How charitable is your state? - CNNMoney

 

KY the poorest of the Indiana, Ohio Kentucky Tri-State area ranks 15th nationally in charitable giving. Ohio 36th and Indiana 21st.

 

Look at interactive map in the link above...looks like Red States (voting GOP) are much more likely to be in the top half of givers that Blue States (Voting Dem). I thought only the Liberals gave to the poor and down trodden? But the facts tell a different story.

Top 10 Most/Least Religious States in the Country

 

Top 10 Most Religious States and Rank in Charitable Giving

1 Mississippi-2nd

2 Alabama-3rd

3 South Carolina-5th

4 Tennessee-4th

5 Louisiana-12th

6 Arkansas-7th

7 Georgia-8th

8 North Carolina-9th

9 Oklahoma-11th

10 Kentucky-15th

 

Top 10 Least Religious States and Rank in Charitable Giving

50 Vermont-48th

49 New Hampshire-50th

48 Maine-49th

47 Massachusetts-47th

46 Alaska-28th

45 Washington-33rd

44 Oregon-20th

43 Rhode Island-46th

42 Nevada-41st

41 Connecticut 45th

 

Facts don't seem to match the alleged Jimmy Carter Quote.

 

Seems as if some of the most affluent states, least religious states and states that routinely vote for Liberal Candidates (Except for Alaska) are the least charitable. While some of the poorest states and those that are the most religious and routinely support Conservative Candidates in national elections are the most charitable.

I've always been curious about the intersection of Christianity and economic policy. Undoubtedly, Christianity informs a lot of social-conservatives' views - gay marriage, abortion, Judeo-Christian values, prayer in school, etc. However, religious and social conservatives almost always hold libertarian economic views with secular justifications.

 

Why is this? If my religious beliefs inform my stance on gay marriage, then why doesn't it inform my stance on taxation? Or put differently, if I have secular, pragmatic reasoning for supporting lower taxes, why do I not have secular reasoning underpinning my social views? Am I wrong to expect more diversity in the economic views of religious/social conservatives? If so, what is the connection?

 

I believe the diversity is there. The last ten years or so have seen a dramatic shift in the way evangelicals view economic policy. While the original quote in this thread may or may not originate with Jimmy Carter, he is certainly a follower of Christ who believes government should play a larger role in helping the poor. A number of Christian writers/preachers/teachers join the former President in their beliefs--Jim Wallis, Shane Claiborne, Bill Hybels, etc. Wallis in particular has been out in front on this, urging Christians to consider issues other than the two big social issues of abortion & homosexuality.

Top 10 Most/Least Religious States in the Country

 

Top 10 Most Religious States and Rank in Charitable Giving

1 Mississippi-2nd

2 Alabama-3rd

3 South Carolina-5th

4 Tennessee-4th

5 Louisiana-12th

6 Arkansas-7th

7 Georgia-8th

8 North Carolina-9th

9 Oklahoma-11th

10 Kentucky-15th

 

Top 10 Least Religious States and Rank in Charitable Giving

50 Vermont-48th

49 New Hampshire-50th

48 Maine-49th

47 Massachusetts-47th

46 Alaska-28th

45 Washington-33rd

44 Oregon-20th

43 Rhode Island-46th

42 Nevada-41st

41 Connecticut 45th

 

Facts don't seem to match the alleged Jimmy Carter Quote.

 

Seems as if some of the most affluent states, least religious states and states that routinely vote for Liberal Candidates (Except for Alaska) are the least charitable. While some of the poorest states and those that are the most religious and routinely support Conservative Candidates in national elections are the most charitable.

Your argument is suspect if routine church giving is included under "charitable donations."

Your argument is suspect if routine church giving is included under "charitable donations."

 

Really, that's all you've got? Link doesn't state where the donations went or what was included.

 

I'd think that with all of the love thy neighbor and help them out drivel coming from the liberals, especially NE liberals that charitable giving the the Liberal hotbed of New England would dwarf that of the those dumb ol' Holy Rollers down south.

Your argument is suspect if routine church giving is included under "charitable donations."

 

Why is it suspect?

