Discussion: Liberal v. Conservative

When the average amount of money spent on actual helping people is 10-25%, that is terrible return on giving(assuming you give that money with the sole purpose of wanting to help people).

As for needing space for a church fair enough if you buy a simple building, but when you build the Fortress of Solitude like the church I posted above don't you think that a bit gody(pun intended). The LDS church could have easily got a church at half the price they paid for the one I posted and it would have been equipped enough to do the job then give the rest of that cash to actual charity. All that said it's a lovely piece of architecture

In the end I don't consider somebody giving money to a church on par with giving money to a reputable charity. Maybe you can consider X amount of that money actual charity(depending on the church you give it to), but I wouldn't count it as 100% or even 50%. If you give cash to something you have some form of direct benefit from, then it's not like giving to cash that you get 0 benefit from other then the joy of giving something.

Using me as an example I give over 1000 dollars in food items(plus abother 500 to other places) to a few places over the coarse of a year so who is getting a better bang for their buck in terms of actual charity for other people? Me or the person who give 5,000 to his church where only 10-25% gets used on actual charitable stuff. I also don't expect a tax writeoff so look at that as charity to Uncle Sam.

Right...but religious people give as much as you do to secular charities and then on top of that give a lot to their congregation and on top of that giving 3% more to religious charities. You may be getting more bang for your buck but they are giving more per the study you brought up.

I think it's weird you keep giving the LDS such grief considering what they do for their community. In the MIT study they mention how they had to literally not include Utah because it gives so much to charity they counted it as an outlier. Again, the LDS can be criticized for a lot especially on gay rights but there is a reason why Utah has some of the lowest levels of income inequality in the nation.
 
Right...but religious people give as much as you do to secular charities and then on top of that give a lot to their congregation and on top of that giving 3% more to religious charities. You may be getting more bang for your buck but they are giving more per the study you brought up.

I think it's weird you keep giving the LDS such grief considering what they do for their community. In the MIT study they mention how they had to literally not include Utah because it gives so much to charity they counted it as an outlier. Again, the LDS can be criticized for a lot especially on gay rights but there is a reason why Utah has some of the lowest levels of income inequality in the nation.

Except does giving to that mega church pastor who wants a private jet count as charity?

That's the big problem here, there are some religious leaders who actually want to help others, but there are a lot who are just hucksters who want to make a buck of their followers. There is a lot of graft and corrupt in the religious right movement.

Again I think we are conflating religious people with conservatives, which isn't very helpful, because there are left wing religious people.

The current Pope has talked more about helping the poor and has talked less about social issues and even criticized the global capitalist economic system and many conservatives in the US have criticized him for that. So is the current Pope a liberal or a conservative? I think categorizing him like that is an oversimplification. But that still doesn't change the fact when he choose to speak more about poverty and less about social issues, he got flack for it from American conservatives.
 
Except does giving to that mega church pastor who wants a private jet count as charity?

That's the big problem here, there are some religious leaders who actually want to help others, but there are a lot who are just hucksters who want to make a buck of their followers. There is a lot of graft and corrupt in the religious right movement.

Again I think we are conflating religious people with conservatives, which isn't very helpful, because there are left wing religious people.

The current Pope has talked more about helping the poor and has talked less about social issues and even criticized the global capitalist economic system and many conservatives in the US have criticized him for that. So is the current Pope a liberal or a conservative? I think categorizing him like that is an oversimplification. But that still doesn't change the fact when he choose to speak more about poverty and less about social issues, he got flack for it from American conservatives.


You keep bringing up an extreme situation that's not the norm it's why I keep ignoring it. I can point to a really terrible charity that people give to as well, but why focus on an outlier? We already established that 10-25% goes to social services for most churches. I keep having to repeat myself, but maybe I'll say it once more: they match in secular giving, give 3% more to religious charities (think Salvation Army) then give 40 something% more to their congregation to which on average 10-25% goes to social services.

I also want to add that merely counting just social services towards charitable contributions seems to undermine all the church does for the congregation. I understand that you may or may not be religious but there's a lot of spiritual support that goes to the mental well being of the members of said church as well as counseling many people will turn to their pastor or priest for guidance. Pastors will visit families who are sick and help them grieve when a loved one passes. These are all things that are beneficial and are being discounted among other things.

