Give

  • Comments posted to this topic are about the item Give

  • I volunteer as a PASS chapter leader and a member of my civic association and always find I get far more than I give. 😀

  • It would probably be unnecessary to write this article 40-50 years ago, because most people attended church/temple service and were therefore reminded weekly of the '10 percent rule' on giving of ones self, whether through time or treasure. Between then and now, the ideal of LBJ's 'Great Society' imbued the public with the notion (not necessarily by design or intent) that the federal government was responsible for redistribution of the public's largesse, thus 'relieving' the individual from his responsibility to his less fortunate brethren. Today's reality bears this out; those in left-leaning jurisdictions give less. These days it's chiefly the 'red-staters' who are statistically the most charitable, since they make up the bulk of the remainder of churchgoers in this country. It seems the larger IT community occupies the former, and would seem to be the intended target of Steve's necessary admonition. Those who write a check every week from the pew appreciate your help.

  • GWAk,

    One can give without going to a church or belonging to a religion. Community is a principle that works with all humans, no high beings are necessary unless they also wish to donate time and money. (If Zeus wants to help me tutor developers or find meeting places, more power to him.)

    As for the political discussion, more "red" states get more in tax benefits than they pay into the system thanks to the charity of the "blue" states. 🙂

    But the point is, give back to the community regardless of the higher motivation. Life is much nicer when people are nicer.

  • I agree that one can, but the point is- most don't, which is why, I feel, Steve felt compelled to write this column. The demise of adherence to weekly religious service attendance impacts significantly the collective effort, diminishing what was the prime vector of charitable giving in this country from its inception. You won't find the numbers necessary to maintain a rate of charitable giving comparable to that from religious services in non-religious civic organizations, be they the Elk's Club, Shriners, VFW, or smaller, grass-roots community initiatives.

    Yes, communities work better when people are nicer... but sometimes people need help converting the abstract to the personal for things to get done. Politics may be personal, but religion even more so- just one reason why it's still needed, despite its detractors.

  • I didn't write this because of religion or government.

    I have spoken on this before, and I do think it's important. Being a part of some sort of non-profit or charitable group, whatever its basis, helps remind you that are a part of something bigger.

    It's worth taking the time to help out and engage with others. You can do this at work, being charitable to help others, make their jobs easier, or something else. You can work in technology in the GiveCamps and other endeavors. You can definitely help out in your community. All of those places are worth your time and will help you, while you help others.

    Just give, when you can, when you have time.

  • @Steve- I think you were pretty clear in the thrust of your column- you were raising consciousness on the importance of giving, and nothing more.

    That's why I figure you ask for reader comments at the end of each column. Leave it to the community to provoke additional commentary on the topic- no one should have reason to fear a hearty, yet civil, forum discussion!

  • I didn't write this because of religion or government.

    I realize that fact. I concur with your editorial. I was responding to GWAk, who chose to bring politics and religion into the conversation.

    These are hot button topics that we normally choose to avoid in technical user groups due to being off topic and possibly detrimental to the purpose at hand. They don't come up at the NTSSUG and we learned to avoid them at our local programming users groups. But most everyone appreciates help, training and assistance, both technical and professional.

  • Whether you agree/believe with/in religion, GWaK does raise a good point that many people that go are very giving. They feel it to be a part of their religion. Is it a majority? No idea, but if you are religious and not volunteering regularly, perhaps you want to revisit that part of your faith.

    I don't know if government has affected this. Perhaps. There's a fair point to be made that people may think there isn't as much of a need since there are assistance programs.

    Personally I'd say that culturally this is a place where we have fallen down. As we've grown more prosperous in the US (and other countries), I think we tend to towards materialism and become more selfish. I think that's a human frailty. It's also something we should try improve in our culture. I have hope that Gen Y/Z kids are more aware of this in some sense since they've grown up with all the technology, and privilege.

    My hope is to spark discussion, and while I don't want this to become a political/religious debate, I don't necessarily think a mention of them is a problem.

  • Whether you agree/believe with/in religion, GWaK does raise a good point that many people that go are very giving. They feel it to be a part of their religion. Is it a majority? No idea, but if you are religious and not volunteering regularly, perhaps you want to revisit that part of your faith.

