New Study Shows Democrats Are More Scrooge-like Than Republicans

Maybe all these rich socialists (like Stephen King and even Obama) are crying out for higher taxes because they feel guilty about how little they actually give to charity. A new study done by the Chronicle of Philanthropy gives pretty much unmistakable evidence that Democrats are selfish. The eight states with the highest rate of charitable giving (after all expenses were paid… including taxes) all supported John McCain in 2008. And, you guessed it, the bottom seven states for charitable giving all supported Obama. This should come as no surprise to anyone paying attention.

If you believe it’s the government’s job to take care of people, why would you give to charity…? So for all of their rhetoric about loving poor people and wanting to do good for the little guy, Democrats don’t actually care about other people enough to give their own money to help them. “Are there no workhouses? Are there no prisons? Are there no social service offices?”

But surely this research is inaccurate. Maybe a lot of Democrats are poor—they don’t have money to give to others because they need their money for their own families. Well, the researchers thought of that possibility. They took their numbers from IRS data for taxpayers who made $50,000/year and above. None of the people in this study were poor.

One of the major explanations given for the data was the fact that more people in red states are church-going. Which means they tend to pay tithes and believe it their duty to be charitable. And no doubt this is true. Atheists and agnostics may hate this fact… they like to talk about how people can have morals without God, but, when it comes down to it, non-religious people just don’t have as much incentive to help other people. So apparently they don’t.

I read an article a while back about an atheist who was suing Henderson County (Texas) for a public nativity scene he thought was offensive or something. He had to back down though because of health problems. When local Christians found out, they decided to raise money for his medical expenses because he didn’t have health insurance. I just can’t see an atheist organization doing the same if one of their opponents cut a protest short for health reasons. An atheist commenting on the events made some interesting points:

Atheists who were there for Greene [the atheist protestor] in his time of need were nowhere to be found.

I don’t know if a fundraiser would’ve been appropriate in this situation, but this is a serious issue that we don’t talk about (or act upon) very often: How should we respond when people in our community (online, local, whatever) need help? Are we going to be there for them emotionally? Do we take them into our homes if they need a place to go? Do we offer them financial support if they can’t pay their medical bills?

You can criticize . . . Christians for their faulty reasoning, but it doesn’t take away from the fact that they have answers to all of those questions: Yes. Yes. And Yes.

In their mind, that’s what it means to be a Christian.

Unless we find a way to replicate that sense of community without the need for supernatural nonsense, churches aren’t going to dwindle in number anytime soon.

And there you have it.

Christians and people who hold to traditional morality are are just being consistent with their beliefs when they are charitable. And non-Christians and leftists are just being consistent with their beliefs when they decide to play Scrooge McDuck. Doesn’t mean there aren’t both kinds on both sides. The question is: who is being more consistent, and, consequently, which perspective is of more actual benefit to the world?