Hope everyone's still checking this page...

You may be thinking of me, Tom.

Don't think so...doesn't sound like you.

You persist in saying that charity was private in the past because it was funded by churches.

A lot of it was funded privately. Some were run by religious organizations. Not all by any means.

I keep correcting you by pointing out that, until the adoption of the Bill of Rights, the churches were authorized agencies of government, and have sometimes been the government, with governmental monetary collection prerogatives and punitive enforcement practices. Therefore, "private" charity wasn't private at all.



In some places even today, the dominant religion is established, or an agency of the government. In those cases, the charity dispensed by those organizations is likewise government sponsored, and in some cases, collected under less than voluntary conditions.



I'm not talking about England. I'm talking about America. There was one hell of a long time between the signing of the Bill of Rights and the beginnings of the rise of the Welfare State in the early 20th century. There was no "government church" doing charity during this time, but many other organizations and non-government churches. And nobody forced anyone to donate, unless it was tithing from the church's own members, and I don't recall fines, imprisonment, or property confiscation being a consequence of not donating. Try turning down the IRS and see what happens.

The huge successes of the private charities in the early history of this country are rarely discussed, for obvious reasons. I don't have any comprehensive data on this other than years of readings. There have been some good articles from a magazine called City Journal. on this subject, and a book put out by the magazine "What Makes Charity Work?" might be worth reading (I have not read it myself yet.)

I also take exception to the idea that, in order to get a warm place to sleep, people must listen to sermons, but that's just me. My family taught me that charity is supposed to be free, and that any behavioral change by the recipient has to do with the example set by the giver rather than the harangue inflicted on the recipient. People still get sermons with their welfare, mostly along the lines of "vote for me, or you lose the check." In any case, it's a free country. Nobody's going to haul you into a church and force-feed you. If you resent having to listen to a sermon while somebody is giving you free food, I don't see how that indicates a problem with the religious charity. Let me know if they force you to convert in order to get dessert. Most successful charities--that is, those who eventually get people OFF charity--are those who demand some sort of behavioral modification on the part of the recipient. Shelters with strict regulations, a no-intoxicants rule, and even some work requirements, are much more successful in getting people off the streets permanently than those who simply hand out the goodies no questions asked. This has been shown to be true for all categories of organizations to help the needy, including religious, non-religious, private, and government organizations. From a review of "What Makes Charity Work:" What Makes Charity Work? shows in concrete and compelling detail how government assistance to the poor is doomed to failure because it treats them as victims of forces beyond their control, robs them of a sense of personal responsibility, and neglects the virtues they need to escape poverty. Contrasting case studies of charities both old and new show how charity can succeed spectacularly when it encourages the poor to take control of their own lives and teaches them habits of self-reliance and the traditional virtues.