18 ms·

Your comment about religion is incorrect. Americans are very generous: https://givingusa.org/giving-usa-2017-total-charitable-donations-rise-to-new-high-of-390-

Your comment about religion is incorrect. Americans are very generous: https://givingusa.org/giving-usa-2017-total-charitable-donations-rise-to-new-high-of-390-05-billion/ https://givingusa.org/giving-usa-2017-total-charitable-donat.... Conservative Evangelical Churches spend an enormous amount of time and money helping people. For example: The Southern Baptist Convention runs the third largest disaster relief organization in the country behind the Salvation Army (also religious...) and the Red Cross. I could give lots of other examples. I'm not sure where this perception about religion is coming from. Maybe in Europe the church is largely dead, but that's not true in the US.

pjc50 9y ago
> I'm not sure where this perception about religion is coming from. Mostly the high-profile anti-abortion campaigning (which by extension poisons all women's healthcare and sex education discussions), and homophobia. And the segregation. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/17/opinion/why-im-leaving-the-southern-baptist-convention.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/17/opinion/why-im-leaving-th... > Maybe in Europe the church is largely dead "Europe" is a huge place that's a lot more diverse than the US. Christianity is still official state religion in various places; Germany still has tithing baked into the tax system! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/11380968/Compulsory-income-tax-on-Christians-drives-Germans-away-from-Protestant-and-Catholic-churches.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/113... Ireland is in the middle of the long process of evicting its theocracy.
weberc2 9y ago
Also, the Salvation Army is an evangelical church, and it is one of the most significant charities in the US.
- SolaceQuantum 9y ago
  The Salvation Army has a history of homophobic and anti-lgbtq policies and practices.
  - weberc2 9y ago
    My point was that SA itself is an evangelical charity. But you're right that SA (like many religions) considers homosexuality to be sinful to the extent that they'll employ LGBT people in all positions except clergy, and they've served LGBT people in need long before it was fashionable.
    - ams6110 9y ago
      Most Christian denominations teach, to one degree or another, "love the sinner but hate the sin." So while they may think of homosexuality as a sin, they don't hate people who are homosexual. All people are sinners, after all.
      - weberc2 9y ago
        I agree. AFAIK this holds for SA as well.
      - Can_Not 9y ago
        > "love the sinner but hate the sin." The homosexuals still receive a disporpotionate amount of hate relative to "other sins", often by people pretending they are not hating as they parrot this phrase.
        weberc2 9y ago
        Probably, but correlation isn't causation and no group deserves to be judged by its worst constituents.
        Can_Not 9y ago
        > correlation isn't causation That misleadingly implies the reasonable plausibility of a coincidence, for example that it is random chance that gay marriage is a nation-wide political topic but the legal status of eating shellfish isn't.
spiderfarmer 9y ago
My perception about religion is coming from the fact that evangelicals supported Trump and recently Roy Moore. Without that support, the ACA wouldn't be dismantled and a lot of minorities would be better off. It's like evangelicals in America invented their own form of Christianity that is far different than what Jesus preached.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
tonetheman 9y ago
Your comment about religion is not correct. Religion is about making you feel bad. I am sure that churches do help the community but it often comes with the hidden price of guilt and needing to ask forgiveness weekly. The Southern Baptist in particular are a perniciously hateful organization. They actively promote bigotry and discrimination while hiding behind the bible without blinking an eye. Come to the south near an abortion clinic and tell me how much love and empathy you find from Southern Baptists. Organized religion is a cancer in America.
- meri_dian 9y ago
  Religion does a lot of good in people lives. Fundamentalist Christians have very strong views on certain things that you and I may disagree with, but that doesn't mean that Christianity or religion itself more broadly is a cancer. For instance, they hate abortion because they view it as murder, which is itself a morally consistent position to take. If you believed abortion was murder I'd hope that you would hate it to. We just happen to disagree with them on the status of a fetus. Now their intolerance of certain groups (LGBT people most prominently) itself cannot be tolerated, but their intolerance is more a result of religion being influenced by the status quo of old world values. As society as a whole becomes more accepting of different people over time, religion will also adopt those values just as successful religions have always done. Viewed in this light organized religion is not a cancer but simply something that must be refined a bit in the context of our changing society.
  - threatofrain 9y ago
    There are lots of organizations that do good in people's lives. I don't see why that needs to be tied with bigotry. I hope we don't accept a concept of a moral debit card, like a doctor who can save many lives, so we should tolerate a little abuse. When we can't stop abuse, we will endure it, but when we can, we ought not. I find it also surprising that the Christian muscle in this country is immense, they could move mountains, but for over 20 years the only issues which has captivated their national attention have been sexual ones. And now there's this transgender business. Is there no Christian political consensus to be had on the poor? Why was there national discussion on a constitutional ban for gay marriage during the presidential elections? Did the thought of stopping gay marriage rally the base?
raducu 9y ago
The original post was about empathy not "being generous". I was raised in a very religious family and in my experience most religious people are not empathic at all. Yes, there are exceptions, especially amongst the more mystical types, but most religious people are "generous" because they are trying to score points for the afterlife. It's fascinating to see how people act in church (where they feel God is watching) versus how they treat eachother the rest of the week.
- spiderfarmer 9y ago
  Exactly. Generously donating to a charity (or worst case: an anti-abortion fund) has nothing to do with empathy. Even in church I have heard people say the most insensitive things about less fortunate people (sure, she was raped by this violent rapist, but she wants an abortion, tssk!). The most empathic, loving and caring people I know aren't in church.
- pwinnski 9y ago
  Could I not restate your comment as "Ignore the measurable stats, my anecdotal experience suggests a lack of empathy?" In my experience, those who are most empathetic are generous in spirit, which would include not necessarily revealing to you that they are very religious, as well as in generosity toward those in need.
  - tinymollusk 9y ago
    The comparison is valid only if monetary generosity is linked with empathy. It seems as unproven a statement as saying monetary giving frees people from the dirtier emotional work of empathizing. Societally, not sure it matters much. OTOH, I think it's probably more fair to compare church giving relative to the tax breaks they receive, rather than simply say they give a lot. They do, but it's amplified by a tax deduction, which isn't available to emotionally supporting/empathetic people. There is, of course, no reason someone couldn't be in both camps, but this comment is long and rambling already.
    - prepend 9y ago
FireBeyond 9y ago
Ooh, not so much. There are arguments about that postulate the conservatives give more to charity than liberals. That's only true when you count religious giving. Now then, yes, there are many, many valid religious charities (and by this I mean organizations, as well as that component of church giving that factors into benevolence). But by studies performed by religious organizations themselves (who if anything are likely to skew the numbers more positively), across the board, "Local and national benevolence receives 1 percent of the typical church budget", and an additional 5% goes to "church run programs" (be it after school care, social or group activities). If a secular charity - and lets go back to Charity Navigator here - Top Ten Inefficient Fundraisers (http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=topten.detail&... http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=topten.detail&...) we see some of the worst charities spending 15% of their donations on "program expenses" (i.e. doing what they are being given money to do). I'm not familiar with the monitoring of 501(c)3 groups, but I suspect if charities were to regularly spend only one per cent of their givings on what they got to enjoy tax exemption to do, they'd likely have such a status revoked. And, if you factor in this average percentage (even the six per cent combined, which is generous, as as much fun as social and youth activities are, they're not necessarily serving a critical need), and start to question 'how much money is being spent on 'spreading the word', patting themselves on the back, competitions in Texas to see who can built the world's biggest cross just down the road from where the world's previously biggest cross was built at costs of millions, there comes more and more skepticism of just how highly you can value "giving to your church" on the scale of charitable contributions.

