trexmaster
November 1, 2006, 08:54 PM
Here's the link: (http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4768)
According to these data, much conventional wisdom about uncompassionate conservatives is off base. Indeed, conservatives have slightly more compassionate attitudes than liberals; for example, they are three percentage points more likely to say they have tender, concerned feelings for the less fortunate.
Far more important than politics, however, is religion: people who attend their house of worship nearly every week are 15 points more likely to say they have tender feelings toward the less fortunate than people who never attend worship services (or attend less than once a year). That difference persists even when grouping people by their demographic characteristics, such as age, race, education, sex, marital status, and income.
As we all know, talk is cheap. So even if religious people say they feel more compassionate, do they also act more compassionately?
They do. Religious people of all political persuasions are 40 per cent more likely to donate to charities each year than secular people, and more than twice as likely to volunteer. They are also more than three times more likely than secular people to give each month, and three and one-half times as likely to volunteer that often.
And those religious believers aren't just giving to their churches, either. Research on volunteerism and philanthropy shows clearly that people who give and volunteer for religious organisations are far more likely than others to donate time and money to secular charities as well. For example, a 2000 survey of 30,000 people around the United States shows that religious people are 10 percentage points more likely than secularists to give (and 21 points more likely to volunteer) to explicitly nonreligious causes and charities.
Perhaps it is unfair to conclude that secular people (even those who feel compassionate) are simply less generous than religious people. Secularists with compassionate sentiments may simply be more likely to favour non-private means to help others - say, by supporting higher taxes to cover government welfare payments. However, the General Social Survey data do not support this idea: In fact, secularists and religious people are equally likely (25 per cent) to state that the government is spending "too little money on welfare".
So who is more compassionate: the religious right, or the secular left? The answer appears to be the former. The reason for this, however, revolves around religion, not political ideology. The relatively large religious right and fairly small religious left are both far more compassionate than secularists from either political side. The most uncompassionate group of all - in attitudes and behaviours - is a subset of conservatives who are also secularists.
Word is that the author of that article's coming out with a new book explaining this in greater detail.
In the mean time, I think we on the secular left have to do a better job at charity, lest the religious right use this data to brag about their moral superiority.
According to these data, much conventional wisdom about uncompassionate conservatives is off base. Indeed, conservatives have slightly more compassionate attitudes than liberals; for example, they are three percentage points more likely to say they have tender, concerned feelings for the less fortunate.
Far more important than politics, however, is religion: people who attend their house of worship nearly every week are 15 points more likely to say they have tender feelings toward the less fortunate than people who never attend worship services (or attend less than once a year). That difference persists even when grouping people by their demographic characteristics, such as age, race, education, sex, marital status, and income.
As we all know, talk is cheap. So even if religious people say they feel more compassionate, do they also act more compassionately?
They do. Religious people of all political persuasions are 40 per cent more likely to donate to charities each year than secular people, and more than twice as likely to volunteer. They are also more than three times more likely than secular people to give each month, and three and one-half times as likely to volunteer that often.
And those religious believers aren't just giving to their churches, either. Research on volunteerism and philanthropy shows clearly that people who give and volunteer for religious organisations are far more likely than others to donate time and money to secular charities as well. For example, a 2000 survey of 30,000 people around the United States shows that religious people are 10 percentage points more likely than secularists to give (and 21 points more likely to volunteer) to explicitly nonreligious causes and charities.
Perhaps it is unfair to conclude that secular people (even those who feel compassionate) are simply less generous than religious people. Secularists with compassionate sentiments may simply be more likely to favour non-private means to help others - say, by supporting higher taxes to cover government welfare payments. However, the General Social Survey data do not support this idea: In fact, secularists and religious people are equally likely (25 per cent) to state that the government is spending "too little money on welfare".
So who is more compassionate: the religious right, or the secular left? The answer appears to be the former. The reason for this, however, revolves around religion, not political ideology. The relatively large religious right and fairly small religious left are both far more compassionate than secularists from either political side. The most uncompassionate group of all - in attitudes and behaviours - is a subset of conservatives who are also secularists.
Word is that the author of that article's coming out with a new book explaining this in greater detail.
In the mean time, I think we on the secular left have to do a better job at charity, lest the religious right use this data to brag about their moral superiority.