Charity is all we need?

[YPestis]

Why do fundies think that our poverty problems will be solved by simply letting private charities and churches provide for the poor? The first time I heard this, it was actually through a friend going through her right wing period (long story). Since being on FJ, I've discovered this is a common sentiment among fundies.

I'm honestly curious where they get this notion from. Looking back through history, before medicare, medicaid, food stamps etc, people starved, went without medical care, lived on the streets...and yet, fundies constantly harp on how so much more Godly people were, how people took care of each other and blah blah. How do fundies explain child labor, starving waifs, and poverty stricken widows? Are they that dense? Or just historically ignorant?

Even if fundies say that times have changed and now the church and private charities can accommodate the poor, where do they get the evidence that this is possible? Do these people not understand how difficult it is for laid off workers to find comparable positions? Or how difficult it is for single parents to find affordable daycare? Or how difficult it is to crawl out of poverty?

Here's how I look at it. Private charities are great. Church charities are great. However, as someone who worked in free clinics, I can tell you that donations wax and wane. People feel more generous around Christmas and during boom years. During recessions and on non-holidays, donations plummet. Charities can't cover everyone or fulfill all needs. In the free clinic I've worked at, we even tell people we are here as a stop gap measure. There's never an assumption that charity will cover the health care needs of our patients. Our main goal is to get the poor and uninsured into the system. I'm sure food banks and other charity programs also don't see themselves as the primary provider for the poor. The reason is we just don't have the funds to meet all the needs that come through the door. Rarely is there enough donation to fulfill the LONG TERM needs of all those that require it.

For all those fundies that think the "deserving" poor can sustain themselves on church donations, how much money do they honestly think is needed to sustain a family of, say, five (Godly widow + four little ones?). Let's assume that there are no dire medical needs. Mom has been SAHM since the kiddos were born so her job skills are rusty and will require retraining to become a working mom. How much money does it take to care for her? How much money does the church donate per family? Since eating is a regular occurrence, how many food pantries will have guaranteed food every week for the next, say, year or so until mom gets a new job? Let's also remember health insurance, clothing, rent money/mortgage, daycare of four kids (because mom will be a living sacrifice :roll: ). Now, multiple that several times over....and let's say the number can vary greatly, sometimes tripling in one month (because is life unpredictable like that). Even if churches get regular donations, some families may be left out during those high need months. What do families do then when private and church charities just have no money?

The thing is, the gov't may be imperfect, but they are also more regular with their payment and have the resources to adjust their budget should the need arise. Regardless of how "evil" the gov't is, I can't imagine letting families starve is a better option. I guess that's why I don't understand fundies' stance. Where do they get the idea that private charities can anticipate the need of poor people (given how unpredictable life is), and how can they guarantee that daily payments can be meted out to those in need?

[lovefromgirl]

The government has far more resources than your average neighborhood outreach. The sliver of Christianity that works to help the poor is too small to touch us all. St. Joseph's, where I get therapy, operates mainly on donations and is currently serving all of 3500 people a year, not just in the city proper; they pretty much take all comers who can get there. I'm on the border between two counties, forty minutes out, and they didn't say "Pike off; someone nearer by will have to look after you."

For this, I will never ever grudge them my $10 fee. We can pay it. When I am once again insured, I still want to donate to them. They care enough to partner with a local university, to give us unbiased quality doctoring. Hand to, well, God, I've never been preached at.

That organisation does not get any government funding. Imagine what it could do if it did! But of course that would be evil, right? Rich people can make donations privately and pat themselves on the backs, but as soon as the donation consists of tax money and is distributed through the government, it's socialism!!!111!1!!1! Why this disconnect? Why can they not see it's the same money going to the same people? Why is one better than the other?

[emmiedahl]

The government has far more resources than your average neighborhood outreach. The sliver of Christianity that works to help the poor is too small to touch us all. St. Joseph's, where I get therapy, operates mainly on donations and is currently serving all of 3500 people a year, not just in the city proper; they pretty much take all comers who can get there. I'm on the border between two counties, forty minutes out, and they didn't say "Pike off; someone nearer by will have to look after you."