pjc50 9y ago

> I'm not sure where this perception about religion is coming from. Mostly the high-profile anti-abortion campaigning (which by extension poisons all women's healthcare and sex education discussions), and homophobia. And the segregation. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/17/opinion/why-im-leaving-the-southern-baptist-convention.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/17/opinion/why-im-leaving-th... > Maybe in Europe the church is largely dead "Europe" is a huge place that's a lot more diverse than the US. Christianity is still official state religion in various places; Germany still has tithing baked into the tax system! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/11380968/Compulsory-income-tax-on-Christians-drives-Germans-away-from-Protestant-and-Catholic-churches.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/113... Ireland is in the middle of the long process of evicting its theocracy.

weberc2 9y ago

Also, the Salvation Army is an evangelical church, and it is one of the most significant charities in the US.

SolaceQuantum 9y ago
The Salvation Army has a history of homophobic and anti-lgbtq policies and practices.
- weberc2 9y ago
  My point was that SA itself is an evangelical charity. But you're right that SA (like many religions) considers homosexuality to be sinful to the extent that they'll employ LGBT people in all positions except clergy, and they've served LGBT people in need long before it was fashionable.
  - ams6110 9y ago
    Most Christian denominations teach, to one degree or another, "love the sinner but hate the sin." So while they may think of homosexuality as a sin, they don't hate people who are homosexual. All people are sinners, after all.
    - weberc2 9y ago
      I agree. AFAIK this holds for SA as well.
    - Can_Not 9y ago
      > "love the sinner but hate the sin." The homosexuals still receive a disporpotionate amount of hate relative to "other sins", often by people pretending they are not hating as they parrot this phrase.
      - weberc2 9y ago
        Probably, but correlation isn't causation and no group deserves to be judged by its worst constituents.
        Can_Not 9y ago
        > correlation isn't causation That misleadingly implies the reasonable plausibility of a coincidence, for example that it is random chance that gay marriage is a nation-wide political topic but the legal status of eating shellfish isn't.