Religiousness remains an important aspect of human life and it usually has a positive association with good mental health. Even though most studies have been conducted in the United States in Christian populations,

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3705681/

I have literally said over and over that conservatives/Republicans giving more is a byproduct of them being more religious. It doesn't have to do with conservative ideology at all except for the fact that conservatives tend to lean more towards being more religious. I'm not oversimplifying anything...because I never stated what you are saying...
 
Last edited:
You keep bringing up an extreme situation that's not the norm it's why I keep ignoring it. I can point to a really terrible charity that people give to as well, but why focus on an outlier? We already established that 10-25% goes to social services for most churches. I keep having to repeat myself, but maybe I'll say it once more: they match in secular giving, give 3% more to religious charities (think Salvation Army) then give 40 something% more to their congregation to which on average 10-25% goes to social services.

I have literally said over and over that conservatives/Republicans giving more is a byproduct of them being more religious. It doesn't have to do with conservative ideology at all except for the fact that conservatives tend to lean more towards being more religious. I'm not oversimplifying anything...because I never stated what you are saying...

But then this whole idea is mischaractrized, the idea that should be put forward is "religious people give more charity then non religious people", I think we can have a more honest debate on that, rather then this idea of 'conservatives give more money to charities then liberals, so there." And again the Bible says you are not supposed to be brag about your charity, which a lot conservatives who bring up this study seem to be doing.


Its an extreme example, but I think its a symptom of a larger problem. I think there is a lot of graft and corruption in the religious right movement and this guy is just the most obvious example. I think a lot of prosperity theology has wormed its way into the religious right and it seems a lot of them do actively demonize the poor, which is against what Jesus taught. I question how much money the religious right actually spends on helping the poor, instead of helping themselves. Forget the private jet example, look at some of the money the religious Right spends with its lobbying efforts in Uganda:

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-kaoma-uganda-gays-american-ministers-20140323-story.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ti-gay-conservative-evangelicals-9193593.html

How money that is given to the religious right goes to something like this? Any money that goes to these lobbying efforts is too much, so I think I am well within my rights to distrust the religious right's intentions when it comes to how it spends money that it receives.

Again, when the Pope brings up helping poor and criticizing the current economic system, several American conservatives criticized him for it. It seems like this idea "that conservatives are more charitable then liberals" is actively used an excuse to not address inequalities in our system and anyone brings up inequalities in the system, no matter how religious they are, are dismissed by conservatives.
 
But then this whole idea is mischaractrized, the idea that should be put forward is "religious people give more charity then non religious people", I think we can have a more honest debate on that, rather then this idea of 'conservatives give more money to charities then liberals, so there." And again the Bible says you are not supposed to be brag about your charity, which a lot conservatives who bring up this study seem to be doing.


Its an extreme example, but I think its a symptom of a larger problem. I think there is a lot of graft and corruption in the religious right movement and this guy is just the most obvious example. I think a lot of prosperity theology has wormed its way into the religious right and it seems a lot of them do actively demonize the poor, which is against what Jesus taught. I question how much money the religious right actually spends on helping the poor, instead of helping themselves. Forget the private jet example, look at some of the money the religious Right spends with its lobbying efforts in Uganda:

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-kaoma-uganda-gays-american-ministers-20140323-story.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ti-gay-conservative-evangelicals-9193593.html

How money that is given to the religious right goes to something like this? Any money that goes to these lobbying efforts is too much, so I think I am well within my rights to distrust the religious right's intentions when it comes to how it spends money that it receives.

Again, when the Pope brings up helping poor and criticizing the current economic system, several American conservatives criticized him for it. It seems like this idea "that conservatives are more charitable then liberals" is actively used an excuse to not address inequalities in our system and anyone brings up inequalities in the system, no matter how religious they are, are dismissed by conservatives.

The whole idea is mischaracterized by who? Conservatives give more because more of them are religious, but that's a piece to the Republican platform so it makes sense why more of them are religious.

You keep pulling really extreme examples that aren't the norm. I think it's more than fair to criticize these instances but to paint it as that's the case for most religious people and most churches or even the average would not be accurate.

Again, you can question how much goes to the poor but we already stated that 10-25% goes to social welfare programs. So I don't know why you keep on questioning it without trying to disprove the study that SV Fan pointed to.

Again, this last part that you bring up seems to be more based on your world view and a misunderstanding of how conservatives think and how they view the world. As we retreat to our own tribes we often don't understand the other side and it is part of the reason why we are in the situation we are in today. I can't speak for all conservatives, but I disagreed with the Pope. I felt that as Jesus said give to Caesar to what is Caesar and unto God what is God. The current Pope, while well meaning, isn't an expert on economics and for him to comment on economic systems is rather out of his element. Conservatives feel that capitalism has done more to lift people out of poverty than any other system. I don't think he is wrong to encourage charity but to attack a whole economic system seemed out of his purview. Then again, I'm not Catholic and the whole centralization of religion and some of it's organization is something I find challenging sometimes as an individual.
 
