The Chronicle of Philanthropy has just published a major study on charitable giving. The study tends to reaffirm a commonplace–that religious people (or at least people who live in regions where religion plays a larger role in people’s lives) are more generous. Thus folks in the more religious South give more than folks in less religious New England (5.2% vs. 4%). That religion accounts for the lion’s share of that difference is clear, for by itself religious giving accounts for 4.3% of Southern income, as opposed to only 2.6% of New Englanders’ income.
In an article on this study in the Huffington Post, prominent sociologist Alan Wolfe is paraphrased and quoted to the following effect:
[I]t’s wrong to link a state’s religious makeup with its generosity. People in less religious states are giving in a different way by being more willing to pay higher taxes so the government can equitably distribute superior benefits, Wolfe said. And the distribution is based purely on need, rather than religious affiliation or other variables, said Wolfe, also head of the college’s Boisi Center for Religion and Public Life.
Wolfe said people in less religious states “view the tax money they’re paying not as something that’s forced upon them, but as a recognition that they belong with everyone else, that they’re citizens in the common good. … I think people here believe that when they pay their taxes, they’re being altruistic.”
I wonder if Wolfe has any actual evidence for his account of people’s opinions regarding their taxes. I especially wonder if–given the distribution of the tax burden–there’s much connection at all between the level of taxes people pay and the kind of support for a higher tax burden that he alleges.
But even if I were to grant his dubious claim that people in high tax states actually “altruisitically” support that level of taxation, I would challenge his claim that the government distribution of benefits is “equitable,” based purely upon need. Is Wolfe so naive as to believe that those who are politically connected (campaign donors, public employees’ unions) don’t get more than their “fair share” of public money?
Our system of government arguably encourages that kind of behavior. One alternative would be to have a philosopher-king like Professor Wolfe distribute benefits in accordance with his disinterested view of what’s right. Another would be to encourage a plurality of different sources of giving, each addressing the needs brought home to it by those who appeal to their sense of what’s just or appropriate. I know which I would choose.
August 20th, 2012 | 12:03 pm
Wolfe’s comments do seem a little hard to believe. Does he seriously think that if, for example, the taxes in NY were reduced that all those generous people would continue “giving” at the previous rates? When was the last time someone had money they wanted to donate that they gave it to their local or state government?
August 20th, 2012 | 12:04 pm
I think that Alan Wolfe doesn’t like the implications of the survey would sum it up nicely. Though I must admit a survey comparing incomes, taxes paid, religiosity, and voluntary giving would be very interesting.
August 20th, 2012 | 12:17 pm
So Southerners give 0.9% of their income to actual charities (as opposed to their church, or televangelists), while New Englanders give 1.4%. And given the fact that New England is much wealthier than the South, New Englanders probably give more than twice as much in absolute terms.
August 20th, 2012 | 1:26 pm
Maximilian, The fact that you do not consider churches to “actual charities” says more about you than about Southerners or New Englanders.
August 20th, 2012 | 1:58 pm
From the post on The Economist’s survey of the Catholic Church’s finances:
While I reject the idea that paying taxes is equivalent to charitable giving, clearly taxpayers gave $2.9 billion ($4.7 billion X 62%) to the poor through Catholic Charities in 2010.
August 20th, 2012 | 2:23 pm
Or in plain English, blue-staters are generous if and only if they can also compel others to be generous. The poor can starve before they will give freely.
August 20th, 2012 | 2:45 pm
Maximilian, The fact that you do not consider churches to “actual charities” says more about you than about Southerners or New Englanders.
Mike Melendez,
I think I know what Maximilian is getting at, and there is some validity to what he says (if I understand him correctly).
