Actually, as I noted early in this string, it was mainly a comment on the comment that conservatives “need to put their money where our mouths are” in the original post. That is, the evidence shows (and it does) that conservatives do put their money where their mouths are.

I also noted that I doubted private charity could meet all needs. I’ve also noted that much could be met by charity – a selfless giving – regardless of whether it is to Churches or not. In fact, the giving to religious institutions, even if not directed towards material needs, meets the higher, and ultimately truer needs of the person.

I agree with your free market solution that liberals may be taking, that is, given the pursuit of their needs in dining out etc., they may stimulate the economy. In fact, as it is shown that there is more charitable giving and more dining out where taxes are lower. Thus, the giving of the conservative and the dining out of the liberal may help others more fully with the roll back of large government.

You’re right but then that volunteering doesn’t show up for non-church charity either. In trying to figure out ‘who gives more’ we are stuck with comparing dollar to dollars. Someone who spends 5 hours a week helping tutor people for free won’t be counted whether they do it in a liberal or conservative church or a secular group of some type.

Keep in mind, though, that Phillip assertion was that ‘things might work out’ if liberals gave as much as conservatives. Leaving aside the debate over whether or not conservatives ‘out-give’, the fact seems to be that regions of the country that score higher on giving doesn’t seem to do much better on ‘things working out’.

That’s why I ask you to consider the hypothetical of ‘Liberal State’ deciding to eat out 10% less and give that money to charities. I’m not doubting that the charities who cash the checks will be able to point to helpful things they are doing. I do doubt that the overall effect will be good. The people harmed by such a policy (laid off busboys and waitresses, for example) are going to be hard to quantify but they would be very real.

One way to address the issue would be to make charitable giving more productive. That can be done by thinking honestly about how much of a charitable dollar is really hiding consumption (which isn’t a bad thing, there’s nothing wrong with going to a nice looking Church every Sunday and if you use it you should contribute to it) versus absolute charity. It can also be done with creative policies like Social Impact Bonds which can use the profit motive to amplify the charity motive’s effects.

Here is a link to a parish that has wide-ranging charity involvement. It gives an idea of what Christian charity really looks like, rather than some atheist’s notion of it. My local community would be in a world of hurt if Christian charities pulled out. Before they set up the local homeless shelters and food pantries and housing services here, there was nothing for the poor.

http://www.gs-cc.org/ministries-socialjustice.php

Sure, but this is part of the problem of doing social science. We are left with data which may have some problems. But until better data comes up, we are left with what we have. And that is that conservatives give more. That is, unless one wants to change the definition and deny religious contributions. But as I argued above, this makes no sense – especially from a Christian perspective.

In fact one could push the issue and note that the owner of the boweling ally gives a large portion of his income to feed children overseas as well as providing jobs to ex-cons, the mentally disabled and others in a purposeful effort to do good while the Church only gives a tiny portion of its income to a far away institutional type of overseas charity and puts most of the rest of the donations right into building and property ‘bling’.

And I have seen those Mormons pay the hospital bills of fellow members

We are also missing from the data non-institutional acts of charity. If you give your sister-in-law $100 to get her electric turned back on, let a friend whose down on his luck live with you rent free for a period of time, or even just give the person in front of you a dollar to help her complete her purchase you’re acting charitable yet this giving is rarely quantified and tabulated.

But that I would argue is part of the problem. One does not “consume” religious services. First, at least for believers, it is a duty to support those that are providing what is a basic human need – a link with the Divine. This link, even if it does not directly alleviate a material need, meets a fundamental human need as real as physical needs. In fact, as Christ teaches us, we do not live by bread alone.

This is part of the problem that I alluded to in my first comment. Human need does in fact transcend the material. In fact, John Paul II noted, the greatest poverty of the First World is not material, but spiritual poverty. To that end, contributing to religious organizations, far from being a service “consumed” and which should be exempted from our calculations regarding charitable giving, actually is of first importance. We should consider it a “first thing.”

First, thanks for accepting the data that conservatives are more likely to contribute to charity than others.

Second, I use the Mormoms as an example. One which I have direct experience. For example, when Hurricane Isaac hit my area, those Mormon missionaries that are supported by that money that supposedly does nothing but build churches and buy ranches were among the first helping those flooded rebuild. From experience, they are also using that money to support their fellow members who are unemployed or ill. And I have seen those Mormons pay the hospital bills of fellow members (perhaps part of the reason why they don’t build hospitals.) That’s a fact though it is not part of a Huffpost piece from the election season.

The LDS Church takes in about $7B per year, only from Canada alone, and has amassed at least $35B worth of temples and meeting houses. In addition “controls farms, ranches, shopping malls and other commercial ventures worth many billions more.”

Yet the church has no notable hospitals or major charity ventures relative to what one would get if it was tossing even only two or three billion per year to pure charity. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which is often seen as a modern counterpart to the charities created by the 19th century ‘robber barons’, distributes only about $1.5B per year.

Really, do we have to think that contributions to religious groups are somehow different than to secualr ends,

No but I think a donation to a group whose activities you partially consume is different than one you don’t. Giving to your al mater where you hope your kids will someday attend and whose reputation you benefit from is not the same as a pure charity donation. If you want a secular example, giving to your kids little league team is likewise not a pure charity either….even giving to the HS football team whose games you attend isn’t the same. If you insist on a liberal example then giving to NPR which you listen to all the time is also likewise at least partially ‘self-consumption’.

I suspect if you did adjust church giving downwards to factor out the ‘self-consumption’ factor you might be surprised to find the Mormon’s come out worse than Catholics and other denominations.

Thus no documentable proof.

“In regards to the Mormon Church, you are aware that the less than 2% of Americans are Mormon…”

But the argument applies to religious groups in general. Really, do we have to think that contributions to religious groups are somehow different than to secualr ends, Even more generally, it makes not difference whether one donates to secular or religious groups – it is the measure of charitable giving. And that is not disputable.