[Mr. Silverback]

Anybody surprised? not me.

There are links to further information at the source document.

If anyone wants on or off my Chuck Colson/BreakPoint Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.

[Mr. Silverback]

BreakPoint/Chuck Colson Ping!

If anyone wants on or off my Chuck Colson/BreakPoint Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.

[singfreedom]

I must say, I wasn't surprised either. Its rather like the lib Dim dummies repeating the mantra that the wealthy don't pay enough taxes even though the statistics are there for them to see. The "wealthy" in this country pay for 80+% of the government---in direct opposition to Dim diatribe!

I saw this author interviewed on FOX, perhaps by O'Reilly, and he had some very interesting things to say--including the "myth" regarding secular progressives and their supposed "charity".

[Shery]

No, not surprised, and looking at what the libs do give to...it's mainly Communist groups (still) and other groups that try to undermine society and Christian morals. Libs demand an all-out attack on morality because they feel that Christian views are the bane of society, only causing slavery to old ideas and preventing one from living life to the "fullest", which is being interpreted as being allowed to wallow in every type of sin they want without any guilt, retribution, or condemnation. They give their money to support the kind of lifestyle they want to force on everyone else.

[Uriah_lost]

My father taught me that as a child.
Not sure where he got it or if he reached the conclusion himself. He told me that Americans are generous by nature but that "our side" was generous with our own money and time while the "other side" was generous with everybody else's money and time.

[driftless2]

If Hollyweird limousine libs are so concerned about the "underprivileged" and the "poor and hungry", then they should be happy to open their multi-million dollar palaces to those unfortunates. Yes, that's right Babs, Susie, and the rest of the gang of bleeding-heart libs, stock your floors with food and other goodies, and open your doors to the people you profess to love. I'm sure that will happen in the near future. (smirk)

[AmericaUnited]

Secular liberals are extremely generous, just with everyone else's money.

[shrinkermd]

This is well written as are most of Colson's efforts. He could be a "born again" Russell Kirk in that he is 1,2,3 on message with both Kirk and most conservatives. I particularly like this terse but complete paragraph: "

"...This should be obvious when you think about it, because there are vastly different worldviews at work here. Christians are guided by revealed truth and the wisdom of the past—what’s often called the democracy of the dead. And we recognize original sin as the fundamental state of human nature, and so we are distrustful of big institutions. Moreover, Christians believe that they have a personal duty to help the poor, because the Bible commands it and because we understand that society’s problems are morally rooted and, thus, more likely to need moral solutions. So, we are involved in creating what Edmund Burke called the “little platoons” of society: organizations devoted to feeding the hungry, freeing slaves, and helping those in prison.

We do stand and are responsible to those who have gone before us and those who will follow. The essential Christian and conservative message.

[Trailerpark Badass]

“If you had asked me a few years ago to sum up the character of American conservatives,” he writes, “I would have said they were hard-headed pragmatists who were willing to throw your grandmother out into the snow to preserve some weird ideal of self-reliance.”

Someone this ignorant and provincial got a job as a professor for a major university? I wish I could say I am shocked.

[Dead Corpse]

Are conservatives and Christians becoming too narrow and selfish? Are we hypocritical skinflints, indifferent to the suffering of the needy?

Or are we just over regulated and taxed to the point where we can no longer afford to be as giving as we used to be?

[CharlesWayneCT]

The book is a good one, and everybody should read it. IT's not a "democrat-bashing" book, it simply analyses a lot of data and presents the results.

I'm about halfway through the book, and it's written well enough to not put you to sleep.

[CharlesWayneCT]

One good point the author makes using the data is that when government enters the charity business, it can cut private giving to the same causes by up to about 40%.


Once government is doing something, it discourages people from participating.

The book is great. It notes that eliminating giving to churches, church-going people give MORE MONEY to secular charity than non-church-going people. Also they volunteer more of their own time.

He has a great way of illustrating his points. At one point he notes that the churched conservatives give more blood than secular liberals, and to illustrate how much discusses how our blood supply would be if everybody gave as much as conservatives, or as little as liberals.

It's pretty hard to figure out any good reason why a liberal couldn't give as much blood as a conservative.

The book often discusses adjusting the data for all external factors, so it can give a number that is a comparison of just the factor being discussed. He is great at debunking the idea that republicans give more because they are rich, or only give to "charity" that benefits themselves, or only to churches.

The blood donation comparisons are only one of many examples of how the churched conservatives wipe the floor with secular liberals on all manner of giving.

BTW, churched liberals are almost as good at giving as churched conservatives, and BETTER than secular conservatives (which are still better than secular liberals).

In other words, being conservative does seem to make you give a little more than being a liberal, but being a church-goer is much more likely to indicate giving vs a non-churchgoer, regardless of political philosophy.

I do recommend the book.

[TruthConquers]

I was thinking this morning about health, (yes, I live in Kalifornia)and I was wondering, didn't churches used to have hospitals for the poor? Didn't government long time ago make it harder and harder for them to operate to where they aren't around anymore?

Would a return to charity hospitals get rid of this notion that the "uninsured" have to get insurance?