Charity
While I am very pleased that we have depersonalized usury (or interest payments) and hoarding (or storing of food and such for later needs) so that there is less risk of exploitation and conflict, I am most unhappy with the way many charitable acts have been depersonalized through the intervention of government. It is sad that so many fine and charitable acts are funded through taxes which are mandatory. The givers to these charitable causes normally resent the payment of taxes (because they are mandated) and are robbed of the joy of giving freely. In turn, the recipients of government aid don't get the love and acceptance that personal charitable acts provide; government assistance is thought to come from a nameless and faceless bureaucracy which seems to make people feel less worthy and valued, the reverse of personal acts of charity. We as a people have kindly and compassionately decided to care for those of us who are less blessed, but the emotional and spiritual benefits from these fine acts of love and charity are lost because we aren't willing to trust people (and God) to sort things out on their own. That is frightful waste. I also wonder if it isn't a little hypocritical to encourage the government getting involved in social or charitable causes. Hardly anyone I know believes that the government can administer social welfare programs better than a private charity. That raises the question of why we advocate having the government get involved with these programs. Is it because we personally aren't willing to actually do anything ourselves to resolve the problem and we just want someone to salve our conscience about not doing anything ourselves? Is it because we don't expect that anyone else will be willing to do anything about the problem unless we force them to (through mandatory taxes)? Are we just justifying robbing other people (taking their hard earned money without good cause) to salve our conscience? Click here to see the next rambling tale.This page was last updated on July 31, 2007