- Home
- Politics
- Entertainment
- Sports
- Health
- Religion
- Society
- Tech
- Money
- People
- Science
- Galleries
Politics
Bill Donohue Comments on Study Saying Liberals Give Least to the Poor
NEW YORK -- Catholic League president Bill Donohue (photo) comments on a new study on charitable giving released today by the Chronicle of Philanthropy:
Liberals are the least likely to help the poor. That's the inescapable conclusion of this new study: states where people participate in religion at a high rate are also the most generous; conversely, the least generous states are also the least religious. Importantly, nine of the ten least generous states voted for Obama in 2008.
This new study is consistent with previous research. Sociologists Mark D. Regnerus and David Sikkink looked at the data gathered by the Religious Identity and Influence Survey and concluded that the more religious a person is, the more likely he is to give to the poor; those who are nonreligious give the least. In his book Who Really Cares, Arthur C. Brooks, president of the American Enterprise Institute, examined this issue in depth. He concluded that "Religious people are far more charitable than nonreligious people." Similarly, in their book American Grace, David Campbell of Notre Dame and Robert Putnam of Harvard found that religious people are more generous than nonreligious people.
It is well known that liberals are far more likely than conservatives to be nonreligious. It is also well known that liberals talk endlessly about poverty. Yet in their daily lives they do the least about it: they volunteer the least; they give less blood; they are less likely to help someone find a job; and they donate the least. Their idea of charity is to have the government raise taxes, i.e., take money from others, and spend it on welfare programs.
The data have grave implications this election season. Paul Ryan is being lectured by liberals--the most miserly people in the nation--for not being responsive to the poor. It doesn't get more absurd than this. Not until liberals catch up with conservatives in their charitable giving are they in a position to lecture anyone about the poor.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Comments
CRW: Is there anything that
CRW: Is there anything that you are correct about?
Sioux Falls vs. San Francisco We assume the rich give more than the middle class, the middle class more than the poor. I've heard liberals care more about the less fortunate, so we assume they give more than conservatives do. Are these assumptions truth, or myth?
To test what types of people give more, "20/20" went to two very different parts of the country, with contrasting populations: Sioux Falls, S.D. and San Francisco, Calif. The Salvation Army set up buckets at the busiest locations in each city -- Macy's in San Francisco and Wal-Mart in Sioux Falls. Which bucket collected more money?
Sioux Falls is rural and religious; half of the population goes to church every week. People in San Francisco make much more money, are predominantly liberal, and just 14 percent of people in San Francisco attend church every week. Liberals are said to care more about helping the poor; so did people in San Francisco give more?
It turns out that this idea that liberals give more…is a myth. Of the top 25 states where people give an above average percent of their income, 24 were red states in the last presidential election.
Arthur Brooks, the author of "Who Really Cares," says that "when you look at the data, it turns out the conservatives give about 30 percent more." He adds, "And incidentally, conservative-headed families make slightly less money."
And he says the differences in giving goes beyond money, pointing out that conservatives are 18 percent more likely to donate blood. He says this difference is not about politics, but about the different way conservatives and liberals view government.
"You find that people who believe it's the government's job to make incomes more equal, are far less likely to give their money away," Brooks says. In fact, people who disagree with the statement, "The government has a basic responsibility to take care of the people who can't take care of themselves," are 27 percent more likely to give to charity.
I used the same study that
I used the same study that was used to draw the conclusions in this post to raise some counter points. The fact that you won't use the same data and instead choose to speak in unproven generalities is not my problem.
If you would actually ground yourself in reality rather than your Tea Party paranoid bubble world, you might find some truth.
Bullshit... Pure bullshit.
Bullshit... Pure bullshit. Mr. Donahue is a lying sack, making up results on a study. He is a freaking moron to even suggest this. CRW, right on though, that is true. Partisan politics have NOTHING to do with how charitable someone is, and so sick of republicans suggesting that they have religious superiority. They hide behind religion and pretend to be christian, to cloak their greedy theft from the poor and protection of the rich, pure and simple.
"How do you know so much about everything?'" was asked of a very wise and intelligent man; and the answer was "By never being afraid or ashamed to ask questions as to anything of which I was ignorant." - John Abbott (1821-1893)
A little twist to this... the
A little twist to this... the state that gives the most in total is California, followed by New York. Massachusetts is #14, Washington is #15. Illinois is #5. Arguably most of the most liberal states in the country are in the top 15. Also, poor states tend to give less.
Some very Red States are also very stingy - Montana, Wyoming, North and South Dakota.
The generalizations from this post do not accurately represent the data.
Christians are also more likely to go to jail than non-christians when factored against per capita rates. What does that mean?
It is ironic that Mr. Donahue is Catholic since some of the areas he targets are very Catholic.