Who Really Cares?

I have just finished reading an annoying book. I finished it because it was interesting as well as annoying so let me tell you about the interesting part. The book is entitled Who Really Cares by Arthur C Brooks. Brooks' topic is charitable giving in the United States, "who gives, who doesn't, and why it matters". The interesting nugget of information is that religious people give much more to charity and volunteer much more of their time than non-religious or secular people. Is that actually interesting? Maybe religious people simply give to religious institutions and secularists, by definition, do not. Apparently, there is more to it than that. Quoting Brooks, "If a religious person and a secular person were equally generous --- but the former gave to the church and the latter to the Red Cross --- we should see no difference in total giving…but the giving differences between the groups is undeniable." This could still be pretty dull stuff. If I give $100 to the Red Cross and my unaffiliated neighbor gives the same $100, I might come out as more charitable because I pay dues to the Temple and he pays non-deductible dues to the health club. Is the difference between religious and secular giving explained by the fact that religious people support their religious institutions? Again, apparently not: If you remove all religious donations from consideration, religious people still give more than non-religious. The effect is no longer huge but it is real in Brooks' data. The religious group was 10% more likely to give to secular charity than the non-religious.

"Religion", says Brooks, "dwarfs all other possible difference … in predicting charity." That, I would say, is interesting. He goes on to argue that "charity makes you healthy, happy, and rich". He tries to prove that this is the direction that the causation runs rather than the alternative that being healthy, happy, and rich might make you more charitable. I was convinced but the expansive claims for the effects of charity on the giver were not the annoying part of the book.  What makes the book annoying is that Brooks could have written an interesting book theorizing about the role of religion in fostering charity. Instead, he observes that most of the religious folks in the US are conservative politically, abandons discussion of the primacy of religion, and substitutes an increasingly strident argument about the evils of the liberal. Brooks thinks that conservatives have been unfairly tagged as stingy and mean-spirited because they don't support liberal public policy positions. For example, Brooks is much happier with private charity than with public efforts at income redistribution as a methodology for dealing with poverty. He finds that government support demeans the recipient. He doesn't say much about the effects of private charity on the same recipient. In a somewhat more interesting vein, he suggests that liberals substitute thinking charitable thoughts (e.g. let's support universal health care and the elimination of poverty) for charitable giving. This, he argues, might be acceptable if we enacted policies that did eliminate these woes but since we have not, liberals are simply substituting thought for action.

Well, I made to the end but I was annoyed because the right-wing ideology masks one of the best arguments for religion --- for liberal religion --- in a secular world. Religion can make you more charitable. We consider tikkun olam, repair of the world, to be part of our mission. We believe that tzedakah is part of what is expected of us as Jews. We want our children to believe this too and to act on that belief. For all its right-wing ideology, Brooks' book is encouraging because his data tell us that, for all the flaws and follies committed in its name, religion can work. Of course you can be a charitable secularist and, of course, religion can make you into a suicide terrorist. However, on average, in the US at least, you are more likely to give from within than from without the religious fold. This is true of religious liberals as well as the conservatives. The pity is that religious liberals are comparatively scarce.

Why does it work? I have no use for Brooks' version of the usual culture wars. I think the explanation is much simpler. Sure you can be a charitable secularist but you are more likely to remember if you continuously reminded not to oppress the stranger because you were strangers in the land of Egypt. Your children might pick up the habit of tzedakah from cues in the culture. It is more likely to happen if they encounter a tzedakah curriculum in religious school. Does our religion make us into better people? That seems like a rather arrogant claim. It might be true if we put more work into it. In the absence of that work, I doubt that we or our generous religious conservative brethren are any "better" than our secular neighbors.  Brooks' data shows us how Temple can remind people to live up to their goodness. That is as good an excuse for the continued existence of Temple Sinai as I can imagine.