0
Quote
BOSTON (AP) — A new study on the generosity of Americans suggests that states with the least religious residents are also the stingiest about giving money to charity.
The funny part of the article is the defensiveness of those stingy folks and the excuses they provide for their stinginess. Read on...
Quote
The study released Monday by the Chronicle of Philanthropy found that residents in states where religious participation is higher than the rest of the nation, particularly in the South, gave the greatest percentage of their discretionary income to charity.
Go, Protestants (and Catholics)!
Quote
The Northeast, with lower religious participation, was the least generous to charities, with the six New England states filling the last six slots among the 50 states. Churches are among the organizations counted as charities by the study, and some states in the Northeast rank in the top 10 when religious giving is not counted.
Go, stingy New Englanders!
Quote
The study also found that patterns of charitable giving are colored in political reds and blues.
Of the 10 least generous states, nine voted for Democrat Barack Obama for president in the last election. By contrast, of the 10 most generous states, eight voted for Republican John McCain.
But Peter Panepento, the Chronicle’s assistant managing editor, said that political breakdown likely speaks to a state’s religious makeup, not its prevailing political views. He noted the lowest-ranked Democrat states were also among the least religious, while the top-ranked Republican states were among the more religious.
“I don’t know if I could go out and say it’s a complete Republican-Democrat difference as much as it is different religious attitudes and culture in these states,” he said.
I don't want this to become a political thread, but it seems that an individual's moral code will inform both his religiosity and his political views.
Quote
The study was based on Internal Revenue Service records of people who itemized deductions in 2008, the most recent year statistics were available.
By focusing on the percentage given to charity from discretionary income — the money left over after necessities are paid for — the study aimed to remove variables such as the differing costs of living around the country, Panepento said. The data allowed researchers to detail charitable giving down to the ZIP code, he said.
The most generous state was Utah, where residents gave 10.6 percent of their discretionary income to charity.
Go, Utahns!
Quote
Next were Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee and South Carolina.
Go, Bible Belt!
Quote
The least generous was New Hampshire, at 2.5 percent, followed by Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts and Rhode Island.
Whoa! Those New Englanders are wicked stingy!
Here come the funny bits:
Quote
In Boston, semi-retired carpenter Stephen Cremins said the traditional New England ideal of self-sufficiency might explain the lower giving, particularly during tight times when people have less to spare.
“Charity begins at home. I’m a big believer of that, you know, you have to take care of yourself before you can help others,” Cremins said.
Um, wouldn't this apply to the folks in the more generous states (the South, Utah)? It's not like New England is the only region suffering from "tight times." And yet these folks are far more generous with their discretionary income. So Mr. Cremins points to a distinction without a difference.
Quote
The study found that in the Northeast region, including New England, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and New York, people gave 4.1 percent of their discretionary income to charity. The percentage was 5.2 percent in the Southern states, a region from Texas east to Delaware and Florida, and including most of the so-called Bible Belt.
The Bible mandates a 10 percent annual donation, or tithe, to the church, and the donation is commonly preached as a way to thank God, care for others and show faith in God’s provision. But it has a greater emphasis in some faiths.
In Mormon teachings, for instance, Latter Day Saints are required to pay a 10 percent tithe to remain church members in good standing, which helps explain the high giving rate in heavily-Mormon Utah.
And it helps explain the higher giving rate in the heavily-Protestant Southern states as well.
In other words, there appears to be a rather strong correlation between religiosity and charitable generosity.
Which is why the rest of the article starts getting a little silly.
Quote
Alan Wolfe, a political science professor at Boston College, said it’s wrong to link a state’s religious makeup with its generosity.
Hmm. Mr. Wolfe was, "a member of the collective that put out the Marxist-oriented journal, Kapitalistate, whose pages featured articles by such writers as Poulantzas, Claus Offe, Ralph Miliband, and Bob Jessop. By the early 1980s, Wolfe's politics had become more centrist." He is also "a self-proclaimed atheist."
Golly! I'm sure that a somewhat-reformed Marxist atheist academic from the stingy state of Massachusetts will have an excellent explanation of why people in his neck of the woods are ... the way that they are.
Let's take a look:
Quote
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.
Um, is there a correlation between "less religious states" and "higher taxes?"
And since when is paying taxes a matter of "willing(ness)?"
And what evidence do we have that the government "equitably distributes" tax funds?
And what evidence do we have that government usage of coercively-procured tax funds amounts to "superior benefits" as compared with charitable contributions from folks less stingy than our resident Marxist-atheist-academic?
Quote
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.
Really? Distribution of tax funds to poor folks is based purely on need? No other factors?
What kind of a joke is this Marxist-atheist-academic?
Quote
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.”
But people in more religious states pay taxes too. They both pay taxes and make charitable contributions out of their discretionary income. So Mr. Wolfe - like Mr. Cremins before him - points to a distinction without a difference.
Anyhoo, here's the last bit:
Quote
When only secular gifts are counted, New York climbs from No. 18 to No. 2 in giving, and Pennsylvania rises from No. 40 to No. 4.
What are "secular gifts," I wonder? What counts? Donations to food banks? Donations to community theatre? And how do we distinguish between a "secular" gift as compared to a gift given to or through a religious group?
And why, exactly, should sectarian gifts be relegated to second-class status? What is it about "secular" charitable donations that make them morally superior to donations borne of religiosity?
Thoughts?
-Smac
