Religious Faith and Charitable Giving
In the article below, Arthur C. Brooks examines how giving to charitable causes differs between religious conservatives and secularist liberals. It has some bearing on the discussion about collectivist economics.
Over the past decade, a number of policy scholars have examined parallel bedrock constituencies in America’s political parties. On one side, the Republicans rely on the near-monolithic support of Christian conservatives, a fact that has been documented ad nauseam by political commentators and the mainstream press for more than 20 years. Less well understood, but equally important, is the role of liberal secularists in shaping the policies of the American left. These people are the religious and political inverse of Christian conservatives: They vote for liberal political candidates and hold left-wing views on issues like school prayer and the death penalty. But most saliently, religion does not play a significant role in their lives. As political scientists Louis Bolce and Gerald De Maio recently demonstrated in the Public Interest (“Our Secularist Democratic Party,” Fall 2002), liberal secularists are at least as influential in molding the platform of the Democratic Party as are Christian conservatives for the Republicans.
Read the entire article on the Policy Reviewwebsite.
4 comments | 
| 
|
Jacobse | Politics |
The most valuable portion of this article is its analysis of the data showing a strong correlation between religious affiliation and charitable giving. There is good news here for American churches: church members were significantly more likely to give to charities then non-church members. There is also good news here for Christians who are registered Democrats, like myself. Christian Democrats were just as likely to engage in charitable giving as Christian Republicans. Religious affiliation was the primary determinant of charitable giving, the author, Arthur C. Brooks states, not political ideology.
The author steps on the much weaker footing when he engages in speculation that is not supported by data. Having demonstrated that church members are more charitable than secularists he states without substantiation that Secularists control the Democratic party. As a much more heterogeneous “big tent” political group the Democratic party includes both Secularists and Christians, but there is no evidence that the former actually controls the party. Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and John Kerry are all strong Christians and regular church-goers. may Democrats like my parents are devout Christians. To state that the Democratic party is a party of heathern non-believers, as Mr. Brooks does is to engage in fallacy and slander.
Dean, your assertion that secularists are not the dominant force in the Democratic Party is simply without foundation. Every survey of voting patterns show that those who do not regularly attend a worship service or who attend very few worship services overwhelmingly vote Democratic. While those who attend a regular worship service overwhelmingly vote Republican. Church attendance is one of the best predictors of voting patterns, right up there with ethnic affiliation (though ethnic affiliation may be changing).
I would strongly recommend that you review the Louis Bolce & Gerald De Maio article ‘Our Secularist Democratic Party’ . It simply buries the idea that Secularist do not control the Democratic Party.
Regarding Bill Clinton & John Kerry being two “strong Christians” … bwah, ha, ha, ha, … that’s just rich. And here I thought Leftists had no sense of humor.
I never said you weren’t a Christian, Dean. Don’t put words in my postings.
The article I posted and that Fr. Jacobse posted have to do with people’s behavior – church attendance and charitable giving. These are behaviors, not feelings. The article you provide simply moves the discussion from religious behavior to something called “spirituality”. The article is simply wrong to assert that both parties are equally religious, despites its survey results on people’s beliefs. It does not rebutt the arguments made in the Brooks or the Bolce & De Maio articles. It merely tries to redefine the terms. In fact, in several places the article you provide reinforces these articles, though it does so in a condescending and dismissive manner by referring to the “religious right.”
Furthermore, the assertion that the Democratic party is a religious party and has a “church connection” based on black voter turnout is simply absurd. If you rob from Peter to pay Paul you can be assured of Paul’s vote. Democrats play on fear & funding in order to keep the black vote. It has nothing to do with a “church connection.”
Before you head down this road: Yes, prayer is a behavior, but, as I’m sure you’d agree, what is important is what one is praying for. Sitting at home, praying for the end of the “Bush regime” using The Nation as one’s gospel does not make one religious … at least not in my book.