According to the Democrats, the Red States are stupid and the Blue states are smarter.
Well the party of compassion seems to miss the boat when it comes to donating to chairty, according to Michelle Malkin
It seems that red staters donate more to charity. I can't say my state did well as it is a Kerry state.
I'd take this chart with a grain of salt. For one, it doesn't factor in any sort of cost-of-living index. As a resident of D.C., I can tell you my income goes about half as far as it does in Mississippi. For two, I bet the majority of charitable giving in the south is to one's own church. How much of that "generosity" winds up covering the operational expenses of the church itself? One can argue that a parishioner who donates to his church is essentially paying church dues. That's different from a charitable contribution to a battered women's shelter or a make-a-wish-type foundation. For three, my best friend here in D.C. volunteers to mentor a young inner city boy once a week. The monetary value of this contribution: $0. The societal value: incalculable.
I'm not making a case that red states aren't more generous than blue states. I'm only saying we can't make that assumption from this particular set of data. I've looked at the spreadsheet from which the rankings are determined, and it's a pretty simple formula. Too simple, I submit.
Posted by: Scott Lacy at November 11, 2004 11:32 AM> I'd take this chart with a grain of salt. For
> one, it doesn't factor in any sort of
> cost-of-living index.
Indeed. Such as, say, the Blue states usurpation
of your right to decide how much to give, who to
give it to, and when to give it by imposing higher
taxes to cover government charity programs.
> For two, I bet the majority of charitable
> giving in the south is to one's own church.
Probably true.
> How much of that "generosity" winds up
> covering the operational expenses of the
> church itself?
How much of ANY charitable contribution ends
up covering operational expenses?
> One can argue that a parishioner who donates
> to his church is essentially paying church
> dues.
True . . . but irrelevant, as this statement
is true of any charitable contribution.
> That's different from a charitable
> contribution to a battered women's
> shelter
Nonsense. Church's run battered women's
shelters also. In every case, whether the
women's shelter is run by the Catholic church,
or the Church of Secular Humanism, part of
every charitable contribution goes to
covering operational expenses.
> or a make-a-wish-type foundation.
Wrong again. Once you begin to understand
what the liberals truly believe is truly
what they believe: "The personal is political",
then you realize that the universal human
religious impulse is, in liberals, more likely
to be expressed as "politics IS religion",
then you can translate what this author
really means: "My church is valid, yours
isn't".
This kind of attempt to somehow pretend that
giving to the charities that a Secular Humanist
believes in is different than giving to the
charities that a Christian or Buddhist believes
in, is simply additional proof of this that
what we have in America today isn't a political
clash, it is more of a religious clash.
> For three, my best friend here in D.C.
> volunteers to mentor a young inner city
> boy once a week. The monetary value of
> this contribution: $0. The societal value:
> incalculable.
And my Father not only tithed at his church for
all his life, he also volunteered his time to
the Boy Scouts of America.
Monetary value of his contribution: $0
Societal value: incalculable.
Those who tithe to their churches also volunteer
their time.
Understanding the liberal mind-set becomes much
easier when you understand it as a religious
clash. Their use of religious terms (evil,
wrong, immoral, etc.) is one clue to this. Other
clues can be found in their fanatic approach
to politics, their view that every solution must
be governmental, and most obviously, in their
reaction to loosing an election.
Hey, Move On, OK? Liberals believe that charity
should be an exercise in force, backed up by
the threat of violence. Conservatives believe
in individual liberty, that the individual
should choose how much, when, and to whom charity
should be given.
In this, it is the conservatives who are much
more supportive of individual liberty.
There are lots of problems with the procedures used to develop this index.
Posted by: Frank at November 12, 2004 07:29 PMJust as blanketly saying that the IQs of red states are lower than blue states.
Typical ploys of American hating liberals such as yourself frank.
Posted by: Tom at November 13, 2004 01:21 PM
