The Patient Body: Hospitals and the Pretense of Charity
“The Patient Body” is a monthly column by Ann Neumann about issues at the intersection of religion and medicine. Continue Reading →
Tag: charity
Daily Links: Great Divides Edition
Back from the Great Divide! Welcome to the fall, and a host of stuff you should be reading right now. Continue Reading →
Moral Ambivalence in Modern China
From The Lancet, an article by Charles Stafford on Deep China: the Moral Life of the Person, a new book by Arthur Kleinman, Yunxiang Yan, Jing Jun, Sing Lee, Everett Zhang, Pan tianshu, Wu Fei, and Guo Jinhau (University of California Press, 2012):
Of course, mixed feelings are at the heart of ethical discourse and moral practice in all human societies. If life were simple, we wouldn’t have to think about morality very much—but life isn’t simple. What is striking in the case of China is that this “ordinary” moral ambivalence has played itself out against the backdrop of massive social experimentation. What if we try to wipe out our traditional cultural values and practices more or less overnight (as happened during the Cultural Revolution)? What if we restrict families to having one child (as happened with the family planning policy)? What if we take our rural youth and move them, en masse, to the cities (as is happening with the current wave of rural-to-urban migration)?
As anthropologists and others have shown, these experiments have generated an abundance of unintended consequences. Continue Reading →
Charity's Faith Problem
Amy Levin: What’s wrong with charity? Well, nothing, if you’re Mitt Romney and your definition of charity is giving to anti-gay referendums. Ok, that was harsh, but none of us can deny that whatever we mean by “charity” comes with a loaded moral gun and a wad of political undertones, not to mention an extra ladle of shame along with your soup kitchen stew. I would argue that the mixing of faith and charity has once more come to the fore of American politics, but that would presume that it ever left. Nevertheless, columnist Ross Douthat’s piece in the New York Times on “Religious Giving and Its Critics” caught my eye this week, especially alongside Amy Sullivan’s piece in which she asks, “Is Compassionate Conservatism Dead?”
Douthat, known for his conservative voice on The Times, expressed his disappointment in the The New Republic’s Alec MacGillis’ reaction to conservative applause over Mitt Romney’s charitable giving. MacGillis’ piece takes a snarky stab at the praise for Romney’s 30% contribution of his income to society (argued by Heritage Foundation‘s economist, J.D. Foster). For those of you who struggle with math (like me), that 30% does not exactly amount to federal income tax, but is more of an amalgamation of a 13.9% federal income tax and $7 million in charitable contributions over the past two years, including $4.1 million to the Church of Jesus Christ of Later-Day Saints. Continue Reading →
Charity’s Faith Problem
Amy Levin: What’s wrong with charity? Well, nothing, if you’re Mitt Romney and your definition of charity is giving to anti-gay referendums. Ok, that was harsh, but none of us can deny that whatever we mean by “charity” comes with a loaded moral gun and a wad of political undertones, not to mention an extra ladle of shame along with your soup kitchen stew. I would argue that the mixing of faith and charity has once more come to the fore of American politics, but that would presume that it ever left. Nevertheless, columnist Ross Douthat’s piece in the New York Times on “Religious Giving and Its Critics” caught my eye this week, especially alongside Amy Sullivan’s piece in which she asks, “Is Compassionate Conservatism Dead?”
Douthat, known for his conservative voice on The Times, expressed his disappointment in the The New Republic’s Alec MacGillis’ reaction to conservative applause over Mitt Romney’s charitable giving. MacGillis’ piece takes a snarky stab at the praise for Romney’s 30% contribution of his income to society (argued by Heritage Foundation‘s economist, J.D. Foster). For those of you who struggle with math (like me), that 30% does not exactly amount to federal income tax, but is more of an amalgamation of a 13.9% federal income tax and $7 million in charitable contributions over the past two years, including $4.1 million to the Church of Jesus Christ of Later-Day Saints. Continue Reading →
Virtues of Engagement
An excerpt from Moral Ambition: Mobilization and Social Outreach in Evangelical Megachurches, a new book by Omri Elisha.
