Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Should Latter-day Saints be Concerned about "Christian Nationalism?"


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I did not mean to be offensive, but I hope you understand I am just not interested in the kind of point-by-point arguing you seem to be fond of.  I don't have the time, and I really don't have the interest.

I was not offended.  And I do understand.  I was sincere when I said "Life is short.  Interests and priorities vary."

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Years ago, my friend Michael Austin commented about my blog that I always start out trying to be evenhanded and "nuanced" (as you put it), but in the end, the church is always wrong. I took that to heart and have adopted more of a live-and-let-live approach. You don't see me arguing about Book of Mormon evidence or polygamy or any of that anymore. I'll offer my thoughts, but that's it.

Yes, a review of your posting history shows mostly one-or-two-sentence responses, occasionally a paragraph or two.  And very little content apart from your opinion ("my thoughts").  

Which is fine.  I have no qualms with your posts being short in both content and substance. I also don't fault you for declining to meaningfully address my longer posts.  Again, life is short.

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I got sucked into the discussion about pride uniforms because I thought (and still do) that people hear seem to completely miss the point of pride events. Am I going to provide a 30-page rebuttal with links? Nope. Life's too short.

We're in agreement, then.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I was not offended.  And I do understand.  I was sincere when I said "Life is short.  Interests and priorities vary."

Yes, a review of your posting history shows mostly one-or-two-sentence responses, occasionally a paragraph or two.  And very little content apart from your opinion ("my thoughts").  

Which is fine.  I have no qualms with your posts being short in both content and substance. I also don't fault you for declining to meaningfully address my longer posts.  Again, life is short.

We're in agreement, then.

Thanks,

-Smac

There used to be a time when I spent a lot of time on my posts here, rebutting this or that or whatever. I'm fine with people thinking I'm devoid of substance because I don't do that anymore. 

That said, I do think you're kidding yourself if you think the Religious Right is doing anything other than tolerating Mormons because they like their support. Leaving the church was so eye-opening to me because people outside the church suddenly started telling me what they really thought. Someone I had invited to the Houston temple open house told me years later how weird and cultish the church is and how the open house confirmed what her pastor had told them about us. At the time, she was gracious and said the building was beautiful and felt like a sacred place. Most right-wing Evangelicals I know consider tolerance of Mormon allies as a necessary evil. 

Edited by jkwilliams
Link to comment
3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

There used to be a time when I spent a lot of time on my posts here, rebutting this or that or whatever. I'm fine with people thinking I'm devoid of substance because I don't do that anymore. 

That said, I do think you're kidding yourself if you think the Religious Right is doing anything other than tolerating Mormons because they like their support. Leaving the church was so eye-opening to me because people outside the church suddenly started telling me what they really thought. Someone I had invited to a temple open house told me years later how weird and cultish the church is and how the open house confirmed what her pastor had told them about us. At the time, she was gracious and said the building was beautiful and felt like a sacred place. Most right-wing Evangelicals I know consider tolerance of Mormon allies as a necessary evil. 

Things the Religious Right likes about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: Their money.

Things the Religious Right doesn't like about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: Everything but their money.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Things the Religious Right likes about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: Their money.

Things the Religious Right doesn't like about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: Everything but their money.

Just curious, but have you had the same experience with people changing their tunes when they find out you've left the church? It was initially quite shocking to me. 

Link to comment
21 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:
Quote

 

And yet I still think religious groups and the "right" are considerably more appreciative of religious liberty and pluralism in the sociopolitical sphere as compared to . . . other sectors.

You seem to be focusing on doctrinal and sectarian disagreements and resentments, and then exporting them into the "political" sphere.  The shift doesn't work very well.  

 

Oh, but it does. I'm convinced the 2012 election would have been closer had prominent Evangelicals like Robert Jeffress not come out so strongly against Romney.

Meh.  Presidential politics are a unique microcosm.  And in any event, "Romney won the Lone Star State with 57.17%, over Obama's 41.38%, a margin of 15.78%."

See also here:

Quote

When Romney began his presidential run in 2007, he seemed to think that he needed to convince evangelical voters he was a Christian. He spoke of Jesus as his “personal savior,” an expression more characteristically evangelical than Mormon. He professed his faith in the Bible as “the word of God” without mentioning other Mormon scriptures.

