Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedShould charity be voluntary or compelled?
Results so far:
| Compelled | 9% | 26 votes | Total: 284 votes | |
| Voluntary | 91% | 258 votes |
Compelled
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesEveryone should be encouraged to donate to charity on some level. As Americans we live in one of the most prosperous countries in the world, yet we still have needy people in our own communities. Homeless citizens crowd into shelters or sleep on streets while the more fortunate members of our society debate whether or not they need their new luxury car or the latest IPod offering. We as a society have our priorities greatly confused.
While it is not the obligation of every citizen to see to the comforts and needs of the less fortunate, it is right and proper to administer to those in need. Our contributions could be as simple as donating unwanted clothes to your local charity organization or as grand as annual cash payments to a deserving fund. Regardless of how you contribute to charity, everyone who can should contribute. Instead we as a society all too often look down upon those in need. The downtrodden of our civilization are looked upon in disgust, as being pitifully responsible for their own plight. We are too quick to accuse an out of work homeless person addicted to drugs or alcohol of making their own mess. When we fail to take even the briefest of moments to understand their predicament and how they arrived at their unfortunate state.
What we may find is those that we snub on the street are not all that different from ourselves. Misfortune can befall any of us in an instant and we can quickly find ourselves in an unsavory situation where we become that which we have slighted for so long. Only then do we appreciate the situation that the less fortunate are in, only then do we have sympathy for their plight. At that point it is too late to do anything about it because we have become that which we pity. It is at times like this when we look at those with the power to help and wonder why they site by idly as those in need suffer.
The real question is no should society be compelled to contribute to charity but rather who should compel society to donate to charity? Clearly our government is not the best choice given the profligate spending and waste that runs rampant through the government with the billions of tax dollars that are already at their disposal. Who then does the authority and responsibility fall to for charitable contributions? It would be wonderful to think that societies concern for the under privileged would translate into automatic contributions, but this simply is not the case. If charitable contributions are to become compulsory there must be a reliable and trustworthy system of management in place to handle such a system. No entity that fits this description exists today.
Until such time that a reputable agency is made available to handle mandatory charitable contributes, this matter must remain in the hands of the general public as a matter of voluntarism. In the absence of a structured system to handle mandatory contributions we as a society must make the effort to promote and encourage charitable contributions. This is being done in many places on different scales with varying degrees of success. There are so many worthy charities in the public market that it is difficult for the common person to cope with all the possible options, let alone be persuaded to part with any of their person possessions in the first place. Such confusion and dilution of the charitable market is nothing but a hindrance on the charities that so desperately need regular contributions. In order for charities to work effectively with society and maximize the contributions from the public they need to operate in a much more focused, cohesive and collaborative manner.
Surely in the wake of such collaboration a trustworthy and efficient entity can be formed that would be beneficial to all charities. With the development of a centralized organization we may find the governing body necessary to enforce the compulsory charitable contribution spoken of earlier. If nothing else having a collaborative body of charitable organizations would benefit the public by presenting a unified front in the effort to raise awareness, money and supplies for so many needed charities. Efforts of this nature would make the collection and promotion of charities much more efficient and even handed than they are today. Making it easier to contribute to charity may be the first steps to compelling citizens to contribute to charity.
Learn more about this author, Joseph Whalen.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Voluntary
Charity is always voluntary; if it's compelled, then we are destroying its precious meaning.
If we try to unlock the historical evolution of the word "charity," we will discover that charity actually was derived from the Latin word "caritas," which means love. So charity is love. "It is a benevolent goodwill toward or love of humanity" realized through giving assistance to those in need. The underlying force behind this generous act of giving assistance to people in need is none other than love. We know that love is a product of freedom, precisely because no one can force us to love somebody, just as we can never force other people to love us. Love is an act which originates from the bottom of one's heart and this love translates and being put into actions. A concrete example of this is a charitable act or simply called charity. But if love is kept within the confines of one's heart, then he or she is destroying the very essence of love. Love is light that spreads all over. Like a light that shines through the darkness of the night, charity gives light and hope to the people who live in the darkness of destitution.
Like the sun which radiates a generous light to all of us without us asking for it, charity is always voluntary and must be given to the needy from the gratuitous act of the person of goodwill even without them (needy people) asking for it. Just as we can never compel the sun to shine everyday for it shines with its own power, so too we can never compel rich figures and wealthy nations around the world to shower those in need with material necessities. The act of giving must always start from the heart. We are precisely gifted with a "human sensor" called the heart to identify people who are destitute and poor. It is within the power of the rich and the powerful to decide for themselves if they want to be loving or be forever selfish.
If we scan the economic condition of the world today, there is an obvious imbalance of the distribution of wealth. There is a massive inequality of economic and human condition of living. While others live like kings; others live like pigs. While others live to eat; others eat just to live. Given this scenario, it is honestly tempting to say that time has come for charity to be revolutionized and be compelled on all denizens of the world, if the human rights world wants an equal opportunity for all. Yet initiating this move, no matter how noble this may seem, is again a violation of the basic human right to freedom of choice.
The question being asked here is whether charity be made voluntary or compelled. This question is evidently directed to the person of goodwill who may want to share his riches to the needy. But have we ever given a single thought that possible recipients of a charity might also reject it? A concrete example worth mentioning here is the present ordeal and struggle of the innocent people of Myanmar, both dead and live. After a flood of water, brought by a powerful cyclone, took hundreds of innocent lives, Myanmar was flooding with love from the international humanitarian groups eager to extend assistance to the victims. The Burmese military rulers, however, rejected it. This is a concrete example of the existence of voluntary charity, on the one hand, and the rejection of the recipient, on the other. Despite the adamant stance and rejection of the military junta on the relief goods and humanitarian aids from across the globe, we can say that charity need not be compelled, because as we see it, countless hearts of goodwill from across the globe are still united in pouring assistance to the people of Myanmar.
It's no man's business to change the world alone, yet three people are certainly better than one, but a united world against poverty is even stronger than any powerful country on earth today. The global war against poverty is a voluntary effort. So compelling other people to do a charity is a futile endeavor. The effort we take in urging them to do a charity against their will is a waste of time and energy compared to the immediate concerns of the people in need of help. The challenge actually begins from within, from our very hearts. I believe that if we dream to change world, change must first begin from within, never from the dictates of other people.
In short, there's no such thing as charity by compulsion; but there's what I call a charity by compassion.
Learn more about this author, Rodolfo N. Lentejas, Jr..
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- Political & Economic Theory
- Did campaign contributions and lobbying by the financial sector contribute to the meltdown on Wall Street?
- Should the federal government intervene to save big corporations from bankruptcy?
- Is it possible for politicians to tell the truth?
- Will Barack Obama's administration be able to reverse the nation's economic downturn?
- Is national security more important than civil rights?
- Have democrats gone crazy with America's money?