    Understandable. It's been my experience that some of the most giving are those of faith. But whether a person gives isn't a reflection of their faith, it's a personal expression of themselves regardless of their faith or lack of faith. I know miserly faithful and sacrificial non-faithful.

    I

    don't know if government has affected this. Perhaps. There's a fair point to be made that people may think there isn't as much of a need since there are assistance programs.

    I think the lack of true leadership on the national and global level is the issue. It appears that the powerful have "captured" the world economically and socially. Their interests don't coincided with that of the populous. Attitudes tend to be more sociopathic and out of touch once you are on Olympus.

    Personally I'd say that culturally this is a place where we have fallen down. As we've grown more prosperous in the US (and other countries), I think we tend to towards materialism and become more selfish. I think that's a human frailty. It's also something we should try improve in our culture. I have hope that Gen Y/Z kids are more aware of this in some sense since they've grown up with all the technology, and privilege.

    As a whole the US has become more prosperous. But once you do a statistical analysis on the wealth distribution and other factors, a large amount of the US population is in a worse position then their parents were. It's easy to miss when you have a cozy technical job. (Unless you analyze demographic data for a living... 🙂 )

  • What I like about the editorial is the emphasis that there are many ways and at many levels to give back to the immediate community and/or the world at large. It doesn't have to be something that shows up on a tax statement as charitable giving.

    It took me a while to find a method for me to contribute to society beyond doing my job and which did not drive me nuts. I would try various organizations, and they just didn't work for me. If you are like me and haven't found your spot yet, keep looking or do what I did and make up your own spot(s).

    Now-a-days, I give a great deal in time (and even some money) in ways that help the world, but which can not be put on a tax statement. I'm fine with that. I'm happy that I'm doing something significant - whether the government counts it or not.

    ---------------

    While Steve did not intend this to be a political or religious discussion, that discussion surprised me. It's the same rehash of arguments I've seen all the time, but this time, it sparked a new thought for me:

    ......... For most issues, people probably would label me as a far lefty. I wonder if those stats that show how much people give by "red" vs "blue" are missing out on a ton of data because lefties do more of the type of charitable work that I do? The stuff that is not counted on a tax return? Or that a person is even likely to report in a (usually poorly written) survey? Very interesting thought.

    I'll also say that there is a big difference between charitable giving and giving to a church. I wonder if those charitable statistics that people throw around make that distinction. In other words, I wonder how the statistical differences between states would look if money given to churches did not count. (I'm assuming that the current stats include all tax approved "charitable" giving. That may not be correct.)

  • "I'll also say that there is a big difference between charitable giving and giving to a church. I wonder if those charitable statistics that people throw around make that distinction. In other words, I wonder how the statistical differences between states would look if money given to churches did not count. (I'm assuming that the current stats include all tax approved "charitable" giving. That may not be correct.) "

    I'm wondering what percentage of gifts to the church actually go to charity verses the overhead of running the church. If only a small faction of a person's tithe is going to charity, are they better off giving to a charity with less overhead and more impact? WW*D?

  • chrisn-585491 (7/2/2013)


    "I'll also say that there is a big difference between charitable giving and giving to a church. I wonder if those charitable statistics that people throw around make that distinction. In other words, I wonder how the statistical differences between states would look if money given to churches did not count. (I'm assuming that the current stats include all tax approved "charitable" giving. That may not be correct.) "

    I'm wondering what percentage of gifts to the church actually go to charity verses the overhead of running the church. If only a small faction of a person's tithe is going to charity, are they better off giving to a charity with less overhead and more impact? WW*D?

    That would depend on the church/religious assembly in question. Roman Catholic dioceses make financial statements a matter of public record, and all revenues, including collections and funding appeals, are accounted for and independently certified. I'm sure there are other creeds/sects with a similar approach. Then there are some churches/assemblies for which the eye test makes it fairly obvious where most of the offering ends up. You make the call- it's your time and treasure to give.

Viewing 13 posts - 1 through 12 (of 12 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply