14 December 2006

Charity begins with Truth

As you may already be aware, Conservatives give more to charity than Liberals. I'm not surprised to see so many Republicans giving charitably. I wonder if this study included the Church as a "charity"...

Enough about that. I'm not interested in getting caught up in any partisan pissing contest. I wanted to focus my thoughts on what jumped out at me from this story:

"One wonders what has happened to charity in wealthy coastal states like California, New York and Connecticut -- which, for the record, still donate large absolute sums of money. Residents of these states simply do not donate as large a share of their income as the nice and modest folk in flyover-land cities like Topeka, Kansas, or Sioux Falls, S.D."

It seems the poorer folk, per dollar income, donate more than the wealthy. Lest we forget a significant contribution to the Republican voter base comes from pious working poor who hail from the rural "heartland". Like you and me, these people look out for one another. They know the value of an honest day's work. They want only the best for their loved ones. It's a shame the Church and the State have their meathooks firmly wrapped around their collective heart, for if only they knew that, year after year, they were electing the conditions necessitating charity, that their leaders were keeping the poor poor to allow the rich to become richer, that most of this relief money gets channeled through non-governmental organizations (NGOs) into the coffers of bureaucrats and businessfolk.

This story reminded me why we so-called compassionate "Lefties" are failing: we are not reaching out to these humble folk, despite the fact that these are the very individuals who need convincing. I am not ashamed to say I have developed a fondness for Jesus Christ because, after a childhood immersed in religious dogma, I finally understand the point of it all. I've learned to see past the imagery and into the soul of this figure.

He was a worker, a son, a friend. He wished only for peace among everyone and everything, and, for that, he was murdered, by the very people who purvey his image, the very people who tell us he died for our sins. He died for our sins because it is our sins we allowed to kill him, and, by allowing our brothers and sisters to be swayed by these false messengers of what they consider to be "God", we are killing Jesus all over again.

But I digress. My suggestion is to reach them by using the knowledge they hold dearest to them to tear down the icons that have their attention. These teachings were intended to promote love and understanding, despite the hatred and fear religion has fostered since time immemorial. Regardless of how we, as people, feel about religion, we cannot simply abandon it entirely. Even if you have little or no understanding of religious text, the message should be loud and clear.

The Conservative pundits can hoot and holler all they want about their victory over Liberals in yet another pissing contest. You can do your part for charity all you want, but only when the perpetrators responsible for this socio-economic chasm are brought to justice will the need for said charity disappear.

1 Comments:

At 13/4/07 15:00, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I believe that the report took into account donations to churches and found that even excluding these, conservatives still gave more money to charity. However, the final analysis found that the real determinant of charitable was religion, not political affiliation. Religious liberals gave as much as religious conservatives. But because conservatives tend to be more religious than liberals, they ended up giving more money in total.

Emilia Liz

 

Post a Comment

<< Home