Religious Conservatives are more charitable than Secular Liberals

Parent Cafe
21

<p>The author was liberal. He has been registered democrat, then republican, and now independant. He says he did not like the results when they came out. And what is this abuot not many other academics jumping on the band wagon. The article doesnt even mention that. Also this is not the first study on this subject that came out this way. There have been many studies on the genorisiy of red states, and about religious giving more than secular. </p>

<p>I was thinking about a possible reason for this, if it is true, I think that since alot of religions require people to donate, and this requirment is the word of god, not of another person, they feel compelled to give.</p>

22

<p><a href=“http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009210[/url]”>http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009210&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>this is not the editorial of a “liberal”…not in the least way…so to call this man, or for him to call himself a “liberal” is a way to sell books</p>

<p>I have read several of his pieces, and he has a definent right sided slant</p>

<p>I just called it as i read it, regardless of what he claims, “liberal” is not what he is</p>

<p>by golani “There is a new book out by a liberal academic on this topic.”</p>

<p>you called him a liberal…I said he was not…then you changed your mind…smooth</p>

23

<p>Well he was a liberal academic, I only read one article about his book and it mentioned that he was unhappy about the results, just like you are. So that in a way did qualify him as a liberal academic.</p>

24

<p>gee, he is going to be doing work for the AEI…that bastion of liberal thinking or neutrality, oh and the Rand Corporation, his other consulting gig</p>

<p>I don’t care that this guy wrote a book, but please, to pretend he has no agenda is ludicrous, and to pretend he is neutral and doing pure statistics is also ludicrous</p>

<p>Having a “view” can slant outcomes…on both sides…but when you look at his Bio, to say he has no attachment to the “right” is just silly- he most definately does, and that is fine, but hiding it, tsk tsk</p>

25

<p>If you do not mind CGM and are so kind, please explain to me how this cannot be the editorial of liberal. In fact, by reading this editorial I cannot come to conclusion what his politcal persuasion is. Maybe my reading skills are not as good as yours, we can blame that on religion though because thats always a good scapegoat, but do not see what in this editorial does not make him a liberal. Maybe the fact that his political persuasion goes hand in hand with his registrations in the past as a democrat, then a republican, and NOW an independant.</p>

26

<p>Like I said, you can descredit this study, but there are plenty others that echo the same thing.</p>

27

<p>You called him neutral, but his out of college activites that he publically shares are most defineately conservative</p>

<p>As for the Harvard Prof who supported him, well he is an interesting fellow. He defended Summers…doesn’t much like feminists or women…</p>

<p>Interesting that Mansfield, called a conservative political theortist, was picked to support the book:</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=356620[/url]”>http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=356620&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p><a href=“http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2006/03/12/the_manly_mans_man/[/url]”>http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2006/03/12/the_manly_mans_man/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

28

<p>Citygirlsmom, I hate people who lie and intentionally mislead. Lets deal with each issue one at a time. You made a claim that WSJ article by Brooks shows that he is not liberal. SO let me ask again what in the article indicates he is not liberal. Lets be focused for at least one moment please.</p>

<p>After we adress, Brooks supposed not-liberalism, in the article that you provided as proof of Brooks’ not-liberalsim, then we can focus on somone who supports his book.</p>

<p>Like I mentioned before I hate people that mislead. In the article that you linked too, Mansfield, a Harvard professor of political science, there is a few interesting lines. Unfortunately, I cannot open that link anymore since I am not a boston subscriber. Otherwise I would quote the part of the article that focuses on how liberals feel that Mansfield is very fair and a great political scientists. So, now, let me throw this out there. Maybe he supports this book, not because he is a religios conservative or just a conservative, but because the book is good? I know, its a crazy assertion…</p>

<p>I personally, can see how religious would donate more money then seculars. It does not really surprise me, nor does the study since it comes after many other of similar conclusion.</p>

<p>But CGM, before we get to Mansfield I am waiting to see you show me how Brooks’ editorial shows he is not liberal.</p>

29

<p><a href=“http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009058[/url]”>http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009058&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>please show me the plenty of others so i can look them up…it would like to</p>

<p>he can write his book, he can say what he wants, but he is being dishonest when he says he is “neutral” by not being registered with a political party, his writings, and I have read several tonight, because I like to learn, are to the right…</p>

