To: bentway who wrote (653406 ) 5/1/2012 2:12:28 PM From: Brumar89 2 Recommendations Respond to of 1578513 I think that shows compassion is pretty much totally emotion driven for liberals. Like most things. highly religious are less motivated by compassion when helping a stranger than are atheists, agnostics and less religious people. IOW less motivated by emotion. The article purposely doesn't state the fact that studies show religious people are way more generous than the non-religious: Studies show conservatives give much more to charity than liberals. Some liberals actually despise charity.Message 27600944 Message 26294171 Conservatives Give More to Charity than Liberals? posted by Dr. Richard Land | 4:10pm Thursday April 10, 2008 Do “conservatives” give more to charitable causes than “liberals”? According to Syracuse University professor Arthur C. Brooks , they do. Dr. Brooks, a professor of public administration at Syracuse’s Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, was quite astounded with the results of his own research, which was so at variance with the common perception of the generous “liberal” and the Scrooge-like “conservative.” In his book, Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservativism (Basic Books, 2006), Brooks discovered that approximately equal percentages of liberals and conservatives give to private charitable causes. However, conservatives gave about 30 percent more money per year to private charitable causes, even though his study found liberal families earned an average of 6 percent more per year in income than did conservative families. This greater generosity among conservative families proved to be true in Brooks’ research for every income group, “from poor to middle class to rich.” This “giving gap” also extended beyond money to time donated to charitable causes, as well. Brooks also discovered that in 2002, conservative Americans were much more likely to donate blood each year than liberals and to do so more often within a year. Brooks found “if liberals and moderates gave blood at the same rate as conservatives, the blood supply in the United States would jump by about 45 percent.” When Brooks compared his findings to IRS data on the percentage of household income given away, he found that “red” states in the 2004 election were more charitable than “blue” states. Brooks found that 24 of the 25 states that were above average in family charitable giving voted for Bush in 2004, and 17 of the 25 states below average in giving voted for Kerry. Brooks concluded, “The electoral map and the charity map are remarkably similar.” Why? A clue may be found in the 1996 General Social Survey, which asked Americans whether they agreed that “the government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality.” People who “disagreed strongly” with that statement gave 12 times more money to charity per year than those who “agreed strongly” with the statement. One’s values, beliefs and political philosophies seem to impact how much one shares of one’s own income with the less fortunate in society. Facts are often surprising and illuminating. Read more: http://blog.beliefnet.com/castingstones/2008/04/conservatives-give-more-to-cha.html#ixzz1hDVZcCBY ---------------... data from a 2004 national survey of more than 1,300 American adults. Those who agreed with such statements as "When I see someone being taken advantage of, I feel kind of protective towards them" were also more inclined to show generosity in random acts of kindness ..... 101 American adults watched one of two brief videos, a neutral video or a heartrending one, which showed portraits of children afflicted by poverty. Next, they were each given 10 "lab dollars" and directed to give any amount of that money to a stranger. The least religious participants appeared to be motivated by the emotionally charged video to give more of their money to a stranger. .... more than 200 college students were asked to report how compassionate they felt at that moment. They then played "economic trust games" in which they were given money to share -- or not -- with a stranger. In one round, they were told that another person playing the game had given a portion of their money to them, and that they were free to reward them by giving back some of the money, which had since doubled in amount. ..... Studies asking people how they felt, how generous they'd be in a hypothetical situation, "lab dollars", "economic trust games." ;>) I don't know whether I'm "highly religious" or not, but I do support some charities every month. I give them the same amount on the same day of the month, month after month. Feelings have little to do with it, though I know the causes are good and there's real human need they address. For me, it's budgeted ... I've already put down the amounts for May, to be sent later this month. One of them does send me material, which is surely designed to encourage people to give. I drop that in the trash and wish they wouldn't waste any money sending it to me.