Many may not like the conclusion of the article and my posting is not meant to imply or insult anyone of any political leaning.

SYRACUSE, N.Y. -- Syracuse University professor Arthur C. Brooks is about to become the darling of the religious right in America -- and it's making him nervous.

quote:

---

In the book, he cites extensive data analysis to demonstrate that values advocated by conservatives -- from church attendance and two-parent families to the Protestant work ethic and a distaste for government-funded social services -- make conservatives more generous than liberals.

---

When it comes to helping the needy, Brooks writes: "For too long, liberals have been claiming they are the most virtuous members of American society. Although they usually give less to charity, they have nevertheless lambasted conservatives for their callousness in the face of social injustice."
The book's basic findings are that conservatives who practice religion, live in traditional nuclear families and reject the notion that the government should engage in income redistribution are the most generous Americans, by any measure.

Conversely, secular liberals who believe fervently in government entitlement programs give far less to charity. They want everyone's tax dollars to support charitable causes and are reluctant to write checks to those causes, even when governments don't provide them with enough money.

"His main finding is quite startling, that the people who talk the most about caring actually fork over the least," he said. "But beyond this finding I thought his analysis was extremely good, especially for an economist. He thinks very well about the reason for this and reflects about politics and morals in a way most economists do their best to avoid."

The source

[ 18 November 2006: Message edited by: civicduty ]

Conservatives believe in keeping poor people poor and rich people rich so that they'll always be able to lord it over the poor and throw them a few pennies in order to make themselves feel good about themselves. If they can get their name on a building or two while they're doing it, or have a bit of publicity either in the media or among their contemporaries for doing it, and have their rich friends fawn over them and tell them how wonderfully generous they are for giving to the "deserving poor", so much the better.

Conservatives like to create conditions where charity is necessary so they can then congratulate themselves on how generous they are. This thread is a good example of that.

Just the rhetoric of the article is enough to disqualify it from any serious argument.

quote:

---

Conversely, secular liberals who believe fervently in government entitlement programs give far less to charity.

---

A comparison of Canadian versus US charitable giving may be found here (Warning the link is to a publication of the dreaded Fraser Inst.)

Canada's Generosity Gap

Religeon is a large factor in both the US & Canada - it would appear that people of faith give more of both their time and money than "secular" society.

"Individuals in the core tend to be older; in higher education, occupation,and income categories; and more religious than individuals in the noncore." Quoted from this study

The Civic Core in Canada

Also it appears that Canadians in fact volunteer less than than both their US & UK counterparts, this study also notes the role religeous affilliation plays in determining the amount of time allocated to volunteerism;

quote:

---

Frank Jones of the University of Ottawa, examining the 1997 data, found that "liberal Protestants" and "conservative Christians" had significantly higher rates of volunteering than Catholics. Those first two groups have significantly higher volunteer rates than Catholics for health, education, social service and environmental organizations, as well as religious organizations

---

[ 18 November 2006: Message edited by: Khimia ]

[ 18 November 2006: Message edited by: Khimia ]

quote:

---

Consider for example this one fundamental liberal/conservative dividing line, the question "Do you believe the government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality?" In a major 1996 survey, 33% of Americans gave the liberal answer, "yes"; 43% gave the conservative answer, "no."

Those who gave the conservative answer were more likely to give to charity than those who gave the liberal answer. And when they gave, they gave much more: an average of four times as much as liberal givers.

Correct for income, age and other variables, and you find that people who want government to fight inequality are 10 points less likely to give anything at all -- and when they did give, they gave US$263 per year less than a right-winger of exactly the same age earning exactly the same money.

A second survey, this one conducted in 2002, found that people who believe that "people should take care of themselves" accounted for 25% of the population -- but gave 31% of America's blood.

"To put this in perspective," Brooks says, "if the whole population gave blood like opponents of social spending do, the blood supply would increase by more than a quarter. But if everyone in the population gave like government-aid advocates, the supply would drop by about 30%."

---

Socialist countries like Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway and Cuba don't need charities.

As noted by John Stuart Mill in the 19th century, ~~the distribution of wealth in any society is a product of human choice and dependent on the laws and customs of a society and subject to change at any time.

The notion that we have earned our individual incomes tends to ignore the huge and often times unseen contribution made by others. The great labour-saving and inventions of convenience in history were made because of significant contributions to human knowledge before made it possible and so on. No man is an island, and Maggie couldn't have been more wrong - society does exist. And we can do without the likes of her.

[ 18 November 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]

You know it's not.

But when High Society buys themselves a night out with a $500 ticket to a see-and-be-seen Charity Gala party with meet-the-celebrity live entertainment and the finest of food, are they recognized for a $425.00 contribution complete with tax credit?

You know it.

I don't need to rely on the National Post to tell me whether my contributions to my community are valuable. In this, as with most everything else, their assumptions are simply wrong.

[ 22 November 2006: Message edited by: Lard Tunderin' Jeezus ]

I am sure you will find that a lot of conservatives support women's shelters and give to them financially as well. A church I attended took up a collection for one after a lady came in and made a presentation a year or two ago. Most members there have conservative leanings.

Shelters offer a lot of programs and counselling as well as shelter. My wife was abused as a child and made use of some of them recently. I support the local shelter financially, I offered my skills as a carpenter, but they have an older gentleman doing it already for them.

quote:

---

Religeon is a large factor in both the US & Canada - it would appear that people of faith give more of both their time and money than "secular" society.