Not all charities are equal. You can check out thousands of charities on CharityNavigator to see what they pay their CEO, how much money goes to fundraising and administration, and how much money actually gets spent on the cause the organization is dedicated to. If a charity has a highly paid CEO and spends $0.90 for every dollar spent on the cause they are collecting for, they are an extremely bad charity to donate to. Their primary activity is not charity, but fundraising to pay for their fundraising. (And there are such charities.) If you want your money to go to stranded orphans, and The Stranded Orphan Fund spends $0.90 in fundraising costs for every dollar they give to stranded orphans, your $100 contribution manages to get only $10 to stranded orphans, while $90 goes to the fundraising operation.
There have been certain televangelists (and other popular preachers) who have spent huge sums of money on their own lavish lifestyles. Surely they are to be distinguished from “actual charities.” In terms of how much good is done, giving to one’s own church may do a lot of good, or perhaps not so much. It seems rather difficult to make any kind of objective judgment. But one might note that the Westboro Baptist Church is a tax-exempt organization, and those who donate money to it can deduct it as a charitable donation. It may be either generous or self-serving (or downright evil) to donate to one’s own church, depending on how that church uses the money. If it uses it purely to allow worshippers to worship in the church building, maintain the building, pay the choir director, and so on, and it is a worthy religion, then of course it counts as charitable giving, even if it doesn’t feed the poor or help the sick or clothe the naked. Exactly how one judges whether a religion is “worthy” or not I won’t go into. But while I suppose almost all of us would feel we were making a charitable donation if we gave to an organization like Doctors Without Borders or Save the Children, I don’t suppose many Catholics would consider giving money to a Lutheran church to be, for them, giving to an “actual charity,” nor do I expect many Lutherans would consider a Catholic church an “actual charity.” This is not to say a Catholic might not donate to a Lutheran charity or a Lutheran might not donate to a Catholic charity. But donating to a church or diocese of a religion other than one’s own is probably not many people’s idea of charitable giving.
August 20th, 2012 | 3:13 pm
People in less religious states are giving in a different way by being more willing to pay higher taxes so the government can equitably distribute superior benefits, Wolfe said.
I’d love to see hard facts to back that up. Many localities in southern states actually have higher sales tax burdens than New York City, and they tend to levy a stiff tax on food (7% in MS).
http://taxfoundation.org:81/article/sales-tax-rates-major-us-cities
Sure, New Orleans is a godless place. But Birmingham? come on. As a percent of personal income, Mississippi collects at a higher rate than New York, California, and Massachusetts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_tax_levels
Go ahead, explain that generosity away.
This may be because sales taxes tend to be pretty high in the south. People say that this is to encourage savings, but as tax rates are often highest on food (supermarket food, not just restaurants), that’s hard to believe. Our income taxes are supposedly less progressive, too.
Anyway, I have a simpler explanation. (Simpler may not be better, but let’s pretend.) Statistics cited in the article imply that wealthy people give at a lower rate than the middle-class, especially when they enclave in neighborhoods. Guess what? wealthy people, and their enclaves, tend to run in higher proportion in the northeast: banking, commerce, and technology are better for the wallet than agriculture and manufacturing.
August 20th, 2012 | 3:21 pm
David N. writes:
“I don’t suppose many Catholics would consider giving money to a Lutheran church to be, for them, giving to an “actual charity,” nor do I expect many Lutherans would consider a Catholic church an “actual charity.” ”
What a strange view. I would suppose exactly the opposite. Certainly I would be shocked if a majority of my (Presbyterian) parishioners did not consider folks giving to a particular churches/denominations other than their own ‘charitable’? What else would they consider it?
August 20th, 2012 | 3:29 pm
Just to expand on my comment. The Presbyterian Church (USA) has for some time now been a part of an inter-church charitable organization called “Church World Service” which is used as our primary relief organization. It is made up of a “communion” of nearly 40 denominations and another dozen or so “affiliated organizations” (Heifer Project and the YMCA for example). Ergo any gifts to CWS through the PC(USA) is in fact going to support the cooperative work of these many different denominations and associations.
And I don’t know anyone who would consider such gifts non-charitable because they go to support the work of other churches…..
August 20th, 2012 | 3:31 pm
Mike Melendez: Maximilian, The fact that you do not consider churches to “actual charities” says more about you than about Southerners or New Englanders.
Sure, someone can help Oral Roberts raise $8 million (or the Lord would take him, he said) and count it as charity. But in my opinion, real charities are the ones that help your fellow man, not ones that spread religious dogma, or help televangelists buy several Cadillacs.
It should also be taken into account that New Englanders pay a lot more in taxes than the South – much of which is charity for the relatively impoverished South. There is a huge transfusion of funds and resources from New England to the South. For every $1.00 that Connecticut receives in federal charity, it pays $1.50 in federal taxes – which is three times as much as Kentucky (which I count as Southern) or Mississippi.
And yet, despite being taxed to death by the federal government, a lot of which is for the benefit of the South, New England still manages to contribute more in relative and absolute terms to real charities than the South.
August 20th, 2012 | 4:03 pm
Or in plain English, blue-staters are generous if and only if they can also compel others to be generous. The poor can starve before they will give freely.
Mary,
Let’s watch out with the generalizations. There are many people in states where the average charitable giving is low who give a great deal to charity. There are many people in states where the average charitable giving is hight who give little or nothing to charity. There are plenty of generous people in blue states, and plenty of stingy people in red states.
August 20th, 2012 | 4:27 pm
david c.,
I try to use words very carefully, and you come along and rephrase what I say and then criticize me for it. Certainly Catholics would classify it charitable giving for Lutherans to give to their local Lutheran parish church, and Lutherans would consider it charitable giving for Catholics to give to their own local Catholic parish church. I am trying to get at Maximilan’s meaning of “actual charity.” The question is, when a Catholic considers which charities to give to, would he or she consider it giving to an “actual charity” to give to support a Lutheran parish church, or would a Lutheran consider it giving to an “actual charity” to give to support a Catholic parish church.
Church World Service is an organization similar to Catholic Relief Services. Certainly anyone of any religion, or no religion, could consider giving to either of those charities. Those are “actual charities.” There is a distinction, in my mind, between giving to an “actual charity” and contributing to the operation and upkeep of your own local church, synagogue, mosque, etc. That is not to say contributing to your own local house of worship is not charitable giving. However, when I think of making a contribution to an “actual charity,” it doesn’t even enter into my mind to support a church, synagogue, mosque, etc. that is not of my own religion and that I don’t attend.
You may or may not agree, which is fine, but I think that is the distinction Maximilian is getting at. Giving to the support and upkeep of one’s local house of worship is charitable giving, but it is different than giving to an “actual charity.”
August 20th, 2012 | 4:29 pm
@David N: Had Maximilian made an argument of that type, he would have something but could not take it far as no one has yet carried the research through. Instead, he disparaged giving to one’s church as not an “actual charity” without any other than suggested cherry-picked data in support. Like I say, it says more about him than anything else. Not to say he intentionally cherry-picked the data, but rather that he does not recognize his own filters. We all have them and need to be conscious of them in order to make rational arguments that we hope will persuade.
August 20th, 2012 | 4:42 pm
In fact, I just read Maximilian’s reply where he explicitly notes that these are his filters after applying his cherry-picking. So I need to reconsider the intentionality of his statement. His argument has very few legs to stand and hence is not persuasive.
It’s one thing to state, “this is my opinion based on what little I know and what I believe”. It is another to support a conclusion with broad based evidence which the mentioned studies provide.
I remember early in Bush’s first term when a friend of mine on the left made an amazing argument. He claimed that if we changed the economic numbers in various ways then the economy was in recession (due to Bush’s policies). The problem was not with his conclusion but with his premises.
August 20th, 2012 | 4:51 pm
Mike Melendez: And yet something you cannot show to be false, or even begin to contest. Or you would tell me why contributing to a televangalist’s car, or to building a magnificent Mormon temple, or to any religion spreading its dogma is in any way charitable.