The whole idea is mischaracterized by who? Conservatives give more because more of them are religious, but that's a piece to the Republican platform so it makes sense why more of them are religious.

Doesn't change the fact that there are left wing religious people out there, maybe out as many conservative religious people out there, but if religion rather then conservative ideology is the driving factor, we should be honest with our terminology.

You keep pulling really extreme examples that aren't the norm. I think it's more than fair to criticize these instances but to paint it as that's the case for most religious people and most churches or even the average would not be accurate.


Again, you can question how much goes to the poor but we already stated that 10-25% goes to social welfare programs. So I don't know why you keep on questioning it without trying to disprove the study that SV Fan pointed to.

I think I am well within my rights to distrust the religious right, given what I have seen of their words and actions.

The fact is the 10 to 25% is just an average, there are churches who likely spend a lot more and churches that spend a lot less, maybe nothing. So someone who gives to a very generous church and someone who gives to church that spends money on jets and Uganda lobbying, can both say they gave to charity. Don't you think that is a huge problem with this study, there is no way to see which church spent money on good works and which ones spent money on selfish BS. That Uganda lobbying effort has a lot of effort behind it, many millions of dollars and many people on the ground who make it happen. If these things are outliers, why don't other members of the religious right call them out and actively do everything to isolate them from the rest of the Religious Right? If they don't do this, they are giving tactic consent to these efforts.

I think the religious right actively demonizes the poor and is obsessed with material wealth, I wouldn't trust them to spend even that much on helping others. Maybe there some honest people in that movement, but I think there is a lot of rot and corruption in that movement. Many of them act like the money changers Jesus chased out of the temple.

Again, this last part that you bring up seems to be more based on your world view and a misunderstanding of how conservatives think and how they view the world. As we retreat to our own tribes we often don't understand the other side and it is part of the reason why we are in the situation we are in today. I can't speak for all conservatives, but I disagreed with the Pope. I felt that as Jesus said give to Caesar to what is Caesar and unto God what is God. The current Pope, while well meaning, isn't an expert on economics and for him to comment on economic systems is rather out of his element. Conservatives feel that capitalism has done more to lift people out of poverty than any other system. I don't think he is wrong to encourage charity but to attack a whole economic system seemed out of his purview. Then again, I'm not Catholic and the whole centralization of religion and some of it's organization is something I find challenging sometimes as an individual.

I think the problem I have with this, is you have Republicans who give speeches on how lazy poor people are, forgetting the idea Jesus put forward in the bible, "blessed are the poor, for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven."

http://www.msnbc.com/politicsnation/gop-blames-poverty-laziness

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/republican-voters-pew-income-inequality-poor-rich

I think many Republicans are making up their own version of bible where, Jesus seems to have nothing but scorn and contempt for the poor. I think many Republicans love their version of capitalism over Jesus and have turned Christianity into a religion that asks everything of other people, asks little of themselves. Their version of Christianity is meaningless, its just a way to be smug and act superior to others, they may as well be Pharisees.

Was Mike Huckabee being a "good Christian" when he said Syrian want to come to America just to watch cable television? How many members of the religious right criticized him for that?

Say what you will about the Pope, I think he was trying to express the compassionate elements of Christianity, which I think lot of religious republicans have lost touch with.
 
Last edited:
Doesn't change the fact that there are left wing religious people out there, maybe out as many conservative religious people out there, but if religion rather then conservative ideology is the driving factor, we should be honest with our terminology.

Nobody is arguing this.


I think I am well within my rights to distrust the religious right, given what I have seen of their words and actions.

The fact is the 10 to 25% is just an average, there are churches who likely spend a lot more and churches that spend a lot less, maybe nothing. So someone who gives to a very generous church and someone who gives to church that spends money on jets and Uganda lobbying, can both say they gave to charity. Don't you think that is a huge problem with this study, there is no way to see which church spent money on good works and which ones spent money on selfish BS. That Uganda lobbying effort has a lot of effort behind it, many millions of dollars and many people on the ground who make it happen. If these things are outliers, why don't other members of the religious right call them out and actively do everything to isolate them from the rest of the Religious Right? If they don't do this, they are giving tactic consent to these efforts.

