Christmas is the season of giving. Many charities make their year end pitch during the Christmas season. Whether you respond to their pleas or not, may depend more on your politics and religious beliefs than your wallet.

New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof wrote an interesting piece on this subject last Sunday, Bleeding Heart Tightwads: (Emphasis mine)

This holiday season is a time to examine who’s been naughty and who’s been nice, but I’m unhappy with my findings. The problem is this: We liberals are personally stingy.

Liberals show tremendous compassion in pushing for generous government spending to help the neediest people at home and abroad. Yet when it comes to individual contributions to charitable causes, liberals are cheapskates.

We looked at this phenomena during the campaign in Obama doesn't spread his wealth around but wants you to and Democrat's donations key to why they think rich must pay more taxes?  Kristof's column supports what I believe to be true about generosity: Republicans give more than Democrats and people of faith give more than non-religious. The latter seems to be the more important criteria.

Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.

Other research has reached similar conclusions. The “generosity index” from the Catalogue for Philanthropy typically finds that red states are the most likely to give to nonprofits, while Northeastern states are least likely to do so.
... 

“When I started doing research on charity,” Mr. Brooks wrote, “I expected to find that political liberals — who, I believed, genuinely cared more about others than conservatives did — would turn out to be the most privately charitable people. So when my early findings led me to the opposite conclusion, I assumed I had made some sort of technical error. I re-ran analyses. I got new data. Nothing worked. In the end, I had no option but to change my views.”

This next statement leads me to believe the real litmus test on giving is religion. 

It’s true that religion is the essential reason conservatives give more, and religious liberals are as generous as religious conservatives. Among the stingiest of the stingy are secular conservatives.

According to Google’s figures, if donations to all religious organizations are excluded, liberals give slightly more to charity than conservatives do. But Mr. Brooks says that if measuring by the percentage of income given, conservatives are more generous than liberals even to secular causes.

...

Conservatives also appear to be more generous than liberals in nonfinancial ways. People in red states are considerably more likely to volunteer for good causes, and conservatives give blood more often. If liberals and moderates gave blood as often as conservatives, Mr. Brooks said, the American blood supply would increase by 45 percent.

Charitable donations are down this year because of the economy. I suspect the decrease is also because of higher spring/summer gasoline prices and higher home heating costs now.  Those increases put strains on the family budget and possibly gobbled up the extra dollars earmarked for donations.

But some people still believe it is more blessed to give than receive, and their generosity is not based on abundance. 

...given the economic pinch these days, charity isn’t on the top of anyone’s agenda. Yet the financial ability to contribute to charity, and the willingness to do so, are strikingly unrelated. Amazingly, the working poor, who have the least resources, somehow manage to be more generous as a percentage of income than the middle class.

God doesn't love us more for giving, nor are we to give just to get. But He does instruct us to give and promises that we cannot out give Him. Luke 6:38 says, "Give and it shall be given unto you: good measure, pressed down, and shaken together and running over..." In other words, He is not stingy!

 
Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

Obama wants you to spread your wealth around, but doesn't do it himself. His charitable donations are abysmal, amounting to less than 2% on average.

He wants you to contribute $845 billion to his Global Poverty Act, but he doesn't even help his own half-brother in Kenya. Guess he has no responsibility to half-brothers?

At the convention he summed up the ability to prosper in America, "Born into poverty? Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps, even if you don't have boots. You are on your own." He then contrasted that cynical view with his ideals: (My emphasis)

Our government should work for us, not against us.  It should help us, not hurt us.  It should ensure opportunity not just for those with the most money and influence, but for every American who's willing to work.

That's the promise of America - the idea that we are responsible for ourselves, but that we also rise or fall as one nation; the fundamental belief that I am my brother's keeper; I am my sister's keeper.

That's the promise we need to keep.  That's the change we need right now.  So let me spell out exactly what that change would mean if I am President.

Obama repeated his "I am my brother's keeper; I am my sister's keeper" clip in last night's infomercial.

Well, Obama isn't president yet, but we can see how much he believes in his own words: His own Aunt Zeituni lives in a rundown tenement in Boston. Guess being your sister's keeper doesn't apply to aunties either.

Last night Obama also appeared on Jon Sewart's show. He tried to diffuse the Socialist label by quipping,

"That whole socialism argument, that doesn't fly too well,'' Obama said. "The evidence of this seems pretty thin. I said today that I think they found proof that when I was in kindergarten I shared some toys with my friends and that's clearly a sign of subversive activity. 

