If you haven’t read or heard about this yet, Arthur C. Brooks, Associate Professor of Public Administration at Syracuse University has published his findings and it blows out of the water the stereotype of the compassionate liberal and mean-spirited religious conservative. Actually, nothing could be further from the truth than this stereotype. Harvey Mansfield, professor of government at Harvard University, after reading Brooks’ findings noted, "His main finding is quite startling, that the people who talk the most about caring actually fork over the least.”
Brooks’ findings confirm that, as a group, those who regularly practice their religion are the most charitable people. This cuts across denominational lines. Those who are regularly practicing Protestants, Catholic and Jews all give charitably at a startlingly high level.
Things that do not matter in regard to charitable giving and volunteerism are household income or educational level. However, if you are a secularist that is an unmarried young male you are very, very unlikely to give to any charitable cause. In short, you are part of the stingiest demographic group in America.
To make things specific, the average annual giving for a religious person is $2,210, but the average for a secularist is $642. Additionally, religious people volunteer twice as often as secularists. Religious people make up 33 percent of the population but give 52 percent of the donations and 45 percent of the hours volunteered. On the other hand, secularists make up 26 percent of the population but contribute a measly 13 percent of the dollars and only 17 percent of the hours volunteered. Secularists, of course, make up the majority of the political liberals.
I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised by Brooks’ findings—they all make sense from a Christian perspective. However, if you are like me, you have heard the endless mantra by secularists, liberals and the media that conservative religious people are miserly and miserable cretins that are hardhearted and mean-spirited. This just isn’t true. In fact, a case could be made that the opposite is closer to the truth. But there is more. Brooks notes that not only does secularism foster selfishness; it has a general negative affect on the social compact.
Brooks ominously notes that as societies become more secular, as in Europe, they tend to not only become less charitable, they even become anti-charitable. This, he explains does not bode will for an increasingly secularized America. Tocqueville wrote that American voluntary associations with their avid charitable support provided a bridge between a dehumanizing individualism and a strong democratic population that undergirded American civic life. What fosters this strong community sentiment in America (identified by both Tocqueville and sociologist Robert Bellah) is the religious obligation one feels to God and their fellow man. Brooks succinctly states, “…secularism, in addition to stimulating enthusiasm for government as an alternative to civil society, may be antithetical to civil society’s key ingredient.”
You can find a summary of the findings here: http://www.policyreview.org/oct03/brooks_print.html
|
I think you tend to spin it so as to shine a bright light on all Christian conservatives (LDS among them).
There is a universal truth that needs to come into play here. It's the 80-20 rule and it works for both sides of the fence, effectively changing the impact in some sense. It can be predicted within any organization that 20% of its members do 80% of the actual work. In this case, the giving. This increases the discrepancy among those secular and religiously conservative.
If the average secular charitable giving is $642, as you report, 80% provide an average $11 per month. This would seem to mean that half of the total don't give anything at all, apart from loose change.
I understand how there is no statistical association with income. Neither average that you report will strain even an impoverished income out there. I certainly hope these numbers are wrong.
Further, there is so much more to statistics than a simple average. But all these numbers are so miserable, I must refrain from characterizing them any further.
ron
Secularism scares me more than fundamentalist Islam. Thought you might like to see this article by my friend Phillip Blond (Phillip is an Anglican and not a Roman) about the Pope, secularity and Islam.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/11/29/opinion/edblond.php
I live in the UK, and the way the wholly secular societies in Europe take care of the poor is that they tax at very high rates, and then dole it out in social programs. Of course, that means that everyone 'gave at the office' and it separates the average Joe from having to see suffering first hand. And it does not give people the opportunity to step up to the plate themselves.
A blessed Advent to everyone!
I don't have time to do an indepth analysis - but I think I would agree. The reason that secularism has not taken a deeper cut in the social compact is because we are still living off the dying fragance of the cut flower generation as Elton Trueblood called the post-WWII gneration. The cut-flower generation was best represented by the Cleavers. They had the outward appearance of decency but nowhere in that TV show would you have gathered that the morals demonstrated came from a religious foundation.
More thoughts later. got to run.
I was sitting in restaurant in downtown Phoenix. In the next booth were four government employees. The 40ish looking African American woman commented that her dad used to say that what a man said was a reflection of what was in his heart. This is where the cut-flower generation stuff comes in. This woman treated this saying from her father as folk wisdom. Her father probably knew that the saying was found in the Bible some place. Her grandfather knew it came from the Bible and who said it and where it could be found in the Bible!
We are increasingly bearing the fruits of a dying cut flower culture.
those are my thoughs.
ron
●No, Frankie, I wouldn’t. Sarcasm is not an argument and I’m not into anti-intellectualism as it seems you are.
Stealth wrote: Further, there is so much more to statistics than a simple average. But all these numbers are so miserable, I must refrain from characterizing them any further.
●In the post I provided the link to Brooks’ summary of his research. The summary provides a link to the detailed study. Brooks’ work is all peer reviewed but his efforts may be below your lofty standards.
Ron: wow, the cut flower concept is powerful. I agree that the G.I. generation was the last to hold to a consensus view of American civic-religion. By the way, an interesting study is one that looks at the radical transformation of the American elites in the 20th century. Even as late as WWII elites were the reinforcers of civic-religion and traditional values; now, within two generations American elites are the adversaries of all things related to civic-religion and traditional values. While the rest of society has gradually drifted and even ebbed and flowed in the direction of secularism; American elites absolutely reversed course. This, I believe, is one of the least noted and least understood stories of the 20th century.
Hey, Monarchy: great to hear from you. The situation in Europe with its high level’s of statism reminds me again of Tocqueville’s keen observation in the 1830’s that high levels of religion with its concomitant volunteerism and charity stand as a bulwark against dehumanizing individualism.
Hey, I am wondering if you have become aware of the San Joaquin Diocese of the Episcopal Church. The San Joaquin became the first diocese in the nation to completely split from the Episcopal Church and align with the Anglican Communion. All this was precipitated by the consecration of the first openly gay bishop, V. Gene Robinson and the election Katharine Jeffers Schori as the new presiding bishop for the church. Many are postulating that there will be other diocese that follow suit.
ron
I would quibble with the 'adversaries of all things related to civic-religion and traditional values.' They lay down their adversarial position when it politically expedient to do so - so after 9-11-01 they can stand on the steps of the Capital building and sing "God Bless America" and make pronouncements about praying and some actually praying. So they engage the civil-religion language when it suits their purpose. After all, it would look rather blatant if they were to tell people not to pray! (Of course, they can tell students not to pray in school! - how hypocritical is that!)
NY Times: Episcopal Diocese Votes to Secede From Church, By LAURIE GOODSTEIN and CAROLYN MARSHALL, Published: December 3, 2006
An Episcopal diocese in California overwhelmingly passed a series of resolutions yesterday that position it to secede from the Episcopal Church and affiliate with conservatives in the global Anglican Communion.
If the Diocese of San Joaquin affirms the move in a second vote next year, the small diocese, with 48 parishes and 7,000 members, would be the first to try to break from the Episcopal Church, which has been torn by conflict since the consecration of a gay bishop in 2003. Until now, only individual parishes have severed ties.
The vote by the diocese is one more step in a carefully planned strategy by conservative Episcopalians in the United States and primates of Anglican provinces, many in the developing world, to unite the conservatives, claim the mantle of Anglicanism and isolate the Episcopal Church, the 2.3-million-member American branch in the Anglican communion, which claims 77 million members worldwide.
In the Diocese of San Joaquin, the convention overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment that identifies the diocese specifically as “Anglican.” The language of the amendment states in part that “the Diocese shall be a constituent member of the Anglican Communion and in full communion with the See of Canterbury.”… The constitutional amendment will not take effect until a second vote is taken at another annual convention in 2007. The second reading will require a two-thirds majority in order to pass. The vote by orders Dec. 2 was 68 clergy yes and 16 voting no. In the lay order 108 approved the measure with 12 voting no.
Concerning B16's trip to Turkey, Father Neuhaus has an excellent piece on the oppression of Christianity by Turkey. I hadn't known anything about the level of persecution because - like the forced conversion of newsmen - none of this registers as important enough to report on.
Concerning the SJ Diocese withdrawal from the ECUSA, it should be interesting to watch the ECUSA's reaction. I've picked up an ECUSA church outside of the SJ Diocese as a client. The clergy and laity of the SJ Diocese merit our prayers for their courageous stand. They will, of course, be villified by right-thinking, tolerant liberals, including the media, and no mention will be made of the real cost they are paying. The cost is already being paid. The tolerant, inclusive left have already engaged in gay-baiting Bishop Schofield. Father Snell, vicar of St. Columba's, and one of Schofield's lieutenants in this effort, is in my Rotary Club and is quite naturally experiencing a great deal of stress in a "Diet of Worms" moment.
I could not imagine what these people are feeling at the hands of liberal inclusivists who think bay-gaiting is "hunky dory" if it's in a good cause and who are making their office and authority ridiculous.
Concerning the divergence between elite and popular culture, Mark Shea often describes America as a nation of Indians ruled by Swedes. American popular culture is religious, like India, but the opinion shapers are as deracinated religiously as the Swedes, which leads to nonsense like this bit of secular purity legislation.
The ECUSA has lost priests, parishes and, now, at least one diocese, which may be followed by another dozen. What the ECUSA has done to itself by chasing after the zephyr of being one with the modern age is instructive.
●Not only do I believe Neuhaus to be right but I have audaciously made the comment to my congregation that I believe years from now the Pope’s speech will be viewed as pivotal as 9/11.
I noticed that actively gay Episcopal clergyman Fr. John from San Francisco is committed to acquiring the properties of the San Joaquin when they break from the ECUSA. Hmm…I know an attorney who is really “nails” at beating back the forces of darkness.
My favorite quote from the Get Religion Blog is from the email sent by an unnamed reporter: A pastor is married for years, has children, runs a successful church, advances in his denomination/sector of Christianity, and then “finds himself” and abandons wife and children for a live-in situation with another man. His reward? Consecration as a bishop in the Protestant Episcopal Church of America and wide-ranging media praise. LATimes, I believe, had a nice kiss-up interview with Gene Robinson just this week…Another pastor apparently is married for years, has children, builds and runs a a successful church, advances in his denomination/sector of Christianity, fights temptation and loses, stays with his family, and when the dam breaks, is crucified in the press as his reward.
My favorite fog-inducing post-modern religious-speak from Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori on All Saints’ Sunday: I met a 40-something man I baptized and confirmed two years ago whose life has taken a remarkable turn - from ordinary daily dullness toward meaning and deep compassion and an awareness of God in every part of his life, and the willingness to change his community into something that looks a good deal more like the dream of God.
●Well, Ms. Jefferts Schori obviously needs a few lessons from Aquinas on how God thinks; but, despite that, I think her version of God’s dream is actually more like my nightmare.
You’ll notice the November 27, 2006 publishing date. I’m sure Dr. Brooks wants you to purchase his book to satisfy your lofty requirements for statistical relevance.
Just to add perspiration to your fevered brow, Dr. Brooks has also written a study on “The Fertility Gap” between conservatives and liberals. It seems that pro-life conservatives tend to have more babies than anti-natalist liberals. Hmm…I’m sure this all seems very unlikely and odd to you, but in some sort of twisted logical way, it seems that people who think babies are a good thing have more children than those who think babies are an inconvenience or nuisance. What can I say, I guess it is similar to the twisted logic pertaining to how religious people who believe in God and in charity tend to give more to charity than do those who don’t believe in God and believe that government should take care of people. Go figure.
