First I had to think of the argument I've heard so many times that we shouldn't be forced to be charitable through taxation. Well, I sure am not a fan of force, but I am a fan of charity. And this argument has therefore always kept my attention. So, if we wouldn't want to take care of people through taxes, it now becomes our responsibility to take care of the poor and needy. But how would that play out? One group of people who seems the most adamant about not being taxed, especially for charity, are economists. Yet, a nationwide study found that economic professors in comparison to other professors where twice as likely to NOT give any money to private charities. Most of them also didn't respond with donations to public TV appeals, and in laboratory monetary games, students behave more selfishly after taking an economics course (source: Robert H. Frank, Thomas Gilovich, and Dennis T. Regan: "Does Studying Economics Inhibit Cooperation?" Journal of Economic Perspectives 7 (1993):159-71). Coincidence? Bad research? I don't know...sounds like those pushing the most for the tax cuts in the name of freedom and people doing things of their own free will, are the least likely to do anything.
Then I also had to think of this whole chapter in the Book of Mormon - Mosiah 4.
16 And also, ye yourselves will asuccor those that stand in need of your succor; ye will administer of your substance unto him that standeth in need; and ye will not suffer that the bbeggar putteth up his petition to you in vain, and turn him out to perish.
17 Perhaps thou shalt asay: The man has brought upon himself his misery; therefore I will stay my hand, and will not give unto him of my food, nor impart unto him of my substance that he may not suffer, for his punishments are just—
18 But I say unto you, O man, whosoever doeth this the same hath great cause to repent; and except he repenteth of that which he hath done he perisheth forever, and hath no interest in the kingdom of God.
19 For behold, are we not all abeggars? Do we not all depend upon the same Being, even God, for all the substance which we have, for both food and raiment, and for gold, and for silver, and for all the riches which we have of every kind?
21 And now, if God, who has created you, on whom you are dependent for your lives and for all that ye have and are, doth grant unto you whatsoever ye ask that is right, in faith, believing that ye shall receive, O then, how ye ought to aimpart of the substance that ye have one to another.
22 And if ye ajudge the man who putteth up his petition to you for your substance that he perish not, and condemn him, how much more just will be your bcondemnation for withholding your substance, which doth not belong to you but to God, to whom also your life cbelongeth; and yet ye put up no petition, nor repent of the thing which thou hast done.
23 I say unto you, wo be unto that man, for his substance shall perish with him; and now, I say these things unto those who are arich as pertaining to the things of this world.
This comes to my mind because a lot of those people who side with the economists also sit in Church. And then I hear all these arguments about how we shouldn't just give a beggar money because he'll just buy cigarettes or beer, etc. And I think 'hold on, didn't King Benjamin just say that we should give and not judge?'. How come that people are so eager to complain about paying taxes to support the poor, and so quick to discuss how we shouldn't give this or that to someone who asks, and so slow to just recognize how stinkin' blessed we are in comparison to the rest of the world and just be glad that we CAN pay taxes (because, doesn't that mean we're employed?), and so blessed that we can probably give someone some money when they ask (because let's be honest, who of us doesn't have 1 or 2 dollars to spare?), and how lucky we are that we don't have to be addicted to beer, or cigarettes, and that we don't have to ask others for money. What a sad life. After reading Mosiah I always felt that what we're really supposed to do is to simply be willing to give. Of course, at times it may not be right, and right now I wonder if it's right for me to give money when we're living on student loans (debt) and using government aide. If I can't provide for myself and depend on others right now to meet our needs, is it right for me to give away money? I don't know and I don't think anyone else knows. I have to figure this out with God.
But, I do have to say, it is amazing to me how unwilling we often seem to be to simply give - to just give money, and not think about it for the rest of the day. It amazes me how quick we are to buy burgers, cars, clothes, soda, ice cream, chocolate, lotions, rent DVD's etc. , but if some sorry bum on the street wants a buck - nope! I just don't get it. And I'm not saying I'm better, just that the mentality of wanting to always cut in the areas of the poor and the needy is an odd thing to me. For me, it seems so against everything I feel the scriptures teach me. And, with that I also do not say that we shouldn't help the poor and the needy to take care of themselves eventually. I'm just speaking about how stingy we truly are with our money. Maybe it's just me though. Therefore, I guess the question is: where does YOUR money go?
Posts
43 comments:
Well. This is a tough one. On the one hand, you might argue that charitable giving in the US has done wonderful things for the world. For cancer and other medical research, especially.
On the other hand, charity givers in the US are selfish in one way or the other. You have the wealthy guy give 1 million to stem cell research because his wife is dying of leukemia. (Are those two related, I don't know, just making it up for argument's sake). Charitable giving is substantially lower to organizations who are helping the poor or underprivileged, helping kids get out of the ghetto, get an education. There are a TON of charities out there wanting to help, but int he end, they are not usually the ones that end up getting the billions of donor money. Just because, one might argue, the people with the money have no interest in helping the ghetto kids (their kids are in nice private schools).
Then you have the other extreme in Europe where charitable giving is much much lower (in Finland it's almost non-existent). Because it's unnecessary, one might argue. There are simply no poor or underprivileged people.
But I have to say, I really miss the grassroots approach to charity int he US. I miss getting involved in charities, getting people excited about a cause, about collecting money in support of a family or a child, or whatever. It just doesn't happen this way here because 50 % of your income is taxed away. And people somehow feel they did their part.
There are a few things to be said for the welfare state, of course. I love the sense of security it creates in its citizens.
But at the end of the day, I do have to say, I wish I could decide where my money was going and whom it was helping. I know we shouldn't judge, but I feel that, with the guidance of the Spirit, I could make better decisions than the government.
