My religion seems to advise giving to the poor when asked, but I run into internal conflicts over the practice.
Some argue that it would be better to give to a registered charity, so you know for sure where the money is going. However, (A) I do not always know where the money is going, since some charities use over half their donations for administration and salaries, and (B) if we are told to give to beggars, are we entitled to refuse them just because we are more comfortable dealing with organizations than with ragged street people? Are organized charities partly a way of distancing ourselves from actual poor people?
Another issue is the suspicion that some beggars will use the money for alcohol, drugs, or other unsavory purposes. I agree that some of them will, but is that supposed to be our concern? Should we simply give when asked, and not try to control what happens to the donation?
This brings up the Victorian concept of the "deserving poor," which was used by nineteenth century charities to control and browbeat the poor, who were expected to demonstrate their morality and their abject gratitude in order to receive help from charitable groups. It all seems to defeat the concept of charity. I find a little of this attitude in myself; I would much rather give money to nice, sober, well behaved beggars, and feel some resentment at giving to a beggar who immediately uses my money to buy beer and cigarettes. But...isn't that just vanity? Would it not be better to give without these strings attached?
It says in Hebrews that by giving aid to strangers, "thereby some have entertained angels unawares." Do we lose this opportunity by insisting our "angels" be pleasing to our senses and our self-importance?
Has anyone else dealt with the question?
Some argue that it would be better to give to a registered charity, so you know for sure where the money is going. However, (A) I do not always know where the money is going, since some charities use over half their donations for administration and salaries, and (B) if we are told to give to beggars, are we entitled to refuse them just because we are more comfortable dealing with organizations than with ragged street people? Are organized charities partly a way of distancing ourselves from actual poor people?
Another issue is the suspicion that some beggars will use the money for alcohol, drugs, or other unsavory purposes. I agree that some of them will, but is that supposed to be our concern? Should we simply give when asked, and not try to control what happens to the donation?
This brings up the Victorian concept of the "deserving poor," which was used by nineteenth century charities to control and browbeat the poor, who were expected to demonstrate their morality and their abject gratitude in order to receive help from charitable groups. It all seems to defeat the concept of charity. I find a little of this attitude in myself; I would much rather give money to nice, sober, well behaved beggars, and feel some resentment at giving to a beggar who immediately uses my money to buy beer and cigarettes. But...isn't that just vanity? Would it not be better to give without these strings attached?
It says in Hebrews that by giving aid to strangers, "thereby some have entertained angels unawares." Do we lose this opportunity by insisting our "angels" be pleasing to our senses and our self-importance?
Has anyone else dealt with the question?








:

.
that, but- I can't bring myself to do it with my kids in the car (which they pretty much always are). Which- I find pathetic about myself.

