widows, entitlement, charity and all that...

[_Tarski]

It seems that certain Christians (you know, the crypto-Randian Christains) have a rather self-serving and limited notion of giving.

To these people, charity has to be admitted since it is in the scriptures and all that but....

I notice a couple things. It seems that the ideal recipient of charity is never treated as an authentic person but rather a mere prop for a religious fantasy.

The stereotypical biblical widow is perfect for this role since she has an appropriately pitiful appearence and complete lack of assertive personhood. The personhood of the needy person is never enough.
Being physically pitful is good. A dirty British child in a tattered suit is fine too in a pinch but the would be recipient had better not be a middle aged man with a grizzled beard and if you are black with a gold tooth you will get no sympathy no matter what pain you might be suffering. In fact, you will often get the reverse.

Another important aspect of this conservative charity fantasy is that it doesn't last long or call for any long term systematic action (it is important that we don't help out as a society). The fantasy widow takes leave quickly and never bothers us with long term problems and the religious giver never has to discover her impefections--she is never a shrew, a nag or a bitch. She is always quiet and never expecting anything in life except to be that widow for us at just the right moment.

In fact, I have heard it said that God wants us to give to the poor not for their sake but for our sake--you know--so we can grow spiritually (not for their sake?? really? barrf). It seems to me that if we are giving for any other reason than that the other person is indeed a person in need or in pain then we are shallow spiritually. We (should) give exactly for the sake of the other person; not for ourselves, not for any gods or angels, and not for the building of the kingdom. That's why it is called giving after all.

The widow and her mite is a fantasy. A real person is likely to be annoying, intent on being cool or tough, and occasionally angry or at least insufficiently willing to act like a whipped dog. In fact, many of the needy are that way exactly because the are constitutionally unable to come across in a pleasing way to other people. They are socially awkward or repulsive--maybe they are even mentally ill.

Finally, it seems that the ideal recipient must be willing to adopt appropriate religious beliefs. They must be already appropriately religious or, even better, they must be perfectly ripe for conversion. They apparently do not deserve their own sincere goals and beliefs. Well, after all, the widow isn't a person afer all. She is just a prop for a religious fantasy where she appears in mind barely long enough for us to get a good look. If we look too long we might discover that she is a whore, or worse yet, an educated woman with an attitude- maybe even a feminist.

[_Chap]

I think Tarski's post certainly deserves a bump. It is clearly intended to be read in a Mormon context (those widows ...) but it points to two mysteries with wider implications that intrigue me:

1. How on earth can Christian religious believers walk on past obvious need in the street when they have read this passage:

Matthew 25:

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’'

Note that the only qualification for the needy is that they are actually, there and then, hungry, thirsty, in need of clothing or in prison. It is not said that the persons in question have to be in that state through no fault of their own, or that they just need a hand to get back on their feet as productive and self-supporting citizens. It is not said that they are in any way likable as people. They just have to need basic stuff and basic compassion. If you don't give it to them, says Jesus, expect trouble from Me.

2. Why on earth do I still feel motivated to give money to beggars although I have no religious belief to speak of? I suppose because I find that being unloving to others makes me feel unloving towards myself. Does that make sense?

[_Tator]

Tarski, definitely some good points to think about.

It seems in my observation that most "giving" is done in that week around December 25th and it seems the assumption is the needy are not needy the other 51 weeks of the year.

[_Drifting]

Tarski, definitely some good points to think about.

It seems in my observation that most "giving" is done in that week around December 25th and it seems the assumption is the needy are not needy the other 51 weeks of the year.

It's seasonal...

Spring, Summer, Autumn, Winter, Needy

[_cinepro]

It seems that certain Christians (you know, the crypto-Randian Christains) have a rather self-serving and limited notion of giving.

To these people, charity has to be admitted since it is in the scriptures and all that but....

I notice a couple things. It seems that the ideal recipient of charity is never treated as an authentic person but rather a mere prop for a religious fantasy.

The stereotypical biblical widow is perfect for this role since she has an appropriately pitiful appearence and complete lack of assertive personhood. The personhood of the needy person is never enough.
Being physically pitful is good. A dirty British child in a tattered suit is fine too in a pinch but the would be recipient had better not be a middle aged man with a grizzled beard and if you are black with a gold tooth you will get no sympathy no matter what pain you might be suffering. In fact, you will often get the reverse.