So, in the end, it's a tough one. I can't decide. All I know is missing the charity lifestyle in the US. Even if not everybody gives, most people DO give, especially since it's tax deductible. And I miss getting involved, and feeling you are making an actual difference in a cause that you feel passionate about.
First of all I find it difficult to believe that there are no poor people in all of Europe. I understand you've got a socialized society there, but seriously? No poor people? Please elaborate.
Fran, I'm confronted with this often when I'm walking to my car from work given that Children's hospital is not in the most affluent neighborhood. Just the other day, in fact, I was approached by a young white male with a story about how he has no job and just got out of the hospital from a stab wound (he had a bandage on his arm to prove it, or try to convince me of it at least). He apparently needed some help. I politely denied him. I guess that indicates that I judged him to not be sincere. Probably that's not for me to judge. More often than not I do give a dollar or two (when I have cash which isn't often). Those verses from Mosiah are always playing in my head as well. I think I act this way because of an example my mom set for me. We were in Pittsburgh in 1991 to see a play. A man who was down and out approached us and asked for help buying a new pair of shoes. My mom gave him $5 much to my father's dismay. But my mom reminded my father that it isn't for us to withhold just because we may not trust that the money will be used appropriately, that's for the Lord to judge. We're blessed either way. That experience has always stuck with me.
An alternative is to make occasional donations to thrift stores or goodwills (there's always some unused clothing or toys lying around that you could get rid of). Also, I'm a fan of giving the unlucky soul something of value that isn't just cash. It's often inconvenient but I tried it once and felt very good for doing so. Now I don't mean to paint myself as some great charitable man. I found myself lacking greatly in charity sometimes but I'm trying just like the rest of us.
Troy
Ooh, this is interesting. Thanks for bringing this up!
The study about the economics professors is very interesting, but it doesn't tell the whole story: the majority of econ professors are Democrats and a recent poll showed that Democrats contribute significantly less money to private charities than Republicans do. I'll have to dig up a link to the latter poll, but here's a report on the study about the political leanings of professors:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8427-2005Mar28.html
Sorry, my HTML buddy is at work right now, so you'll have to copy and paste.
Here's an article about the study which showed that conservatives do more charitable giving than liberals:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html
I am aware that RealClearPolitics is a conservative news outlet, but the article just discusses the study's findings.
Troy, I think what I was trying to say is pretty much EXACTLY what your mom said. I just feel that most of us are so lucky and blessed all the time, why judge and sit on our money like we don't have enough.
I agree with you, that sometimes it's not right, because we really don't have anything, or there are better ways to go about it (as you mentioned in the end). Thinking of my example of that lady who said she's trying to get money for motel, I should have/could have just taken care of that for her. That way I wouldn't have to worry about her honesty. Then again, sometimes you can't do it all, but I feel at least it's not my place to judge. You get the point.
As for no poor in Europe. Yes, that's true - no poor at all! It's truly a magical place. Ok, just kidding. Of course, we have poor people, bums and all. However, I WOULD say that the extend of poverty you see here (ghettos, white trash people etc.) and the amount does NOT compare to Europe...well, at least Northern Europe. Southern Europe is quite different. The middle class is far, far larger in most (northern) European countries than it is here.
So, to address Isa's stuff. I LOVE the grass roots initiative in the USA to go do something and change things. I love it! And I think Europe has lost a lot of that, and I'm sure the social safety net is at least partially to blame for that. However, my personal claim is that, taxes or no taxes, we should always be willing to give if we can, even if we pay a lot of taxes.
On top of that, I think I was just trying to say that it seems that some/a lot of those who don't want to pay taxes because they want to take care of things on their own, are the least likely to do so.
Lastly, charitable donations are an interesting thing. As a government, I think I remember reading that the US gives less percentage wise than a lot of European countries. Per capita donations are higher in the US. But again, from some studies I have read, it also appears that approx. 24 percent of the population give about 50 percent of all donations...so, clearly some are far more generous than others. And one very interesting factor, studies show, seems to be religion. The top 25 philanthropists in the USA have 3 things in common: self-made, they always have given, and they are religious. Similar studies have shown also that religion plays a huge factor in how giving you are (religious people are far more giving).
So, maybe, the US apparent generosity is mostly a result of religion. And maybe that's why donations are lower in Europe, even though we're all about community and humaneness. Religion just does something extra for us being better people (of course!).
At any rate though, what I really think we need to do is realize that European or American, we belong to THE richest nations in the world. We have everything you could ask for and then some. Who are we to sit on our money like we don't have enough. I think there are very, very few excuses for us to not be charitable - in whatever way we can.
huh, interesting Julie! I haven't looked at the study yet about professors being democrats. Is it talking specifically about economics professors or just professors in general? I still think it's interesting though that economics classes (a prerequisite for business usually right?) seems to make students more selfish. Also, another study I've read shows that only 10 percent of charitable contributions come from corporations. 90 percent come from private people...so, maybe there is a correlation at least between a capitalistic mind and lack of charity. I can't necessarily prove it though. :)
"On top of that, I think I was just trying to say that it seems that some/a lot of those who don't want to pay taxes because they want to take care of things on their own, are the least likely to do so."
The weird thing is, the opposite is true. The people who are most opposed to taxation are also the most likely to help the poor through private charities.
Like you said, it's probably because of religion. Conservatives are more likely to be religious than liberals are.
I believe in giving and I want to do it in the way that's most effective. We are paying around 50% of our income in taxes when you consider federal income tax, property tax, gas tax, sales tax, capital gains tax, etc. Many people pay state income tax and city tax, too. The fact that we're handing over that much money and we still have serious poverty problem in America is unacceptable. It makes me angry that my capacity to give is limited by taxation and much of that money doesn't do anyone any good.
But I still give.
Amen and amen to that last comment.