For this, I will never ever grudge them my $10 fee. We can pay it. When I am once again insured, I still want to donate to them. They care enough to partner with a local university, to give us unbiased quality doctoring. Hand to, well, God, I've never been preached at.

That organisation does not get any government funding. Imagine what it could do if it did! But of course that would be evil, right? Rich people can make donations privately and pat themselves on the backs, but as soon as the donation consists of tax money and is distributed through the government, it's socialism!!!111!1!!1! Why this disconnect? Why can they not see it's the same money going to the same people? Why is one better than the other?

It sounds like a lovely place, but it probably receives government funding. Most Catholic charities do.

[guidedbybobafett]

I have a friend who thinks this, and she is far from a fundie. She is essentially a moderate, and over the course of many years has changed her stance on gay marriage and abortion. I have yet to make a dent with this charity thing, since essentially her argument is "well, if the money isn't there then it isn't there!" I have tried to tell her that it is there but isn't being properly utilized, but she still has a wall up about it. I guess I will have to keep plodding along in my plot to make everyone an ultra-leftist liberal :dance:

[rock_girl]

From where I'm standing, most people think they're hard up. I have friends that I know are making 100k+ a year (admittedly they work damn hard for it, and have done since high school, always with an eye to uni, to grad positions, to promotions, to postgrad, etc, etc, etc), but they still cry poor because this month they had to choose between paying for the January holiday to the Maldives and that cute Chloe bag. I know that if I wasn't around to roll my eyes they'd be ranting on about their tax dollars going to keep bludgers on the dole. This in a country with a heavily subsidised higher ed system that put them where they are today.

When you think you're the poorest of the poor, seeing other people get 'free' stuff is probably quite galling. A lot of people who are just skating by are going to ask why they should be working so hard to juggle their bills while a welfare queen just gets everything taken care of. What they're losing sight of is a. that welfare queen is not really living the life of riley and b. if they're working so damn hard and are still struggling, anger should be directed toward an unfair wage system, not others further down the food chain. I think as incomes increase you get people like my poor, hard done by friend, who has to wait a few weeks to get her cute new designer toy. They're not bad people, just lacking any insight into what real poverty is, so inclined to bag on welfare recipients because they're an easy scapegoat.

That's where the 'let charity take care of it' mentality comes from. Resentment and lack of experience mean that the working classes and middle and upper middle classes are uniting against those who have the least. Once you've convinced yourself that the poor are the enemy it's easy to believe that any aid they claim should be heavily moderated, preferably by those with your sort of morals.

[RosyDaisy]

I think it's nothing more than a ploy to see their idea of Dominionism become a reality.

[lovefromgirl]

It sounds like a lovely place, but it probably receives government funding. Most Catholic charities do.

http://www.sjncenter.org/aboutus.php for reference.

I do try to figure out where the funding is coming from before I declare where it's coming from. I really did think to check the website first. :)

[OkToBeTakei]

The fundies seem to not realise that what they are talking about is just another form of Welfare. People donate to the church then give to the poor. Happy clappy nice place.

Society pays taxes in order to support those less well off. EVIL EVIL Socialism.

Simplistic I know, but one is palatable to them the other is not.

SO along with looking after spiritual welfare they expect the church to provide healthcare, welfare, employment aid, and all the other essential services. It's convenient. They can say this with a morality while paying into probably one church (if that.)

[DistantStar]

I don't think, even if they had all the money they'd need, that it'd be safe for churches to be in the direct welfare business. The conditions they could put on people for receiving aid scare me. My church has a community fund that will help anybody with an emergency or unexpected expense and there are no requirements on the religious side, but it's not the sort of thing that you can get every month. I don't want to think about how a conservative/fundie church would put the religious smackdown on people coming for help.

[OnceModestTwiceShy]

I don't think, even if they had all the money they'd need, that it'd be safe for churches to be in the direct welfare business. The conditions they could put on people for receiving aid scare me. My church has a community fund that will help anybody with an emergency or unexpected expense and there are no requirements on the religious side, but it's not the sort of thing that you can get every month. I don't want to think about how a conservative/fundie church would put the religious smackdown on people coming for help.

