A Crisis of Fellowship?

[Lainey]

That's easy enough to explain (at least in my mind). The donations are voluntary. The taxes are not.

Then you can't be surprised when unrelieved poverty begets more poverty. And all the toys in the world don't change that situation.

[bUU]

That's a good point Lainey. It is easy to do the easy things, the things that pay yourself back in dividends of satisfaction and pride. It is hard to do the things that are necessary; the things that get to the root of the problems; when those things don't provide comparable rewards. The image of a child playing with a toy is an advertisement for charity. What image can we use to promote treatment of that child's mother for cancer? We have crafted a society where the deepest ills are kept hidden from public eye, and where those least fortunate are viewed with derision rather than with compassion.

With regard to the fellowship issue I mentioned, one thing we have been advised is to stop trying to do the little things - save the watershed - raise food awareness - and instead galvanize the entire congregation toward a single, weighty need. Perhaps trying to get our society to change its attitudes toward safeguarding the basic needs of those living in poverty is a way to bring us all back together, activate us as a group, rekindle the willingness of those who have stepped back to put themselves out for something important.

[SteveinMN]

We have crafted a society where the deepest ills are kept hidden from public eye, and where those least fortunate are viewed with derision rather than with compassion.

I'm no fan at all of American Exceptionalism, but I don't think that kind of society is an American invention at all. You can see it all around the world. The hubbub over Putin's making Russian orphans off-limits to American adoptive families ... my DW the social worker works in a county with many people who have emigrated from Russia and many who have adopted Russian kids; they definitely have gotten the short end of the stick. Similarly, homogeneous cultures like Japan's take a dimmer view of those who are not Japanese, and even the Germans look down on their Turkish Gastarbeiter. But the U.S. has done an excellent job over the last 30 years or so of fostering xenophobia and an odd duality of Marlboro Men who are governors of big complex states.

[Zoe Girl]

I think there's nothing more satisfying than giving, and Christmas brings out the giver in us. BUT in my mind, the best giving would be directly to the parents so that they have the joy of choosing what to give their children. Too often, we give with strings attached and we give to make US feel good.

I remember members at our church collecting a bunch of stuff that they wrapped and then they descended en masse to the "needy family" to give them the gifts. All I recall is how upset they were that the family didn't say thank you. And I was thinking, there may be tons of reasons they didn't express gratitude, but that shouldn't be the point of giving.

I can understand. It has taken many years to get my mom to give gifts within my comfort level to my kids. One year we lived in a small apartment and after the 3rd large box arrived and sat in the living room I had to call and confess that we may not be able to keep it all, or we would have to seriously purge what we owned. I made peace many years ago that my mom will always give way more than I will be able ( or want) to, however it was a big struggle for some time. I think what made the difference was my brother telling her the same thing and then seeing my brother's in-laws over-give to a whole new level that is extreme.

[bUU]

I'm no fan at all of American Exceptionalism, but I don't think that kind of society is an American invention at all. You can see it all around the world.

I'm not sure it matters, but seeing it all of the world could just indicate that we exported it.

[Spartana]

Then you can't be surprised when unrelieved poverty begets more poverty. And all the toys in the world don't change that situation.

With donations you know exactly what your money is going towards. With taxes you don't. Your tax dollars may be going towards supporting military actions and/or foreign wars and defense build up, and/or higher pay and viagra for the members of Congress - and not towards the needy. I think if more people knew that their tax dollars went to help the impoverished, they would more readily pay more in taxes. Until then, donating goods, services or money directly to an organization that supports a cause one believes in seem a good way for most people to go.

[bUU]

It is a good, self-focused way for people to go. We live in society together. Society doesn't operate based on everyone getting their own way.

[SteveinMN]

I think if more people knew that their tax dollars went to help the impoverished, they would more readily pay more in taxes.

I'd love to see that, but I'm not so sure about it.

First, there are people who are absolutely certain beyond doubt or reason that, if the government is involved, the process will be bloated and inefficient. Yes, there's government waste. But there's also business waste and fraud -- and lots of it. I'm guessing most of the people who think government should run more like a business have never seen the waste and inefficiency at large American companies (which have taken inefficiency to an art form). And I see that the dirty jobs (clean-up, regulations for safety or against abuse, etc.) pretty much are ignored until someone (typically the government) has to take care of it or force some other connected party to take care of it.

Second, there still seems to be plenty of people who believe that the poor don't know how to save or spend money, so any money or services you give "those people" is wasted. Again, there is some waste and fraud here, too, and maybe a mindset of spending money on what you can because you don't know if you'll have any money tomorrow. But it's not to the level of the Cadillac-driving welfare queen or any of the other "scandalous" stories that seem to make their way around quickly without attribution or facts. Tied in with this is the idea of giving money and services to people with whose lifestyles taxpayers do not agree -- taxpayers who don't want to fund birth control or benefits for unmarried or gay couples, etc. regardless of the law.

And a lot of it is ignorance of exactly what constitutes a benefit, whether it's money given or loaned outright or a break in fees or taxes owed. A niece of mine is in the Army and posts on Facebook all the time about how wasteful government is. (Hello! You are employed by that government!) Her mom fosters kids and doesn't see a connection between the money the county/state pay her and her husband for taking care of these kids and "government waste". Kind of sad, really.

[Lainey]

I agree, Spartana, about the concern whether the money would go to the issue you'd like to see corrected. Here in AZ we have had a number of ballot referendums which require our legislature to use some monies in a certain way, e.g., some lottery money is to be dedicated for our park budget. The state legislators hate this, complaining that we are "tying their hands", when in fact it is voter backlash against the stupidity and waste of how tax monies were previously used.
The latest tactic is for the state legislators to simply ignore the voters wishes, and then force it to go to the courts. It's mind-boggling, especially in what is supposed to be a representative democracy.

Even with that, I believe in this quote: "When I feed the poor, I'm called a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, I'm called a communist." (Archbishop Camara)

I like to get to the root cause of a societal dysfunction, whether it's climate change, deregulated banksters, poisons in our environment, etc. I'd rather focus on that then buy a toy for a kid whose family home was lost due to a super storm, a fraudulent loan, or toxic sludge. And then buy another one for the next kid in the next event. And so on.

[ApatheticNoMore]

Count me as another one who doesn't understand the response to a community that had to bury 20 children is to send teddy bears?

Because it's something they *can* do, bringing back 20 dead children isn't. It's nothing I'm particularly inclined to do, but ...

Sending a teddy bear costs a few bucks, but that is a dollar amount perceived as less than what it would cost to provide usable mental-health care to people like Adam Lanza. And once you've sent the teddy bear, you can tell yourself you've done something and you can let yourself off the mental hook of feeling obligated to do something deeper -- like reconsider the state of American mental-health care or the availability of guns or respond to the ongoing losses endured by the victims' families -- about such a tragedy. Those things are much more work than most people want to take on. Sending a teddy bear? Lots easier.

So they should be sending donations to fund mental health care rather than teddy bears? Again sending a teddy bear or probably making a mental health donation is something they can do and changing the political system is not always something they can do (it depends, sure they can crank out a letter to the congressperson, and how often are those ignored? maybe they've already done that anyway, and then sent a teddy bear). I'm not even sure what anyone is suggesting they even should do. March in the streets? (p.s. all truly threatening protest movements are seen as such). At this point the government tosses bones like better mental healthcare and then threatens to take something else away to pay for it, so if it's the popular thing to fund today it might get funding, but an actual safety net is a broad thing not just a few dollars tossed to today's topic du jour while something else maybe even more critical gets defunded.