Stereotypes are never good- I agree with you there. I also agree that very narrow "studies" of supposed giving are not entirely accurate, and- even more importantly- miss the point and the opportunity of raising up the needs in our midst.

__________________
Peace,

John

My eBay World

My Librarything

MySpace

. . . .

Actually, what it suggests to me is that the broad groups act in a fashion that is at least somewhat consistent with their professed philosophies.

If you believe, as most conservatives profess to, that individuals must take ultimate responsibility for what happens in the world, then it would make sense that if a conservative sees a problem that he or she believes needs to be solved, he or she would personally get involved in working towards the solution -- and their work would also be personal in nature, such as sponsoring or mentoring a disadvantaged child. (I've noticed several articles in distribution industry publications I scan at work, whose editors generally take conservative positions when they express political opinions, that focus on salespeople or small business owners who in their free time do things like travel to Africa to work with children on religious or educational missions or adopt abandoned children.)

Liberals motivated by religious beliefs would also do so because of the similar religious imperative, but secular liberals lack that added imperative and would tend to focus more on collective approaches in keeping with their general view of individuals as being acted upon by social forces as much as or even more than they are agents of their own fate. As there are more secular liberals than there are secular conservatives (who could probably truly be classified as "I've got mine, the rest of you can go hang" types; I don't know for sure, but would wager that the majority of Ayn Rand devotees fall into this category), and because secular liberals probably outnumber religious liberals, liberals as a whole would be less generous with their own time and money than conservatives as a whole would be. But if you looked at political activism, the ratios would probably flip, for it is in the political arena that people seek collective solutions to problems.

__________________
Sandy Smith, Exile on Market Street, Philadelphia
"Jazz and blogging are both intimate, improvisational, and individual -- but also inherently collective. And the audience talks over both." --Andrew Sullivan, "Why I Blog," The Atlantic, November 2008

I think you make some excellent points. I particularly like your explanation of secular conservatives (Ayn Rand devotees) as compared to most conservatives who you imply are more religious minded.

Where does this leave all our Libertarian friends. Those Thoreau devotees who just want the government to leave them alone. Perhaps they are the biggest givers of all.

__________________
Now-a-days, men wear a fool's cap, and call it a liberty cap.
Thoreau from Slavery in Massachusetts

I wouldn't be surprised if Conservatives aka the Faithful gave more. They are trained from birth to give 10% of their earnings to charity. Plus the community aspect encourages it.

I can't compare apples to apples but growing up in Mt. Airy (an unholy bastion of goose liver paste eaters) there was always some fund drive going on. Often the Co-op was used as a base or the Summit Church down the block was used equally by both secular and sectarian causes and groups.

In high school (Central) it was the hippy liberal kids who were always the organizers and cheerleaders for causes.

Living in W. Philly I was surrounded by anarchist kids who spent their entire existence on supporting causes.

Then you have all the gay pride (gays tending to be liberal) where you have intense focus on funding AIDS research and other causes.

Like I said, I can't compare apples to apples but living in Philly my impression was always that Liberals were the active ones in charity and general world betterment.

Also... does the research take into account the billions that the various televangelists rake in from gullible religious conservatives? That could skew the curve.

You made me guffaw.

Your original post being about your oneupmanship.

Doctor, faith heal thyself.

Mother Teresa was the MOST HORRIBLE NASTY UNCARING person!
She was UNFAIRLY lauded as a great caregiver when in fact she cared little for the dying and sick but only for CONTINUING their suffering, which Mother Teresa said God wanted.
She said God LOVES suffering, so despite having MILLIONS in the bank, she gave no pain medicine and used dirty needles repeatedly. Her only GOAL was to convert them to Christianity before their deaths, not to relieve their suffering or heal them.

She was pals with Charles Keating of the KEATING Savings and Loan scandal and took money from him and once people told her that money was stolen from people in the scandal she refused to return it.
She was friends with and adored Baby Doc Duvalier.

I suppose shes rotting in hell about now...