From: Rick Knight (rknight@platinum.com)
Date: Mon Sep 15 1997 - 11:29:30 MDT
Curt Adams wrote:
Interestingly, the traditional source for charity has been churches.
Essentially, they offer a deal; accept our meme-set, and we'll feed
you. The recipient must choose the deal and go along with it, or at
least fake it convincingly. It's my impression that religious charity
hurts dignity less than government charity, which is generally quite
unearned.
So there is a way out, albeit one with sometimes nasty consequences,
as the religions are sometimes quite a problem themselves.
Rick Knight adds:
This is a rather generalizing. Churches certainly use their charity
as an opportunity to minister but it's not (or at least not supposed
to be) a requirement to accept their belief system to receive their
good will. Christian churches that practice these types of
ministration are essentially attempting to do what they feel Christ
would've done and that is serve others and live with grace.
There is a service in providing someone with a simplistic meme if it
affords meaning and comfort to their lives and that's all they can
take on. It can backfire when they get on their feet and they use
that meme as the same addictive substance that may have lead them to
seek charity in the first place. Trading in your drug of choice for
Jesus, so to speak. That's where organized religion doesn't serve
well, when it, perhaps unwittingly turns the meek into monstrous
lampoons of its sacred icons.
As far as renegade memes go, pick your poison, state-sanctioned
welfare or church-provided charity. Both can debilitate and both have
the capacity to REhabilitate. It ends up being up to the individual's
emotional and intellectual capacity what they latch onto.
Rick
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:44:54 MST