by Dave Knechel

Created on: May 14, 2008

You've got to be kidding! How can charity be forced upon anyone when, by definition, the word means to give on one's own? Look at how Princeton University's WordNet 3.0 describes charity:

Noun
* S: (n) charity (a foundation created to promote the public good (not for assistance to any particular individuals))
* S: (n) charity, brotherly love (a kindly and lenient attitude toward people)

* S: (n) charity (an activity or gift that benefits the public at large)
* S: (n) Jacob's ladder, Greek valerian, charity, Polemonium caeruleum, Polemonium van-bruntiae, Polymonium caeruleum van-bruntiae (pinnate-leaved European perennial having bright blue or white flowers)
* S: (n) charity (an institution set up to provide help to the needy)

At the same site, compel is described as:

Verb
* S: (v) compel, oblige, obligate (force somebody to do something) "We compel all students to fill out this form"
* S: (v) compel (necessitate or exact) "the water shortage compels conservation"

By meaning of the words alone, charity and compel share nothing in common. One's a noun, the other's a verb. So there.

In a strong sense, taxation is a very compelling word. We are obligated to pay taxes. Out of those taxes we build roads, bombs and other things not considered charity. Necessary? In many cases, yes, but they are issues that can be argued about, compromised and sued over. Some public funds pay for unemployment, welfare and a slew of other agencies that benefit the public at large. Government charity? Yes, in a sense, it is to those who qualify, but what about those who don't? Would they be forced to "donate" funds because they don't meet minimum poverty qualifications? How can anyone, rich or poor, be forced to give money to a specific cause? Take a look at how governments operate. Through all the bureaucratic red tape, not to mention greed, how much really ends up in the hands of those who need it?

Who organizes and runs it, whatever it is? We are talking about a global charity, aren't we, not just the United States? Should we put the United Nations in charge? In a world of political correctness, wouldn't legitimate charitable foundations, such as the United Negro College Fund in the U.S., cease to exist as we now know them? No longer can an individual give to one cause without giving to all. Every race. Every ethnicity. Every cause. Anything else would be blatant discrimination. This would legitimize all sorts of illicit and unnecessary organizations, allowing them to beg for - and rightfully

• 1
• 2
• Next Page >>