---

They give time and money to their church, to that church's pet causes (like buying bibles for tsunami victims), and to proselytizing their message. The poor or helpless are props in their quest to curry favor with the spaghetti monster.

You have everything from the United Church that supports gay marriage to Evangelicals. A lot of churches/Christians are socially aware and do give to their communities in a lot of ways.

I'd also be curious to know which data the study is using when calculating which group donates more. Conservative support also includes the top 1% incomes bracket rather exclusively... For this study are they using bulk sums or percentage of income? Does a $1 million donation from a ceo making $120 million a year count more than a $1000 donation from someone making $25000 a year?

Think it also might be worth pointing out that alot of "Liberal" support comes from people who can't really donate while Conservative support includes people who can't spend money fast enough. Who is more generous, a person that donates 5 hours a week in time because they can't afford flat out cash donations or someone who pulls out a checkbook and writes a gigantic check totalling .01% of their income?

[ 22 November 2006: Message edited by: Noise ]

quote:

---

But the percentage of them who actually work in them, make their living in them (and not a wealthy one) is quite low compared to lefties, I would wager.

---

Complete thread drift...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Catchfire:
Not to mention the obvious difference between scraping out a living working mad hours for an environmental NGO or a social work firm and giving $500 a year to Greenpeace or Save the Children. Which one is charity? I think I know which one the National Post thinks is charity. And I think we disagree.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Noise:
Might be worthwhile looking into what the donations from Conservatives consist of... The Conservative ranks include a heavy number of church goers, and amazingly enough giving money to your church is considered donations ^^

---

Exactly Noise, churches would eat up a large portion of so called "charitable" donations, as well as philanthropy also is endowments to: schools, museums, buildings, and art galleries, etc. And they are not truly "charitable" donations.

quote:

---

Brooks has written a book that concludes religious conservatives donate far more money than secular liberals to all sorts of charitable activities, irrespective of income.

---

Typically the author of this "research" an economist ignores the most obvious. i.e.

People who go to church give money to churces. There is pretty much an expectation that church attendance requires donations of money and time. I believe some denominations even have formulas or tithes listing the expected percent of income a person should donate. It is almost like a membership fee to a club. Also donating at church is also motivated more on social expectation and pressure than on compassion. Giving money to the church provides status in the community.

There is also the question how this donated money is used. In fundamental churchs how much goes to the monstrous ampathetres they build and televised ministries and all the high tech. show that goes along. If all the money is going back into the church how does that actually impact a person in social or economic need.

Even when there is giving to those in social or economic need it is generally done in an oppressive framework where there is an expectation that the receiver be eternally grateful for the goodworks done for them. It is even worse with some denominations doing work in the global south which is a continuation of colonization where people are indoctrinated in return for being fed gruel. Often these ministry and evangelical ministers have business interests in the countries of Latin America or Africa and ties with corrupt regimes and corporations. So how is this compassion exactly.

It is also true that the rich will make donations to Universities and Hospitals, to have buildings and wards named after them all the while supporting services that will be utilized by the wealthy.

It appears that the article does touch on volunteer hours and other measures as well.

Apart from that, it all comes down to what is considered a charitable donation.

The definition was established by Henry the 8th, a number (500) of years ago.

If you work 1000 hours on a campaign to change the laws that effect homeless people, that is "political" and therefore not charitable.

If you work the same 1000 hours getting your church to hand out sandwiches, that's charitable.

Broadly speaking, conservatives would prefer to see social issues adressed through charities. Noblesse oblige (if they feel like it) for those who are poor. Conservatives see the root of poverty as in the individual, and so the solutions to poverty should come from individuals. They see state attempts to address poverty as wrong and futile - poverty is incurable and all that can be done is for the better-off to provide alms to those who make bad choices.

An added benefit is that charity places the decision power in the hands of the giver. Those with more to give have more power - a very popular idea for those with more to give. It also means that they don't have to give if they don't want to - also popular with the priveleged.

On the other end, progressives see poverty as rooted in society. Government is the collective expression of society, in the form of laws and 'enterprises' for the common good, such as hospitals and roads. Therefore, the way to address societal problems is through government (our common tool for shaping our society). Addressing something like poverty can and should be done through the tools we have - government regulation, laws and spending power.

To do so, we levy taxes - and decide who gives how much. Much to the chagrin of a conservative, each person has one vote, regardless of wealth, which removes the privelege of the wealthy in deciding how much to spend, and where to get it from. Definitely not popular with the rich - they like to be the ones with the power.

Both ends of the spectrum have weaknesses. Obviously I take the progressive view.

Personally, I've dramatically reduced the amount of money I donate to poverty mitigation charities - those meant to sustain people living in poverty (like the Food Bank), and increased what I donate to poverty alleviation charities (those meant to help lift people out of poverty (like transitional housing programs).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alberta Guy:
"Still, he says it forcefully, pointing out that liberals give less than conservatives in every way imaginable, including volunteer hours and donated blood. "

---

My question is do they ask political affiliation when you donate blood in the USA?

Again volutnteering for high society charities is very popular, and pretigious ya know!

When I was Ex Director of a Biz NGO, I actually did the most ever volunteer hours in my life, at about 40 hrs per week, on top of my 40+ job position. Why? Because my job position required it.