How to tell if you're liberal or conservative

[GoodWitch58]

Mango, you make some good points, as usual. I have seen, in my own life experiences that those who are affiliated with some organized religions do give a lot--to the missionaries who they believe are working to bring Christianity to the "lost" in some far off country, while they will not give to those who might be in need right in their own community.

I have never been able to understand that.

That is certainly not to say that others -- both religious and not-- do not give, but I have witnessed "people of the church" work for hours packing up boxes to send 8,000 miles away to those in need, while they drive right past the single mom or dad down the street from the church who go without supper because they give the food to the children!

And, in one case I know about, the church people raised money to build houses for people in another country; while a military family around the corner from the church lost their home because of losing jobs to care for the spouse who was injured in Iraq, but no one from that church offered to help them...even when the church was made aware of the need!

Makes no sense to me.

 

[steyou]

Mango, you make some good points, as usual. I have seen, in my own life experiences that those who are affiliated with some organized religions do give a lot--to the missionaries who they believe are working to bring Christianity to the "lost" in some far off country, while they will not give to those who might be in need right in their own community.

I have never been able to understand that.

That is certainly not to say that others -- both religious and not-- do not give, but I have witnessed "people of the church" work for hours packing up boxes to send 8,000 miles away to those in need, while they drive right past the single mom or dad down the street from the church who go without supper because they give the food to the children!

And, in one case I know about, the church people raised money to build houses for people in another country; while a military family around the corner from the church lost their home because of losing jobs to care for the spouse who was injured in Iraq, but no one from that church offered to help them...even when the church was made aware of the need!

Makes no sense to me.

Goodwitch-I agree 100%. However, I do not limit it to Christian or Religious organization. There are plenty of others who wish to be ambassadors to others around the world and you wonder if they even consider needs here at home. I also wonder where their heart is when they bring their film crews along instead of giving without the need of praise.

 

[Winnie]

I'll bet my charitable contributions and volunteering hands go a lot farther in helping the poor and needy than your smile, empathetic nod and pat on the back. (By the way, along with my money comes a smile, nod and pat on the back).

I'm sure that the needy in your area love your tremendous skill of perception in seeing that they need food or water or other assistance. That skill surely goes a long way in truly helping folks.

Just like a liberal--skirt the issue and facts and try to answer with totally empty rhetoric and put downs.

If it's not TRUE empathy or sympathy that goes into ACTUALLY HELPING people, what is it that motivates these conservatives to give more and volunteer more than their liberal brethren that don't give or volunteer as much. Again, actions speak louder than words.

I have a friend that always says that Republicans like to give money to the needy and Democrats like to give rich people's money to the needy.

I don't know if it's original, but it makes me laugh every time he says it.

 

[idlewind]

.
Good post Idlewind. I don't see some things the same as you but we need those differences.

You say "Choosing not to have insurance is a choice." In some cases it seems the choice may be between rent, food, or insurance ......... which do you think goes unpaid? Right! Let's face it, there are hardworking people amongst us who have to make tougher choices than we do just to get by. I see people who labor harder for longer hours at jobs that pay less who "choose?" to go uninsured rather than hungry. ijs

And what is "Catholics/Christians"?

.

I know people get in bad circumstances, often through no direct fault of their own. But, the fix for their problems should not involve sinking even more people into the bog because of hugh increases in taxes.

I should have typed "Catholics/Evangelicals." I know many who do not support the death penalty and we must respectfully disagree.

The bottom line is that everyone has an opinion. The problem in this country is that we have lost respect for those differences and all to often resort to name-calling and personal attacks when we do not agree. That goes for conservatives and liberals ( myself included.)

 

[idlewind]

Mango, you make some good points, as usual. I have seen, in my own life experiences that those who are affiliated with some organized religions do give a lot--to the missionaries who they believe are working to bring Christianity to the "lost" in some far off country, while they will not give to those who might be in need right in their own community.

I have never been able to understand that.

That is certainly not to say that others -- both religious and not-- do not give, but I have witnessed "people of the church" work for hours packing up boxes to send 8,000 miles away to those in need, while they drive right past the single mom or dad down the street from the church who go without supper because they give the food to the children!

And, in one case I know about, the church people raised money to build houses for people in another country; while a military family around the corner from the church lost their home because of losing jobs to care for the spouse who was injured in Iraq, but no one from that church offered to help them...even when the church was made aware of the need!

Makes no sense to me.

I think the point is that giving something somewhere is better than giving nothing nowhere. The surveys seem to indicate that conservatives give more than liberals. Thus liberals may want to open their own wallets before they begin to use the government to lighten mine.

