National Generosity Index

[Dechristo]

tax-deductible

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Giving is virtuous, generous, and meaningful if there is no ulterior motive.

 

and that is more likely coming from the people of the poorer states on the list.

 

remember the widow's mite

 

it is far less meaningful for a millionaire to dump a few grand (chump-change for him) on some politically correct charity, or to support his local artists/the arts, then for the salt of the earth, middle class American to support his local church-sponsored soup kitchen, meals-on-wheels for aged shut-ins and the sick, etc.

[archenemy]

Untrue. All giving is meaningful. Quantifying it does not do anyone any good. It presupposes that you do, indeed, have that ulterior motive--to keep up with the Joneses in giving. Lame.

[Gary_Yngve]

Giving is virtuous, generous, and meaningful if there is no ulterior motive.

 

and that is more likely coming from the people of the poorer states on the list.

 

And what if those people are giving because they don't want to go to Hell? Sounds like an ulterior motive to me.

[Gary_Yngve]

ah, yes, giving is only virtuous, generous, and meaningful if the recipient of the donation is "secular".

 

Giving is virtuous, generous, and meaningful if there is no ulterior motive.

 

The point is that much giving, secular or religious, has an ulterior motive.

 

Patagonia donates to conservancy organizations so it can have a good image and folks will buy their products.

 

BillyBob volunteers for the soup kitchen so he can meet the hot chicks who are also volunteering.

 

Religion gets very touchy with this.

There are good ecumenical organizations that are charitable and don't do much preaching, e.g. Habitat for Humanity, but there are plenty of other organizations that aggressively proselytize under the guise of feeding the hungry.