August 20th, 2012 | 5:12 pm
Those who distinguish–apparently invidiously–between “real charities” and churches seem to be committed at least to the following propositions. First, that human beings do not have spiritual needs, or at least that their spiritual needs have no worldly consequences. Second, that the communal self-help that occurs within congregations is meaningless. Third, that the moral accountability that is practiced in churches has no implication for life outside the sanctuary.
Previous generations of secularists at least expressed an appreciation for the social utility of religion. I concede that the extravagant lifestyles of some make it all too easy for people who don’t know better to assume that the American religious landscape is full of “televangelists” and nothing else.
But I’m here to say that there remains PLENTY of evidence of the mere social utility of religion, of the goods that are enjoyed by those who worship together and that spill out into the community at large.
August 20th, 2012 | 5:44 pm
Those who distinguish–apparently invidiously–between “real charities” and churches seem to be committed at least to the following propositions.
Joseph Knippenberg,
I certainly don’t agree with any of your three propositions. Not in the least. Nevertheless, I think there is a distinction between giving to an “actual charity” and one’s own place of worship. Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of New York is an “actual charity.” The Archdiocese of New York is not. There would be many good reasons for, say, an atheist to give to Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of New York. I wouldn’t say the same of the Archdiocese itself.
My sister and brother-in-law left the Catholic Church many years ago because of the way the priests and the parishioners behaved unhelpfully (and sometimes with real hostility) toward their developmentally disabled daughter. They found a home in a Methodist church, and when they moved to another city some years later, they found a really terrific Methodists church in which they are very active and the minister and parishioners welcome my niece with open arms. It has meant all the difference in the world to them. It would be wonderful if everyone could find such a place, and I would be fully in favor of everyone joining such organizations and contributing to them with lavish tax-deductible contributions. Still, I see a difference between contributing to an “actual charity” and one’s own local church. I would think my sister and brother in law fine, generous people if they gave everything they could spare to their church and no contributions to “actual charities.” I would consider them to be making generous charitable contributions and helping others. But nevertheless I see a distinction.
An “actual charity” solicits contributions from the general public to do its good works. A local church, mosque, synagogue, etc. relies on its own members to fund it or on fundraising activities such as raffles, bingo games, or other activities to raise case from nonmembers. There is a significant difference between them.
August 20th, 2012 | 6:34 pm
David N.
I did nothing more than quote your own words back to you. How, pray tell, did I rephrase what you said? My answer to your supposition that if a Catholic gave to a local Lutheran church or vice versa s/he would not consider it charitable is that I believe you are wrong. Restating the same point over again (which is all that you have done) changes my opinion not a whit. I got the point the first time, I just don’t agree with it. You are wrong both as a matter of law and in terms of the practice of most of the Christians I know. Giving to ones local church or the local parish ministry of some other denomination or even faith is still “charitable giving” and is certainly seen as such by the vast majority of people who do it. What else would one consider it, David? Membership dues? Initiation fees?
To be as clear, I would be shocked to discover that when I (a Presbyterian pastor) go to Mass (which I do on occasion) and drop a check in the offering basket that any Christian I know would ~not~ consider that a gift to an “actual charity”.
It is only by engaging in Maximillian’s spurious fiction that local church giving is not “actual charity” that one could even suppose such a thing. That fact that you make that distinction is fine — let conscience be your guide. But your personal thoughts on the matter are not (however compelling they may seem to you) reflective of the human realities I have lived and worked with for most of my adult life. I do not tithe to my own church because, frankly, it feels somewhat like a conflict of interest. I would be giving tax deductible gifts to an institution wherein about 60% of the budget is related to the cost of my being employed there — so I give elsewhere. But that is about my own conscience, not about some fictional supposition that such giving would not be to an “actual charity”.
