Um, George F. Will is a registered Republican, and the author of the study is a registered Independent. Who's the "liberal" you're referring to?Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Printable View
Um, George F. Will is a registered Republican, and the author of the study is a registered Independent. Who's the "liberal" you're referring to?Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Right - Will is a Republican, the "Independent" writer was a self described liberal I thought. Still, you "independents" are unbiased when it comes to anything... right? Except for being independent of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
ps- how do you switch your party easily without going to the DMV?
Just curious, 'cause I don't remember reading the guy describing himself as liberal. I leave myself plenty of room to be wrong, however.
-edit-
P.S.: I have no idea. We register at city hall here in WI, and I've never had reason to mess with my (or the wife's) status.
I've never met a social scientist who wasn't, but I live in NY so I could be making it up...Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
link
I know, I know - he was just raised in a liberal household and became a social scientist. It doesn't MEAN conclusively that he is a liberal. To be fair, he has been both a Democrat, then a Republican and now a Liberal.
Here's the relevant bit from the article you linked:
For the record, Brooks, 42, has been registered in the past as a Democrat, then a Republican, but now lists himself as independent, explaining, "I have no comfortable political home."
I guess that makes him a liberal to you, then. After all ...
I updated my post before you posted. I don't believe that people are either with us or against us. There are Canadians after all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Errrrr...isn't that survey about religion in politics .Quote:
Only 21% believe Religion to be important in Europe.
One of them seperation of church and state thingies .
Would that be because them televangelists really know how to pull the money in (when they ain't pulling male prostitutes)Quote:
Second - Did you read the article? Did you read my posts? The MOST MISERLY OF ALL in the study were secular conservatives. This still failed to screw up the balance in favor of Conservatives.
edit to add , I heard a really strange thing the other week , something I really never expected to hear , there was this bloke , funny sort of fella , a sort of stand up in a pulpit and preach sort of geezer , he said people were giving far too much money and could they please reduce their contributions or give them somewhere else .
who cares if social-scientist and WSJ-contributor brooks is a lib, con, or indy? after all, his point is:in any case, Tuff's article is explicit:Quote:
But the point in the book was to show that charity differences are actually due to attitudes and behaviors (such as religiosity and attitudes about the government) that go deeper than political affiliations.
sounds like every independent i've ever met.Quote:
For the record, Brooks, 42, has been registered in the past as a Democrat, then a Republican, but now lists himself as independent, explaining, "I have no comfortable political home."
Some charities are shams. This must mean that all of them are and that Conservatives only give more because they are less intelligent and are more easily swindled. I get it. Conservatives are the ignorant pawns of bad guys. Read a new book.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Not fighting bias, just adding another source of incomreQuote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Liberals believe in redistribution of wealth by the government.
Conservatives by individual choice.
Liberals want higher taxes... they earn more so they will be giving more... sounds like they will be bearing the brunt of their ideology.
That Liberals redistribute more wealth then Conservatives is a fact from this article and the CIA factbook which we are discussing.
What do you mean they re-distribute more wealth? The CIA fact book says this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
i think he's saying that since liberals make more money, on average, they pay more taxes. could be wrong though.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Now there is a saying about that , something about fools being easily parted from their gold:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:Quote:
Conservatives only give more because they are less intelligent and are more easily swindled.
But no , we shouldn't really question the intelligence of conservatives , after all its not like they do really stupid things ...like put Bush in office twice:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
But is that true? Or are we assuming?Quote:
Originally Posted by Big_John
There would still need to be another study done to come to that conclusion. You can't just look at an average here and an average there from different sources on the Web. Look at real data. Compare sums and averages from money donated in the real world.
You also don't know where people lie on the tax bracket. It isn't as simple as saying "they earn more on average, therefore they pay more taxes", unless you were weakly trying to counter a peer reviewed argument.
Sounds like Christians would make better socialists than secularists. The only things secularists do better than the religious is have sex, cheat others and plummet into Hell. I'm not even convinced about the sex part.Quote:
BROOKS: The assumption that religious Americans are just giving to their churches is one I made myself when I first started writing about giving. But it's wrong. The fact is that religious people are more personally charitable in every measurable way than secularists. For example, religious people are 10 percentage points more likely than secularists to give money to explicitly secular charities, and 21 points more likely to volunteer. The data show the same pattern for informal giving to friends and family, blood donations, small acts of kindness—everything you can think of. Religious people are even more ethical than secularists: If a cashier accidentally gives a churchgoer too much change, the odds are better than half that he or she will return it, while the odds are more than six in 10 that a secularist will choose not to give it back.
i'm not privy to Pape's sources.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
you forgot 'critical thought'. hey-oh!Quote:
Sounds like Christians would make better socialists than secularists. The only things secularists do better than the religious is have sex, cheat others and plummet into Hell.