We pay alot of taxes yet every election cycle we hear the same denunciation of poverty and promises to help people rise up. It's a broken record. Government dollars will never cure us of poverty because so much of what they're given is utterly wasted. Just look into how that urgent stimulus bill is being used in many cases. That's why there's such an anti-tax movement in this country. We see everyday how we would get much more value out of our money being spent by individuals than by the government. Most people know how to spend their money a heck of alot better than the state or the feds. Now that's not to say there isn't a role for taxes in society. Of course there is. We can't depend on private donations to pay for very important city services such as law enforcement, road repair, trash pick-up, and sewage but our tax dollars will never rid us of poverty. Ever.
Well, Julie, I don't know how sure I am yet that we can compare giving between republicans and democrats. But that's also not necessarily where I wanted to go with this. A lot of what I expressed is just based on my interactions with others (most of them, of course, being Mormon and usually conservative :). I think, without saying it, I also thought about the sentiments of wanting to cut taxes in the areas that are connected to helping the poor, instead of, military for example. That, to me is always weird. Why not cut taxes in less necessary crap, and keep up the help to the poor as much as we can?
Anyway, I'm not even opposed to tax cuts. It's not like I love giving away all my money, and we all sure pay a lot of taxes. But, at the same time, instead of frowning upon all the taxes I pay, I can also just be glad that I'm lucky enough to pay all that money.
Also Troy, while I am totally with you on the government's inability to handle money well, I do not agree with you that 'the people' know how to handle their money much better. If that were the case, I think our economic crisis would look quite different, since one big problem is people being in debtdebtdebt. Huge consumer debt is a very American problem and doesn't convince me that people really know how to handle money much better than the government.
At any rate, if I could have thing my way, I'd love to have hardly any government at all. I'd wish that all the world would do all the right things on their own, that we'd share and give and take care of each other, that we serve, and preserve and protect and all. But, it doesn't seem to work like that, and I don't see how we can function without government, or with no taxes or extremely low taxes. If someone has a solution that works, i'm all for it. I just don't see how it could work.
But, really my whole point is that we should be willing to give, and to give generously, anywhere in the world.
So, I've been googling around a little for info on democrats, republicans, economics, charitable donations etc. It's quite interesting.
I came across 2 studies claiming/showing how supposedly a democratic administration is better for the economy. I came across one article discussing (this was the most interesting to me) how charitable donations are pretty much the same between religious liberals and religious conservatives, while donations amongst secular conservatives are even less than amongst secular liberals. I think that'd go right along with how we all said that religion may be the key to charitable giving (rather than political orientation or even taxes or a socialized system).
But, I stand corrected...I keep getting several articles that say that conservatives tend to give more than liberals. I think I will attribute this to religion though, as some articles suggest. That's great though and only confirms and supports the importance religion has for society!!!
Go Religion!
Sorry, nothing profound. I liked what someone said about the top 3 philanthropists: They always gave. I need to do that.
The real Henry
Thanks for the discussion. I found it very interesting. That comment about wishing that there wasn't a need for government sounded very Republic--people should govern themselves.
I appreciate Troy's comments about charity. I may sometimes deny someone on the street ready cash--for whatever reasons, but I may be generous in giving to Goodwill or DI or paying a generous fast offering or donating generously to a food bank or paying an extra dollar at the grocery store to feed the hungry or watching a friend's kids because she can't afford a sitter. So just because I don't give every beggar money doesn't mean I deny all beggars. I just have another way of giving to the poor. I just feel more comfortable donating to the organizations that support and feed the poor--that way I don't worry about if my money is just going to buy cigarettes and booze.
Right Angie...or do you not give them cash because you judge them? :) I understand your point. But, I also think we need to learn to not judge, and be willing to give if we can, even if people may choose to do something wrong with it. One thing I don't like about DI's and Goodwills is that you give them stuff for free, and they resell it for way too much to those who have nothing.
Ok...I think I need to elaborate more. First of all, has anyone noticed my own hypocrisy (me judging those I feel don't give to beggars because they judge them?). So, as I strive to make this place a better world, maybe the first thing I have to learn is to not judge ANYONE. Phewww...that's so hard. Hypocrisy comes so naturally to me. With my last few discussions/rants, I've started to realize how quick I am to judge, and I think I need to do better. At the end of the day, no one knows the history and heart of another person.
With that said, this is also why I do believe it's important that we learn to give, even to the bum we think may spent our precious money on booze. I think my actual point is not even so much about how we give (charities, fast offering, cash to the bum), but the intent of our own hearts. Do we not give to the bum because we judge him (to not use the money 'right'?) or because we don't have any money, or means to help him? Do we hold back because we don't truly want to help and/or we don't care enough?
I have this hunch that what we're supposed to learn is to give, and to give freely, as nothing of what we have is truly ours, but a blessing bestowed to us from Heavenly Father. Yet, I find that generosity doesn't come as quickly. Even with all my insights on being generous, the person actually being generous and giving in our family, is Henry, not me. Henry always gives all kinds of stuff away (money, food, things) and I freak out - thinking it was too much or that we need it. I even thought that maybe while others aren't as verbal about how they think we need to be generous and give to everyone, they may be a heck of a lot more generous still than I am, with all my great philosophies.
I think C.S. Lewis once said though, that when we give it needs to hurt a little or else it wasn't enough (or something like that). Which brings me back to DI and Goodwill. I realize they do ship off stuff to poor countries, and so they do good, and we do help the poor that way. But, I personally have never felt like giving when I gave to DI, since it was usually my dump for all our frivolous excess we haven't used in years (my trash).
When I think of the most generous persons I know in my life, what I see is people who've always been giving to others - the bum on the street as well as the charities or the Church. It seems their whole nature exemplifies what King Benjamin talks about - an understanding that all they have is a blessing, and that we're here to love and bless those around us.