This. This may not be true for non-religious conservatives, but for fundies, they want the churches to control charity because they will then be able to determine how and under what conditions people can receive help. They believe that the government condones "immorality" like single motherhood by providing welfare, and envision a society where people will be too afraid to do things like have sex out of wedlock because they will know that there will be nowhere to go for help.(Of course, we know how well this has worked through history.) So, rather than having a system where anyone who falls on hard times is entitled to government aid, they want a system where that sort of aid is eliminated and the churches can control through fear via their access to charitable funds. :x

[snarktastic]

This. This may not be true for non-religious conservatives, but for fundies, they want the churches to control charity because they will then be able to determine how and under what conditions people can receive help. They believe that the government condones "immorality" like single motherhood by providing welfare, and envision a society where people will be too afraid to do things like have sex out of wedlock because they will know that there will be nowhere to go for help.(Of course, we know how well this has worked through history.) So, rather than having a system where anyone who falls on hard times is entitled to government aid, they want a system where that sort of aid is eliminated and the churches can control through fear via their access to charitable funds.

Well put. This is why the Magdalene laundries etc were able to operate for so long.

[emmiedahl]

http://www.sjncenter.org/aboutus.php for reference.

I do try to figure out where the funding is coming from before I declare where it's coming from. I really did think to check the website first. :)

No problem!

I used to work at a Catholic charity and local Catholics would bitch that it served and employed mainly non-Catholics when almost 90% of our funding was from the government. But of course you did your homework and I am sorry I argued.

[kitkat]

If you look back at the 19th century, at least in the US, before we had any of the social welfare programs that we do now, it was religious leaders who were calling the loudest to get the government involved. Because as hard as they tried, the churches couldn't do it on their own.

[Artemis]

Long post ahead warning: apologies to those who dislike them.

One of my special literary interests is tract novels. Examples would be Ministering Children, Fern's Hollow, The Basket of Flowers. Many of these books were written by the Religious Tract Society which was founded in London in 1799. (Read Ministering Children and vomit. JFC, you'd be particularly pissed off, I think.)

They were designed to 1) disseminate evangelical Christianity, 2) reinforce the existing social order exemplified by the hymn: 'the rich man in his castle, the poor man at his gate' and 3) urge middle class citizens to the type of charity that US right wing Republicans still want to see as the model for society, and about which Kelly Crawford writes.

They depict a society in which the 'The Poor' as an entity are divided into 'the deserving poor' and 'the undeserving poor'. The function of 'The Poor' is to provide a means of salvation for the rich. Although of course salvation can only be attained through grace, this being an impeccably Protestant world view, 'The Poor' provide a conduit for that salvation to happen: they are the outward and visible sign of the inward and visible grace. Without 'The Poor' there would be fewer ways of proving yourself to be saved.

Characteristics of the 'deserving poor' are as often as follows:

a) They have, typically, been reduced to their impoverished state by intemperance, lack of religion, folly, extravagance, stepping out of their station, the sins of their parents or any combination of the above. In the case of women, their downfall is usually worldliness or love of finery: many a man's first downward step was drinking, gambling, or consorting with inappropriate females. (Drinking is often the 'respectable' side of specifically male vices, such as resorting to prostitutes: these are obviously not mentioned in children's books, just implied for the adults reading them.)

b) Because of their virtue and their refusal to lie, steal or cheat, they are often reduced to the lowest state possible before help is offered to them. This suffering is seen as praiseworthy and Christlike, if borne patiently. They are near starving, terminally ill with consumption, bereaved, betrayed, beaten. Help is never given before the eleventh hour.

c) They never murmur or complain. Despite their piteous state, they never murmur against the State, the order of the society in which they find themselves, their bad luck, their just punishment for their sins, or the fact that they have been reduced to this state.

d) They are universally humble, grateful, dutiful, and while accepting help with nauseatingly fulsome thanks and praise, it never occurs to them to dislike their benefactors, to whom they look up with both reverential adoration for their kindness, and full recognition that the existing social order is the right one.

e) If they already profess religion, it is not a true religion. It may be tepid, ignorant, or backslidden. It may even, oh horror, be heretical (i.e. Catholic). Their rescue from their poverty is contingent on their recognition and amendment of their theological errors.

f) If they do not already profess religion, their rescue from poverty is contingent on their 'coming to Christ'. In either of these cases, if their sins are sufficiently heinous (sexual immorality) nothing will do to save them physically, and they will, although rescued, die a religious death.

