by Paul Schingle

Created on: September 14, 2008

According to the American Heritage Dictionary (2nd College Edition), charity is defined as offering provisions to the poor-almsgiving. In the same dictionary, compel is defined as to force, drive or constrain. Finally, voluntary means to give of one's free will. If one is forced to give money or other assistance to the poor, is it really charity? It may be argued that it is the right thing to do, but is it charity? I really don't see how.

Three years ago, when Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans, I worked in an office where we gathered donations together. The amount anyone gave was up to them, and it was voluntary. I don't know what anyone else gave and, I'm sure, some didn't give at all. Altogether, we raised nearly $200. Granted, this is a very small sum, but we were an office of only 20. A larger corporation had stated they would match our donations, so because of the help of twenty of us, we raised a total of $400 to send down to New Orleans. Again, this is a small amount, but it can add up. The average came down to $20 per worker in the office I worked in at the time. If every working American had scrounged up $20 voluntarily (and quickly), a total of three billion dollars could have been sent to New Orleans to aid those who endured the devastation. This makes the total seem that much less paltry.

Now, I understand that the U.S. government also gave a large sum of money to aid the victims. The sum was probably more than three billion when all was said and done. And, I suppose you could say this was a sort of "compulsory" charity, in that it was taxpayer money. So, a lot of us gave twice. But, the way the government bumbled it's way through the mess-the way the funds got to New Orleans and, ultimately, to the victims, I don't think it takes a lot of imagination to say that the voluntary funds got to those who needed the help more quickly and more efficiently than the compulsory funds.

I don't have a problem, at all, with the government helping out in the case of natural disasters. As human beings, it's the least we can do for our fellow man. I just have a hard time calling it charity. When giving is done voluntarily, it has a lot more meaning to the giver. By definition, it is true charity.

Should charity be voluntary or compelled? While it helps the persons needing help in either case, I believe, in order to call it true charity, it must be voluntary.

Learn more about this author, Paul Schingle.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.