(Photo: Crushed plastic bottles at the Tzu Chi Foundation recycling factory in Taipei, 4 Nov 2009/Nicky Loh)

A plastic bottle thrown into a Taipei recycling bin could be reincarnated as a blanket to warm disaster victims in any of 20 countries, thanks to a unique project by the world’s largest Buddhist charity.

The Taiwan Buddhist Tzu Chi Foundation has been taking plastic bottles from the waste stream of Taipei, a city of 2.6 million, for three years to convert them into about 244,000 polyester blankets intended for disaster zones. It has sent volunteers with relief supplies to some of the world’s biggest disasters, including Hurricane Katrina in the United States in 2005 and last year’s devastating Sichuan earthquake in China.

This week, Tzu Chi expanded its one-of-a-kind recycling effort to begin making shirts, scarves and cloth shopping bags.  It sends the plastic bottles to a factory that breaks them down into a polyester fabric, which is then sent to crew of volunteers who fashion it into blankets or garments.

“They’re faster than a normal factory because they’re driven by kind-heartedness,” said lead volunteer Wu Yueh-yin, as more than 100 others cut, stitched, folded and boxed the grey polyester fabric into blankets and scarves for the next crisis.

Read the whole story here.

Here’s a video from Tzu Chi USA called “Green is the new Black” on the foundation’s use of recycled plastic bottles:

Follow FaithWorld on Twitter at RTRFaithWorld

Philanthropy does not seem to have been hit by the global economic downturn. Contrary to some initial fears after the stock market plunge last year, giving by the rich to charitable causes seems to be rising as younger donors get more active in the field. But the report by Barclays Wealth, the wealth management arm of the British bank, says faith-based charities face falling donations because they’re not in step with this new generation of philanthropists.

(Photo: donation box in London Oxfam shop, 2 Dec 2008/Simon Newman)

The report, entitled Tomorrow’s Philanthropist, is upbeat about charitable giving based on the bank’s survey of 500 “high net worth investors in the UK and US.” As it said in a summary of the report: “Despite the global downturn, three quarters (75 per cent) have not decreased their contributions, whilst more than one in four (26 per cent) have increased their giving in the last 18 months.”

Buried in the report is a sobering angle for churches and religious charities: “The future is less certain for the traditional recipients of charitable donations, such as the arts and religious organisations. On balance, high net worth donors stated that these causes had become less important to them over the past ten years, and that this trend would accelerate over the next decade if the causes in question failed to engage in a meaningful way with the next generation of givers.”

In a report graphic, religious charity seems set for the biggest reduction in donations, -16%, while health and medical charities should see a +58% rise in gifts. The other losers are the arts (-14%) and animal causes (-6%) while the number two and three growth leaders are children (+41%) and environment (+35%).

These results could be skewed by the sample group that Barclays Wealth used. The report did not analyse the expected drop in faith-linked donations any further, so it’s not clear whether a wider survey of donors below the report’s rarified donor group might show better support for religious charities.

Do any readers have recent information about how religious charities are doing in the downturn? (UPDATE: please read the first comment below for more information on this)

Here is the PDF file of the report and Barclay Wealth’s summary of it. Below is a short video on it by Hayley Platt of Reuters Television. Since video clips are short and reports like this long, the report’s main points are copied below the video.

The report’s main points are:

• We are at the beginning of a new age of philanthropy – A new breed of wealthy philanthropists is emerging who are more socially aware and more motivated to give back to the communities they came from, as well as global causes.
• The wealthy are still giving despite the downturn – The recession has failed to dampen philanthropic spirit; the commitment of those who already give will remain resolute, and some wealthy individuals are actually increasing the levels of their funding in order to ensure that their charitable goals are met.
• The wealthy will play an increasingly important role, compared to governments, in funding welfare projects – The recession will potentially increase the role of the wealthy philanthropist on a broad basis, as governments around the world become more constrained in the causes they can fund. High net worth givers will become an invaluable source of innovation and investment for charities.
• The wealthy prefer to fund projects directly – Respondents increasingly feel that they can make a bigger impact and drive change more effectively by giving directly to charities, rather than supporting causes indirectly through taxation.
• High net worth donors are becoming increasingly active philanthropists and now seek to solve rather than simply to support – Historically, high net worth individuals have donated money and time to charities to support their endeavours. Now, however, the wealthy are far more ambitious in their philanthropic aims and are wanting to see visible or measurable change.
• The worlds of charity and business are converging – Smaller, nimbler and more accountable charities are becoming increasingly attractive to donors compared to the large, traditional charities. This will have a knock-on effect and in the future, we will see the emergence of more commercial ventures which have a philanthropic aim at their core.

