Kahlil Gibran, a Lebanese poet who lived around the turn of the last century, once wrote, "You give but little when you give of your possessions. It is when you give of yourself that you truly give." This has been on my mind much over the past year with natural disasters and human suffering on an unprecedented scale around the globe.
I read not long ago a call for all good Christians to support higher taxes so government could do more to help the poor and needy. It disturbed me that someone would appeal to my religious beliefs to support increased government "charity." Is that really what charity is? While most religions teach that we have an obligation to care for one another, government bureaucracy should not be what first comes to mind when considering that responsibility.
Taxes are not charity. They are coerced and not freely given. I am not saying that there is no place for government in helping to relieve human suffering. We rightfully expect our public officials to warn us of impending danger whenever possible and give us life-saving advice. We must be able to count on our police and fire departments and, on occasion, our national guard troops, to protect us from danger and keep the peace. Our transportation departments, weather centers, and other similar agencies, both local and state, provide valuable services.
However, when we speak of true charity – feeding and clothing the needy, providing shelter, encouragement, and a hundred other necessities – that is not the business of government. That role is best filled by private entities and individuals. Government, by its very nature, is unsuited to the work of charity. It is intentionally burdensome, slow to change and react. As inconvenient as this may be in today's world of instant messaging, instant gratification, instant everything, it is a safeguard which makes government less susceptible to the whims of society. Government's role, then, in the work of charity should be that of providing an environment which allows, even encourages and rewards, the charitable efforts of private entities and individuals.
Davy Crockett – frontiersman, soldier, politician, American hero – struggled to define the role of government in charitable acts. As a member of Congress, a bill came before the body appropriating money for the benefit of the widow of a distinguished naval officer. Many eloquent speeches were given in favor of this bill and, until Davy Crockett rose to speak, the passage of this bill was assured. He said, in part, "I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money." He then issued a challenge to each member of Congress to follow his example and donate one week's wages to the benefit of this poor widow. Not one man responded to his proposition and the bill was soundly defeated. The principle he fought for was learned many years earlier from a constituent who, in response to a similar bill passed for the benefit of refugees from a large fire in Washington, called attention to the fact that nowhere in the Constitution does it give Congress the authority to give away public money for charity. It was a lesson well learned by Davy Crockett, and hopefully by us as well. For a full text of the story click here.
The problem with government assistance is that the only thing they really have to offer is money. By contrast, charities like the Red Cross, Salvation Army and religious organizations, for which I have gained a new appreciation, provide hands-on, person-to-person, basic services. All charitable organizations have overhead costs, but reputable charities keep them to a minimum and encourage volunteerism to minimize labor costs. The Red Cross alone in just the past month has raised over a billion dollars which will be used not only to meet immediate needs, but also to train volunteers and purchase equipment to handle future emergencies.
In television coverage of the aftermath of Hurricane Rita, a reporter commented on the citizens of rural Louisiana and Texas saying something to the effect, "They were mostly farmers, shrimpers, ranchers, outdoors people. They know how to make do with very little. They're not waiting for FEMA, they're just getting on with their lives". I drove past Thistle the other day and thought of those days, over 20 years ago, when neighbor helped neighbor to move personal belongings and save what could be saved before the flood waters took it all. Exactly the same thing happened this past January with the flooding in St. George and Cedar Hills. Probably, many of us remember the Teton Dam flood which obliterated a large swath of south-eastern Idaho. Many from all over our area were called on to travel to Rexburg and surrounding areas to help in the cleanup efforts.
There is much we can do, for ourselves and for others, without relying on government. Some erroneously believe their individual donation, whether of money or time, could not possibly make a difference. But, it is there, in the giving and receiving, that we find our humanity. I believe that it strengthens us as individuals and strengthens our community.
It is my hope and prayer is that we as citizens of this beautiful community and this great state and nation will continue to be actively involved in charitable donations of time and means and not passively stand by waiting for government to fill that role. Surely, the consequences of such selflessness will be the blessings of heaven for ourselves and those we touch, and also allowing and encouraging government to once again assume their proper role.
Portuguese
Spanish
French