This strategy was deeply misguided. For one thing, most evangelicals did not oppose a Mormon president. Vocal hard-liners did, notably Texas pastor Robert Jeffress. He and Romney’s outspoken evangelical critics saw right through the Mormons-as-Christians spin. But polls conducted during both the 2008 and 2012 elections placed a minority of evangelicals in the “won’t vote for a Mormon” camp. Most evangelicals were open to a Mormon candidate—if they were assured that supporting a Mormon politician did not mean accepting Mormon theology as authentically Christian. For these evangelicals, Romney’s message of “I’m Christian, just like you” backfired: it blurred religious boundaries that evangelicals needed to keep bright.
...
{N}ew quantitative studies undercut the narrative that “evangelicals won’t vote for a Mormon.” In January, Vanderbilt researcher John Geer predicted that conservative evangelicals’ biases against Mormonism would not keep them from supporting Romney over Obama. In March, following Romney’s losses to Rick Santorum in the Mississippi and Alabama primaries, Michael Tesler analyzed polls conducted by YouGov and concluded that evangelical opposition to Romney was “rooted in perceptions that he is not sufficiently conservative on social issues, rather than in aversion to his religious faith.” In May, the Brookings Institution released a study by Matthew Chingos and Michael Henderson, which found that information about Romney’s religion had little effect on evangelical voters’ likelihood to support him. “Concerns over Mitt Romney’s ‘religion problem,’” Chingos and Henderson concluded, “have been overblown.”
...
The moral of this story is not that evangelicals are sacrificing their doctrinal objections to Mormonism for political expediency. Romney’s Mormonism 
per se was never an issue for most evangelicals. A majority were always open to voting for him—if he didn’t insist Mormonism was Christian, and if they judged him sufficiently conservative. By assigning disproportionate weight to the minority of evangelicals in the “Don’t vote for a Mormon!” camp, commentators missed an important shift: by 2012, if not earlier, doubts about Romney’s conservatism replaced concern about blurred theological differences as his greatest evangelical liability. That’s not because politics trumped theology; it’s because Romney learned to respect evangelicals’ theological boundaries.

The above was published in July 2012, before the elction.  Data from the election, compiled by Pew Research, even further decimate your argument

Quote

At the other end of the political spectrum, nearly eight-in-ten white evangelical Protestants voted for Romney (79%), compared with 20% who backed Obama. Romney received as much support from evangelical voters as George W. Bush did in 2004 (79%) and more support from evangelicals than McCain did in 2008 (73%). Mormon voters were also firmly in Romney’s corner; nearly eight-in-ten Mormons (78%) voted for Romney, while 21% voted for Obama.

Romney garnered identical support compared to GWB in 2004, and more support than McCain did in 2008.

Again, I don't think the shift works well.  Religious groups are increasingly willing to set aside doctrinal disagreements - even substantial ones - and work together on areas of common interest.  This appears to even be happening in politics.  

21 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

From what I saw in Texas, a significant number of conservative Evangelicals stayed home rather than vote for a Mormon.

Again, meh.  2012 was called "a Mormon Moment" for a reason. 

I think that for many (though not all) Evangelicals, politics are "downstream" from religious belief.  When it comes down to it, sharing basic Christian values is more important than sharing pews on Sunday.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Sorry, but that's way too overbroad. 

Look at the "Christians Against Christian Nationalism" website.  So far it has about 24,000 signers who endorse its "Statement" on Christian Nationalism.  

There are ample measures of live-and-let-live-ism, diversity of thought, meaningful tolerance, devotion to religious pluralism, and generalized respect to be found in most quarters of Christianity.  Where problematic ideologies are seeping in (such as Christian Nationalism), Christians are stepping up and policing their own (see, for example, the Christianity Today article I linked to in the OP, the "Christians Against Christian Nationalism" website, various statements by the leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints denouncing racism, nationalism, etc., and speaking in defense of religious pluralism and tolerance).

Try living outside of Utah among staunch non denominational EV types.  Then come back and talk to me.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Not everyone on "the Christian right" is my friend, but many, many are

Only on social issues that overlap.  None officially accept you as a valid Christian, or at least your church as a valid Christian church.  Non accept your baptism, nor do you theirs.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

 

In contrast, I find the secular left (an increasingly redundant label) to be far more contemptuous and inimical toward religious people broadly, Christians more emphatically, and the Latter-day Saints in particular.

