British Poll On Charity-Giving Shows Atheists least generous and Muslims Most

Turtwig

Obliq wrote: »

Oops, a bit long. Soap boxing again

Obliq, that was your first post in the thread. That's not soap boxing. Soap boxing is when you constantly repeat over and over and OVER again the same thing while not bothering to entertain any constructive discussion.

joseph brand

Isn't there something selfish about a religious person doing 'good deeds' in order to curry favour with 'god', hoping to be 'saved'. Not to mention pressured or forced donations; baskets in RCC mass and direct debit in Mormonism.
Charitable donations from an atheist are therefore more altruistic.

Wouldn't it be very charitable for Muslim men to treat their women better, starting with not forcing them to dress like ninjas in the baking desert sun. This would help over 50% of muslims.

Mardy Bum

joseph brand wrote: »

Isn't there something selfish about a religious person doing 'good deeds' in order to curry favour with 'god', hoping to be 'saved'. Not to mention pressured or forced donations; baskets in RCC mass and direct debit in Mormonism.
Charitable donations from an atheist are therefore more altruistic.

Wouldn't it be very charitable for Muslim men to treat their women better, starting with not forcing them to dress like ninjas in the baking desert sun. This would help over 50% of muslims.

David Foster Wallace has an excellent short story on the nature of altruism called "The Devil is a Busy Man" not to be mistaken with another short story with the same title in the same collection. Basically a guy gives money to a friend anonymously and tries his utmost to keep it anonymous but in the end fails despite his best efforts during a phone call:

Thus, I showed an unconscious and, seemingly, natural, automatic ability to both deceive myself and other people, which, on the “motivational level,” not only completely emptied the generous thing I tried to do of any true value, and caused me to fail, again, in my attempts to sincerely be what someone would classify as truly a “nice” or “good” person, but, despairingly, cast me in a light to myself which could only be classified as “dark,” “evil,” or “beyond hope of ever sincerely becoming good.”

I think he hits upon a truth here in human nature.

Obliq

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

I don't look to see the religion of who is doing the charity (for example I volunteered with a group of nuns for two years in Cork teaching English to foreign nationals.

Same as that Brian - I saw how the Cappuchin monks in Bow Lane use the collection money from their church to directly support homeless people with food, shelter and clothing. Some of the most selfless people I've had the pleasure of working with. Didn't matter to me that it's a religious based charity - they were doing it right.

Ps. Thanks Jernal!

Sycopat

I don't have times access so I just want to check a few things while I'm at it.

Does it say who conducted the poll? Who did they poll? (Random sample? Pools of equal size? Age variance? Across britain or on the street in london? What are our other sources of variance here?)

I'm asking because even the best papers often feature polls that are little more than press releases or flawed in some major way. Not that I'm trying to take away from the findings, just understand them. I would not at all be surprised to find that a religion which has formal rules on how much to give should be found to give a lot to charity, but I do find it interesting how this seems to coincide with an Islamic charity drive in the UK. Going off the ads on my youtube videos lately. (Is it Ramadan?)

I also have to wonder, as a twenty-something making a similar amount of money per month as I did as a teenager and considered to be doing well as a result in the current world, how much the age profile of a group affects these statistics, and if atheism as a group is more or less "top heavy" in this regard than other religions. Although I would suspect Islam of being slightly less prone to this than Christian traditions, I would suspect "non-religious" groups to skew younger.

Because of these questions (Admittedly resulting from lacking access to the times article. Is there a link to the poll results or did the times conduct it themselves?) I can't be sure these are like for like comparisons. For instance it may well be that the difference between average charitable spend between males of similar income does not vary with religion (Although that would actually surprise me: I would expect it to vary, but perhaps not by as much as the OP reports.)

Also, and Dades post on page 3 picks up on this a bit, what exactly counts as charity money? I wouldn't usually count my regular "Humble bundle" purchases as a charity contribution, because I wouldn't usually think of it (as I see it as buying videogames on the cheap) but I've pumped a fair bit into it. This year in particular as I picked up some as gifts. Where does that stand? Spending money on presents which are also charitable donations? Who counts the donation? Me? the receiver of the gift? Both? Neither? How do the stats change when we take out contributions to the local church (something atheists naturally wouldn't be making.)?

Isn't it a bit premature to take anything from a poll like this with so many outstanding questions?

Maybe they aren't outstanding though and the article gives a thorough run down of all the issues.

lazygal

I've just skimmed the posts but I'm in full agreement with those who are wary of giving to charity. I've become a lot more skeptical of giving to charities that have a religious background, no matter how well meaning they are or how much good they might do, because after visiting the vatican and seeing the wealth on display I can't separate the wealth from the charity.