We should ask what his conclusions are? Is he making an argument that religious conservatives are far more generous in practice than all other Americans? Thom, you are making hay with that conclusion. Is that really his as you understand it?
I ask because one would expect to see an overall decrease in giving by individuals over time. This is not occurring. http://homepages.indiana.edu/062102/text/giving2.html
There could be good reasons why personal giving continues to increase dependent on the overall health of the economy....even if his result might be true. But as I state below his opinion paper doesn't take us there, or help us find it.
----------------------------------------------------------
Thom, This is an opinion paper. It is not real research. It has no methodology, it has no comparative sampling, no introduction to corroborating research, no longitudinal study. We have a fellow who read some books and did some misc. reading (listed in the appendix). He presents morsels of data...only his personal extrapolation from whatever opinions he evaluated.
As much as we may agree with it, this is neither qualitative nor quantitative research. His conclusions are unsubstantiated authoritatively.
In short, secularity has invaded the Episcopal Church.
The election and consecration of Gene Robinson as bishop is merely a symptom of the real problem. I have been to several Episcopal dioceses and worshipped at many of the Cathedrals. I have never felt so uncomfortable (as an Episcopal priest) worshipping there, if it can be called worship, for there was never an invocation of the Divine Trinity. I listen to Katherine Jefferts Schori preach, and I hear nothing of Trinity, real Incarnation, Resurrection. I only hear secular notions of justice, with a little Jesus (of the Jesus seminar no less) thrown in.
Thom's point (and Brooks who prompted this line of discussion) is that Christians are already engaged in social action, action informed by the gospel message. That is the point of a theological movement here in the UK (mostly still an academic movement) known as Radical Orthodoxy. John Milbank, in his book Theology and Social Theory, challenges secularity on its claims. He asks them to show us how they have delivered on their promises. He conclusively shows that they have failed and that secularity is a Christian Heresy. (Saecula saeculorum, from which the secular takes its name, is the ending of most prayers in Latin, after the invocation of the trinity. In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, for all eternity, world without end.)
So do we need to look prior to the Enlightenment, to the 13th century and before for different ways of dealing with our social and political issues? Radical orthodoxy says yes. And then another question follows for everyone on this blog to consider: given that America is founded on Lockean Philosophy (early modern philosophical schemes, that were already bordering on heresies) what kind of soul searching does America need to be doing? Are the failures that we are seeing in America not just liberal detractions from conservative values, but in fact are both founded in heretical philosophies? I think that is a question that conservatives really need to entertain, and until they do we will not be able to capture Christian socail justice.
Just a few thoughts.
●I guess we have to go over this one more time. Of course Dr. Brooks’ summary which is presented as a press release is “neither qualitative nor quantitative research.” However, as mentioned in my post, peers such as Harvey Mansfield, professor of government at Harvard University have reviewed his research. All the significant data is available to you; but, you are going to have to get it for yourself, I am not going to do it for you. Please follow the link to Amazon that I provided and purchase the research.
There is the question of what constitutes wise giving? Often the question is answered as a percentage of the charity's total revenue. An example, if a church had total charitable revenue of $1,000,000 and its financial reports suggest it spent $750,000 on its charitable programs, its program services expense as compared to revenue ratio is 75%. Many givers would say that this is wonderful; for every one of my dollars, it spent 75 cents on its charitable purpose.
But, did you know that accounting rules permit a phone call or to you soliciting money is itself a charitable purpose? IF a charity provides educational information, or in any way furthered its own charitable interests, it can count a portion of the costs of its mailing or phone call to you as a charitable program service. If a church staffer educates you in a Bible study class whose purpose is to provide an education in properly caring for your investments, salaries of the instructors become a charitable purpose.
The Problem continues
There are some so called charities that have very little "program" other than separating you from your money. You may think in reading the solicitation that you would be helping a charity provide services to the poor in the community, or grant wishes to terminally ill children, but in truth the "charitable" program is the "educational" solicitation material you are holding in your hand. Become aware. You may only be paying salaries and a church mortgage.
If indeed religious conservatives give more than do other folks, is there any doubt in what direction that money is going? It's typically going to their church. They, in many cases, blindly trust their church with their money.
According to John Stossel on Foxnews last week, religious conservatives give more money in charity to non-church charities than to their church.
Now, obviously, this is probably different with devout LDS that have to tithe 10% of their pretax income in order to get their "temple recommends" and so are left with very little disposable income left for non-church charity.
Bottom line: it isn't fair to "project" the LDS experience onto non-LDS churches.
Stealth wrote:
Then the relative merits of the research requires my paying them to see it. I will wait on my public library prior to believing it having internal integrity. I wonder if they consider Bill Gates a religious conservative and his moneys a personal charitable gift? Now that would raise the old average.
The Bill Gates' argument is probably a favorite among secularists and atheists. The problem is that Bill Gates gave $1 Billion on time in one year. On the other hand, Catholic Charities gives $3 Billion year in and year out. That money comes from a lot of small sources and Catholic Charities is just one charity out of hundreds.
In that context, Bill Gates' $1 Billion is a drop in the ocean.
Then, if we want a more typical secularist, we might want to look at Al Gore, Bill Clinton and Ted Turner who are notoriously stingy when it comes to charity. (Al Gore's income tax report for one of the years he was VP showed less than a thousand dollars being given to charity.)
●This is a fascinating question; however, I am a little puzzled by it. I am not sure how conservative Christianity in America is influenced by John Locke. Just off the top of my head I would say the major concerns of conservative Christians have to do with these issues as they relate to the secularist political agenda:
(1) The separation of church and state that is faithful to the actual purpose of the First Amendment.
