Does anyone have a "Right" to my money?

[Father_of_8]

It all goes back to the parables where Jesus taught that everyone is expected to do good with what they’ve been given. But the ones who have been entrusted with more will be expected to do more good. No one is exempt from doing good, but those of us blessed with more are commanded to help others.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I would think that by international trade we could eventually get most people out of charity.

If there were not brutal dictators, corrupt bureaucracies and warring tribes to prevent it.

It has been a while since I have been to the united nations web site but I believe they probablely are working toward your expectations.

Or away from them. When such things happen, the UN takes little action, and often counter-productive – as UN troops demanding sex from starving women in exchange for the food they were supposed to be giving them.

And I am aware of a few Roman Catholic international organization that is striving toward peace and feeding the hungry(they certaintly have the “Right” to my money and I am very proud when they accept it. By commiting ourselves to these organization I am sure we will share in their rewards in heaven for the suffering and persecution they endure for the rest of us.

Until we change the situation in the most oppressed countries, all the charity in the world will be only marginally effective.

As far as my indictment, that was more of a broad statement, I have not got the legal requirements in order to bring indictments, I think that is an attorney general that does that, and no I can not prove it. However, with internet access today you can come to your own conclusions after reading foreign newspaper that is translated in english. Start with Mexico. Again my opion.

I would suggest that anyone can find anything to support any opinion. One should be careful when it comes to making accusations like that.

As far as hijacking, etc. well may I turn your own accusation against you and ask if you can prove it, surely you are not a hypocrite and can take your own bashing.

I can – and I don’t need to go to the foreign press or to fish in the internet to do it. Dafur is a well-known example, and there is no doubt what is happening there.

But my real answer should be, " I will pray for them and hope that ever who is sending the grain will continue to try, and that justice and peace will prevail, because that is what the Lord Jesus is about (Justice, Peace).

All well and good. But as we pray, people die from hunger and brutality.

We are trying to bail out the ocean with a tea spoon.

 

[strngrnrth]

We need both business and charity, but we don’t need government charity; it is inefficient and invades privacy too much. That’s just IMHO.
I grew up sometimes on welfare. I wanted a job when I was 8. But had any of us gotten work, we’d have lost our benefits, generally losing much more than we’d be making, so we didn’t dare. Especially as children. Yet I couldn’t help myself. I made toys from recyclable materials from the trash, I made candy, I made what I could and sold it door-to-door, and I even tried to open a cafe in the yard.
After a few more years of public education and waiting for checks, I grew up not knowing how to fill out a job application. As a young adult I had no idea what a resume was. Even near 30 I was surprised to learn resumes are printed on special paper. Where would I have learned that? I just recently learned that businesspeople must do their taxes more often. How much money went to the social engineering/crowd control of my school days without anyone’s telling me these things?
On TV I saw a piece on an African woman who was living – no, dying, starving – on three cents a day. If she had a job making thirty cents a day for the same 14 hours including transport, she’d have ten times what she has now and stop dying. If she made three dollars a day, she could support a local orphan as a housekeeper and then she could rest when she came home. it would save and improve two lives. If she made twelve dollars a day, she could have clean clothes, a patchworked floor of cleaned scrap flooring materials, something to caulk up the straw walls, some veggies and eggs in her diet, and a bag of bandages and antibiotic in case she and her housekeeper were hurt. A totally changed life for two. If she got a different job when a new factory moved in se could ask for more because she was experienced. she might make fifteen bucks a day and be able to take a few days off.
Then imagine a charity giving her a fruit tree and a well and water filter…she’d then have a better life than she could ever have imagined anyone in the world had. And she could adopt the orphan and give a child a real home.
The key is choice. People take what they most need once they have and get used to having a choice.

 

[vern_humphrey]

We need both business and charity, but we don’t need government charity; it is inefficient and invades privacy too much. That’s just IMHO.

I agree with you.

Of course one problem is the government takes so much money (which it handles so inefficiently) that private charity is strapped for money.

Of course “Government charity” is a contradiction in terms – if the Government does it, they take the money by force, and that’s hardly charity.