I'm also not going to donate so Karen can have a free holiday trekking the Himalayas or feeling socially obliged to chip in for a sponsored cycle for someone in work who's really into a particular charity that I don't support. Again, as others have said I'm not very comfortable with the salaries and benefits some working in the charity sector earn. I know of a few people I was in college with who went to work for large charities and generally became very disillusioned with the whole thing, especially an Irish one where family members were installed in positions of some importance.

I give to a couple of abortion charities and one that is very specific to my background and has no religious connections. I'd regularly give homeless people a few bob - and I don't care how they spend it.

Penn

lazygal wrote: »

I give to a couple of abortion charities and one that is very specific to my background and has no religious connections. I'd regularly give homeless people a few bob - and I don't care how they spend it.

Have to admit, I once gave a homeless guy a tenner (which he was very grateful for, going so far as to kiss my hand) and I saw him half an hour later with some cigarettes, and it did kind of annoy me.

I gave you that money for food!

Obviously, it wouldn't put me off giving money to homeless people (or even him) again, and after I give him the money it's his to do whatever he wants with it, but it did make me feel weird seeing him buying smokes. Dunno why.

SpaceTime

Do bankers benevolent funds classify as charities these days? If so, I am giving WAY too much money to charity.

legspin

lazygal wrote: »

I give to a couple of abortion charities and one that is very specific to my background and has no religious connections. I'd regularly give homeless people a few bob - and I don't care how they spend it.

My objection is if it is going to spent on intoxicants I can do that myself.

magicbastarder

lazygal wrote: »

I'd regularly give homeless people a few bob - and I don't care how they spend it.

even though it might compound their problems?

lazygal

I figure its hard enough being homeless without a well meaning women who's never been in their shoes doling out advice. If I was homeless and a can of cider or 20 fags was keeping me going, that's my business. I consider it better spent than on new testaments or crosses for the heathens.

mewso

Sarky wrote: »

I've seen how Concern works. I've seen how the Irish Red Cross 'works'. No way in hell would give them a cent. I want to help people when I give to charity.

Off topic but do we have a thread on the various charities and how they operate? I need to educate myself.

Dave!

I notice the OP never actually addressed the question of donations to religious organisations likely being counted as charitable by surveys. This is a pretty important point really.

Having said that it wouldn't entirely surprise me if people active in religious communities do donate more than atheists; it could easily be a byproduct of the community apparatus of some religions. Nobody has said that every aspect of religion is bad.

recedite

Penn wrote: »

Have to admit, I once gave a homeless guy a tenner (which he was very grateful for, going so far as to kiss my hand) and I saw him half an hour later with some cigarettes, and it did kind of annoy me.

I gave you that money for food!.

Did it make you feel like a bishop? I suppose this is how they must feel when they see the faithful flock heading into the pub after mass.

I read somewhere that Israel is one of the biggest recipients of foreign aid of all the countries in the world. They receive way more charity than Somalia or Chad. So thats where a lot of the Jewish charity money is directed I suppose. I dread to think where a lot of the hardline muslim charity money is going (although the Red Crescent do good work in disaster relief).

Hotblack Desiato

Is US military aid included in that though?

lmaopml

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0412/homework.pdf

I found this from the OECD - admittedly it's 2011 (not sure if there is another survey afterwards, and it's late ) still it's something as a nation that we seem to be getting somewhat right.

doctoremma

http://business.time.com/2012/08/21/how-religious-affiliation-affects-charitable-giving/

TLDR; correction of charitable-giving to remove church-based donations completely reverses the observation that religious people give more of their discretionary income to charity.

http://secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=fi&page=generous_atheists (summary piece of several studies)

TLDR; Religious altruism is a myth, unless one is SEEN to be generous. Religious people give more on a Sunday! 90 % of Mormon charity goes to Mormons, 50 % of Catholic charity goes to Catholics. Correlation between high levels of atheism and strong welfare structures - via tax, governments do charitable work on behalf of atheists.

recedite

ninja900 wrote: »

Is US military aid included in that though?

Don't know tbh, but if political donations, military aid, and donations to promulgate your own church can be classed as "aid" or "charity" then beware of the statistics.

Brian Shanahan

recedite wrote: »

I read somewhere that Israel is one of the biggest recipients of foreign aid of all the countries in the world. They receive way more charity than Somalia or Chad.

