I wonder what she thinks god does to punish those flamingos, salmon and other gay animals.

“Do athesists care less?” This was the title of a “From the Editors” article in the May 10th, 2010 edition of Maclean’s magazine, which you can now read online.

(The morning I wrote and published this, there was not yet a copy available to read online. However a copy did get published that afternoon, and so I have removed my own summary of its contents and linked to it directly.)

The Mammoth-sized Problem with the Article

In a nutshell, it is incredibly sloppy: inaccurate, and arguably quite biased.

Before I go into detail, let me include the caveats. Since we are not told specifically which editors are responsible for the article – and there is actually quite the list of executive, managing, associate, at large and assistant editors listed in the about column next to the article, whom very likely can’t all be involved – all I can do is correct and chastise “the editors” in general. In addition, I am not a journalist, just a private citizen, with my own biases and likely far less formal education than any of the editors of Maclean’s. But I can also read the survey results from Statistics Canada and reveal just what “the editors” left out of their little diatribe. I can even point you to where you can download and read them for yourself, in their entirety.

We are not given the name of the survey, but it is possible to search the Statistics Canada website and see if we can’t find the one the editors refer to. When you search their database for “charitable giving”, one of the results that turns up is “Caring Canadians, Involved Canadians: Highlights from the Canada Survey of Giving, Volunteering and Participating“. The details page for this survey says this was released in June 8, 2009 (the actual survey was conducted back in 2007). If you are interested, it is possible to actually purchase from Stats Can the actual results, but I am content with trusting and quoting from the free highlights document provided by this government agency.

I will now quote the relevant parts of the 94 page PDF document, with references, so you can check to see that I am not, like I charge Maclean’s article, taking anything out of context. While I will try to be as concise as possible – I think statistics can make just about anyone’s eyes glaze over – but at the same time avoid chopping out so much that the meaning is affected.

Just the Facts, Ma’am

Who gave money, and to what?

Almost 23 million Canadians – 84% of the population aged 15 and over – made a financial donation to a charitable or other nonprofit organization in the 12-month period covered by the 2007 CSGVP.

-Summary of main findings, Giving to charitable and nonprofit organizations, page 11

While the vast majority of Canadians make financial donations, a minority account for most of the dollars donated. The top 25% of donors (who contributed $364 or more annually) accounted for 82% of the total value of donations. The top 10% (who contributed $1,002 or more annually) accounted for 62% of the total value.

Those who give the most are more likely than others to be older, to have higher household incomes and more formal education, to be married or widowed, and to be religiously active. Although donors with higher household incomes tend to donate larger amounts in absolute terms, those with lower incomes give more when their donations are expressed as a percentage of total income.

-Summary of main findings, Giving to charitable and nonprofit organizations, page 11

The most frequently reported motivations for making donations were feeling compassion for those in need, wanting to help a cause in which the donor personally believes, and wanting to make a contribution to the community. Donors also give because they or someone they know has been personally affected by the cause of the organization or because of religious obligations or beliefs.

-Summary of main findings, Giving to charitable and nonprofit organizations, page 11 and 12

Although most Canadians make financial donations to charitable and nonprofit organizations, some give much more than others. These Canadians share a variety of personal and economic characteristics… While these characteristics are discussed independently of one another, it should be recognized that they are often related (e.g., income varies according to education level, age and sex). Generally, the likelihood of giving tends to increase with age… Giving also increases with income… Greater giving is also associated with higher levels of education… women are more likely than men to make donations (87% donated vs. 82% of men). On the other hand, men still make larger average gifts ($453 vs. $422 for women)… Married individuals or those in common-law relationships are more likely than others to donate (89% gave), but those who are widowed donated the most, with an average donation of $585. In comparison, only 75% of those who are single and have never been married donated and they gave an average of $227… Those with exclusively pre-school-aged children in the household are more likely to donate than those without children or with only school-aged children… Those who had no children in the household reported the largest average donations ($457) while those with only school-aged children in the house reported the smallest ($400).

-Charitable giving, Profile of Canadian donors, pages 19 and 20

Canada’s top donors – the 25% who donated at least $364 and accounted for 82% of all donated dollars – are an essential source of revenue for many charitable and nonprofit organizations. These donors tend to be older, to have higher household incomes, and to have more formal education… They also are more likely to be employed, widowed, and to attend religious services on a weekly basis. As noted earlier, many of these characteristics are interrelated.

Charitable giving, Top donors, page 22

Canadians who are religiously active are more likely than other Canadians to be donors and tend to give more when they donate. Much of the money that they donate goes to religious organizations; but, they also contribute significant amounts to non-religious organizations.

