| November 26, 2009
Editorial
The capacity to give is universal
By Jim Blow
Editor
This is surely the season where we celebrate all that we have to be thankful for, as well as count our blessings. It's also the time when many people look inward and ask themselves how much more can they give.
Giving is an underrated attribute that reaps so many rewards, whether it's dropping a few coins in a donation plate at church or finding a worthy cause that also reduces our tax bill. As good as life is in our country, there's always plenty of room to improve the lot of those who are less fortunate than the nuclear family.
Fortunately, we don't have to look far to see the harvest of giving and compassion for others that grow from the seeds of people giving of themselves and their bounty. We have so many, many good examples of people who are so willing to give so much of their wealth, modest as it may be, and perhaps more valuable of their time to worthy causes.
Our local food banks are good examples of local, caring individuals who give so very much. They are driven by an assortment of caring people who simply want to make sure that people, especially children, do not go hungry for even one day. They don't allow the frustrations and difficulties of complex socio-economic factors dissuade them from their simple, heartfelt task of feeding neighbors who are in need.
No one tells them to do it. No one makes them do it. No one forces them to do it. Yet, these folks tackle the daunting task of fighting hunger 365 days a year.
What you give and how much you give and where you give has been a result of a unique set of motivational factors in our country's history. Whether it has been applied through social pressure or monetary incentive, we stimulate contribution of a part of our wealth and our time through a wide variety of well-intended pressures.
In church a tithing of earnings is often suggested, leading to a framework of giving back to the church for the common good of the parish. Membership fees and contributions to non-profit organizations allow us to choose to give to groups whose mission is important to us. Tax incentives give extra incentive to give, reducing the taxes paid to an anonymous government by allowing the taxpayer to, in effect, give a significant portion of that money to other needy organizations.
Now even our schools participate in teaching and stimulating the act of giving, requiring students to take on a project related to giving back to others before graduation from high school. The importance of the project tends to serve secondary to the lesson of teaching the importance of everyone's role and capacity to give within our society, regardless of the capacity of our pocketbook.
History has presented us countless examples of the greedy hording everything they have, suggesting a mandate of giving to others less fortunate is appropriate for the common good of our society. Whether in the form of taxes or in as tax credits for donations to specific private, non-profit groups, the system has evolved into a complex structure that helps perpetuate the funding of arguably worthy causes.
It's a fine line of distinction between the legal requirement and moral obligation, but we Americans have historically embraced the duty of benefaction in the role of its citizens, albeit in varying degrees. There has always been plenty of disagreement when it comes to the expected level of that altruism and what role government plays.
Giving is an important part of our duties as citizens, though it should be less of a mandate than it is a reflection of our own sense of responsibility to enrich the lives of others whenever and wherever we can. Though incentives might help motivate us, how and when we give should remain an intimately personal decision that is motivated more by altruism than ordinance.
Bill Gates may have a wider impact with his multi-million-dollar full scholarship program than, say, a woman who spends three afternoons a week packing up donated groceries to feed a hungry family. But, who is to judge whose contribution is greater or whose heart is bigger or whose life is more enriched by those selfless acts of giving?
Fortunately, all of us can afford to contribute in some way that improves the lives of others, all the while enriching our own through even the simplest act of giving.
Letters to the editor
Thank you for giving
Editor,
The Zone Cafe and YWAM New Waves would like to thank everyone who attended and contributed to the Samoan tsunami fundraiser last month.
Funds raised came to $1,000 and will be used for relief work in the island nation of Samoa.
Dan Gingerich
Polson
No cause for concern about rural fire protection
Editor,
Last week, Big Arm resident Frank Jones wrote that he is concerned about his safety and insurance because “…there is now no fire department in the rural area,” following a resolution passed at the last Rural Fire District board meeting.
Rural fire protection hasn’t changed. There is no need for his concern.
The resolution Mr. Jones partially quoted from made clear the rural district continues to fight fires through its three rural fire companies (Big Arm, Polson and Irvine Flats).
Mr. Jones was not at the meeting. If he has concerns, he’s welcome to come over to the Big Arm station next to his house and talk to the firefighters.
There also continues to be an agreement between the Rural District and Polson City that allows rural firefighters to fight city fires, and city firefighters to fight rural fires.
Since Mr. Jones moved here a few years ago, the district has increased the number of rural firefighters, stations and equipment. His rural protection has never been better.
All the work of the Rural Fire District is done by volunteers. If Mr. Jones would like to make a positive contribution, he should stop in. All help is welcome.
Jim Manley
Trustee, Polson Rural
Fire District
Polson
Don't mix religion in the legislative process
Editor,
Now, how about this latest wrinkle in trying to pass some health care legislation — "The Stupak-Pitts amendment banning abortion coverage from federally subsidized health insurance policies."
To have an abortion or not have an abortion is a personal choice and a moral issue that does not belong in the political arena of constitutional law. Constitutional law is the body of law dealing with the distribution and exercise of government power.
The rather interesting aspect surrounding abortion is that it is primarily a religious-based issue. It is different from, say, the smoking ban issue. Smoking has been proven over and over to be a cause of cancer, pure and simple. What has ever been proven to cause harm to the person choosing abortion? Nothing. It becomes purely and simply a personal belief issue about the question of when are we taking a life and when are we not taking a life ... "When does life begin?" etc. These questions can only be answered within ones own belief system and are an example of the reason for separation of church and state.
The separation of church and state has become a rather muddy issue is recent years in our government. There is a great reluctance to clear this up. And, of course, the reason for this reluctance is that legislators who depend upon votes from their constituents are dealing with constituents who feel very passionate about their religious beliefs and voice them and want them as a part of the constitutional process.
As Thomas Jefferson wrote, "Religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God."
So, the confused-by-the-process person who was sent to Congress not only wants to get re-elected, but needs the campaign coffer money from lobbyists supporting certain views. This person is between a rock and a hard place, for sure.
So, what do we do about this? Beyond doing the right thing and following our constitutional guidelines of separating church and state, what can one say?
Who is willing to take the first step toward justice for all?
Just as important as passing good legislation is knowing which issues should not be considered in the legislative process and therefore should not be allowed in.
Bob McClellan
Polson
|
.jpg)
