incidentally, it's generally been thought to be true that offering incentives to donate actually DECREASES contributions over the long run which is why so few charities ever do it anymore.

Benefits outside of just "feeling good" seem to tend to crowd out charity.

So the "advertising" situation you speak of, actually would lower the charitable contribution rather then raise it. Someone who is donating a wing to a school to have it named after them will probably end up donating less money then someone similar who just wants to donate a wing to the school.

Why I tell you to bring data... is because every point you make is more or less refuted by the accepted data out there or there is nothing supporting it.

I would describe some government programs as acts of humanity.  I also think that for the extent of human civilization that government has been the main source of humanity, as the primary reason for government is to better the lives of those under it, or atleast for less altruistic governments, to better the lives of those who support it.  Most importantly, government decides how humans in a society interact with each other, and many acts considered humane have been made into law.

To answer your question, of course I believe that the US would be better than Zimbabwe. If I didn't think that my social and economic ideas were better than competing ideas, I wouldn't support them.

After reading this debate on charitable donations and volunteerism and how it relates to political ideology I can’t help but think that you all have this relationship completely backwards. There is a certain group of people who hold the personal value of charity in very high regard, and it is one of their defining characteristics; and from a very young age they tend to have been volunteering their time and donating their money to charities. Quite often the charities they choose to support are those that are designed to help the same people that many people who (supposedly) are liberals claim to exclusively care for; and this tends to give them first hand experience with the problems, and with how ineffective or detrimental government solutions are.

Consider someone who joined the Big-Brothers & Big Sisters club to be a mentor for a child. Now, the child they’re mentoring comes from a single parent family where the mother is on welfare and is a drug addict. While the combination of subsidized rent and financial support should be able to provide her and her child with a poor but adequate lifestyle while giving the mother the opportunity to train and find a decent job, with the exception of money for basic survival every dime is going to feeding the mother’s drug habit; and when that money isn’t enough she turns tricks, or uses her government-subsidized drug plan to scam prescription-narcotics to sell on the street, in order to get the money she needs. To what extent do you think that this person would think that welfare was a really good system?

Religion, Charity, and Taxes

Give generously to him and do so without a grudging heart; then because of this the Lord your God will bless you in all your work and in everything you put your hand to. There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land.

http://www.gotquestions.org/tithing-christian.html

Islam has therefore made charity, that is, zakat, obligatory and binding upon all those who embrace the faith.

http://www.alrisala.org/Articles/mailing_list/charity.html

Tax is a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tax

The consequence of taking financial support from the mother would further harm the child.  No one would argue that the current system is perfect, but the problem is that people can't think of anything better.  I, for one, would rather pay to keep that mother and her child in a house while supporting her selfish acts rather than to put the mother and child on the street, or I would argue for the removal of the child from the mother's care.  As a liberal, I also advocate birth control so that children aren't born into such a mess, whereas conservatives would argue against birth control, and some even forbiding its use.

I asked the same thing from someone else, and I'll ask it again.  Please provide me of an example where a private charity could do a better job than the government at bettering the lives of the mother and child you mentioned, and the millions and millions of others just like him.  You talk of government inefficiences, yet you praise something just as inefficient.

Abortion is not birth control, and I doubt that you could demonstrate any statistics that a significant enough percentage of people who identify as conservatives don't support birth control.

At the last food drive from my local food bank they included an information pamphlet and it basically said that any money donated to the food bank tended to produce 5 times the quantity of food as buying it in your store and donating the items. The reason for this is simple, the food bank gets food at (roughly) cost from manufacturers and entirely cuts out the middle men, the building they’re in has been donated, and the labour they use is free.

As for what charity would help the woman ... No one charity would help the woman, it would likely be a collection of a variety of charities that took care of her and her child; and it is very unlikely that they would continue to provide support if they found out that the help they were giving her was being so grossly misused. There are many charities that provide low cost (or free) housing for disadvantaged people, there are charities that can provide food and clothing, there are charities that help with school supplies, there are charities that help with drug rehab, and there are charities that help with medical care; and most of these charities would see increased support to the extent that they could easily replace government involvement if the government stopped meddling.

“Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver” 

It's in the actual link you posted.  If your going to bother to cite links to try and prove your point... you should bother to read your link...since your expecting other people to.

This reminds me of a shortwhile back when someone posted something to try and prove that America was much more restrictive in hiring workers and posted link who's source actually proved quite the opposite.

Actually... that was you too wasn't it?

Instead of being in a hurried frenzy to "try and be right!" you'd do much better to calmly research.

The Christian "order to give" is nothing more then a "If you can you should donate to charity what you are able."  Which is a general value everyone is taught... not a particularly christian one.

It is largely the same for Islam... you will find no bare minimium amount listed in the Qur'an

Sorry, but history shows that to be false. It's been shown time and time again, that the more power a government has, the less humain that country is to live in.

Also, you said to "better the livs of those under it". Let's say we have 10 people in a country, and 8 of them make 10K a year, and 2 make 100K a year. The government makes a law that says anyone making less then 15K a year will be subsidized the difference. The only way to come up with the 40K they would need to pay the 8 people, is to take it from the two people who make a lot of money.

This lowers 2 people of your country from 100K a year to 80K. How is that bettering there lives? Where is government to protect there rights? You just took 20% of there time and effort, and just took it away because you felt it was the right thing to do.

The right thing to do is for government to protect peoples liberties, all of the peoples and not just the ones you think you know what's best for, and then get out of the way and let real humanity step in. Where it's been tried, it's worked very well.

The US of 1776 had it's faults, and all of those were around human rights. We have fixed those faults, but along with those corrections, we have gone very wrong along the way, and the things that made us the envy of the world is gone. Now we are just a very rich example of what not to be.