Religious Conservatives Are More Generous. But That's Only Half the Story

May 5, 2009 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (4)

By Dan Gilgoff, God & Country

Religious conservatives are more generous and altruistic than the rest of the country. At least that's the central thesis of Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism, a 2006 book by Arthur Brooks, who heads the American Enterprise Institute.

But Robert Putnam, the author of Bowling Alone and of the forthcoming book American Grace, says Brooks has it only half right. Yes, Putnam says, religious people are more generous—measured by such behavior as charitable giving and volunteering—than secular folks. For instance, Putnam's recent polling shows that about half of the most secular Americans say that people need to look after themselves and not worry about others. Only about 1 in 5 of the most religious Americans, by contrast, feels that way.

But while the difference between more and less charitable Americans has a lot to do with religion, it has relatively little to do with political ideology. In a talk Putnam gave today at a Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life conference that I'm attending, he unveiled new polling that showed religious liberals actually tend to be more generous than religious conservatives. On the other hand, polls show that there are fewer and fewer religious liberals and more and more religious conservatives.

One of the most surprising findings of Putnam's recent research is that purely religious factors like frequency of prayer and church attendance don't explain the so-called generosity gap. Rather, the distinguishing factor is church-based (or synagogue- or mosque-based) friendships. The more church friends—Putnam calls them "supercharged friends"—you have, the more likely you are to be a generous person. "Faith is less important than communities of faith," Putnam says.

Bowling Alone brims with similar correlations between community involvement and desirable personality traits. It turns out that civic engagement is also a huge factor in what is commonly perceived as the goodness of believers. Will some believers see this as a demotion for God's role in individual goodness?

Tags:
conservatives,
religion

Reader Comments Read all comments (4)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

Rob,

You have made some false assumptions.

1. We are not avoiding problems we are getting our hands dirty addressing them. We

are not in Ivory Towers where discussions are theoretical rather than practical.

2. We do try to teach people to fish, not just give them fish.

3. Not much of the work of the ACLU helps the average person find a better life. In

fact some of their work is making society worse.

4. The changes in societal structures I see being encourage are causing problems not

making them better. And so much of the work done that way involves huge

government out-lays. Do you prefer forced contributions through taxation over

voluntary sharing by individuals? Indeed that is the liberal way. Take

everybody's money by force and spend it in ways they do not approve. I prefer to

let people have the freedom to choose.

Next time you are tempted to throw around the "cop-out" label maybe you should spend some time following us around.

Fredrick Stone of NC 9:37PM June 02, 2009

Another thing to consider, in the giving of time, is the sacrifice made, financially, by those who work in organizations to help others, whether it be something like the American Cancer Society or the ACLU. These people take these jobs because they care, not for the money. Professionals in these organizations can usually make much more in the private or corporate sector. I would say that these people tend to be more liberal than conservative in numbers.

Jay of AR 2:47PM May 06, 2009

I would expect religious people to be more generous (i.e., givng money, goods and time) becuase they really want to alleviate the suffering or hardship of others. As far as that instinct goes, it's laudable. But it also turns out to be, for many generous religious people, a cop-out, an avoidance of the real problems.

As the saying goes, it is more effective to teach a person to fish than it is to give him a fish. With regard to the generosity of the religious, I would turn that saying this way: it is as important or more important, in the long run, to change the societal strutures that lead to the suffering and hardship of others than it is merely to alleviate the hardship and suffering of today.

Therefore, I would like to see included in studies of generosity the money, goods and time given (by the people being polled) to the work that's being done to change the subjugating structures of society--in addition to those poeples' giving in the traditional ways. Support of political reform, the ACLU and many other organizations can have a larger impact on the long term alleviation of most of humankind's ills.

Rob Winslow of FL 5:43PM May 05, 2009

God & Country

Dan Gilgoff covers religion for U.S. News & World Report. He is the author of The Jesus Machine: How James Dobson, Focus on the Family, and Evangelical America are Winning the Culture War, and is a former politics editor at beliefnet. E-mail Dan at godandcountry@usnews.com.

advertisement