Conservatives Are More Generous

[TYLERTECHSAS]

I'm bored so let the fun begin. Actually, I probably should have put this in the Another Democrat Double Standard Thread. Oh well, we already new what these stats would show. Liberals are tight and only talk a good game. But it sure makes them feel better. But they really have less heart and don't put their money where their mouths are. I bet this gets zero liberal media play.



Philanthropy Expert:Conservatives Are More Generous

By Frank Brieaddy
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.

The child of academics, raised in a liberal household and educated in the liberal arts, 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.

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.

The book, titled "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism" (Basic Books, $26), is due for release Nov. 24.

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."

For the record, Brooks, 42, has been registered in the past as a Democrat, then a Republican, but now lists himself as independent, explaining, "I have no comfortable political home."

Since 2003 he has been director of nonprofit studies for Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs.

Outside professional circles, he's best known for his regular op-ed columns in The Wall Street Journal (13 over the past 18 months) on topics that stray a bit from his philanthropy expertise.

One noted that people who drink alcohol moderately are more successful and charitable than those who don't (like him). Another observed that liberals are having fewer babies than conservatives, which will reduce liberals' impact on politics over time because children generally mimic their parents.

Brooks is a behavioral economist by training who researches the relationship between what people do -- aside from their paid work -- why they do it, and its economic impact.

He's a number cruncher who relied primarily on 10 databases assembled over the past decade, mostly from scientific surveys. The data are adjusted for variables such as age, gender, race and income to draw fine-point conclusions.

His Wall Street Journal pieces are researched, but a little light.

His book, he says, is carefully documented to withstand the scrutiny of other academics, which he said he encourages.

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.

Such an attitude, he writes, not only shortchanges the nonprofits but also diminishes the positive fallout of giving, including personal health, wealth and happiness for the donor and overall economic growth.
All of this, he said, he backs up with statistical analysis.

"These are not the sort of conclusions I ever thought I would reach when I started looking at charitable giving in graduate school, 10 years ago," he writes in the introduction. "I have to admit I probably would have hated what I have to say in this book."

Still, he says it forcefully, pointing out that liberals give less than conservatives in every way imaginable, including volunteer hours and donated blood.

In an interview, Brooks said he recognizes the need for government entitlement programs, such as welfare. But in the book he finds fault with all sorts of government social spending, including entitlements.

Repeatedly he cites and disputes a line from a Ralph Nader speech to the NAACP in 2000: "A society that has more justice is a society that needs less charity."

Harvey Mansfield, professor of government at Harvard University and 2004 recipient of the National Humanities Medal, does not know Brooks personally but has read the book.

"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."

Brooks says he started the book as an academic treatise, then tightened the documentation and punched up the prose when his colleagues and editor convinced him it would sell better and generate more discussion if he did.

To make his point forcefully, Brooks admits he cut out a lot of qualifying information.

"I know I'm going to get yelled at a lot with this book," he said. "But when you say something big and new, you're going to get yelled at."

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/204/story_20419_1.html

[saltydawg]

Bowling for God
Is religion good for society? Science's definitive answer: it depends
By Michael Shermer


Is religion a necessary component of social health? The data are conflicting. On the one hand, in a 2005 study published in the Journal of Religion & Society--"Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies"--independent scholar Gregory S. Paul found an inverse correlation between religiosity (measured by belief in God, biblical literalism, and frequency of prayer and service attendance) and societal health (measured by rates of homicide, childhood mortality, life expectancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and teen abortions and pregnancies) in 18 developed democracies. "In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD [sexually transmitted disease] infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous democracies," Paul found. Indeed, the U.S. scores the highest in religiosity and the highest (by far) in homicides, STDs, abortions and teen pregnancies.
On the other hand, Syracuse University professor Arthur C. Brooks argues in Who Really Cares (Basic Books, 2006) that when it comes to charitable giving and volunteering, numerous quantitative measures debunk the myth of "bleeding heart liberals" and "heartless conservatives." Conservatives donate 30 percent more money than liberals (even when controlled for income), give more blood and log more volunteer hours. In general, religious people are more than three times more generous than secularists to all charities, 14 percent more munificent to nonreligious charities and 57 percent more likely than a secularist to help a homeless person. In terms of societal health, charitable givers are 43 percent more likely to say they are "very happy" than nongivers and 25 percent more likely than nongivers to say their health is excellent or very good.


Are the left and right so religiously cleaved? According to Harvard University professor Pippa Norris and University of Michigan at Ann Arbor professor Ronald Inglehart in their book Sacred and Secular (Cambridge University Press, 2004), data from the Comparative Study of Electoral Systems analyzing 37 presidential and parliamentary elections in 32 nations over the past decade showed that 70 percent of the devout (attend religious services at least once a week) voted for parties of the right, compared with only 45 percent of the secular (never attend religious services). The effect is striking in America. In the 2000 U.S. presidential election, for example, "religion was by far the strongest predictor of who voted for Bush and who voted for Gore--dwarfing the explanatory power of social class, occupation, or region."
The secular left-religious right divide is distinct even if it isn't absolute.
The theory of "social capital" may help resolve these disparate findings. As defined by Robert Putnam in his book Bowling Alone (Simon and Schuster, 2000), social capital means "connections among individuals--social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them." In their analysis of data from the World Values Survey, for example, Norris and Inglehart found a positive correlation between "religious participation" and membership in "nonreligious community associations," including women's, youth, peace, social welfare, human rights and environmental conservation groups (and, apparently, bowling leagues). "By providing community meeting places, linking neighbors together, and fostering altruism, in many (but not all) faiths, religious institutions seem to bolster the ties of belonging to civic life."

Religious social capital leads to charitable generosity and group membership but does comparatively worse than secular social capital for such ills as homicides, STDs, abortions and teen pregnancies. Three reasons suggest themselves: first, these problems have other causes entirely; second, secular social capital works better for such problems; third, these problems are related to what I call moral capital, or the connections within an individual between morality and behavior that are best fostered within families, the fundamental social unit in our evolutionary history that arose long before religions and governments. Thus, moral restraints on aggressive and sexual behavior are best reinforced by the family, be it secular or sacred.

[Spinoza]

I'm bored so let the fun begin. Actually, I probably should have put this in the Another Democrat Double Standard Thread. Oh well, we already new what these stats would show. Liberals are tight and only talk a good game. But it sure makes them feel better. But they really have less heart and don't put their money where their mouths are. I bet this gets zero liberal media play.



Philanthropy Expert:Conservatives Are More Generous

By Frank Brieaddy
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.

The child of academics, raised in a liberal household and educated in the liberal arts, 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.

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.

The book, titled "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism" (Basic Books, $26), is due for release Nov. 24.

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."

For the record, Brooks, 42, has been registered in the past as a Democrat, then a Republican, but now lists himself as independent, explaining, "I have no comfortable political home."

Since 2003 he has been director of nonprofit studies for Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs.

Outside professional circles, he's best known for his regular op-ed columns in The Wall Street Journal (13 over the past 18 months) on topics that stray a bit from his philanthropy expertise.

One noted that people who drink alcohol moderately are more successful and charitable than those who don't (like him). Another observed that liberals are having fewer babies than conservatives, which will reduce liberals' impact on politics over time because children generally mimic their parents.

Brooks is a behavioral economist by training who researches the relationship between what people do -- aside from their paid work -- why they do it, and its economic impact.

He's a number cruncher who relied primarily on 10 databases assembled over the past decade, mostly from scientific surveys. The data are adjusted for variables such as age, gender, race and income to draw fine-point conclusions.

His Wall Street Journal pieces are researched, but a little light.

His book, he says, is carefully documented to withstand the scrutiny of other academics, which he said he encourages.

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.

Such an attitude, he writes, not only shortchanges the nonprofits but also diminishes the positive fallout of giving, including personal health, wealth and happiness for the donor and overall economic growth.
All of this, he said, he backs up with statistical analysis.

"These are not the sort of conclusions I ever thought I would reach when I started looking at charitable giving in graduate school, 10 years ago," he writes in the introduction. "I have to admit I probably would have hated what I have to say in this book."

Still, he says it forcefully, pointing out that liberals give less than conservatives in every way imaginable, including volunteer hours and donated blood.

In an interview, Brooks said he recognizes the need for government entitlement programs, such as welfare. But in the book he finds fault with all sorts of government social spending, including entitlements.

Repeatedly he cites and disputes a line from a Ralph Nader speech to the NAACP in 2000: "A society that has more justice is a society that needs less charity."

Harvey Mansfield, professor of government at Harvard University and 2004 recipient of the National Humanities Medal, does not know Brooks personally but has read the book.

"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."

Brooks says he started the book as an academic treatise, then tightened the documentation and punched up the prose when his colleagues and editor convinced him it would sell better and generate more discussion if he did.

To make his point forcefully, Brooks admits he cut out a lot of qualifying information.

"I know I'm going to get yelled at a lot with this book," he said. "But when you say something big and new, you're going to get yelled at."

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/204/story_20419_1.html

A very interesting article/topic and worthy of its own thread IMNHO.

But as I read your post...... A few questions came immediately to mind.

Is TITHING counted as a charitable contribution by Brooks?
If so...... What percentages of conservative or liberal religious charity are involved?

