Do Liberals think with their Heart?

[dust1n]

Do you feel than many progressives don't see a need for private charities and believe they should not exist?

I don't think I've ever heard anyone ever say that there wasn't a need for private charities. Considering the state of the world, any and all help I'm sure is greatly appreciated by those in need, whether that help is private or collective.

 

[dust1n]

I can't speak for my Christian friends, but for me and my Jewish friends, this is usually very straightforward because we think about helping the poor in a very different way. I have noted on a number of occasions that Christian thought about charity seems deeply influenced by the conception of the word itself-- charity coming from the Latin caritas, meaning "compassion." In other words, in that view, charity is what one does as a good deed if one is compassionate. But in Hebrew, the word usually translated as "charity" is tzedakah, which comes from the root tzedek, meaning "justice." In other words, in that view, tzedakah is what one does because not to give money and resources to aid the poor and the hungry is simply unjust.

Interesting. Thanks for the info regarding tzedakah, wasn't familiar with it. Do you know if this idea would run along the same zein as Zakat? Can't seem to find much info on it.

 

[dust1n]

Nevermind, I found some more info about it, thought I wish someone who knew a bit more about Zagat could help...

At its root the Roman idea of philanthropy, like the Greek, was about civic responsibility – giving was an obligation of noble status rather than a duty of common humanity. Christianity shook up this Greaco-Roman civic view of philanthropy, basing its worldview instead on a universal value of ‘love’ or ‘charity’ (agape in Greek), as set out in St Paul’s letter to the Corinthians: a Christian was obliged to provide help to any person in need, not just another citizen. Philanthropy was evolving from munificence to beneficence.

The charitable obligations of Christians were later codified by St Thomas Aquinas as seven ‘good works’: vestio (clothe), poto (to give water), cibo (feed), redimo (redeem from prison), tego (shelter), colligo (nurse), condo (bury). Aquinas, writing in the 13th century, has had a decisive influence on modern Christian thought because he brought together the Christian tradition with the works of Aristotle, which were lost for centuries to western Europe but had recently been rediscovered from the Islamic world. How could giving be virtuous if it was self-interested through reciprocity, as Aristotle argues? Isn’t that just cupidity? Aquinas tried to avoid this trap by redefining charity as an act friendship to God, which happens to be directed through love for our fellow men.

This had never been an issue in Judaism where there is a clear emphasis on doing good deeds and tzedakah (which is usually translated as charity but is rooted in the idea of justice). There are clear instructions in the Torah about the obligations of those who have to the poor and to strangers. Leviticus 19, for example, says: “When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap all the way to the edges of your field, or gather the gleanings of your harvest. You shall not pick your vineyard bare, or gather the fallen fruit of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and the stranger.” Giving is also an integral part of some Jewish festivals.

These obligations were categorised in the twelfth century by the theologian and jurist Maimonides, in Mishneh Torah, a guide to the laws of Judaism. Here he set out ‘eight degrees of charity’, where the least meritorious is giving grudgingly and the highest level of generosity is to give someone a job or help in some other way to make them self-supporting. Maimonides also encouraged anonymous giving.

In Islam, too, charity is an integral part of piety, captured by the term zakat, which translates literally as to increase or to purify. Like tzedakah, zakat is an obligation, whereas additional voluntary charity is called sadaqah. There are clear rules on how much zakat should be paid, depending on one’s means. There are eights forms of beneficiaries of zakat: those without means to support themselves (faqir); those with insufficient means (miskin); collectors and distributors of zakat (amil); converts to Islam (muallafathul quloob); slaves (riqab); debtors (gharmin); those responsible for jihad (fisabilillah); those stranded on a journey (ibnus sabil).

Giving is also encouraged within Hinduism, within the framework of Dharma, which conveys obligations, not rights. These obligations are not universal but vary over time (through the traditional 4 stages of life: student, householder, forest dweller, ascetic) and also depend on caste obligations. In Buddhism, giving is an essential step on the path to enlightenment.

Confucianism explicitly rejects the idea of universal love on the basis that love must be gradated to reflect special obligations, for example to one’s family. As the historian Theodore Zeldin describes in his 1994 blockbuster An Intimate History of Humanity “Confucius (551-479 BC) drew a series of circles of compassion around the individual, of diminishing intensity, suggesting that one should love one’s father most warmly, and then one’s family, then others in lesser degree according to their distance from the core.” Hence Confucian philanthropy tends to be particular and directed towards specific individuals, rather than anonymous and directed at the public good (which is the responsibility of ‘benevolent government&#8217.

http://www.philanthrocapitalism.net/bonus-chapters/ancient-giving/

 

[Penumbra]

Most of my very best friends are Liberals mostly because we have the ability to agree to disagree on most things.

