So being religious doesn’t make one compassionate

That seems to be what Ezra Klein of The American Prospect is implying in his argument about a study showing conservative households give 30 percent more to charity than liberal households. To him, conservatives only donate because they’re not really “compassionate,” but just “religious”:

But the difference can be explained in one word, and it’s not “compassion.” It’s “religion.” A recent survey from Google similarly found that self-identified conservatives gave more to charity than did self-identified liberals. But they also found that “if donations to all religious organizations are excluded, liberals give slightly more to charity than conservatives do.” Indeed, religious congregations are far and away the largest recipients of charitable gifts: In 2006, they made up 32.8 percent of all giving. But is that charity, at least charity as Kristof and Brooks are defining it? For instance: Utah is among the most Republican states in the nation, largely because of its heavily conservative Mormon population. Mormons tithe 10 percent a week to their church. But is that charitable giving? Or is it a membership fee? How much of it goes to anti-poverty programming? How much to church administration?

Notice how liberals like to bring religion into the picture about conservatism. They like to paint the picture that conservatives are all narrow-minded religious nuts. He singles out the great state of Utah for its Mormon population and questions the act of tithing, even having the audacity to label it “membership fee.” I’m willing to bet that the Mormon Church has done more good to the world than whatever foundation Al Gore or George Soros have set up.