What criteria does Brooks use for determining who is liberal and who is conservative?
We recently had a fairly simple thread on this board that clearly demonstrated some very fuzzy lines, even from a relatively homogeneous sampling.

How were TAX DEDUCTABLE charitable contrubutions figured into the Brook's equations?
If Oprah buys a cottage for a homeless family and then writes off all or most of the cost on her income tax...... Is that charity or just good business and PR?

I also thought of my own circumstances while reading your post.
I consider myself to be a bleeding heart liberal.
I routinely donate sizable amounts of MY money to the Salvation Army and to the Big Brothers/Big Sisters programs.
In the last 2 years I have given 2 of my used cars (that I no longer needed or wanted) to poor working families who needed a means to get to work.
When I am stopped on the street and asked for "change"...... I rountinely hand out a sawbuck and suggest that the fellow buy some good booze for a change and enjoy every drop.
Once I got talking with one such fellow who told me he was due in court that afternoon. He was hoping for one last good time before being sent to prison because he had repeatedly failed to pay various court ordered fines. I bought him lunch. I kept him relatively sober. I remained relatively sober. I then went to court with him. When his case was called, I learned that his particular "judge" intended to send this fellow to a real prison for 3 years unless he was able to pay a mere $850.00 then and there. I paid his fines. We walked out of the courthouse together. I gave him some traveling money. He thanked me. I have never seen him again.
I once actually BOUGHT a woman in Honduras for 356 American dollars. I freed her that day and returned her to her family. It's a long story.

But one thing I have NEVER done is claim ANY charitable deduction on my income tax returns...... EVER!

So I cannot help but wonder if or how Professor Brooks (or anyone) has ever tabulated either ME or any of my ilk in either his data or conclusions.

[champion110]

The research would have been better defined if he would have defined a lot of things.

Instead of conservatives (not defined) and liberals (not defined), I would like to see something like this:

Of people that have family incomes ABOVE $30,000 (a barely survivable income in most places in this country) that voted Democratic in the last Presidential election vs. those that voted Republican in the last Presidential election, which ones gave the most to charity. Charity is defined as giving directly to organizations OR persons in need. Also, "in need" would need to be defined. Gving to the Church should only be counted when the money was directly involved in helping others - not building bigger churches or paying the salaries of the church staff. Also, a percentage of income would be a better figure than a total amount given.

That would be a start, but even more definitions that that would be needed.

[dhussdawg]

The research would have been better defined if he would have defined a lot of things.

Instead of conservatives (not defined) and liberals (not defined), I would like to see something like this:

Of people that have family incomes ABOVE $30,000 (a barely survivable income in most places in this country) that voted Democratic in the last Presidential election vs. those that voted Republican in the last Presidential election, which ones gave the most to charity. Charity is defined as giving directly to organizations OR persons in need. Also, "in need" would need to be defined. Gving to the Church should only be counted when the money was directly involved in helping others - not building bigger churches or paying the salaries of the church staff. Also, a percentage of income would be a better figure than a total amount given.

That would be a start, but even more definitions that that would be needed.

The only thing I disagree with is that you dont count money that goes towards building other churches or paying the ministers. There is overhead in every charitable organization. You might as well strip out a percentage on all of them. It is no different that giving money to United Way and them building new United Way buildings and paying their worker's salaries. I will say that Churches probably have a higher percentage of money that doesnt go directly to charities because they pay for their own programs. But many of the churches programs could be considered helping the public good (RAs, divorce counseling, etc.) I would say that a percentage would be better, but that would be nearly impossible to make accurate. We know the story of the poor lady that gave her two coins and what God had to say about it, though.

[Spinoza]

The only thing I disagree with is that you dont count money that goes towards building other churches or paying the ministers. There is overhead in every charitable organization. You might as well strip out a percentage on all of them. It is no different that giving money to United Way and them building new United Way buildings and paying their worker's salaries. I will say that Churches probably have a higher percentage of money that doesnt go directly to charities because they pay for their own programs. But many of the churches programs could be considered helping the public good (RAs, divorce counseling, etc.) I would say that a percentage would be better, but that would be nearly impossible to make accurate. We know the story of the poor lady that gave her two coins and what God had to say about it, though.

A good point IMNHO......
And worthy of some extremely easy bookkeeping numbers.

X number of dollars come into the coffres of any church.
X number of dollars are spent on obviously charitable endeavors.
X number of dollars remain for administrative costs...... And those often vague "other costs".

It's up to and when some allegedly Holy John pretends that he NEEDS a $2,000 suit and a new Lexus to go begging for money to help his poor...... That the grey lines begin to blur out of all reasoned proportion.

Personally...... I would not give a dime to United Way in either an old or new building.

Just as I would not give a dime to any BEAUTIFUL CHURCH BUILDING...... With so much as one member family living without adequate food or clothing or shelter or hope.

