As a post-Thanksgiving, pre-Christmas column, it might be appropriate to think about our role in society and our responsibility to our community and to each other. How we perceive the world around us, our religious views and our view of various institutions and traditions greatly influence our attitudes about our personal responsibilities toward other people, especially people who are in need.

All of us enjoy the benefits of living in a civil society within our own communities. In order to maintain a civil society and a healthy community, individuals must recognize there are certain claims on each of us. These claims require some action on our part whether it is simply obeying the laws or something more pro-active and involved such as serving in public office, volunteering for civic and community efforts or giving money.

If you believe the liberal media, you might conclude that the most involved and the most caring and compassionate people are liberals. After all, they are the ones who seem to always be the champions of the poor and down trodden, the disadvantaged and disenfranchised. They also are the champions of big government social programs that are supposed to be helping “the least” among us. While not all liberals fall into the “big government is the only answer” category, almost all big government social programs are the exclusive realm of liberals.

Consequently, liberals are always at the forefront of efforts to raise taxes to take money from those who earn a taxable income in order to redistribute it to those who earn little or no income. For many, but certainly not all liberals, this is their idea of a compassionate society.

But is it really compassionate? And are the liberal, big-government types the people in our society who care the most?

In terms of big government programs being representative of our nation’s compassion toward the poor, a strong case can be made that the exact opposite is true.

At the time the Great Society programs were implemented in the mid-60s, the elderly were the most likely to be poor. Since the 1960s, the percentage of people living at or below the federal poverty level has remained fairly constant but the demographic has changed. Today, we have a massive welfare state that is made up primarily of unmarried women with children.

In 1960, prior to the implementation of the Great Society programs, only five percent of children born in the United States were born out-of-wedlock. At that time, 24 percent of black children and 3.1 percent of white children were born to an unwed mother. By 2004, almost 37 percent of all children born in the United States were to an unwed mother; almost 70 percent of all black children and 21.7 percent of white children are now born out-of-wedlock.

In this context, it could be argued that the liberal idea of compassion, creating big government programs to take the place of private efforts to help the poor, is not only not compassionate, but harmful to people.

Perhaps the best way to evaluate who cares the most is to take a look at personal charitable giving and volunteer service and what motivates people to give their time and money.

In his book, Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism, Professor Arthur C. Brooks reports that conservative families give about 30 percent more money to charity each year than liberal families, even though their income is about six percent less. Conservatives give more regardless of income bracket, even with lesser levels of education. Prof. Brooks, director of nonprofit studies at Syracuse University’s Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, says that the difference is particularly strong when comparing religious conservatives and secular liberals.

This difference in generosity, according to Brooks, is explained by differences in people’s values because giving is about values, not economics. Consequently, the more religious people are, the more generous they tend to be. It doesn’t matter whether they are Protestant, Catholic, Jewish or whether they are conservatives or liberals. The bottom line is, the more religious people are, the more likely they are to give. And religious people do not limit their giving to religious organizations. In fact, religious people are more likely than secular people to give to non-religious charities such as the United Way.

Moreover, charity among religious conservatives is not limited to giving only money; they are much more likely to volunteer their time and participate in other informal acts of charity. For instance, religious conservatives are twice as likely as secular people to donate their blood. And their participation in groups like the Parent Teacher Association is 21 percentage points higher than among secular liberals.

How does this break down in terms of conservatives and liberals? Among religious conservatives and religious liberals, there is very little difference in their willingness to give and help, religious liberals are just as charitable as religious conservatives. The charity gap is really greatest between people of faith and secular liberals. Prof. Brooks’ research shows that we need only look at the giving habits of people to know that values are what really motivate compassion and personal involvement. And not just any values, but religious values that emphasize giving and caring about others.

Gary Palmer is president of the Alabama Policy Institute, which -- like Grassroot Institute of Hawaii -- is a member of State Policy Network. This article was published on November 21, 2007 by API and is reprinted with permission. For more information, visit www.alabamapolicy.org.