And I think that's my point. I understand that we cannot give to every good cause in the world, and that we have to pick and choose a little in which things we are involved. But, when someone directly petitions us for help (as in a person approaching you), is it right to turn away and not help? Are we or are we not judging the person at that moment if we don't help for any other reason than simply not being able to? I'm not going to answer this, as I realize I may be wrong in my conclusions.
My feeling though is that true charity and true generosity are far more than giving our 'trash' to DI. It may be even more than the things we already do. And maybe even when we give to the point of it hurting a little, maybe it's not enough. Maybe it's a whole mindset and life style we need to adapt. Maybemaybe.
For now though, why do we have to worry so much about giving a few bucks to the bum on the street, even if he uses it for booze? Do we worry as much about other trivial amounts of money we spend and give away? Just throwing it out there again...
Giving to the person on the street makes me a better person regardless of how the money is used (let's face it, the person that can beg on the street is in a bad place either monetarily or spiritually--most likely both, and in need of help) It helps me to see them as a person and love them more when I look them in the eye, talk to them if I have the chance, and see them as my brother or sister.
I remember being in Washington DC with my dad as a kid going to fireworks on the 4th of July. While we were playing at a park and walking around town a homeless man on the street started talking to my dad. I remember my dad talking to him for a long time, asking about his life and his situation, and what he thought about things. When he left my dad gave him $20. That memory has stuck with me because my dad was generous with both his time and his money and he saw this man as a child of God.
As Fran has mentioned, we throw away so much money on fast food and junk, I would rather let my kids see me giving it to those less fortunate, and if they are dishonest then they are just that much more unfortunate.
That being said, I typically don't carry cash at all so usually don't worry about it either but on the flip-side, when I was in India I saw another side to it, that usually doesn't happen in the US. As an American we were always targets for the beggars, and I would usually give a few rupees to the child beggars but once you've given a few every beggar in the vicinity (and sometimes that was A LOT)upwards of 10-20 people would swamp you at once for handouts) It was difficult for me because I knew I was privileged but simply did not have enough to give to everyone. You almost had to harden your heart to it and not even look at the poverty just to get by each day. It was very difficult in a different kind of way.
We each need to decide how best to deal with each individual situation but I think we fail much of the time to really consider these people as worthy of our time, attention, love, and sometimes money.
I give, because it helps me keep my heart in the right place, regardless of what it does to the recipient.
Thanks Reni. I think you found better words for a lot of things I tried to express.
For discussion's sake:
King Benjamin didn't say anything about deceitful beggars. Could his speech have changed if they were faced with people who lie to you just to get some cash? He did try to keep people from saying, "They brought it upon themselves". But nothing about determining if their need was legitimate. Could it be that our place is to judge whether something is truthful or not? Couldn't your money go to a more useful cause if it's not going to someone who lies about their need?
Just some ideas. I feel like I'm a pretty giving person, and usually give more time than money. This is just something I started to think about after reading Fran's post and everyone's comments.
The real Henry
I say just put it to the test. The next time you see a beggar/panhandler give them a buck or two and smile at them or ask them a question about themselves or wish them a good day and gauge how you feel inside. Then, the second time you see a beggar, just drive past and ignore them, as most people do. How did you feel then? Which experience and feeling does more for the development of your spirit? That for me is the deciding factor.
It was freezing cold in Prague, and I noticed a beggar face down on the ground with his outstretched bare hands. I felt bad so I gave him my gloves. I bought another pair further down the road. On our return trip I saw the same beggar, still no gloves. I don't know if I really felt good. I felt almost betrayed. I don't know. It's hard for me to sincerely give something and then to feel that it wasn't used to truly help the person. I guess that's how some people feel about providing sustenance to beggars who may only be looking for more drugs or alcohol. I tried giving a beggar some soup, and he insisted I give him money. He had said he was starving. I've heard of people who keep canned food in their cars to give to those asking for money. I liked the guy in San Fransisco who would make sandwiches and pass them out each morning to those sleeping on the park benches.
Sometimes I don't feel good about giving to people. I've felt many times that the money I had just given to someone probably went to something that person really didn't need.
I'm not saying that I'm not a beggar too. I just feel that sometimes I don't feel good for having given to a beggar.
Henry
My own husband...I'm so shocked. Just kidding. I know Henry is extremely generous and kind. I still remember him giving away his gloves and how sad he was/frustrated when it didn't seem like that beggar needed them/wanted them that badly. It's frustrating when we go out of our way to help someone because we DO care, just to realize that we're being (most likely) being deceived or taken advantage of. It's not a pleasant feeling and I can understand how that would discourage some from giving the way they have before. I DO believe there are other ways we can give (passing out sandwiches sounds great. I also remember my grandma making soup and taking it to bums on the street).
However, my point is still that even if our gifts are not received as they ought to be, it doesn't free us of our obligation to help. That is my whole point. In many cases we may find out or be right about our suspicions about dishonesty, but in the end we never truly know. We just don't know, and I feel we are better of giving, and having been wrong, than not giving and missing those people who really needed it. If we stopped doing all the things that are 'right' just because the other party involved doesn't receive it in the right way, well...we wouldn't be doing anything anymore. It's like not forgiving someone because they're not sorry for the wrong they've done. Our giving, like forgiving someone, has less to do with the condition of the other person, and a lot more with the state of our own hearts.
And then, I also had to think of the bible verses this morning, where the people asked Christ "when have we seen thee naked and clothed thee, seen thee hungry and fed thee?"...Doesn't that also suggest that when we're truly giving we're not so worried and involved with our thoughts and minds whether that person deserved it or not, or what we're doing to begin with. Doesn't it suggest that service and kindness and charity have become our nature and we don't even stop to think about it?
