Originally posted by whodeyWhy doesn't the article contain the words "Hindu", "Muslim", "Islam", "Buddhist" or "Buddhism", for example?
Here is an interesting article.
http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/6577
It found that religious people are 25% more likely than secularists to donate money (91% to 66) and 23 points more likely to volunteer (67%-44). The data shows that practicing a religion is MORE important than actual religion itself in predicting charitable behavior.
Originally posted by mikelomWhodey made the claim that "However, we give to each other and the poor because of Christian influences" but the link he gave doesn't really back his assertion.
http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma5/buddhisteco.html
Economic understanding of Buddhism supported, FMF.
Originally posted by FMFIt's now up to Whodey to back up the Christian soleness, assuming he believes it's solely only Christians who give to and support the poor. The reasons of Buddhism, and its support, and its giving to the needy is explained clearly in the link I gave above. I guess we await the Christian dominance argument of giving, as 'the' supreme way, coming back? I don't know what to expect back. 🙂
Whodey made the claim that "However, we give to each other and the poor because of Christian influences" but the link he gave doesn't really back his assertion.
-m.
Originally posted by FMFThe article only mentions Jewish and Christian faiths. Presumably because this data was taken the US which has little Hindu influences. As far as Muslims, I'm not sure why the article does not mention them. As for Buddhists, I've never really seen any Buddhist outreaches in the US. Of course, perhaps someone could enlighten me otherwise. I"ve always thought of Buddhism as more of a philisophical practice and mental exercise than a religion.
Why doesn't the article contain the words "Hindu", "Muslim", "Islam", "Buddhist" or "Buddhism", for example?
By in large the article was making a point about the role of religion and giving. Those without a particular religion were much less likely to give to the poor. In addiiton, it appears only those who PRACTICE their religion were likely to give verses someone who does not go to church or practicing their faith in any substantive way.
Originally posted by whodeyYou made a claim about "Christian influences" but the link you gave doesn't really back that assertion. The article is interesting, but I just thought the thing you chose to extrapolate from it was a little bit misleading, that's all.
The article only mentions Jewish and Christian faiths. Presumably because this data was taken the US which has little Hindu influences. As far as Muslims, I'm not sure why the article does not mention them. As for Buddhists, I've never really seen any Buddhist outreaches in the US. Of course, perhaps someone could enlighten me otherwise. I"ve always thou ...[text shortened]... ve verses someone who does not go to church or practicing their faith in any substantive way.
Originally posted by mikelomIt might be wise to look for the goalposts in a slightly different place. 😵
I guess we await the Christian dominance argument of giving, as 'the' supreme way, coming back? I don't know what to expect back.
Off to bed here - 23:30 - happy Boxing Day to you and all!
Here is another interesting article that seems to communicate what I am trying to say.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://rightcoast.typepad.com/rightcoast/2007/10/charity-and-the.html
The New York Tmes ran a front page story recently about an elderly man who starved to death in Japan, having been denied help by the welfare bureaucracy. The man kept a diary as he died; heartbreaking to read. The Japanese welfare bureaucracy seems to have been notably heartless, and not only in this case. There are other, similar cases of starvation in the past year or two in Japan, according to the Times. There is this brief throwaway in the length Times story:
"With no religious tradition of charity, Japan has few soup kitchens or other places for the indigent. Those that exist -- run frequently by Christian missionaries from South Korea or Japan's tiny Christian population -- cater mostly to the homeless."
Say what you will about the "Abrahamic" religions -- Judaism, Christianity, and Islam -- can there be any doubt they have brough an ethic of charity inot a world that would otherwise be a crueler place?
The ancient, pagan world, for all its brilliance, was coldly cruel. The Hebrew Bible put enormous emphasis on charity, which was something radically new.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am having fun doing some research and welcome anyone who can offer examples of Buddhists or Hindue etc who offer various types of charity around the world.
Originally posted by whodeyBuddhism isn't hugely worldwide spread, like Christianity is. I gave you a reference point and link about Buddhist economics, charity and generosity. Buddhism is indeed a philosophy, as opposed to a doctrined religion, but that doesn't mean Buddhists don't serve to help others. One only has to look within the campus of Buddhism itself to see the care and generosity of what comes from within, certainly observing the recent floods and lack of initial governmental support. Buddhists kept each other alive in Thailand.
I am having fun doing some research and welcome anyone who can offer examples of Buddhists or Hindue etc who offer various types of charity around the world.
As for offering help around the world, Buddhism has little incoming revenue when compared to the Sunday collections of Christian worldwide domain, so would you expect to see the same parallel levels of worldwide support from Buddhists?
As for Hindu, I care to comment little - but those revenues are massive and, yet, kept within the doors of that dogmatic style of religion itself to serve its own purpose and strength.
-m.
Originally posted by FabianFnasI'm sure it is a language issue and not a gender issue.
A serious question:
Why is the Santa part of Santa Claus in feminine?
Why not just Saint Claus?
Is it because women generally are more generous than men?
Edit: Indeed, I just checked Wikipedia and got this:
"Pre-modern representations of the gift-giver from church history and folklore, notably St Nicholas and Sinterklaas, merged with the British character Father Christmas to create the character known to Britons and Americans as Santa Claus.
In the British colonies of North America and later the United States, British and Dutch versions of the gift-giver merged further. For example, in Washington Irving's History of New York (1809), Sinterklaas was Americanized into "Santa Claus" (a name first used in the American press in 1773) but lost his bishop’s apparel, and was at first pictured as a thick-bellied Dutch sailor with a pipe in a green winter coat. Irving’s book was a lampoon of the Dutch culture of New York, and much of this portrait is his joking invention."
Originally posted by SuzianneYeah, women like to spend and give away their husbands money or
I'm sure it is a language issue and not a gender issue.
[b]Edit: Indeed, I just checked Wikipedia and got this:
"Pre-modern representations of the gift-giver from church history and folklore, notably St Nicholas and Sinterklaas, merged with the British character Father Christmas to create the character known to Britons and Americans as Santa Claus poon of the Dutch culture of New York, and much of this portrait is his joking invention."[/b]
else they claim the husband's money is our money and the wife's
money is her money. Speaking from experience. 😏