I grew up sometimes on welfare. I wanted a job when I was 8. But had any of us gotten work, we’d have lost our benefits, generally losing much more than we’d be making, so we didn’t dare. Especially as children. Yet I couldn’t help myself. I made toys from recyclable materials from the trash, I made candy, I made what I could and sold it door-to-door, and I even tried to open a cafe in the yard.

That is one of the great crimes of Government “poverty” programs – they perpetuate proverty, locking people in for generation after generation.

After a few more years of public education and waiting for checks, I grew up not knowing how to fill out a job application. As a young adult I had no idea what a resume was. Even near 30 I was surprised to learn resumes are printed on special paper. Where would I have learned that? I just recently learned that businesspeople must do their taxes more often. How much money went to the social engineering/crowd control of my school days without anyone’s telling me these things?

A lot of money went into social engineering – and the failure to give you the education you needed is one reason I say the Public School System has failed.

On TV I saw a piece on an African woman who was living – no, dying, starving – on three cents a day. If she had a job making thirty cents a day for the same 14 hours including transport, she’d have ten times what she has now and stop dying. If she made three dollars a day, she could support a local orphan as a housekeeper and then she could rest when she came home. it would save and improve two lives. If she made twelve dollars a day, she could have clean clothes, a patchworked floor of cleaned scrap flooring materials, something to caulk up the straw walls, some veggies and eggs in her diet, and a bag of bandages and antibiotic in case she and her housekeeper were hurt. A totally changed life for two. If she got a different job when a new factory moved in se could ask for more because she was experienced. she might make fifteen bucks a day and be able to take a few days off.

Unfortunately, she must subsist on “charity” – Social Justice seems a concept beyond the grasp of the powers that be.

Then imagine a charity giving her a fruit tree and a well and water filter…she’d then have a better life than she could ever have imagined anyone in the world had. And she could adopt the orphan and give a child a real home.
The key is choice. People take what they most need once they have and get used to having a choice.

I drilled many a well as an Adviser in Viet Nam, helped build many a school, bathed many a scabby child, taught many a class on hygene.

 

[anthony022071]

We can do more good by investing in businesses that employ people and make them self-sufficient than we can by simply handing over our money to the government or some faceless agency.

Investing in businesses that employ people is just as faceless a kind of “help” as giving money to an agency. The need for people to have employment is a different need than the need for charity.
It’s the difference between earned bread and mammon,and things freely given and received in a spirit of love.
Whether or not people have employment,or whether or not they are even employable,the need for charity is always present.
A society in which giving and receiving in the spirit of charity is rendered unnecessary and unwanted would be a society in which Christianity is as good as dead. A society full of self-sufficient people is a society full of people that think they are doing enough,self-justified by playing by the rules. They do not want forgiveness or charity,and they have little to offer to others. They regard neediness as shameful. But as far as Christian charity is concerned,the fact that there are always people who are not taking adequate care of themselves and who are always needy,is besides the point. When people draw up plans for eliminating the need for charity,it is tantamount to drawing up plans for the elimination of Christianity,because it shows a fundamental disapproval of gratuitous giving and dependent receiving. Worldly economies are jealous of the economy of Christian charity,and ultimately hostile to it. They don’t want the competion – it gets in the way of the usual dealings between strangers. And in the long run,when everything is supposedly in place for everybody to be employed and self-sufficient,then the many people who do not take advantage of the system are looked upon with contempt,as beyond all sympathy,a burden and a drain on society. The “help” for the poor ultimately turns into a cause for contempt of the poor,because the poor will never go away,and thus the need for Christian charity will never go away. Our patience with the poor runs out when we see that the poor are not doing as they should according to our plans.

The Lord gratuitously gave of himself out of the surplus of his heart,and we are the dependents who are incapable of paying him back or of self-sufficiently earning our salvation,and we are not expected to anyway. But we are called upon to gratuitously give of ourselves to others in need out of the surplus of our hearts.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Investing in businesses that employ people is just as faceless a kind of “help” as giving money to an agency.