I don't know about others, but I know as long as I can't just give freely to those who straight out ask for it, I don't know how I'll ever get there.
What an interesting post. It is actually something I have prayed and pondered deeply on in the past, and continue to have thoughts on. Here is what I have come up with on bums/beggars; I pray often that I will be inspired when I should give money. I rely completely on the spirit to direct me to give when it is appropriately needed.
Secondly, as a family we pray almost daily that we will be led to serve and give to those in need. I have not been surprised at the amount of inspiration that has come our way in directing us to who is in need. I have found that it not always people who are in financial need.
And third everywhere we move I search out a donation place that will give free the items to those truly in need. There are always local places that will accept certificates from the local government that lists what the family needs are then will provide all items they can from their store. Or, there are many women's battered shelters where families live that had to leave everything behind to escape a dangerous life. Usually you have to go through the local law enforcement to donate to these very protected locations.
The Savior often helped those who helped themselves. We are constantly taught to do all we can then allow the Lord to do the rest. Just another thing to ponder on as we strive to care for others.
Just my thoughts.
Giving to people in the street is something I think about a lot. We have ample opportunity for it here and over the years I've developed a policy that I'd like some feedback on.
I have limited resources. Yes, I am aware that I'm probably in the 5th percentile wealthwise if you look at the global picture. I am truly thankful for that. Nevertheless, my resources are limited. I want to make sure that I do the best with what I have. Meeting the real needs of the poor is more important to me than feeling like I'm a better person because I gave away some money on the street. Feeling good about myself is a secondary benefit of giving. What really matters to me is whether someone is actually better off because I gave.
So when I see a beggar on the street, if I have cash on hand that isn't promised to anyone else and I can give it to him without endangering myself, I do it. Better that he should have it than that it should sit in my car or my wallet for weeks and months. If he uses it on alcohol or his monthly income from begging is higher than ours, it isn't my business. I give him the benefit of the doubt and I give him my spare cash.
But the bulk of my charitable giving is done through private, well-organized charities that I've investigated and that I believe are trying to meet the needs of the poor in the most efficient way possible.
So what do you think? Is that in the spirit of King Benjamin's admonition?
sounds good to me Julie! I also agree with you that since (despite our comparable wealth) our resources are limited efficiency is more important than 'looking good' or 'feeling good'. And, I personally could probably do a lot better in figuring out more meaningful and effective ways of making a difference. There is so much that can be done, and I think it's important to look into/find charities or organizations or whatever that do good that we are involved in. I'm sure King Benjamin would feel the same way.
Maybe my real point still hasn't come through: my concern is with us withholding help when we could help (we DO have the spare cash or resource at that point) but we do not because we judge the person to not use the help the way WE see fit (we judge). As I said, we can't help everyone. Sometimes we don't have cash. Sometimes we have cash but we need it for our own family or someone else who's in need. Sometimes the Spirit may prompt us to move on. It certainly can be so different all of the time. To me then the key is what King Benjamin said about helping if we could. That if we can't help at the moment to at least wish in our heart that we could.
You can't help everyone, and giving to the bum may not always be the best way to use your resources to make the greatest difference. What matters, I think, is where our heart is. Did we want to help the bum? Did we wish that we could better his situation? Did we wish we could give him some cash if we had some spare? Did we want to reach out and only held back because the spirit prompted us otherwise? Or, do we just ignore those people, judging them to probably be dishonest, to just waste what we give them on something we don't approve of (beer, cigarettes), or to maybe not having tried to get themselves out of their situation, having brought their situation on themselves etc.
I think, as long as your hearts are tender and caring, wanting to help whenever we see people suffering (mentally, spiritually, physically, emotionally...whatever), we're probably on the right track.
"Huge consumer debt is a very American problem and doesn't convince me that people really know how to handle money much better than the government."
This is an irrelevant point, if one believes in individual freedom. Satan's plan would have had us all doing the right things. We would have been providing for ourselves, not falling prey to addictions, not being in debt, and so forth. The US was not founded on the idea that once people prove they can handle themselves, they get a freedom from the government. On the contrary, we all had our individual freedom to begin with, and agreed to turn some of it over to the stewardship of the government to protect the rest. If the only path to security is the shackles of government, then I prefer insecurity. I made that choice once before, didn't I?
The money that we have represents our time and talents-- present if we're employed, future if we're living on borrowed money (and I've been there, so I make no judgements). It represents what we choose to do with ourselves. In essence it represents our freedom or our life. Your statement leads me to believe that we should give our freedoms up to the government, simply because a majority of people can't really do a better job than the government could, that because said people can't prove an ability to do a better job, the government should control them.
(cont)
Are there a lot of poor money managers? Yes. I'm related to few. But I know for a fact that I do a better job managing my life than the government could. As an example, the government takes more money from me for Social "Security" than I would need to fund a very comfortable retirement. AND, the Supreme Court has ruled that the government is under no obligation to ever give me ANY of that money back. I would only ever consider giving up a freedom to government if it could demonstrate that it could do a much better job of managing it. And that's to consider. Parity is not sufficient, and I find it disturbing that such an argument is put forth. And yet the government has shown an unparalleled ineptitude at managing resources. When one can use brute force to take what one wants-- and make no mistake, brute force is how government takes from us-- one is not held accountable for the use of those resources and one continues to seek more and more.
