Haitians thank God rather than rescue workers

No, I meant: Should one appreciate one's partner for being there for them and being good to them, etc?
You say: "No, they are just doing what they are supposed to do."
That is what you're saying, right?

Yeah, that is what you are supposed to do. Is anyone surprised to wake up in the morning and find their partner next to them? But I bet they'd wonder if he wasn't.

Does any mother wake up and say, thank God my kids are still alive?

But let them be missing and yeah once she found them, she would/

People have expectations of the right thing, its when the wrong thing happens that they wonder what they did wrong.

If your kid wins a prize, you feel proud of him, if he kills himself you wonder where you went wrong.
 
If your kid wins a prize, you feel proud of him, [..]

Isn't that what he was supposed to do?
Why are you proud of him? After all, it was God that caused him to win the prize! You should thank God rather than to be proud of your kid..
 
Isn't that what he was supposed to do?
Why are you proud of him? After all, it was God that caused him to win the prize! You should thank God rather than to be proud of your kid..

Yeah you should thank God that your kid is doing well. :p

Because surely you weren't expecting him not to?

I think the way of thinking you laid out here leads to negativity; only blaming people for bad things they do, but never appreciating them for the good they do.

Its possible. Hence the value of karmic philosophy. There is always something to look forward to, eh?
 
Something for you from the Bhagvad Gita

karmanye vadhika raste; ma phaleshu kadachana; ma karma phala he tur bhuh, ma te sangvasta karmani;

You have a duty, you have an obligation to do, but you have no right to expect a particular consequence or result or fruit to follow from what you do.
 
Something for you from the Bhagvad Gita

karmanye vadhika raste; ma phaleshu kadachana; ma karma phala he tur bhuh, ma te sangvasta karmani;

You have a duty, you have an obligation to do, but you have no right to expect a particular consequence or result or fruit to follow from what you do.

Yes, you've posted that before. But this thread is not about that really..
 
Has anyone got a link to a large study showing the relationship between religious faith and charity donations?

Some of the largest individual donors to charity are certainly atheistic or agnostic, but what about the general population?
 
Has anyone got a link to a large study showing the relationship between religious faith and charity donations?

Some of the largest individual donors to charity are certainly atheistic or agnostic, but what about the general population?

I would be very surprised if that was true

What is the evidence?

edit: checked it myself

t turns out that this idea that liberals give more…is a myth. Of the top 25 states where people give an above average percent of their income, 24 were red states in the last presidential election.

Arthur Brooks, the author of "Who Really Cares," says that "when you look at the data, it turns out the conservatives give about 30 percent more." He adds, "And incidentally, conservative-headed families make slightly less money."

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730&page=1

Religious fundraising is complicated but effective. Members of the congregation contribute in dues, plate collections, fundraising suppers, funeral offerings, bring-and-buy sales, and so forth.

Such contributions are classified as charity by the IRS but they are not really voluntary for the same reason that golf club memberships fees are not voluntary. If members did not support their club, it would go out of business. Similarly, if parishioners cannot put up enough donations the local church may be forced to close its doors.

Suppose that we were to include golf fees as a charitable contribution, then golfers would seem to contribute more to charity. Yet, this is not a fair comparison because people who do not play golf have no reason to support golf clubs.

For similar reasons, people who never go to church contribute around zero dollars to religious institutions and charities. This means that any fair comparison must look at what religious and non religious people give to secular charities.

To his credit, Brooks makes this comparison but, once again, finds that religious people contribute more to secular charities. According to the Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey (2000-2001), 71 percent of religious people contribute to secular charities each year compared to 61 percent of those who rarely, or never, go to church. Religious people volunteer more on an annual basis (60 percent vs. 39 percent) and donate more to secular charities ($532 vs. $467).

Brooks concludes, and many of his readers agree, that the greater generosity of religious people to secular charities is caused by religion.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...gious-people-more-ethical-in-their-conduct-ii

In the second link the author has attempted to justify why, but whatever the reasons, it makes sense that those who see it as their duty to do something are more likely to do it, than those for whom its a choice.

