Conservatives 30% more generous than liberals?

[turbo]

I have no idea what Mr. Brooks uses to measure liberal or conservative in his book and I don't think it is important enough to buy it and research it. But if he is accurate, and I'm not saying he is, the real question here is, "Why would a humanist (athiest/nonreligious) ignore humanity more so than one who believes that our fate is in the hands of a 'mythical' creator?"

It is far easier to track money that is given to churches or is funneled through them to charities than it is to assess the impact of people who give money anonymously and/or volunteer their labor or provide professional services at a discount or free to people in need. This issue of "trackability" may be the source of the entire disparity if indeed there is a disparity at all.

My wife and I would be completely transparent to someone like Brooks, no matter what his methods, and since we give anonymously whenever possible, he would have no way of knowing if the money and goods that we donated came from someone with religious beliefs or what our income level is. Suppose my wife stopped at the animal shelter on the way to work and dropped off 100# of dog food and a bunch of cleaning/disinfecting supplies (things these shelters use in great quantities)...how is Brooks going to tally that, especially since the shelter staff doesn't even know who made the donation? If we drop off a couple of hundred dollars worth of canned goods at a food pantry, how is he going to tally that, especially if the food pantry doesn't keep records and name names? There are some gaping holes in his assertions that whole classes of charitable activities can slip through.

 

[Moridin]

Another interesting question is, given that a portion of the money goes to the maintenance of churches, whether the donations is for that purpose or to help the poor etc.

 

[turbo]

Another interesting question is, given that a portion of the money goes to the maintenance of churches, whether the donations is for that purpose or to help the poor etc.

Having spent some time working in the deep south, I can tell you that one of the "benefits" conferred upon church members is the ability to send their children to all-white "Christian academies". When Bush or other Republicans blather on about the crying need for a school voucher program in which the vouchers can be used for any school, this is the demographic they are targeting. They like to mumble on about inner-city poor kids, but the biggest beneficiaries would be the "Christians" sending their kids to church-affiliated segregated schools.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

"Why would a humanist (athiest/nonreligious) ignore humanity more so than one who believes that our fate is in the hands of a 'mythical' creator?"

Are you kidding?

By definition, good Christians devote their lives to helping others. This is about as basic as it gets in Christianity. And there is no devotion like eternal devotion.

 

[Chi Meson]

The ABC program quotes Arthur Brooks as the source of the 30% disparity in their story.

I have no idea what Mr. Brooks uses to measure liberal or conservative in his book and I don't think it is important enough to buy it and research it. But if he is accurate, and I'm not saying he is, the real question here is, "Why would a humanist (athiest/nonreligious) ignore humanity more so than one who believes that our fate is in the hands of a 'mythical' creator?"

Arthur C. Brooks, huh?

If he is accurate, it will be a first.

Edit:
Mr. Brooks is not at all coming from a moderate or objective point of view. I'm sure he will be getting a lot of air time on Fox News, where they will treat him as one bringing gospel carved into stone tablets.

The tiniest bit of digging reveals that Mr. Brooks finds 40% of the country conservative, and 30% of the country liberal (I guess that leaves 30% "moderate") What brought these lines down on this continuum? A desired outcome is my guess. Say hi to Bill O'Reily for me Mr. Brooks, you're his darling boy.

 

[turbo]

Arthur C. Brooks, huh?

If he is accurate, it will be a first.

As a champion of the "compassionate conservatives" nonsense, Brooks sees what he wants to see, and his message is pretty much guaranteed to make Republicans swoon. "Oh, look! A "scientific" study that proves what we've been saying all along!" "Gee, we conservatives are really generous!"

What a load of crap. Most of the "Christians" in this country are "all hat and no cattle", just like the prevaricator in chief.

 

[Chi Meson]

Well well well. Brooks is taking a vacation from his teaching post at Syracuse to spin for a while at AEI. That the same think tank that came up with some of the more significant Tobacco spins of the early 80s. Folks, this is like taking Michael Moore at face value.

This is too funny
Notice that AEI is listed as a charity!
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3252

 

[chemisttree]

Are you kidding?

By definition, good Christians devote their lives to helping others. This is about as basic as it gets in Christianity. And there is no devotion like eternal devotion.

No, I'm not kidding. I think the assumption that 'good Christians devote their lives to helping others' is a bit of an exaggeration although I do acknowledge a strong charitable streak in Christianity ... Islam and Jewish religions as well. The question was really just my way of highlighting the irony of the (alleged) fact that Humanists ('Humanists believe we must live this life on the basis that it is the only life we'll have -- that, therefore, we must make the most of it for ourselves, each other, and our world.' from Institute for Humanist Studies) would contribute less for the care of the less fortunate than do those who believe in God. Any good Christian will tell you that no amount of charitable work will earn you a place in Heaven. However, a Muslim will tell you that charity is one of the pillars of Islam and a Jew will tell you that 'tzedakah' (charity) is the highest of all commandments.

If the statistic is true, I think it is much more likely that religious folks are somewhat better at socialization than the non-religious. Perhaps non-religious folks live slightly more insular lives. The regular, dependable social contact (Saturday/Sunday mornings, holidays, etc...) is likely to contribute to a more cohesive opportunity to be charitable. How many people are likely to show up to a homeless shelter or a charity bike ride every Sunday and holidays as well?

 

[turbo]

Well well well. Brooks is taking a vacation from his teaching post at Syracuse to spin for a while at AEI. That the same think tank that came up with some of the more significant Tobacco spins of the early 80s. Folks, this is like taking Michael Moore at face value.

This is too funny
Notice that AEI is listed as a charity!
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3252

Thanks for that link. It was instructive find out that the CATO Institute is also a charity. Boy, these right-wing mouthpieces must be doing a LOT of good work, like trying to gut our governmental regulations and putting businesses in charge of making public policy.