30

<p>by brooks:</p>

<p>For example, we have found that arts donors are 32 percentage points more likely than the general American population to say they have no religion, 18 points less likely to see homosexual sex as wrong, 10 points more likely to describe themselves as politically left-wing, and 12 points more likely to support abortion on demand.</p>

<p>(not the words of a liberal, nor a neutral person- the choice of words etfc, clearly shows Brooks is no liberal, nor even close to neutral- he doesn’t like public support of the arts, and show that those that support the arts with donations -well, look how he decribes them, all “negative” stuff- does he mention anything NICE (from the conservative perspective) about the donors, like how many volunteer in schools with art, or how many were in the military…nope…he talks about abortion…like that is relevant to an orchestra)</p>

<p>that is how I can tellhe is no liberal</p>

31

<p>CGM, stop avoiding the question. You are making yourself look very bad to anyone who is reading this post. Numerous times you have purposely avoided showing me the part in the first WSJ article that would make Brooks not a liberal. I find that very insulting to my intelligence. You cannot possibly just link to an article and then say this man is not a liberal while for some reason not even responding to my challenge of showing me what part of that WSJ article that indicates he is not a liberal.</p>

<p>As for this article, I again ask you to show me that this man is not a liberal. Again by reading his article and not being able to tell his political persuasion it would really go hand in hand with him first being registered dem, then repub, and now independant. But before we get to this article, lets please finish with the first WSJ article. I am still waiting for you to show how he is not a liberal.</p>

32

<p>CGM, please lets remain forcused. You are really insulting my intelligence now, by avoding the issue of the first WSJ article. If you feel you were wrong, you can admit that that first WSJ article does not show he is not liberal. I will not hold it against you. However, if you continue to ■■■■■-foot with me you will continue to look very bad to other readers.</p>

<p>As for this “For example, we have found that arts donors are 32 percentage points more likely than the general American population to say they have no religion, 18 points less likely to see homosexual sex as wrong, 10 points more likely to describe themselves as politically left-wing, and 12 points more likely to support abortion on demand.”</p>

<p>First I want a link to where you read this. Second, I still do not see how this shows he is not a liberal. You mentioned how Brooks associates art donors with negative words. Fine, valid accusation. So let us look at the quote you provided. First “negative”- art donors are 32 percent pnts less likey to say they have no religion. This would make them secular, no? So you feel that being secular or having no religion in brooks’ words is bad? Next, they are 18 pts less likely to see homosexual sex as wrong. So not seeing homosexual sex as wrong is a negative thing according to you? I am really sorry, but I still do not see the negative in those words, maybe you can explain to me how not believing that homosexual sex is wrong is actually negative. Next, 10 points more likely to describe themselves as left-wing. Ill be damned, but left wing is a negative choice of words. By the way, CGM, arent you left wing? So how would being left wing be negative in your view then? Lastly, Brooks sais they are 12 pts more likely to support abortion on demand. I don’t even need to go over that one. How is abortion on deman a “negative”. Thats what they believe in. Simple as that. I think you also believe in abortion. </p>

<p>CGM, I am going to say it again I hate people who lie and who are intentionally misleading. This quote you provided again does not show how this man is not liberal.</p>

<p>" he doesn’t like public support of the arts" Peopel help me out here. Maybe I dont know how to read English. But I just do not get that idea from this “For example, we have found that arts donors are 32 percentage points more likely than the general American population to say they have no religion, 18 points less likely to see homosexual sex as wrong, 10 points more likely to describe themselves as politically left-wing, and 12 points more likely to support abortion on demand.”</p>

<p>CGM, please adress the first WSJ article.</p>

33

<p>I give up…the guy ain’t a liberal…he just ain’t</p>

<p>Keep the delusion that you think he is so that his book is more shocking</p>

<p>But Brooks is a conservative who says he is liberal to be shocking…and get publicity for his book</p>

<p>You tell me who all the other supporters of his research are for the book…you said there were lots</p>

<p>And if he wasn’t trying to be negative to art supporters by talking about their lack of religion, please explain why a person’s religious affilation has any thing to do with loving art…why didn’t he say, most art supporters are democrats, or liberal, or do volunteer work, or exercise more, no it was left-wing, why was abortion even an issue, and abortion on demand, please, that is a conservative tag line if ever there was one, and the use of trigger words…</p>

<p>You need to see this guy as a liberal, why I have no idea, his afflilations, his writings, his columes, his other books…yeah, sure, he is hella liberal</p>

<p>Everything I have read by him supports conservative causes and republicans, and the Administration and is part of not one but TWO conservative think tanks…gosh…sounds like a leftwinger to me</p>

<p>can you give me an example of his liberal thinking…</p>

34

<p>“I give up…the guy aint’ a liberal…he just ain’t” So because you cannot prove that he is not liberal and because you are giving up on proving that he is not liberal, you decide to say that he, in fact, is not liberal? Interesting logic. Please just quit while you have some credibility left. You keep making youself look worse and worse.</p>

<p>CGM, do not lie. Please do not lie. Never did I say there were many people who supported his book. I donkt know much about his book other than the first article I read and posted. Give me some time and I will respond to that, but please do not lie.</p>

<p>CGM, that quote has nothing to do with his political persuasion. Mentioning that they are not religious, left-wing, which if i am not mistaken is the opposite of right-wing and which is also a synonym for liberal, which also does not mean democrat, but it means what it means and that is liberal, left leaning, left wing, and mentioning that they support abortion on demand simply gives a perspective on their social and political opinions.</p>

<p>I am not sure where you got this quote, just in case you are trying to mislead others, this has nothing to do with the first 2 WSJ article which you posted yet failed to properly address. </p>

<p>If this quote indeed does exist and since you have lied and misled more than once on this thread, I am beginning to question the veracity of the quote, so if this quote is real it seems that i might deal with his book, which is donations by secular liberals and religious conservatives. Those qualifiers of not being religious, beling left wing, and supporting abortion for art DONORS seem to deal with the topic of his book, donations by liberals(left leaning) who are secular(non religious and support abortions on demand)</p>

35

<p>Like I said, you can descredit this study, but there are plenty others that echo the same thing…guess I thought you were referring to his book…oops…show me the others than</p>

<p>it was not a lie…it is what you implied…</p>

<p>as for the quote…</p>

<p>do not call me a llar</p>

<p><a href=“The Center for Arts and Culture”>The Center for Arts and Culture;

<p>check it out</p>

<p>and if you dare, check out the ONE supporter of his book they used in the article…</p>

<p>I am done…intellectual curiousity is imperative to learning…and I learned about a professor tonight, I learned about a prof who felt the need to right a book about manliness, who pretty much doesn’t like women, I learned about an author who is a very clever writer, but even one of his “facts” of 85percent of people being “religious” was misleading</p>

<p>there is a difference between a religios affiliation and being truely religious, but he ignore the difference, how convienent</p>

<p>Polling data from the 2001 ARIS study, described below, indicate that:</p>

<pre><code>81% of American adults identify themselves with a specific religion:
76.5% (159 million) of Americans identify themselves as Christian. This is a major slide from 86.2% in 1990. Identification with Christianity has suffered a loss of 9.7 percentage points in 11 years – about 0.9 percentage points per year. This decline is identical to that observed in Canada between 1981 and 2001. If this trend continues, then by about the year 2042, non-Christians will outnumber the Christians in the U.S.
52% of Americans identified themselves as Protestant.
24.5% are Roman Catholic.
1.3% are Jewish.
0.5% are Muslim, followers of Islam.
The fastest growing religion (in terms of percentage) is Wicca – a Neopagan religion that is sometimes referred to as Witchcraft. Numbers of adherents went from 8,000 in 1990 to 134,000 in 2001. Their numbers of adherents are doubling about every 30 months. 4,5 Wiccans in Australia have a very similar growth pattern, from fewer than 2,000 in 1996 to 9,000 in 2001. 10 In Canada, Wiccans and other Neopagans showed the greatest percentage growth of any faith group. They totaled 21,080 members in 1991, an increase of 281% when compared with 1990.
14.1% do not follow any organized religion. This is an unusually rapid increase – almost a doubling – from only 8% in 1990. There are more Americans who say they are not affiliated with any organized religion than there are Episcopalians, Methodists, and Lutherans taken together. 6
The unaffiliated vary from a low of 3% in North Dakota to 25% in Washington State. “The six states with the highest percentage of people saying they have no religion are all Western states, with the exception of Vermont at 22%.” 6
</code></pre>

<p>A USA Today/Gallup Poll in 2002-JAN showed that almost half of American adults appear to be alienated from organized religion. If current trends continue, most adults will not call themselves religious within a few years. Results include:</p>