Thats just common sense

edit: I was curious if it was really true, so I checked some more



Q. We often hear that religious people give more to charity than secularists. Is this true?
A. In the year 2000, “religious” people (the 33 percent of the population who attend their houses of worship at least once per week) were 25 percentage points more likely to give charitably than “secularists” (the 27 percent who attend less than a few times per year, or have no religion). They were also 23 percentage points more likely to volunteer. When considering the average dollar amounts of money donated and time volunteered, the gap between the groups increases even further: religious people gave nearly four times more dollars per year, on average, than secularists ($2,210 versus $642). They also volunteered more than twice as often (12 times per year, versus 5.8 times).

Very little of this gap is due to personal differences between religious and secular people with respect to income, age, family, or anything else. For instance, imagine two people who are identical in income, education, age, race, and marital status. The one difference between them is that, while one goes to church every week, the other never does. Knowing this, we can predict that the churchgoer will be 21 percentage points more likely to make a charitable gift of money during the year than the nonchurchgoer, and will also be 26 points more likely to volunteer.

Giving%20among%20religious%20versus%20secular%20people-2.jpg


source:
http://www.american.com/archive/2008/march-april-magazine-contents/a-nation-of-givers

The Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey (sccbs) was undertaken in 2000 by researchers at universities throughout the United States and the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research. The data consist of nearly 30,000 observations drawn from 50 communities across the United States and ask individuals about their “civic behavior,” including their giving and volunteering during the year preceding the survey.

From these data, I have constructed two measures of religious participation. First, the group I refer to as “religious” are the respondents that report attending religious services every week or more often. This is 33 percent of the sample. Second, the group I call “secular” report attending religious services less than a few times per year or explicitly say they have no religion. These people are 26 percent of the sample (implying that those who practice their religion occasionally make up 41 percent of the sample). The sccbs asked respondents whether and how much they gave and volunteered to “religious causes” or “non-religious charities” over the previous 12 months. Across the whole population, 81 percent gave, while 57 percent volunteered.

The differences in charity between secular and religious people are dramatic. Religious people are 25 percentage points more likely than secularists to donate money (91 percent to 66 percent) and 23 points more likely to volunteer time (67 percent to 44 percent). And, consistent with the findings of other writers, these data show that practicing a religion is more important than the actual religion itself in predicting charitable behavior. For example, among those who attend worship services regularly, 92 percent of Protestants give charitably, compared with 91 percent of Catholics, 91 percent of Jews, and 89 percent from other religions.

Socioeconomically, the religious and secular groups are similar in some ways and different in others. For example, there is little difference between the groups in income (both have average household incomes around $49,000) or education level (20 percent of each group holds a college degree). On the other hand, the secular group is disproportionately male (49 percent to 32 percent), unmarried (58 percent to 40 percent), and young (42 to 49 years old, on average). In addition, the sccbs data show that religion and secularism break down on ideological lines: Religious people are 38 percentage points more likely to say they are conservative than to say they are liberal (57 percent to 19 percent). In contrast, secular people are 13 points more likely to say they are liberal than to say they are conservative (42 percent to 29 percent).
http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/3447051.html

Gallup Polls conducted in more than 140 countries worldwide between 2006 and 2008 show that those whose responses identify them as highly religious are more likely than less religious respondents to report that they have engaged in each of three "helping behaviors" in the past month. In all four major global regions, for example, highly religious people are more likely than those who report being less religious to report having donated money to a charity in that time.

nzjgajb5gkesym_ldnco5g.gif


http://www.gallup.com/poll/111013/worldwide-highly-religious-more-likely-help-others.aspx

Thats pretty consistent, I think
 
Last edited:
It's relevant because if it is true then the Haitians saying "God sent the workers" could be true as well.

However, the two biggest philanthropists in the World are both atheist/agnostic.
Bill Gates and Warren Buffet.
 
Now the Haitians are locking up American missionaries who went over to help them.
By stealing their children.
Shouldn't they just send these misguided people home, and get on with the job in hand?
 
What I'm saying is, that, given that they have a disaster to deal with, is this the right time to spend months putting nutty but well meaning Americans through a time consuming legal process.
I'm referring to the 10 US Baptists who are being charged with kidnapping because they attempted to remove some children from the country.
 
