On 10/18/11 9:04 AM, Eisboch wrote:


"X ` Man" wrote in message ...

On 10/18/11 4:03 AM, Eisboch wrote:


"X ` Man" wrote in message
...


Since I am fairly well-known "in these here parts" as a liberal and as a
supporter of trade unionism, I doubt the Wall Street protestors will be
breaking down my door.

-----------------------------------------------

That's an interesting comment Harry.

Does that mean that a conservative minded individual of similar personal
economic/financial status, but *not* a strong supporter
of trade unionism may be subject to Wall Street protestors at their door?

I know many "Social Democrats" who are very tight and protective of
their personal wealth, whatever it may be. I also know of
hard core Conservatives who routinely share what extra they may have
without hesitation to help others. I don't think that political
ideology dictates one's sense of responsibility to their fellow man,
despite the current myriad attempts to convince otherwise.

It's a personal, morality based choice .... not a politically derived
directive.

Eisboch


I don't read or see much of "hard core Conservatives" engaging in
discussions or activities aimed at fulfilling "one's sense of
responsibility to their fellow man." I won't disagree that in times gone
by, pre-Reagan, many Republicans were involved in activities to help the
less fortunate. Nowadays, not so much.

---------------------------------------------------

Well, "there you go again" .... :-)
making social responsibility issues a politically derived directive.

There's a myth that exists that being "liberal" means you are more
sensitive and proactive in assuming financial responsibility for
your fellow man. The facts simply don't support that. Those who identify
themselves as Republicans give more out of
their own pocket than those who identify themselves as Democrats. There
are several studies available on the 'net that provide the supporting
data.

There *is* on major difference. Republicans tend to give from their own
pockets. Democrats tend to give from other people's
pockets.


Republicans tend to give their charity to their church, which may or may
not use that money for charitable purposes. There actually was a study
done about this some years ago.

This is only anecdotal, but about a dozen years ago I was attending a
holiday gathering. There were several couples there who were Republicans
and evangelical Christians and they passed around a flyer whose purpose
was to raise funds for a "mission" their church was engaged in in
Central America. Purpose of the mission? To "spread the word of Jesus"
to indigenous peoples who already were Roman Catholic.

I started laughing, and I was asked why I was. "You want money to
convert Christians to Christianity!"

"Oh no," I was told "Catholics aren't Christians."

I think my response was, "You people are crazy."

It turns out that one of those couples is now home-schooling their
children because they don't want the kids *exposed* to "non-Christian"
kids. One can only imagine what sort of mindless automatons those kids
will turn out to be.

What's the point? There is charitable giving and there is charitable
giving. To me, a charitable gift should go to help people with their
needs for food, shelter, clothing, medical care, et cetera. I don't
believe money donated to charity should be used to gain converts or to
build buildings. If it is, it shouldn't be. Further, as religious
donations are deductible, I think donations used to proselytize
shouldn't be deductible.