http://rightcoast.typepad.com/rightcoast/2007/10/charity-and-the.html The New York Times ran a front page story recently about an elderly man who starved to death in Japan, having been denied help by the welfare bureaucracy. The man kept a diary as he died; heartbreaking to read. The Japanese welfare bureacracy seems to have been notably heartless, and not only in this case. There are other, similar cases of starvation in the past year or two in Japan, according to the Times. There is this breif throwaway in the lenth Times story: "With no religious tradition of charity, Japan has few soup kitchens or other places for the indigent. Those that exist -- run frequently by Christian missionaries from South Korea or Japan's tiny Christian population -- cater mostly to the homeless." Say what you will about the "Abrahamic" religions -- Judaism, Christianity, and Islam -- can there be any doubt they have brought an ethic of charity into a world that would otherwise be a crueler place? The ancient, pagan world, for all its brilliance, was coldly cruel. The Hebrew Bible put enormous emphasis on charity, which was something radically new. --------------------------------------------------------------- Another article I ran across is equally interesting. http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/6577 Religious people, it seems, are 25% more likely than secularists to donate money to the indigent (91% verses 66%) and 23 points more likely to volunteer (67%-44%). The data shows that practicing a religion is more important than the actual religion itself in predicting charitable behavior. In other words, those of faith who did not attend a church or practice their religion in any substantive way were much less likely to give or volunteer to help the poor. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- I also ran across this gem. Churchill once said, "The Titanic disaster is the prevailing theme here. The story is a good one. The strict observance of the great traditions of the sea towards women and children reflects nothing but honour upon our civilzation.......The whole episode fascinates me. It shows that in spite of all inequalities and artificialites of our modern life, at the bottom -- tested to its foundations, our civilization is humane. Christian and absolutely democratic. HOw differently Imperial Rome or Ancient Greece would have settled the problem." In other words, he alleges that Christianity had influenced Western Civilization to the point that the weak were saved before the strong on the Titanic. Conversely, those in the ancient world, such as Rome or Greece, would have acted the polar opposite in the same situation due to their pagan influences. Discuss!!!
Prove me wrong atheists. Tell me how much better the world would be if we had a bunch of drunken Hitchen-like atheists ruling the world as they scoff at those of faith like Mother Teresa who actually gave a (*)(*)(*)(*) and tried to help the poor.
One of the 5 Pillars of Islam is giving charity to the poor. It's called Zakat. Islam makes it mandatory for Muslims to give Zakat, in other words mandatory to give charity. Even Jizyah, paid by non-Muslims male workers in Muslim countries, goes to charity. I had a feeling this would be brought up in response to this post, so I beat them to it سلام
Can you provide links to Islamic charity? Most charities here in the states are Christian based and charities you hear about in the news here in the states are usually linked to money flowing into terrorist groups. Of course, the only press you hear about is the bad press. For example, unless a priest is molesting a child you don't hear anything about them or the charity by people like Mother Teresa.
I live in a Buddhist country and Buddhists are generally deemed Atheists. In Theravada Buddhist countries like Laos, Thailand, Cambodia and Myanmar, anyone can go to a temple and seek sanctuary. This is often the case as workers flock to the cities and towns looking for work when things get tough in the rural areas. These people are housed within the temples and fed by the monks. To note,, Buddhist monks are p!ss poor to start with and have very little themselves.
I have always thought of Buddhism as a mental exercise and philosophy than an active religion. What say you? Are there any active outreaches or do you consider them just to take people in as needed?
You are probably used to seeing defacto Buddhists in the US. Buddhism goes much deeper than just a philosophy, it's in every fabric of society, right down to the way Buddhists prepare food. My wife and I work in development aid and we have contact with quite a few NGOs, all are non religious organisations. Believe me, they are all doing wonderful work with the poor. Christian organisations have come to Laos but their mandate is "food for faith" which is frowned upon by both the goverment and NGOs. These Christian organisations don't last too long in Laos.
I certainly don't mean to imply that you have to be religious to give to the poor, however, it seems that the majority are religious. What are your thoughts on this?
My pleasure. http://www.islamic-relief.com/Default.aspx?depID=1 http://www.icnareliefcanada.ca/Secure/donateonline.asp Here's a list of other charities: http://www.muhajabah.com/charity.htm Bad press of faiths sells more papers and brings in more viewers... That is more important than actual news because that bring up the $$$... Kinda ironic isn't it? سلام
Ignoring the govenment aid orgaisations like AuAid, USAid etc, most aid organisations are non religious.
But the OP was about the Japanese system in which an indigent man was failed by a secular government system. I know of others here in the states who have fallen through the cracks as well. In fact, who can live on social security? Also, I find it odd that most atheists are staunch advocates of a secularized welfare system. They could just as easily give money themselves but seem to prefer supporting a government to forcefully take in from them instead. It's almost as if they can't seem to bring themselves to unclutch their grasp around their wallet to give to the poor.
Or we could stop being capitalists and supporting the conditions that ensure this type of poverty will continue forevermore.
I believe you are possibly talking about what happens in the US. Worldwide this is not the casse. One also has to think. Do you only give money, or do you give your time helping the poor? I know of many atheists who give up their time in support of the poor. Honestly mate, you really need to get out of your country, travel to developing country and see first hand the wonderful work so called atheists are doing. These wonderful people are hardly atheists but deem themselves non religious. Their work comes before any religious mandate. They don't work in these countries to have an alterior motive like peddling their religion but do this work because for them, it's the right thing to do.
there are more than 30 ayahs in the noble qur'an stating the word "zakat". that's an obligation for all muslims with certain wealth standarts. but there is also "sadaqah" which is voluntary and also massively encouraged. (sadaqah is related to money and wealth too; but also simply smiling to someone on the street and saying "selam", or helping an elder walk, or planting a tree that feeds birds, or walking to the friday prayer -every step- is charity too, thus it's not just about money) there are of course countless passages on helping others in the qur'an. but to stress the logic of the zekat: so the wealth has been given to the wealthy one, but the needy ones have the right on their wealth. that's a must-do in islam for a person with means. just like praying 5 times a day, or fasting at ramadan, charity is not questionable. this is a whole fiqh issue, and it gets technical but to make the long story short, the zekat is given to: and the compulsory amount set by islam is: 2.5% (or 1/40) of the money. giving zekat also purifies your halal (lawful) earnings. there are no limits for monetary sadaqah, only this maybe: 1/40 from the total wealth (every year) for the needy ones... i think only arabs would be the solution to all mankind, with all the oil that they possess. this rises the question "is islam applied rightfully?". hint: look at the world.
None. But some countries have it worse than others. And we are up in there in some respects. Here is a university of Michigan graph. http://sitemaker.umich.edu/salas.356/usa_vs._world
Apparently you did not read my article. It takes a sample of those of faith and those who are not and looks at the time they give as well as the money they give. Those of faith give more of their time and money by far. Again, I am not suggesting that atheists do not give, rather, they are a distant second. Why do you think that is?
No offense mate, but have you taken a good look at the standard of living in Arabic countries compared to the Western countries? Does Arab spring ring a bell if things are soooo great over there? Don't even get me started about the dictators over there. Do you really think the answer will come from that mess?
http://www.politicalforum.com/curre...0-billion-foreign-aid-madani.html#post4889116 That's why countries like Saudi Arabia are so generous.
saudi arabia, qatar, kuwait and uae are poor? iraq and libya... weren't they rich? all their wealth melted in the hands of puppet dictators. them not being able to manage their countries and wealth... was indeed my point.