 

[Winnie]

Interesting. If one looks hard enough, one can find so called "statistics and surveys" to back up their claims. However, I read the chapter about charitable giving in it's entirety and what struck me as interesting was that it pointedly said that Conservatives were more religious, but did not say where the donations were going. For all we know, it could be the religious faction that is railing against gay marriage, to the University producing more Conservatives, or a special interest group.

So while fingers are being pointed as to what party someone is based on some silly tests, the reality is most people will react to certain situations most likely as a product of their environments, how they were raised, and life experiences. Not to mention that based on domestic factors, people are likely to change party affiliations. So, I find all this mind bumbling comparison silly. IMHO.

I'm wondering how this helps to promote partisanship especially in light of the fact that there's even an identity conflict between the Conservative party between neocons and paleocons; One of the reasons why former Conservatives, like myself, feel so displaced.

Well, we can be sure those giving blood were not doing so to rail against gay marriage or produce more Conservatives. From the Brooks article:

The differences go beyond money and time. Take blood donations, for example. In 2002, conservative Americans were more likely to donate blood each year, and did so more often, than liberals. 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.

For all we know Liberals may give to the arts by way of $5,000 a plate charity dinners in place of giving to soup kitchens or helping the impaired.


And, while it's true that Conservatives are more religious than Liberals, there is an interesting bit in this article from the Wall Street Journal:
Arthur C. Brooks: Conservatives Have Answered Barack Obama's Call - WSJ.com

The 2008 data tell us that secular conservatives are now outperforming their secular liberal counterparts. Compare two people who attend religious services less than once per year (or never) and who are also identical in terms of income, education, sex, age and family status -- but one is on the political right while the other is on the left. The secular liberal will give, on average, $1,100 less to charity per year than the secular conservative. The conservative charity edge cannot be explained away by gifts to churches.

But I think the important thing to remember is that three quarters of American families give to charity at an average of over $1,500 a year. We are a generous, caring nation - all of us, as Americans.

 

[fisher]

However, I read the chapter about charitable giving in it's entirety and what struck me as interesting was that it pointedly said that Conservatives were more religious, but did not say where the donations were going. For all we know, it could be the religious faction that is railing against gay marriage, to the University producing more Conservatives, or a special interest group.

.

Actually, it goes on to say that conservatives give a large chunk to religious organizations but that even after considering the money that goes to religious organizations the conservatives still outgave the liberals. It goes further to explain that a good chunk of the liberal donations go to the arts such as museums and symphony orchestras which primarily benefit the rich. Whereas some of the money that goes to religious organizations goes beyond buildings and gets into the hands of the poor and needy.

 

[fisher]

Mango, you make some good points, as usual. I have seen, in my own life experiences that those who are affiliated with some organized religions do give a lot--to the missionaries who they believe are working to bring Christianity to the "lost" in some far off country, while they will not give to those who might be in need right in their own community.

I have never been able to understand that.

That is certainly not to say that others -- both religious and not-- do not give, but I have witnessed "people of the church" work for hours packing up boxes to send 8,000 miles away to those in need, while they drive right past the single mom or dad down the street from the church who go without supper because they give the food to the children!

And, in one case I know about, the church people raised money to build houses for people in another country; while a military family around the corner from the church lost their home because of losing jobs to care for the spouse who was injured in Iraq, but no one from that church offered to help them...even when the church was made aware of the need!

Makes no sense to me.

The poor in this country are much better off than the poor in third world nations where there is no clean water, no food, no healthcare, etc etc. Many, many churches and other religious organizations such as the salvation army do tremendous work right here at home. But, there are needs all around the world. Many churches and other religious organizations send not only missionaries, but also doctors, crews to build schools, houses and hospitals, medicines, food, etc.

All I see in your post is an attempt to tear people down for doing good and doing right. That is something I definitely do not get.

 

[fisher]

Goodwitch-I agree 100%. However, I do not limit it to Christian or Religious organization. There are plenty of others who wish to be ambassadors to others around the world and you wonder if they even consider needs here at home. I also wonder where their heart is when they bring their film crews along instead of giving without the need of praise.

Wow. Again, throwing knives at people that are attempting to do good.

I know many, many, many, many religious folks that have gone on mission trips (to build, help, feed, care for...the needy) both here at home and around the world. I am not aware of one that actually had any publicity associated with the trips.

Now if you are talking about Madonna, Brad and Angie, etc (all bleeding heart liberals), then yes, there is a whole lot of puffery that goes along with the goodwill trips.

 

[fisher]

I think the point is that giving something somewhere is better than giving nothing nowhere. The surveys seem to indicate that conservatives give more than liberals. Thus liberals may want to open their own wallets before they begin to use the government to lighten mine.

Well said.