Drawing Muhammad - DPChallenge Forums

09/10/2010 01:10:49 PM · #106

Originally posted by vawendy:

Originally posted by coryboehne:
Kind acts don't require religion.

Nope. They don't require them. However, most religions inspire them.

Some religions inspire good deeds some of the time. Others claim that good works are irrelevant, or worse, that the only thing important is the conversion or destruction of infidels. I'm not sure we can really say religion has more positive affects than negative ones (at least one study has shown the opposite). While any religious group can tout charitable aid programs as examples of their basic virtuosity, such programs are dwarfed by government aid, the Red Cross, United Way, Mayo Clinic, Goodwill, The Gates Foundation, USAid and others. Moreover, the charitable programs of organized religion often represent only a fraction of the resources devoted to grand cathedrals, government and public lobbying efforts, lawsuit settlements, indoctrination materials and even weapons. The good that religion is doing IS front page news, but tends to get drowned out by whole lot of bad, too.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

09/10/2010 01:35:10 PM · #107

Originally posted by idp:

As to whether religion is the divisive element, I think it often masks deeper political, cultural, economic and historic divisions.

Or in this case, just a nut. ;-)

AmirTaheri

Canon EOS-500D Rebel T1i

09/10/2010 01:42:02 PM · #108

just a technical point as i live in Iran (i'm not a Muslim Though):
Muslims have no problem with the followers of "Noah", "Abraham", "Moses" & "Jesus" as Islam recognizes their religion and book; they are not Kafir.
and FYI, any offense or insult or disrespect to these four religions along with Islam is somehow considered a crime; and i guess you're not even allowed to say what that priest said, about any of these religions in here.

Message edited by author 2010-09-10 13:48:35.

09/10/2010 02:04:19 PM · #109

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by vawendy:

Originally posted by coryboehne:
Kind acts don't require religion.

Nope. They don't require them. However, most religions inspire them.

Some religions inspire good deeds some of the time. Others claim that good works are irrelevant, or worse, that the only thing important is the conversion or destruction of infidels. I'm not sure we can really say religion has more positive affects than negative ones (at least one study has shown the opposite). While any religious group can tout charitable aid programs as examples of their basic virtuosity, such programs are dwarfed by government aid, the Red Cross, United Way, Mayo Clinic, Goodwill, The Gates Foundation, USAid and others. Moreover, the charitable programs of organized religion often represent only a fraction of the resources devoted to grand cathedrals, government and public lobbying efforts, lawsuit settlements, indoctrination materials and even weapons. The good that religion is doing IS front page news, but tends to get drowned out by whole lot of bad, too.

A part of this page:

Giving and volunteering, by the numbers

How do religious and secular people vary in their charitable behavior? To answer this, I turn to data collected expressly to explore patterns in American civic life. 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 â��civic behavior,â�� 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 â��religiousâ�� 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 â��secularâ�� 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 â��religious causesâ�� or â��non-religious charitiesâ�� 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).

It is possible, of course, that the charity differences between secular and religious people are due to these nonreligious socioeconomic differences. To investigate this possibility, I used a statistical procedure called probit regression to examine the role of religious practice in isolation from all other relevant demographic characteristics: political beliefs, income (and hence, indirectly, the tax incentives for giving), education level, gender, age, race, marital status, and area of residence. The data show that if two people â�� one religious and the other secular â�� are identical in every other way, the secular person is 23 percentage points less likely to give than the religious person and 26 points less likely to volunteer.

Note that neither political ideology nor income is responsible for much of the charitable differences between secular and religious people. For example, religious liberals are 19 points more likely than secular liberals to give to charity, while religious conservatives are 28 points more likely than secular conservatives to do so. In other words, religious conservatives (who give and volunteer at rates of 91 percent and 67 percent) appear to differ from secular liberals (who give and volunteer at rates of 72 percent and 52 percent) more due to religion than to politics. Similarly, giving differences do not disappear when income is neutralized. This should not be particularly surprising, however, because the sccbs data show practically no income differences between the groups. Furthermore, research on philanthropy has consistently shown that the poor tend to give more frequently â�� and a higher percentage of their incomes â�� than the middle class. For example, economist Charles Clotfelter and others have shown that the poor tend to give a proportion of their income to charity that is comparable to the giving proportion of the very wealthy â�� and nearly twice that of the middle class.2 (This seems to be true only for the working poor, however. Welfare support appears to depress giving substantially.3)