What I'm saying is, that, given that they have a disaster to deal with, is this the right time to spend months putting nutty but well meaning Americans through a time consuming legal process.
I'm referring to the 10 US Baptists who are being charged with kidnapping because they attempted to remove some children from the country.

Ah. I was not aware of that case.
I don't think it takes away from dealing with the disaster though, regardless of whether or not the accusations are just.
 
Now the Haitians are locking up American missionaries who went over to help them.
By stealing their children.
Shouldn't they just send these misguided people home, and get on with the job in hand?

I think exactly the oposite is desired. During a disaster child exploitation jumps because the normal social structures which protect children are disrupted (be they family, comminity or govermental). There for it is VITAL that a strong show of "force" by goverment be made to ensure that those who seek to exploite children know that just because a disaster has occured doesnt mean that you can get away with it.

The day the earthquake happened i was lisserning to an artical on ABC radio by an expert in child welfare in disaster situations from PLAN Australia on this very issue. They were one of the very first organsations on the ground along side the diaster relife type organsiations because it is such a huge risk.
 
I could be wrong, but I doubt that these people are paedophiles.
They are probably going there under a misguided attempt to "save souls", and given that Haiti is trumpeted as a nest of devils by US TV-Evangelist leaders, they probably mean well.

Keeping them in Haiti means that workers who could be helping with the disaster are guarding them. Food that could be fed to hungry people will be being fed to them instead. And some of the best minds in the country will be wasted trying them in a court of law, which itself would probably be better used housing homeless people.

Also, it will be ironic that half the sacks of flour being carried to families will have an American flag on them.
With America you should be able to take the good with the bad.

Just chuck them out!
I haven't looked at the news today, and hopefully they have already done it.
 
I could be wrong, but I doubt that these people are paedophiles.
They are probably going there under a misguided attempt to "save souls", and given that Haiti is trumpeted as a nest of devils by US TV-Evangelist leaders, they probably mean well.

Keeping them in Haiti means that workers who could be helping with the disaster are guarding them. Food that could be fed to hungry people will be being fed to them instead. And some of the best minds in the country will be wasted trying them in a court of law, which itself would probably be better used housing homeless people.

Also, it will be ironic that half the sacks of flour being carried to families will have an American flag on them.
With America you should be able to take the good with the bad.

Just chuck them out!
I haven't looked at the news today, and hopefully they have already done it.

so the only way to exploit a child is through sex?
what about child labor laws?
what about women who happen to be barron stealing children from there parents? THAT is exactly what this case looks like, a case of a group of paracytes who wanted to STEAL children from there families because "well most of them have lost family so i guess this group could have too". They need to be charged and face criminal santions for there actions just like they would if this happened in the US or anywhere else. The only reasons i can see why you would say this SHOULDNT happen is because they were US citizans and "why should they "suffer" other countries laws?"
 
so the only way to exploit a child is through sex?
what about child labor laws?

As far as these Baptists are concerned it is very obvious that one person knows what they're doing is illegal and the rest have been fed a bunch of baloney and just follow. Where have we heard that before?

The Haitians should be thanking God for sending the child nappers to them. It gives their Government something to rally around, clear their minds and get to work running the country. Despite what anyone thinks, this is the Haitian's business and if interlopers try and take children during a crisis then they need to be dealt with harshly if only to set an example for anyone else thinking the same way as these Baptists.
 
I was curious if it was really true, so I checked some more -- [the chart counting the number of people who had donated to charity during the past week] -- That's pretty consistent, I think
I don't think that's a fair comparison. People who go to church regularly are bombarded with pleas for various charities, so they are likely to give small amounts every week. We plan and budget our charity contributions and send out a gigantic check to one organization (the Central Asia Project) twice a year. Catch us in the wrong month and it will look like we're not generous people.

I hand food and money to homeless people all the time, but it would probably not occur to me to count that as "charity." In America, charities are institutions, and you get a tax exemption for your donations to them. You don't get that for donating money directly to the people who need it!
 
Back
Top