(2) The concern of conservative Christians that the secular state will begin to use “hate crime” legislation to silence the teaching of biblical injunctions against homosexuality.
(3) The concern of conservative Christians that the secular state will begin to force churches to hire openly gay individuals.
(4) The use of the public schools to indoctrinate Christian children on political, social and sexual matters that are aggressively counter to Christian teaching.
●I see what is happening to the ECUSA as a good thing. It is just one example of denominations realigning themselves along conservative or liberal lines. The fact is mainline Protestant denominations are hemorrhaging members in the United States while conservative denominations are growing. Dr. Albert Mohler, Professor of Christian Theology at Southern Seminary offers the comprehensive analysis done by Dean R. Hoge, Benton Johnson, and Donald A. Luidens as instructive. Their work can be found in Vanishing Boundaries: The Religion of Mainline Protestant Baby Boomers. Their thesis is that the basic reason for the decline is theological rather than sociological or economic. Dr. Mohler offers this:
These researchers argue that the most important factor making churches strong is "the presence of a compelling teaching concerning the ultimate purpose and destiny of humankind." Dean Kelley identified this "compelling teaching" as "meanings." These meanings make demands upon believers, and these believers are far more likely to congregate together, rather than to join more liberal churches. Holding to strong beliefs, conservative Christians are less likely to accept weaker beliefs as being equally valid.
Hoge, Johnson, and Luidens are clear: "Our findings show that belief is the single best predictor of church participation, but it is orthodox Christian belief, and not the tenets of lay liberalism, that impels people to be involved in church."
When these researchers speak of "lay liberalism," they refer to a phenomenon they observed among mainline baby boomers, whose vision of Christianity involves very few definite beliefs or moral obligations. "Although lay liberalism has several different versions," they explain, "its defining feature is the rejection of the claim that Christianity, or any other faith, is the only true religion. Lay liberals have no compelling truth, no 'good news,' to proclaim, and few of them share the views that they do have with their friends and acquaintances."
Dr. Mohler’s article can be found at: http://www.albertmohler.com/commentary_read.php?cdate=2005-05-19
You wrote: But, did you know that accounting rules permit a phone call or to you soliciting money is itself a charitable purpose? IF a charity provides educational information, or in any way furthered its own charitable interests, it can count a portion of the costs of its mailing or phone call to you as a charitable program service. If a church staffer educates you in a Bible study class whose purpose is to provide an education in properly caring for your investments, salaries of the instructors become a charitable purpose.
●First of all, this post is not about the relative differences of the administrative overhead of charitable organizations. The post is about the giving levels of religious people in comparison to secularists.
●Secondly, most dedicated Christians consider the teaching of God’s Word to be an act of Christian charity. I think Jesus said something to the effect that it is terribly sad to “gain the whole world and lose one’s soul.” If the church only engages in wonderful and effective charitable and humanitarian work but does not proclaim the gospel of Christ, it will have utterly and completely failed at its primary mission. The financial support for the teaching and preaching of God’s Word comes from the generous free-will giving of Christians. It does not come from the government or from business enterprises.
In addition, Locke is the father of the secular state, (well you could argue Hobbes was as well), a supposedly neutral ground in which politics can take place without the intervention of religion. But can there really be a neutral ground? To me that is the question of central importance, and Locke argued there could be. It is as if secularity is arguing that because they are not Jewish, or Hindu, or Buddhist, etc, they have achieved some neutral ground from which they can arbitrate politically between the partisans. I guess I see Locke as the guy who creates the ground rules for the playing out of American government, which can lead to problems on both conservative and liberal sides of Lockeanism.
Thus, is there something about Locke's Christian heresy that leads to belief in neutrality, and the belief that when in power, I am neutral? And here is where I begin to get into trouble, who ever said democracy is the best form of government? Plato thought it the worst. Do we not see today that the tyrany of the majority is a real possibility? Why is it that at the very moment when democracy seems to win the day over totalitarianism, it comes to be indistinguishable from it?
If the liberals were in power, as they are in Europe, you would find a real shift in the moral framework, what can be said and done, who does what with money. In Europe right now the greatest moral sin is if you smoke. And the question we need to ask ourselves is have the conservatives when in power in the US done any better?
Thus, I think we need to start talking about orthodox Christianity and less about liberals and conservatives. There were certainly moral monarchies, oligarchies, and democracies throughout history. There have also been immoral ones. Thus, there is no best form of government. When a democracy (acutally we are a republic and not a democracy) becomes unjust, you have no one in particular to blame, for all of us are culpable. Don't take my blog name literally: I chose it on a whim after watching a program on the history of the monarchy in England. But when a king is unjust, you know who to blame and where the poison lies, and where you need to dig to root it out. In a democracy we are all culpable, and convincing a majority that it has been wrong is very difficult. Sin is alive and well in all forms of government, and I remain unconvinced that a conservative Christian government is the best form of government.
Don't take me too seriously, I am just playing devil's advocate.
I can understand why you would be so concerned about overhead costs and oher expenditures concerning charitable giving. It has already been substantiated that the LDS church has significant holdings and requires at least 10% from its members. In 1999 it was estimated that the LDS church brings in @$5.9 billion per year between its investments and mandated tithes. This is the best estimate considering the LDS church does not publish any reports like other charities. Interestingly, the church reported $30.7 million from 1984 to 1997 total giving in humanitarian efforts. Lets assume that the church only has 1/10th of the estimated annual income that I stated earlier. This is $590 million/year. Now lets consider that over 13 years the church gave $30.7 million, which is @$2.4 million/year. Compared to the $590 million (a generous 1/10th of what is estimated) this results in $587.6 million going into other expenditures including temple and building funds, media, extending business portfolios ... Considering there is little to no money given to salaries directly associated with ministry this is a pretty large difference. Just incase you are curious, this works out to .4% of the income I have been working with going to humanitarian charities. .04% of the actual estimated church income.
