TRTL, by the miracle of the modern internet, the data that Brooks has based his article on is available for download here http://webapp.icpsr.umich.edu/cocoon/ICPSR-STUDY/04295.xml Like Brooks, you’re at liberty to crunch the data as you wish.

And “as you wish” definitely seems applicable to Brooks’ approach. As has been mentioned above, he’s played fast and loose with his definitions, and you only need a quick glance through the data to see that he has been very selective about the responses he uses to reach his conclusions.

Clearly he started out wanting to show that believers are nicer than non-believers, and he has pulled out the bits that support this view.

Essentially, though, this isn’t the main problem here. To quote from a discussion over on Larvatus Prodeo http://larvatusprodeo.net/2006/08/09/silencing-democracy/ “Give money to an impoverished child and you’re a saint. Question why she’s poor and you’re a Communist.” The assumption underlying Brooks’ argument, that the sole measure of goodness is the charitable works an individual undertakes, is extremely narrow and self-serving.

In my view, truly charitable people understand that there are many paths to goodness, and many ways to be helpful and good. Truly uncharitable people assume that individuals who act differently to themselves are of a lesser moral worth. Brooks’ argument actually aims to prove this lesser worth.

Brook’s underlying assumption also lends itself very conveniently to the kinds of binary judgements that are so common around here, like boxgum’s “Clever response but like most from your crowd, it is ignorant of life and history.” Brooks puts out the soapbox and, to the cheering of boaz and others, boxgum dutifully mounts it.

Scout, I think that OLO’s motive in putting up this article was to generate discussion, but as so often happens, what we get is diatribe.

The theme here is philanthropy. We need to remind ourselves that charitable giving is a tiny subset of philanthropy – most definitely not the only way of giving.

Thanks Ev - this Boxgum person wouldn't have a clue what "my crowd" is, as you say. No doubt he - my guess is that it must be a "he" - would have been among the oh-so compassionate Christians who were burning "witches" (upitty women) and "faggots" in their hundreds of thousands over hundreds of years in Europe and USA, in the name of Jesus. I would have been burnt by Boxgum in those days, no doubt. Or perhaps he might have partaken in the infamous Inquisition, again in God's name. Or supported the Pope who first sanctioned the slave trade, in the name of his compassionate God. Oh, and don't mention the Crusades ! A truly inspiring record of compassion, surpassing fascism and Stalinism in longevity and violence.

As for "thou shalt not kill" - is it the Nine Commandments now ? have they edited out this most inconvenient commandment ? If they vote for the aggressive George W. Bush or John Howard, as they do, the excision of this annoying demand from their God saves them from being total hypocrites - onya guys !

A commendable post W - and one of the most important questions to face the world today relates to how the poor can best be assisted - or in some quarters, if they even should be assisted.

It is interesting to note the relationships between trade and poverty - it is ultimately success in trade that leads to wealth for any given country.

Of course, trade is a far more complex issue than it would first appear - Japan is relatively poor in resources, yet it has been one of the world's financial juggernauts - this can't simply be because of a sizable population, or India would have been a world power long ago (they will be soon, but I'll get to that later).

If when we examine issues of philanthropy we look at international aid vs trade practices, some of the highest aid contributors can also be viewed in a less warm and fuzzy light when it comes to trade practices.

Governments the world over appear to be keen to enter into Free Trade agreements with the US - I suppose this is part of the current drive to dominate in a globalised market.

The thing is, every country that has entered into a free trade agreement with the US has suffered for it - mexico for instance witnessed an influx of foreign goods competing with local product, and while there was a rise in income for the wealthiest sector, the poorest missed out.

On the other hand, a relaxation of trade barriers for poorer nations has to be part of the solution - the old, teach a man to fish adage.

There has to be some kind of way to promote trade from poorer countries - though it would result in competition to first world nations, which are savvier operators - so it won't happen.
And at present, the religious right has the power in the US - they could make this happen, instead of giving aid - a temporary solution.

If you examine the 'charitable' causes supported by the religious right you will discover it is predominantly religious (their own) schools/education and churches they support. Talk about self-interest packaged as charity! Do not be fooled. They simply get tax breaks for thier own agenda to boot.

When they are seen to be supporting causes concerning man's common wellbeing, such as the environment, healthcare and education for all (appropriate taxes), then I may consider them charitable.

The "crowd" I speak of are the fundamentalist secularists. Those who react (as confirmed by Kang's latest rant) to any proposition put that there really is something of substance in the lives of people "of faith".

The substance of life that frees them to give to "the other" and to avoid the use of the "other".
That substance is the love that flows from the God of Love who faithful people worship, and who manifested in the earthly life and living of Jesus. It is the substance of a fuller, freer humanity, in as much, within such love one does what one wills. ( see quote hereunder ). It is not about being tolerant - what a pathetic passivity that is. It is about being, accepting of and available to "the other" as Jesus taught, even of the enemy.

Who are people "of faith". I dare not define it. I cannot read the heart of another. You will know good people by their deeds and good deeds are done by all sorts of people; some effortlessly as an extension of their natural personality ( sometimes to their own everyday cost, which lessens the original worthiness of the act) : others as a real effort.

But there is a difference between living a faith and holding a belief in life. The latter allows you to be self-satisfied with living, and being seen to live, a good life within an ethical frameworks. From here comes charity without love dressed in Christian piety, or secular enthusiasm which cannot be sustained.

To quote St Augustine of Hippo in his Homily 7 on the First Epistle of John:

"The deeds of men are only discerned by the root of charity..... Once for all, then, a short precept is given thee: Love, and do what thou wilt: whether thou hold thy peace, through love hold thy peace; whether thou cry out, through love cry out; whether thou correct, through love correct; whether thou spare, through love do thou spare: let the root of love be within, of this root can nothing spring but what is good."

boxgum - you missed the point "The positive connection between “religious observance and charitable behavior was consistent across religious groups in our study".

It does not appear to matter what the faith is in, what appears to matter is attending a service of some kind regularly and praying (I miss on both counts). If anything the survey results appear to show the importance of organised religion rather than a faith in Jesus Christ (that's gotta hurt).

Those who worship Jesus Christ and are supposedly indwelt by the Holy Spirit did no better that those who worshipped something else. The survey appears to prove how little real difference Jesus and the ghost make in peoples lives.

R0bert