I don't know how much the average person is even aware of these efforts quite honestly. Even if you want to throw out all congregational giving which I already addressed why that shouldn't be the case. You would still end up with them giving just as much to secular charities and then 3% more to religious organizations.


I think the religious right actively demonizes the poor and is obsessed with material wealth, I wouldn't trust them to spend even that much on helping others. Maybe there some honest people in that movement, but I think there is a lot of rot and corruption in that movement. Many of them act like the money changers Jesus chased out of the temple.

I mean you don't have to trust them the facts bare out that they do donate more even if you throw out congregational giving so...you can choose to ignore the studies and the facts that is up to you.


I think the problem I have with this, is you have Republicans who give speeches on how lazy poor people are, forgetting the idea Jesus put forward in the bible, "blessed are the poor, for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven."

http://www.msnbc.com/politicsnation/gop-blames-poverty-laziness

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/republican-voters-pew-income-inequality-poor-rich

I think many Republicans are making up their own version of bible where, Jesus seems to have nothing but scorn and contempt for the poor. I think many Republicans love their version of capitalism over Jesus and have turned Christianity into a religion that asks everything of other people, asks little of themselves. Their version of Christianity is meaningless, its just a way to be smug and act superior to others, they may as well be Pharisees.

Was Mike Huckabee being a "good Christian" when he said Syrian want to come to America just to watch cable television? How many members of the religious right criticized him for that?

Say what you will about the Pope, I think he was trying to express the compassionate elements of Christianity, which I think lot of religious republicans have lost touch with.

Yet they still give more to charity...showing that they still want to help the poor. Their view on why someone is poor not withstanding. Again a lot of this is based on your world view which is fine, but I'm not sure if the facts bare this out. There's just a lot of I think...I think... I think... in your arguments and anecdotal evidence to back them up especially in this last section. I can find stories of the contrary as well http://www.ucc.org/news_california_church_helps_lgbt_refugees_from_uganda_find_safety_peace_07312015. I'm sure you will cite the poll as evidence which is fine, but I don't know about the conclusion you reach from the poll. You can say that they may have a different view on the cause of poverty and the fairness of the economic system, but they clearly work to help the poor as seen by their charitable works. So I'm not sure that you can reach the conclusion that they do not care about the poor.
 
Last edited:
Nobody is arguing this.

Then lets change the terminology and drop the words liberal and conservative from the discussion, which makes the debate partisan and frankly a more honest and thoughtful debate, rather some cheap political argument conservatives try to use to bash liberals.



I don't know how much the average person is even aware of these efforts quite honestly. Even if you want to throw out all congregational giving which I already addressed why that shouldn't be the case. You would still end up with them giving just as much to secular charities and then 3% more to religious organizations.

Except how these religious organizations spend their money is important to determine whether your money is going to actually help other people or just going to some huckster's pocket. It makes the study rather hollow, if someone could try to raise money for conversion therapy and say that is charitable work. Conclusions conservatives draw from this study are narrow and often ignore more on the ground realities.



I mean you don't have to trust them the facts bare out that they do donate more even if you throw out congregational giving so...you can choose to ignore the studies and the facts that is up to you.

Putting facts into a context is not ignoring them, it merely means you looking beyond raw data and applying it to real world situations and once we get real world situations, the truth becomes more complex then conservatives who site this study present it as.


Yet they still give more to charity...showing that they still want to help the poor. Their view on why someone is poor not withstanding. Again a lot of this is based on your world view which is fine, but I'm not sure if the facts bare this out. There's just a lot of I think...I think... I think... in your arguments and anecdotal evidence to back them up especially in this last section. I'm sure you will cite the poll as evidence which is fine, but I don't know about the conclusion you reach from the poll. You can say that they may have a different view on the cause of poverty and the fairness of the economic system, but they clearly work to help the poor as seen by their charitable works. So I'm not sure that you can reach the conclusion that they do not care about the poor.

I am saying there is a huge disconnect between the idea that conservatives are generous then liberals and the way they seem to treat the poor with contempt, I am wondering why that is. Again I think there are some nuances in the study and how the fact are bared out, that are being missed here.

I also think this idea that conservatives are more generous then liberals, makes Republicans comfortable with demonizing the poor. Like I asked before, are okay with Republicans who say poor people are lazy?

Frankly given all the qualifiers you seem to be putting on this idea that conservatives are more generous then liberals, makes it seem rather negligible and rather pointless to focus on that much.
 