There are many ways to be ambitious, and many different objectives that ambitious people aspire to aside from wealth and power. For those we call “people of faith,” the life of religious commitment is a relentless, often challenging pursuit of virtues that-like fame, fortune, or artistic genius-are perceived as elusive yet ultimately attainable. Whether such virtues are enacted in everyday life or conceived in other-worldly terms, the ambitions that propel religious people toward lofty ideals are rooted in cultural practices that allow sacred pursuits, including the triumph of righteousness over mediocrity, to appear not only desirable but always close at hand. The ambitions of religious faith, and for that matter all personal aspirations that we often misrecognize as expressions of radical individuality, are inherently social in their inception and saturated in moral content.
This book is about evangelical Protestants affiliated with megachurches and faith-based ministries in the city of Knoxville, Tennessee, and the ambitious efforts of some pastors and churchgoers to increase their faith community’s investments in various forms of altruistic social engagement. Based on nearly sixteen months of ethnographic research carried out between 1999 and 2002, my study focuses on cultural practices and individual experiences related to organized benevolence and social outreach, areas of ministry that are fraught with ideological tension. In describing how conservative and predominantly white evangelicals navigate the shifting and contested boundaries of social engagement, I offer an in-depth perspective on important aspects of North American evangelicalism-including the complexity of evangelical moral and political attitudes at the congregational level-about which there has been much speculation but little concrete analysis. Continue Reading →
Fans of Action: How Harry Potter Inspired a New Generation of Activists
by Abby Ohlheiser
Weeks after the earthquake in January, 2010, five planes, filled with medical supplies, flew to Haiti. One plane was named DFTBA, which stands for Don’t Forget To Be Awesome, an acronym popularized by the nerdfighters. The other four were named Harry, Ron, Hermione, and Dumbledore, after the most familiar and beloved characters from the Harry Potter series. Partners In Health chartered the planes with $123,000 dollars raised by a group called the Harry Potter Alliance.
Perhaps best known for its ubiquitous fan fiction, Wizard Rock bands, and for titillating bookstore owners everywhere with the promise of a packed house on book launch nights, the Harry Potter fan community (also called a “fandom”) is often discussed as it exists in isolation from the “real world,” or as consumers of a widely-hyped, money-making franchise. But the books have now all been written and the last film came out this month. With the exception of a Harry Potter theme park in Orlando, it would seem the franchise is all out of new ways to engage its audience. That’s where the Harry Potter Alliance (HPA) comes in.
The non-profit, founded in 2005 to channel the Harry Potter fandom energy and resources into charitable work, uses parallels to the book series to build support for a broad range of causes, connections that range from direct to oblique. One example: The HPA works for LGBT equality, and has cited the “in the closet” hidden identities of Hagrid the half-giant, Lupin the werewolf, and the protagonist Harry Potter himself, who was forced to literally live in a closet for most of his early childhood. Continue Reading →
Wealth Redistribution, Making Charity Work
Mark Greif writes at n+1 that the best system of eradicating extreme poverty and extreme wealth — not to mention make us live up to our aspired individualism — would be to give all citizens one salary for whatever work they do, $100,000 a year. “Our system is predicted on the erroneous idea that individuals are likely to hate the work they have chosen, but overwhelmingly love money. Presumably, the opposite should be true.” Beyond what such a system would do for our job satisfaction (professional ball players turn to teaching school because they find it’s really their life’s calling), Greif asks what it would do for how we give.
Charity is the vice of unequal systems. (I’m only repeating Wilde’s “The Soul of Man Under Socialism.”) We shouldn’t have to weigh whether our money would do more good in a destitute person’s pocket, or our time do more good if we ladled soup to the hungry, or our study do more good if it taught reading to the illiterate. It always, always would. Because it is hard to give up your money, however, when not everyone else does, and hard to give up your time when not everyone else does—and nearly impossible when you have less time, and less money, than the visibly rich and comfortable—and frankly, because it’s not often a good idea to give up your true calling or your life at all, our giving is limited and fitful. It can never make a large-scale difference.