Pope Benedict’s encyclical “Charity in Truth” proposed a sweeping reform of the world economic system from one based on the profit motive to one based on solidarity and concern for the common good. Like other such documents in the Roman Catholic Church’s social teaching tradition, the encyclical delivers a strong critique of unbridled capitalism. This can be uncomfortable for Catholics who champion free enterprise and some conservative Catholic writers reacted quickly and critically. One of them, George Weigel, wrote the encyclical “resembles a duck-billed platypus.”

(Image: Charity in Truth/Ignatius Press)

We wanted to hear the views of a Catholic executive, one who’s involved in business rather than reacting from the sidelines. So I called Frank Keating, president and chief executive officer of the American Council of Life Insurers (ACLI). The former Republican governor of Oklahoma (1995-2003) is a former chairman of the National Catholic Review Board, which he said “sought to identify and correct the horror of sexual abuse on the part of the clergy.” He is a Knight of Malta and a Knight of the Holy Sepulchre.

DB: What’s your overall reaction to the encyclical?

FK:“I haven’t read the 30,000 words but I think what the pope is proposing is not inconsistent with other papal messages. The common denominator to all of them is the worth of the individual, the dignity of every human person. So Benedict XVI focuses on the right to life, he speaks against euthanasia, he speaks against the evil of abortion, he speaks against cloning. But at the same time he talks about duties and responsibilities to the vulnerable because the vulnerable are dignified human beings as well as those who are rich and powerful.

(Photo: Frank Keating, 11 Feb 2002/Adrees Latif)

“So to exploit someone in a capitalist society is, according to Benedict, inapropriate and contrary to Catholic moral teaching. But for me as a free market capitalist, I see in this statement also the right for me to determine my destiny. In other words, if I wish to work for the state I should be able to do so. If I wish to found a small business, I should be able to do so. A dignified, independent mortal soul, a caring individual should be able to determine their own destiny.

“There is a little bit for the left, support for unions, support for protection of the globe against waste, but there is also something I think for the free market advocates in the Church, because if you are an independent creature with a unique personality based upon, obviously, the immortality of your soul, you should be able to work or not work as your decision. I think there is a little bit for everyone.”

DB: What do you think about Benedict’s call for a “world political authority” to manage the global economy?

FK: “I think it is impractical to suggest that sovereign nations will surrender on the one hand a free market economy or on the other hand a socialist economy or completely managed or disintigrating economy as you would have for example in a place like Zimbabwe, or places like that which are utterly dysfunctional. I don’t think he would suggest that those economies that work surrender what works to those that don’t work and be managed by some supernational group that would impoverish everybody. I think what he’s talking about.

“As a result of the impoverishment of reckless lending, the impoverishment of a number of individuals throughout the globe, you are going to have far more coordination, and that is good. There is a difference between coordination and mandate. Look at Solvency II or (the Bank for International Settlements in) Basel. All that stuff, coordinating banks, coordinating insurance companies and the practices, lending standards and the like. I think you’ll see more coordination and, to the extent that that can be done, it will be healthy for everyone. A reckless loan in the United States can and did impoverish people in Latvia. So obviously coordination is important as long as it is not mandated.

(Photo: Bank for International Settlements, 8 July 1997/stringer)

“I see ‘world political authority’ … (and) ‘manage the global economy’ (in the Reuters report). If it said to coordinate decision making in the global economy, I think there would be less concern. But again it was probably written in Latin.

“Here’s a quote: ‘The conviction that the economy must be autonomous, that it must be shielded from ‘influences’ of a moral character, has led man to abuse the economic process in a thoroughly destructive way.” Well, some men certainly have done that. I don’t think there is any question about that. I think his comments are not inappropriate.

“I think this is also for any of us, whether we are Catholics or not, to have the pope say ‘Once profit becomes the exclusive goal, if it is produced by improper means and without the risks destroying wealth and creating poverty.’ Well, I don’t disagree with that. I think to raise this crisis to an international debate and emphasise the moral issues involved, and the ethical issues involved, is totally appropriate.”

DB: Will this encyclical change the way you run the ACLI?

FK: “Our products are protection products against calamity. Whether your house burns down and you have inadequate resources to rebuild it, property/casualty insurance saves you. Or your business partner dies or your spouse dies, life insurance provides the money to get back on your feet. I would argue there is a moral purpose there in pooling risk to help other people.

“But in the pope’s case, to talk about moral responsibility, duties to others, I think Bernard Madoff is the poster boy for that. Because here is a man, as you know, who betrayed and destroyed his own faith community, those within his own faith community. So I think for men and women in business and finance and government for that matter, I think the Pope’s message is one to listen to and to listen to carefully.”

(Photo: Bernard Madoff, 17 Dec 2008/Shannon Stapleton)

Follow FaithWorld on Twitter at RTRFaithWorld

Pope Benedict issued an ambitious call to reform the way the world works on Tuesday shortly before its most powerful leaders meet at the G8 summit in Italy. His latest encyclical, entitled “Charity in Truth,” presents a long list of steps he thinks are needed to overcome the financial crisis and shift economic activity from the profit motive to a goal of solidarity of all people.

