Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Philanthropy Expert: Conservatives Are More Generous; Fr. Stanley & Fr. Henriot say...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
Sapphire Blue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-18-06 03:32 PM
Original message
Philanthropy Expert: Conservatives Are More Generous; Fr. Stanley & Fr. Henriot say...
Philanthropy Expert: Conservatives Are More Generous
By Frank Brieaddy
Religion News Service

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.

(snip)

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.

Continued @ http://www.beliefnet.com/story/204/story_20419_1.html



SOCIAL JUSTICE vs. CHARITY
THROUGH OUR FINGERS

Ronald Stanley, O.P.

    "Two men were fishing in a river. Late in the afternoon they started cooking some of the fish they had caught. Suddenly they heard the cries of a man being swept down the river. Immediately the men jumped into the river, swam out to the man, and were gradually able to pull him ashore. As they were on shore catching their breath, they heard the cries of a woman being swept down the river. They jumped back into the water, made their way out to the woman, and slowly brought her to shore. They were exhausted but happy to have saved both people. Then they heard to cries of a child being swept downstream. One of the men started back into the water to get the child; the other held back. "Aren't you going to save the child?" asked the first. "You go get the child," responded the second, "I'm going to go upstream to find out why so many people are falling into the river."

Charity is happy to spend all day pulling victims out of the river. Social justice asks: why are so many people falling into the river? Is there a pathway or a bridge in need of repair? Is there someone throwing people into the river? When there is a pattern of people repeatedly falling victim, social justice seeks to discover and remedy the root causes of the problem.

Charity does the important work of meeting the immediate needs of suffering people, for food, clothing, housing, medicine, etc. Most everyone today approves and praises charity.

Social justice, on the other hand, dares to ask troubling questions: if the earth's resources are meant to meet the needs of all the earth's children, why are 20% of the world's population consuming over 80% of the earth's resources, leaving 80% of the world living in misery? Isn't it only just that the privilege few live more simply, so that the masses might simply live?

(snip)

Our politicians smooth the pathways and bridges of the privileged, to the neglect of the poor. Little wonder then that so many of the poor keep falling into the river. Their falling is not simply an accident. They are not "falling through the cracks." They are falling through our fingers.

Continued @ http://www.ramapo.edu/studentlife/ministry/catholic_Ministry/Articles/social_justice.htm



Gospel requires justice not charity, says Jesuit writer
-10/05/06

An expert on Christian social action, Fr Peter Henriot, is currently on a tour of Australia for a series of talks and workshops on the relevance of social justice in today's age of globalisation and terror, reports the Uniya Jesuit Social Justice Unit.

Co-author of a Catholic best-seller on the ‘pastoral cycle’ (see-analyse-act), Henriot will be teaming up with Jesuit lawyer Fr Frank Brennan in Sydney later this week. The book, originally published in the 1980s, is called Social Analysis: Linking Faith and Justice.

Fr Henriot, has lived for nearly 20 years in Zambia - one of the poorest countries in the world. He argues that to respond effectively to social issues, Christians and people of good will need to move from a model of charity to a model of justice at the core of their living and acting.

“We will never deal with the impact of globalisation on poor countries in Africa if we don't do good social analysis that reveals both the systemic problems and the structural hopes,” he declares.

Continued @ http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/news_syndication/article_060510social.shtml



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
TechBear_Seattle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-18-06 03:38 PM
Response to Original message
1. My question: Is church counted as a charity?
If so, then it stands to reason that a devout churchgoer who tithes regularly gives more to charity. The real question is: What percentage of charitable giving actually supports the charitable mission of the organization? I would contend that liberal non-believers have much more of their money going towards providing for those in need than conservative believers. I know of very few liberal non-believers who give thousands of dollars a year to support vast mega-churches and international broadcast telecommunications networks to "spread the Word."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-18-06 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. And another question: Is liberal giving to justice organizations like
the ACLU, Southern Poverty Law Center,etc., counted at all? I would guess not.

And as pointed out in your post, religious people get all their donations to their church counted toward the "charity" category, when 95% of the money they donate goes to keeping up a church building (or propping up a TV evangelist) for their own personal use.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JerseygirlCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-18-06 04:23 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. I would imagine this is, too
It's all charitable giving -- church as well as other non-profits.

Now, not the political action committees at any of those organizations you named, but the charities themselves, I would imagine yes.

And not every church collection is all for building upkeep, etc. It really varies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JerseygirlCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-18-06 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. Yes, most likely nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sapphire Blue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-18-06 04:35 PM
Response to Reply #1
8. The article doesn't specify; says "all sorts of charitable activities".
imo, it would include tithing, as churches are non-profit.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenPartyVoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-18-06 03:47 PM
Response to Original message
2. Look at the slant on this, though. 'entitlement programs' is freepspeak
I don't all it that, I call is providing for the common good.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sapphire Blue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-18-06 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #2
9. I think Fr. Stanley said it quite well...
"Charity is happy to spend all day pulling victims out of the river. Social justice asks: why are so many people falling into the river?"

Take that comment & apply it to the NO levees. Justice would have financed & fixed the levees; NO would likely not have flooded.

Charity was left to deal w/the disastrous damage from an unjust administration & a hurricane... while the unjust administration turned its back (& its/our resources) on the thousands of Americans who were affected.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sapphire Blue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-19-06 12:44 AM
Response to Reply #2
14. PS - Brooks, the RRW's 'new darling', writes for the WSJ.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-18-06 03:54 PM
Response to Original message
4. Interesting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-18-06 04:27 PM
Response to Original message
7. I call bullshit.
Edited on Sat Nov-18-06 04:34 PM by SoCalDem
Elimination of the NEED for charity should be the goal..

"Charity" often comes with "expectations" and an attempt at "conformity"..

Hungry?

Well then, sit through a preaching session, and we'll serve you up some soup..

Helping anonymously is the only real charity..helping with no expectations of thanks..

Democrats generally believe that when we all do better, we all do better..

republicans are the ones with all the "lists"..and like santa, they pay close attention to the ones who are naughty and nice.

democrats just want everyone to get some toys :)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sapphire Blue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-18-06 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. IS ANYONE READING THE 2ND & 3RD ARTICLES IN THE OP?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sapphire Blue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-18-06 04:47 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. The ones written by Fr. Stanley & Fr. Henriot? They refute Brooks' book quite well, imo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-18-06 11:16 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. I did - that was what was interesting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sapphire Blue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-19-06 12:42 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. Thanks; it didn't seem like it. All of the responses seem directed at the 1st article.
I just wondered if no one scrolled down past the 1st one.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 02:39 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC