"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." Dom Helder Camara
It seems that all one needs is to point to a study that purports that we are better than you, and presto all confusion ceases. I posted most of below a bit ago, but am too lazy at the moment to find link.
Religious people, be they conservative or liberal, tend to be more generous on the whole as that is a significant aspect of their life and of their values. Generosity though, runs across any barrier you can make up and tends to be personal rather than ideological. My mom, liberal with the exception of abortion, would give you her last cent.
Consider too that religious conservatives, in a sort of self congratulatory piety, contribute to churches that build huge Babel like edifices where they can sing their own praises. Look at the televangelists and you realize indulgences have returned, but this time they sparkle like a mass celebration of privilege. In the end what has done more good, Social Security or religious offerings which usually include salvation for the giver? When the so called charity monies are used to defeat the rights of other citizens, as they did in proposition 8, or enter into the political sphere, then if that is charity, you can keep your good work.
But Catholic Charities and the Salvation Army do good things, many good things. So while not all is cynical or expectant giving, pretending charity is not motivated by selfish goals is off base as well.
Personally, with the exception of the religious, all my friends and acquaintances who would classify themselves as conservative are less generous than the more liberal person. This makes sense to them, as they see their position as a reward or as expected. Conservatives rarely mention the hierarchical aspect of their ideology.
My aunt who was a sister of charity, for many years in some of the worst neighborhoods, would tell us that without big business gifts they could not carry on, helping others just has low appeal, helping yourself is another story.
Even Hobbes was empathetic and he is sometimes claimed to be the start of the more conservative view of mankind.
"A famous story is told about Thomas Hobbes, the 17th-century English philosopher, who argued that we all act in our own interests. On seeing him give alms to a beggar, a cleric asked Hobbes if he would have done this if Christ had not commanded us to do so. Yes, Hobbes replied, he was in pain to see the miserable condition of the old man, and his gift, by providing the man with some relief from that misery, also eased Hobbes’s pain. That reply reconciles Hobbes’s charity with his egoistic theory of human motivation, but at the cost of emptying egoism of much of its bite. If egoists suffer when they see a stranger in distress, they are capable of being as charitable as any altruist." Peter Singer
What Should a Billionaire Give – and What Should You? - New York Times
"Can we be sure that our donation will really get to the people who need it? Doesn’t most aid get swallowed up in administrative costs, or waste, or downright corruption? Isn’t the real problem the growing world population, and is there any point in saving lives until the problem has been solved? These questions can all be answered: but I also point out that even if a substantial proportion of our donations were wasted, the cost to us of making the donation is so small, compared to the benefits that it provides when it, or some of it, does get through to those who need our help, that we would still be saving lives at a small cost to ourselves – even if aid organizations were much less efficient than they actually are." Peter Singer
The Drowning Child and the Expanding Circle, by Peter Singer