So giving to a Church that then sponsors Food Banks, meal programs, community youth programs or Church sponsored Shelter doesn't/shouldn't count?

So giving to a Church that then sponsors Food Banks, meal programs, community youth programs or Church sponsored Shelter doesn't/shouldn't count?

Don't get so defensive, JD. I'm just trying to put your pro-South, anti-New England analysis in better perspective. Anyways, my instincts were correct in this case. What follows are a couple of paragraphs from another account of same:

 

"Take away churches as charities, however, and red states no longer dominate the world of donations. Instead, New England – a region that leans Democratic, with far fewer religiously affiliated Americans but with more affluent residents – catapults toward the top.

 

"The Chronicle of Philanthropy found that the South gives roughly 5.2% of its discretionary income to charity – including both religious and non-religious groups – while New England only gives 4%. But if churches are excluded, the South’s percentage drops to 0.9% and New England’s only drops to 1.4%. New York state would be second in the country in giving if religion was removed from the equation, while Pennsylvania would jump from No. 40 into the top 5."

 

Utah, Mississippi Give Large Percentage of Income to Charity | TIME.com

Don't get so defensive, JD. I'm just trying to put your pro-South, anti-New England analysis in better perspective. Anyways, my instincts were correct in this case. What follows are a couple of paragraphs from another account of same:

 

"Take away churches as charities, however, and red states no longer dominate the world of donations. Instead, New England – a region that leans Democratic, with far fewer religiously affiliated Americans but with more affluent residents – catapults toward the top.

 

"The Chronicle of Philanthropy found that the South gives roughly 5.2% of its discretionary income to charity – including both religious and non-religious groups – while New England only gives 4%. But if churches are excluded, the South’s percentage drops to 0.9% and New England’s only drops to 1.4%. New York state would be second in the country in giving if religion was removed from the equation, while Pennsylvania would jump from No. 40 into the top 5."

 

Utah, Mississippi Give Large Percentage of Income to Charity | TIME.com

 

And your point would be what exactly, that donations to liberal charities are some how better than donations to religious organizations. In most communities in the south the Church is the focus of charitable work in the communities, so that may be where people give there money.

 

BTW I wasn't being defensive, just asking.

Last line from your link

 

the more generous states voted for Sen. John McCain in 2008, while the seven-lowest ranking ones voted for then-Sen. Barack Obama.

And your point would be what exactly, that donations to liberal charities are some how better than donations to religious organizations. In most communities in the south the Church is the focus of charitable work in the communities, so that may be where people give there money.

 

BTW I wasn't being defensive, just asking.

My point is religious giving isn't really the same as (secular) charitable giving, even though it's the same in the eyes of the IRS. So one should probably use caution in saying one region of the country is "more generous" than another region.

 

All depends on how you crunch the numbers and define the terms.

My point is religious giving isn't really the same as (secular) charitable giving, even though it's the same in the eyes of the IRS. So one should probably use caution in saying one region of the country is "more generous" than another region.

 

All depends on how you crunch the numbers and define the terms.

If you want to pick and choose what factors go in you can make just about any statistic come out in your favor.

My point is religious giving isn't really the same as (secular) charitable giving, even though it's the same in the eyes of the IRS. So one should probably use caution in saying one region of the country is "more generous" than another region.

 

All depends on how you crunch the numbers and define the terms.

 

It's so hilarious how you can be wrong so often.

It's so hilarious how you can be wrong so often.

Sorry. I'm right. Vast majority of church giving goes to pay the pastor's salary, pay the utilities and retire the debt on the building. Only a small portion would go to helping "the least among us." Having said that, I'm not sure that some secular charities are all that different ... which goes back to one of my original thoughts ... that Uncle Sam may be best equipped to administer some of these programs to help the poor.

Why is it suspect?

 

Because it doesn't it his agenda?

Sorry. I'm right. Vast majority of church giving goes to pay the pastor's salary, pay the utilities and retire the debt on the building. Only a small portion would go to helping "the least among us." Having said that, I'm not sure that some secular charities are all that different ... which goes back to one of my original thoughts ... that Uncle Sam may be best equipped to administer some of these programs to help the poor.

Yeah, because Uncle Sam has a great track record.........:lol2: