Over the past weekend, I had a chat with my girlfriend on the subject of charity, and in particular, Conservative™ and Liberal™ views of charity. I've been thinking about writing a post on the topic, and then I found this tale.
Winds of Change has a weekly post of Sufi wisdom. This week's tale concerned a tiger, a fox, and a man who saw an act of charity. I can't summarize it without re-printing the whole thing, so go and read it there, and then come back. I'll wait.
...continued in full post...
The man in the story is chastised for following the example of the fox, when he should have followed the example of the tiger.
The tiger, in this tale, is operating from a position of strength. He has the resources to fend for himself, and to bring in a little more than he needs. From his surplus, he gives to the needy fox. Since it's taken for granted the tiger's actions are directed by the Creator, the tiger fulfils the will of the Creator by extending himself to garner more than he needs, so he can give to the needy. (Notice, though, he gives after his own needs have been met.)
The fox receives the charity of the Provider because he truly is crippled. His front legs are missing. He (presumably) did not choose to lose his front legs. It just happened, and he's dealing with his loss as well as he can. In addition, he's not as well off as he'd have been with his front legs. He doesn't get his choice of food, but only what's left behind by the tiger. If the tiger doesn't leave quite enough to satisfy the fox's needs, well, "beggars can't be choosers".
Those who can meet their own needs have a duty to do so. The world does not owe anyone a living. Those who can do more than meet their own needs can walk in the path of the Creator by giving from their surplus to the needy. They have no obligation to stint on their own needs in order to be charitable.
Those who are capable, but who demand that others provide for them, are guaranteed only a very effective weight-loss program.
The Wiccan Rede includes the line, "fairly take and fairly give".
Most people understand the concept of "fairly take". Do not steal, do not swindle, do not cheat others out of what is rightfully theirs. The man, sitting in the corner and waiting for Providence to bring him food, was attempting to take in an unfair fashion.
The flip side of this concept, "fairly give", is a lot harder.
It's easy to think that if you just give to the poor, for example, you can end poverty. Unfortunately, it never seems to work that way. When you give to the poor without conditions, you wind up subsidizing poverty – paying poor people to remain poor. Eventually, like a muscle that goes unused, the poor person's ability to meet his own needs will atrophy, and you have another cripple on the public dole.
It's not fair to expect the fox to grow new legs, but it's not fair to give a free ride to the man who has the full use of his legs. It cheats the fox, by diverting his share of charity to those who don't need it, and it cheats the man by allowing his legs to wither from non-use.
And, the wild game becomes too scarce because the tiger's been feeding it to the needy, the tiger may start getting hungry by and by. And crippled animals are very easy to catch.
No comments:
Post a Comment