While discussing many issues, I have found them to be compassionate and caring about our fellow man kind. Actually, I agree in principle with many of their concepts but where we part company is how we actually accomplish these noble ideals.

Many of my answers come from the same sources which is the rich need to pony up the resources. I want folks to give freely in the private sector where they like to tax the rich while side stepping any responsibility for themselves.

Why is it most Liberals do not contribute as much to charities as their counterparts do? When I say as much, I mean a percentage of their income.

While I believe to much is given much is expected, I also believe we all need to contribute a portion of our bounty to the less fortunate.

Why is it Liberals support the wasteful government taking on these challenges and turn a blind eye to fraud and abuse?

It is one thing to want everyone to have something, it is another thing to figure out how we are going to pay for it.

Overall, I'd say most people utilize emotional arguments far more than quantitative ones regardless of political position. I'd prefer not to generalize as to which side uses which type of argument more often.

I will say, however, that in my observation of the smaller subset of fiscal conservatives I've had debates with over several years, many of them dodge my arguments, flat out tell me they don't understand what I'm saying, or use few numbers and more qualitative statements in their own arguments, or say I don't understand since I'm too young. They end up arguing things such as the top x% of people own y% of the total wealth but should pay less than y% of total taxes. This, combined with my observation that no fiscal conservative has ever presented a fiscal system that I'm aware of that isn't easily shown to be mathematically unstable, I do view conservatives as not a particularly quantitative and analytical bunch.

My overall conclusion with regards to almost anything related to money is that most people don't know much about money. If they did, they would have more of it.

 

[Desert Snake]

Do pizza delivery peoplec want tips?????????????

 

[Mathematician]

I'm 99% positive it's anatomically impossible for a heart to think.

 

[Mathematician]

Oh, ... what do you know...

Nation & World | America's poor are its most generous donors | Seattle Times Newspaper

I found this remarkable; inspiring and disgusting at the same time.

It tells me that wealth really does pollute a person's character.

 

[Storm]

I found this remarkable; inspiring and disgusting at the same time.

It tells me that wealth really does pollute a person's character.

I think it's more the other way round.

 

[tytlyf]

I think it was Bill Clinton who said the following regarding their candidates.

"Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line."

 

[Magic Man]

Many of my answers come from the same sources which is the rich need to pony up the resources. I want folks to give freely in the private sector where they like to tax the rich while side stepping any responsibility for themselves.

As usual, it's hard to take this post from you seriously when you say inaccurate stuff like "while side-stepping any responsibility for themselves". It's not about side-stepping responsibility. We all have a responsibility. Right now, the rich aren't doing their part. If everyone was already doing their part and we still needed more, then it would fall to everyone to do more.

Why is it most Liberals do not contribute as much to charities as their counterparts do? When I say as much, I mean a percentage of their income.

Don't know. Do you have some basis for this claim?

While I believe to much is given much is expected, I also believe we all need to contribute a portion of our bounty to the less fortunate.

Then you're on the same page as most liberals.

Why is it Liberals support the wasteful government taking on these challenges and turn a blind eye to fraud and abuse?

Because the government is not just wasteful, and they don't turn a blind eye to fraud and abuse. You take the stuff the government does wrong, and pretend that the government can't do anything right. Liberals tend to accept the reality that the government isn't perfect, but it is good for some things. They also accept the reality that you're always going to have some fraud and abuse, but that doesn't mean you can't have programs that work well.

 

[Magic Man]

As a long-time DC area resident who has worked as a government contractor in tandem with various agencies and departments, I can tell you that it nearly always costs the government 10 times as much to do 1/10 the work as it does for the private sector. Bureaucracy is the diametric opposite of efficiency.

As a near-DC resident who has had many relatives and friends work directly for or contract for the government, I can tell you this is not true.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Don't know. Do you have some basis for this claim?

Why yes I do.

"The belief that liberals care more about the poor may scratch a partisan or ideological itch, but the facts are hostile witnesses."

Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

RealClearPolitics - Articles - Conservatives More Liberal Givers

 

[Magic Man]

Why yes I do.