Then lets change the terminology and drop the words liberal and conservative from the discussion, which makes the debate partisan and frankly a more honest and thoughtful debate, rather some cheap political argument conservatives try to use to bash liberals.

I keep stating that the driving force here is religion I don't know how I can state that any clearer. The issue is though that a vast majority of the very religious tend to vote Republican so there must be reasons why they are drawn to conservatism ideology and Republicans. You have to remember the vast amount of religious in this country are Protestants which placed a larger emphasis on the individual like conservatism than say Catholicism (whose practitioners tend to be more liberal). So they are tied to one another, but I do keep stating that it is the religiosity of the members that make Republicans more generous.



Except how these religious organizations spend their money is important to determine whether your money is going to actually help other people or just going to some huckster's pocket. It makes the study rather hollow, if someone could try to raise money for conversion therapy and say that is charitable work. Conclusions conservatives draw from this study are narrow and often ignore more on the ground realities.

It's not hollow you would have to assume that 100% of the 3% increase in donations to religious organizations is "going to some hucksters pocket" and 100% of the 45% increase in congregational giving is also "going to some hucksters pocket". Only if you assume this can you come to conclusion that religious do not donate more to charity which is an absolutely ridiculous assumption. That's not what is happening. The margins are too large particularly in congregational donations.



Putting facts into a context is not ignoring them, it merely means you looking beyond raw data and applying it to real world situations and once we get real world situations, the truth becomes more complex then conservatives who site this study present it as.

Yes, but you aren't putting facts into context. You are trying to invalidate the facts with anecdotal evidence. We know that not all congregational donations are doing good works, we know that not all religious organizations are doing good works. That doesn't invalidate what the study found. Like I said the assumptions you would have to make to come to this conclusion are not very realistic.



I am saying there is a huge disconnect between the idea that conservatives are generous then liberals and the way they seem to treat the poor with contempt, I am wondering why that is. Again I think there are some nuances in the study and how the fact are bared out, that are being missed here.

I'll reiterate Protestantism focused on the individual and out of this group came the concept of the Protestant Work Ethic which according to Max Weber goes hand in hand with Capitalism.


I also think this idea that conservatives are more generous then liberals, makes Republicans comfortable with demonizing the poor. Like I asked before, are okay with Republicans who say poor people are lazy?

Frankly given all the qualifiers you seem to be putting on this idea that conservatives are more generous then liberals, makes it seem rather negligible and rather pointless to focus on that much.

You keep saying you are asking for nuance, but when I address the issue with nuance you call them qualifiers...
 
I keep stating that the driving force here is religion I don't know how I can state that any clearer. The issue is though that a vast majority of the very religious tend to vote Republican so there must be reasons why they are drawn to conservatism ideology and Republicans. You have to remember the vast amount of religious in this country are Protestants which placed a larger emphasis on the individual like conservatism than say Catholicism (whose practitioners tend to be more liberal). So they are tied to one another, but I do keep stating that it is the religiosity of the members that make Republicans more generous.

Except by bringing this argument up in this thread, you are making it a hyper partisan argument.

Whenever this argument is brought up, it is usually done in a way that comes off as some smug dig conservatives make towards liberals to establish that conservatives are morally superior to liberals.

If you want to debate religious vs. non religious charity in a non partisan, you would have to start a different thread, its going to be partisan here.


It's not hollow you would have to assume that 100% of the 3% increase in donations to religious organizations is "going to some hucksters pocket" and 100% of the 45% increase in congregational giving is also "going to some hucksters pocket". Only if you assume this can you come to conclusion that religious do not donate more to charity which is an absolutely ridiculous assumption. That's not what is happening. The margins are too large particularly in congregational donations.

Yes, but you aren't putting facts into context. You are trying to invalidate the facts with anecdotal evidence. We know that not all congregational donations are doing good works, we know that not all religious organizations are doing good works. That doesn't invalidate what the study found. Like I said the assumptions you would have to make to come to this conclusion are not very realistic.

Fine you want to talk about figures and facts, what is the difference in charitable contributions between liberals and conservatives?

In terms of absolute numbers is the difference so big that it is not negligible?
Do you have absolute facts and figures on the difference in amount in regards to amount totals or percentage differences or do you not because churches generally don't open their books to the public?

When conservatives make these argument, they hardly ever seem to mention these qualifiers, which is the problem I have with it, it comes as self praise and condensation, rather then a honest attempt to justify religious charity, despite some of its flaws, which I think is an actual interesting discussing, but you cannot present in a none partisan way if you use it in a partisan context.


Again this comes off conservatives not learning the lesson of the parable of the very public rich man who donates to charity vs. the very private poor woman who donates far less.

If you have even one dollar going to Uganda lobbying efforts, that is one dollar too many, so yeah, I think churches need a proper accounting, before I am going to trust that they use their money for good works, there seems be no real accountability here. Without that, how are we supposed to weed out the good churches from the bad ones?

I'll reiterate Protestantism focused on the individual and out of this group came the concept of the Protestant Work Ethic which according to Max Weber goes hand in hand with Capitalism.

I have read Weber, thank you very much. I am not going to debate the pros and cons of the Protestant Work Ethic, that is far beyond the purview of this thread.

I will say capitalism is far different now from capitalism in Weber's time.

The form of Christianity the Republicans and the Religious Right created is like an ugly mutation of the Protestant Work Ethic. Its crass, commercialized, arrogant, selfish, self righteous, lacks an ability to self reflect and callous. It has invited in prosperity theology, seems obsessed with controlling other people's privates lives and frankly I don't think it does enough public good to balance out these other factors, compared to other less partisan religious groups.

I think if the religious right went away, other religious groups would pick up the slack and would do a better job then the religious right does.

You keep saying you are asking for nuance, but when I address the issue with nuance you call them qualifiers...

Because the way this argument is traditionally presented by conservatives is not the way you have been presented it.

Without these qualifiers, some conservatives could say "why do we need a welfare system, when conservatives give so much charity, those poor people must just be lazy". Without the proper context, this does come off as a justification for Republicans to demonize the poor, rather then an honest intellectual question worthy of debate.
 
The form of Christianity the Republicans and the Religious Right created is like an ugly mutation of the Protestant Work Ethic. Its crass, commercialized, arrogant, selfish, self righteous, lacks an ability to self reflect and callous. It has invited in prosperity theology, seems obsessed with controlling other people's privates lives and frankly I don't think it does enough public good to balance out these other factors, compared to other less partisan religious groups.

I think we should put protestant religions in separate categories. You have your mainline protestant denominations such as Lutherans or Methodists which politically are somewhat moderate, then you have your evangelicals. I would argue it's the evangelical that really push the capitalist message and the more likely strain of to be run by hucksters, it's also the American contribution to christianity(basically in the start of the 19th century was the rise of Americans pushing their own form of warped Christianity). I don't think it was a coincidence that when US became a free capitalist country you found many people out to make a buck for themselves hence we get all these new American spin off christian religions that tried to tie itself to American ideals. These are also the more likely places to get the 10% tithers and use 0% on actual charity

By the way here is another study done on how much of the money given to churches goes to actual charity.

http://web.archive.org/web/20141019.../resources/advisorypanel/2013/surveyreports20

Basically the breakdown is

Personal Expenses(salaries for employees) - 58%
Administrative Expenses - 6%
Facility Expenses - 18%
Other Expenses - 3%

Total Operating Expenses 85%

Program Expenses - 14%

When you break down these Programs 3% are for goodwill(benevolence), 11% for in church programs(youth programs, music related to church, outreach). I am sorry but local church programs is not a charity, it's basically services the fee you pay gets you(once again going back to my PBS analogy of somebody donating to them because they enjoy their programming and want the station to stay on air).

Any other charity worked with these kind of numbers they would be given a F++++(even if one counted the church programs as charity). Sure one can argue that a small chunk of that first 85%(operating expenses) might be tied into goodwill programs but even then let's say 6% goes to goodwill, any other charity would get raked though the coals for those kind of numbers.

https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid=48

Per Charity Navigator(a reputable charity rating company):

Program Expenses less than 33.3%:
Our data shows that 7 out of 10 charities we've evaluated spend at least 75% of their budget on the programs and services they exist to provide. And 9 out of 10 spend at least 65%. We believe that those spending less than a third of their budget on program expenses are simply not living up to their missions. Charities demonstrating such gross inefficiency receive 0 points and a 0-star rating for their Financial Health.




Personally the funniest thing I saw on that list was the Large churches basically gave 4% to program expenses and 0% to goodwill(below is the actual breakdown).

