A reader writes:
I remain mistrustful of the “private charity” canard. A government’s sole purpose in providing for the needful is to support its citizens in times of need and to provide them a route back to health and productivity. Private charities exist primarily with alternative goals. Religious charities exist to evangelize, proselytize, convince and, at times, coerce. Alexander Hamilton once wrote, “Control of a man’s subsistence is control of his will,” and private charities have the power to become regional monopolies that control the subsistence, and the will, of thousands. We can argue all we want about whether or not government has the same power, but the US remains a nominal democracy, and its will is supposed to be ours, not those of the church leadership and its contingent reading of God’s.
Another writes:
You mention the Salvation Army as an example of a charity that does great work, but you are either unaware or neglecting to mention that they also discriminate against LGBT. Most recently they fired a lesbian worker. The idea that private charities can and should be the primary source of relief for the poor is as old as America. All you need to do it look at the lives of the poor prior to this century to see how that worked out.
I obviously disagree with the Salvation Army’s anti-gay policies. But they do amazing work for the poor and needy and one of the reasons they are so successful is their religious zeal. For me, they have an absolute religious freedom to promote certain views, however repugnant to me. And the harm is vastly outweighed by the good. Another:
If my father were alive today, he would be in his 90s. He grew up financially well off in the Depression but his disinheritance by his father and service in WWII opened his eyes to the suffering of most of the world. He did not contribute to charitable religious organizations, preferring to support governmental or secular groups. Here’s why: I vividly remember driving by the Salvation Army store one day, and my father saying he wouldn’t give them a cent. When I asked why, he said, “they make those poor bastards say a prayer before they’ll give them a hot meal.” He believed, rightly or not I cannot say, that religious charities served the poor only to recruit them to their faith. The thought of a man bending his knee to a god he didn’t believe in, in exchange for a hot meal, made my father sick. Government doesn’t make you say a prayer before they give you a hot meal. This has always been a very powerful argument, to me, for supporting public social programs over private charity.
Another:
You and others have casually referred to Romney’s tithing as the equivalent to giving to charity but I think we need to be cautious about this. How much of the millions he contributes would go to what we picture as charitable causes, like feeding and clothing the poor, medical care, and how much goes to church administration? Sending missionaries out to convert more people to Mormonism? Sending operatives out to fiercely oppose marriage equality?
Another:
Paul Ryan’s meager 2.5% giving rate certainly conflicts with his notion that private charity should replace the welfare state. It is even more important, however, to look at the recipients of his charity. According to the article you linked, Mr. Ryan gives money to organizations such as Boy Scouts of America, Junior Achievement (an organization that teaches youth about entrepreneurship and free markets), and Women and Children’s Horizons (an organization supporting victims of sexual and domestic abuse). Only the last of the three organizations is really attempting to fill a traditional state role or supplement the social safety net.
Small government advocates who believe that private charity would step in if the size of the state were reduced need to look at the recipients of private charity as well as the amount of Americans’ generosity.
I don’t believe private charity can or should replace the safety net. But it’s a vital and very American complement we should be glad for. Another:
Good points, but a couple of things:
1. Private charities have every right to discriminate
2. President Obama may have given 14.2% in 2010, but he hasn’t always had such a charitable history, certainly not before he decided to run for President. I’m a supporter, but this is worth bringing up if you’re making the point on Ryan:
2005: $77,315 to charity out of income of $1.66 million (4.6 percent)
2004: $2,500 out of $207,647 (1.2 percent)
2003: $3,400 out of $238,327 (1.4 percent)
2002: $1,050 out of $259,394 (0.4 percent)
Glad to put that on record.
The Dish 