Why is it the most compassionate are the most stingy?

I am not a good person, or an idealist, or anything like that.

Hence my charity is very limited and targeted.

I give to my local synagogue, more than the membership fee. This is simply because of the services I receive in exchange and for the fact that the synagogue provided an instant community for me when I arrived back in Dublin after five years of absense and does so to other newcomers, Jewish and not, as well.

I try to give to Damanga every month. This is simply because they need help and came to synagogues to ask for help and explained why they need help. Sudanese refugees also arrived in Israel and asked for help. And if somebody asks me or mine for help and explains why he needs help, I give.

The third "charity" I give is the occasional hundred euros for open source software projects I use.

I also give the odd euro to charities collecting money at my workplace or in shops, IF the charity is validated by the Irish government.

Other than that I tend to spend more on Israeli products or in Israel than on other products or in other countries. That is, I pay less attention to getting the best deal when the profit caused supports Israel or Israelis in some way.

I can imagine. I think I should get the book. However, I am curious how liberal secular Jews fare according to the statistics.

But I know the problem you are talking about. I ran into the issue in this blog discussion here:

http://www.sudanesethinker.com/2008/11/01/is-obama-a-socialist/#comments

Someone quoted a comment from Youtube (and we all know how clever those people are):

“you’re socialist if you want the rich to give to the poor and a good Christian patriot if you want the poor to give to the rich.”

I assume this was meant to be sarcastic. I replied:

That doesn’t make any sense to me.

Christians are very much into the rich giving to the poor, not vice versa. In fact, I believe in America Christians give far more to charities than non-Christians (I may be wrong).

The difference to socialism is that socialists want OTHER people to give to the poor. It’s a form of projected idealism (which also exists in Christianity).

And I was told:

Ever heard of irony? The commentator clearly pokes at the contrast between Christian rules and the embarrassment after the “spread the wealth around” quote. In fact what Jesus preached was not far from socialism, but conservatives tend to see a stark contrast between them two.

So I finally replied:

Yes, I have “heard of irony”. The statement doesn’t make sense to me because there is no irony in it.

American Christians already do give to charity and do believe that the rich should give to the poor. And they are doing it.

I suppose there would be irony if American Christians were known to be stingy. But they are not. They are in fact among the biggest givers in the world.

I may be wrong, but I did hear that Obama is known to have given very little to charity before this year. You want irony? Think of a presidential candidate who speaks of sharing the wealth and doesn’t. (I don’t know how much McCain gave but he did adopt an orphan from Bangladesh.)

But making fun of Christians because they prefer giving their own money to the poor rather than others’ is very low. Where in the Bible does it say to take somebody else’s money and give it to the poor?

The point is that American Christians are all sorts of things, but do not appear to be famous for their stingyness. And apparently some people so much want to make fun of them as a group that they cannot even be bothered to make fun of one of their real attributes. Instead they translate "do not support stealing money" into "do not support giving to the poor"; despite the fact that American Christians, of all groups, are among those that give the most to the poor in charity and probably in taxes too.

I myself compare badly with that group, as I explained above. And I know that American Christians' charity is a major source of funds for the very community I myself support and need.

As for you, Brad, I guess "Fences" is something great you have given to me. I wonder how many of those criticising you for your evil capitalist behaviour have even given that much to anyone, let alone me. My life is not even a bit better because of those people, but Stardock's free stuff makes it a little bit better.

Wow, so bitter and cynical!  Sounds like you are in a really bad place in your life.  I'm sorry.

And since you're not surprised about democrats (a large, broad label that really means nothing, but ok), I have a question?  Are all Republicans as bitter, hateful, and uncompassionate?

Maybe instead of reading "Who Really Cares" you should something like Victor Frankls "Mans Search for Meaning."

Take care, and I hope you feel better.  

Would it be better for the world if he started "caring" and stopped giving?

"Compassion", whatever is is today, is not as good as actual help. "Bitterness" is better than knowing what others must do. And "hatred" is likely better than the love of someone who cares but doesn't do anything out of principle.

How would that help? Perhaps the world needs fewer people who know how to better themselves and more people who actually help. And "Who Really Cares" is about those people. They are the ones who keep humanity alive. A bigoted ignoramus who actually gives to charity is better than ten really smart people who know the meaning of life but wouldn't lift a finger to help anybody else (except by selling them books).

This whole discussion reminds me of a famous quote from "Yes Minister":

"We offer every possible assistance short of actual help."

The difference is between compassion and actually doing something, between words and action.

Bitter, hateful, and uncompassionate; those are words to describe others. What do YOU actually do?

very well said.

1) Where did he claim to be a Republican and speak for Republicans?

2) Where do you see hate in this?  Hate is a very strong word that gets thrown around without thought too often.  I'm trying to get that through to my 8yr old but it seems a lot of adults don't even understand that.  Do you know what the meaning of "hate" is?

