groups

For years, I have marveled at the phenomenon that is Charity. It springs so spontaneously from the human breast. Yet, as often as not, this noble instincts effects are akin to the effects of the Seven Deadly Sins.

It immediately places, on the subject of charity, a sense of obligation and embarassment. (Worse; This is usually only true of subjects truely deserving of charity) In time, that burden becomes deeply resented. Often, it inspires a sense of worthlessness in the subject which prevents him from rising above his original misfourtune.

If Charity is institutionalized, we see it tends to immediately bloat with organizer "hangers-ons" who usually derive great financial/social benefit from the association. As it degenerates, we see it become an excuse for culturally extorting moneys from lower working class people to line the pockets of these organizers using children, animals or diseases as excuse. The "subjects" of the charity tend to just become a premise.

Is Charity Virtue or Vice? I hesitate to call it either; though it is surely both.

Tzudakah = Righteous + commandment = charity.( hard for me to explain to folk not in the family. Charity just is.)
I do not understand paragraph #3 or the concept of it being a vice or a virtue. are you asking if people as well as charitable organizations abuse charity? if so - I would say probably some do.

Yichel - I'm wondering, on the whole, is the effect of Charity primarily positive or negative. At first blush one tends to think positive; but the more one thinks of the 2ndary effects - negative?

aae you equating charity to food banka, homeless shelters, or the government run
food stamps, rental asistance, medicare? ma be the division might be
government charity 9 i personally do not view the three that I mentioned as charity) i cannot figure out how I woulddefine them other then needed assistance. yes rthere is a negative consequence in the long run if the person eceiving the government assistance does not change.
the personal "charity again i do not think that is the correc term it is somethin that my family does serve food at a food bank)be involved with stroke folk. i do not consider it charity negative coneqyence .i know a few people who pay zero for food each week they get al three meals there. I t never occurred to me. I know one pretty well. I found a job for her (25 hours per week) but at $7.75/hour does not go very far.

I don't buy the premise that charity is a vice. Explain your reasons.

I took when initialy reding the Post that charity might be defined as food stamps or "welfare" with a belief that it encourages dependency rather then self responsibility. I discussed this with my family - intreresting insights. Personally I do not view either food stamps or "welfare as charity nor do I see medicare, social security, as falling into that definition.
along generational lines My kids do wife and I do not.

I understand Badgerr to be saying that charity diminishes both the giver and the receiver, in that the condition of being in a state where one needs charity lowers the self-image of the receiver, and puts the giver in a position to feel (and even act) superior.

Further, the receiver may never be in a position to return the favor, either directly to the giver or to pass it forward. And the giver may never need charity himself, thus contributing to his ongoing sense of pride or arrogance.

There are many who can not separate the concept of charity from a welfare state or using their money (taxes) for a common good like veterans hospitals.

Charity includes things like fighting breast cancer and childhood leukemia. I never felt arrogant because I donated to Christmas Seals or bought a VFW poppy. I was glad to help.

But then I didn’t think I was superior when I donated to Katrina Relief either. I just thought it was the right thing to do.

Which brings up the question: is there a difference between institutionalized charity, and personal charity?

The more one thinks of this topic, the more different faces Charity can take. Two of those is Personal Charity vs Institutionalized Charity.

Cannot but help favoring Personal Charity to the other. Part of this springs from personal family experiance.

In my extended family (a ton of cousins) I look back to see which of us have been the most financially successful. Was it the ones who put their noses to the grindstone, day after day producing a viable product or service? Was it fantastic investors who took a moderate seed capital and built a fourtune? No. It was a cousin who got in the charity game and bounces around in the institutionalized charitys, managing and such. The names of these charitys are ones with which we are all familiar. The money in his accounts came from charity contributions from people who need the money far more than he does. Thus is the nature of moderne organized charity. They are usually pretty good at generating charts and "studies" "proving" that almost all the contributions go to the actual charity - but somehow, people like my cousin abound. Believe what you will. But the take-away lesson here is - the big money is to be made in Charity.

Personal Charity, especially charitable acts, seem to have good results more often. If money enters the equation, however, our success often tends to degrade.