Now for the 'undeserving poor'.

a) They have been reduced to poverty by their intemperance, etc, as above.

b) They are often engaged in crime to feed themselves.

c) They are angry, belligerent, bitter, and they rail against the existing social order. They are dangerous, and potentially revolutionary. They exemplify the ‘other’.

d) They accept help reluctantly, and bite the hand that feeds them. They are ungrateful, and not servile. They lack humility.

e) They rarely profess religion. They are deaf to attempts to evangelise them.

f) They refuse to be saved; indeed they remain oblivious to the necessity for salvation. Their deaths are painful, protracted, despairing, and provide An Awful Warning. (These deaths are also their Just Desserts.)

Naturally, any member of the ‘deserving poor’ who is insufficiently servile, humble and thankful becomes one of the ‘undeserving poor’ with a side helping of righteous anger. (In this case their deaths are usually very nasty indeed!)

The function of The Poor, as well as to provide a means of salvation, is also to allow their benefactors to analyse their own standing. By judging and ‘othering’ The Poor, they are able to assess their own spirituality, their nearness to grace, and the likelihood of their salvation both by their difference from ‘The Poor’ and the amount they do for The Poor. (This is really Pharisaical: Lord, I thank thee that I am not as other men are.)

Finally ‘The Poor’, the ‘othering’ that encompasses them, and a social structure in which there is no Governmental means of relieving their poverty, provides a method of social control. If ‘Christian’ are the sole means of relief for ‘The Poor’ then they can:

a) determine the recipients of their charity (‘the deserving poor’).

b) set the social parameters for falling into that category (certain behaviours, attitudes, thoughts).

c) set the payback for the receipt of charity (humility, servitude, silence, continuance of the status quo).

d) exclude those social malcontents unhappy with the status quo (‘the underserving poor’) from any relief for their poverty.

e) exercise absolute control when doing so because they are the only option.

(And of course, Christians such as Kelly Crawford favour this method of social control because the very religion that they profess, if suitably disseminated, predicates the behaviours (lowliness, self-sacrifice, humility, thankfulness, a sense of one’s own unworthiness) that make social control of those possessing them so much easier. It is, in fact, a win-win situation for Christians.)

Many of these books I study were written during the 19th century, in that period of industrialisation in both the UK and the USA when ‘The Poor’ were finding their voices, and starting to see their power as the means of production. The Tract books represent the rise of the alarmed middle and upper classes, concerned that social control was slipping away from them.

This is why the attitudes and behaviour, the social constructs and social mores, the gender stereotyping and the ‘othering’ are almost identical to those expressed attitudes and feelings of the Republican, theocratic right today.

When they say that the country is abandoning Christian values, what they really mean is that they are starting to feel that their privileged positions are at risk. They can pretty it up with teacups and roses as much as they like, but that is what it comes down to - fear of losing control.

[doggie]

the most stupid part are these people who say this are the ones that help the least. But I am sure they feel godly ruling the poor.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Thanks for the info about the tract novels.

It's interesting to compare different religious philosophies about charity.

It's seems that the examples where religious organizations do the best job of providing for needs involves (1) mutual benefit models, where the recipients are not seen as The Poor but rather as members of the community whom the community was obligated to assist, and (2) an expectation that all members of the community will have a basic obligation to contribute.

I know that the Jewish community tended to run its own communal institutions, often out of necessity since they couldn't count on either government or church assistance. Mutual benefit societies were very common 100 years ago, providing interest-free loans, sick benefits, death benefits, etc. They were typically started by immigrants from the same town or region in Europe. See: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... 11851.html

Mennonites also have a culture of communal self-sufficiency.