In case you want to check where I get my figures. http://mormoninquiry.typepad.com/mormon_inquiry/2004/10/lds_revenues_an.html
Now, I know that this is not an official LDS source, but the LDS church intentionally refuses to list assets, income, and giving reports like all other charities.
I don't think we can lay the current state of affairs at the feet of Locke's Arianism. After all, Locke's project of tolerance bore good fruits for several centuries without substantially ill effect.
I think the reason that tolerance has gone off the tracks of late is because it has become unhinged from the other portions of Locke's system.
Historically, the idea was that tolerance was a virtue if it was properly directed toward a goal, namely, the individual's search for truth. Tolerance and freedom were understood as being practical and pragmatic means toward an end which was that every person should search for the truth and, having found as much of that truth as was in their capacity, hold, share and communicate that truth.
In contrast, the modern conception of tolerance and freedom are as ends in themselves without regard to any end. Modern laymen and popular philosophers insinuate that it is good to be tolerant (or non-judgmental) per se; not because tolerance gives people the environment to engage in a search for truth, but because tolerance is a good without regard to what is being tolerated.
Obviously, this is silly; it is not a good thing to "tolerate" suffering or disease. The American Left is frankly at its most incoherent when it attempts to explain - but fails - its dictum that "it is acceptable to be intolerant to the intolerant." As an Aristotelian, I could explain to them why they are right, but they can't justify their position to me outside of the language of emotion and force.
I would trace the shift to the latter part of the Nineteenth Century with rise of Nietzschianism, which repudiated any telos outside the will or desire or feeling of the individual.
But, then, these days I'm reading Alisdair MacIntyre's Dependent Rational Animal and MacIntyre's thesis is that ethical choices boil down to Nietzsche or Aristotle. I've just read the part in Dependent Rational Animals where Aristotle identifies the public dimension of being an "independent practical reasoner" as follows: "On great matters we call upon others in deliberation, because we do not trust ourselves in deciding between alternatives." (Nich. Ethic 1112b)
So, under Aristotle's means-end approach, there appears to be an inelectable public dimension to the formation of "independent practical reasoners" who search for the truth both individually and perforce publically.
I think you see Aristotelian means-end practical reasoning in Locke's Letter on Tolerance. As you will recall, Locke doesn't offer a broad policy of toleration; he excludes two groups from toleration: atheists - and near and dear to my heart - Catholics. On both cases, his argument is based on the practicality of extending toleration to groups which one might reasonable conclude are not able to participate in the process of public rationality that is essential for the public search for the truth; atheists because they can't be trusted because they can't take oaths sanctioned by eternal consequences and Catholics because, basically, they've been absolved by the sovereign to whom they hold an allegiance from committing regicide (or as I like to put it "tyrannicide."
Let me say this as proud Catholic, I don't think that Locke was necessarily wrong. England in the 1680s wasn't so far removed from a world where Protestants couldn't guarantee that they wouldn't be on the receiving end of what they had dished out to the Catholics in the previous century. Those circumstances - specifically fear of being on the receiving end - are not conducive to a communal search for the truth, which means that tolerance isn't a virtue under that circumstance.
And, so we have modern America. As long as we all agree that nothing is worth fighting for or dying over, we're okay and tolerance can be a virtue. But if we find something worth fighting over - anti-racism (for everyone) or anti-Bushism (for Leftists) - then we have a problem and we surreptitiously drop our commitment to tolerance without batting an eye.
Slight of word is very similar. How often have we heard some key religious figure get stuck on a particular sin, or set of sins when they are strugling themselves. The bigger show they put on, the more they hope that you will be watching the show instead of looking into what they are doing. Stealth likes to make a big show about clergy receiving a salary, and attacking the Christian church for putting their monies into non-charitable expenses, but what is going on in the LDS church? All of this show about money sounds a lot like slight of word. From the very beginning Joseph Smith attacked non-LDS ministers for taking money to perform their duties. Joseph Smith insisted on a tithe, and foolishly invested church money to near bankrupcy on several occasions. He did all the same things he accused others of doing, but those who called him on it were labeled apostates.
This was the ultimate slight of word considering how successful the LDS church has been.
I keep this in the back of my head whenever I start hearing public officials making a big show about others. Some minister starts going on about sexual immorality, and my radar picks up. How often do those ministers end up being found in sexual immorality?
Anyways, that is my take on these kinds of distractions.
You are calling good, evil and evil, not so bad.
Since your subject is Joseph Smith, and "almost a" backruptcy - I would certainly want to know what what you are talking about, specifically.
On a side note, I notice that you totally avoid everything I said, and instead have fallen to your new catch phrase about calling evil good and good evil (or in this case not so bad) but you have nto shown where I have said as much, except to denounce the heresy and lies of the LDS church, whihc I am sure you believe is good. Of course, offering nothing but oppions does nto substantiate you point. I can easly say that you have called good evil and evil good, but then we just fall into the kind of fight my 2 and 3 year old get into. No, you are, no, you are ... unitelligable yelling ... See how facts are all that seperate us from little children.
Or is this too much meat for you?
I still request detail. Detail I can certainly respond to. If you want to talk about failure, and imagine that is the spiritual measure of a man, how about the man himself? As they always said, "Nothin' good ever came out of Nazarath!" I think HIS carpentry business went down the toilet. If this is not the measure you apply to Christ, you best not be so foolish as to apply it to Joseph Smith. By the way, the same reasons why J. C.'s carpentry business failed applies to Joseph. Except He and his people were chased completely across and out of the United States. By it wasn't exactly his fault that he left the church in disarray. He was murdered.