I hurt for poor people. I have close relatives who face debts most of us can't imagine, and giving them money would not help them. They aren't in their present situation because of a lack of money. The lack of money is a symptom, not the problem. I offered genuine help, and it was refused. There is more to giving help than giving money, and sometimes giving money can be quite deleterious. It isn't a question of being stingy or passing judgement on the decisions a beggar may or may not have made. It isn't about the DVDs or plasma screens that I want to buy. It's a question of not doing harm. That is the problem with the so-called liberal approach to helping the poor. Everyone pays a tax and gets to feel good about themselves, the poor be damned. It's kind of like a sugar-high, with an ever-expanding addiction. If you have good reason to suspect that a beggar on the street is going to buy alcohol, and you give him the money anyway, how is that different than giving a depressed person a loaded pistol? I mean, how are you to say that they aren't going to shoot themselves? That doesn't make you a saint; in fact, you may be part of the problem. Better it would be to go get some food and give it to the person, as that at least lowers the chances of being part of the problem.
Fran, I get what you mean by being happy that we can even pay the taxes. I recognize that as being better than the alternative. I would counter with the argument that something being better than an alternative does not necessitate that either one is acceptable. -3 is greater than -10, but neither is positive. Should a slave in the southern United States have been happy because, hey, at least they had food to eat? Should I be happy that I got mugged because hey, at least I had $20 for the mugger to steal? The government takes too much. It also delivers too little.
Man is not a sacrificial animal who must give up his life simply because someone else through fate or poor decisions feels the need to ask him for it. We all have limited resources. To not expect that the money or time I give be well used would make me an unwise steward of what the Lord has given me.
"On the other hand, charity givers in the US are selfish in one way or the other. You have the wealthy guy give 1 million to stem cell research because his wife is dying of leukemia."
I don't see a problem in this case. The man's "selfishness" led him to direct his resources towards advancing science. And any advances that came as a result of his donation will be available for everyone when they otherwise might not have been. This "selfishness" was nothing other than rational self-interest, which is a good thing.
I think you got carried away Julie. The only point I was trying to make with my comment on people not necessarily handling money better than the government, was because Troy stated that the government does a poor job with handling money (with which I agree) and that most people would do a better job handling money (which I don't feel so sure of and is why I cited huge American consumer debt as one example of how people may not be handling their money better than the government). Just because I call in question that people handle their money better, does not equal that I think the government should take over. I don't think the government should ever have any powers that the people are not willingly giving to them. And the government should never hold any power that the people cannot take back. That's my view.
But really, you can claim that people do not know how to handle themselves better than the government, and still believe in individual freedom. At least, I never claimed that because people can't handle their money they should let the government take over.
Those comments from notenoughblogs were from Ethan. They weren't mine, nor was your blog invaded by the PR department of the Ayn Rand Society, although it sure looks that way. It was just Ethan, bless his heart.
*removed for typo*
Ethan (me) said that, not Julie.
Fair enough, I'm glad to hear it, and I did go further than what your statement said. I stand by the substance of the argument, but I incorrectly concluded that you were advocating the other side. I've been up in arms recently at the nonsense coming out of Washington and the erosion of our freedoms under seemingly-positive guises.
"But really, you can claim that people do not know how to handle themselves better than the government"
It's actually quite an accurate statement, seeing how the government is nothing but a bunch of people. A bunch of people who don't actually have to work for a living and seem to know nothing about how wealth is created/maintained and how the standard of living was raised to where it is in this country.
Again, I thought you were trying to defend the ludicrous amounts of money that are confiscated from the individuals that make up this nation. I wasn't seeking to offend.
hmmm, now that I've read everything you wrote, I really think you got carried away.
Either we're really miscommunicating here, or we really have different views. At any rate, I don't quite get all the things you were going off on. I think I've made it pretty clear that my concern is with out we view others, and their needs, and how quick we are to judge. You're totally going off on politics and tangents that aren't really even relevant to what I'm trying to talk about.
But, even with some of the points you've made, if I understand you correctly, then I still can only assume that you do not understand me or are just sharing a lot of thought you wanted to get out but that have nothing to do with what I am thinking or trying to express.
Or maybe we just simply don't agree. I think we need to be wise stewards. I think we need to be informed, involved, and always trying to better our world and people. I think we need to be wise and smart in how we go about the things we try to achieve. And I most definitely think we all need to start thinking more about our own faults than everyone elses.
Maybe you're just not getting what i'm trying to say. To me giving is a free act. How we give can be very different and personal. But, if someone gives with strings attached, then I don't think they are really giving.
It's ok if you think differently. This is how I feel.
I was going after 3 things. 1) The comment thread had turned a bit political, and I was stating basically that the government has not business trying to make us good. 2) I was sharing my own views of helping people, which was the point of the thread. The point was that giving cash to a beggar is not always a help and can sometimes be harmful. 3) Acknowledging that there is a serious poverty problem and that it is not at root a monetary one.
1 was some of the philosophical basis of 2 and 3.
I am intrigued by your last comment, because I've been told the same thing before, and I want to understand. You said, "But, if someone gives with strings attached, then I don't think they are really giving." If someone gives with the expectation of getting something in return (blessings, a good feeling, favors at a later date), that is what I call "strings attached." Making sure a gift does the intended good I do not call strings attached. Does that differ from what you think?
I like everyone's approach to giving. I really think society is benefited from people trying to do good regardless of how they go about doing it. Yes it's probably true that giving cash to an alcoholic beggar, probably will eventually add to his/her demise. I think the important thing is that our desire to give is maintained even if the help we give isn't really that helpful. Like Fran said earlier,"the The top 25 philanthropists... ...always have given". Maybe those top philanthropists started by giving money, or change in their car to every beggar they passed, and then, later realized what potential their giving could have and switched how they gave. I think that whatever we do and in whatever financial situation we find ourselves in we need to keep getting beyond ourselves and giving. And don't forget that serving in church callings is also giving. We should always be looking for ways in which we can bless other's lives. Every good thing we do, even something little makes our communities better.
