<p>Another interview with Arthur Brooks, author of Who Really Cares, might provide more insight. Since religious conservatives tend to give more to charities in both money and time , and they make up the largest segment of the Republican party, that might have a positive effect on their mental health.</p>
<p>“Charitable giving and volunteering are tremendously pleasurable. They also empower givers, making them feel less like victims, and give people a lot of meaning in their lives. I have talked to clinical psychologists who actually prescribe volunteer work to their patients, with amazing results. Studies also show that givers are admired and elevated to positions of influence and authority. It is hardly surprising, given all the evidence, that givers enjoy (on average) higher happiness and prosperity than non-givers do. In fact, my research leads me to the belief that the single best self-help strategy is to serve others.”</p>
<p>Anybody who believes that a poll asking people to rate their mental health would beget a meaningful answer as to the state of their actual mental health ought to have his or her head examined… I’ve known actual schizophrenics who would say they were quite happy and balanced – and yet they were extremely deluded.</p>
<p>And starting with that, I am willing to believe that folks who pursue something greater than than themselves outside of themselves gives them happiness and a sense of purpose and meaning. I do want to see a study, not just Arthur Brooks anecdotal ruminations.</p>
<p>And to suggest this is the sole domain of religious conservatives or that religious convservatives do this and others don’t is patently laughable.</p>
<p>BedHead,
No one except you said anything about giving being the “sole domain” of religious conservatives, but they do give more than others in general. You can read the book to get the details of the study.</p>
And, there are charities and there are “charities.” Take Tom Delay’s tax exempt charitable organization, for example:
[quote]
Tom DeLay’s foundations have spent far more on golf fundraisers than on programs for children. … Golf retreats are the only fundraising activity apparent on the foundations’ tax returns.</p>
<p>At the lavish golf outings, DeLay’s foundation has pulled in nearly $7 million from corporate bigwigs. DeLay is not required to reveal the names of contributors to his charity golf outings. That anonymity has fueled speculation from charity watchdogs that the fundraisers are simply an opportunity for lawmakers, corporations and lobbyists to skirt campaign finance and ethics rules as they get together in swank private retreats.</p>
<p>At the charity fundraisers, contributors get to golf with DeLay at places like Key Largo’s Ocean Reef Club, described on its Web site as “a very exclusive” 2,000-acre destination country club “known for its Caribbean flair, unparalleled yachting and diving waters, exceptional club service, meetings expertise and wide array of activities.” It reportedly has a 4,000-foot lighted private airstrip.</p>
<p>Of the $7 million collected at these events since 2000, tax records for DeLay’s two charities show that only about $80,000 has been distributed to various groups doing work to help children. <a href=“From%20the%20Springfield%20(MA)%20Union%20News.%20%20I%20haven’t%20read%20Brook’s%20book%20so%20I%20can’t%20comment%20on%20its%20scientific%20rigor.”>/quote</a></p>
<p>Yes, if you check out [Charity</a> Navigator - America’s Largest Charity Evaluator | Home](<a href=“http://charitynavigator.org%5DCharity”>http://charitynavigator.org) you’ll find many questionable “charities” that would be more likely to appeal to either liberals or conservatives.</p>
<p>O.K., I was just joking about the last word. I’m not joking about this, though. Bedhead, your post #40 is one of the most vindictive I’ve read on CC. Feel free to disregard any of my other posts/threads. I will no longer respond to you.</p>
<p>anothervoice - your theory would be a possibility, except that, according to the study itself (I’m not evaluating the study, I’m just referring to its own thesis) they took church attendance into consideration.
Church attendance and religious activity may not be the same, but they are probably close enough to take religion out as the reason for any difference the study claims to see.</p>
<p>Sjmom2329, if you posted the thread citing this poll in the spirit of anything but dismissive jocularity and you expected that people wouldn’t be offended and would somehow accept it as valid – and it really appears you didn’t post it in this spirit totally even though you said at various points people shouldn’t be so serious – you are at best really naive. At worst, you’re sanctimonious, hidebound, and stupid, thinking that people who share your views are the only sane ones. I’ll go with naive. Either way, I do hope that you are shocked back to reality and a greater awareness both to be less naive and to be very wary of ever claiming that one side of the political spectrum has a lock on certain virtues like mental health. It really doesn’t matter to me (except for his hypocrisy which is more likely to reside on a part of the political spectrum that is more fervently anti-gay) whether Larry Craig, for instance, is Republican or Democrat. Either way, I’d find his situation ridiculous. I venture to guess my bringing it up may have really offended you because you expect your political partisans to be more virtuous in a variety of ways than others across the political divide. Let me tell you: they are not. On either side.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s not a study. It’s a poll. I think anothervoice and sjmom2329 are the same person.</p>
<p>BedHead,
Though it may come as a shock that more than one person on this forum disagrees with you, I am not the same person as sjmom. She posts far more frequently than I do.</p>
<p>ok I haven’t read the whole thread other than this page and the title, but methinks, well, Republicians are already good at seeing what they want to see , why would their ( lack of ) introspection be much different?
Many studies have shown that those who are more perceptive and realistic, are also often depressed, so obviously a little self delusion is good for the self.</p>
<p>The politeness rule as espoused by some, is that a person is allowed to lie, but no one is allowed to say thats a lie. This of course is a perfect rule for the forces of darkness; they can spread evil with no consequences to themselves. </p>
<p>I worry about a society that allows demagoguery in the name of politeness.</p>
<p>From Post 53 You must really liked your post, TB, to use it in two threads at the same time! It is efficient, though.</p>
<p>Thank you for the kind words, I appreciate your sending them. It is not important what I thought of the post, what is important is what you thought. I am pleased you thought enough of my post that is was worth your taking the time to read and comment on, thank you.</p>
<p>Sjmom and another voice: Since you both are the only ones on this thread that refer to this poll as a study, profligately quote Arthur Brooks articles, and tend to write in exactly the same way, I think if you are not the same person, you should communicate since you have both apparently found your ultimate kindred spirit. And if so, maybe the greater purpose of this otherwise absurd thread was to unite you two. I recommend you communicate with one another and leave the rest of us out of it.</p>
<p>For me, I feel sad and a bit depressed to see the mess we are leaving for our children…</p>
<p>I mean if the same people that report they are happy as larry all the time are the same ones who think we are winning the war and there is no problem with global warming…</p>
<p>BedHead,
From the posts of sjmom that I’ve read, we agree on some issues and disagree on others. I saw the Arthur Brooks interview that I posted when I went to NRO to read the one that she had linked earlier. I found it interesting, so I posted it. I’ve quoted Arthur Brooks a total of one time. There’s no conspiracy afoot.</p>
<p>I used the word “study” to refer to Brooks’ study of giving that he discusses in his book, not the mental health question. </p>
<p>No one is forcing you to participate in this thread, and if you don’t find it to your liking, there are plenty of others for you to choose from. Enjoy!</p>
<p>anothervoice, it’s nice to hear from you. I have to agree with BH that we do seem to write in a similar style! Some people have trouble with the concept that more than one person disagrees with them.</p>
<p>In case anyone is interested, I’ve never posted under another user name. That can be easily verified by the staff of CC – it would be against the terms of service, and I have a tendency to follow the rules.</p>