit organizations rely on a relatively small group of donors for the majority of their support. The top one-quarter of donors (21% of Canadians) who gave $325 or more during 2004 provided 82% of the value of all donations, the survey showed.
“These top donors tended to be older, to have higher levels of household income, and to have higher levels of formal education. People who are employed or widowed, OR ATTEND RELIGIOUS SERVICES ON A WEEKLY BASIS [emphasis mine], also tended to be in this top group of donors.”
Think again–or at all–Jon.
I want to believe Bush is smart, convince me.
ET: According to Statistics Canada, (google in ‘religious affiliation in Canada’ or the above title) the fastest growing religion is Muslim, where the rate of growth over a period of ten years is from 0.9 to 2.0; that’s an increase of 128.9%. The no-religion changed from 12.3 to 16.2, which is an increase of 43.9%.
Except, of course, that choosing a 10-year timeframe (1991-2001) is entirely arbitrary. If you pick a 30-yr timeframe (1971-2001), then the population identifying as “Muslim” and “No religion” have increased about 1660% and 1790%, respectively. So depending on what timeframe you use, Moira Farr may be either wrong or right after all.
I’m wondering if ken melrose is smart: no evidence so far. Convince me.
Joe I would suggest you stick to facts. Your presumption is wrong (I won’t even tell you which one).
I’d also (hint) prefer if you left out the ad hominem… it’s embarrassing and mentally young. I’m pretty sure Christians give BECAUSE THEY CAN. So do my atheist friends, and my which friends, and my gay friends, and my Christian friends (Oh wait we covered that one already).
People give, and Christian Charity exists, because people want to help out their fellow man. A Christian Banker gives more than a Sudanese dirt farmer… surprise surprise.
ET,
The Math: (please forgive me oh lord for not knowing the population in 2001 or 1991, in His name I pray for forgiveness)
Total pop of Canada (est): 35M
Total Muslims (2001): 0.02 x 35M = 700,000
Total Muslims (1991): 0.009 x 35M = 315,000
Difference: +385,000
Total No Religion (2001): 0.162 x 35M = 5,670,000
Total no religion (1991): 0.123 x 35M = 4,305,000
Difference: +1,365,000
1,365,000 > 385,000.
Like I said in my previous post, giving as a percentage of disposable income is a much better indicator of who is the more compassionate.
Population growth as a percentage is useless if you’re talking about the fastest growing group. In the 10 year period we are speaking about there are 980,000 more new NO RELIGION than there are new MUSLIMS. I’m not a population expert but I think it’s safe to say that No Religion is growing 354.55% (divide the big one by the small one) faster than Muslims in real growth terms.
Your logic leaves out the Religions that only had 1 Canadian member in 1991 and now have 10. They in percentage terms are growing even faster than Muslims. Also, I’m pretty sure you can graph and compare real values as well as percentages.
For Example:
Percentage Growth:
Muslims:
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX%
No Religion:
XXXXXXXXX%
Or,
Real Growth:
Muslims:
XXXX
No Religion:
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
It all depends on whether or not you are desperately grasping at straws to defend your position.
I also disagree with you that No Religion is not to be considered as a Religion (I know… Irony… check the title of the post), but one who does not believe in a god or a religion requires the same faith as someone who chooses to believe.
Lookout,
“These top donors tended to be older, to have higher levels of household income, and to have higher levels of formal education. People who are employed OR [emphasis mine] widowed, OR [emphasis mine] attend religious services on a weekly basis, also tended to be in this top group of donors.”
When you try to act smart please make sure you understand what the word OR means. I also suggest as a Christian you read John 8:7.
If you only give because you are a Christian and not because you were born with a desire to do good, I’m glad you found god, otherwise you’d probably be out huffing gas or tripping the elderly. I know all my non christian friends do that because they don’t have the guidance of Jesus.
Just Wow.
Ken,
Bush is the President of the Most Powerful Nation in the History of the World. He has an MBA from Harvard and he was formerly the Governor of Texas.
If those qualifications do not make someone “smart” I don’t know what would.
To get back to the original post: Allow me to present…the ‘stupid’ Word of the Day.
Metonymy.
Christians do not give more to charities because they are Christian; they give more because they have more disposable income to do so.
Christian societies have more to give because they’re Christian.
Hoss,
Please see my comment about causation and correlation.
Bah. Clearly Jon has never had to subsist by panhandling.
If he had, he would know what every bum on Queen Street learned the first day: the “generosity” of liberals consists entirely of voting for politicians who promise to collect the wherewithal for Good Works by fleecing other people. The pittance the liberal lives on is barely sufficient for payments on the Lexus and a daily latte.
