Topic: Charity is the sign of a failed country

[Andy @ Allerton!]

Based on Rees Moggs comments.. Discuss

[WhereAngelsPlay]

Such a pious c*nt.

[TepidT2O]

I haven't read his comments... so I don't know the context.

But charity isn't the sign of a failed country, because it takes many different forms.

Taxation could be called charity, it is in its essence redistribution of wealth (to a greater or lesser extent.) Free health care, is that charity? Some might say yes, some might say no.

But charity takes many forms, form a kind word, caring for an upset neighbour, a smile to someone who is down to hospices and overseas aid.

A nation without charity is a morally poor nation.

[vagabond]

Such a pious c*nt.

What's so pious about that statement?

[WhereAngelsPlay]

What's so pious about that statement?

Sarcasm on my part.

He is a pick n mix Christian,the worst fucking kind.

[Alan_X]

Jacob Rees-Mogg benefits from charity every day of the week. Thousands of people across the country charitably resist the impulse to smack him in the grid whenever the sanctimonious prick opens his gob and spews his tight-wing religious bile.

Charity is a natural impulse for anyone that isn't an absolute c*nt. Charity shouldn't be a substitute for a properly funded welfare state (though I doubt that was Rees-Mogg's point) but it is important for exceptional situations (disasters etc) and for specialist appeals that are above and beyond the remit of the welfare state.

[Zeb]

No. But deliberately blowing up successful national state provision and redistribution in order to push people into reliance upon localised charity is a sign that you've not learned much in a hundred years or so. And are a bit of a twat.

[TepidT2O]

Jacob Rees-Mogg benefits from charity every day of the week. Thousands of people across the country charitably resist the impulse to smack him in the grid whenever the sanctimonious prick opens his gob and spews his tight-wing religious bile.

Charity is a natural impulse for anyone that isn't an absolute c*nt. Charity shouldn't be a substitute for a properly funded welfare state (though I doubt that was Rees-Mogg's point) but it is important for exceptional situations (disasters etc) and for specialist appeals that are above and beyond the remit of the welfare state.

Charity paid £7.6m to renovate his wife's ancestoral home....

He should be glad of it.

[liversaint]

Such a pious c*nt.

Andy's OK mate

[Yorkykopite]

I haven't read his comments... so I don't know the context.

But charity isn't the sign of a failed country, because it takes many different forms.

Taxation could be called charity, it is in its essence redistribution of wealth (to a greater or lesser extent.) Free health care, is that charity? Some might say yes, some might say no.

But charity takes many forms, form a kind word, caring for an upset neighbour, a smile to someone who is down to hospices and overseas aid.

A nation without charity is a morally poor nation.

I agree with most of that. But taxation is most certainly not charity because one of the features of charity is that it is voluntary. Tax is, or ought to be, a legal obligation enforced by the state.

As for Rees-Mogg he knows which side his bread is buttered. He received his education in a private school after all. Charity has helped him and most other members of his class. That's why he finds it "morally uplifting".

[The Gulleysucker]

Charity, as in the act of giving with no strings attached and no thought of reward in return, is having a conscience and awareness that others are not as fortunate as yourself and this coinciding with you having a surplus of your own goods or money or time, or simply a recognition that there is someone far more needy than yourself, that you then willingly give to them.

But the level between the charitable benefactor and the beneficiary is relative within and between different societies.

In the first world, some rich people give to less well off people, (people who perhaps would be classed as very well off if they lived in many third world countries) and many poor people give to even poorer.

I'd regard the level of child poverty and indifference to it as a more accurate indicator of failure of a society than the presence of charity in all its guises.

[Purple Red]

Charity is the sign of a compassionate nation. It shouldn't substitute basic rights and entitlements but it should be available to those who need it. All good people have a charitable streak and it is something to be celebrated.

[HarryLabrador]

Charity paid £7.6m to renovate his wife's ancestoral home....

He should be glad of it.

Effing creep. Hate looking at him. What an absolute plaster saint.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/nov/24/inside-wentworth-woodhouse-a-key-piece-of-northern-heritage

[TepidT2O]

I agree with most of that. But taxation is most certainly not charity because one of the features of charity is that it is voluntary. Tax is, or ought to be, a legal obligation enforced by the state.

As for Rees-Mogg he knows which side his bread is buttered. He received his education in a private school after all. Charity has helped him and most other members of his class. That's why he finds it "morally uplifting".

Yes, true charity is voluntary .. but in many cases it has been replaced by tax payers money..

Long may this continue..

[Djozer]

Charity is the sign of a compassionate nation. It shouldn't substitute basic rights and entitlements but it should be available to those who need it. All good people have a charitable streak and it is something to be celebrated.

Amen, brother.

I'd suggest the fact that Jacob Rees-Mogg's views carry weight with many people is far more the sign of a failed country.

[Lfsea]

Bit rich coming from a bloke whose party's choices cause such a division between rich and poor, that the scale of charitable contributions has to be as high as it currently is.

[west_london_red]

In all things I have shown you that by working hard in this way we must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.

Acts 20:35