Because the secular (left or right-there are secular people on the right) are tired of their historic marginalization be powerful religious groups. Even now it is tough to be a public political figure and and proclaimed atheist.

Yest mos secularists take a live and let live approach.  Religionists on the right want to shove their religion on the rest of society and  oppress those who do not agree.

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

You seem to think this is a bug, whereas I see it as a feature.  The Latter-day Saints and other Christian groups are increasingly setting aside doctrinal differences and working together on matters where we substantively agree.  See, e.g., here:

See also:

Interfaith Relations

Building these relationships is taking real time and effort, but the efforts are under way.

I'd like to see more friendliness and cooperation with secular groups.  The Church seems to have extended some olive leaves.  See, e.g., here:

Alas, I'm not sure how much or how many secularists are interested in this sort of thing.  My sense is that there is something inherent in secularism that fosters selfishness, and that in turn can reduce an individual's willingness to help and serve others.  The numbers on charitable giving seem to bear this out:

I hope this changes in the future.

Well anecdotally I know a lot of non religious people who are as giving of their $$ and time to causes they are feel are worthy. I know as an active member I did  little to nothing to serve outside my ward and stake community.  I just did not have the time.  Now I have the time.  I serve on three very worthy boards of local organizations and give back that way.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I think this is changing.  And in any event. religious pluralism doesn't require that we get along in terms of doctrinal agreement.  Meanwhile, we are increasingly able to set aside such doctrinal disagreements and work with other religious groups.

Would that I could say the same about secularists.

Thanks,

-Smac

Odd that you made this about secularists. 

Link to comment
Just now, smac97 said:

Meh.  Presidential politics are a unique microcosm.  And in any event, "Romney won the Lone Star State with 57.17%, over Obama's 41.38%, a margin of 15.78%."

See also here:

The above was published in July 2012, before the elction.  Data from the election, compiled by Pew Research, even further decimate your argument

Romney garnered identical support compared to GWB in 2004, and more support than McCain did in 2008.

Again, I don't think the shift works well.  Religious groups are increasingly willing to set aside doctrinal disagreements - even substantial ones - and work together on areas of common interest.  This appears to even be happening in politics.  

Again, meh.  2012 was called "a Mormon Moment" for a reason. 

I think that for many (though not all) Evangelicals, politics are "downstream" from religious belief.  When it comes down to it, sharing basic Christian values is more important than sharing pews on Sunday.

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm fine being wrong about 2012. (Oddly, it's not hard to admit when I'm wrong.)

I still think Mormons should be aware that their acceptance in Religious Right circles is a marriage of convenience. I don't think I agree with you about politics being "downstream" from religious belief, as these days, there seems to be little distinction between religious beliefs and politics in certain circles. (I'm having flashbacks to a friend in Houston posting photos and videos of a busload of women praying for specific candidates to win and for certain nonreligious policies to be enacted.) I also tend to take it at face value when a member of Congress says, “I’m tired of this separation of church and state junk that’s not in the Constitution. It was in a stinking letter, and it means nothing like what they say it does.” Be careful who you get into bed with. That's all I'm saying. 

Is that enough substance-free content for now? ;)

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Just curious, but have you had the same experience with people changing their tunes when they find out you've left the church? It was initially quite shocking to me. 

I’ve experienced the same. With some exceptions. Hanging out with a family from the unification church (“moonies”), and a Scientologist, they got more defensive when they found out we left. I feel like the marginalized groups feel more actual affinity with Latter-day Saints. 

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Try living outside of Utah among staunch non denominational EV types.  Then come back and talk to me.

Only on social issues that overlap.  None officially accept you as a valid Christian, or at least your church as a valid Christian church.  Non accept your baptism, nor do you theirs.

Because the secular (left or right-there are secular people on the right) are tired of their historic marginalization be powerful religious groups. Even now it is tough to be a public political figure and and proclaimed atheist.

Yest mos secularists take a live and let live approach.  Religionists on the right want to shove their religion on the rest of society and  oppress those who do not agree.

Well anecdotally I know a lot of non religious people who are as giving of their $$ and time to causes they are feel are worthy. I know as an active member I did  little to nothing to serve outside my ward and stake community.  I just did not have the time.  Now I have the time.  I serve on three very worthy boards of local organizations and give back that way.