I admit, my thought process was taking me further and further from wanting to give. There have been plenty of times when I've given and felt very good about having done that.
I am publicly repenting and vow to not let the discouraging experiences I have had discourage me from giving to everyone I can.
The real Henry
My favorite quote:
"We must be the change we wish to see in the world." - Gandhi.
Alright Mr. E-thang! First of all, please identify yourself next time so I'm not totally confused as to what's going on and the drastic change in writing 'tone'. ;)
As for the 'no strings attached', I partially have your definition. I think when you give you shouldn't give with hopes for benefits (like blessings, favors later on and other things you've listed). However, I also find it problematic when we give only if the gift is used as intended. One example would be how my mom gives. Once, for example she bought a table runner for our table, knowing that we didn't really have anything to 'decorate' our table with, and knowing that I would have liked something. She bought something, and I didn't like it. I ended up not using it and giving it to someone who liked it and didn't have anything either. My mom was deeply offended. She was hurt that she got me something I 'needed' and I didn't like it. I think if she would have just bought it because she sincerely wanted to give me something, it would have been different. She wouldn't have been so sad over me not liking it, because she didn't give it just to be liked and used. She gave it, because she wanted to give it. Period.
Of course, there is a line. If I give to a charity, and then find out the charity pockets all the money, for example, I would no longer give to that charity. However, if there is a charity (for example) providing glasses to kids in poor countries, and one of those kids gets glasses, but ends up not using them, I would still give...(even if all the kids ended up doing that). I would not let my belief in giving be hampered by someone's choices. I don't know if this example makes clear how I view giving and no strings attached.
I do think we need to be smart, but I think we also have to learn to just part with something and not try to control others and making sure they're good and behaving themselves. Isn't that what you also want? Didn't you discuss individual freedom, and not being forced to be good. Of course, it's your right to follow every penny you spent and check if people use it 'right'. I wouldn't want to do that though. I'd give where I feel like giving, and where I think I should give. And when I've given, I've given, and I don't think the receiver is accountable to me for what they received. I have parted with something, given it away, and it's no longer mine, and no longer my right to determine what should happen to what I gave away...something like that. I find it hard to find the right words.
Now, of course, we need to be wise, and you brought up a good point what our giving money to a bum who may just end up buying booze may do more harm than good. True. But, really, how do we know? Unless the spirit tells you or the bum personally tells you, I don't think we can really know, but only suspect. And that's where I'd prefer to be generous than not give. Of course, if you're so concerned about the actual harm, I think going to buy some food with them would be a perfect alternative. But, is that what most of us do? Or do we just turn away? And would it really be like giving a depressed person a gun? I don't know...but depressed people can get guns no problem anyway in this country, right? And isn't that a freedom you believe in? Because, the ultimate choice of what we do with what we've been given is ours, and no one elses? Individual freedom....it's really goes many ways, you know.
One more example: I think if God would give things only if they are used as intended...most of us wouldn't be getting much at all. I mean, he gave us life, and still a lot of people commit suicide, for example. Yet he gave, knowing full-well how misused some of his gifts would be. I'm not saying that it's ok if we misuse something we've been given. I think we'll be held accountable for that. But, since what I have is not mine to being with, since all I have is a gift from God, I don't think I need to be so concerned about others righteousness in using gift properly. I need to just be concerned with me.
Again, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try and be smart, and follow the spirit. To me it just means that others wrong choices are not something that should stop me from doing what's right. And I believe helping when asked is right. I'll let everyone decide how they want that help to look like. But, I think when help is requested, helping is right. Whether the other person is deceitful, or dishonest, or asking for help the wrong way, is not for me to judge at that instant.
The example of your mother I can quite relate to, and I agree 100% with you. I do consider that to be in a different class. You didn't ask your mom to buy that thing for you or even for a gift at all.
The kids with eye glasses was a good example. There will always be some degree of failure whenever human beings are involved, and a few kids not valuing their glasses is a perfect example. As that percentage tended towards 100% however, I would seriously question whether or not that charity was worth donating to, because they obviously wouldn't be having an impact. And the resources used to buy discarded glasses could have bought food or job training for other who would have benefit.
What I'm getting at is that helping and giving money are not always the same thing, and they can in many cases be opposites. If someone is reduced to begging on the street, they have something more than a temporary cash-flow problem, which is all spare change can fill.
Here's what I envision: talking to beggars. Offering them shelter, job training, friendship, the proverbial teaching them how to fish, all while giving them the immediate resources they need to survive until autonomy. If they don't want that, then the money sitting in my change dish wouldn't help them out of their situation either.
This isn't about tracking pennies. This is about helping someone stand on their own 2 feet. It isn't passing judgement, as I don't care how they got there. What is important is that they want to move forward. The church requires the same of anyone seeking church welfare. It isn't a string. I can't force someone to better life, but I don't have to and nor should I encourage the opposite.
We need to be givers as Christ was. Do we have the right to do that at someone else's expense?
Well, I would question my continued giving to a charity that isn't wanted as well (meaning, if what I do is not wanted/used at all, I'd probably quit that effort as well). I also fully agree with you that money and help are not necessarily equal, and that, particularly with beggars their predicament is not one of cash flow per se. I agree I agree. I am with you on your vision.
My problem though is still that in the mean time, when we don't really know how things are received, if they are used properly or not, if they help or not, we are quick to judge a book by its cover and withhold our charity, not because we have better use, but...because we judged. not because we're going to give to a better cause, but because we didn't care enough at that moment.
And, while I think your spare change may not solve the problem a beggar faces, it may also not really make it worse, but it may help you to keep your heart in the right spot...
I would so love to make in reality that vision. My experience has been that pride prevents someone from receiving actual help. Giving me money is easy, because I don't have to change who I am.