All them <whatever version of the F-series jets the US are charitably donating> are expensive don't'cha know?

In fact if you look closely at US "aid" the vast majority of it is arms to keep dictatorships from Egypt to Israel in power.

Sulla Felix

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

All them <whatever version of the F-series jets the US are charitably donating> are expensive don't'cha know?

In fact if you look closely at US "aid" the vast majority of it is arms to keep dictatorships from Egypt to Israel in power.

There's a dictator ruling in Israel?

Brian Shanahan

Sulla Felix wrote: »

There's a dictator ruling in Israel?

I consider theocracies to be dictatorships (in the modern sense of the word dictatorship). And while Israel has the outer trappings of democracy it is essentially a theocracy, with the government kow-towing to the wishes of an extremist minority sect within Judaism. In that it is exactly the same as Iran (well, apart from the obvious Islam thing).

Frankly there are very few true democracies in the world today, in either the classical or modern sense. Most of the major governments are industrial oligarchies, with a number of theocracies (either open or disguised) in the Middle East (and Ireland), plus the few remaining Stalinist* dictatorships.

*What has traditionally been called Communism has less similarity to true Communism than I have to a cabbage (57% genetic match between human genome and brassica genome). So I never use the word Communist to describe the likes of the USSR or PR China.

DapperGent

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

I consider theocracies to be dictatorships (in the modern sense of the word dictatorship). And while Israel has the outer trappings of democracy it is essentially a theocracy, with the government kow-towing to the wishes of an extremist minority sect within Judaism. In that it is exactly the same as Iran (well, apart from the obvious Islam thing)..

To be frank this is demonstrable nonsense. If we are to condemn Israel lets condemn it for what it is rather than for some kind of theocratic fantasy it is not.

Brian Shanahan

DapperGent wrote: »

To be frank this is demonstrable nonsense. If we are to condemn Israel lets condemn it for what it is rather than for some kind of theocratic fantasy it is not.

Well then why is it that the whole of Israel's might is expended on the protection of the same extremist minority to steal the land belonging to others? Why is it that buses cannot run on a Saturday to placate such a minority? Why is it that the extremist minority who most want the genocidal war against the Palestinians to continue are the only people exempted from military service? Why is it that the country is set up specifically as a Jewish state modelled on the religious rules of that minority?

If that is not in substance the nature of theocracy, I am making sweet, sweet love to Osama bin Laden right at this very minute.

Hotblack Desiato

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

I consider theocracies to be dictatorships (in the modern sense of the word dictatorship). And while Israel has the outer trappings of democracy it is essentially a theocracy, with the government kow-towing to the wishes of an extremist minority sect within Judaism. In that it is exactly the same as Iran (well, apart from the obvious Islam thing).

I'm no fan of Israel, but I'd much rather live there than Iran. I think you probably would, too.

*What has traditionally been called Communism has less similarity to true Communism than I have to a cabbage (57% genetic match between human genome and brassica genome). So I never use the word Communist to describe the likes of the USSR or PR China.

Yes, every time it's been tried, communism is demonstrated to lead to misery and tyranny, but its apologists always claim that that's not true communism :rolleyes: I'd fcukin' hate to see what true communism was if false communism was that bad :pac:

robindch

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

I consider theocracies to be dictatorships (in the modern sense of the word dictatorship). And while Israel has the outer trappings of democracy it is essentially a theocracy, with the government kow-towing to the wishes of an extremist minority sect within Judaism. In that it is exactly the same as Iran (well, apart from the obvious Islam thing).

Israel has serious, ongoing problems with the encroachment of religion into politics -- problems that it will have to address sooner or later -- but I wouldn't call it a theocracy, at least not yet. While Israel has many religious political parties, some of them extremist, the country does not have religious "councils" with significant executive or vetting control, as they do in Iran. And unlike Iran, secularism in Israel is strong and vocal.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

What has traditionally been called Communism has less similarity to true Communism than I have to a cabbage (57% genetic match between human genome and brassica genome). So I never use the word Communist to describe the likes of the USSR or PR China.

Well, communism is rather like christianity in that regard, as some of the core tenets of both are honorable, decent and worthwhile. However, the polities that have been created based upon these ideologies -- specifically, where the state's constitution has declared the founding to be the "foundation of the state" or somesuch, and therefore inerrant -- have had seemingly insurmountable difficulties in avoiding a descent into totalitarianism.

The states, unfortunately, are "communist", "christian" or whatever, if only for the reason that nobody can quite agree on what constitutes "communist", "christian" etc, and what degree of extremist protection and honor are due to the ideology.