Well. I am now Technically Homeless (But I'm Lucky)

[AmPat]

That's bull. My sister is a Democrat. I often see the Republican point of view better than she does. She's one of those "Rich aren't paying enough taxes, they should pay for everything" types. When I was in really bad shape, she helped me out. When my father fell ill a couple of years ago, I took a lot of time off of work and lost a lot of money so I could be with him and help him and my mom out. I'm a Democrat. According to that silly poll in the lounge, I'm a hardcore liberal.

Maybe you all and the DUers should judge people by their character and not their political party.

Your "character" allows you to be a DimoRAT and a liberal. That's all we need to know.

[Novaheart]

He's lucky that his brother isn't a Democrat. They give far less to charity..........

I haven't seen an article yet making that claim that wasn't suspect. In the first place, tithing and supporting churches isn't charity, it's a voluntary fee for service. There is nothing charitable about building yet another finest marble Mormon temple, Jewish Temple, or Christian church or cathedral somewhere in the US or the world. I also have no idea how or how much American muslims spend on (your definition of charity) but it's hard to imagine that Mormons and Muslims wouldn't lead the way for conservatives while Jews and Catholics would lead the way for liberals.

It's rather sad, spiritually and philosophically, when a person is bragging about whose political identity gives the most to charity. It surely qualifies as prideful and unacceptable in the west Asian religions.

[AmPat]

I haven't seen an article yet making that claim that wasn't suspect. In the first place, tithing and supporting churches isn't charity, it's a voluntary fee for service. There is nothing charitable about building yet another finest marble Mormon temple, Jewish Temple, or Christian church or cathedral somewhere in the US or the world. I also have no idea how or how much American muslims spend on (your definition of charity) but it's hard to imagine that Mormons and Muslims wouldn't lead the way for conservatives while Jews and Catholics would lead the way for liberals.

It's rather sad, spiritually and philosophically, when a person is bragging about whose political identity gives the most to charity. It surely qualifies as prideful and unacceptable in the west Asian religions.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...4122524AAoZzpm
http://philanthropy.com/article/Char...-Divide/54871/
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1759256/posts

Took about three minutes. A brain is a terrible thing to waste.

[Novaheart]

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...4122524AAoZzpm
http://philanthropy.com/article/Char...-Divide/54871/
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1759256/posts

Took about three minutes. A brain is a terrible thing to waste.

All three of your links ultimately lead to the same source. I didn't say that I hadn't seen what you linked to, I said that I hadn't seen the claim of conservative charitable superiority that wasn't suspect, and as you can read in the article you linked to, the data is suspect.

You have a habit of indulging your confirmation bias, and then saying things like "A brain is a terrible thing to waste." If you were as intelligent as you would like to think that you are, then you wouldn't go looking for an article which confirms your beliefs but one which disputes it.

The objective observation is that you can't categorically claim that one group is more charitable than the other, because there is no solid work to prove that. You know that there is no solid work to prove that, because you can't agree on a definition of "charitable giving". Surely the Mormons, at a strict 10% or more of income and with an accountability system of some sort would give more to their church than do any other group- but is it charity? Does the LDS do "charity" the same way the Catholic or Baptist churches do? It's my understanding that they do not. Does that make Mormons better "christians" (or people) than Catholics or Baptists? If the Mormon gives $10,000 of his $100K income to LDS and the Catholic gives $5,000 of his $100K salary to the RC, and the Baptist gives $3,000 of his $100K to his independent church and the entire $3,000 the Baptist gives is used directly for relief while the others send off shares to the hierarchy, the building fund, the church schools and summer camps- who has given more in charity?

[SarasotaRepub]

That's bull. My sister is a Democrat. I often see the Republican point of view better than she does. She's one of those "Rich aren't paying enough taxes, they should pay for everything" types. When I was in really bad shape, she helped me out. When my father fell ill a couple of years ago, I took a lot of time off of work and lost a lot of money so I could be with him and help him and my mom out. I'm a Democrat. According to that silly poll in the lounge, I'm a hardcore liberal.

Maybe you all and the DUers should judge people by their character and not their political party.

Don't worry, we luvs you.

[Odysseus]

That's bull. My sister is a Democrat. I often see the Republican point of view better than she does. She's one of those "Rich aren't paying enough taxes, they should pay for everything" types. When I was in really bad shape, she helped me out. When my father fell ill a couple of years ago, I took a lot of time off of work and lost a lot of money so I could be with him and help him and my mom out. I'm a Democrat. According to that silly poll in the lounge, I'm a hardcore liberal.