That is an important consideration you raise, "not because we're going to give to a better cause, but because we didn't care enough at that moment."
I never want the charity I effect in this world to be based on making myself a better person or feeling good (it is and always has been clear to me that you don't either). If those are the side effects or a diagnostic, then so be it.
And for the record, I don't think the so-called "conservative" approach to aiding the poor is any better. Their "go and be filled, opportunity abounds" approach is lacking at best.
Alright, so...let's maybe sum this whole discussion up as follows:
- we've all been greatly blessed, and been given much
- we should be prayerful, and very considerate and careful to use the resources we do have, to serve and help others
- we should be careful to not judge quickly, or judge self-righteously, but only to discern how best to help those who need our help or ask for our help
- we should be wise in what we do, and how we help
- we should help and serve not for our own benefit, but because it's what Christ would want us to do and for the sole benefit of other person
- how we help can look different and can sometimes be cash, sometimes food, sometimes time, clothes, toys, or other resources
- however we choose to help, we should maintain a spirit of wanting to give and wanting to help and wanting to make things better, and not be held back by our prejudices or own desires/ideas. It's not about us.
- we should be grateful for what we have
Ok, that's a lot of shoulds...I think we all get the idea. I think I personally need to do so much better in truly reaching out. I feel that often the poor and needy are on my mind a lot, but action isn't always the next step. And while maybe I do ok with not judging a bum so quickly, I judge others quickly...I hope if nothing else, we all got from this discussion that we can do better, that we probably should to better in loving others, in serving others, in reaching out more, and in being more generous.
There.
I missed this whole discussion ( I forgot to subscribe to the comment feed for this post).
I just wanted to say to Troy that no, there are no poor in Northern Europe I was talking about Scandinavia). And I define poor to be people living below the minimum standard of living, as generally defined. There ARE bums, sure. (There is white trash, too, but they usually aren't POOR). This is completely different from the US where there are actually children who don't have enough to eat.
Of course, in relation to Americans, all Northern Europeans are poor. We live in smaller houses, drive smaller cars, eat less food. For the good of all.
Anyway, my point was solely that I love the grassroot approach to charity in the US. I didn't make a value statement as to taxes.
Good points everybody, I only had time to skim through. I agree with Fran, we shouldn't judge the needy. If they decide to buy alcohol with our 1 dollar donation, then that's their choice. But at least I have given them the possibility to choose, which I think the gospel is all about.
Ditto.
Here's another piece of food for thought. I learned that with the advent of anti-psychotic drugs many previously clinically insane people were successfully medicated to a point that they could function in society. The only problem is that when they forget to take their medicine they kind of fall back into old ways. I think it would be interesting to see how many of the homeless and beggars roaming the streets aren't actually completely fit to be able to get themselves out of their rut. I guess that would change the argument a little bit. Wouldn't it be our responsibility as a society, as christians to care for the poor, the fatherless and the widows (and I assume that also means the crazy people who roam our city streets). Definitely don't give them guns. But feed them, care for them and try to make them a little happier.
Henry (the fake Fran)
P.S. Did I mention how happy it makes me to participate in such interesting discussions? I love thinking about deep and tough questions. I'm glad Fran got this running. I'm also glad that it can be attributed to my wonderful family!
Interesting thoughts, all.
Here are a few of mine.
I pondered a quote from J. Reuben Clark, which I read sometime in the seventies wherein we were to avoid the "curse of the dole."
I have been through the gamut of giving--from riding in on my white horse, tooting my horn, seeking for my own feel good, giving for the laud of giving--to backing off entirely to make sure I didn't damage the recipient. As the sometime recipient I had been damaged by a too open giving and by too much protection which created in me a feeling of worthlessness and resentment. When I refused the gift, I developed into a poorer, more self-assured and, eventually, a more responsible individual.
I really don't know the answer. I liked Maren's comments about praying to know when, how and to whom to give. I haven't done this. I think it is a good idea.
What I have done is to pray about whether to give to a beggar. It became a game among privileged kids in Denver in the seventies to "beg" aggressively. I had to think. I was living on bare bones and told one girl that if I could afford a shirt as nice as the one she was wearing I might give her a quarter. In other cities I have observed actors who dressed down for their part and perfected their looks of hopelessness and despair in order to rake in the big stuff. In fact, a young guy went out of his way to find a job for a man he frequently saw begging on the same corner. When he excitedly told the guy that he had found a job for him for twice minimum wage, the guy said, "Oh I make way more than that begging."
At one corner, I gave a guy a dollar and as I drove off I had a dark feeling that I had done wrong. At the same corner on another day, I drove back around the block to give a different guy a dollar.
My dad told of a story where a beggar said to him, "As soon as I get two more dollars, I can get another bottle [of whiskey]." My dad gave him the money because of his honesty.
I favor trusting Church leaders to make good decisions about contributions and then trying to find other opportunities to serve financially or otherwise. I remember a place at Oakland, Ca. The kiosk at the gas station was surrounded by thick plexi-glass and bore a statement: Please do not give to beggars. There is [a government agency] which will give anyone what they need. It seemed there were people who were endangering the community through a kindness they did not know was causing harm.
Once again, it becomes individual,person to person, community to community. I do love Mosiah's advice. We need to humble down and be appreciative that we have been cared for. We need to be grateful for our own lives, knowing that our God has put us where we are, and we need to seek to love and bless our fellow beings in the best way we can.
So many of the homeless and suffering are mentally and emotionally challenged. Some do not want the press of living in a home with a job and demands. I thought how nice it would be to provide a place with reasonable warmth, safety, bathrooms,showers and soap. Ah the simplicity of thinking up answers when we don't understand the problem. After I saw The Soloist I thought again about my ideas.
Post a Comment