"conservatives more generous than liberals"

[Brad Mercer]

I just stumbled across an interesting article about a reportedly carefully researched book by a behavioral economist, philanthropy expert and director of nonprofit studies for Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs. He also claims to be a political independent.

The story is at:

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

His apparently central finding is that "liberals give less than conservatives in every way imaginable, including volunteer hours and donated blood."

That should stir up a little discussion. :bannana

Brad

[Jeremy D. Scott]

"To make his point forcefully, Brooks admits he cut out a lot of qualifying information." <-- I wonder exactly what that means...

I also wonder just how far you can go in measuring compassion with numbers. Christ's assessment in the example of the widow with two coins seems to transcend numbers.

[Jeremy D. Scott]

This doesn't differentiate between liberals and conservatives (necessarily), but in a Bible study discussion a number of weeks ago, we were talking about compassionate giving and somebody made the statement that no nation gives more money away than the United States.

Isn't that kind of like saying no animal poops more than a whale? They just have a whole lot more to give than any one else - I'd bet they kind of have the run of the mill of the supply chain.

[Bruce Carriker]

Conservatives tend to have more money, so it stands to figure that they will give more money. Most of us here won't ever be able to establish a Rockefeller Foundation, yet few histories I've read deny that he was absolutely ruthless in business, and did not care who he hurt.

Last week, Dr. Hahn said in his sermon about the widow who gave her last two coins, perhaps Jesus doesn't measure our giving by how much we give, but by how much we have left after we've given.

[Bruce Carriker]

This doesn't differentiate between liberals and conservatives (necessarily), but in a Bible study discussion a number of weeks ago, we were talking about compassionate giving and somebody made the statement that no nation gives more money away than the United States.

Isn't that kind of like saying no animal poops more than a whale? They just have a whole lot more to give than any one else - I'd bet they kind of have the run of the mill of the supply chain.

Jeremy,

There was a discussion here probably a year or more ago, and when this was actually researched, the US was not #1 in charitable giving, when it was measured as a percentage of GDP. So, while some may find it crude, your "whale poop' analogy is probably accurate.

[David Cash]

My liberal relatives and employer are all better off financially than I am. Conservatives aren't all rich and liberals aren't all poor.

As I understand a key difference in conservative and liberal thinking is that conservatives tend to think in terms of individual morality while liberals think in terms of public morality. (I think I might be loosely quoting a liberal on this one, but can't remember the details.) Hence as a conservative I look at those two famous political issues, abortion and gay rights which are mostly about personal sins and speak out against them. A liberal would look at public policy issues, such as whether our society is fair to women and minorities or how do we deal with poverty and speak out on those issues. I wonder if maybe when it comes to helping the poor conservatives tend to think at a personal level and liberals a societal level as well. It would make a difference in whether one were to donate to the Salvation Army or to the political party he thought would do the most for the poor. (And that isn't a statement about the Salvation Army's politics.)

Of course, this gets into generalizations again and I realize that there are any number of liberals doing their best to get involved personally and any number of conservatives who think that poverty is the deserved result of laziness. So maybe the question we all face with regard to these issues isn't what I have to do as a conservative or liberal, but what should I be doing to make a difference to those around me?

David Cash

[Brad Mercer]

Conservatives tend to have more money, so it stands to figure that they will give more money.

According to the article:

"The data are adjusted for variables such as age, gender, race and income to draw fine-point conclusions."

Brad

[Bruce Carriker]

Most recent on-line data I could find:

America is, indeed, #1 in cash giving to charitable causes, as a % of GNP.

When in-kind giving and the value of volunteer service are factored in, we fall to #3 behind The Netherlands (hooray for Hans!!) and Sweden.

[Dave McClung]

Last week, Dr. Hahn said in his sermon about the widow who gave her last two coins, perhaps Jesus doesn't measure our giving by how much we give, but by how much we have left after we've given.

Perhaps Jesus doesn't look at either, but looks at our attitude when giving. Key issues I have gleaned from the scriptures:

1) We are supposed to be "generous" givers. In my opinion, generosity has more to do with attitude than with amount, but it would be impossible to have a generous attitude without giving in proportion to your ability.

2) Motive seems to be important. Those who give for the purpose of being recognized (whether they give a lot or a little) have received their reward.

3) Obedience to God's leading is an issue -- one who isn't faithful in small matters won't be faithful with large ones either.

4) Being a good steward requires that in the absence of clear direction from God, we give where our giving will do the most good.

5) God used "tithing" as concept to teach us how to be generous. I believe the concept is still effective. People who don't give at least 10% to their church have difficulty being generous with the rest of their assets.

6) "Thou shalt not covet" is the least discussed of the commandments, but is the one most often broken. To me, that means that I must pay more attention to my own generosity than to the lack of generosity in others.

[Bob Wright]

Conservatives and Liberals are both very generous. Conservatives are generous with their own money, while Liberals are generous with other people's money.

[Hans Deventer]

Conservatives and Liberals are both very generous. Conservatives are generous with their own money, while Liberals are generous with other people's money.

To me, a society where social justice depends on personal gifts, is a society in decay.

[Bruce Carriker]

To me, a society where social justice depends on personal gifts, is a society in decay.

Hmmmm...what are you suggesting about the United States, Hans?

[Brad Mercer]

To me, a society where social justice depends on personal gifts, is a society in decay.

A case could be made for the opposite position as well, of course, but I understand your point.

Brad

[Roland Hearn]

To me, a society where social justice depends on personal gifts, is a society in decay.

What about a society that doesn't need governmental management of social justice because of the overwhelming responsiveness of individuals, wouldn't that be a society close to heaven?

[Hans Deventer]

What about a society that doesn't need governmental management of social justice because of the overwhelming responsiveness of individuals, wouldn't that be a society close to heaven?

Absolutely! We could also close all prisons, abolish the military, police etc.
As soon as you can show me a society where that would work, I'd call it heaven. In the mean time, it seems to me we need to do something else.

It's just a matter of pragmaticism.

[Hans Deventer]

Hmmmm...what are you suggesting about the United States, Hans?

Nothing that I am not suggesting about any country, including my own.

[Marg Webb]

Isn't that kind of like saying no animal poops more than a whale? They just have a whole lot more to give than any one else - I'd bet they kind of have the run of the mill of the supply chain.


One thing FOR SURE Jeremy, you do not have an extensive vocabulary.(: yuk!!!

[Bruce Carriker]

What about a society that doesn't need governmental management of social justice because of the overwhelming responsiveness of individuals, wouldn't that be a society close to heaven?

Can you tell me where that society exists, Roland? I'd like to live there.

[Roland Hearn]

Can you tell me where that society exists, Roland? I'd like to live there.
Yup, it called Paradise.
Hans' comment was that a society that relied on personal gifts was a society in decay. It seemed to me that the perfect society would be a society that successfully relied on personal gifts. It is hard to imagine how both statements could be true. Of course I know what Hans meant - given the fact that people tend toward selfishness a society that ignores the needs of people and suggests it is the responsibility of the populace to care for people is a society that isn't really caring for people. However, I would maintain that a healthy society would be one were some kind of blend of governmental support and popular care was the response to need, with the greater emphasis on popular care. I guess it depends on your perspective of humanity. Government can never reflect any more than the ideals of the people in a democratic society.

[Bruce Carriker]

You are correct. A society that was living by Biblical principles would rely entirely on personal gifts; and would have more than enough to support the poor, the widow, the orphan, the alien in our midst...you know, those folks the prophets spent a lot of time writing about.

But as you point out, in practice, at least here on earth, a society that claims to want to live by this principle is merely looking for a way to keep more of what they have, and excusing the selfishness of the general population (at least in most cases).

One thing that is never mentioned in these discussions...or mentioned and then ignored...is that the government in this country (US) did not step in until it became woefully apparent that private charity could not address the need.

[Hans Deventer]

One thing that is never mentioned in these discussions...or mentioned and then ignored...is that the government in this country (US) did not step in until it became woefully apparent that private charity could not address the need.

As all countries that stepped in did. The role of the government is to take care of issues that people can't do on their own.

A little history: The oldest form of democratic government in my country evolved from the need to get together to build dikes. That could not be left to individuals, for if I would take great care of my stretch of the dike, but my neighbour didn't, all my efforts would be in vain. So for the benefit of all, there had to be created a form of government that could both decide and enforce the decision. Of course, there were always periods of time when the need seemed less urgent, the level of maintenance dropped, until high tide and storm broke a dike and the story started all over again. Last occurrence was in 1953, after which the Delta Works were established.

Bottom line, you need some form of government because you simply cannot rely on private initiative when the level of commitment is as stable as the Nasdaq.