I don’t understand what you mean here.

I do understand that employees in businesses are known by and valued by their supervisors. It’s true, for example, that the President of a far-flung company may not know all the janitors any more than the Pope knows every Sister, Brother and Priest. But the maintenance and janitoral supervisors know those who work for them.

The need for people to have employment is a different need than the need for charity.

Taht is correct – and to the extent we can provide employment, we reduce the drain on the resources available for charity and increase the pool of contributors.

It’s the difference between earned bread and mammon,and things freely given and received in a spirit of love.

I have no idea what you mean here – are you saying a father who earns a living for his family and contributes to charity for others is inferior to a father on welfare?

Whether or not people have employment,or whether or not they are even employable,the need for charity is always present.

Yes – but the more people who are gainfully employed, the more we can give to those who aren’t.

A society in which giving and receiving in the spirit of charity is rendered unnecessary and unwanted would be a society in which Christianity is as good as dead.

If I follow your logic, I should be working to keep people from getting gainful employment – perhaps crippling them, getting them addicted to drugs, or denying them education.

Is that what you mean?

A society full of self-sufficient people is a society full of people that think they are doing enough,self-justified by playing by the rules. They do not want forgiveness or charity,and they have little to offer to others.

Now that’s just bologna. I can take you to a society not far from here where the overwhelming majority subsist on charity and show you crime, out-of-wedlock births, drug and alcohol abuse and on and on.

And then I can show you to a society of hare-working people with well-cared for children, low crime, low drug and alcohol abuse and so on.

Which is best?

They regard neediness as shameful.

Who is “they” and how are you able to read their minds and tell the rest of us what “they” regard?

But as far as Christian charity is concerned,the fact that there are always people who are not taking adequate care of themselves and who are always needy,is besides the point. When people draw up plans for eliminating the need for charity,it is tantamount to drawing up plans for the elimination of Christianity,because it shows a fundamental disapproval of gratuitous giving and dependent receiving.

Once again, if I follow your logic, I should be working to keep people from getting gainful employment – perhaps crippling them, getting them addicted to drugs, or denying them education.

Is that what you mean?

Worldly economies are jealous of the economy of Christian charity,and ultimately hostile to it.

“Worldly economies” are abstractions. They cannot have emotions like envy and hostility.

They don’t want the competion – it gets in the way of the usual dealings between strangers. And in the long run,when everything is supposedly in place for everybody to be employed and self-sufficient,then the many people who do not take advantage of the system are looked upon with contempt,as beyond all sympathy,a burden and a drain on society. The “help” for the poor ultimately turns into a cause for contempt of the poor,because the poor will never go away,and thus the need for Christian charity will never go away. Our patience with the poor runs out when we see that the poor are not doing as they should according to our plans.

Where are you coming up with this?

The Lord gratuitously gave of himself out of the surplus of his heart,and we are the dependents who are incapable of paying him back or of self-sufficiently earning our salvation,and we are not expected to anyway. But we are called upon to gratuitously give of ourselves to others in need out of the surplus of our hearts.

Which means help people help themselves. Let them live in dignity on the fruits of their own labor, not be beaten down and dependent on the whims of others. Educate them, inculcate the values of work and thrift. Reserve charity for those who can never support themselves.

 

[anthony022071]

I don’t understand what you mean here.

Well,businesses are institutions just like government agencies,and just as faceless,impersonal and loveless. Relegating the burden of helping the poor onto businesses and an economic system is no better than relegating it onto government agencies.

I do understand that employees in businesses are known by and valued by their supervisors.

It’s true, for example, that the President of a far-flung company may not know all the janitors any more than the Pope knows every Sister, Brother and Priest. But the maintenance and janitoral supervisors know those who work for them.

Employees are valued by their supervisors to the extent that they are of use and profitable. And in the case of a company like Wal Mart,employees get screwed over and are mistrusted,and supervisors are compelled to behave in an unfair,morally draining manner toward employees,in accordance with the character of the man who founded Wal-Mart. It is ultimately a utilitarian relationship.