Dec_2012_Table01.jpg


It's sort of sad that the largest churches are generally the worst when it comes to goodwill because these are the ones that generally push 10% tithing(and it looks like the bulk of it goes to a pretty building and the top guys salary). You logically would think the bigger the church we would see an increase in program expenses
 
Last edited:
I think we should put protestant religions in separate categories. You have your mainline protestant denominations such as Lutherans or Methodists which politically are somewhat moderate, then you have your evangelicals. I would argue it's the evangelical that really push the capitalist message and the more likely strain of to be run by hucksters, it's also the American contribution to christianity(basically in the start of the 19th century was the rise of Americans pushing their own form of warped Christianity). I don't think it was a coincidence that when US became a free capitalist country you found many people out to make a buck for themselves hence we get all these new American spin off christian religions that tried to tie itself to American ideals. These are also the more likely places to get the 10% tithers and use 0% on actual charity

By the way here is another study done on how much of the money given to churches goes to actual charity.

http://web.archive.org/web/20141019.../resources/advisorypanel/2013/surveyreports20

Basically the breakdown is

Personal Expenses(salaries for employees) - 58%
Administrative Expenses - 6%
Facility Expenses - 18%
Other Expenses - 3%

Total Operating Expenses 85%

Program Expenses - 14%

When you break down these Programs 3% are for goodwill(benevolence), 11% for in church programs(youth programs, music related to church, outreach). I am sorry but local church programs is not a charity, it's basically services the fee you pay gets you(once again going back to my PBS analogy of somebody donating to them because they enjoy their programming and want the station to stay on air).

Any other charity worked with these kind of numbers they would be given a F++++(even if one counted the church programs as charity). Sure one can argue that a small chunk of that first 85%(operating expenses) might be tied into goodwill programs but even then let's say 6% goes to goodwill, any other charity would get raked though the coals for those kind of numbers.

https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid=48

Per Charity Navigator(a reputable charity rating company):






Personally the funniest thing I saw on that list was the Large churches basically gave 4% to program expenses and 0% to goodwill(below is the actual breakdown).

Dec_2012_Table01.jpg


It's sort of sad that the largest churches are generally the worst when it comes to goodwill because these are the ones that generally push 10% tithing(and it looks like the bulk of it goes to a pretty building and the top guys salary). You logically would think the bigger the church we would see an increase in program expenses

Yes, megachurches are the worst but only10% of Protestants attend a megachurch.
 
All,

Great fruitful arguments have their foundations in deep ideological differences.

Creation v. Evolution
Religion A v. Religion B
Choice v. Life
Nature v. Nurture

Liberal v. Conservative borrows from these and more; it is not an argument in and of itself, but a set of arguments that intertwine and inform one another. A constant churn of discourse. The great sociopolitical rivalry of our time.

Exchange ideas central to the ideological conflict.* Above all, truly try to understand the other side--if it's inconceivable now, even better; try harder. Ask about the background that led your ideological complement to their beliefs. Ask them about their certainty and conviction in their beliefs.

I'll begin: Clearly, either SSH has more liberal posters than conservative ones, or liberal posters are more active in the Politics subforum. Which is the answer, and why do you think that's the case? For example, if you think the SSH has more liberal posters, why do you think more liberal posters visit the site?

*As a disclaimer, the thread's title is a bit tongue in cheek. Treat each other with respect.

I think you're painting a false dichotomy between liberal and conservative.

The traditional conservative was "someone who believes in Enlightenment principles." That's far from where conservatism is today. What we call "conservatism" today, at least in the Anglo-American word, is really just code for Reactionary Authoritarian.

This is also evident in the fact we associate things like gay marriage rights, abortion rights, and acceptance of evolution with being "liberal". By that standard almost anyone is a liberal.
 
I think you're painting a false dichotomy between liberal and conservative.

The traditional conservative was "someone who believes in Enlightenment principles." That's far from where conservatism is today. What we call "conservatism" today, at least in the Anglo-American word, is really just code for Reactionary Authoritarian.

This is also evident in the fact we associate things like gay marriage rights, abortion rights, and acceptance of evolution with being "liberal". By that standard almost anyone is a liberal.

I'm glad somebody else has brought this up. One of the biggest political cons that has developed over the last decade or so is the myth that liberalism is somehow more intrinsically moral or ethical than conservatism. As you correctly pointed out, conservatism has been hijacked by anti-intellectual fundamentalists and is a far cry from what its original tenets were.

The same thing is happening to liberalism, coincidentally.

Both parties have actually betrayed their virtues of late and need to be rebooted.
 