Neither group seems to oppose government programs to provide aid. To the contrary, many members of the early Jewish mutual-aid societies went on to support left-wing groups such as the Workmen's Circle, while Mennonites tend to either avoid political invovlement, or support a range of political parties but tend to push causes such as pacifism and social justice.

[2xx1xy1JD]

This discussion also reminds me of a landmark court case, Borough of Southwark v. Williams. I remember being totally appalled when I read Lord Denning's judgment. The case is about some squatters - a few desperate homeless families with children who entered some boarded-up council (public housing) homes, fixed them up, and argued that they should be forgiven for trespassing and allowed to stay on the grounds of necessity.

Here's the case:

http://instruct.uwo.ca/law/law-at-uwo/prop-ans.htm

Similarly, when a man who is starving enters a house and takes food in order to keep himself alive. Our English law does not admit the defence of necessity. It holds him guilty of larceny. Lord Hale said n6 that 'if a person, being under necessity for want of victuals or clothes, shall upon that account clandestinely, and animus furandi, steal another man's food, it is felony'. The reason is because, if hunger were once allowed to be an excuse for stealing, it would open a way through which all kinds of disorder and lawlessness would pass. So here. If homelessness were once admitted as a defence to trespass, no one's house could be safe. Necessity would open a door which no man could shut. It would not only be those in extreme need who would enter. There would be others who would imagine that they were in need, or would invent a need, so as to gain entry. Each man would say his need was greater than the next man's. The plea would be an excuse for all sorts of wrongdoing. So the courts must, for the sake of law and order, take a firm stand. They must refuse to admit the plea of necessity to the hungry and the homeless; and trust that their distress will be relieved by the charitable and the good.

[Bbfamteam]

Some of this comes from the idea that the bible says the "church" is supposed to care for widows and orphans and the poor. The idea in moderate circles would be no strings attached and meeting people where they are. The church i went to before i moved had community dinners for local families and several times a year free clothing drives for whoever wanted to come. They also put together backpacks with school supplies for every single kid in one of the local elementary schools with no mention of where they came from. There was no preaching, no tracts handed out. That should be enough. You don't need to beat them over the head with religion. You meet their basic needs and leave it there. Look at the buildings and schools some of these churches have. If those people actually put their money into truly serving others it probably would make a difference. But *gasp* that would be a redistribution of wealth and would constitute socialism. (which, as has been pointed out previously, is how the early church actually functioned).

[shesinsane]

This. This may not be true for non-religious conservatives, but for fundies, they want the churches to control charity because they will then be able to determine how and under what conditions people can receive help. They believe that the government condones "immorality" like single motherhood by providing welfare, and envision a society where people will be too afraid to do things like have sex out of wedlock because they will know that there will be nowhere to go for help.(Of course, we know how well this has worked through history.) So, rather than having a system where anyone who falls on hard times is entitled to government aid, they want a system where that sort of aid is eliminated and the churches can control through fear via their access to charitable funds. :x

Mmm hmmm. It's one thing to help based on need (like the government) and quite another to grant help based on conditions that put the recipient on the fundie path. The government has more resources and can help more people, but a fundie charity can be selective on who it helps. If a single mother has another baby, the government will give her more money, if a single mother has another baby, the fundie charity can cut her off because they want their money to help those that share their values, not sluts. :roll: Don't ask about the starving babies, if the mother doesn't want to give her children to a Christian family with more means, she'll learn her lesson watching her kids go hungry.

It also helps that the fundies don't study actual history, and don't know that government programs were created out of need. There was a time seniors in this country routinely starved to death or died because they couldn't afford a doctor. If you were too old to work and didn't have money or family to take care of you, you were SOL. Social security and Medicare have been around long enough that people don't know what the country was like without them, and they don't realize things were different.

[YPestis]

You know, I was not really focusing on the "undeserving" vs. "deserving" poor when I wrote the OP. I understand that fundies tend to think in those terms. However, I was questioning how private charities could fulfill the needs of even a few "deserving" families? Most poor people a steady influx of money to meet basics. I mean, how many private charities have a constant, influx of cash to parse out to the so-called "deserving" poor? What happens when there's a sudden increase in the "deserving" poor? Do families wait a few weeks for their turn at the food pantry? Do families forgo medical care until the church can come up with the money in three months? Do families sleep under the bridge until the local private charity can empty out an apartment for them?