Taht is correct – and to the extent we can provide employment, we reduce the drain on the resources available for charity and increase the pool of contributors.

Drain on what,or whose,available resources? If you mean governmental welfare,the poor aren’t getting anything that isn’t being doled out to them. And that money isn’t ours when we give it to the government in our tax payments. There are worse things that the government does with tax money,like use it for agencies that perform abortions or for the building of nuclear weapons.

I have no idea what you mean here – are you saying a father who earns a living for his family and contributes to charity for others is inferior to a father on welfare?

No. Someone who earns his own bread and mammon is doing what is commonly expected anyway. And contributing money for the poor is good. And I wasn’t talking about government welfare,I was talking about personal charity.

Yes – but the more people who are gainfully employed, the more we can give to those who aren’t.

It’s a matter of personal choice who you want to help. If you want to give to those who aren’t gainfully employed you can do so regardless of the employment rate. And on the societal or governmental level,it doesn’t necessarily follow that more money will be given to the unemployed if the rate of employment increases. It can just as likely have the opposite effect. An overall decrease in need may result in an overall decrease in giving.

If I follow your logic, I should be working to keep people from getting gainful employment – perhaps crippling them, getting them addicted to drugs, or denying them education.

Is that what you mean?

No,that’s not my logic,as you well know.

Now that’s just bologna. I can take you to a society not far from here where the overwhelming majority subsist on charity and show you crime, out-of-wedlock births, drug and alcohol abuse and on and on.

What does that have to do with what I said? I live in Oak Park,IL – right next to a ghetto on the west side of Chicago.

And then I can show you to a society of hare-working people with well-cared for children, low crime, low drug and alcohol abuse and so on.

Which is best?

Obviously the latter. But what does that have to do with what I said?

Who is “they” and how are you able to read their minds and tell the rest of us what “they” regard?

Well,many of the people of my own class that I live amongst;people who stress the ideal of self-sufficiency more than the ideal of Christian charity. Neediness can be especially humiliating and embarrassing in a society where the ideal is self-sufficiency,and where people are reluctant,grudging givers who don’t want to be bothered with needy people.

Once again, if I follow your logic, I should be working to keep people from getting gainful employment – perhaps crippling them, getting them addicted to drugs, or denying them education.

Is that what you mean?

No,of couse not. You’re not following my logic.

“Worldly economies” are abstractions. They cannot have emotions like envy and hostility.

As abstractions they don’t have jealousy and hostility,but as real entities made up of people who have vested intrests,they are jealous and hostile.

 

[anthony022071]

Where are you coming up with this?

From my observation of human nature.

Which means help people help themselves. Let them live in dignity on the fruits of their own labor, not be beaten down and dependent on the whims of others.

It isn’t like unemployed people are really being stopped from living in dignity on the fruits of their own labor. It’s often those who are already employed who are not treated with dignity and who are not payed fairly.

Educate them, inculcate the values of work and thrift. Reserve charity for those who can never support themselves.

Personal charity is for anyone in need. How do we determine who is capable of supporting themselves? Many of the homeless people that I see on the streets of Chicago are incapable of supporting themselves,and not merely lazy and irresponsible. They would be considered unemployable by most employers. They do not have marketable skills,do not have much education,are not organized,not “on top of things”,don’t have much “get up and go”,are not alert,are not “presentable”,do not have self-discipline,do not have much physical strength or stamina. Years of living on the streets has made them numb to shame at their situation – they are mentally paralized. They are not even aware of the possibility of self-improvement,or if they are aware,they don’t know where to begin and don’t have the strength to follow through.
They don’t have much of a work history,no references,no family,no driver’s licence or state identification,no e-mail,no cell-phone,no home address. These people are not just lazy or irresponsible – they really don’t know any better,and they don’t have the energy to pick themselves up. They are “poor in spirit”.

But in the meantime,they need to eat and drink. They need other people’s charity.

 

[Yerusalyim]

Some Catholics have confused social justice with socialism.

 

[gam197]

I’ve read only some of this thread but still want to add something.

