Helping the Hungry
The radio station I listen to is doing a campaign they do periodically called "Days of Hope". They take pledges to feed poor people in Haiti. The organization is called "Food for the Hungry".
I have never sponsored a child in a foreign country. I guess I have never really felt comfortable that the money was being used well or that the kids were actually being helped. (I'm not talking particularly about this organization..but all of them in general.) Also, my life has its own share of struggles. I mean, I feel pretty much like I go from thing to thing, running all the time. The plight of people so far away doesn't feel that relevant.
The part about "so far away" got me to thinking. If one of those poor children were actually sitting in my home, sitting next to my children at our dinner table, wouldn't I figure out a way to make our groceries stretch to include that child? No matter how limited our grocery budget was, wouldn't I figure out a way to fill that extra belly?
The fact that that empty belly is located in another country is simply a question of geography. If I can fill that empty belly, shouldn't I do so?
But then also, where do we draw the line? If I can feed one child, I should do it. If I can feed 50 children, should I do that too? I could feed 50 children, but it would have a pretty detrimental effect on the life of my own family. I have a responsibility to my own family too.
And, who should facilitate the feeding of the children? Who makes the best use of the funds I would provide?
So many questions, I'm not sure where to start. If you have thoughts on the subject, why don't you put them in comments so I can read them?
I have never sponsored a child in a foreign country. I guess I have never really felt comfortable that the money was being used well or that the kids were actually being helped. (I'm not talking particularly about this organization..but all of them in general.) Also, my life has its own share of struggles. I mean, I feel pretty much like I go from thing to thing, running all the time. The plight of people so far away doesn't feel that relevant.
The part about "so far away" got me to thinking. If one of those poor children were actually sitting in my home, sitting next to my children at our dinner table, wouldn't I figure out a way to make our groceries stretch to include that child? No matter how limited our grocery budget was, wouldn't I figure out a way to fill that extra belly?
The fact that that empty belly is located in another country is simply a question of geography. If I can fill that empty belly, shouldn't I do so?
But then also, where do we draw the line? If I can feed one child, I should do it. If I can feed 50 children, should I do that too? I could feed 50 children, but it would have a pretty detrimental effect on the life of my own family. I have a responsibility to my own family too.
And, who should facilitate the feeding of the children? Who makes the best use of the funds I would provide?
So many questions, I'm not sure where to start. If you have thoughts on the subject, why don't you put them in comments so I can read them?
posted by Catherine Banks at 9:24 PM
2 Comments:
I would think the main difference is that you have the power to change/simplify/adjust your life. Those kids are stuck.
I guess, in the most simplistic of views, food gives them life, which in time, will give them the same powers as those of us in the 'free world'.
I would think the main difference is that you have the power to change/simplify/adjust your life. Those kids are stuck.
I guess, in the most simplistic of views, food gives them life, which in time, will give them the same powers as those of us in the 'free world'.
Post a Comment
<< Home