Month: November 2004

Red State Widows’ Mites

Some years ago I was reading a book of interviews by ultra-liberal "journalist" Bill Moyers. One interview was with economist Peter Berger, who has studied the effects of capitalism on different countries around the world (and who is also a sociologist specializing in religion). Berger points out that capitalism tends to maximize the potential for freedom in given countries but will not of itself guarantee a free society. Much of Berger’s work has focused on the development of capitalist societies in Asia.

In the interview, Moyers showed his agenda by trying to get Berger to sign off on the idea that Asians are more spiritual, more generous, than Americans.

Berger would have none of it.

He argued that, by comparison to Americans, Asians on average tend to be more materialistic and less willing to donate to charitable causes. He stated that Americans give far more money (proportionate to our standard of living) than those in Asia, where charities simply cannot raise money the way American charities can.

I’m no expert in Asian economics, so I don’t know whether what Berger said is true (and, as always, I’m cautious about generalizations). Perhaps some of the Asian folks and Americans living in Asia can comment on whether they think Berger’s claim is accurate.

But if Asian charities can’t raise support the way American ones can (proportionate to the local standard of living) then the reasons might be several: For example, most Asians have suffered endless years of oppression by brutal governments,
which would incline anybody look out for their own interests. Also, Asia as a continent has not (yet) been Christianized, and thus the charitable imperative that is present in Christianity may not have taken root there the same way it has here.

The Christian imperative to give may play a role in giving here in America as well.

HERE’S AN ANALYSIS OF WHICH U.S. STATES ARE THE MOST CHARITABLE POPULATIONS.

Each state is given a "Having Rank" based on its average adjusted gross income per person and a "Giving Rank" based on the average itemized amount of charitable donations per person. These figures are related to each other ("Rank Relation") by subtracting the "Giving Rank" from the "Having Rank." The resulting "Rank Relations" for each of the 50 states are then compared to each other to determine the state’s overall place in the Generosity Index.

For example, the least-generous state is New Hampshire. It has a "Having Rank" of 9 (the 9th most income-rich state), but its "Giving Rank" is 48 (meaning 47 states give more money on average per person than New Hampshire). This means its "Rank Relation" is -39 (9 – 48 = -39), which is the worst ranking in the nation.

By contrast, the most generous state is Mississippi. Its "Having Rank" is 50 (making it the least income-rich state), but its "Giving Rank" is 5 (only 4 states give more money on average per person than Mississippi). This means that its "Rank Relation" is 45 (50 – 5 = 45), which is the highest ranking in the nation.

When you examine the full list of states, a pattern emerges: The most generous states are all red.

In fact, you don’t hit a blue state until you reach the 26th item on the list (New York). All of the blue states are thus in the lower half of the generosity index.

Why this is is an interesting question. It may be due in part to the fact that there are more red states than blue states. But not one blue state in the top half of the list? There were 18 blue states and not one of them is in the top 25 for generosity? All 18 blue states are in the bottom 25 states in terms of charitable giving? There’s more going on here than just the predominance of red states.

An obvious possible factor is the higher percentage of practicing Christians in such states (this is something that should be checkable via some number-crunching).

I also wonder whether another factor may also be in play: Many of the blue states (such as where I live: California, number 29 on the list) have more social welfare programs in place via the government. Many have conjectured that creating government-mandated benevolence will depress personal benevolent giving (and thus rob individuals of the chance to exercise the virtue of charity).

It would be interesting to see some number-crunching on whether that is the case.

As it is, the "Have Not" states are the most generous givers.

This brings to mind the story of the Widow’s Mite (Mark 12:41-44)–and the fact that "God loves a cheerful giver" (2 Cor. 9:7).

John McWhorter Is A Linguist . . .

. . . and I enjoy reading his stuff. Have several of his books on my shelves.

He also does a little politics, and from what I have seen his politics are far more sane than another linguist-turned-political-commentator (Noam Chomsky).

IN THIS ARTICLE MCWHORTER ARGUES WHY AFRICAN-AMERICANS NEED TO BECOME A SWING VOTE.

He’s right. At present African-Americans vote so solidly for one party that neither party is incentivized to go out of its way to foster their interests. The way to gain influence with parties is to make it clear to them that you will not support them if they don’t look out for your interests.

That’s one reason I’m happy that the Catholic vote can’t presently be taken for granted by either party. In the old days, Catholics voted solidly Democrat–and they got taken for granted. Now they are starting in a greater way to vote based on principle (e.g., support of life issues) than on partisan grounds. This means that both parties have a reason to take the principled Catholic voter seriously, as he represents a body that–like Evangelicals–can swing an election.

Republicans cannot take pro-lifers for granted either. Almost enough Evangelicals stayed home in 2000 to cost Bush the election. This time the GOP get-out-the-vote effort focused strongly on Evangelicals. The same clout will be wielded by pro-life Catholics in future elections if real progress (in the form of anti-Roe SCOTUS appointments) is not made in advancing the pro-life cause.

Catholics will have this clout as long as they vote–or withhold their votes–based on principle rather than on party.

Where The Wild Things Catholics Are

Since we’ve been looking at maps of the U.S. with different data on them, let’s look at where Catholics live.

Catholicstates

Click the map to enlarge.

SOURCE.

Incidentally, don’t forget that population density doesn’t tell you overall population. For example, my home state of Texas is less Catholic-dense than neighboring states Louisiana and New Mexico, but its population is so much larger that it has more total Catholics. Rhode Island, by contrast, is the most Catholic-dense state in the nation, but its population is so tiny that most states have more Catholics than it does.

Where The Wild Things Catholics Are

Since we’ve been looking at maps of the U.S. with different data on them, let’s look at where Catholics live.

Catholicstates

Click the map to enlarge.

SOURCE.

Incidentally, don’t forget that population density doesn’t tell you overall population. For example, my home state of Texas is less Catholic-dense than neighboring states Louisiana and New Mexico, but its population is so much larger that it has more total Catholics. Rhode Island, by contrast, is the most Catholic-dense state in the nation, but its population is so tiny that most states have more Catholics than it does.

Manners: A Virtue?

A reader writes:

Is it a virtue (minor as it may be) to have or possess "good manners", ie, decent table manners?

It seems to me that if one has never had the opportunity to have been "taught" good manners, then no one would expect such niceties.  (For instance, someone in a remote area that has not had any need or exposure to the Western idea of good table manners.)  but, on the other hand, if someone has grown up in a culture that has placed some value on nice table manners – and has been taught them as such, and if that person were a Christian, it might be considered part of his/her Christian duty to display these nice manners out of concern for others, (ie, by not grossing-them-out with unsightly table manners – or lack there of.)

This "concern for others" might be interpreted as part of the virtue of charity for others – not just thinking of oneself , and what is easiest or most comfortable for oneself, if others is not important to him/her.

The following thoughts occur to me:

1) Humans need to interact with each other in a smooth manner.

2) In many circumstances, manners and etiquette facilitate smooth interaction with humans.

3) Therefore, in many circumstances humans need manners and etiquette.

4) To faciliate human needs is an act of charity.

5) Therefore, in many circumstances manners and etiquette are a matter of charity.

6) Whatever is a matter of charity is a virtue.

7) Therefore, in many circumstances manners and etiquette are a matter of virtue.

This being said, several additional thoughts suggest themselves:

8) Manners and etiquette tend, by their nature, to be either largely or completely arbitrary. They are like driving on the right or the left side of the road. Neither is markedly better than the other in and of itself, but only due to common usage. Therefore, manners and etiquette should not be looked upon as sacrosanct. In some cultures, burping during a meal is considered rude, while in others it may be considered a sign of appreciation for the food one is eating.

9) The seriousness with which a particular set of manners should be taken depends on the circumstances. For example, it is of the utmost importance that proper protocol be observed when negotiating a peace treaty between nations, but far less significant when close friends or family members are interacting in a private setting. In the former setting, the consequences of a violation (e.g., loss of human life) are greater and the amount of tolerance that may be expected is lower. In the latter setting, the consequences are lower (e.g., loss of human life) is lesser and the amount of tolerance that may be expected is greater.

10) There is such a thing as placing too much weight on manners and etiquette. The whole point of manners and etiquette is that they facilitate certain human goods, but if the niceties of social interaction take precedence over these good or other equal goods then they are becoming counterproductive. Some individuals in particular may be sufficiently concerned with the proper observance of "the rules" that sight is lost of the goods that these rules are intended to foster. For example, it is considered rude to yell at a person, but if a child is about to do something highly dangerous, yelling is appropriate. Observing the "Don’t yell" rule in that case would endanger the child.

11) The relaxation of the rules in particular cases therefore itself cann be a matter of charity. It is not charitable to insist on the observation of standard etiquette rules (e.g., not yelling at a person) when a greater good is at stake (e.g., a child wandering into traffic).

12) We have a greater incentive to relax the rules with those closest to us, both because we have a greater duty to look after their interests (as with a child who may stray into traffic) or because we stand to benefit from them in a greater manner (as with spouses). Therefore, with those closest to us we generally both assume greater tolerance and show greater tolerance.

13) Simultaneously, since (as Aquinas points out) we have a greater duty of love toward those closest to us, we have a greater motive to observe the rules of manners and etiquette with regard to them.

There is thus something of a paradox in the calculus of charity: We should show greater charity for those closest to us, which leads to both a motive for greater observance of the rules and greater tolerance of their violation.

Oh, and one las thing:

14) Men, by nature, tend to be less concerned with manners than women. That’s not to say that they are unconcerned, just less concerned. Probably has something to do with the fact that men are physically and psychologically designed to provide the primary family defense functions.