I don’t deal with the ultra rich as that justice is up to God as I have little say.

Charity to me to be understood should be understood within the concept of a family.

My brother invested and he actually made money. He oftens says to the rest of the family. “I made a good investment.” I say back “you did. You were wise and did well but now because you did you need to help out.” No you don’t have to give it all back but a certain small percentage back. You need to support pro-life groups and get into office honest pro-life legislators with good ideas on how to help get control of the spending and curriculum at schools, etc. or get rid of the current school structure totally and donate at food pantries or a pregnancy crisis center because we are a Christian people. He doesn’t like to hear that.(You can help your young out-of-wedlock pregnant niece but again he doesn’t want to hear that.)

originally posted by anthony022071
Years of living on the streets has made them numb to shame at their situation- they are mentally paralized.

I have a cousin who has only worked about 3 years and for twenty-two years he has been unemployed and gotten a fairly good disability check. His mother left him a house which he sold but he went through the money buying things for himself. He likes playboy and strip bars so he has spent some of his cash here. If you go out with him, he will buy himself a nice meal while you sit and have a coffee as that is what you can afford as you talk to him.Now his “house” money is running out. Over the years, the family has helped out with many free meals, food etc

The family patience is running out so eventually society will pick up the full tab if the family gets too strained. His greatest lost will that of his family.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Well,businesses are institutions just like government agencies,and just as faceless,impersonal and loveless. Relegating the burden of helping the poor onto businesses and an economic system is no better than relegating it onto government agencies.

If people have jobs and can support themselves, their care is not “relegated” onto anyone.

Further, the more people who are self-supporting, the more we can give to those who cannot support themselves.

Employees are valued by their supervisors to the extent that they are of use and profitable.

That’s not true – I have had people work for me, and I have worked for people who were and remain close personal friends.

And in the case of a company like Wal Mart,employees get screwed over and are mistrusted,and supervisors are compelled to behave in an unfair,morally draining manner toward employees,in accordance with the character of the man who founded Wal-Mart. It is ultimately a utilitarian relationship.

Here in Mountain View, Arkansas, Wal-Mart provides jobs that otherwise would not exist. It provides a wide selection of goods at a reasonable price – things people could not afford were it not for Wal-Mart.

Drain on what,or whose,available resources?

On our resources, of course!

Whether the money comes from taxes or charity, it originates from us, the people who earn it. The more people who earn money, the more contributers we have to charity. The more people who earn money, the fewer people we have on charity

If you mean governmental welfare,the poor aren’t getting anything that isn’t being doled out to them. And that money isn’t ours when we give it to the government in our tax payments. There are worse things that the government does with tax money,like use it for agencies that perform abortions or for the building of nuclear weapons.

And from that, you advance what position?

No. Someone who earns his own bread and mammon is doing what is commonly expected anyway. And contributing money for the poor is good. And I wasn’t talking about government welfare,I was talking about personal charity.

And so am I – but if you can’t make money, you can’t give money.

It’s a matter of personal choice who you want to help. If you want to give to those who aren’t gainfully employed you can do so regardless of the employment rate.

But if I’m not employed, how much can I give?

On the other hand, if 99% of us are employed, we can all give a little and support the unemployed 1% with relative ease.

And on the societal or governmental level,it doesn’t necessarily follow that more money will be given to the unemployed if the rate of employment increases. It can just as likely have the opposite effect. An overall decrease in need may result in an overall decrease in giving.

But it doesn’t have the opposite effect. The better our economy does, the more we give to charity.

Well,many of the people of my own class that I live amongst;people who stress the ideal of self-sufficiency more than the ideal of Christian charity. Neediness can be especially humiliating and embarrassing in a society where the ideal is self-sufficiency,and where people are reluctant,grudging givers who don’t want to be bothered with needy people.

You seem to have a very uncharitable view of your fellow man? Do you include yourself in that sweeping indictment?

As abstractions they don’t have jealousy and hostility,but as real entities made up of people who have vested intrests,they are jealous and hostile.

Again, do you include yourself in that sweeping indictment?