August 20th, 2012 | 6:48 pm
Joseph: First, that human beings do not have spiritual needs, or at least that their spiritual needs have no worldly consequences.
Less religious countries seem to be no worse off in measurable indicators. So it appears to me that the market for spiritual needs is a created one. The spiritual need for salvation in Christianity has been created by the theory of original sin.
Joseph: Second, that the communal self-help that occurs within congregations is meaningless.
I would not say that, I am very glad for the good that churches do, such as it is. But a very, very significant proportion of funds donated to churches and the like go to purposes that have nothing to do with helping one’s fellow man.
Joseph: Third, that the moral accountability that is practiced in churches has no implication for life outside the sanctuary. Previous generations of secularists at least expressed an appreciation for the social utility of religion.
But they lived in a world where large scale irreligiosity was non-existent. Now there are many countries where there are majorities of people who are not religious (by self-identification). And now we can see that these countries fare no worse in terms of morality than the most religious industrialized country, the United States. In fact, they fare much better and have much lower rates of violent crime. Even within the United States, less religious states tend to have lower rates of social pathologies like crime and teenage pregnancy, and higher levels of GDP and education.
And if one looks at the most religious countries in the world, they tend to be the worst places to live. This is not proof positive, and I think that it’s more the case that poverty leads to religiosity than the other way around, but I am not at all convinced that the religiosity of Afghans makes Afghanistan a better place to live. Certainly not for schoolgirls. And the extent to which religion overrides morality was made clear by a New York Times article of a while ago, in which an imam was quoted as saying that one can’t compare killing civilians to burning Korans, because the latter offense is so much worse. The words of Lucretius about religion ring true more than 2000 years after they were written.
These facts make the idea that religion has social utility seem very dubious, to say the least.
August 21st, 2012 | 9:20 am
Maximilian writes: “And yet something you cannot show to be false”. Ah yes, the immortal words of the conspiracy theorist. The implication is that, if you can’t prove me wrong then I must be right.
Maximilian, If all you do is claim something, then the only people likely to agree with you are those who already agree with you. Those seeking understanding will shrug you off as having nothing to offer. What you need to do is make your case and defend it using evidence as well as argument. Your assumptions are flawed as they stand on empty space, so your argument is meaningless.
I suggest you, for example, research some televangelists beyond the group you have cherry picked as representative. There is, for example. Fulton Sheen. Dig deeper, as well, into the “bad” televangelists of your mind. You might find things you don’t expect. And that would be just the beginning.
August 21st, 2012 | 9:43 am
Maximilian It should also be taken into account that New Englanders pay a lot more in taxes than the South…
I already pointed out that this is false. See the links above.
…much of which is charity for the relatively impoverished South.
What do you expect? The Democratic Party had a political monopoly in this region for about a century, and exploited class resentment, dividing the populace into favored groups who deserved rewards and those who deserved vilification. Sort of like the Democratic Party does at a national level today, except that “favored groups” back then meant small landowners and poor farmers, in rhetoric though not in fact. They drove this place into the ground. It’s no accident that the “New South”, with a vibrant economy that outpaces most northern states, corresponds to the change in statewide leadership from Democratic to Republican.
Hyperbole aside (though there is a kernel of truth there), the worst offenders here according to Mother Jones are New Mexico and West Virginia, which have historically been blue states. For all your talk about Connecticut, Ohio and Texas receives less, and both states have historically favored both Republicans and “free market” policies. The disparity isn’t as simple as you imply.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/11/states-federal-taxes-spending-charts-maps
The real root of the cause has to do with the structure of the economy. Mother Jones also recognizes this (see the same article). There has for centuries been a fairly worldwide trend where regions whose economies depend on commerce, banking, or raw material for energy accumulate wealth more at a much higher rate than those whose economies depend on agriculture.For most of their history, the Southern states in general, and Mississippi in particular, were dependent on agriculture. This was not exactly discouraged by the northern states, who in many cases fight to make sure that the southern states cannot develop. (To wit, the recent fracas over Boeing’s building a manufacturing plant in South Carolina.) Some southern states, like Virginia, North Carolina, Texas, and Georgia, were relatively quick to realize that this was unsustainable, and is why they are so much less dependent on the federal dole than Mississippi.