RealClearPolitics - Articles - Conservatives More Liberal Givers

Good, now we can break it down:

Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

Where does this come from? Sorry, I'm not just going to take George Will's relaying of someone else's comments as fact. Did they do a poll where they asked people what their salary was, whether the head of the household was liberal or conservative and how much they gave to charity? How many people was the poll?

Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

Same thing. Where did they get this?

Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

What are the average salaries in the states? Someone making $30,000 and giving 5% is a lot bigger deal than someone making $300,000 and giving 5%. It means a lot more coming from the first person, considering how important every 5% is to them. It's still nice coming from the second person and I'd applaud them for it, but it's a whole lot easier.

Also, this and the next couple are based on the "These states voted for Bush, so everyone giving to charity there is conservative, while these states voted for Kerry, so we can chalk all of that up to liberal charity", which is false.

This information is not nearly enough to say "conservatives give more to charity than liberals". It still leaves a whole lot of questions to be answered. For instance, giving money to charity isn't the only way to give. The link deals with this vaguely with "conservatives give more blood and time", but that's all we have to go on. I need a bit more than that for it to actually support anything.

 

[Reverend Rick]

In the five years I have been here at RF, I have yet to see anyone who is asked for a source provide a source that was satisfactory to the person who asked for it.

At least you did not insult Liberal Christians by saying the money Conservatives donate is larger because of tithing to the church.

 

[Magic Man]

In the five years I have been here at RF, I have yet to see anyone who is asked for a source provide a source that was satisfactory to the person who asked for it.

I guess that's easier than addressing the critiques of the info provided. It's very simple. You provided a link that makes some vague claims with no actual support. Maybe there's a poll that led to the info they used. I don't know. That's why I asked for support. Linking me to something written by George Will where he tells about something someone else wrote, which is most likely based on something else (a poll or survey of some kind) is not exactly support. How would you react if I linked you to an article by Bill Maher telling about something Michael Moore wrote that said "Conservatives are dumber and fatter than liberals"? Would you consider that support for the claim?

At least you did not insult Liberal Christians by saying the money Conservatives donate is larger because of tithing to the church.

Actually, I did mean to bring that up. It's not an insult to anyone. It's possible that it evens out, but I'd be willing to bet that 99% of Mormons who tithe are conservative, and there are some rich Mormons out there, like Romney, Huntsman and J. Willard Marriott Jr. Maybe there are equally rich liberal counterparts who tithe to a church, too, but that remains to be seen.

 

[Katzpur]

...I'd be willing to bet that 99% of Mormons who tithe are conservative, and there are some rich Mormons out there, like Romney, Huntsman and J. Willard Marriott Jr. Maybe there are equally rich liberal counterparts who tithe to a church, too, but that remains to be seen.

That's absurd. It's a fact that most Mormons are Republicans, but it's nowhere near 99%. And political party affiliation has absolutely nothing to do with whether a member of the Church tithes or not. How on earth you came up with that "fact" is beyond me.

 

[Reverend Rick]

That's absurd. It's a fact that most Mormons are Republicans, but it's nowhere near 99%. And political party affiliation has absolutely nothing to do with whether a member of the Church tithes or not. How on earth you came up with that "fact" is beyond me.

We could ask him for a source.

 

[Magic Man]

That's absurd. It's a fact that most Mormons are Republicans, but it's nowhere near 99%. And political party affiliation has absolutely nothing to do with whether a member of the Church tithes or not. How on earth you came up with that "fact" is beyond me.

What "fact" are you referring to? I didn't present a fact. I presented a comment that said something seems likely to me.

First, I didn't say "republican". I said "conservative" because that's what we're talking about here.

Second, maybe 99% is a bit of an exaggeration, but the point is that the vast majority of them are conservative.

Third, I don't understand the "political affiliation not having to do with whether they tithe or not" comment. What did I say that would imply otherwise? My point was that a higher percentage of Mormons tithe to the church than other Christians, and most of those Mormons are conservative. Also, it seems to me that liberal Christians would be less likely to tithe to a church, and more likely to be a member of a church that didn't require or request it. And before you go asking where I came up with that "fact", don't bother. I'm not presenting it as a fact. That's why I said "it seems to me".

 

[Reverend Rick]

maybe 99% is a bit of an exaggeration, but the point is that the vast majority of them are conservative.

99% seems to be thrown around quite a bit lately.

 

[Reverend Rick]

My point was that a higher percentage of Mormons tithe to the church than other Christians

I would like to see that source.