Following are some of his proposals. The italics are from the original text. Do you think they are realistic food for thought or idealistic notions with no hope of being put into practice?

• “There is urgent need of a true world political authority. .. to manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result; to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration… such an authority would need to be universally recognized and to be vested with the effective power to ensure security for all, regard for justice, and respect for rights.”
• The economy needs ethics in order to function correctly - not any ethics whatsoever, but an ethics which is people-centred…”
• “Financiers must rediscover the genuinely ethical foundation of their activity, so as not to abuse the sophisticated instruments which can serve to betray the interests of savers. Right intention, transparency, and the search for positive results are mutually compatible and must never be detached from one another.”
• “Without doubt, one of the greatest risks for businesses is that they are almost exclusively answerable to their investors, thereby limiting their social value… there is nevertheless a growing conviction that business management cannot concern itself only with the interests of the proprietors, but must also assume responsibility for all the other stakeholders who contribute to the life of the business: the workers, the clients, the suppliers of various elements of production, the community of reference… What should be avoided is a speculative use of financial resources that yields to the temptation of seeking only short-term profit, without regard for the long-term sustainability of the enterprise, its benefit to the real economy and attention to the advancement, in suitable and appropriate ways, of further economic initiatives in countries in need of development.”
• “One possible approach to development aid would be to apply effectively what is known as fiscal subsidiarity, allowing citizens to decide how to allocate a portion of the taxes they pay to the State.”

(Photo: Pope Bendict, 1 July 2009/Tony Gentile)

Follow FaithWorld on Twitter at RTRFaithWorld

A new report by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) details the effects it says that terror finance laws have had on American Muslims and America’s relations with the Islamic world. You can see the report, “Blocking Faith, Freezing Charity”, here.

The report says U.S. terrorism finance laws — greatly expanded after the Sept 11 attacks by the administration of former President George W. Bush — have led to the direct closure of seven U.S.-based Muslim charities. The charities were shut after they were designated as “terrorist organizations” or under investigation. Two others have been forced to close in the aftermath of the negative publicity generated by raids on their premises.

Among other things, the report says, this curtails the abilities of Muslims to give to the needy, which is one of the pillars of their faith.

“Despite the often weak nature of the evidence, when it designated Muslim charities, indicted them criminally, or raided them, the Bush administration publicly trumpeted its actions as successes and made inflammatory and unfounded or exaggerated allegations about the charitable sector’s
connections to terrorism financing. The effect of these government actions is to create a general climate in which law-abiding American Muslims fear making charitable donations in accordance with their religious beliefs,” the report says.

“The government’s actions have chilled American Muslims’ free and full exercise of their religion through charitable giving, or Zakat. Zakat is one of the core “five pillars” of Islam and a religious obligation for all observant Muslims,” it says.

“Many American Muslims reported that the climate of fear has made it impossible for them to fulfill their religious obligation to give Zakat in accordance with their faith and to associate with fellow Muslims. The United States has long been regarded as a beacon of religious freedom, and yet U.S. terrorism financing laws and policies developed under the Bush administration are inhibiting American Muslims’ ability to freely and fully practice their religion.”

Supporters of the government’s tactics might counter that there is no lack of charities in the United States or places like soup kitchens or homeless shelters that will accept money or alms — and that provide services to non-Muslims and Muslims alike. But many U.S. Muslims no doubt would prefer to give to charities linked to their own faith tradition.

The report also says that the prosecution of Islamic charities is one of many Bush-era policies that continue to undermine America’s efforts on the diplomatic stage at a time when President Barack Obama is trying to reach out to the Muslim world — and when U.S. troops are waging war in two Muslim countries.

We have written about this issue before and the U.S. Department of Justice would no doubt argue that its laws have helped choke off potential “terrorist” activities. A U.S. judge last month handed down 65-year prison sentences to two founders of a U.S. Islamic charity convicted of illegally funneling $12.4 million to the Palestinian militant group Hamas.

The sentences came several months after a grand jury in Dallas convicted the Holy Land Foundation and five of its leaders for conspiracy to support a foreign terrorist organization, money laundering, tax fraud and other charges. Its supporters have long maintained that it focused on legitimate disaster relief and aid to Palestinian refugees and that the weakness of the prosecution’s case was exposed when its first attempt to nail the group ended in an embarrassing mistrial.

The ACLU says that terror finance laws give the U.S. Treasury Department virtually unchecked powers to designate groups as terrorist and lack safeguards that would protect U.S. charities from government mistakes and abuse.

The ACLU is often a favorite target of conservative Christians and the Republican Party in America and is often associated with left or liberal causes. Does this mean that the Obama administration will take its views on this issue into account?