But never mind the US, or even western Europe; look at how Russia, with its wealth of oil, is able to bully much of Eastern Europe even now by demanding a higher price for oil, when back in Soviet days the oil was exchanged for agricultural products well below market prices. This disparity between agriculture and commerce is visible even in advanced European nations; northern v. southern Italy being a great example.
An aside. I would like, one day, to see a breakdown of the size of military bases and military manufacturing in proportion to a state’s population. The southeastern US is much less densely populated than the northeast, but chock full of large military installations such as Ft. Hood, Ft. Benning, Ft. Bragg, Camp Shelby, and the military-industrial complex of southeastern Virginia. That often gets thrown into the amount of money the federal government spends down here. I don’t doubt that some southern states are dependent on the federal dole, but I do think it’s exaggerated.
August 21st, 2012 | 11:11 am
Mike Melendez: Maximilian, If all you do is claim something, then the only people likely to agree with you are those who already agree with you.
I already provided you with the evidence. If you want anything more, just tell me.
Mike Melendez: I suggest you, for example, research some televangelists beyond the group you have cherry picked as representative.
Well, the popular and well-known ones tend to be all exactly as I described them. Oral Roberts, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Peter Popoff, Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Bakker – as the great man put it, Chaucerian frauds.
Nonetheless, I do not deny that there may be a good televangelist out there. That does not mean, however, that contributions to televangelists in general should be counted as charitable. For example, at one point, one of Falwell’s properties was destroyed by a fire (perhaps arson), and Falwell urged his followers to contribute to make up for it – neglecting to mention that the insurance company was already paying for it. Yet again, charitable contributions. If this be charity, God save us from it. These people could set Chaucer’s Pardoner to school.
August 21st, 2012 | 11:23 am
Jack Perry: I already pointed out that this is false. See the links above.
You pointed out state taxes, which go to people in the state. I was talking about the significant and enormous amounts of federal funds more secular states send to more religious states. The data I remember are inconsistent with your graph – I will have to get to the bottom of it.
Jack Perry: It’s no accident that the “New South”, with a vibrant economy that outpaces most northern states, corresponds to the change in statewide leadership from Democratic to Republican.
And here I was, thinking that the “New South” was made possible by airconditioning. Of course, you completely forget that Democrats in the South were very conservative, especially on social issues. But even on fiscal issues, they generally wanted low taxation and low spending – hence the problem Democratic presidents had with getting Southern Congressmen to support their welfare programs.
Jack Perry: For all your talk about Connecticut, Ohio and Texas receives less, and both states have historically favored both Republicans and “free market” policies.
Yet one paragraph before you say Texas favors free market policies, you told us about how the Democrats drove the South into the ground. So how exactly has Texas historically favored free market policies? Or blue collar Ohio, for that matter, which just this year overwhelmingly rejected repealing collective bargaining.
Jack Perry: This was not exactly discouraged by the northern states, who in many cases fight to make sure that the southern states cannot develop.
Really, Jack, the South has only itself to blame for its misfortunes. Consider how even equal treatment on the basis of race had to be enforced at the point of a bayonet. Combined with how until recently, living in the South while not being an outcast came at the price of embracing Christian fundamentalism, I can imagine that innovative spirits would flee the South.