I can see where she could have inferred that.  

I don't think many people really know these days.

I do.

“You haven’t a problem” the soldier kept assuring me as he asked my driver questions. As is customary in Iraq he asked me for my religion.

I told him.

He seemed shocked and then started laughing. It took him a minute to become serious enough to tell me that I shouldn’t tell anybody further south.

http://web.mac.com/ajbrehm/Home/Blog/Entries/2008/11/2_Sulaimaniya_-_Part_1.html

This is unrelated to the subject at hand and that's the point. Hatred has nothing to do with not being willing to give money to people one doesn't know or care about. Hatred is irrational. Wanting to keep one's own money is not.

I never personally met anybody who really hated. But I came close that day, when I was warned about hatred I could encounter. I knew about it. I was prepared.

But since then I have been more careful with the word "hate".

Your 8yr old is not nearly old enough to understand the concept. I was 30 when I finally understood it.

Why, because he said he actually donates to charity rather than simply declaring that he cares?

I know, I am hateful and bitter. I'm in a bad place.

All I have are my millions of dollars, loving family, a great job, and freedom to do whatever I want.  It is a living hell.  

After all, deeds don't really matter. It's so passe to actually do stuff. What really matters are platitudes and caring about things.

You have made a critial error here... allow me to correct it:

They feel it is the RICH's tax dollars job to help "the poor", to which they belong.

leuki, as much as I detest religion and the indoctrination of children into supertition and unscientific falsities, I still find that religious people tend to be generous and at least striving to good. I also find that there is some sort of mythified "Evil Christian" fantasy that liberals keep on bringing, a stereotype that is not based on any actrual living christian.

If you look for EXAMPLES of such "Evil Christians" who are supposedly everywhere, you would find them only in liberal works of fiction.

For some reason such falsification to "make a point" seems entirely justified to them, why? because it is a means to showcase the evils of chistianity. They fail to see that it is circular logic.

1 Christians do such and such! thus christians are evil!

2. People must be made aware that christians are evil. I know, I will find some examples and publicize them!

3. Oh no, I can't find any examples! I will just make some up then, they are so evil anyways, I will make up something that they COULD have done, what with them being so evil...

You can replace christians with conservatives / jews / israelies too if you want, same circle of liberal logic and action.

This reminds me, Bioware made a game called jade empire... in one town you have a dam being opened to excavate a magical artifact, the open dam causes the river to flow too fast, cutting the town off from fishing and trading and putting everyone in risk...

Anyways I was just reading some in their forums when I came agross a thread where liberals were explaining that the closed fist (dark side of the force) option (destroy the dam, condemning the town, but allowing the wine merchant to rake in more profits from the pirates, and get paid for it) is ragen's "trickle down prosperity" the "conservatives" beleive in... which is "take from the poor and give to the rich" (in their words)... and thus conservatives are... well, evil.

The conservative could be good or evil but in either case he's doing something.

The liberal, by contrast, would be the one standing uselessly in the town wishing someone would solve their problems.

By the standards of this site I'm a liberal, and I don't give much to charity. Partly because those same people begging for change in the bus interchanges are provided a living wage by fiat of the state, but also because I studied development and political science long enough to know that aid is almost completely ineffective in improving a situation. It's a bandaid that only makes things worse in the long run.

Instead I'm a huge fan of microcredit schemes, which reward the motivated with access to capital. Kiva is a great one operating in the 3rd world that you can loan to yourself (google it for the details).

I wouldn't call it giving though when there's the expectation that the givee will give something back.

There are people in the world who really just need the "long run" bit and are even happy when things get worse "in the long run", because they are still hoping that there will be a "long run".

I wouldn't give to able-bodied people with a work-permit for a western country. They are poor by choice. But Sudanese refugees escaping a Holocaust in Darfur are a different matter. For them making things worse in the long run is what they are looking for. It sure beats the current situation.

Microcredit schemes seem to be good, and I am in favour of anything that makes money, especially when it also helps the deserving. (For me an individual who saves lives for purely egoistic reasons is a good person.).

My wife and tithe at our church, which goes to fund several other charities and missions throughout our local area. We always try to donate goods or money to help in disasters such as katrina or the tsunami. We also send care packages to soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, and often include items intended for the indigenous children and such.

I do not, however, give handouts to bums on the street; the government extorts enough money from me to help the "poor", many, many, many of whom do not really deserve it. See "octomom", for example.

Drop the booze or needle, get a shower and get a job. My church uses my tithe for organizations that can help them do just that. That's good enough.

You are doing far more than I. You are a good person!

I think that's how it should work. Sending care packages to soldiers and children in war-torn countries is great. G-d bless you, I am serious.

