[General Battuta]

http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/6577

It's a good effort, but it doesn't say what you want it to. Page through it and check out why he thinks religious people give more to charities than non-religious people. It doesn't support your implied argument that being religious makes you more charitable.

To actually demonstrate what you're trying to demonstrate, you need to run probit regressions on two groups of people that gather weekly to discuss social ills and community spirit and are then asked by a leader to give charitably. One group needs to be secular, the other religious (which religion doesn't matter.) Only then could you start getting some meaningful data, but it still wouldn't be as good as an experimental intervention.

Moreover, his finding that the actual religion doesn't matter seems to support the hypothesis that it's the congregational gathering that may promote charitable behavior, not any socially exogenous traits.

As he himself says, and as you should have read:

On the other hand, the connection between religiosity and generosity might be more earth-bound: It might be that religion simply has a strong pedagogical (endogenous) influence over giving and volunteering. Houses of worship might teach their congregants the religious duty to give, and about both the physical and spiritual needs of the poor. Simply put, people may be more likely to learn charity inside a church, synagogue, or mosque than outside. If charity is indeed a learned behavior, it may be that houses of worship are only one means (albeit an especially efficacious one) to teach it. Secularists interested in increasing charitable giving and volunteering among their ranks might spend some effort thinking of alternative ways to foster these habits.

So in summation, it could well be that constantly being told to care for your fellow humans makes you more charitable. (He also advances the hypothesis that secular individuals are more likely to support social intervention via government rather than via private charity.)

Learning to think critically about social science methodology is a long and Byzantine process, and the man who wrote this paper is good at it; he recognizes the limits of his own findings. Don't over interpret the abstract.

[Flipside]

Didn't get to the bottom of the paper there, yeah, he does cover some of my concerns later in the piece.

[General Battuta]

In short what I'm hypothesizing is that if a bunch of secular people went to sit together in a building every day and hear some lectures about community and helping people out (which is what my congregational church was like), and then they were asked to give to charity, they'd behave like religious folk.

My church had an offering plate every service to give to the poor, and I gave even though I was never a believa.

[Flipside]

Exactly, I find myself wondering whether the term 'give' really applies here, since give requires a totally self-produced decision, whereas there is a great deal of social pressure on church attendees to do so, so it's not so much giving as keeping up appearances.

Edit: Not that there aren't some very charitable and generous religious people, but doing it 'by the numbers' is probably not the best way of getting a feel of the situation.

[karajorma]

And I still don't believe this crap would be said if we were dealing with Christianity cause Christianity is a white religion. I find it very hard to believe Rodo or yourself would agree to a law discriminatory to you with a simple claim that you could leave the country if you didn't like it.

I'm not Christian, my mother is Jehova's wittiness and I was "forced" (not forced, but you know... she took me because she thought it was the best thing for me) to join her until I grew a brain (say... 12 years old) and realized religion was not the kind of thing that moves my will, so I left.
So far I've found all religions to be lacking something else, to get my interest drives back on line.

I never said you were a Christian. Guess what, whether you are or not has nothing to do with whether I am correct or not.

Your "If they don't like it, they can leave the country" comment is rather too close to the "If they don't like it, they can go back to their own country" espoused by Jean Marie Le Pen and his ilk. You would never hear that kind of comment about a similar law affecting Christianity because Christianity is a white religion and therefore the people affected by that law would be viewed as being ethnically French. But when it is Muslims, well we're dealing with people who are immigrants or descendants of immigrants so it's fine to say that they should get out if they don't like it.

It is in their rights, they can react as they see fit (its their right, it's my right), but for everything they do there's a possible reaction and a responsibility for the result of said action.

So my point is, the sensitive thing to do in this case (where the majority seems to be clearly taking a power stand and a no back down resolution) is to either abide or leave.
There's is a third option, but the look for the "win-win" here is almost nullified because of the majority's power stand.

Or you can challenge it.

I'm still of the opinion that you wouldn't roll over quite so quickly for something that affected you.

[Rodo]

I never said you were a Christian. Guess what, whether you are or not has nothing to do with whether I am correct or not.

Your "If they don't like it, they can leave the country" comment is rather too close to the "If they don't like it, they can go back to their own country" espoused by Jean Marie Le Pen and his ilk. You would never hear that kind of comment about a similar law affecting Christianity because Christianity is a white religion and therefore the people affected by that law would be viewed as being ethnically French. But when it is Muslims, well we're dealing with people who are immigrants or descendants of immigrants so it's fine to say that they should get out if they don't like it.