I would like to meet any minister who would be willing to openly state that his creature comforts are in any way more important than those of the most destitute members of his flock.

But I suspect......
That there are few MINISTERS OF GOD ON EARTH...... Who do not live much larger than some number of those who comprise their various congregations.

Most churches are "tribal cultures" as defined by Harvey Cox (for other reasons) in his book, "The Secular City". Except for the SUPER CHURCHES...... Most members of any church know each other quite well, at least one day each week.

Look around YOUR OWN PERSONAL CHURCH next Sunday, if you dare...... And you may understand.

[dhussdawg]

A good point IMNHO......
And worthy of some extremely easy bookkeeping numbers.

X number of dollars come into the coffres of any church.
X number of dollars are spent on obviously charitable endeavors.
X number of dollars remain for administrative costs...... And those often vague "other costs".

It's up to and when some allegedly Holy John pretends that he NEEDS a $2,000 suit and a new Lexus to go begging for money to help his poor...... That the grey lines begin to blur out of all reasoned proportion.

Personally...... I would not give a dime to United Way in either an old or new building.

Just as I would not give a dime to any BEAUTIFUL CHURCH BUILDING...... With so much as one member family living without adequate food or clothing or shelter or hope.

I would like to meet any minister who would be willing to openly state that his creature comforts are in any way more important than those of the most destitute members of his flock.

But I suspect......
That there are few MINISTERS OF GOD ON EARTH...... Who do not live much larger than some number of those who comprise their various congregations.

Most churches are "tribal cultures" as defined by Harvey Cox (for other reasons) in his book, "The Secular City". Except for the SUPER CHURCHES...... Most members of any church know each other quite well, at least one day each week.

Look around YOUR OWN PERSONAL CHURCH next Sunday, if you dare...... And you may understand.

Yeh, my point was excluding the Benny Hinns of the world. I have questioned my own church's spending many times, but I have seen how the church has grown also with the expansion of the church. We have become much more racially diverse. We still arent great in that area by any means, but I have seen many oriental and black families at church lately. I always thought that was an area we lacked before the church expansion. I cannot say with absolute certainty that the expansion drew them there, but it had to help. Now, we surely could have cut out many thing of the expansion (leather couches, computers, and gaming systems, IMO), but with the results, it is hard to question the thing as a whole.

I know Calvary gives plenty to missions within the city and around the world. We have been to NO 4 times in the last year with more trips planned. We just had a new campaign this year to help the needy around the city, which I was very happy about because that is an area that is easy to neglect. My church's expansion was not perfect, but I think it has had a very positive effect overall. We are human, and we are not even close to perfect; therefore, I am happy with the overall result up to this point.

[Spinoza]

Yeh, my point was excluding the Benny Hinns of the world. I have questioned my own church's spending many times, but I have seen how the church has grown also with the expansion of the church. We have become much more racially diverse. We still arent great in that area by any means, but I have seen many oriental and black families at church lately. I always thought that was an area we lacked before the church expansion. I cannot say with absolute certainty that the expansion drew them there, but it had to help. Now, we surely could have cut out many thing of the expansion (leather couches, computers, and gaming systems, IMO), but with the results, it is hard to question the thing as a whole.

I know Calvary gives plenty to missions within the city and around the world. We have been to NO 4 times in the last year with more trips planned. We just had a new campaign this year to help the needy around the city, which I was very happy about because that is an area that is easy to neglect. My church's expansion was not perfect, but I think it has had a very positive effect overall. We are human, and we are not even close to perfect; therefore, I am happy with the overall result up to this point.

It sounds like you belong to a church to be proud of 7 days a week......
And I have no problem with expansion or leather couches or anything else that the church members might feel is needed within the parameters of their collective value system.

Like I said...... X number of dollars for one thing and X number of dollars for some other thing is not that difficult to figure out. Salaries and utility bills and leather couches are one thing...... And CHARITY is obviously something else.

I also like the fact that you (or any other church member, I presume) feel free to question how your church spends church money.

BTW...... You have given me an idea.
Would it not be interesting if when anyone makes a tax deductable donation to any qualified church or charity or cause...... The recipiant then had to send the donor some kind of form letter/document, stating exactly how much went to CHARITY per se and how much was eaten up by alleged OTHER EXPENSES.

If this actually happened, I cannot help but wonder how many "charities" would continue to exist for very long.
And if the donor was only able to deduct the amount actually used for the charity part of the equation......
I wonder how this might effect the entire spectrum of charitable donations in America.

And one other thought while on the subject of charity......
I personally care not a rat's arse about any news release regarding how much some wealthy person has given to ANY charity. Just tell me how much of their "generous gift" was not tax deductable...... And I'll clap accordingly.