I guess I don't understand how right wingers assume that poverty is a little problem that a weekly donation of $50 can solve. As most people, even right wingers know, families cost more than a few hundred bucks to care for. Why would they assume that impoverished individuals can magically live off a few dollars at a time then? It's one reason I never buy into the "private charity is all we need" idea. I know how much I need to meet basics. I know I would need a continuous stream of that amount to sustain myself. And I know that private charities can't guarantee me that constant stream, so why would I assume that private charities alone are a good safety net?

At some point, food pantries will have an empty spell, free clinics will be filled up, families will not have free clothing handouts. Usually that point is BEFORE families can get back on their feet. So what then? Can fundies honestly tell me that these things don't happen? I can go without food for a few days, fresh clothes for a long while and survive on the streets for duration. However, wasn't there something in the Bible about feeding the hungry and clothing the poor? If churches can't meet all the needs, what then? We just forget about that little task that God handed out to his good followers?

[debrand]

Artemis, that was very interesting and it makes novels like Jane Eyre seem revolutionary.

My question is how do churches keep their lights on and water running when they are giving most of their funds to the poor?

[theologyofyourface]

From where I'm standing, most people think they're hard up. I have friends that I know are making 100k+ a year (admittedly they work damn hard for it, and have done since high school, always with an eye to uni, to grad positions, to promotions, to postgrad, etc, etc, etc), but they still cry poor because this month they had to choose between paying for the January holiday to the Maldives and that cute Chloe bag. I know that if I wasn't around to roll my eyes they'd be ranting on about their tax dollars going to keep bludgers on the dole. This in a country with a heavily subsidised higher ed system that put them where they are today.

I know people like this, too. One person I know constantly complained last month on FB about how she and her husband "only" make 120,000/year and how "if Obama gets back into office, he'll raise our taxes and we'll be out on the street, because we can barely make it now!" She rants and raves about how people are so entitled these days, everyone is expecting handouts, etc., but when one questions her further about why they "barely make it" on such a large amount of money, she admits that they have rung up massive consumer debt and they "deserve" to get tax breaks so they can pay off all the nice stuff they bought.

It's like, wait, who is entitled again? The person making 12K/year whose kids still need food and shelter and medical care, or the person making 120K/year who thinks they deserve a new TV, poor people be damned? :think:

[RosyDaisy]

Hell no! Charity isn't all we need. An occasional handout is not enough to fix the problems facing the poor. We pay taxes, therefore, I think it's the government's place to help provide for basic needs. We don't need our tax dollars making the rich even richer or waging wars we have no business fighting in the first place. And that's just to name a few of the things awful things that happens to our tax dollars.

Fundamentalist seem to forget the teachings of Jesus. He put no conditions on helping the poor or needy and loving one another. So, fundies, if you are truly Christians how about following Christ instead of spouting sexist, racist, homophobic, dominionist crap. Sit down and read your Bible and stop following gurus like Bill Gothard, Doug Phillips the tool, etc. You just might learn something and gain sympathy and empathy for others. Right now you just come across as hateful, spiteful people who hate the poor and turn your noses up at that are different than you.

[emmiedahl]

Anyone who needs to examine what happens when churches have too much control over governance and charity should look into the Borgia family, especially in the late 15th century. They were, um, not known for their fair allocation of church resources.

[Witsec7]

Earlier in the year the Barna Group did a survey of religions to see if they were able and willing to take over all of the general welfare needs of America's poor population, housing, food, medical care, interventions for those that would benefit etc. Aside from their lack of infrastructure and the unwillingness of some to network across faiths, the study discovered that they couldn't raise a fraction of the money needed for such work. Nor did they have the skilled and educationally qualified individuals to staff such a monolith. IIRCC some of the groups claimed they would need to short change their missionary work in order to care for America's poor.