But there is a big difference between sharing, which is voluntary, and being coerced to share, which is involuntary. Plus, sharing toys in kindergarten doesn't even count. The toys in kindergarten were not personally owned by Obama; they belonged to the school system

When we share our own assets, that is charity. When we share our own assets with friends, that is called friendship. When we are coerced to share our bounty through taxation--to spread the wealth around--that is called socialism! 

Obama summed it up best himself when he was asked about the greatest moral failure in his life and of America at the Saddleback Forum: (My emphasis)

...And what I traced this to [his wild living] is a certain selfishness on my part. I was so obsessed with me and, you know, the reasons that I might be dissatisfied that I couldn't focus on other people. And I think the process for me of growing up was to recognize that it's not about me. It's about --

WARREN: I like that. I like that.

OBAMA: Absolutely. So -- but look, you know, when I -- when I find myself taking the wrong step, I think a lot of times it's because I'm trying to protect myself instead of trying to do god's work.

WARREN: Yeah, fundamental selfishness.

OBAMA: So that, I think, is my own failure.

WARREN: What about America?

OBAMA:: I think America's greatest moral failure in my lifetime has been that we still don't abide by that basic precept in Matthew that whatever you do for the least of my brothers, you do for me, and that notion of -- that basic principle applies to poverty... There's a pervasive sense, I think, that this country, as wealthy and powerful as we are, still don't spend enough time thinking about "the least of these."

Obama's selfishness and socialism is showing. If he does not do for the least of these in his own family, what makes you think he will do for you?

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

Open Doors is a non-profit organization dedicated to supporting the persecuted Christian church around the world. It was the result of a one man crusade, that began in 1955, to support the local persecuted church in Iron Curtain countries. That man was Dutch Christian, Andrew van der Bijl, better known as Brother Andrew.

Brother Andrew turned 80 this summer (pictured left), and he is still going strong.

Today, his Open Doors organization works worldwide to supply Bibles to countries closed to Christianity and help oppressed Christians there. This particular Muslim challenge involves sending Bibles to Christians in Islamic countries:

Open Doors has been offered a $100,000 Challenge Grant to provide Bibles to Muslim converts.

...There is an amazing miracle that is taking place in Muslim countries like Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Muslims… even some radical Muslims… are coming to know Christ as their Savior!

These new believers often risk everything when they turn from Islam to follow Christ.  And the one thing they pray and plead for most… to give them the courage to stand strong… is a copy of the Bible!

Today, you can be an answer to their prayers when you send them the precious gift of God’s Word.(Donate link)

I first learned about Brother Andrew through homeschooling. One of the most enjoyable things my son and I did during our homeschool years was to start our day by reading missionary biographies aloud.

They all were good, but God's Smuggler was one of the more memorable ones.

Reading about Andrew's adventures in his blue VW bug not only made us appreciate our religious freedoms but also strengthened our faith. We saw how the God of the Bible, who closed the mouths of the lions for Daniel, was still miraculously intervening in lives today. Synopsis:  

As a boy, Brother Andrew dreamed of being an undercover spy working behind enemy lines. As a man be found himself working undercover for God. His was a mission filled with danger, financed by faith, supported by miracles. Told it was impossible to minister behind the Iron Curtain, Andrew knew that nothing was too hard for God. Crossing "closed" borders, he prayed, "Lord, in my luggage I have Scripture I want to take to Your children. When You were on earth, You made blind eyes see. Now, I pray, make seeing eyes blind. Do not let the guards see those things You do not want them to see."

And they never did. For 35 years, Brother Andrew's life story has inspired millions to step out on their own journeys of faith. This young Dutch factory worker's near-incredible adventures testify of God's step-by-step guidance and hour-by-hour provision -- available to all who follow His call. Far from being over, Brother Andrew's current adventures are his most challenging yet. In a new prologue and epilogue, the Sherrills [authors] carry his story into the new millennium with an account of Andrew's work in the "closed" societies of Islam.

Andrew continued to work, risking his personal safety to bring Bibles to people in oppressed countries. His personal mission brought him to China and Islamic countries too. You can read more about Brother Andrew van der Bijl's adventures and conversion on his website or read his books. (Truth sometimes is more amazing than fiction!)

Today, other people* are risking their lives to bring Bibles to Muslim converts, and converts still risk all for their beliefs. If you are a person of faith, pray for those converts, Open Doors ministry, and help with the Muslim challenge financially if you can.

*I know of a family from Brookfield who left their very comfortable life here to become missionaries in the Middle East. Because of the risk to their safety, details are not available. 

Links: