patsfan13

Interesting given the liberials always patting themselves on the back for their concern about the poor ect., and castigate copnservatives for their mean spirited attitude towards the disadvantaged.

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


Another example of do as I say and not as I do, or talk is cheap, take your pick.

__________________
"Some guys play in all-star games, some guys don't. I don't know who picks all those all-star teams. In all honesty, I don't know who picks the combine, for that matter," Belichick said. "How does (Miami-Ohio offensive lineman Brandon) Brooks not get invited to the combine? How did Vollmer not get invited to the combine? I don't know. We can't really worry about that. We just have to try to evaluate them the best we can."

Patters

There are many takes on this issue. The Globe just ran an article the other day about an analysis that shows that people from Massachusetts are in the top tier of charitable givers, while other studies put us further down. I suppose the one thing that you have to factor in is that conservatives probably give more to the church, in some cases because they have to (e.g., Mormons) and in other cases because the church is part of their social fabric. I bet if you took churches out of the equation or only compared church goers, you probably wouldn't find much difference in terms of charity.

wistahpatsfan

The Catholic Church, which dominates New England, is having a tough time raising money from people who'd rather not contribute to the PPDF (Pedofile Priest Defense Fund). I wonder if state taxes are considered charity...if not, they should be. Also, maybe New Englanders like to donate anonymously more than the rest of the country. Either way, I'd rather live in New England than anywhere else in the world and do my charity quietly and anonymously.

maverick4

I would agree with this. Liberals believe the state should be responsible for many aspects of our lives, so they will probably be less inclined to take personal responsibility and initiative in aid/volunteerism. Conservatives believe in small government, but also believe in helping out the needy with generosity and aid. Both help the poor, but only one group recognizes welfare by calling it what it is.

Patters

Maverick, Your apparent strict ideological view is not charitable. Liberals won't let ideology get in the way of helping the poor. If charitable giving doesn't do enough to help the needy, then it's clear the government must help as well, and in most of the developed countries there is less poverty and suffering for that very reason. Oh well, at least the poor always have those fancy churches built with charitable funds and time. They can pray for food on their table or health services for their kids.

***

Nonetheless, his study is quite interesting. Here's a very good article by the author:

http://www.policyreview.org/oct03/brooks_print.html

I think his interpretation is unfair. For instance, in urban areas, that I strongly suspect are more secular, charities like the church and volunteer fire department are less relevant than in suburban and rural areas. I would suspect that charitable giving is affected very much by where one lives.

Also, If secularists tend to be younger, perhaps one reason they give less to charity is because they have less time and money. If secularists are more often single, perhaps they give less to charity because they don't get hooked into the social community (PTAs, high school sports fundraising, etc.) that people with kids are involved in.

And, again, we need to know what is meant by charity. If someone works tirelessly for Deval Patrick is that any charitable than someone who works tirelessly for Pat Robertson? If a religious person volunteers for a church that believes gays should be oppressed, women belong in the home, and the Bible should supercede the Constitution, is that charitable? If someone volunteers to spread the word of Osama bin Laden, is that too a charitable act? Perhaps charity is contributing or doing for free what you believe in. That would make those people who belong to survivalist groups charitable, I suppose.

Also, did the author take into account the huge donations by Gates and Buffet? Does the author take into account those people who leave their estates to charity, who donate rare dollar artworks to museums? Does the author take into account teachers, social workers, therapists, and others who work extra hours for free because their values demand it?

It seems to me the author oversimplifies the question to prove a point he intended on proving before he set out. That said, the article raises some interesting questions.

Harry Boy

Poor people themselves will tell you that the Liberal cannot be trusted, the Liberal Do-Gooder CRAVES self gratification.

The poor, the minority, the sick and down trodden should never let their guard down when a grinning slobbering do-gooder tells them "I will help you" there is always danger, the do-gooder is more than likely helping themselves.

A do-gooder can get you into a lot of trouble.

__________________
Harry Boy (Genius)

In The Absence Of Law And Order Society Will Surely Destroy Itself

Patters

Yep, Harry, stay away from the do-gooders. Vote Republican. They do bad.

Harry Boy

Years ago my family dealt with "do-gooders" they brought nothing but grief in the long run, more trouble than good, that is why the American Indian does their best to avoid them, they kicked Jane Fonda off their reservation when she was just starting out on her "crusade", many in Hollywood tried to use them but the Indian would have no part of it.

The Liberal USES the minority, the poor, and the stupid, America just tried to do good in Iraq, America tried to get the savage to stop cutting off hands and legs America tried to get the Muslim Iraqi women freedom, America tried to help civilize the murdering animal, look how the phony double standard Liberal do-gooder back stabbed America (hatred for Bush).

__________________
Harry Boy (Genius)

In The Absence Of Law And Order Society Will Surely Destroy Itself

Patters

There are liberal jerks and there are conservative jerks. You're describing a small number of liberals who are idiots. You're stuck with the Limbaughs, O'Reillys, Coulters, and Savages. We're stuck with the Baldwins, Fondas, and Streisands. That said, I vastly prefer the liberal effete to the conservative loudmouths.

maverick4

I've had heated discussions with liberals on this. They will viciously defend the government's right to force taxes for certain services. Yet, if I ask them if they ever donated money or time for the very systems they support, more often than not have not.

I'm not republican or liberal, but I do believe in the community's ability to give and be charitable without government assistance. Many people I meet who also volunteer in soup kitchens or homeless shelters share the same worldview, IMO.

.