Ethical questions concerning charity

[Parsimonious]

Last night, I had a long discussion with my husband about a charity project in my region and its ethical ramifications. I thought I'd share some of my thoughts, and ask for your ideas.

That's the project:
In December, people pack 'food parcels' for community members in need. They are distributed to recipients in a festive setting (live classical music in a ball room). Contributor's are encouraged to spend between 15-25 € on shelf-stable food, including seasonal food, and to add a small gift (tree ornaments, a stuffed animal, etc.), recipes, etc. to it.

Now, my problem:
(a) Religion. I'm an atheist. To be exact: I'm an ex-Catholic atheist. Like ex-smokers are often much more radical than non-smokers, I am much more radical in my atheism than many people who grew up without religion. I don't celebrate Christmas or Eastern. I don't even attend my department's Christmas party.
For me, contributing to religiously motivated 'preachy' events is absolutely out of the question. I consider "Christmas in a shoe box" to be an absolute no-no. The event itself is organized by a secular organization (the local food bank). They do, though, use a religious reference in their project title ("Christmas for everybody"). They do not add religious pamphlets, though. They might be playing Christmas carols.

(b) Charity. While I believe in helping people, I do not believe in organized charity. I believe it is the responsibility of a country to guarantee that every citizen has a warm place to live, clothing, food, and access to education. I pay taxes and social security to guarantee that. I HAPPILY do so. For me, a home, food, clothing and education are RIGHTS that citizens can DEMAND. They are not gifts, graciously given by those who are 'better off'.

I'd be happy to help a person in need, but I do not want to participate in "charity". Charity, to me, is a demeaning thing... I'm not sure whether I can explain that. If you receive social security, that's your legal right. If a friend, neighbor, relative helps you in a tough situation, that's friendship and solidarity. But if you line up to receive a food parcel, that people packed because the local TV station had a heart-breaking report about those poor, poor people, unable to buy a Christmas dinner, that's a different thing. I don't think giving should be based on 'pity'. It's degrading.

I haven't decided yet. My husband thinks that it is acceptably areligious, and that they try hard enough to give gifts respectfully. He also thinks we cannot afford it (he would accept it, though, if I did that from my own money - still opposed, but not sufficient reason to get divorced). I think I can ignore the religious connotations, but I find (b) much more troublesome. If I qualified for participation, would I go there? I WOULD use our local food bank. They are doing great work! (They actually opened a grocery shop and sell products at greatly reduced prices, just to make sure they have CUSTOMERS who can demand excellent service, as opposed to poor recipients of alms, who have to be grateful to get any rubbish). I don't think I would go to this event, though, or at least only if I were truly starving (which, thanks to our system of social security, is as good as impossible).


What do you think? Did you ever have similar thoughts?

[Gardengal18]

I believe it is the responsibility of a country to guarantee that every citizen has a warm place to live, clothing, food, and access to education.


So then see if the Socialist Party USA plans to help out those in need Holiday Season. Somehow I doubt it very much.

[Contrary Housewife]

If churches or charity bothers you, don't donate. You don't have an obligation to support any of those groups if it bothers your conscience.

I don't know about your region, but in the US there are hundreds of relief organizations that help the less fortunate in a myriad of ways. With a little looking around you can find some group that shares your views and distributes aid in the manner you prefer to give it.

[madhen]

I guess I see Christmas as being about as religious as Halloween. I grew up in a family of atheists, but we celebrated Christmas every year. I like Christmas carols and play them around the house while I'm decorating my tree. For me, Christmas is just a festive holiday, and the use of the word "Christmas" is not religious so much as it is just a title to name a holiday. I really enjoy Christmas because, for me, it is a day (or a season, depending on how festive you are) dedicated to showing appreciation for each other and also a nice way to end the year. It is really the only holiday I have left in which I really like to decorate the house to the nines and set an atmosphere that makes everyone feel like they are special. Considering all that, I would not find the organization's use of the word "Christmas" or the playing of carols to be "religious", but just part of the accepted holiday tradition.

As for charity, I agree with you that the government should step up and take care of its citizens' basic needs. But that doesn't mean the government should or will provide anything beyond the absolute necessities. So if your personal contribution can help someone catch a breath from a hand-to-mouth existence, or can help them forget their impoverished state for one evening while they get to "feast" on "luxuries" that they would otherwise never be able to afford, why not do it? I almost never give hand outs to people on the street, because I know they have resources if they get truly desperate. But once in a rare while, and typically for someone who doesn't even ask me, I'll give some money or buy them a cup of coffee or a meal. It is a small gesture on my part, and of nominal cost, but you can tell it means a great deal more to the recipient. I guess it is kind of like the whole "random acts of kindness" thing. How wonderful does it feel to know a total stranger cared about you, if even for the minute it took to buy some canned goods? And if you can make a person's day 110% better with such a small gesture, isn't it proper, as a member of the human race, to do so?

The decision of whether you would accept charity, were you in a position that required you to make that choice, is difficult. I am always being chastised by my partner, when I make a judgemental statement about someone, that I can't apply my thinking to their life, and that my reasoning isn't necessarily the same as theirs. So even if your personal answer is that you would not use such a service, that doesn't mean your answer is the *right* answer or the answer that should be applied to determine whether to contribute to a charitable cause.

I guess I'm a little confused as to why you are even considering participating, if you are opposed to both the theme (Christmas) and the act of charity (in the form of hand-outs)? I'm not seeing what part of it is appealing to you.

[PrairieRose]

I don't think you should feel pressured to give for any reason. If your heart speaks to you and says yeah I want to be part of this, then by all means do it. If you feel repelled by it on any level then don't. I feel it's our right or responsibility to give back in some way. So when I'm so moved to give to a certain for lack of a better word 'charity' I do. I don't give to every single one but the ones that are important to me I give to. It's a personal decision.

[Xadrian]

I can understand where your comming from. I'm not big into organized charity, because most of the time it has religion tied up somewhere in it. A lot of churches/chairities where I'm living make it mandatory that you attend one of their services to take part in a care package or free meal. After the service they will give you a "ticket" to get that hot meal. Sounds kinda wrong to me. (Actually a church on the corner puts a sign out each week for a free ipod and free hot meal for attending service..I'm sure the ipod is real helpful to homeless or people in unfortunate situations..who don't have money to buy music downloads!!!)

I think I posted this before, but I went through a few charities and didn't like the religious aspect of most of them (hard to find ones that aren't religion based) and I didn't like contributing to ones that put people through a lot of demeaning paperwork and bs. (after reading a Forbes report on what these charities CEO's make a year I stopped giving. We are talking several million each!!) I did find a lady on Craigslist who wanted to start a food/gift giving event that was non religious based (she herself is religious suprisingly and no paperwork, no BS.
I contacted her and donated a few toys and such for the children. Her event wasn't about being needy, anyone who wanted to come could come, it was more of a celebration of being together. (They had food, music etc)

There are a few nonreligious organizations, although the most I have found are crafting ones -sewing clothing for premee babies, making blankets for animal shelters, croching/knitting hats for chemo patients or homeless.

Or if your feeling ambitious, start your own and seek out others who have similar views and feelings. You could get a lot accomplished by next "Christmas"!

[Russ]

When I worked for my dad as a butcher, we would go to 5 different churches and ask for the names of 2 needy families at each church. We would then make 10 gift boxes that included enough food for them to have a holiday feast with plenty of leftovers.
The boxes were never associated with the church in anyway, just a gift from an anonymous donor.
Get some names from a church and do your own giving.

[Greebo]

For me, contributing to religiously motivated 'preachy' events is absolutely out of the question. I consider "Christmas in a shoe box" to be an absolute no-no. The event itself is organized by a secular organization (the local food bank). They do, though, use a religious reference in their project title ("Christmas for everybody"). They do not add religious pamphlets, though. They might be playing Christmas carols.

As an atheist, if the organization is dedicated to spreading the "word", I don't give. If the goal is helping people in need, I may give.

(b) Charity. While I believe in helping people, I do not believe in organized charity. I believe it is the responsibility of a country to guarantee that every citizen has a warm place to live, clothing, food, and access to education.

How is having the Government take from its citizens, by law, backed by force,to give to those in need, anything but organized, mandatory charity?

If you are willing to allow the Government to use force backed law to take from some to give to others for reasons you believe are valid, how can you protest when the Government uses force backed law to take from some to give to others for reasons you believe are invalid, but for which someone else believes ARE valid?

The means is wrong - it infringes upon the liberty of individuals to choose to help others, or not - so no matter the ends, the means are not justified.

[DJ1972]

I think you should look into any charity that you are thinking about giving to. Make sure it is operated properly and that the money and/or food actually goes to people that need it and not to the people running the organization.
As far as not giving to something based strictly on the fact that it is run by a church or religous group.....well, I can see your point if you are atheist....but the first place most people turn to when they are in need is a church. It doesn't matter if they are religous or not, they know the church will help them. Our local food pantry was opened by and is run by 6 churches from our town that work together to help the needy.

