1. We are not avoiding problems we are getting our hands dirty addressing them. We
are not in Ivory Towers where discussions are theoretical rather than practical.
2. We do try to teach people to fish, not just give them fish.
3. Not much of the work of the ACLU helps the average person find a better life. In
fact some of their work is making society worse.
4. The changes in societal structures I see being encourage are causing problems not
making them better. And so much of the work done that way involves huge
government out-lays. Do you prefer forced contributions through taxation over
voluntary sharing by individuals? Indeed that is the liberal way. Take
everybody's money by force and spend it in ways they do not approve. I prefer to
let people have the freedom to choose.
Next time you are tempted to throw around the "cop-out" label maybe you should spend some time following us around.
Fredrick Stoneof NC9:37PM June 02, 2009
Another thing to consider, in the giving of time, is the sacrifice made, financially, by those who work in organizations to help others, whether it be something like the American Cancer Society or the ACLU. These people take these jobs because they care, not for the money. Professionals in these organizations can usually make much more in the private or corporate sector. I would say that these people tend to be more liberal than conservative in numbers.
Jayof AR2:47PM May 06, 2009
I would expect religious people to be more generous (i.e., givng money, goods and time) becuase they really want to alleviate the suffering or hardship of others. As far as that instinct goes, it's laudable. But it also turns out to be, for many generous religious people, a cop-out, an avoidance of the real problems.
As the saying goes, it is more effective to teach a person to fish than it is to give him a fish. With regard to the generosity of the religious, I would turn that saying this way: it is as important or more important, in the long run, to change the societal strutures that lead to the suffering and hardship of others than it is merely to alleviate the hardship and suffering of today.
Therefore, I would like to see included in studies of generosity the money, goods and time given (by the people being polled) to the work that's being done to change the subjugating structures of society--in addition to those poeples' giving in the traditional ways. Support of political reform, the ACLU and many other organizations can have a larger impact on the long term alleviation of most of humankind's ills.
Rob Winslowof FL5:43PM May 05, 2009
It would be interesting to see Putnam's questions and data. My interpretation would be that having more friends in a faith community equates with a deeper commitment to that faith community, and by implication, a deeper commitment to the values of that faith community. So I would bet that Putnam's interpretation is wrong, that what you see among generous people of faith of both left and right is a complete buy-in to their faith, its values (living generously being one) and full engagement with the community that shares those values. Then it becomes a chicken and egg question: Does faith drive generosity, or does the community somehow stimulate it? And perhaps it's both: we hear the call of our faith to be generous people, and we also see that call lived out in others we respect, which then encourages our own further generosity.
Thanks for sharing this, Dan. It's very interesting stuff.
Reader Comments
Back to blog
Fredrick Stone of NC 9:37PM June 02, 2009
Jay of AR 2:47PM May 06, 2009
Rob Winslow of FL 5:43PM May 05, 2009
Charlie of AZ 3:37PM May 05, 2009