When I said 2k I was referring to Jews whom created charity. http://www.sichosinenglish.org/essays/08.htm The tradition of Jewish charity dates back to their earliest origins, to Abraham, the first Jew: "For I love him [Abraham] because he commands his children and household after him that they shall keep the way of G-d to do charity and justice..." (Genesis 18:19).
Besides the many commandments in the Torah instructing us to love our fellow man and be kind to the poor in specific ways, there is also an explicit commandment to "open your hand" to the poor, to give or loan them whatever they need to keep them from poverty (Deuteronomy 14:7-11). Jewish law requires us to give at least a tenth of our income (profit) to charity, and recommends giving a fifth as most praiseworthy. As for the rest of your rant... Sounds like your saying "nobody can do charity right so fuck-em. let the needy suffer" On 5/9/05, S. Isaac Dealey wrote: > > I don't feel Christians in America are oppressors. > > I do agree there are religious nuts out there but I don't > > see oppression. > > > Religious charities have been helping the needy for close > > to 2k years. > > This just shows an ignorance of history... 200 yrs -- maybe... in the > last 2K years, christians have risen from being a small unloved cult > to dominating much of the earth, and have done so on many occasions on > the blood and backs of innocent people. > > Charities as we know them are relatively new. Not new as in "new > millenium" or "new shoes". The basic principal of "helping the needy" > has been around for a long time, but in more recent generations we've > created more needy people. In the grand scheme of things, charities as > we know them make a lot less sense before the deterioration of tribes > and then communities and finally of families up to today wherein > anything that resembles a family in the US these days is a rarety at > best, (nuclear families don't count -- they're incomplete) much less > communities, which simply don't exist "in the wild" anymore. That is, > there aren't any "organic" communities which are a result of people's > normal daily behavior -- they only exist now as a result of people > creating them intentionally. Unless you warp the definition of > "community" to include "beauracracy" and "internet communities", in > which case I'd say, why stop there, go to town, if you see two people > talking on the street, call _them_ a community since they're obviously > "communing" with each other. > > Modern charities (Christian or otherwise) also don't really do a good > job of distributing the aid either... Sure they "do what they can", > but iirc on the average for every dollar you spend given to charity, > something like a nickel gets to someone who needs it. WOW! I can dump > $100 on a charity and give somebody $5 to get themselves a Happy Meal. > I'd rather give the $100 directly to the guy under the bridge myself > (assuming I have it to give). Or better yet give them $5 and not > payout the other $95 that otherwise goes to the charity's paid > employees and other operational expenses. If we still had communities > (or tribes), more people would have this attitude, and we likely > wouldn't "need" these charities. > > > President Bush's plan is to help them do what they have a > > good track record of doing and the job will get done for > > the least amount of money. Otherwise you need to spend a > > fortune with buildings, people, training, trucks, oversight > > groups and who knows what other layers of bureaucracy just > > to help the needy. Why not give the money to originations > > that do that the best? I'm sure if the Wiccans have a > > legitimate charity they'd be eligible for funds. > > Giving money to religious charities doesn't require less oversight, it > requires _more_ oversight to ensure that the charities aren't > providing aid in a prejudiced manner. Personally I don't want Wiccan's > to get money from the government any more than I want Christians to > get it -- the whole idea makes me ill. But it's _worse_ because in the > case of Bush's "faith based initiative" only Christian organizations > receive the funding. You won't find any printed literature which > expresses that as an intent, but that is the reality of it. How much > that has to do with Bush specifically (as opposed to simple Christian > dominance of the culture) I don't know. > > And who said that not giving money to Christians would ever mean > spending more tax dollars on charity? It's perfectly reasonable that > the government could keep the same budget and spend the money > differently. > > << cranky >> > > s. isaac dealey 954.522.6080 > new epoch : isn't it time for a change? > > add features without fixtures with > the onTap open source framework > > http://www.fusiontap.com > http://www.sys-con.com/author/?id=4806 > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's customer support efficiency by 100% http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=49 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:156850 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