Hi-yo!:smash: You are corrrrrect sir!Quote:
Originally Posted by Big_John
Tuff, you remind me more of a Spaniard...
https://img527.imageshack.us/img527/...1968homif8.jpg
hehe. Why? What am I fighting that doesn't exist? Or that isn't a threat?Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffrey S
where to start.....Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Start. Anywhere you'd like. What do I get uppity about that isn't threatening in some way?
we should work on your sense of humor. that's a good place to start.
seriously, from what i've read of your posts, much of what you seem to see as threats to society or morality or whatever strike me as fanciful. but your quixotic quests are no doubt much less quixotic to you. no need rehash old quixote.
Does anybody else live in NY? I think that Gawain did and look where that got him. This place is Hell's :daisy:.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big_John
You guys don't like my sense of humor! That's sad - I'm actually a very bizarre and funny guy in person. My extremism is tempered by moderation and calm understanding in person. Unless you know me well - in which case I am a vindictive and caustic jerk.
Seeing as missionary work is counted as charity, I'm always suspicious whenever religion and charity is mentioned together...
Btw, is the people called "liberals" here actually people registered for the democrats, and the "conservatives" registered republicans? If so, then I can safely ignore this article, as they're both conservative biblebashers to me, it's just a comparison between two different groups of conservatives, liberals like me isn't included :yes:
Do you have good sources on this? Last time I calculated this (I think it was foreign aid) US tax aid (the part that goes to aid)+ donations were less than most western nations tax aid. The US donations were higher than the European donations though, but also contain things that feels a bit odd counted purely as charity. University donations for example. :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Is that so? I already thought that would be a major part of the explanation concerning donations. Much ado about nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Brooks discovered something else that is more interesting: the working poor, regardless of creed, are more magnanimous than the rich of either persuasion, both financially and in doing volunteer work. Sounds a little too good to be true as well, but hey..
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that you can be Christian and secularist at the same time-- doesn't being a secularist just mean that you support the seperation of church and state?Quote:
Sounds like Christians would make better socialists than secularists. The only things secularists do better than the religious is have sex, cheat others and plummet into Hell.
I don't understand how people can believe in a omnipotent God with a specific moral code and believe that he somehow waits outside of parliament. Transitory reality suggests that If a Christian enters government, his Faith enters with him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quirinus
You don't hold you Religion at the door. Who does that? Why would anyone do that?
I expect you're reacting to the word "secularist," which has been bandied about by various religious and political figures as meaning far more than it actually does. Secularist means a person who prefers the separation of church and state; most of the founding fathers were secularists. Most were Christians of some sort or another (or Deists at the very least). So obviously, you can be both a Christian and an advocate of church/state separation.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
The founding fathers were coming out of Europe's wars of religion, which had been particularly bloody. The Thirty Years' War, by some estimates, killed thirty percent of all Germans. (Catholics versus Proddies.) Just one example from a century that was full of them. So the FFs were really attuned to what kind of madness and mayhem could result from state-endorsed religion.
There's just a fundamental misunderstanding here. You think that a church/state separation means you can't believe in Christ in the Town Hall? Or that your Mayor can't be a deeply religious Jew? Or what, exactly?
But a state-backed religion opens Pandora's box. Shall the state sponsor the Baptists or the Lutherans? The Pentecostals or the Catholics? If a majority of Americans convert to Scientology, shall the Congress curse the name of Xenu in law? Will engrams be made mandatory at the Federal level? And when do we get to ban the religions of people who are incompatible with the State-sponsored faith?
Trust me, separation of church and state is good for the church and good for the state. Just look at Europe, where a specific faith (usually Catholicism) is enshrined in law, and look at what that's done to the religiosity of the people. Or look at England, which has its own state church. Take a long, hard look, and compare that to America, where ten thousand faiths flourish. We are the far more religious of the two, and it's not because the United Church of Christ has taken over your local government.
Of course, but that is not how the study uses the word. It used "secular" as meaning without religion. It used Religious as meaning Religious and Secular as meaning Non-Religious.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
I recognize that the separation of Church and State is a good idea in order to preserve Religions from persecution as well as the non-religious from Religions. I do not recognize that it makes sense not to carry your faith with you into government and vote accordingly.
The truth is, in spite of how practical secularism is for the preservation of individual liberties, if you honestly believe in your faith - that there are things you should do and things that you shouldn't - you can't stand by and endorse or fund something that goes counter to the will of God. How could you? It would make you complicit, and complicity in most immoral behavior could be considered sinful in itself.
Unless you were actually trying to have it both ways, which is impossible with most dogmatic Religions.