The CSGVP asked respondents how frequently they attended religious services or meetings, other than for special occasions like weddings, funerals, or baptisms. Just less than one in five Canadians (17%) reported that they attended religious services on at least a weekly basis. These weekly attendees are more likely than other Canadians to donate (Chart 1.9) and make larger annual donations… In 2007, 94% of weekly attendees donated, compared to 82% of those who either attended religious services less frequently or did not attend at all. They also gave an average of $1,038 annually, compared to $295 for those who did not attend religious services or meetings on a weekly basis.

-Charitable giving, The role of religion, page 25

How much money was given and to what?

For the purpose of the CSGVP, religious organizations are defined as congregations or groups of congregations. Religious inspired organizations that operate in other areas such as international development and relief, social services or health are not classified as religious organizations.

-Charitable giving, The organizations supported by Canadians, page 17, footnote 9

Canadians donated a total of $10 billion in 2007, which represents an increase of 12% in donations from the $8.9 billion reported in 2004. Religious organizations were the biggest beneficiaries, receiving 46% of all donated dollars followed by health organizations (15%) and social services organizations (10%).

-Summary of main findings, Giving to charitable and nonprofit organizations, page 11

Religious organizations do not receive as many donations as some other types of organizations, but they receive the largest amounts… In 2007, just over a third of Canadians (36%) made donations to religious organizations, with the average donation amounting to $469. In contrast, many more Canadians (56%) made donations to health organizations, but their average donation was $99. Additionally, 39% donated to social services organizations and their average donation was $87.

-Charitable giving, The organizations supported by Canadians, page 17

Giving to religious organizations stands out from other giving in a number of ways. First, religious organizations received by far the largest percentage of the total value of the donations Canadians made in 2007 (46%). Second, the patterns of donations to religious organizations differs from those of non-religious organizations. Lastly, donors to religious organizations differ from other donors in terms of their personal and economic characteristics.

-Charitable giving, Religious vs. non-religious donations, page 26

Finally, religious organizations received a large proportion of the total value of their donations from those who attend religious services on a weekly basis (74% vs. 26% from non-weekly attendees). In comparison non-religious organizations received quite a modest proportion of their donation from weekly attendees (20%), with the balance (80%) coming from non-weekly attendees.

-Charitable giving, Religious vs. non-religious donations, page 26

Who gave their time and why?

Almost 12.5 million Canadians or 46% of the population aged 15 and over, volunteered during the one-year period preceding the survey.

-Charitable giving, Volunteering through an organization, page 12

Although just under half of Canadians volunteer, a small minority of volunteers account for the bulk of volunteer hours. The top 25% of volunteers, who contributed 171 or more hours annually, accounted for over three-quarters (78%) of total volunteer hours. The top 10% (who contributed 421 hours or more) contributed 52% of total hours.

The highest rates of volunteering were found among young Canadians, those with higher levels of formal education and household income, those with school-aged children in the household, and the religiously active. Those who contribute the most hours have somewhat different characteristics. They are more likely to be seniors, to have higher levels of education, lower household incomes, no children in the household, and to be religiously active.

-Charitable giving, Volunteering through an organization, page 12

Generally speaking, the likelihood of volunteering decreases with age while the number of hours volunteered increases… In contrast, the likelihood of volunteering increases with household income, while the average hours volunteered generally decreases… Volunteering generally increases with educational attainment. Those with higher levels of formal education are more likely to volunteer than others and they contribute more hours when they volunteer… Turning to labour force status, those who were employed were most likely to volunteer (50%), while those who were not in the labour force (44%) or unemployed (38%) were less likely to volunteer. However, those who were unemployed or not in the labour force contributed more hours (205 and 190 average hours, respectively) than those who were employed (150)… The likelihood of volunteering is higher among those with school-aged children in the household than among others.

-Volunteering, A profile of Canadian volunteers, pages 40 and 41

Top volunteers – the 25% of volunteers who volunteered 171 hours or more annually and accounted for 78% of all volunteer hours – are a key resource for charitable and nonprofit organizations. These top volunteers can be distinguished from others by their religious activity, education, income and the presence of school-aged children in their household.

Those who report attending religious services at least once a week are much more likely than others to be top volunteers (23% were top volunteers vs. 9% of those who did not attend weekly) (Table 2.3). The likelihood of being a top volunteer also tends to increase with educational attainment and household income. For example, 17% of those with a university degree were top volunteers, as were 14% of those with annual household incomes of $100,000 or more. Top volunteers are also more likely to be found in households with only school-aged children present (14% of those from these households were top volunteers).

-Volunteering, Top volunteers, page 43

How much time was given and to what?

Canadians volunteered almost 2.1 billion hours in 2007 – the equivalent of close to 1.1 million full-time jobs. This represents a 4.2% increase in hours since 2004. There was, however, little change in the average number of hours volunteered (168 in 2004 vs. 166 in 2007). Most of the hours contributed went to sports and recreation, social services, education and research, and religious organizations.