Does it not disturb you that the average Christian, the average conservative Christian gives to such a little degree that their income is not a factor? The average church going Christian is that slothful? LDS and otherwise? I do not see this as scandalous for them as for us. We are the ones who have been told to tithe....and where we as denominations fall away from that....we are still required to give a great, great deal more than we do. We rob from God when we don't. There is a price we pay as a country for that slight of hand.
He began the paper with this same meaning as far as I am concerned. That is, nobody can pound their chests.
A research article is so much more persuasive to those who oppose the notion when done correctly....as I stated.
In regard to the “naked public square” which is free of all religious influence; I don’t believe the American Founding Fathers envisioned such an ideal. If my American history is correct, the Founders believed that religion must be the supporting pillar of a democratic republic. As George Washington so wonderfully said: “Of all the habits and dispositions which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports…(they are) the great pillars of human happiness, the firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. . . . Virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government." Consequently, I think many American Christians have grave concerns about where all this talk about the naked public square is truly headed. Many, if not most, have a hunch that not only do secularists want to drive religion out of public life, they want to impinge on what is said and done in church. This is why, in my opinion, each Christmas season there are pitched battles over Christmas displays and greetings in public settings. These may seem like silly battles, but many Christians believe if we don’t take a stand at Macy’s we will soon be defending the narthex from the ACLU. Anecdotally, in my lifetime I have seen retailers move from being closed on Sundays in honor of the “Sabbath” to refusing to allow their employees to say “Merry Christmas” as they gorge themselves on the 50% of their sales that come from the 24/7 Christmas season.
As you note, conservative Christianized government may not be the best from of public policy but at least it allows us to say “Merry Christmas.” It also allows Muslims to practice Ramadan unhindered.
fist, you have totally ignored everything else I have said hanging on a single point. then you presume that Jesus' carpentry business failed, and there is no support for this. I speak to business ventures after Joseph Smith became a cult leader including but not limited to his failed prophecy to sell the BoM in Canada, the failed bank and trust, and what ammounted to a pyramid scheme.
Now, when you are willing to pay attention to the bigger portion of what I have said, I will give you more details. Outside of this, if you wish to pursue the speck feel free to run over to google and do the research yourself. You might listen if you figure it out on your own.
●Good question. Well, according to George Barna’s latest research (I don’t always trust his methods), Evangelical Christians give $2,131 per person, Protestants overall average $1,219, Catholics $534 per year. Barna puts the percentage of Evangelical tithers at 11-12%; however, he figures tithing from one’s gross income and many Evangelicals give based upon their net income and I can’t fault them for doing so. If one calculated the number of tithers based on their net income, I am sure the proportion of them would be much higher.
●From a “big picture” perspective, the Generous Giving organization reports that while Evangelicals make up about 35 percent of American adults, their per-capita giving is several times that of non-believers. Surprisingly, in Britain, the average Evangelical gives nine times as much to charity as the typical Briton. I think this says a lot about the corrosive affects of secularism on the commonweal.
While I don’t see Evangelical giving as scandalous, I do think it could be much higher. I know that in our church setting we have seen per-capita giving rise from below the national average to well above it as we have challenged the congregation to trust the Lord with their finances. In many ways, free-will giving is the most “counter-cultural” act that American Christians can engage in. Everywhere, Americans are literally bombarded with consumer messages so it takes great personal discipline and lots of grace to be a generous giver. I personally know how easy it is to live beyond one’s means and how tempting it is to buy the latest gadget. For these reasons I am very grateful for the opportunity to serve a generous and caring church.
MacIntyre's thesis is that ethical choices boil down to Nietzsche or Aristotle. I've just read the part in Dependent Rational Animals where Aristotle identifies the public dimension of being an "independent practical reasoner" as follows: "On great matters we call upon others in deliberation, because we do not trust ourselves in deciding between alternatives." (Nich. Ethic 1112b)
How, specifically, do ethical choices boil down to Nietzsche or Aristotle? I think I agree, but I am not sure. Nietzsche it seems to me represents ethics as “the will to power” whereas Aristotle postulated ethics from a teleological perspective rooted in the way things actually are (natural law). Am I close?
Oh, by the way, your assertions concerning Joseph have been defended adaquately for three generations. Just like yourself though, there are Jews who feel the same way about Jesus after two thousand years in spite of your best efforts in defense.
Apart from the elderly who justly deserve social security, I have a sister who is a evangelical christian converted lesbian who has so managed the system of going from church to church as not having had to work for the last twenty years. She is a professional victim. There is no personal affront at her conquest of those who give; she is after all my lovely 385 pound sister.
Just some food for thought.
P.S. Personally, I think that the conversation about the tithe is out of line anyway. There is a general attitude in the church world that I give God my 10% and the rest is mine to spend as I please. There is no more unbiblical idea in the church. It is all God's - I am simply a steward of it. Therefore, my pocket book is a moral document - it is a statement about my discipleship!
You still continue to miss the point. You have struck on the smallest part of what I have said, and misconstrued it at that. I am not suposing anything or basing it on what Joseph Smith did prior to starting the LDS religion. I am speaking to documented failures after he started the church. There is plenty to be said about what he did prior to starting the religion that speak to the origins of the LDS, but that is a different point all together.
Now, let me adress this absurd idea you have regarding Christ. It is not substantiated by any historic fact excepting a vivid imagination. It falls into the same camp as those who might argue that Jesus was gay.
In short, you have avoided everything that I said excepting the smallest point, and even there you have built up what I said inaccurately to try and distract from the greater point. You claim that this was dealt with, but you do not tell how the LDS church has dealt with it. Interestingly, they deal with it the same way you do. They censor those within their ranks seeking truth while still holding to LDS beliefs, and they go with a head in the sand pretend the elephant isn't real approach in dealing with those without. If that doesn't work, they are attacked as being anti-mormon ... either way the issue is ignored.