Another important aspect of this conservative charity fantasy is that it doesn't last long or call for any long term systematic action (it is important that we don't help out as a society). The fantasy widow takes leave quickly and never bothers us with long term problems and the religious giver never has to discover her impefections--she is never a shrew, a nag or a bitch. She is always quiet and never expecting anything in life except to be that widow for us at just the right moment.

In fact, I have heard it said that God wants us to give to the poor not for their sake but for our sake--you know--so we can grow spiritually (not for their sake?? really? barrf). It seems to me that if we are giving for any other reason than that the other person is indeed a person in need or in pain then we are shallow spiritually. We (should) give exactly for the sake of the other person; not for ourselves, not for any gods or angels, and not for the building of the kingdom. That's why it is called giving after all.

The widow and her mite is a fantasy. A real person is likely to be annoying, intent on being cool or tough, and occasionally angry or at least insufficiently willing to act like a whipped dog. In fact, many of the needy are that way exactly because the are constitutionally unable to come across in a pleasing way to other people. They are socially awkward or repulsive--maybe they are even mentally ill.

Finally, it seems that the ideal recipient must be willing to adopt appropriate religious beliefs. They must be already appropriately religious or, even better, they must be perfectly ripe for conversion. They apparently do not deserve their own sincere goals and beliefs. Well, after all, the widow isn't a person afer all. She is just a prop for a religious fantasy where she appears in mind barely long enough for us to get a good look. If we look too long we might discover that she is a whore, or worse yet, an educated woman with an attitude- maybe even a feminist.

I'm not sure how you can draw such "observations" towards religious "givers" when, as far as I can tell, almost all such giving is done in secret (due in part, I presume, to Jesus's admonition here).

So I don't know how it's possible to know who Christians are giving to, how much they are giving, and when they are giving.

That being said, when I have been in a position to see how LDS and other Christians behave towards people in need, I've never been disappointed in their willingness to give, and whether or not the person was a potential LDS didn't seem to factor into the equation.

Sorry if your experience has been different.

[_keithb]

This is a very interesting OP Tarski.

I remember watching an interview of Richard Dawkins where he talked about people having a "lust" for giving, not unlike the urge to have sex that people often associate with lust. In the context of our origins as small group primates, both types of lust made perfect sense. The former lust (giving) made sense because we were likely to see the same 100-250 people again and again throughout our lives. Thus, people who were charitable were much more likely to receive help in return from other tribe members when they needed it, and this probably tended to increase their overall probability of survival. The latter lust made sense because it drove people to reproduce, again probably increasing the probability of survival.

In a modern context, neither lust makes a whole lot of rational sense. Society is now so large that we are unlikely to see people to whom we give again, thus decreasing the probability that our gifts will be reciprocated at a later date. In the case of the latter, most sexual intercourse takes place (at least in the developed world) in situations where birth control is being used, thus negating the increased chance of reproduction through frequent intercourse and the increased probability for reproduction. However, I am happy with both types of lust because I think they make the short human experience more tolerable for people able to take advantage of them.

I should also point out that there are some strange paradoxes associated with the lust for giving, probably also stemming from our origins as small group primates. For example, people care a great deal about the sympathetic widow or similar types of people that you mentioned in your OP. However, they care but little for the millions of nameless and faceless people that starve to death in the world each year -- out of sight, out of mind. This probably also stems from the human small group origins: you care about people in your own tribe but not in other tribes.

That being said, I think that charity -- even though it is probably an emergent behavior from other traits that evolved in human -- probably tends to make the world a better place overall. The visceral reaction to people suffering is one of the leading causes behind social change and pushes towards increasing social justice, among other examples.

Good OP Tarski. I would write more, but I have to get ready for class.

[_Tarski]

Now for the follow up. Every rant needs a follow up.

1) Like all rants, it is over-simplified. Not all conservatives fail to give in the way I suggested or are giving for the wrong reasons. All we really have is a lot of ideology being spouted that seems to need a push back. Thus the rant.


2) It obviously isn't realistic or even wise to give money to every poor person we run across- at least I don't. But this is exactly why I like the idea of my tax dollars being used. I just don't have the time or discipline to do it on my own. I am glad for government programs--at least in principle-- and just wish they were run better and more wisely.

[_Tarski]

I'm not sure how you can draw such "observations" towards religious "givers" when, as far as I can tell, almost all such giving is done in secret (due in part, I presume, to Jesus's admonition

well, good point...kinda.

How much secret giving is there? How would you know? If it is secret, maybe it is nearly zero for all we know (the secret giving that is).

Of course, as I admitted, my post was a thought provoking "counter rant" and should be not taken too literally. Take it as a sermon from the other side if you will. To turn it into an unassailable evidence based argument would require a book and a lot of time. I am simply giving impressions based on listening to conservatives talk.
It is based not so much on what I can tell about actual giving (which is hard to measure) but on what conservatives say when talking about it. Maybe they are doing something different than they preach but all this moaning about the entitlement mentality and the giving not being for the recipient but for the giver and so on is what I am reacting to.
Maybe my perception is being skewed because of Droopy and BCSpace. Maybe they are crazy outliers, but they sure seem in line with what I hear from my relatives and what I hear on talk radio and what local religious leaders in red states seem to be saying.
I would be happy to find out that a majority of religious conservatives are actually more in line with Jesus than they are with Ayn Rand. If so, they should stop saying things like they say since their rhetoric is too often obviously Randian in spirit.

On the other hand, I am also reacting specifically to the Monson widow thing which I have maybe conflated with general conservative Christian ideas on charity.

One thing seems more sure; conservative Christians tend to oppose public programs designed to help the disadvantaged. They prefer the uneven and occasionally conditional charity provided by churches.

[_Tarski]

This is a very interesting OP Tarski.

I remember watching an interview of Richard Dawkins where he talked about people having a "lust" for giving, not unlike the urge to have sex that people often associate with lust. In the context of our origins as small group primates, both types of lust made perfect sense. The former lust (giving) made sense because we were likely to see the same 100-250 people again and again throughout our lives. Thus, people who were charitable were much more likely to receive help in return from other tribe members when they needed it, and this probably tended to increase their overall probability of survival. The latter lust made sense because it drove people to reproduce, again probably increasing the probability of survival.

In a modern context, neither lust makes a whole lot of rational sense. Society is now so large that we are unlikely to see people to whom we give again, thus decreasing the probability that our gifts will be reciprocated at a later date. In the case of the latter, most sexual intercourse takes place (at least in the developed world) in situations where birth control is being used, thus negating the increased chance of reproduction through frequent intercourse and the increased probability for reproduction. However, I am happy with both types of lust because I think they make the short human experience more tolerable for people able to take advantage of them.

I should also point out that there are some strange paradoxes associated with the lust for giving, probably also stemming from our origins as small group primates. For example, people care a great deal about the sympathetic widow or similar types of people that you mentioned in your OP. However, they care but little for the millions of nameless and faceless people that starve to death in the world each year -- out of sight, out of mind. This probably also stems from the human small group origins: you care about people in your own tribe but not in other tribes.

That being said, I think that charity -- even though it is probably an emergent behavior from other traits that evolved in human -- probably tends to make the world a better place overall. The visceral reaction to people suffering is one of the leading causes behind social change and pushes towards increasing social justice, among other examples.

Good OP Tarski. I would write more, but I have to get ready for class.

Natural selection may have given rise to the charity thing in the way you suggest but once it is out there and examined with the general intelligence that evolution also gave us, we can start to see it as having a sort of independent "logic" which we tend to want to respect. For this reason I can decide to give to someone repulsive or to a stranger even if I don't feel that "lust".

Mathematics may also have come about by evolution but I take it that this thing we call math is really out there in some sense. Evolution "latches onto it" because it works.
Maybe "the good" is also out there in some sense--though this is tricky to get clear on. Dennett briefly concedes the possibility of "objective morality" in his video interview with Robert Wright where he compares it to a "strange attractor" from the theory of dynamical systems. It is something that is converged on even with random initial conditions once a system is within a certain range (the emergence of the conditions for sufficiently sophisticated intelligence social behavior).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5eUnpsJGRk

[_Doctor Steuss]

2. Why on earth do I still feel motivated to give money to beggars although I have no religious belief to speak of? I suppose because I find that being unloving to others makes me feel unloving towards myself. Does that make sense?

It is one of the beautiful compensations in this life that no one can sincerely try to help another without helping himself.
~Ralph Waldo Emerson