August 21st, 2012 | 5:08 pm
david c.,
As best I can recall, I wrote a long response, but it appears not to have made it through moderation. I will attempt to be extremely brief. When I was a teenager, the parish I lived in made a big push for parishioners to tithe. The scheme was to give 5% of one’s income to support the parish church and grade school, and 5% to other charitable organizations of one’s own choosing. I seen in that basically the same kind of distinction I have been talking about. There is one kind of charitable giving that contributes to your own religious community, and there is another kind that goes to organizations like Catholic Relief Services, Doctors Without Borders, The International Red Cross, Save the Children, and other charities that establish themselves to raise funds as effectively and efficiently as they can from the general public to pay for the good work that they want to do. Generally, you know about the first kind (the religious community) from personal experience, because you participate. The second kind (e.g., Doctors Without Borders) you know about from the media or from the organizations’ fundraising efforts. The first kind you may or may not know something about their finances. The second kind you can look up in Guidestar or Charity Navigator.
I really don’t see anything offensive about making a distinction between the two.
August 22nd, 2012 | 12:14 pm
David,
Respectfully, no. Your initial claim was from the posture of a sort of “everyman” in saying this:
“I don’t suppose many Catholics would consider giving money to a Lutheran church to be, for them, giving to an “actual charity,” nor do I expect many Lutherans would consider a Catholic church an “actual charity.”
and this:
“donating to a church or diocese of a religion other than one’s own is probably not many people’s idea of charitable giving.”
and later this:
“Giving to the support and upkeep of one’s local house of worship is charitable giving, but it is different than giving to an “actual charity.”
My objection,David, is twofold First to your contention that ‘most’ (churched) people see what you have called distinct (“charitable giving” vs. giving to “actual charity”) as not at all distinct
but as functionally and factually equivalent. Not to put too fine a point on it but I am quite certain that you are wrong. Both as a matter of law and of observed practice, I assert that “most” folks see giving to a local parish (theirs or someone else’s) and giving to some non-church related NPO as the selfsame act.
My second objection is to your making a strenuous case for distinction that does not make a difference – ie between charitable giving and giving to an “actual charity”. I don’t find that offensive (as you seem to think) just wrongheaded — distant from the experience of “most’ of the churched people I know.
It strikes me as curious that you would go to such lengths to make this distinction and it does make me wonder if there is not a value judgment implicit (as it is explicit for Maximilian) in your view?
Finally, there is the issue that has (upon reflection) become a real bone of contention between us. Your tendency to adopt the voice of kind of “everyman” in these discussions. In both this thread and others (like the “hate” post) you frequently characterize your point of view as being drawn from a reflection upon that of “most” Christians. “Most” think thus and so or are animated by thus and so. That rings hollow with me because what usually follows is a very distinct point of view that has little in common with “most” of the Christians that I know. Does that make sense? It seems to me that you are claiming a kind of majority knowledge, (something like the fallacy of an “appeal to authority”) when, in fact, it is often very distinctly your own view. It bothers me because I feel that it is a reaction to a stereotype rather than born out of an engagement with real persons. (Or perhaps, in your case this is how the real people around you behave? In which case, I can only say that in my experience, “most” are not like that.
August 22nd, 2012 | 6:13 pm
david c.,
I don’t know if I have the stamina to continue this, especially because I think it is a disagreement on an extremely minor matter. Perhaps my opinion is skewed having grown up Catholic in the 1950s and 1960s. The last thing a Catholic would have done in those days was contribute to the support of a non-Catholic church. It is still true to a significant extent today. Here is Germain Grisez, a very important Catholic moral theologian, on the topic:
Since giving to support a non-Catholic parish church or a non-Catholic religious school would be directly supporting the instruction of people in something other than the Catholic faith, it is basically forbidden to Catholics. A Catholic visiting your church could certainly, I would think, make a contribution as a gesture of good will the way you do when visiting a Catholic Church. But for a Catholic to contribute to a non-Catholic religious body of any kind to support their religious practices or religious instruction—that is forbidden.