Charity differences between religious and secular people persist if we look at the actual amounts of donations and volunteering. Indeed, measures of the dollars given and occasions volunteered per year produce a yawning gap between the groups. The average annual giving among the religious is $2,210, whereas it is $642 among the secular. Similarly, religious people volunteer an average of 12 times per year, while secular people volunteer an average of 5.8 times. To put this into perspective, religious people are 33 percent of the population but make 52 percent of donations and 45 percent of times volunteered. Secular people are 26 percent of the population but contribute 13 percent of the dollars and 17 percent of the times volunteered.

These differences hardly change when we consider them in isolation from the other demographics, using a statistical technique called tobit regression. Religious practice by itself is associated with $1,388 more given per year than we would expect to see from a secular person (with the same political views, income, education, age, race, and other characteristics), as well as with 6.5 more occasions of volunteering.

Some people might object to my conflation here of religious and nonreligious charity. One might argue, for example, that religious charity is more likely to take place for non-altruistic reasons than is nonreligious giving and volunteering: Religious people might give because of social pressure, for personal gain (such as stashing away rewards in Heaven), or to finance the services that they themselves consume, such as sacramental activities. Therefore, disparities in charity might disappear when we only consider explicitly nonreligious giving and volunteering. The sccbs data do not support this hypothesis, however: Religious people are more generous than secular people with nonreligious causes as well as with religious ones. While 68 percent of the total population gives (and 51 percent volunteers) to nonreligious causes each year, religious people are 10 points more likely to give to these causes than secularists (71 percent to 61 percent) and 21 points more likely to volunteer (60 percent to 39 percent). For example, religious people are 7 points more likely than secularists to volunteer for neighborhood and civic groups, 20 points more likely to volunteer to help the poor or elderly, and 26 points more likely to volunteer for school or youth programs. It seems fair to say that religion engenders charity in general â�� including nonreligious charity.

One might also posit that informal giving (say, to family and friends) by secularists could offset charity to established causes by religious people. My own research, however, makes this look improbable. Using 1999 data on individuals from the Bureau of Labor Standards, I found that, for most people, formal and informal charity are not substitutes for each other. On the contrary, people who give formally are 21 percentage points more likely than those who do not to also give informally. That is, informal giving does not explain the underlying discrepancy; it compounds it.4

robs

Canon EOS R6 Mk II

09/10/2010 02:08:10 PM · #110

Originally posted by LoudDog:

Why would burning a koran be any more extreme the burning a bible?

I think the difference is that the physical koran is considered more like a relic then the bible generally is.

but either way... lock all the extremists on all sides in a room and leave the rest of us alone.....

Mike

Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Canon Mount

09/10/2010 02:21:27 PM · #111

My two cents... I'm all for the constitutional rights this guys has, but really, don't play with fire.

The people that he is instigating are masters at finding motivation to further their political cause, and this guy is playing right into their hands.

Cory

Canon EOS-1D Mark IV

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM

09/10/2010 03:48:01 PM · #112

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by vawendy:

Originally posted by coryboehne:
Kind acts don't require religion.

Nope. They don't require them. However, most religions inspire them.

Some religions inspire good deeds some of the time. Others claim that good works are irrelevant, or worse, that the only thing important is the conversion or destruction of infidels. I'm not sure we can really say religion has more positive affects than negative ones (at least one study has shown the opposite). While any religious group can tout charitable aid programs as examples of their basic virtuosity, such programs are dwarfed by government aid, the Red Cross, United Way, Mayo Clinic, Goodwill, The Gates Foundation, USAid and others. Moreover, the charitable programs of organized religion often represent only a fraction of the resources devoted to grand cathedrals, government and public lobbying efforts, lawsuit settlements, indoctrination materials and even weapons. The good that religion is doing IS front page news, but tends to get drowned out by whole lot of bad, too.

A part of this page:

Giving and volunteering, by the numbers

How do religious and secular people vary in their charitable behavior? To answer this, I turn to data collected expressly to explore patterns in American civic life. 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 â��civic behavior,â�� 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 â��religiousâ�� 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 â��secularâ�� 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 â��religious causesâ�� or â��non-religious charitiesâ�� 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).

It is possible, of course, that the charity differences between secular and religious people are due to these nonreligious socioeconomic differences. To investigate this possibility, I used a statistical procedure called probit regression to examine the role of religious practice in isolation from all other relevant demographic characteristics: political beliefs, income (and hence, indirectly, the tax incentives for giving), education level, gender, age, race, marital status, and area of residence. The data show that if two people â�� one religious and the other secular â�� are identical in every other way, the secular person is 23 percentage points less likely to give than the religious person and 26 points less likely to volunteer.

Note that neither political ideology nor income is responsible for much of the charitable differences between secular and religious people. For example, religious liberals are 19 points more likely than secular liberals to give to charity, while religious conservatives are 28 points more likely than secular conservatives to do so. In other words, religious conservatives (who give and volunteer at rates of 91 percent and 67 percent) appear to differ from secular liberals (who give and volunteer at rates of 72 percent and 52 percent) more due to religion than to politics. Similarly, giving differences do not disappear when income is neutralized. This should not be particularly surprising, however, because the sccbs data show practically no income differences between the groups. Furthermore, research on philanthropy has consistently shown that the poor tend to give more frequently â�� and a higher percentage of their incomes â�� than the middle class. For example, economist Charles Clotfelter and others have shown that the poor tend to give a proportion of their income to charity that is comparable to the giving proportion of the very wealthy â�� and nearly twice that of the middle class.2 (This seems to be true only for the working poor, however. Welfare support appears to depress giving substantially.3)

Charity differences between religious and secular people persist if we look at the actual amounts of donations and volunteering. Indeed, measures of the dollars given and occasions volunteered per year produce a yawning gap between the groups. The average annual giving among the religious is $2,210, whereas it is $642 among the secular. Similarly, religious people volunteer an average of 12 times per year, while secular people volunteer an average of 5.8 times. To put this into perspective, religious people are 33 percent of the population but make 52 percent of donations and 45 percent of times volunteered. Secular people are 26 percent of the population but contribute 13 percent of the dollars and 17 percent of the times volunteered.

These differences hardly change when we consider them in isolation from the other demographics, using a statistical technique called tobit regression. Religious practice by itself is associated with $1,388 more given per year than we would expect to see from a secular person (with the same political views, income, education, age, race, and other characteristics), as well as with 6.5 more occasions of volunteering.

Some people might object to my conflation here of religious and nonreligious charity. One might argue, for example, that religious charity is more likely to take place for non-altruistic reasons than is nonreligious giving and volunteering: Religious people might give because of social pressure, for personal gain (such as stashing away rewards in Heaven), or to finance the services that they themselves consume, such as sacramental activities. Therefore, disparities in charity might disappear when we only consider explicitly nonreligious giving and volunteering. The sccbs data do not support this hypothesis, however: Religious people are more generous than secular people with nonreligious causes as well as with religious ones. While 68 percent of the total population gives (and 51 percent volunteers) to nonreligious causes each year, religious people are 10 points more likely to give to these causes than secularists (71 percent to 61 percent) and 21 points more likely to volunteer (60 percent to 39 percent). For example, religious people are 7 points more likely than secularists to volunteer for neighborhood and civic groups, 20 points more likely to volunteer to help the poor or elderly, and 26 points more likely to volunteer for school or youth programs. It seems fair to say that religion engenders charity in general â�� including nonreligious charity.

One might also posit that informal giving (say, to family and friends) by secularists could offset charity to established causes by religious people. My own research, however, makes this look improbable. Using 1999 data on individuals from the Bureau of Labor Standards, I found that, for most people, formal and informal charity are not substitutes for each other. On the contrary, people who give formally are 21 percentage points more likely than those who do not to also give informally. That is, informal giving does not explain the underlying discrepancy; it compounds it.4

Speaking as a previous chapter president of the Phi Theta Kappa society (no religious affiliation, unlike the Kiwanis that I have also helped), I would suggest that perhaps those statistics are skewed due to the fact that it usually takes groups of people to do this type of work, and the large majority of groups are religious groups.... I think many groups of people are motivated to do this kind of work, it's part of our nature as humans.

I have volunteered many times for many causes, and I am active in many charitable organizations (I've even contributed to your MS cause, twice as a matter of a fact, (The first was genuine support for the cause, the second was due, funny enough, to religious objections to scientific research), and I think you've seen just how religious I am.

In short, I reject your claim. I believe the data is biased.

ETA: Biggest BS claim:"religious people are 33 percent of the population"... What sort of crap is that?

Message edited by author 2010-09-10 15:49:59.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

09/10/2010 04:18:48 PM · #113

It's well known we tend to reject data that doesn't conform to our worldview. I also am not saying that non-religious people don't donate their money and time. I appreciated your donations to the MDA. The study seems pretty robust and seemed to have an unbiased source. I'm afraid your experience, which is known as anecdotal evidence is the weakest form of data and isn't likely to overturn more robust data.

It's possible your hypothesis is correct that groups are needed to encourage donations. The study didn't refute that at all because it didn't look at it, but that hypothesis does not counter the hypothesis that religious people donate more time and money than secular people, it would only hope to explain it.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

09/10/2010 04:36:36 PM · #114

Originally posted by coryboehne:

Biggest BS claim:"religious people are 33 percent of the population"... What sort of crap is that?

Pay attention, Cory; the study didn't say that.

Originally posted by giving and volunteering:

From these data, I have constructed two measures of religious participation. First, the group I refer to as â��religiousâ�� 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 â��secularâ�� 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).

33% of the sample is not 33% of the population, and he never even implied it was. Indeed, one may presume that the researchers went out of their way to be sure that there was a sufficient number of "religious" (by their definition) people in the study to make the results meaningful as a measure of trends among the "religious".

R.

Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM

09/10/2010 04:38:52 PM · #115

33% seems within the range of other studies. You aren't going to get very far in these conversations if you can't back up what you say...

Gallup International indicates that 41%[66] of American citizens report they regularly attend religious services, compared to 15% of French citizens, 10% of UK citizens,[67] and 7.5% of Australian citizens.[68]

However, these numbers are open to dispute. ReligiousTolerance.org states:

"Church attendance data in the U.S. has been checked against actual values using two different techniques. The true figures show that only about 21% of Americans and 10% of Canadians actually go to church one or more times a week. Many Americans and Canadians tell pollsters that they have gone to church even though they have not. Whether this happens in other countries, with different cultures, is difficult to predict."[66]
In, a 2006 online Harris Poll of 2,010 U.S. adults (18 and older) found that only 26% of those surveyed attended religious services "every week or more often", 9% went "once or twice a month", 21% went "a few times a year", 3% went "once a year", 22% went "less than once a year", and 18% never attend religious services. An identical survey by Harris in 2003 found that only 26% of those surveyed attended religious services "every week or more often", 11% went "once or twice a month" 19% went "a few times a year", 4% went "once a year", 16% went "less than once a year", and 25% never attend religious services.

This isn't the part where you say, "but I hardly know anybody that goes to church"...

Message edited by author 2010-09-10 16:44:23.

SteveJ

Canon EOS-7D

09/10/2010 05:14:02 PM · #116

I see in the BBC news that this US religious muppet may have changed his mind and now intends to go ahead with the burning of the Koran. I think the boys need to pay him a visit with their baseball bats. In a country that occupies many Islamic countries in the name of peace and democracy, and has suffered one of the worst events in recent time, the 9/11 attack, people are still prepared to let this nutter go ahead.

Knowing just how votatile these groups are, needing no excuse to wage their holy war on infidels, provoking them will just aid their cause. It isn't a case of fear of what will happen, we have already seen this with 9/11 in the US and the 7/7 bombings in the UK. One mans actions could bring further attacks in Europe and the US.

Why, when you see a swarm of bees would you want to poke it with a stick?? Same applies here.

rooum

09/10/2010 05:40:09 PM · #117

Originally posted by JH:

'Them' in this context referring to muslim extremists/radicals or whatever term is in vogue. Although my suggestion was in jest, the sad truth is that if there had been a mosque on the top floor of WTC1, 9/11 would never have happened.

I don't think that's true really. The twin towers had Muslim prayer roomswhich surely the terrorists would have known about. Ok, it's not a mosque but neither is the proposed 'Ground Zero Mosque'.

Mike

Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Canon Mount

09/10/2010 06:14:38 PM · #118

Originally posted by SteveJ:

you have to remember that in this country almost all people truly value their free speech and freedom of expression. No matter how sick or twisted or unpopular or immoral, those rights are sacred. This country is founded on those principles and I think its a testament to the world that this country's leaders can't do a damn thing to stop this guy.

unfortunately most of the middle doesn't understand American freedom and culture and many see it as a political act of the nation.

There are two very strong cultures and standards at play here and its intriguing to see how it plays out, but i fear its not going to end pretty.

Abra

09/10/2010 06:51:20 PM · #119

You speak very well

DrAchoo and quote what seems convincing (though to me irrelevant) statistics. I could probably try and quote from Richard Dawkins or Dan Barker but I will just speak from a personal perspective on charity. I have regularly donated to various charities for various reasons such as for cancer research after been affective by the loss of close friends and family, and for no other reason but the desire to help those less fortunate. For example we purchased of a cow for a village in Burma in lieu of Christmas presents. Family & friends received cards explaining the donation (strangly enough it was the more religious recipiants that expressed dissappointment in not receiving a personal gift). Now, as you probably can tell my immediate family and I are atheists. Most of my siblings are quite religious and when I asked one why they donate money on a weekly basis through the church, one of the reasons he said was to help him get into heaven. I guess some religious people's reason for regularly donating to charities may not be for the greater good but for some personal insurance to be less afraid of death.

I know Doc that thish is probably not true for all religious people's charitable nature but I felt the need to share my own observations in defence on this comment you're making on those of us that harbour no faith but are also not completely self centered. Statistics, in my opinoin, can reveal much but not necessarily explain the whole story.

Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G OSS

09/10/2010 07:09:23 PM · #120

Abra, please hear me when I reaffirm that I am not saying that non-religious people are not charitable. The study also is only relevant in the United States and may be completely irrelelvant to your home country.

If it is worth anything to you, I do not donate my time and money "to go to heaven". One has nothing to do with the other.

Message edited by author 2010-09-10 19:12:49.

vawendy

Sony Alpha 1

09/10/2010 07:09:26 PM · #121

Originally posted by Abra:

You speak very well DrAchoo and quote what seems convincing (though to me irrelevant) statistics. I could probably try and quote from Richard Dawkins or Dan Barker but I will just speak from a personal perspective on charity. I have regularly donated to various charities for various reasons such as for cancer research after been affective by the loss of close friends and family, and for no other reason but the desire to help those less fortunate. For example we purchased of a cow for a village in Burma in lieu of Christmas presents. Family & friends received cards explaining the donation (strangly enough it was the more religious recipiants that expressed dissappointment in not receiving a personal gift). Now, as you probably can tell my immediate family and I are atheists. Most of my siblings are quite religious and when I asked one why they donate money on a weekly basis through the church, one of the reasons he said was to help him get into heaven. I guess some religious people's reason for regularly donating to charities may not be for the greater good but for some personal insurance to be less afraid of death.

I know Doc that thish is probably not true for all religious people's charitable nature but I felt the need to share my own observations in defence on this comment you're making on those of us that harbour no faith but are also not completely self centered. Statistics, in my opinoin, can reveal much but not necessarily explain the whole story.

That's so very sad. In my religion, we're taught that it's by grace that we're saved -- not by the works that we do. We can't buy our way into heaven. We also don't do good works to earn our way into heaven. We give money and do good things because we want to help out, not because we have to.

yanko

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

09/10/2010 07:14:55 PM · #122

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I should hope not. I give to charity all the time and to several DPCers including you good doctor...

Abra