-Charitable giving, Volunteering through an organization, page 12

The most frequent types of volunteer activities that Canadians reported were organizing or supervising events, fundraising, sitting on committees or boards and teaching, educating or mentoring.

-Charitable giving, Volunteering through an organization, page 12

Canadians are most likely to volunteer for four main types of organizations… More than one in ten volunteered for sports and recreation (11%) and social services organizations (11%), while 10% gave time to education and research and religious organizations.

-Volunteering, The organizations supported by Canadians, page 39

Volunteers contributed the largest average numbers of hours to religious (141 annually), sports and recreation (119), social services (114) and arts and culture organizations (107)…

-Volunteering, The organizations supported by Canadians, page 39

The frequency of attendance at religious services is linked to all forms of prosocial behaviour measured by the CSGVP, including volunteering. Those who attended religious services on a weekly basis were much more likely to volunteer than those who did not (66% vs. 43%)… Similarly, weekly attendees who volunteered tended to volunteer more time (232 hours vs. 142 hours)…

Weekly attendees accounted for 17% of Canadians but contributed 35% of total volunteer hours in 2007. They contributed 85% of total hours volunteered to religious organizations and 23% of hours volunteered to non-religious organizations.

-Volunteering, The role of religion, page 45

My Comments and Conclusion

Most Canadians give their time and/or money, and mostly for truly altruistic reasons. This is fantastic and certainly very inspiring.

There’s no disputing that top donors and volunteers – those who gave bigger dollar amounts or more hours – tended to be those that attend a religious service at least once a week (these are the “religious” the survey refers to, but note this says nothing about what these people actually believe). However, the top donors also tended to have higher incomes, be older, married or widowed, or have small children, and top volunteers tended to have higher incomes, be older, more education, and school-aged children. I don’t think it’s surprising that Maclean’s doesn’t suggest more of us should be having babies or widowed in order that giving is maintained, as that would be laughable to everyone, including believers.

The reality is that, as the Stats Can publication points out, many of these factors are inter-related. You’re more likely to have a higher income if you have had more education, and more likely to attend regular services if you have small children or are a senior citizen, though there are many people who are exceptions to these kind of trends. The survey also points out that while it tends to be the higher-income folks that give higher dollar amounts or volunteer more, lower-income folks tend to give more in terms of the percent of their income or more hours. The highlights document even points out that there are regional differences in how much people give.

More important, though, is where the money and time was invested. The survey made a distinction between giving to a congregation and giving to a charitable organization that happens to have a religious slant (the popular WorldVision charity would be one example). According to the survey, much of the money  and time the religious give is to their own congregations. In fact, religious congregations receive most of their money and hours from the religious (not surprising), and the kicker: most of the money and hours all the other charitable organizations (including religiously inclined ones) receive is from the non-religious.

It should be noted that the foundation “the editors” decided to pick on at the end of their article, implied as an example of how stingy non-believers are, is an American charity that has only just formed this year and many non-believers still opt to give to individual charities directly or don’t even know about its existence yet.

The question should never have been, “Do atheists care less?” and for several reasons, not least of which that “atheist” can describe people with a broad spectrum of perspective on compassion and generosity. There are some atheists that literally would go out of their way to not hurt even a vegetable, all the way to some who care only for themselves, just as there are agnostics, deists and theists in that same spectrum, with many people fitting somewhere in the middle.

It should never have been framed in the context given at the start of the article either, as if somehow having generous people among the religious somehow makes up for the stuff that’s not so good among their numbers, like pedophilia commited by people in positions of trust and sexism versus the right to wear what you want. While I would never argue that those two particular things are an inevitable cause of belief in god(s) or that they are unique to religion, both are real, serious problems to be dealt with.  (If non-believers get “uppity” and point a finger when believers have these things among them, it is because at the same time religion claims a monopoly on moral thinking and behavior, and often gives the circular reasoning that these outliers are just not “true” believers. Religion doesn’t always make saints out of sinners.)

“The editors” have fallen back on that last theist canard: that the collective consequences of abandoning belief in god(s) would be far worse than the side-effects of not believing, with no thought as to whether belief reflecting reality being important. I supposed it shouldn’t be surprising, then, that the actual statistics they refer to don’t actually say what they would lead us to believe, but it is disappointing.

We’re supposed to feel okay about this because he wants god to strike him down, not man. Apparently he has completely missed that whole concept that Jesus talked of, where what’s in your heart versus your actions is irrelevant – wrong is wrong.

What struck me, though was something else this fellow said (starting at 1:45 in the video),

…there are a lot of people that God hates and that we should hate, but see, I didn’t write that, it’s in the Bible.

Which is an implied admission that what he thinks and says is abhorrent, but it’s okay, because it’s really god that’s being the ass, and is commanding him to be. He’s just doing his job.