Religion (Christianity or Islam anyway) makes kids meaner

[El_Machinae]

I'm boggled that there's this communication barrier. One's more self-serving than the other, and people will conflate the two in their self-report.

 

[Rashiminos]

I'm boggled that there's this communication barrier.

You have my sympathy in that regard.

 

[civman110]

Or are you saying that "in your opinion" the reason why church going people donate so much money is because they use church facilities?

And I will ask again - What is the point of your statement? If neither option (church charity or not-for-profit) is inherently better?

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Churches that function as club goods don't seem to qualify as charities according to Jesus. Limiting one's giving to an in-group is very much contrary the teachings of Christ, despite how common it is among those who call themselves Christians.

43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48 You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

27 “But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. 29 To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either. 30 Give to everyone who begs from you, and from one who takes away your goods do not demand them back. 31 And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them.

32 “If you love those who love you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. 33 And if you do good to those who do good to you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. 34 And if you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to get back the same amount. 35 But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil. 36 Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful.

37 “Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven; 38 give, and it will be given to you. Good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap. For with the measure you use it will be measured back to you.”

 

[civman110]

Limiting one's giving to an in-group is very much contrary the teachings of Christ, despite how common it is among those who call themselves Christians.

Yes because every person who donates money to church never donates to anything else.

That's quite the assumption you just made.

 

[civman110]

I'm boggled that there's this communication barrier. One's more self-serving than the other, and people will conflate the two in their self-report.

So this is really just a church-bashing statement so you can feel more important because you donated to a not-for-profit - got it.

"Your donations are better than their donations."

 

[abradley]

Limiting one's giving to an in-group is very much contrary the teachings of Christ, despite how common it is among those who call themselves Christians.

Yes, been trying not to say it but the study doesn't separate according to religious groups.

One mandates charity begins at home, another sez charity is for all, don't know about the others.

Not all religions are the same and their treating them as they are. The study ... It's flawed.

 

[civman110]

Yes, been trying not to say it but the study doesn't separate according to religious groups.

One mandates charity begins at home, another sez charity is for all, don't know about the others.

Not all religions are the same and their treating them as they are. The study ... It's flawed.

That's what I said. They also treat all of the countries the same as well, as if cultures don't have different thoughts about charity. Also, they have different sample sizes for each religious group and don't say how many people were surveyed from which country, which matters as well.

It's a deeply flawed study. No honest person would conduct a study in such a manner.

 

[Rashiminos]

Yes, been trying not to say it but the study doesn't separate according to religious groups.

One mandates charity begins at home, another sez charity is for all, don't know about the others.

Not all religions are the same and their treating them as they are. The study ... It's flawed.

The study applies its own metric of altruism, namely being nonjudgmental.

 

[abradley]

The study applies its own metric of altruism, namely being nonjudgmental.

Yes, so nonjudgemental as to be flawed.

 

[civman110]

Yes, so nonjudgemental as to be flawed.

Almost as if the "study" was done in such a way to get the pre-determined result they desired.

 

[El_Machinae]

So this is really just a church-bashing statement so you can feel more important because you donated to a not-for-profit - got it.

"Your donations are better than their donations."

Ugh, no. Donating to a church is fine. People like nice churches, and churches can be a lot of fun.

Oodles of people barely donate. As far as such things go, churches are great.

The point is that when we read "religious people are more likely to give to charity", you have to remember that very often when these surveys are done, it's better to count it as a club good than to a charity. Same as if a person donated to a dance company that they attended. This is why some churches have earmarked donations for specific outreach charity programs.

Why're you offended? I'm boggled. Isn't this common knowledge?

 

[warpus]

I see plenty of examples of religious people being mean in this very thread! Study confirmed. (disclaimer: no, not at all, that's not how any of this works)

 

[Rashiminos]

Yes, so nonjudgemental as to be flawed.

The study is impressive in the way it waffles about before coming to describe the experiment itself in blurry detail. Off to read about the "dictator" game.

Edit: I can definitely see where donating (stickers) to anonymous beneficiaries will tend to elicit more 'altruism' from the non-religious.

 

[civman110]

The point is that when we read "religious people are more likely to give to charity", you have to remember that very often when these surveys are done, it's better to count it as a club good than to a charity. Same as if a person donated to a dance company that they attended. This is why some churches have earmarked donations for specific outreach charity programs.

Why're you offended? I'm boggled. Isn't this common knowledge?

It not common knowledge, it's opinion. You can't be certain what motivates people to donate to their church. It could simply be the fact that they are there every week and every week the church accepts donations, or perhaps they are just charitable people. They certainly aren't obligated to do it.

Regardless, I hardly ever go to church and I find it offensive that you would suggest that one form of charitable giving is "more giving" than the other. If you were making the argument the other way around I would still think it is a ridiculous thing to say.

Why someone would want to tear down, or marginalize people who are donating to charity is beyond me. It's the same kind of self-centred behaviour as someone saying, "you donated $5, but I donated $10," but it's not even as solid of an argument as that. I just don't understand why someone would feel the need to make that kind of a distinction, real or not. That's what offends me about it.

 

[Borachio]

So - and I ask out of simple curiosity, I've no particular axe to grind one way or another - when you go to church and they pass round the plate (as they inevitably do, in one form or another), does your contribution (really a payment for the entertainment, imo) count as a charitable donation? Or not?

And are churches registered as charities? And if they are, why are they?

 

[Flying Pig]

You can certainly Gift Aid it in some churches, so I'm inclined to say 'yes', though I don't know whether each church has to be registered as a charity or if 'the Church of England' is good enough.

 

[Rashiminos]

So - and I ask out of simple curiosity, I've no particular axe to grind one way or another - when you go to church and they pass round the plate (as they inevitably do, in one form or another), does your contribution (really a payment for the entertainment, imo) count as a charitable donation? Or not?

And are churches registered as charities? And if they are, why are they?

Tithing in a church is akin to collecting taxes. Whether the tithe is also considered a donation or not depends on legal jurisdiction.

 

[Borachio]

So is a government a registered charity too?

No, no, this is too silly. It plainly isn't.

But then what's the definition of a charity? It's not simply an organization that operates not for profit, since a government would qualify.

 

[Silurian]

A nice little country pub I used to drink in a few years ago was put up for sale by the Landlord because he was retiring. No one wanted to buy the place as a pub so some people in the village started to raise money to buy it. I bought some raffle tickets. This is a club good because I liked going in that pub.

That is easy to understand.