Odd that you made this about secularists. 

It is definitely different out here in "the mission field." When I first started working here in Ohio, my government supervisor, who is an Evangelical Christian, sort of cagily approached me about my being "a man of faith" because he had my resume with BYU on it. He too was complimentary of the church and its values, until I told him I was no longer a believer. I kind of wish I hadn't told him because he said such bigoted things that I lost a ton of respect for him. I'm guessing you've had similar experiences east of here.

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

There used to be a time when I spent a lot of time on my posts here, rebutting this or that or whatever. I'm fine with people thinking I'm devoid of substance because I don't do that anymore. 

Hold up.  I did not say you are "devoid of substance."  I didn't even say that about your posts.  I instead noted that your "posts {are} short in both content and substance."

It was not intended as a disparagement.  It's hard to get to "substance" in one or two sentences.

9 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

That said, I do think you're kidding yourself if you think the Religious Right is doing anything other than tolerating Mormons because they like their support.

I'm not sure what this means.

9 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Leaving the church was so eye-opening to me because people outside the church suddenly started telling me what they really thought. Someone I had invited to the Houston temple open house told me years later how weird and cultish the church is and how the open house confirmed what her pastor had told them about us. At the time, she was gracious and said the building was beautiful and felt like a sacred place. Most right-wing Evangelicals I know consider tolerance of Mormon allies as a necessary evil. 

Given the substantial "anti-Mormon" industry in modern Protestant circles, this stuff is not surprising.  As Daniel C. Peterson noted (in 1999) :

Quote

One will search in vain for Latter-day Saint Sunday School curricula devoted to "exposing" other faiths. There are no "ministries" among the Mormons focused on criticizing other religions. Our bookstores do not carry books, pamphlets, videos, or audiotapes attacking others. We do not picket other churches, mosques, synagogues, or temples, nor do we seek to block their construction. (Quite the opposite, in fact - for which many examples could be cited.) No Latter-day Saint hosts a radio or television show dedicated to critiques of other churches. Our chapels are never turned over to "symposia" denouncing those whose doctrines contradict ours. We would never seek to expel another denomination from a community council of churches, nor to exclude them from use of a shared chapel facility at a resort. Yet such activities, aimed at combating Mormonism and Mormons, abound on the soil of conservative Protestantism.

And yet thirteen years later after DCP wrote the above comments, "nearly eight-in-ten white evangelical Protestants voted for Romney (79%)."

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I’ve experienced the same. With some exceptions. Hanging out with a family from the unification church (“moonies”), and a Scientologist, they got more defensive when they found out we left. I feel like the marginalized groups feel more actual affinity with Latter-day Saints. 

Now, that is interesting. My uncle's second wife became a Scientologist sometime in her 40s. I remember her trying to give my mom a big bag of her used garments (eww). Aunt Helen was, to put it politely, a loon, and I have to say that I always associate her brand of lunacy with Scientology. I know, that's unjust and prejudiced. 

Link to comment
22 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Just curious, but have you had the same experience with people changing their tunes when they find out you've left the church? It was initially quite shocking to me. 

Oh, yes. The truth comes out at that point.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

 

That's not a bad example of what I mean. I've never had much interest in the CES letter, as the parts of it I have read tend to be quite polemical in nature. It seems designed to start a debate, and as I recall, the author has participated in a few debates. Likewise, I disliked what I read of my good friend Jim Bennett's response to the CES letter for the same reason. Does it mean I dislike either of them or am afraid to address the substance and "documentation" they both provide? Obviously not, but I'm not going to expend energy on proving my point to a relative stranger online. It's about as pointless as this:
 

 

Alright, alright, I have to admit I LOVED that clip. : )

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Hold up.  I did not say you are "devoid of substance."  I didn't even say that about your posts.  I instead noted that your "posts {are} short in both content and substance."

It was not intended as a disparagement.  It's hard to get to "substance" in one or two sentences.

I'm not sure what this means.

Given the substantial "anti-Mormon" industry in modern Protestant circles, this stuff is not surprising.  As Daniel C. Peterson noted (in 1999) :

And yet thirteen years later after DCP wrote the above comments, "nearly eight-in-ten white evangelical Protestants voted for Romney (79%)."

Thanks,

-Smac

Oh, sure. People will vote for someone if they think he or she is better than the alternative. What I'm talking about is a group that is tolerated as long as it is useful. That's where I think the church and its members sit among the religious right.

Link to comment
On 8/3/2022 at 12:31 PM, Teancum said:
Quote

Not everyone on "the Christian right" is my friend, but many, many are

Only on social issues that overlap. 

Um, that is my point.  We overlap on social issues.  A lot, in fact.  We can and do work together in advancing commonly-held views and objectives on those social issues.

On 8/3/2022 at 12:31 PM, Teancum said:

None officially accept you as a valid Christian, or at least your church as a valid Christian church.  Non accept your baptism, nor do you theirs.

You seem to be suggesting I am conflating agreement on social issues in society at large during the week with doctrinal issues on Sunday.  I'm not.  

On 8/3/2022 at 12:31 PM, Teancum said:
Quote

In contrast, I find the secular left (an increasingly redundant label) to be far more contemptuous and inimical toward religious people broadly, Christians more emphatically, and the Latter-day Saints in particular.

Because the secular (left or right-there are secular people on the right) are tired of their historic marginalization be powerful religious groups. Even now it is tough to be a public political figure and and proclaimed atheist.

Sorry, not really buying that.  The Latter-day Saints comprise what, less than 2% of America?  Kinda hard to characterize us as one of these "powerful religious groups."  

The secular left seems frequently hostile to religious people.

On 8/3/2022 at 12:31 PM, Teancum said:

Yest mos secularists take a live and let live approach.  Religionists on the right want to shove their religion on the rest of society and  oppress those who do not agree.

Well, no.

On 8/3/2022 at 12:31 PM, Teancum said:
Quote

My sense is that there is something inherent in secularism that fosters selfishness, and that in turn can reduce an individual's willingness to help and serve others.  The numbers on charitable giving seem to bear this out:

Well anecdotally I know a lot of non religious people who are as giving of their $$ and time to causes they are feel are worthy.

Alas, your anecdotal experience is not supported by the data.

There is a very large gap in charitable efforts, in both money and time, between religious and secular folks.

On 8/3/2022 at 12:31 PM, Teancum said:

I know as an active member I did  little to nothing to serve outside my ward and stake community.  I just did not have the time.  Now I have the time.  I serve on three very worthy boards of local organizations and give back that way.

Odd that you made this about secularists. 

Politics make strange bedfellows.

I think that for most devout religious people in America, religious belief is "upstream" from politics.  Faith in and devotion to God trumps devotion to a political ideology or party or candidate.  I think this is why, in the end. Romney did as good or better than GWB and McCain amongst evangelical voters.  They don't need exacting compliance with this or that doctrine because political considerations are downstream from fundamental religious/moral considerations.  

Conversely, I think politics and political ideologies have become a sort of secular religion.  We all want to be a part of something important.  And when God and the eternal scheme of things are excluded as options, sociopolitical ideologies become the next best thing.  

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
On 8/2/2022 at 2:25 PM, Teancum said:

A private prayer does not take place in front of everyone on the 50 yard line.  This was a ploy and marketing effort plain and simple.

I've thought about this further, and yes, you're right that it was a marketing effort. Don't know what you mean by "ploy".

Anyway, marketing effort it may be, and I wouldn't have done it, since it kind of rises to the level of praying where everyone can see you, but does it rise to being against the law or constitution? I don't believe it does. After reading the opinion in the case, I agree with it. 

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Um, that is my point.  We overlap on social issues.  A lot, in fact.  We can and do work together in advancing commonly-held views and objectives on those social issues.

You seem to be suggesting I am conflating agreement on social issues in society at large during the week with doctrinal issues on Sunday.  I'm not.  

Sorry, not really buying that.  The Latter-day Saints comprise what, less than 2% of America?  Kinda hard to characterize us as one of these "powerful religious groups."  

The secular left seems uniformly hostile to religious people.

Well, no.

Alas, your anecdotal experience is not supported by the data.

There is a very large gap in charitable efforts, in both money and time, between religious and secular folks.

Politics make strange bedfellows.

I think that for most devout religious people in America, religious belief is "upstream" from politics.  Faith in and devotion to God trumps devotion to a political ideology or party or candidate.  I think this is why, in the end. Romney did as good or better than GWB and McCain amongst evangelical voters.  They don't need exacting compliance with this or that doctrine because political considerations are downstream from fundamental religious/moral considerations.  