And perhaps the reason why conservatives are so quick to point out things like the Charitable Giving disparities is because we hear endlessly from liberals about how they are the ones who truly care about the poor, while conservatives like myself would prefer to see them dying in the streets.

Studies like these show clear evidence that such an accusations are just partisan jackassery.
 
Studies like these show clear evidence that such an accusations are just partisan jackassery.

Look at my post above, 3% you give to church goes to actual goodwill. Sure you can argue that's charity at some form but if charity is your ultimate goal giving to churches is a terrible bang for the buck.
 
Look at my post above, 3% you give to church goes to actual goodwill. Sure you can argue that's charity at some form but if charity is your ultimate goal giving to churches is a terrible bang for the buck.

And here is a classic example of what I'm talking about: when presented with studies showing giving disparities, the left's insatiable need to feel morally superior leads them to invalidate certain charities (in their own minds) so that they can once again reclaim their own perceived moral high ground. When faced with evidence contradicting their own beliefs, they just discard enough of it to feel like they're back on top.

And why? Because conservatives can't be more charitable than liberals, because they just can't. :loco:
 
And here is a classic example of what I'm talking about: when presented with studies showing giving disparities, the left's insatiable need to feel morally superior leads them to invalidate certain charities (in their own minds) so that they can once again reclaim their own perceived moral high ground. When faced with evidence contradicting their own beliefs, they just discard enough of it to feel like they're back on top.

And why? Because conservatives can't be more charitable than liberals, because they just can't. :loco:

I am not saying conservatives can't be more charitable, my attack is more an attack on people who think giving to church equals charity. I don't care if they liberal or conservative
 
I'm glad somebody else has brought this up. One of the biggest political cons that has developed over the last decade or so is the myth that liberalism is somehow more intrinsically moral or ethical than conservatism. As you correctly pointed out, conservatism has been hijacked by anti-intellectual fundamentalists and is a far cry from what its original tenets were.

The same thing is happening to liberalism, coincidentally.

Both parties have actually betrayed their virtues of late and need to be rebooted.

Well, liberalism is a bit different. While I don't think the Left should identify as liberal ("Liberal" used to mean Pro-Capitalist and "Libertarian" used to mean Socialist, funny eh?), the principles of Liberalism never changed. The original pro-market liberals changed their stance on laissez-faire after being convinced it had the same problems as feudalism.

The same can't be said about Conservatism. It used to be associated with open-mindedness and intellectualism, and now it's used by people who take pride in being the opposite. That's way worse of a shift IMO.

Also despite being Canadian, I would argue the Anglo-American world as a whole has a Reactionary Right problem.

The US' Reactionaries are by far the worst. But don't think for a second they didn't hijack the "Conservative" label here in Canada and the UK, or that they aren't a problem. Not too sure about Australia though.
 
Last edited:
I know someone that just told me that they are voting for Donald Trump solely because Hillary Clinton supports legalized abortion.

Is that ignorant?
 
I know someone that just told me that they are voting for Donald Trump solely because Hillary Clinton supports legalized abortion.

Is that ignorant?
She supports getting rid of the Hyde Amendment (which stops federal funds from being used to fund abortions) so maybe that's what they were thinking about in that statement.
 
Right. But my point is that he said that abortion is evil and because Hillary Clinton supports it, he will vote for Donald Trump.

Is it ignorant to vote for a candidate based on a single issue?
 
Depends on the issue. IMO abortion is a dumb hill to die on for electing an otherwise terrible candidate. If you're against abortion, then don't have one. However simply because you disagree with it, doesn't mean others shouldn't have the option since you have no idea what they're circumstances are especially if you're a man. It's also been an established right in this country for 43 years at this point. Stop beating the dead horse.

Not to mention, most people who are vehemently anti-abortion also tend to be against sex education in schools and/or the use the of contraception which actually reduces pregnancies and the number of abortions, so it's just a vicious cycle of ignorance.
 
Last edited:
Right. But my point is that he said that abortion is evil and because Hillary Clinton supports it, he will vote for Donald Trump.

Is it ignorant to vote for a candidate based on a single issue?

I think that most people don't have an opinion on everything, but they have a very strong opinion on one particular thing.

It may be ignorant to vote for (or against) a candidate based on one issue, but I think a lot of people do it. Students will vote for the candidate with the best policy on education, small business owners will vote for the candidate that promises to cut business taxes, farmers will vote for the candidate that supports subsidies for farming, etc.

I think that very few people vote for candidates based on their overall campaign because it takes time to research every policy that's put out there. Everyone else will go with emotion.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"