Study: Less religious states give less to charity
Tags
Related Posts
About the author
States with the least religious residents are also the stingiest about giving money to charity, a new study on the generosity of Americans suggests.
The study, released Monday by the Chronicle of Philanthropy, found that residents in states where religious participation is higher than the rest of the nation, particularly in the South, gave the greatest percentage of their discretionary income to charity.
The Northeast, with lower religious participation, was the least generous to charities, with the six New England states filling the last six slots among the 50 states. Churches are among the organizations counted as charities by the study, and some states in the Northeast rank in the top 10 when religious giving is not counted.
The most generous state was Utah, where residents gave 10.6 percent of their discretionary income to charity. Next were Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee and South Carolina. The least generous was New Hampshire, at 2.5 percent, followed by Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts and Rhode Island.
In Boston, semi-retired carpenter Stephen Cremins said the traditional New England ideal of self-sufficiency might explain the lower giving, particularly during tight times when people have less to spare.
“Charity begins at home. I’m a big believer of that, you know, you have to take care of yourself before you can help others,” Cremins said.
The study found that in the Northeast region, including New England, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and New York, people gave 4.1 percent of their discretionary income to charity. The percentage was 5.2 percent in the Southern states, a region from Texas east to Delaware and Florida, and including most of the so-called Bible Belt.
The Bible mandates a 10 percent annual donation, or tithe, to the church, and the donation is commonly preached as a way to thank God, care for others and show faith in God’s provision. But it has a greater emphasis in some faiths. [More]
SOURCE
Leave a Comment
Photo Archive
-
May 17, 2013 5:43
Archbishop clarifies remarks about Cuomo
-
May 17, 2013 5:40
Fr. Gary Meier goes public with clergy experience
-
May 17, 2013 5:37
Predator priests paid to pray for unsuspecting families
-
May 16, 2013 1:56
Cleanup of Bridgeport, Conn., diocese begins in earnest
-
May 16, 2013 1:38
Archbishop Presses Cuomo Over Abortion
-
May 16, 2013 1:26
Deal reached in Catholic lawsuit
-
May 16, 2013 1:13
N.Y. matriarch moves closer to sainthood
-
May 16, 2013 1:07
Alvare talk on women, religious freedom, draws hundreds to seminary
-
May 15, 2013 2:31
US bishops announce 2nd Fortnight for Freedom
-
May 15, 2013 2:15
Black clergy call for abortion investigations, chastise NAACP, CBC for ignoring life issue
9 Comments
Maine and Massachusetts are both liberal states and being very familiar with both I can attest to the lack of donations. The thinking once again is let Caesar do it. What I give is my personal secret….between God, the charity and me. My mother always said one never misses what is given away and often you are twice rewarded for doing so. I have found this to be true. I do wish however, that when I make a donation that my address doesn’t wind up on everyone’s list. One wonders if the donation is spent on the millions of mailings. If I get hounded, I tend to drop the charity.
We are living through a resession, so many people are out of work, Those that are working are the working poor, from paycheck to paycheck. I am on a suckers list in that I recieve mail from every religious order on earth , Mars and beyound. I give faithfully to three causes each month.
10% of ones income is such a small amount to give to our Church it is a wonder why some fail to tithe.
No surprise here. Liberals want to give everyone else’s money away, but are tight-fisted with their own.
I don’t see liberals mentioned anywhere in the article Jim, so maybe you were implying that states who are less religious are more liberal? So liberals are less likely to be religious?
And while this is true in the US, this is not the case in Europe. This is due to a few factors – the non-religious or atheist don’t feel as welcomed by their communities in the US as they don in Europe, so they are less likely to give to their community if they don’t feel like they are a welcome part of it. Furthermore, the US has far more religious-based charities than Europe, and the non-religious and atheist do not want to give to religious charities as much because they likely do not appreciate the religious message that money will inevitably go towards. And lastly, there is a higher percentage of atheists and non-religious people in the general population in Europe than the US, so their total contributions to charities will be greater than the same type of people in the US.
I can provide references for non-believers (you see what I did there?), but I think the rationale I have given largely makes logical sense.
Thanks for your well-reasoned reply, blag — you indeed do approach everything with a “logic bat.” Okay, so the article doesn’t mention liberals, and yes I did jump to the conclusion that liberals are less religious than conservatives — but I have every confidence that in the USA (as you appear to be saying yourself), conservatives are more religious than liberals. Your information about Europe is interesting, but the fact remains that here in the USA liberals give less to charity than conservatives. I get the part about many charities in the USA being religious-based, but certainly an atheist can find many, many charities this side of the Atlantic that have no affiliation with religion; e.g., United Way immediately comes to mind.
Also, blag, I read one study that found (adjusted to population size) the contributions to Salvation Army outside a post office were significantly greater in a more religious and conservative midwestern state (Iowa? — can’t remember which one) than in San Francisco. And we all know where San Francisco stands politically and religiously — they are full steam ahead heading for Hell.
Telling people who disagree with your religion that they are going to hell unless they convert to your religion is like telling an adult he won’t be getting presents from Santa unless they behave that year.
Sure, it means something to the person saying it, but it is useless to actually galvanize any change on the person to which it is said.
Forgive my ambiguity, I can see why you could infer that from my post, but I did not intend to imply that conservatives are more religious than liberals. I do not think one party is more religious than the other, I simply think their social goals are vastly different, and conservatives rely on the religious vote more than liberals.