Conversely, I think politics and political ideologies have become a sort of secular religion.  We all want to be a part of something important.  And when God and the eternal scheme of things are excluded as options, sociopolitical ideologies become the next best thing.  

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Not to derail, but I'm always skeptical about these comparisons of charitable giving between religious and nonreligious folks. Seems to me a lot of what is counted as charitable giving is time or money supporting the religion itself. That's completely different from giving to, say, help orphans or the homeless. Latter-day Saints, for example, are among the highest givers of charitable donations, both in time and money, but as far as I can tell, almost all of that is tithing and time spent either in church meetings or in callings. I'm guessing that we're comparing apples to oranges here.

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Oh, sure. People will vote for someone if they think he or she is better than the alternative.

Yes.  That is my point.  Religious people are willing to put aside doctrinal differences and focus on areas of common interest.

4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

What I'm talking about is a group that is tolerated as long as it is useful.

Not sure what this means.  "Tolerated" in what sense?

4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

That's where I think the church and its members sit among the religious right.

As to social issues where our interests and values are aligned, yes.  And there are many, many of those.

As to points of doctrine, however, we are not "sit{ting} among the religious right," and likely never will.  They don't want us there, and frankly, we don't want to be there, either.

I broadly respect Catholic and Protestant beliefs and adherents, but I'm not looking for their approval or permission regarding religious beliefs.  There are plenty of ways we can work with each other without compromising doctrinal tenets.  And increasingly, I think the more hard-nosed segments of their folks, and of ours, are coming to realize the value of religious liberty and pluralism.  Again, this explains, I think, how Romney ended up with 79% of the white evangelical vote.  And that was ten years ago.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  That is my point.  Religious people are willing to put aside doctrinal differences and focus on areas of common interest.

Not sure what this means.  "Tolerated" in what sense?

As to social issues where our interests and values are aligned, yes.  And there are many, many of those.

As to points of doctrine, however, we are not "sit{ting} among the religious right," and likely never will.  They don't want us there, and frankly, we don't want to be there, either.

I broadly respect Catholic and Protestant beliefs and adherents, but I'm not looking for their approval or permission regarding religious beliefs.  There are plenty of ways we can work with each other without compromising doctrinal tenets.  And increasingly, I think the more hard-nosed segments of their folks, and of ours, are coming to realize the value of religious liberty and pluralism.  Again, this explains, I think, how Romney ended up with 79% of the white evangelical vote.  And that was ten years ago.

Thanks,

-Smac

My point is that you seem to be putting a lot of trust in the tolerance of the religious Right. I wish I were as confident as you are that you won't be thrown under the bus at the earliest convenience.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

Not to derail, but I'm always skeptical about these comparisons of charitable giving between religious and nonreligious folks. Seems to me a lot of what is counted as charitable giving is time or money supporting the religion itself.

Again, the numbers on charitable giving do not seem to support your position:

Quote

Religious people are more generous than secular people with nonreligious causes as well as with religious ones. While 68 percent of the total population gives (and 51 percent volunteers) to nonreligious causes each year, religious people are 10 points more likely to give to these causes than secularists (71 percent to 61 percent) and 21 points more likely to volunteer (60 percent to 39 percent). For example, religious people are 7 points more likely than secularists to volunteer for neighborhood and civic groups, 20 points more likely to volunteer to help the poor or elderly, and 26 points more likely to volunteer for school or youth programs. It seems fair to say that religion engenders charity in general — including nonreligious charity.

Secularists are, in the main, considerably more stingy re: charitable donations/work as compared to religious people.  Again, I think this is an attitude endemic within secularist thought.  And statist thought, too:

Quote

Americans are more generous than Europeans — by a large margin

By David Harsanyi | October 23, 2021 

Liberals often love to portray America as a cartoonishly greedy nation driven by a hyperindividualistic and capitalistic nature that exhibits little concern regarding the common good or others around the world. 

This idea pervades our culture. When asked to describe themselves, 68 percent of Americans came to the word “selfish” as the top negative trait

Yet by nearly every measure Americans are more generous with their money and time than anyone — including Europeans. 

Indeed, American charitable giving exceeds the entire GDP of most European countries. 

According to the Almanac of American Philanthropy, Americans donate around seven times as much as continental Europeans to charitable causes per capita. Per person, even after adjusting for differences in household income, Americans donate twice as much of their income as the Dutch, three times as much as the French, five times as much as Germans, and ten times that of Italians. 

Only 14 percent of American donations come from foundation grants, and another 5 percent from corporations. More than 80 percent of charitable giving, however, is done by individuals. And this charity is found wide and deep within society. Every year, six out of ten households in the United States donate to a charitable cause, and the typical household gives somewhere around $2,000 to $3,000. 

The entire nation is altruistic, though the more religious the population, the more it gives. But even 40 percent of secular Americans give to charity, still better than most European nations. 

So at least American secularists are doing better than most Europeans.

Quote

Critics of the US argue that most of the charitable donations are given to religious groups, and are thus obligations rather than altruism. 

This is also a myth. The three most popular causes Americans contribute to are household basic social services, “combined purpose” charitable organizations like United Way or Catholic Charities — which help the poor — and health care. 

Yep.

Here's the stinger:

Quote

Europeans will, no doubt, argue that they already give charity in high taxes that fund big social safety nets. The data shows, however, that in overall spending, there isn’t much difference between the United States and other developed nations — each redistributing 20 percent of GDP. Once added in with the massive amount of charity, there is no comparing American generosity — the only difference is that most of ours is not a state obligation. 

The American disposition is to rely far more on the communal and local help than Europeans, who rely on government to do their charity for them. The cultural habits formed over 200 years of American life have created a society that both values and leans heavily on charitable causes. 

I suspect similar thinking ("rely{ing} on government to do their charity for them") is a fairly pervasive excuse amongst stingy American secularists.

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

That's completely different from giving to, say, help orphans or the homeless. Latter-day Saints, for example, are among the highest givers of charitable donations, both in time and money, but as far as I can tell, almost all of that is tithing and time spent either in church meetings or in callings. I'm guessing that we're comparing apples to oranges here.

I'm reasonably confident I could second-guess and parse to death your preferred charitable endeavors, so as to say they are "completely different from" real charitable donations.

You are taking a No True Scotsman approach to defining "charitable giving."

I think there are plenty of instances of "charity" organizations that do very little actual "charitable" work, or that spend far more on "overhead" than on charitable work, or that are designed to enrich a select few under the guise of piety and good intentions.

Meanwhile, I'm pretty comfortable with the work of the Church being characterized as "charitable."  The Church does huge amounts of charitable and philanthropic work.  And given the leaks about how much the General Authorities receive as a "living allowance," it is safe to say that nobody is getting rich off charitable monies given to the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Again, the numbers on charitable giving do not seem to support your position seem to bear this out:

Secularists are, in the main, considerably more stingy re: charitable donations/work as compared to religious people.  Again, I think this is an attitude endemic within secularist thought.  And statist thought, too:

So at least American secularists are doing better than most Europeans.

Yep.

Here's the stinger:

I suspect similar thinking ("rely{ing} on government to do their charity for them") is a fairly pervasive excuse amongst stingy American secularists.

I'm reasonably confident I could second-guess and parse to death your preferred charitable endeavors, so as to say they are "completely different from" real charitable donations.

You are taking a No True Scotsman approach to defining "charitable giving."

I think there are plenty of instances of "charity" organizations that do very little actual "charitable" work, or that spend far more on "overhead" than on charitable work, or that are designed to enrich a select few under the guise of piety and good intentions.

Meanwhile, I'm pretty comfortable with the work of the Church being characterized as "charitable."  The Church does huge amounts of charitable and philanthropic work.  And given the leaks about how much the General Authorities receive as a "living allowance," it is safe to say that nobody is getting rich off charitable monies given to the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

Oh, please. You understood what I meant, and you did exactly what I hoped you would: show that there’s still a gap in charitable giving between the religious and the secular. I was wrong about that. 

But it wasn’t a “no true Scotsman” fallacy at all. Nonreligious people are clearly not likely to donate to religious organizations per se, so it is comparing apples to oranges. Nowhere did I say that religious charities are not “real” charities. Kindly avoid putting words into my mouth.

No one enjoys being accused of bad faith and, in this case, anti-religious bigotry. Give it a rest, Spencer. 

Edited by jkwilliams
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...