Quote:
Originally Posted by pwalker8
OED since unlike some, I don't have to make things up or twist words around to try prove my point.
Other definitions of charity in the OED that are to the point -
4. Benevolence to one's neighbours, especially to the poor; the practical beneficences in which this manifests itself.
5. That which is given in charity; alms.
6. A bequest, foundation, institution, etc., for the benefit of others, esp. of the poor or helpless.
Libraries qualify on a number of levels. I can understand some people's reflexive reaction to the idea that they take charity. But that's what things like libraries and parks typically are.
Historically, in 1919, roughly half of the libraries (around 1500) in the US were built using funds donated by Andrew Carnegie. My local library, the Atlanta Public Library was built using a Carnegie grant in 1902 (one of the first public libraries according to the library web site). Many parks were either donated or are maintained via donations.
Really, the point is hardly controversial. In the US, charity is the driving force behind many public institutions - libraries, schools, hospitals, parks. There are also a lot of organizations for feeding those in need, not just poor, but elderly who have trouble cooking for themselves as well.
Here is the URL for Meals on Wheels, just beware of the pop up that ask you to donate.
https://www.mealsonwheelsamerica.org/
I'm not sure why some seem to think that charity only applies to the poor or those "in need". Charity commonly applies to works done for the public good as well. The two most common charities in the US are universities, some of which have received billions in donations, and the various churches. Charities such as the Sierra Club in the US have nothing to do with the poor or those in need, but rather have much to do with the public good.
Just remember that the word "especially" does not mean exclusively. |
The extra aspects of the OED definition you quote do not seem to appear in the online versions, at least the free ones. Nevertheless, they add little. Libraries certainly do not fit within the 3 aspects I quoted. And the additional aspects you quote clearly are not appropriate in this context. They seem to require little more than a benevolent intention. You can if you like regard all institutions of a civilised society as charitable if you like, but it renders the word essentially meaningless. Without that element of aiding the poor or needy, it is indistinguishable from any institution, government or otherwise, which performs benevolent acts. Even the armed forces, for instance, arguably fall within these wider aspects of charity. As arguably do telephone companies, ISP's and utilities of all kinds. If being charities mean no more than that they are established for purposes including the benefit of others, then yes, they are charities. As of course are the Big 5 themselves and indeed most businesses, especially if you believe their publicity.