spiderfarmer 9y ago

My perception about religion is coming from the fact that evangelicals supported Trump and recently Roy Moore. Without that support, the ACA wouldn't be dismantled and a lot of minorities would be better off. It's like evangelicals in America invented their own form of Christianity that is far different than what Jesus preached.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

tonetheman 9y ago

Your comment about religion is not correct. Religion is about making you feel bad. I am sure that churches do help the community but it often comes with the hidden price of guilt and needing to ask forgiveness weekly. The Southern Baptist in particular are a perniciously hateful organization. They actively promote bigotry and discrimination while hiding behind the bible without blinking an eye. Come to the south near an abortion clinic and tell me how much love and empathy you find from Southern Baptists. Organized religion is a cancer in America.

meri_dian 9y ago
Religion does a lot of good in people lives. Fundamentalist Christians have very strong views on certain things that you and I may disagree with, but that doesn't mean that Christianity or religion itself more broadly is a cancer. For instance, they hate abortion because they view it as murder, which is itself a morally consistent position to take. If you believed abortion was murder I'd hope that you would hate it to. We just happen to disagree with them on the status of a fetus. Now their intolerance of certain groups (LGBT people most prominently) itself cannot be tolerated, but their intolerance is more a result of religion being influenced by the status quo of old world values. As society as a whole becomes more accepting of different people over time, religion will also adopt those values just as successful religions have always done. Viewed in this light organized religion is not a cancer but simply something that must be refined a bit in the context of our changing society.
- threatofrain 9y ago
  There are lots of organizations that do good in people's lives. I don't see why that needs to be tied with bigotry. I hope we don't accept a concept of a moral debit card, like a doctor who can save many lives, so we should tolerate a little abuse. When we can't stop abuse, we will endure it, but when we can, we ought not. I find it also surprising that the Christian muscle in this country is immense, they could move mountains, but for over 20 years the only issues which has captivated their national attention have been sexual ones. And now there's this transgender business. Is there no Christian political consensus to be had on the poor? Why was there national discussion on a constitutional ban for gay marriage during the presidential elections? Did the thought of stopping gay marriage rally the base?

raducu 9y ago

The original post was about empathy not "being generous". I was raised in a very religious family and in my experience most religious people are not empathic at all. Yes, there are exceptions, especially amongst the more mystical types, but most religious people are "generous" because they are trying to score points for the afterlife. It's fascinating to see how people act in church (where they feel God is watching) versus how they treat eachother the rest of the week.

spiderfarmer 9y ago
Exactly. Generously donating to a charity (or worst case: an anti-abortion fund) has nothing to do with empathy. Even in church I have heard people say the most insensitive things about less fortunate people (sure, she was raped by this violent rapist, but she wants an abortion, tssk!). The most empathic, loving and caring people I know aren't in church.
pwinnski 9y ago
Could I not restate your comment as "Ignore the measurable stats, my anecdotal experience suggests a lack of empathy?" In my experience, those who are most empathetic are generous in spirit, which would include not necessarily revealing to you that they are very religious, as well as in generosity toward those in need.
- tinymollusk 9y ago
  The comparison is valid only if monetary generosity is linked with empathy. It seems as unproven a statement as saying monetary giving frees people from the dirtier emotional work of empathizing. Societally, not sure it matters much. OTOH, I think it's probably more fair to compare church giving relative to the tax breaks they receive, rather than simply say they give a lot. They do, but it's amplified by a tax deduction, which isn't available to emotionally supporting/empathetic people. There is, of course, no reason someone couldn't be in both camps, but this comment is long and rambling already.
  - prepend 9y ago

FireBeyond 9y ago

Ooh, not so much. There are arguments about that postulate the conservatives give more to charity than liberals. That's only true when you count religious giving. Now then, yes, there are many, many valid religious charities (and by this I mean organizations, as well as that component of church giving that factors into benevolence). But by studies performed by religious organizations themselves (who if anything are likely to skew the numbers more positively), across the board, "Local and national benevolence receives 1 percent of the typical church budget", and an additional 5% goes to "church run programs" (be it after school care, social or group activities). If a secular charity - and lets go back to Charity Navigator here - Top Ten Inefficient Fundraisers (http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=topten.detail&... http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=topten.detail&...) we see some of the worst charities spending 15% of their donations on "program expenses" (i.e. doing what they are being given money to do). I'm not familiar with the monitoring of 501(c)3 groups, but I suspect if charities were to regularly spend only one per cent of their givings on what they got to enjoy tax exemption to do, they'd likely have such a status revoked. And, if you factor in this average percentage (even the six per cent combined, which is generous, as as much fun as social and youth activities are, they're not necessarily serving a critical need), and start to question 'how much money is being spent on 'spreading the word', patting themselves on the back, competitions in Texas to see who can built the world's biggest cross just down the road from where the world's previously biggest cross was built at costs of millions, there comes more and more skepticism of just how highly you can value "giving to your church" on the scale of charitable contributions.