| february 16, 2006 (0005us)
charity is selfcharity more or less |
|
There
are plenty of reasons for celebrities to do charity:
A feeling of guilt, faith, waning popularity ratings, etc. "If you want a long-term career, you need to be taken seriously by the public. To do nothing humanitarian is a mistake," say publicists to stars. One of them added lately, "Charitable work rounds out and humanizes a star's image." 
And there's politics as well. It's probably not a coincidence that some
of the most charitably active celebrities, like Angelina Jolie (see the
shot of her in Kashmir) are also some of the most outspoken liberals.We tend to scoff. We tend to be lacking in mere charity, in mere kindness of our hearts toward wealthy stars whose charity moves take place in a blaze of publicity, but can they really do anything out of charity without being chased after by paparazzi or even newpapermen? Why consider the stars' charity as fake charity, because they always look like they gave a performance or played roles on movie settings? And other celebrities' (politicians', businessmen', etc.) charity questionable, because they always sound like they were at a press conference? We are afraid to pass for gullible nerds if we say there is a lot more to celebrities's charity than just that, and we forget unintelligently that charity impulses do not come out of the charitable persons, but they always come out of the needy, those who need others' charity and who inspire it, therefore. It doesn't matter how you do charity, spectacularly or not. Just do it the way you can do it and bear in mind that the needy person is like a midwife whose need delivers your charity into the light of day, so that he or she helps you give birth to and develop your love of the neighbor. All in all, charity is always selfcharity, more or less.  |
| Post a comment |
| 00Xxx00 05usC1 Text Signature |
|
00Xxx00 05usC2 Text Signature |