Maybe you all and the DUers should judge people by their character and not their political party.

Parties tend to attract people of like character.

All three of your links ultimately lead to the same source. I didn't say that I hadn't seen what you linked to, I said that I hadn't seen the claim of conservative charitable superiority that wasn't suspect, and as you can read in the article you linked to, the data is suspect.

You have a habit of indulging your confirmation bias, and then saying things like "A brain is a terrible thing to waste." If you were as intelligent as you would like to think that you are, then you wouldn't go looking for an article which confirms your beliefs but one which disputes it.

The objective observation is that you can't categorically claim that one group is more charitable than the other, because there is no solid work to prove that. You know that there is no solid work to prove that, because you can't agree on a definition of "charitable giving". Surely the Mormons, at a strict 10% or more of income and with an accountability system of some sort would give more to their church than do any other group- but is it charity? Does the LDS do "charity" the same way the Catholic or Baptist churches do? It's my understanding that they do not. Does that make Mormons better "christians" (or people) than Catholics or Baptists? If the Mormon gives $10,000 of his $100K income to LDS and the Catholic gives $5,000 of his $100K salary to the RC, and the Baptist gives $3,000 of his $100K to his independent church and the entire $3,000 the Baptist gives is used directly for relief while the others send off shares to the hierarchy, the building fund, the church schools and summer camps- who has given more in charity?

If they are voluntarily giving their money away, then it is charity, since they don't get to use it, and the intent is for someone else to benefit. Membership in a church that requires tithes is voluntary, and therefore the tithe is charitable. If, once the charitable contribution is made, we get to impugn the giver because the charity doesn't follow through on its promises, then all charitable giving is suspect. PETA, for example, kills far more cats and dogs than the ASPCA, but still claims to be a charity for animals. The deluded nitwits who give them money in the belief that animals will benefit are still being charitable, even if they are wrong. This doesn't absolve them from the responsibility to do their homework and check out the people that they give money to, but it doesn't mean that they don't think that they are doing good.

[AmPat]

All three of your links ultimately lead to the same source. I didn't say that I hadn't seen what you linked to, I said that I hadn't seen the claim of conservative charitable superiority that wasn't suspect, and as you can read in the article you linked to, the data is suspect.

You have a habit of indulging your confirmation bias, and then saying things like "A brain is a terrible thing to waste." If you were as intelligent as you would like to think that you are, then you wouldn't go looking for an article which confirms your beliefs but one which disputes it.

The objective observation is that you can't categorically claim that one group is more charitable than the other, because there is no solid work to prove that. You know that there is no solid work to prove that, because you can't agree on a definition of "charitable giving". Surely the Mormons, at a strict 10% or more of income and with an accountability system of some sort would give more to their church than do any other group- but is it charity? Does the LDS do "charity" the same way the Catholic or Baptist churches do? It's my understanding that they do not. Does that make Mormons better "christians" (or people) than Catholics or Baptists? If the Mormon gives $10,000 of his $100K income to LDS and the Catholic gives $5,000 of his $100K salary to the RC, and the Baptist gives $3,000 of his $100K to his independent church and the entire $3,000 the Baptist gives is used directly for relief while the others send off shares to the hierarchy, the building fund, the church schools and summer camps- who has given more in charity?

Why do you keep bringing up church moron? I never mentioned it yet apparently in your pea sized brain, church is the only charity. So why don't you post some of your evidence that isn't deemed by the almighty Nova as "suspect?" Go ahead, post some evidence to the contrary.

You are aware of the annual reports showing your gods and their pathetic giving and the GOP contributions putting you gods to shame?

Go ahead, I'm waiting. Oh, may I use your liberal tactic and unilaterally claim it is "suspect?"

[Lanie]

Parties tend to attract people of like character.

So, judging by my sister, myself, and Catholics (many of which are Democrat and are into charity work), perhaps it's safe to say that the Democrat Party attracts people who want to help.

[AmPat]

So, judging by my sister, myself, and Catholics (many of which are Democrat and are into charity work), perhaps it's safe to say that the Democrat Party attracts people who want to help.

Are they helping to remove money from other people or are they pulling the cash out of their own pockets???

[Novaheart]

Parties tend to attract people of like character.



If they are voluntarily giving their money away, then it is charity, since they don't get to use it, and the intent is for someone else to benefit. Membership in a church that requires tithes is voluntary, and therefore the tithe is charitable.

I disagree. Buying your church a $100,000 pipe organ is not charity, it's vanity.