How good are we without God? Apparently not as good.
Several studies have shown that American liberals—namely, those most likely to have little or no God, are least likely to give to charity. Hurts, doesn’t it? Where’s the proof, you say?
Robert Brooks, who recently wrote a book, Who Really Cares, about charitable donors discovered the following (as reported by New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof):
“When I started doing research on charity,” Mr. Brooks wrote, “I expected to find that political liberals — who, I believed, genuinely cared more about others than conservatives did — would turn out to be the most privately charitable people. So when my early findings led me to the opposite conclusion, I assumed I had made some sort of technical error. I re-ran analyses. I got new data. Nothing worked. In the end, I had no option but to change my views.”
Although liberals advocate on behalf of those who are hungry and homeless, Brooks’ data shows that conservative households give 30% more to charity. A Google poll puts these numbers even higher—at nearly 50% more. Conservatives even beat out liberals when it comes to nonfinancial contributions. People in the conservative states in the center of the country are more likely to volunteer and to give blood.
But what about the relationship between having a God and being generous?
Based on a Google poll (again, as reported by columnist Kristof), religion is the essential reason conservatives give more. And although secular liberals tend to keep their wallets closed, it turns out that religious liberals are as generous as religious conservatives.
According to Google’s figures, if donations to religious organizations are excluded, the total amount liberals give to charity is slightly higher than that given by conservatives. But according to Mr. Brooks, if the contributed amount is tied to percentage of income, then conservatives are more generous than liberals—even to secular causes. Ouch.
All of the world’s religions promote charitable giving. Christians, for example, speak of giving in terms of a tithe required by God. 2 Corinthians 9:7 applauds giving cheerfully, Acts 11:29 advocates feeding the hungry, and James 1:27 exhorts the faithful to help widows and orphans. Although the New Testament doesn’t discuss tithing per se, congregations generally set at tithing at 10 percent of gross income. Some congregations don’t ask that the entire tithe be given to support them, but they do ask that moneys given to other charities bring their members’ total contribution to (at least) 10%. And really–10% of one’s income to feed the hungry, help the destitute, and care for the orphan–is that so much to ask?
Can we agree on the following:
IF ‘being good’ = charitable giving
THEN ‘being 100% good’ = giving 10% of all gross income from all sources
Unfortunately a couple of famous liberals—religious liberals at that, illustrate only too well the accuracy of Brooks and Google’s dismal findings.
How about our Vice-President, Mr. Biden (a Roman Catholic), for starters. The New York Times reported that, according to his 2008 income-tax return, Joe Biden earned $269,000 and claimed—are you ready for this–$1,900 in charitable deductions. That comes to 0.71% of gross income! Let’s be charitable ourselves and round that figure to 1%. Maybe Mr. Biden thought no one would care although he surely knew people would notice, since he’s a public figure and all. But even more shocking is the fact that he showed no contrition for the sad example he set for his fellow citizens. His lame response to the numbers cited? Merely that his total donations were not reflected on his income tax. He had, he argued, given donations to his church (failing to mention that these are tax-deductible) and donated some of his time! Hmmmm. Whatever. Using the IF-THEN equation above, 1% charitable giving makes Biden 10% good. A recommendation? He needs to boost God by 90%.
The President, Mr. Obama (a Congregationalist), fared better in 2008, but even he fell short of the 10% mark. He donated about 6.5% of his gross income making him 65% good. A recommendation? He needs to boost God by 35%.
Now, if you turn the microscope to look at your own 2008 income-tax return, will you discover a log in your own eye? You get a pass if you’ve lost your job or earn less than middle middle-class wages. The rest of you, please adjust your charitable deduction for donations of time and blood. Do you need to boost God? By how much?
Reference: Nicholas Kristoff, “Bleeding Heart Tightwads,” the electronic version of The New York Times, 21 December 2008; John McKinnon, “First Couple Reports Income of $2.7 Million,” The Wall Street Journal, 16 April 2009, p. A3.
The Naked Theologian 
This may indeed be true, and if so I wish I were surprised. That said, Mark Twain once argued that there were three kinds of untruth in the universe, Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics. Funny thing about statistics, with a little bit of tweakng they say whatever you want them to, the numbers don’t actually speak for themselves, context tells them what to say.
Now, in as much as an irreligious ideology leads one toward self-centered actions and ideals, it is harmful, but there are a fair number of believers who espouse the doctrines of Christ, and yet wholly overlook his injunctions to charity and alms. To hear some talk, you would have thought that the Sermon on the Mount was on low taxes, and that the gospel dealt mostly with trickle-down economics, go figure…
It’s a concern–and one I’ve started nudging people about. Gently.