<pre><code>About 50% consider themselves religious (down from 54% in 1999-DEC)
About 33% consider themselves “spiritual but not religious” (up from 30%)
About 10% regard themselves as neither spiritual or religious. 6
</code></pre>

<p>*(you see, you can’t just stop at the first set of statistics, as the second set is relevant to the first)</p>

<p>toodles</p>

36

<p>I dont understnad. You pulled together two seperate polls and included them in one. One was gallup and the other ARIS. I am curious as to what poll Brooks referred to. This does not mean that much, but see this kind of argument is much better then claiming that Brooks is not liberal because thats not what you think.</p>

<p>However I am still waiting for you to show me how the 1st and 2nd WSJ articles show he is not liberal. You made that claim and now please validate it. Otherwise admit you were wrong and the discussion on that part of Brooks will end right away. </p>

<p>After we are done discussing Brooks, I would also love for you to show me why you feel that Mansfield, who does not author this book, and who is a distinguished Harvard political science professor and who is widely revered in liberal circles, does not like women. Just because you say so does not make it true, as so far seen by Brooks.</p>

37

<p>And CGM, by linking those 3 articles by Brooks, I found his writing to be very interesting and the fact that I could not tell his political persuasion really helps him out. I was not going to even bother reading his book or articles, but because you exposed me to them, I am probably gonna now buy the book. Thank you.</p>

38

<p>Mansfield is not a liberal- far from it
*Mansfield was invited to speak by Harvard Right to Life, whose president, Meghan E. Grizzle ’07, described the government professor as “an ally and friend” to her organization. </p>

<p>Mansfield has had a strong conservative voice on campus since joining the faculty in 1962. Last night’s discussion touched upon ideas that are featured in his most recent work, “Manliness.” </p>

<p>…One of Harvard’s most prominent conservatives, known for his opposition to affirmative action, multiculturalism, feminism, and grade inflation, Mansfield identified the characteristics of manliness as self-confidence, independence, and the ability to exercise authority.*</p>

39

<p>the polls were together to show exactly the point…pulling numbers is easy, it the OMISSION of certain information that skews results…the nature of statistics, and that shows that Brooks was being intellectualy honest when he said 85percent of Americans were religious…see how easy it is to turn numbers inside out to suit a purpose., and with that very simple example, I confused you</p>

<p>As for liberal, if you can’t see it in any of his writings that he is most deifenatly not liberal, there is no “proof” I can give you</p>

<p>His words speak for themselves</p>

<p>Tell me, what makes you think he is a liberal? cause he sort of said it? his writings show very different words</p>

<p>I can say, I am a conservative…does that make me so…nope…</p>

<p>Go read for yourself about Mansfield…and he is not liberal</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008046[/url]”>http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008046&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

40

<p>Well you cannot put two seperate polls together, and conclude one information from them for the very reason that they are in fact seperate. Different questions were asked to get different kinds of information.</p>

<p>I agree with you Mansfield is conservative however one of the article you linked to me described how he is revered in liberal circles as a professor in political science.</p>

<p>I seem to agree that the characteristics of manliness are self-confidence, independence, and the ability to excersize authority. That isnt particualry anything new. Most men would agree on that too. I dont even think you would disagree on those characteristics of manliness.</p>

<p>“As for liberal, if you can’t see it in any of his writings that he is most deifenatly not liberal, there is no “proof” I can give you” - you are really hurting your credibility here, and I do not want to see that happen. Because you want to believe something does not make it true. I can’t see in his writings that he is not liberal because nothing in his writings would indicate that. So I ask you, show me. If you were in my AP English class that example you provided about the arts would land you an F. I am serious, please indicate what part of his writings makes him not a liberal.</p>

<p>I would tell you what make me think Brooks is a liberal, if I thought he was a liberal. He definately used to be. The fact that he did not like his results made me think of Liberal academia in university, otherwise by reading all of his work that you provided, I simply do not know what he is and will go on the assumption that he is independant because thats how he is registered.</p>

<p>CGM, you can say you are a conservative, and then I can go back into your writings and prove you are not conservative. In fact, to show you it can be done, once you prove to me using those WSJ articles that he is not a liberal, then I will go and using your writing prove that you are not a conservative.</p>

<p>Who said Mansfield was a liberal?</p>