It is known that he earned his living by his father's trade, that of a carpenter; according to Justin Martyr, plows and yokes made by Jesus were still in existence at his (Justin's) time, about the year 120. ("Dial. cum Tryph." § 88). http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=254&letter=J
It is fascinating to realize that about 80-100 years after Jesus’ ministry people were still using wooden farm implements made by him. I think this says something about the quality of work done by the Lord in his earthly trade. Additionally, it seems that carpentry was a family trade and—as with the fishermen James and John—there may have been several family members engaged in the endeavor. One final thought to be aware of is that the Galilee was on a major trade route and near the Decapolis. While it was not a hotbed of religious activity and, therefore, received the scorn of Judah (“can anything good come out of Nazareth?”), it was a fairly prosperous center of commercial activity catering to a lot of Gentile business. Consequently, this has led some to postulate that Jesus’ family was of a decent working-class stock and not dirt poor.
Of course I was speaking in jest. Reasonably though, Nobody readily abuses or throws away a baseball signed by Babe Ruth, either. Jesus had many years in the trade before permanently leaving it behind. Even forsaking it as he required those who followed him.
How, specifically, do ethical choices boil down to Nietzsche or Aristotle? I think I agree, but I am not sure. Nietzsche it seems to me represents ethics as “the will to power” whereas Aristotle postulated ethics from a teleological perspective rooted in the way things actually are (natural law). Am I close?
Your question intrigued me, so I went back to "After Virtue" to the chapter entitled "Nietzcher or Aristotle."
MacIntyre offers two explanations. The one that you outline is the first:
The other reason may have something to do with a "geneology of morals." According to MacIntyre:
According to various resources, Nietzsche really does represent to the modern world what Aristotle did to the pre-modern.
If you haven't read "After Virtue", it's worth doing, albeit MacIntyre's prose can be dense. He starts with the image of a culture attempting to recreate its lost culture after a disaster by putting bits and pieces of this and that philosophy, which is what our culture has done.
Incidentally, MacIntyre is a former Marxist, who become a Thomistic scholar, and, eventually, a Catholic.
What a strange trip.
Good question. Well, according to George Barna’s latest research (I don’t always trust his methods), Evangelical Christians give $2,131 per person, Protestants overall average $1,219, Catholics $534 per year. Barna puts the percentage of Evangelical tithers at 11-12%; however, he figures tithing from one’s gross income and many Evangelicals give based upon their net income and I can’t fault them for doing so. If one calculated the number of tithers based on their net income, I am sure the proportion of them would be much higher.
Those figures don't surprise me, but they got me interested in the reason for them.
Here is a research paper on Catholic tithing practices, which corroborate that Catholics give a lot less to their churches than Protestants and, yet, Catholic parishes are not cash strapped. Apparently the answer comes from the "economy of scale" that comes from the typical Catholic parish being 8 times the size of the typical Protestant church.
There is certainly a cultural difference. I've never heard the idea of tithing preached at an Catholic church I've attended, and, frankly, the whole idea sounds foreign.
One part of the reason for the cultural difference is undoubtedly "ownership." Protestants with more control over their churches have more of a stake than Catholic parishioners have in their's.
But if you dig into the numbers, there are some interesting facts. First, Catholic parishes approach the Protestant national average in the South, but are far stingier in the Northeast and Pacific. So, one factor that accounts for the higher Evangelical rates is that they are based in the culturally-giving South, rather than - as is Catholicism - based in the stingy Northeast.
This fact supports the "conservatives are more charitable" thesis incidentally.
Another factor, according to the report, is simply church size. The larger the church, the more people are to think that keeping the church going is someone else's responsibility, perhaps.
If you think about that insight, that fits the thesis that liberals, who view government as the supplier of charity, would be less likely to give.
Great posts!
MacIntyre does indeed make give us a choice between Nietzsche or Aristotle. What is most fascinating about the choice however is that he sees Nietzsche as the heir of the Enlightenment or the heir of modernity. Most 'post-moderns' see Nietzsche as post-modern, after the modern, after the Enlightenment. The modern is roughly speaking Descartes through Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Hume, Kant, Hegel, (Marx as a side step), Nietzsche... MacIntyre is saying there is a hairs worth of difference between Kant and Nietzsche. The god that Nietsche killed was the idol/god created by Kant's ethics. My point, which is wholly a MacIntyrean point, is that insofar as Locke, and all moderns for that matter, are part of the Enligtenment, we do have a choice between the modern and the pre-modern (a.k.a. Aristotle, Thomas, and their heirs).
But also notice that at the end of After Virtue, MacIntyre makes a distinction between virtues and virtue. The way the 19th century used the word 'virtue' as opposed to virtues, suggests a Kantian understanding of virtue and not the traditional understanding of virtue. What goes un-noticed by most people is this: When MacIntyre names his book After Virtue, it is his way of claiming to be post (after) modern (virtue). He is saying after the moderns with their miserable notion of virtue, we must reclaim the virtues. MacIntyre has indeed developed from Marxism to Aristotelianism to Thomism to the heirs of Thomism, the Catholics. MacIntyre is claiming that we must reject modernity (the heirs of the enlightenment) and embrace the premodern (the heirs of Thomism) in order to be a reasonable for of post-modern. Conservatives often use post-modern in a pejorative sense as equivalent to liberal. I want to say that both conservatives (with whom I mostly agree) and liberals are the heirs of modernity. And as I have said on Thom's blog before, the more post-modern the world becomes, the more pre-modern we have to be. I am a MacIntyrean.
