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).
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)
I have very little doubt of it, even though I don’t have any hard data. First, I think that “government-mandated benevolence” depresses charitable giving because people think that the government will take care of others. Second, I think it depresses charitable giving because taxes tend to rise as government benevolence rises. So people have less money in their pockets to give to charity. Third, and possibly most disturbing, government benevolence tends to undermine the family structure as family members tend to depend on the government instead of their relatives. The relatives, in turn, think they don’t have to take care of their family members because the government is already doing it for them.
Many have conjectured that creating government-mandated benevolence will depress personal benevolent giving
Include me in this list.
Regarding taxes, folks should not confuse paying taxes to government with almsgiving to the poor. Folks should not confuse the actions of government with the actions God calls us to do. Maintaining a social safety net is a good and just thing for a society to do. However, the reduction of many social issues to political problems that only government programs can solve, has strained hope, misdirected faith, and corrupted love.
There’s no social safety net, medicare/medicaid, social security etc in Asia. We know that our riches can turn to dust in a matter of days.
If you’re poor and don’t have anything, you will most likely die.
This might explain the non-generousity-ness of Asian people.
If there’s social infrastucture and financial infrastructure like the west, maybe then Asian can be more charitable.
Sorry, let my name off that post.
Btw, it’s interesting that the Mormon rank 8th on the generousity ranking :).
I wonder how a cult like Mormon can be very sucessful than JW. Maybe because they reproduce more…. yeah that’s an interesting theory.
I wonder how a cult like Mormon can be very sucessful than JW. Maybe because they reproduce more…. yeah that’s an interesting theory.
On the whole I think the Jehovah’s Witnesses are a bit weirder than the Mormons (even though the former are monotheists and the latter are not). For example, Mormons, to the best of my knowledge, can receive blood transfusions and whatnot, celebrate religious and secular holidays, celebrate birthdays, etc. It’s much more difficult to be a JW and stay in the secular culture.
Plus the JWs teach that only 144,000 people will be saved. I think that’s a huge stumbling block to a potential convert. Of course Mormonism has its own stumbling blocks, but they tend to downplay them in favor of love-bombing.
One answer lies in the definition of charity. In the US it is very rare for extended family to live in the same home. In the far East, it is not uncommon for extended families to live in the same home. In the US, we look to public charities to provide for the needy. In most other parts of the world, families are looked to provide for their needy. Not to denigrate the Christian rivial hopes in this country, but a lot of the charity (tithing) is not for poor, but to pay the mortgage and salaries for churches of 50 to 250 people. The blue states are predominately Catholic (serving congregations in the 1000s) and lacking in substantial tithing. The red states are largely Protestant working their way to having a church on every corner and a minister for every person.
The red states are largely Protestant working their way to having a church on every corner and a minister for every person.
In their defense oftentimes the minister does not draw a salary.
Being a Korean-American Catholic, I’ve noticed that many people at my own Church are very generous, but my non-Christian Korean friends’ families tend to be much less generous with respect to giving to charitable causes.
Jimmy, the 2 reasons you gave seem to hit the nail right on the head. Because most of Asia hasn’t been Christianized, there seems to be less giving. Also, many Korean adults and Seniors went through the Korean war when they were younger. To this day, my grandmother and mother are VERY careful about not wasting even a tiny bit of food, because they had so little to eat when they went through that time. So many Koreans are still very concerned about their own immediate interests. I’m sure there are other reasons mentioned above; I think its a combination of all these factors.
dcs, my (admittedly sketchy) understanding of JW doctrine is that only 144,000 people will go to heaven, but the rest of the faithful JW’s will live forever in an earthly paradise.
Corrections welcome. 😉
Yes, the JWs believe that most will live in an earthly paradise. I knew a JW and that is where she thought she would be: she didn’t think she would be with God, but apparently thought that there was a worse place she could end up, as she rather “aspired” to the earthly paradise than expected it.
dcs,
My main point was that primary portion of charity in red states, the tithe, is predominately used to support existing operations. These can include the mortgage on the church, salaries for pastors (or housing and food allowances in poorer churches), materials for outreach, and other expenses largely for the benefit of that church. That is all considered “charity”. While there are Protestant groups that have set up food banks, homeless shelters, and free education institutions, this has traditionally been the Catholic Church’s work alone. Regrettably, many Catholic parishes are moving away from this due to a lack of funds. Positively, many Protestant churches are trying to refocus their efforts into this ministry.
Back when I was a cabbie, a man was mentioning to me how frustrated he was that there almost always was a collection for this or that building fund. He saw the role of the church as serving the poor. Being a soon-to-be-revert, I’ve seen both sides of this equation.
In the end, yes the tithe, like any work, is a decent measure of faith. My point is that we shouldn’t delude ourselves into thinking that we’ve made more progress in The Church than what we actually have.
Hi Jimmy,
As an NH resident, I’ve been thinking a lot lately about NH’s rank in generosity. Perhaps it’s because the annual appeal for the local area SHARE program is underway.
First, NH is often a “red state” – ala “Live Free or Die” but several factors drove it blue this past election. Not a solid blue, but enough to give The Johns our 4 electoral votes.
Second, I think one of the reasons NH is so miserly is a combination of what some consider Yankee thrift combined with the NH libertarianism streak. Some aspects of this can be good, but it can tend to take it’s toll on the generosity front. Our family is a rare exception to the area by trying to tithe every month. But certainly NH is far from the mindset of “we need another government program for this”.
Election day marked our family’s 10th anniversary of NH residency. I moved out here from the solidly red midwest. Among all the northeast states, NH seemed most akin to my more conservative upbringing. Most of my neighbors transplanted from Massachusetts so the Bostonian mindset is percolating north. 😉
—
Scott