(Photo: Holy Land Foundation supporters hold signs outside the Earle Cabell Federal Building and Courthouse in Dallas, Texas October 22, 2007., during the first trial of the Islamic charity accused of illegally funneling money to the militant Palestinian group Hamas. REUTERS/Jessica Rinaldi (UNITED STATES)

How ironic is this? When the financial industry was riding high, many bankers and brokers had no time for charity work. Now that lots of them have been laid off and have the time, Rebekah Curtis reports from London, many can’t find a charity that can use their skills.

It turns out the economic downturn is forcing charities to cut back their own staffs and many can’t find a way to use the skills the laid-off finance wizards are offering. The British international development charity VSO (Voluntary Service Overseas) said it received 2,572 enquiries for voluntary work between September and mid-November this year, more than double the 1,233 it received for the same period in 2007, but it could hardly place most of them.

“It’s a shame,” said VSO spokeswoman Catherine Raynor. “People are keen to offer their time and commitment, so it’s never easy to say they’re not right … if you’ve had management experience within your role … rather than very specific financial skills, then we’d love to hear from you.”

Read the whole story here.

PARIS (Reuters) - It’s sunset in the French capital, and hundreds of hungry people are poised to begin their meals at the sounding of a Muslim call to prayer.

Elsewhere in the world, the call rings forth from the minarets of mosques, but inside a tent in a gritty part of north Paris, it comes from a tinny radio speaker.

For the holy month of Ramadan, a soup kitchen has opened outside Cite Edmond Michelet, a tough public housing project in Paris’ notorious 19th arrondissement. On the menu is a traditional dinner, starting with yoghurt and dates.

I heard a lot more stories that could fit into this feature on the Ramadan soup kitchen in Paris (click here). One thing that was surprising was how many people there said they had professions and jobs and so didn’t really need the free meal. I met an architect, a waiter, a hairdresser, a construction worker — lots of people claimed they were working, or had come to France to work.

Some said they were at the soup kitchen for its community feel and chaleur (warmth), others because they loved the soup. One fellow said “It tastes exactly like mom used to make” but since she lives so far away in the suburbs, he can’t visit her often. He even brought a thermos to take some soup home.

It took us a while to get any images as people were quite camera shy. A volunteer told me that many might fear being on television because they had invented stories of successful lives in Paris and didn’t want to risk having relatives see them accepting charity.

(Update: Edhi returned to Karachi on Feb. 4.)

When U.S. immigration officers question an arriving Pakistani for eight hours and seize his passport, they presumably suspect some kind of link to Islamist terrorism. Abdul Sattar Edhi, 79, “has links” to some horrifying violence, so to speak, but it’s hard to imagine they’re the kind that immigration officers may have suspected when they detained him at New York’s Kennedy Airport on Jan. 9.

Edhi and his colleagues care for — and, when necessary, bury — the victims of violence in his native city Karachi. His private Edhi Welfare Trust foundation runs an extensive ambulance service, buries unclaimed bodies and maintains centres for orphans, the homeless, the addicted and the mentally ill. In a country where state-run welfare services are basic or non-existant, his charity work is so unusual and prominent that he is often called “Pakistan’s Mother Teresa”.

When a bomb blast in Karachi last October killed 139 supporters of opposition leader Benazir Bhutto (herself later assassinated), Edhi ambulances were among the first helpers to arrive at the scene. One report noted the trust collected 110 of the victims, and washed and wrapped them in shrouds according to Muslim custom at its morgue so relatives could claim them.

When Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl’s body was found in Karachi months after he was murdered, it went first to the Edhi Trust morgue before being shipped home to the United States.

In late 2001, as U.S.-backed Afghan forces fought to overthrow the Taliban, the Edhi Trust sent ambulances from Pakistani border areas into Taliban strongholds in southern Afghanistan to bring out civilian casualties for treatment. The Trust also rushed workers and aid to northern Pakistan when a serious earthquake hit it in 2005. It has offices in several other countries, including the United States, and also rushed aid to the victims of Hurricane Katrina.

Pakistan’s government and media are up in arms over the detention, which means Edhi, 78, is now stuck in New York until at least February 20.

“During the interrogation, they wanted to know why I travelled to the U.S. so frequently,” Edhi told the BBC on Tuesday from New York. “I told them about the nature of my work, but they did not understand. They also wanted to know why I was not living in the U.S. in spite of having a green card. I am a man of emergencies, I need to be on the move, to be where the suffering is, but here I have been sitting idle for 20 days because I cannot travel without my passport.”

When I was a correspondent in Pakistan in the mid-1980s, I once visited Edhi in his sparse Karachi office and asked him how he started making morning rounds in the rough-and-tumble city to pick up unclaimed dead bodies. “I thought they deserved a decent Muslim burial,” he told me simply.