I do not deny some good in Locke, which is why I call him heretical. In all heresies there is a kernal of truth, but it goes astray. And I think Peter is right on target in saying that Locke and his heirs began to see tolerance as an end in itself. But that is precisely what all of modernity does: it rejects any robust telos. Bacon, Descartes, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Hume, Kant, all rejected teleology. Nietzsche attempts to reclaim it by showing that all of these thinkers were wearing masks, and all the masks covered up the will to power. Power was their telos. Nietzsche just takes the mask off and embraces the power underneath. I think Nietzsche was correct about all of these thinkers, but wrong about those pre-enlightenment thinkers. And that is where we must go. So I stand by my statement, using both of your (Peter's and Thom's) points. Post-modernity is a response to the excesses of modernity. I choose MacIntyre's (and John Milbank's) pre-modern as the proper response to our post-modern predicament. And thus the conservatives (heirs of the Enlightment) and the liberals (heirs of the Enlightenment) need to re-evaluate the ground on which they stand. Thom and Peter, you have turned to Thomism, which is a post-modern position; it is a post-modern decision in the ruins that exist After Virtue. I bet neither of you have been called post-modern before, but in MacIntyre's sense, that is exactly what you both are, along with me.
Again, I would remind you that my point isn't about the failures of Joseph Smith, so much as it is about the slight of word. He spent a good deal of time denouncing fulltime ministers for taking a salary, but he took a salary. His salary did not come from businesses started, paid for, and maintained by the church as they do now, but he did try to start up these kinds of businesses with church money, and they failed like all of his other business ventures. Joseph Smith was in it for the money and no amound of trying to distract the people by attacking those who accepted lucre for priestcrafts can hide this. Isn't it interesting that now the LDs church hides its assets as well as they can and does not make available what those who are paid get paid? I wonder why?
A few thoughts on Christian giving:
(1) I think it is true that by-in-large most Protestants feel a greater sense of ownership in their churches than do Catholics even though I have seen a change in attitude in the last two decades. More and more Evangelicals are resistant to making a firm commitment to a local church enabling them to be free to “church shop” when their individual needs change.
(2) The fact that Catholics in the South give at a higher level is very interesting. It certainly makes sense.
(3) The church-size factor is nearly a truism. When I coached church-planters (pastors of start-up churches), I would warn them about the Easter Sunday crowds. I would tell them to get ready for a less-than-normal offering even if the attendance was a record high. In fact the rule of thumb is, the bigger the crowd the lower the per capita giving. This rule holds true in fast growing churches. Only if a church grows gradually enabling it to maintain its “ethos” is it able to see giving grow commensurate with the attendance.
(4) By the way, not all Evangelical pastors teach tithing. Many believe that the New Testament teaches a more grace-oriented approach toward giving. However, I think the important point is that most all Evangelical pastors believe that it is important to give biblical instruction about giving. Giving should be seen, as Ron notes, as a stewardship issue where one wisely uses their time, talent and treasure for the Lord. This is where Evangelicals are very teleological.
Monarchy: you wrote, And thus the conservatives (heirs of the Enlightenment) and the liberals (heirs of the Enlightenment) need to re-evaluate the ground on which they stand. Thom and Peter, you have turned to Thomism, which is a post-modern position; it is a post-modern decision in the ruins that exist After Virtue. I bet neither of you have been called post-modern before, but in MacIntyre's sense, that is exactly what you both are, along with me.
●Wow…you are right, I have seen myself as the postmodernist’s nightmare! You are, of course, right in the best sense of the terms. Unfortunately, postmodernism has become associated with certain ideas within Christianity (i.e. deconstructionism, intellectual nihilism, etc.) that I find very objectionable and destructive. So, I guess I’m a Retro-Postmodernist or a Postmodernist Thomist—either way, it’s a mouthful.
Your generalizations are not true. Joseph Smith did not glut the members, nor did he practice priestcrafts, nor did he even spend a good deal of time denouncing anyone. He, his apostles and the Church spent a good deal of time being chased across the country. Rather like the original apostles.
I will not repeat myself again...even where you do.
1. The average Catholic family giving within the United States seems only to satisfy the costs of running their own church requirements.
2. The researchers believe the reason why Catholics at half the amount of Evangelicals is because as the size of a parish increases, giving decreases. I rather doubt they have created a causal relationship...especially where this phenomena is not found within any other Christian denomination.
3. The great contribution through Catholic charities is arriving through the wallets of nonCatholics.
4. 70 percent of the US Catholic Church provided this study no data. This places doubt that a representative sample has been provided...unless this occurred by design. Otherwise, it is reasonable some did not report for associated reasons that possibly undermines the integrity of the numbers. They readily admit this problem exists for certain sections of the country.
5. 33% of all Catholics did not identify themselves as members of their local parish and presumeably were not registered with any parish.
I only had time to review 1/4 of the study.
Wow…you are right, I have seen myself as the postmodernist’s nightmare! You are, of course, right in the best sense of the terms. Unfortunately, postmodernism has become associated with certain ideas within Christianity (i.e. deconstructionism, intellectual nihilism, etc.) that I find very objectionable and destructive. So, I guess I’m a Retro-Postmodernist or a Postmodernist Thomist—either way, it’s a mouthful.
Well, it's a long way from the Marxsm, where you started, or the anarcho-capitalist libertarianism, where I started.
By the way, that's the reason I told Jason/GA that "on my best days I'm a 'right-wing postmodernist.'"
Longlive is obviously right in saying that both liberalism and conservativism are heirs to the Locke and the Enlightenment. They clearly are, which is what I think Francis Fukuyama was getting at in his book "The End of History" - namely that all future debates would be within the assumptions of the Enlightenment.
But then came the Islamo-fascists. So, the end of history may not be as immanent as we thought in 1989. It seems that there is a lot of history left for us to work through.
When confronted with data that wasn’t facially complimentary to my faith, I didn’t accuse the source of lying or being biased, nor did I engage in any tu quoque snippiness. Instead, I looked at the data and, even, brought out more data that confirmed the original point.
Because I’m all about truth.
Your points apparently are designed to provoke a fight, so let’s look at them:
The re