I feel that this is a very unfair characterization by Draginol. The evidence is anecdotal at best, with nothing to back it up. One thing he does not consider is time. Many people who cannot afford to give monitarily contribute via time and effort. Maybe you cannot write a check to a soup kitchen but you can help out twice a month. That is just as important if not more so. I would say that a giving person can be from any political persuasion, and I know many giving lefties and righties. I will agree that just giving money to homeless is pretty pointless, you are much better off going through a local soup kitchen.

For the record I am a 28 pear old Presbyterian, one of those old mainline churches that contains liberals as well as conservatives, and actually invites and embraces diversity of ideas, unlike many "Christian" churches today. My wife and I are VERY active Christians, she teaches at a Christian school (effectivly taking a 20K a year paycut to work in a Christian environment), and I serve as an Elder for our 1200 member church (First Pres. of Plymouth, MI). We tithe, and give money to several local Detroit organizations and also support Campus Crusade for Christ. I say all this not to brag, but to show you that there are giving people of ALL political persuasions.

I thought his very article was about how this book finally backed up what he only had anecdotal evidence for before.

My own (purely anecdotal) observation always was that those doing volunteer work are the same people who are working full-time to support themselves and their families. The unemployed who live on welfare are rarely found in committees or among volunteers anywhere.

And that, I think, goes to show that many unemployed really are lazy and not just unfortunate victims. If they spent their time unemployed doing volunteer work for society (basically in exchange for all the help society provides in the form of money and free healthcare), their CV would look much better when they do look for a job again.

Just imagine a job interview and you are asked what you did in the last year. Best answer is, of course, that you worked somewhere full-time. But "I did volunteer work" sure beats "I watched Scrubs in my underwear".

jdkeepsmiling, you are too innocent... just because you are generous, giving, and volunteering doesn't mean others do, specifically, others who think that its the government job to tax the "wealthy" (middle class) to give to the "poor". (not soup kitchen/homeless poor, but checks to people who don't really need them)

Cacto, I like these micro-credit loans too, but it assumes the person is going to work to improve their own life and is not really a give-a-way for them. I'd like to see more of these awarded too.

I know it's just one person and cannot be construed as pertaining to all liberals, but... didn't Joe Biden donate a whopping $3690 to charity from 1998 - 2008. The same Joe Biden that stated to pay more taxes was "patriotic duty". His opponent, Sara Palin, despite earning much less than the Senator gave almost 300% more in just 2006/2007 alone. IMO says a lot about the two and the thinking behind their ideologies.

The question is, are religious donations charity or should they simply be considered social club dues.

But even granting religious donations as charity, the book is more an argument for the differences between charitable donations by the religious versus the non-religious, as opposed to showing much, if any, difference between conservative and liberal charity. And since conservatives are more likely to be religious than liberals that results in the mistaken conclusion that conservatives give more to charity than liberals, all due to the afore mentioned collection plate.

His data is arguable as well. I'm not a statistician but it’s been pointed out that there were a number of liberties taken by requiring significantly different confidence factors in certain sets of data versus others. This is indicative that the results were “massaged”. As a side note his results also concluded that liberals have on average a 6% higher income than conservatives which is counter to most widely accepted data and casts further doubt on his results. Also the source of his data was a survey and not a scientifically conducted poll.

The following is excerpt from Who Really Cares about Arthur Brooks, http://stevereuland.blogspot.com/2006/11/who-really-cares-about-arthur-brooks.html.

“So I checked the General Social Survey [http://sda.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/hsda?harcsda+gss04] one of his sources, to see if the raw data do indeed fit his thesis. What a surprise, they don't. In nearly every case, the GSS data show that liberals contribute more and volunteer more than do conservatives.”

Also this from Compassionate Hackery, http://biobrain.blogspot.com/2008/04/compassionate-hackery.html.

“Because as it turns out, while religious conservatives are more likely to give to charity than secular liberals, they give only slightly more than religious liberals. And while both religious groups gave more than non-religious liberals, all three groups gave more than non-religious conservatives; who were apparently the most stingy.”

Source please

I also have been unable to access any of Mr. Brooks data and since I'm unwilling to give him money by buying his book perhaps you could be so kind as to provide the source for his conclusions.

[edit]

I also referenced an article by Jim Lindgren, Concerns About Arthur Brooks's "Who Really Cares", http://www.volokh.com/posts/1164012942.shtml. Somewhere within the two articles referenced above and this one is where I got the comment that the differences between conservative and liberal charitable giving disappear once religious donations are excluded.

Also it does seem a bit disingenuous to only request sources for contrary opinion and basically accept the synopsis conclusion of a book on faith.

[/edit]

That is a BLOG (called The Volokh Conspiracy)... just like joeuser is a blog... maybe I should start referencing joeuser from now on as to where I get my "facts"