Regards,
Ric
That’s funny Jon I used John 8: 1 – 11 in my sermon this AM and since you want to toss out bits of Scripture I might suggest that you would want to read Matthew 19: 27-29. Please realize that there are many Christians who take this passage to heart and have based their ownership of material goods on this very teaching.
In your posting there is a false presumption. You think that having is cause for giving. This is not only faulty logic it is patently false. Having more enables one so motivated to give more but having more is not motivation to give more. If having were motivation then there would have been no need for Jesus to say “Of him who has much, much shall be required.” What you are blithely ignoring is that Christians give more regardless of income or wealth levels.
An auto parts heiress just gave away a million dollars for breast cancer research and the media fawned over her and her donation. I met a man who gives away the profits from his company so he can build churches in the poorer parts of the world. Yes he owns a profitable company with almost 100 employees but all the profits beyond his minimal living expenses (He like St Paul does not want to burden anyone) go to putting up churches in central America. Before he became a Christian he didn’t give any of the profits away. When he became a Christian he began by giving 10% away. Within a few years he was giving it all away. What changed? The heiress gave the money after she was diagnosed with breast cancer. The wealthy business man began to give after his conversion to Christianity. Who has given more? Not sure. I know that the autoparts heiress has more money available and while I don’t know of her other charitable giving I know that the business man has given millions away over the years. However there is one other difference between the heiress and the businessman.
The business man practices another teaching of Christ, “When you give, give in secret, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing. I found out about him and his giving practices through some of the churches that meet in the buildings he has built. When I finally met him he wouldn’t even speak about giving, instead he spoke about the churches meeting in church buildings he had put his sweat equity into building.
Congratulations Selmer! You succeeded in spinning everyone off the main topic. Proving G.Bush isn’t stupid! Good One!!
Fropm the Canada Council for (F)Arts
Discipline – SOFI
Program – Writing & Publishing – Supplementary Operating Funds Initiative
Recipient City Province Riding Grant
This Magazine TORONTO ON Trinity–Spadina 4,440
Discipline – Writing and Publishing
Program – Grants to Literary and Art Magazines
Recipient City Province Riding Grant
This Magazine TORONTO ON Trinity–Spadina 46,800
Please see my comment about causation and correlation.
The richest countires are, without exception, all Christian countries. In this case that might be a hint.
Oy vey!
Not only do we have to put up with the steady stream of propaganda from Dr. Sukooki, we have to pay for them, too.
Oh Canada!
ol hoss: “The richest countires are, without exception, all Christian countries. In this case that might be a hint.”
Well-spoken, ol hoss, and, unfortunately, a truth, a fact, that the lefties will just not posit. They refuse to concede that Christianity has anything positive to contribute to society and continue to denigrate, ridicule, and devalue those in our society who are worshipping Christians.
Lest we think this thread has gone hopelessly off topic, David Suzuki is one of the main proponents of anti-Christian propaganda in Canada. Check out “A Planet for the Taking,” one of Suzuki’s propaganda series for television–via, natch, the CBC–which made its way into nearly every Canadian public school classroom back in the ’80s. (I know otherwise thinking twenty-somethings, who are Christians, for heavens sake!, who have fallen hook, line, and sinker for Suzuki’s thesis.)
He blames cruelty to animals on Christians because the God of the Hebrew/Christian Scriptures told humankind to name and subjugate them and says that the Dark Ages were largely as a result of the Christian Church.
He completely, ignores, of course, that it is the Christian Church that kept civilization alive, barely at times, and the lamp of learning flickering, during the Dark Ages, when the barbarian hordes were invading Europe, burning and pillaging libraries and institutions of higher learning.
Monasteries and convents were preserving learned documents, while some monks spent their whole lives transcribing them and hiding them from the barbarous maurauders.
“Dr.” Suzuki does not do his homework. He jumps on the most current junk science bandwagon, hitches it to the latest government incentive cheques being handed out, and then dumps it on the largely unsuspecting public.
What we need to do is to educate ourselves about what’s really going on. Kate does an admirable job helping us do just this.
Why dont ookie pukie DAVID SUZUKI just quit his idiotic babbling and keep his flapping piehole closed and quit producing all that HOT AIR
Islam as the so-called ‘fastest growing religion’ is a ridiculous claim. The entire emphasis must be placed on the ‘fastest growing through immigration.’ It has nothing to do with conversion.
‘Other’ Christian holds that place, meaning protestant evangelical/charismatic/pentecostal. As it does throughout the world.
Islam doesn’t even come close. It’s methods of growth are procreation and immigration. Other than that it appeals to the lowest common denominator, ie violent prison inmates. Or, conversion by the sword.