Now that is what I know pretty much for a fact, so I think it justifies at least what I said about Catholics. Now, speaking as “everyman,” I really do suppose that people of other faiths would feel similarly, although perhaps in not such rigid terms as “orthodox” Catholics. If people who attend your church are responsible for supporting it financially, I really can’t image they would choose a Catholic church, or a Baptist church, or a mosque, or a synagogue as one of their charities (whether we call it an “actual charity” or not).
As for speaking as “everyman,” I may do that a significant amount of time, but you will also notice, I hope, that I am also one of the most likely to quote statistics, link to a newspaper article to verify what I am saying, and otherwise document what I say. Without going back and checking to say this is true in every case, I think I can say with some degree of confidence that when I make a statement about what I believe most people think, I make it clear that I am stating my opinion. I try to be careful about presenting what I think as being what is. There are people who write regularly here who state their opinions and theories as facts. When I think something is the case, I make it clear I am saying what I think. When I know something to be the case, I cite evidence. Feel free to take my “everyman” comments for what they are worth—impressions and opinions. And of course feel free to challenge me when you think my impressions or opinions are incorrect.
Do you at least see where I am coming from on considering, say, a Lutheran church an “actual charity,” in the same category as Doctors Without Borders or the International Red Cross, in terms of how a Catholic would think of charitable giving?
August 23rd, 2012 | 9:36 am
I see where you are coming from and respect it as a reflection of your own conscience. My disagreement was in your characterization that most feel that way. And you’re right, it’s a small point.
August 23rd, 2012 | 9:53 am
BTW — you have piqued my curiosity with the Griesz quote and your assertion that giving by Catholics to other faiths is basically forbidden. I am one of only a couple of Protestants in a weekly men’s Bible Study in a local parish. I’ll ask them their impressions. (One of them is the director of the Parish schools and he has a real good handle on Catholic doctrine and theology…)
BTW I find Giesz utterly unconvincing — both in his idealism –implying that giving only to Catholic schools amounts to a perfect defense against the “inculcation of error”. And in his “Jedi mind trick” view of giving to non Catholic charities — you can give it as long as you mentally re-purpose it. That, I take, is what you mean when you say that my putting something in the plate is a “gesture of good will”. It’s more than that for me, of course. It is “giving to an actual charity” but there’s no need to land any more blows on that particular moribund steed…
Cheers, and thanks for the exchange.
August 23rd, 2012 | 11:13 am
david c.,
I will be interested to hear what others in your Bible study group say. Grisez, to the best of my knowledge, is utterly orthodox in the view that Catholics may not contribute to help spread another religion. This of course is perfectly understandable based on the idea that the Catholic Church is the “one true church.” You may remember the brouhaha from about five years ago when the Vatican issued a document saying that Protestant churches were not actually churches “in the proper sense.” Why should Catholics want to support anything other than the “one true Church”? Clearly, from a Catholic point of view, it would be wrong to do so.
August 23rd, 2012 | 1:36 pm
@ Maximilian
“To account for sharp differences in the cost of living across America, The Chronicle’s study compared generosity rates after residents paid taxes, housing, food, and other necessities.”
Your and Alan Wolfe’s argument that people in the Northeast give less to charity because they pay more in taxes is demonstrably false. As you can see, differences in tax rates, cost-of-living, etc. were already controlled for in the data analysis.
In the future, I recommend actually reading a study before you try to refute it.
August 23rd, 2012 | 2:24 pm
John, thank you for your recommendation, but what you cite actually confirms my point. As you quote, the study compares charity after taxes have been paid. But that does not only account for differences in cost of living – it hides a huge transfer of wealth from the Northeast to the South, for one. Also, it hides the fact that people in Connecticut do more, through their government, for their fellow citizens of the state. So it disregards the back-breaking state and federal taxes paid by people in Connecticut, and the federal charity people in Mississippi receive, due to the generosity of people in states like Connecticut.
Moreover, my main point, that the Northeast gives more to charities dedicated to helping one’s fellow man, rather than those dedicated to spreading religious dogma, still stands.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact