Religious Children

[midcan5]

The religious will disagree but consider only the judgments made almost daily by the religious about others who do not share their view of life? Judge not lest .... sounds nice but since religions possess what they they believe is the word of god, all actions are possible. The golden rule is too often forgotten. Anyone see the movie, 'Frailty?' An unusual comment on belief.

'Religious belief appears to have negative influence on children’s altruism and judgments of others’ actions even as parents see them as ‘more empathetic.’"

"“Overall, our findings ... contradict the commonsense and popular assumption that children from religious households are more altruistic and kind towards others,” said the authors of The Negative Association Between Religiousness and Children’s Altruism Across the World, published this week in Current Biology."

Religious children are meaner than their secular counterparts, study finds

"Conservatives are more religious than liberals - although there is no evidence that they're nicer people because of it." Andy Rooney, 'Common Nonsense'

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Shrug.

For every study, there is another showing the opposite effect.

 

[Thunderbird]

Another study: Religious People Donate More to Church and Charity

 

[Mudda]

Not surprising since the bible is full of threats, hate, murder and bullying...

 

[guno]

Another study: Religious People Donate More to Church and Charity

yes they donate to their church to help their own church and not always to help peoiple



Are Conservatives Really More Charitable? Or Just More Religious?

conservatives are ignoring the obvious. Something to notice is in the mention of "tithing... to the church." All the survey did was take IRS data "showing the value of charitable deductions claimed by Americans taxpayers." What the IRS may mean by charitable, and what most people think of as charitable, may not be the same thing.

For instance, a local fundamentalist church may spend the bulk of its resources degrading and attacking other faiths, insulting gay people and leading crusades to strip people of their civil liberties. They may never feed the hungry, clothe the naked, or comfort the afflicted. Yet in IRS terms they are a charity no matter how uncharitable they may be.

The report states that the IRS "does not provide data about the specific charities people supported." In other words, there is no data about who is feeding the poor, as Donahue claims.

Since donations to religious groups, even uncharitable ones, count as "charitable giving," then it is no surprise that religious people give more to charity. Simply put, the study shows that non-religious people don't donate to religion. This is neither earth shattering nor particularly informative. Nor is it surprising that those states populated by sects that push their members to tithe report higher "charitable" giving.



When religious giving isn't counted, the geography of giving is very different. Some states in the Northeast would jump into the top 10 when secular gifts alone are counted. New York would vault from No. 18 to No. 2 in the rankings, and Pennsylvania would climb from No. 40 to No. 4.



They also noted:

A study by the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University found that the residents of New Hampshire -- which ranked dead last in both surveys by The Chronicle -- weren't stingy; they were simply nonbelievers.

"New Hampshire gives next to nothing to religious organizations," says Patrick Rooney, the center's leader, "but their secular giving is identical to the rest of country."



Are Conservatives Really More Charitable? Or Just More Religious?

 

[NoNukes]

The religious will disagree but consider only the judgments made almost daily by the religious about others who do not share their view of life? Judge not lest .... sounds nice but since religions possess what they they believe is the word of god, all actions are possible. The golden rule is too often forgotten. Anyone see the movie, 'Frailty?' An unusual comment on belief.

'Religious belief appears to have negative influence on children’s altruism and judgments of others’ actions even as parents see them as ‘more empathetic.’"

"“Overall, our findings ... contradict the commonsense and popular assumption that children from religious households are more altruistic and kind towards others,” said the authors of The Negative Association Between Religiousness and Children’s Altruism Across the World, published this week in Current Biology."

Religious children are meaner than their secular counterparts, study finds

"Conservatives are more religious than liberals - although there is no evidence that they're nicer people because of it." Andy Rooney, 'Common Nonsense'

I am an aethiest. We gave both of our children the choice of joining the church (catholic) and they took it. My 15 year old daughter belongs to the church but no longer believes In God. My 13 year old son is confirmed next year, but is skeptical about the existence of God. Children should be given the opportunity to decide such matters on their own.

 

[NoNukes]

Another study: Religious People Donate More to Church and Charity

yes they donate to their church to help their own church and not always to help peoiple



Are Conservatives Really More Charitable? Or Just More Religious?

conservatives are ignoring the obvious. Something to notice is in the mention of "tithing... to the church." All the survey did was take IRS data "showing the value of charitable deductions claimed by Americans taxpayers." What the IRS may mean by charitable, and what most people think of as charitable, may not be the same thing.

For instance, a local fundamentalist church may spend the bulk of its resources degrading and attacking other faiths, insulting gay people and leading crusades to strip people of their civil liberties. They may never feed the hungry, clothe the naked, or comfort the afflicted. Yet in IRS terms they are a charity no matter how uncharitable they may be.

The report states that the IRS "does not provide data about the specific charities people supported." In other words, there is no data about who is feeding the poor, as Donahue claims.

Since donations to religious groups, even uncharitable ones, count as "charitable giving," then it is no surprise that religious people give more to charity. Simply put, the study shows that non-religious people don't donate to religion. This is neither earth shattering nor particularly informative. Nor is it surprising that those states populated by sects that push their members to tithe report higher "charitable" giving.



When religious giving isn't counted, the geography of giving is very different. Some states in the Northeast would jump into the top 10 when secular gifts alone are counted. New York would vault from No. 18 to No. 2 in the rankings, and Pennsylvania would climb from No. 40 to No. 4.



They also noted:

A study by the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University found that the residents of New Hampshire -- which ranked dead last in both surveys by The Chronicle -- weren't stingy; they were simply nonbelievers.

"New Hampshire gives next to nothing to religious organizations," says Patrick Rooney, the center's leader, "but their secular giving is identical to the rest of country."



Are Conservatives Really More Charitable? Or Just More Religious?

Many people attempt to buy their way into Heaven.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Maybe the study proves that one group of children ate more pizza than the other group! Anything is possible.

 

[Thunderbird]

Another study: Religious People Donate More to Church and Charity

yes they donate to their church to help their own church and not always to help peoiple



Are Conservatives Really More Charitable? Or Just More Religious?

conservatives are ignoring the obvious. Something to notice is in the mention of "tithing... to the church."

Quote: About 75 percent of people who frequently attend religious services gave to congregations, and 60 percent gave to religious charities or nonreligious ones. By comparison, fewer than half of people who said they didn’t attend faith services regularly supported any charity, even a even secular one.

Link: Religious Americans Give More, New Study Finds

For instance, a local fundamentalist church may spend the bulk of its resources degrading and attacking other faiths, insulting gay people and leading crusades to strip people of their civil liberties.

And atheists may spend all their time spewing hatred at religious folk. Like you guno. lol

 

[Thunderbird]

Quote: One of the most significant differences between active-faith and no-faith Americans is the cultural disengagement and sense of independence exhibited by atheists and agnostics in many areas of life. They are less likely than active-faith Americans to be registered to vote (78% versus 89%), to volunteer to help a non-church-related non-profit (20% versus 30%), to describe themselves as "active in the community" (41% versus 68%), and to personally help or serve a homeless or poor person (41% versus 61%). They are also more likely to be registered to vote as an independent or with a non-mainstream political party.
One of the outcomes of this profile - and one of the least favorable points of comparison for atheist and agnostic adults - is the paltry amount of money they donate to charitable causes. The typical no-faith American donated just $200 in 2006, which is more than seven times less than the amount contributed by the prototypical active-faith adult ($1500). Even when church-based giving is subtracted from the equation, active-faith adults donated twice as many dollars last year as did atheists and agnostics. In fact, while just 7% of active-faith adults failed to contribute any personal funds in 2006, that compares with 22% among the no-faith adults.

Link: Atheists and Agnostics Take Aim at Christians - Barna Group

Quote: However, on the other side of the ledger, religious people are also "better neighbors" than their secular counterparts. No matter the civic activity, being more religious means being more involved. Take, for example, volunteer work. Compared with people who never attend worship services, those who attend weekly are more likely to volunteer in religious activities (no surprise there), but also for secular causes. The differences between religious and secular Americans can be dramatic. Forty percent of worship-attending Americans volunteer regularly to help the poor and elderly, compared with 15% of Americans who never attend services. Frequent-attenders are also more likely than the never-attenders to volunteer for school and youth programs (36% vs. 15%), a neighborhood or civic group (26% vs. 13%), and for health care (21% vs. 13%). The same is true for philanthropic giving; religious Americans give more money to secular causes than do secular Americans. And the list goes on, as it is true for good deeds such as helping someone find a job, donating blood, and spending time with someone who is feeling blue.

Link: Religious people are 'better neighbors' - USATODAY.com

Quote: Religious people are more likely to give to charity, and when they give, they give more money: four times as much. And Arthur Brooks told me that giving goes beyond their own religious organization:
"Actually, the truth is that they're giving to more than their churches," he says. "The religious Americans are more likely to give to every kind of cause and charity, including explicitly non-religious charities."

Link: Who Gives More -- The Rich or The Poor?

 

[Thunderbird]

Children should be given the opportunity to decide such matters on their own.

The problem is these sort of intolerant fanatics:

League of Militant Atheists - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The New Soviet League of Militant Godless | RCR

 

[NoNukes]

Children should be given the opportunity to decide such matters on their own.

The problem is these sort of intolerant fanatics:

League of Militant Atheists - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The New Soviet League of Militant Godless | RCR

No worse than people who try to push religion on children. I want my children to learn to form their own opinions.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Not surprising since the bible is full of threats, hate, murder and bullying...

Like the Washington Post?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

My 15 year old daughter belongs to the church but no longer believes In God.

So, what's the point? Why bother?

 

[Mudda]

Not surprising since the bible is full of threats, hate, murder and bullying...

Like the Washington Post?

So the WP is your bible?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Not surprising since the bible is full of threats, hate, murder and bullying...

Like the Washington Post?

So the WP is your bible?

Nope. Merely making relativity even more palatable for you.

 

[NoNukes]

My 15 year old daughter belongs to the church but no longer believes In God.

So, what's the point? Why bother?

She made the decision herself. That is the point.

 

[guno]

There is a value in teaching children about religion. You cannot really appreciate a lot of literature without knowing about religion. But children shouldn't be indoctrinated, children should be taught to question and think critically and when they attain the age of reason they can choose

"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen."

Hebrews 11:1



"After Jesus Christ we have no need of speculation, after the Gospels we have no need of research. When we come to believe, we have no desire to believe anything else; for we begin by believing that there is nothing else with which we have to believe.... My first principle is this. Christ laid down one definite system of truth which the world must believe without qualification."


"I believe because it is impossible."


Church Father Tertullian 155 – BCE. 240 CE

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

My 15 year old daughter belongs to the church but no longer believes In God.

So, what's the point? Why bother?

She made the decision herself. That is the point.

I suppose.

It's like me joining the Democratic Party. It would be my decision, but what would be the point?

 

[Mudda]

Not surprising since the bible is full of threats, hate, murder and bullying...

Like the Washington Post?

So the WP is your bible?

Nope. Merely making relativity even more palatable for you.

Can someone please translate this into English for us?