[Parsimonious]

I just wanted to thank you all for your answers. Some responses were not really applicable to my situation (e.g. the role of churches/synagogues/mosques is a different one here than in the US, etc.), and others might inspire me to a bit of ranting , but that's not necessarily a bad thing I'll reply in more detail in a day or two, because I want to do justice to your posts, and not reply in a hurry.

[monkeywrangler71]

I agree with you on both points and would not /do not participate in these types of charities. I pay taxes to support those in my own country who are less fortunate than me, 100% of my charitable donations are directed to people in other countries who do not have any social support system.

[Parsimonious]

I still owe all of you a reply :-)

First, concerning Grebo's statement. Every society has rules, and it enforces those rules. You can try to change rules, break rules and live with the punishment, or leave. Your point applies to ANY form of governmental force, be it a law that prevents you from killing your neighbor because you don't like her nose, and laws that require you to pay a certain percentage of your income to support others in your society. I, personally, prefer to live in a society that has rules, and in which rules are being enforced. Yep, I do. Old fashioned, I know. Even though I don't agree with all of them. Social security laws are one of those laws I wholeheartedly support. Why?
- Because I do not want to live in a country where people starve, are forced to live on the streets because they can't afford housing, or die because of lack of medical treatments. I wish I could guarantee that everybody has a place to live, food to eat, clothes to wear and an excellent education. I can't. At least, I can lay the _basis_ for that in my own country. Freedom and dignity are great, but freedom and dignity are even better in combination with a comfy bed, a healthy breakfast, and free dental care I am not opposed to helping, I am opposed to charity.
- Because social security works like an insurance. You pay into it in good times, and you receive help in bad times. And it isn't only there for me, it's also there for my husband, my mother and grandmother, my sister and my niece.
I often read the "S"-word here. For me, this isn't about socialism. It's about solidarity. People support me when I need help, I support them when they need help. It's a fair deal.

@DJ1972: Churches do not play such a central role here. They are definitely not the first place people go to when they need help.

@Xadrian: I'm feeling quite ambitious :-), but I'm already organizing one volunteer-thing-project, and I couldn't cope with two at the same time :-) But of course you are right: Less complaining, more acting, is usually the recommended strategy

@rcannon: I'd be shocked if a church really gave me names! Did the churches you contacted have the explicit permission to pass these names on?

@Gardengal: Political parties engage in politics, not in charity. The most charitable thing I ever got from ANY politcal party was a cookbook (Christian conservatives) and packages of sherbet powder (left-wing environmentalists). I preferred the sherbet, the cookbook contained not a single vegetarian dish.

[Greebo]

First, concerning Grebo's statement. Every society has rules, and it enforces those rules. You can try to change rules, break rules and live with the punishment, or leave. Your point applies to ANY form of governmental force, be it a law that prevents you from killing your neighbor because you don't like her nose, and laws that require you to pay a certain percentage of your income to support others in your society.

No, it doesn't. Laws which prohibit murder, theft, and the like, protect individual liberties. Laws which provide economic security for others do so at the expense of the individual liberties of others.

- Because I do not want to live in a country where people starve, are forced to live on the streets because they can't afford housing, or die because of lack of medical treatments. I wish I could guarantee that everybody has a place to live, food to eat, clothes to wear and an excellent education. I can't. At least, I can lay the _basis_ for that in my own country. Freedom and dignity are great, but freedom and dignity are even better in combination with a comfy bed, a healthy breakfast, and free dental care I am not opposed to helping, I am opposed to charity.

You're opposed to charity, where people volunteer to help, as opposed to forcing people to help? But regardless, no matter how much you try to force people to help other people to help, it won't work. It never has. Not in thousands of years. You cannot solve the problems of society by force, and you cannot solve the problems of any other individual than yourself.

- Because social security works like an insurance. You pay into it in good times, and you receive help in bad times. And it isn't only there for me, it's also there for my husband, my mother and grandmother, my sister and my niece.
I often read the "S"-word here. For me, this isn't about socialism. It's about solidarity. People support me when I need help, I support them when they need help. It's a fair deal.

Suggest you review the future predictions as to where social security is headed.

We are fast approaching the point where there will be far too many people depending on social security for those who are paying into social security to carry the load.

[Lady_V]

We are fast approaching the point where there will be far too many people depending on social security for those who are paying into social security to carry the load.

She is not living in the US, so our failing pay-into SS system would not apply.

[Russ]

@rcannon: I'd be shocked if a church really gave me names! Did the churches you contacted have the explicit permission to pass these names on?

It was over 20 years ago we did this. Times have changed.