From: spike66 (spike66@attbi.com)
Date: Mon Mar 10 2003 - 23:09:11 MST
Samantha Atkins wrote:
> spike66 wrote:
>
>> Lee Corbin wrote:
>>
>>> In retrospect, it seems incredible that we could not
>>> see that this was very likely going to be the result.
>>
>> Lee, the result was foreseen, the action was
>> intentional. Those who minister to those in need
>> perpetuate their existence by keeping people in need.
>
> No. Many of those who minister to those in need as well as many who
> have very different task in the world such as medicine would sell their
> souls to end the need for their services. Such cynicism as the above is
> not very becoming... - samantha
Ja, after rereading what I posted I recognize that it
was indeed far too cynical. Criticism accepted,
Samantha, comments on charity retracted.
There have been justified criticisms of certain charitable
efforts that have gone wrong. The classic example
was from a few years ago when the US received a number
of videos of starving African babies, raised a ton of
money, sent bottles and formula to Africa, the young
mothers fed their babies with that stuff until it ran out,
at which time the mothers had ceased lactating and then
the babies starved. The action ended up slaying far more
than would have perished by natural means, more than would
have died had the charities done nothing. This is tragic
as all hell, but there were no capitalist plots involved
or any mindless bungling really. It was an outpouring
of generosity that went terribly wrong. The charity
did create a dependency, but it was not intentional or
malicious. The baby formula factory was not to blame,
for they received and order and they filled it.
One good example of malicious judicial contribution
would be when RJReynolds Co donated tons of tobacco to
the soldiers in WW2. Millions of dollars given, or
invested, depending on how one looks at it. They had
to know the stuff was addictive. I'll allow them the
benefit of the doubt as to their knowledge in those
days of the harmfulness of their product.
We currently face the same dilemma with the introduction
of GM crops, which would certainly go a long way to
improve the food situation. Like the baby formula
situation, of course, it poses a dilemma, for as soon
as GM crops are established, a dependency upon them is
created.
I have been personally acquainted with a number of
missionary families. My brother in law answered the
call to missions as well. In every case, their motives
were pure, even tho the outcome had mixed results. In
any case, no person and no nation should ever be criticized
for generosity and benevolence, even if it doesn't work
as intended.
spike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Mar 10 2003 - 23:17:20 MST