Though I think “God” is the wrong nudge to use with many religious liberals.
But the question asked is directed and individual for each of us. Pre-tax or post-tax? It matters–because our tax code and system treats some things as income that aren’t (reimbursement for business related travel costs, for example–car, hotel, air fare… that one needs to spend and gets reimbursed by a client)–and then allows you to deduct those (but the initial income numbers are still inflated…). Ancient formulae never envisioned such convoluted systems.
But that sounds like squirming. I’m just trying to figure out how far over the 10% we may have actually managed (do we ratchet back?). (Yes, this year’s taxes are going in late…).
Last year, I know we hit at least 10% of gross income.
And God didn’t figure into our motivations–though religion did.
I am an humanist UU, age 53 and married with two grown kids who live at home, who does not believe in god, gives about 2% of our income to charity, and takes your point. I think in our case we have a big house and property, certainly bigger than we need, and all the big mortgage and maintenance expenses that go with it.
I do give a fair amount of my time as as a volunteer at my UU congregation, to a non-profit community group, and give blood regularly, but their just does not seem to be money in our budget for more charitable giving!
I will have to ponder that more!
Cooper Zale
http://www.leftyparent.com
>Now, if you turn the microscope to look at your own 2008 >income-tax return, will you discover a log in your own eye?
65% of American tax-payers would show no contributions on their tax return, because most American’s don’t itemize. As one of those 65%, I get to pick and chose who to give to, without worrying about what the IRS might think of them.
And why think that folks who make less than middle middle class wages – (in 2005 it was) $38,000 couldnt afford it? The often are the most generous contributors to charity.
And of course, President Obama was (is?) a member of the United Church of Christ – founded in 1957 (the Congregational Church merged with the Christian Church (Connection) in 1931).
As for me, yes – I give 10%; it may or may not fit the IRS rules. I can give as my heart (with some consultation with my head) rules.
I am not sure that statistics give the whole picture on liberal charity. I find more liberals volunteering in charity and cause-oriented campaigns (pro-environment, animal welfare, gender issues) than their conservative counterparts, who are content with just opening their wallets. Yes, money helps, but warm bodies passing out the relief goods help too.
How good…
This was brought back for consideration by two things–your most recent post (which seems not to be taking comments), and my family’s watching “Frontier House” on DVD (ah, Netflix…).
The kids have been having a conversation about the various people in it, and their behavior and performance. And there’s a lot there to talk about. But what’s come up, over and over, for these two godless children (raised UU without pushing any particular strain of faith… they’re wary agnostics with a strong rationalist doubt and a sense of awe…) is the joy or lack thereof that some people have, and the ethics and failings of it that they observe (as well as the stupidity of people–heck, they’re teens observing adult failings from the lofty perch of adolescence… wait until they have to get into the trenches and be the stupid, too).
Observations about people trying to “buy” success.
Observations about how poorly people treat each other–even people they love–and how the results suck.
Observations about how hard work pays off… and how it even seems to make for more satisfaction (within limits–the same individual they were pointing to isn’t joyless, and does go have fun…).
Observations about how the people who were competing more with themselves seemed happier (and saner, and even more successful) than those who were competing with others.
Observations about how the few moments when the three families actually function as community–rather than as individuals or separated families–they seem so much better off. And just *better* people. The salient case being their creating a school for the kids “in” 1883, as required by law then, but rejecting the state-supported schooling because it would deny a black child education. They have to spend their own money and put in their own hard work to create the school and pay the teacher to comply with the law and reject the unjust segregation. That alone is laudable. But the rub is that there aren’t any black children. There’s just the possibility, since one newly married couple is interracial (a legal possibility of the time and place, too). So they do the right thing, as a community, for children who don’t exist, for the hypothetical future that won’t exist because the whole experiment will end five weeks after the school is actually complete and functioning.
That just struck me as a remarkable point in ethical behavior–doing the right thing for people who only exist in imagination, in a future that won’t and can’t exist. Given the behaviors one sees in the two other families, I could easily have imagined this playing out as “Look, we can’t afford the time and effort and money–it’ll play out against our being graded for success (survival) at the end of the project. We’ll just do this the state’s way… and acknowledge that it’s disgusting that the past was that way.” But they don’t. And at least what’s shown on video suggests that the conversation didn’t even go there. They just rejected the idea. Unjust, unfair, unethical.
Even though it did no one any practical good.
One might argue that it made social points with the interracial couple–and I’m sure it did. But the families were engaged in their struggle for success as families, not as a community. It cost them to do right.