A good article about the various meanings and history of "charity"

does anyone know ro get grant forms free?

Touche'  WHO~KNEW !(Actually I think I meant right on !)

soulight

I agree with you, soulight and I thank you, Emil for posting the article.

It seems as though today whenever you turn on the TV it is all about excess: millionaire mansions, parties, cars - luxuries, none of us could ever hope to afford. I swear if I have to see another socialite or debutante slither across the floor with that stupid, vapid look on their face, I will just scream!

 In a day, when all one hopes for is to come home without a shut off notice or to just make sure there is enough food on the table, these mindless do-nothings are making millions just walking down a red carpet draped in a garment that 1) barely covers them and 2) the cost of which could feed a smal country. But yet, we support them every time we buy: a CD, article of clothing, magazine, or visit their website. 

If it sounds like I am angry, I am. I am so thoroughly disgusted with these celebrities who claim to be "philanthropists".

Soulight, you stated:  "...It would be that they are given the wage of the disabled or that of a minimum wage earner , and that they must live with it for 6 months . In public housing , with no transportation  and very minimal health insurance. They would not be allowed to divulge their postion ."

While this is idealistic, I agree with you that it may be the only way for these people to overcome their greed.  However, that begs the question - whom would be the first to volunteer?

In Michael Moore's Farenheight 9/11, Michael Moore asked the Congressmen (or was it senators?) whom would be the first to send their child to fight in the war against IRAQ? The answer: NONE

They will not sacrifice themselves, or their children, to fight in a war they support, how do we get them to live a life they are NOT willing to defend?

Yet we are expected to live this life every day, without question, without remorse, without complaint. This is OUR constitutional right. Sad, isn't it?

Just my thoughts~

The statement that seems to stand out to me is

"Charity alone cannot alleviate human suffering. Social justice is needed to economically balance needs and to assure that society continues to function. "

Social justice . Whose shoulders does this task fall on ? Who impliments the change?

I think the concept of Aidpage , : "People Helping People" is a good grassroots way to start.I do see a very unbalanced forum here on Aidpages , though  in that many more needy people than well off people come here. Part of the balancing of economics is in convincing those that "have" to share with those that do not "have".

    Being economically balanced , though , seems so far off when the rich are having way too much fun with their lives  to even come close to realizing  the needs of the poor. It seems that there are blinders on people who are materially wealthy .

 I tend to be too idealistic , but I still think that the best way to find out how the people on the other side of the tracks live is to venture out and actually  walk in another persons shoes . My opinion is that governmental workers and leaders ( and the pre-philinthrophic)have a certain task. It would be that they are given the wage of the disabled or that of a minimum wage earner , and that they must live with it for 6 months . In public housing , with no transportation  and very minimal health insurance. They would not be allowed to divulge their postion . After going through this boot camp , maybe the empathy would come back into the picture that seems to have been lost sometime during the transition of " charity" from the private sector to the government.

Just my opinion . soulight