Ohhh I see, you are right, that's what I'm saying, but wait, it's not because I hate Muslims or something like that.
I'll expand my pov and the why to that way of thinking:


Quoting the article:

"Given the damage it produces on those rules which allow the life in community, ensure the dignity of the person and equality between sexes, this practice, even if it is voluntary, cannot be tolerated in any public place"

The marked part, don't give me that ****!
I know some stuff CAN be tolerated, some other stuff cannot, this one falls WELL in the first category.
Humans can tolerate inequality quite well, you and I can come across some poor homeless person in the street and keep on walking like nothing has happened and the world will keep on spinning just the same.

Also remember this?: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2435.2006.00362.x/abstract

Another thing:
You could think that the French gov is going to the rescue of some poor enslaved woman saving them from their mean husbands and/or religions, but I can't help but to think that this law is not about equality.

1) Woman living in France, I bet they can go to authorities and ask for some kind of help if they are being mistreated, right?... so, that's one less reason.
2) There's the case where woman use that willingly, so we'll just assume this law is not for them either. (although they'll have to pay some $$ now )
3) Ensuring the dignity of the woman??... well if they don't feel bad about using a burqa, why would French feel bad at all?
4) "Given the damage it produces on those rules which allow the life in community" ... well what can I say... so this law is more for everyone else to feel better than for the poor little woman using the burqas, is that?

I can't think of any more now, I bet you can find some good points on this law as well as I found bad ones, but.... I'll just explain why I think they should leave France:

I think that law is a message, I think they don't like Muslims living with them, and so they are putting this marvellously saving law to pressure some of them.
It's like... We will not kick you out, but BOY... your life will suck if you stay.

The article says a pool was made, majority of civilians backed this law!
And I bet the few that voted against it actually knew Muslims or where friends with one, and realised that this law was pointless and a nuisance to them.

So see, it's not me saying they should get out of France just because they are Muslims, it's them saying that, even if they don't say it out loud... they are saying it.

So I say, It would be "sensitive" of them to leave France now... just because they are Muslims.
This is just a personal opinion on the matter, I took the intel I've got and got a resolution, I can be completely wrong, and just for the record... no, I don't hate French people.

[karajorma]

So you're claiming that because the majority of the French are quite happy to pass a bigoted and possibly racist law, those affected should leave?

[iamzack]

Isn't the usual explanation for burqas the metaphor with the dogs and the uncovered plate of raw meat? What a stupid tradition. I have no sympathy. I hope they ban sunglasses indoors as well.

[Rodo]

From my pov that's the sensitive thing to do in this case, there's a certain tension in that matter that I just don't like.

From a perspective, this law is definitely bad for their way of life, but I guess they can go to court and ask for permition to use burqas, but until they get the permition (if that's even possible), what will they do?
Will women live locked inside just because they can't use burqas? (Ironical, for a law that's supposed to be for the best of the community)
Will they give up on their believes until that permit?

It's their call ultimately, I bet most will just go for the court option and/or abide, the others well... I don't know, might leave or just pay $$.

I'll drop it now, and oh I just forgot about this:

I'm still of the opinion that you wouldn't roll over quite so quickly for something that affected you.

Guilty as charged, don't you see that huge post I just wrote?

Ohh, sorry about the length btw.

I'll drop the subjet now If you don't mind, I have said just about everything I think about the matter by now.

[karajorma]

Isn't the usual explanation for burqas the metaphor with the dogs and the uncovered plate of raw meat? What a stupid tradition. I have no sympathy. I hope they ban sunglasses indoors as well.

I dislike the idea of women wearing them too but I feel that a law making them illegal is an invasion of civil liberties that shouldn't be tolerated. Especially when accompanied with calls that people should simply leave the country if they don't like the rule.

For the cost of passing this dumb law (and that of the first test case that will be brought as soon as they attempt to enforce it) they could have simply filmed a dozen pornos involving women in burkas and shown them in public. The resulting sexualisation of the burka would have completely undermined it's entire raison d'etre.

[Mongoose]

Ooh baby, your tent-covered body makes me soooooo hot.

[karajorma]

You only need to look at the amount of porn involving nuns to know that there's probably someone out there already jacking off to that.

You'd just need to mainstream it a little more.

[NGTM-1R]

Ooh baby, your tent-covered body makes me soooooo hot.

A little mystery can be powerfully attractive believe it or not.

[mxlm]

So now all ideas are disease and we must stamp them out?

With fire.

[Bobboau]

So now all ideas are disease and we must stamp them out?

that's a great idea!