Wealth and Poverty.

GCSE Religious Studies (Philosophy & Ethics)

Jef-Vin John Shah GCSE Religious Studies Coursework

GCSE RS COURSEWORK

WEALTH AND POVERTY

Question (a)

a). i. Outline Christian teaching, and the teaching of ONE other religion, on wealth and poverty.

Christians believe that wealth in itself is not a bad thing, but choosing a life devoted to money is wrong and selfish. They believe that wealth can sometimes lead a person away from God. Christians believe that if they have wealth, it is a gift from God and must not be taken for granted. They also believe that it must be acquired legitimately and morally by avoiding exploitation of people for example. These views are based on teachings from the Bible.

In Matthew 25:31-46, Jesus tells a parable that at the end of the world, at the day of judgement, the good and bad will be separated as the sheep and goats were separated by the shepherds. Those who do not use their wealth to help Jesus’ brothers aren’t helping Jesus himself, and so will be judged on this.

In the parable of the Good Samaritan, Jesus showed that Christians must help anyone who is in trouble using the commandment, “Love thy neighbour.” Christians believe that they must share their wealth with the poor, and according to the New Testament, wealth must be used to help others, especially the poor. All humans are seen as equal in God’s eyes and the good things of the earth have been given to humans by God to use to help each other. So Christians should also be concerned about the poor not just in Britain.

Muslims see wealth as being God given and a commodity to be shared. God commands sharing in the religious pillar of Zakah, it is not an option. Muslims pay Zakah annually of 2.5% of their savings and income above the level needed to keep their family. On the festival of Id ul’fit’r, a special Zakah is paid. Some Muslims also believe in giving to charity on their own accord – paying Sadaqah. Many Muslims help the poor by granting them interest free loans, as charging interest is banned in Islam. If the poor find it difficult to repay the loans, then Muslims are encouraged to give more time or to give the money as a gift. Surah 2:280 states that “If the debtor is in a difficulty, grant him time to repay…but if ye remit it by way of charity, that is best for you.”

Muslims also help other poor Muslim families and communities. Money is used to help the poor both in Great Britain and abroad. Muslims use charities such as Muslim Aid and Islamic relief, which help Muslims all over the world. This worldwide help helps show the Ummah and how important it is to Muslims. Muslims are also Allah’s kalifahs and must help Allah’s creation by helping people, which are part of Allah’s creation.

a) ii. Explain why there is a need for world development.

The classification of the countries of the world has changed through the years and now the countries can divided into categories: the developed countries - rich (mainly Western countries), developing countries - countries becoming richer such as Brazil and Mexico, and less developed countries (LDCs) - countries which are very poor and still have people starving in such as Uganda. Other than its moral legitimacy, the major reason for the need for world development is the dependence of countries on each other. However, before looking at the need for development, one must examine the causes of lack of development on a global scale.

Password

Confirm Password

I agree to the terms of service and privacy policy

Wars have often crippled LDCs, stopping or breaking down any preceding development. Many LDCs are badly affected by wars for example civil wars in Africa over self-determination. Wars destroy crops and homes causing more poverty and create the problem of an influx of refugees from the war ridden countries into surrounding countries. Refugees provide a major problem for the government and can hinder development as the government is expected to provide for the refugees who will be poor and without food or accommodation.

Natural disasters are may also slow the development of a country. This can be seen globally ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Natural disasters are may also slow the development of a country. This can be seen globally as many LDCs are situated in areas at risk from natural disasters such as flooding, earthquakes or volcanic eruptions. An earthquake or flood for example will destroy many homes and crops, ruining prior development and leaving the people in poverty again.

The government of LDCs often need to borrow money to develop by taking loans from banks in the developed countries. This debt can become a major problem for LDCs. The banks charge interest for these loans which the LDCs find very hard to pay off and face a constant battle against. LDCs are sometimes forced to grow cash crops to pay off these debts, for example tobacco to be sold in the developed world, rather than food that they can eat themselves.

All these factors together make poverty in LDCs a big problem. The poverty cycle is hard to break and requires our help. There is a need to help these countries, as they are fellow trading countries and will benefit the world as a whole by developing them. For example if we want the Sudanese to grow crops for us it is our responsibility to make sure that they are developed enough and have enough food for example - to encourage a healthy relationship between countries. This may be done by many methods, but principally the most sensible and practical method is by developed countries cancelling the debts of LDCs.

a) iii. Analyse and explain the work of ONE religious agency working for world development.

Christian Aid is a major British charity working to overcome poverty in over sixty countries. Since 1945, they have been providing emergency aid, long-term assistance to the Church and community organisations working to overcome and eradicate the problem of poverty. Supported and sustained by the churches and driven by the Gospel, Christian Aid is inspired by the dream of a new earth where all people can secure a better and more just future. The organisation strives to be prophetic, challenging the systems that work against the interests the poor and works of the basis of need, regardless of race or religion. They work for world development in four main ways: fund-raising, emergency aid, long-term aid and education.

In order to fund their work, money is raised in several ways. Annually, a Christian Aid Week is held in which Churches increase awareness of the need to eradicate poverty and appeal for donations. In 1995, Christian Aid Week raised £8.6 million. Many churches and individuals also have their own fund-raising events throughout the year which raises over £30 million yearly.

Christian Aid has a disaster fund which spends between 10-15 per cent of its annual funds on emergency aid. They send food, clothing, antibiotics, blankets and shelters to the disaster stricken, such as the victims of the 1998 Honduras hurricanes and war refugees in Bosnia and Rwanda.

As well as supplying emergency aid, Christian Aid sees its function as helping people to help themselves so that they will not need aid. Christian Aid has an advantage over many charities because much of the aid they provide is channelled through Christian organisations within the country concerned. Therefore they can receive feedback and work in cooperation to build the interdependence and development of poverty stricken countries. For example, in Lesotho, Christian Aid is financing a local Christian agricultural school which is trying to increase food production by reducing soil erosion and bringing in new and more practical farming methods.

Christian Aid can also strengthen interdependency of people of less developed countries through education. They provide information about the organisations work and information on world development which increases awareness of the unjustness of poverty. For example, the total world expenditure on arms in two weeks, would give everyone in the world enough food, water, education and shelter for one year.

Question (b)

“There should be no rich people as long as there is poverty.”

Do you agree? Giver reasons for your opinion, showing you have considered another point of view, and referring to religious teaching.

It is clear that the worldwide distribution of wealth is very uneven. Only 25 per cent of the world population live in developed countries, however, they receive 80 per cent of the world’s total income (U.N. fact-file, 2001). Whilst there are vastly rich people especially in the Western world, there are large impoverished areas such as Africa and parts of Asia. The everyday struggle to subside in impoverished countries would be somewhat inconceivable for the richer people of the more economically developed countries. However, the statement is controversial and thus, both sides to the argument must be carefully examined in order to reach a credible conclusion.

The statement is somewhat ambiguous in the sense of what extent to define as ‘rich’ and where to draw the line of ‘poverty’ as these terms will vary across different countries. For example, some people in Britain may consider themselves to be poor as they may only own a small house and a cheap car. However, people in less developed countries would consider these people to be vastly wealthy, as ‘rich’ to them would be defined as having ‘luxuries’ such as fresh running water.

People attain wealth through many different circumstances, some as a birthright, others work hard all their life to earn it. It would be morally impermissible to abruptly take the riches from those who have worked honestly for their entire lives to attain the best possible life for themselves and their families. In the same way, it would be unjust to grant the same riches to those in poverty due to idleness and laziness, as those who have found themselves in poverty due to inauspicious circumstances, such as illness or being born into a poverty stricken area.

Most religious people, would agree with ethics inferred with the statement as it is taught in Christianity and Islam, as well as many other religions, that wealth should be shared equally so that no one should suffer more than others. Some religious people may take this statement more literally than others, especially Muslims and the more fundamental Christians, for example Roman Catholics.

On the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus taught that Christians cannot serve both God and Money and so must put religion first. This would therefore mean quality of life and sharing, which come with religion must take preference. Religious works such as charities should also be supported. To be devoted to God involves caring for others as shown in the Golden Rule that’s states “do to others what you would have them do to you.”

Jesus also teaches of the dangers of wealth and how it can lead to corruptness and selfishness, and that sharing is very important. According to the new Testament, wealth and riches should be used to help others who are in real need of it, for example the poor -“What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one says to him ‘Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed’, but does nothing about it, what good is it? In the same way faith by itself, if not accompanied by action is dead.” James 2:14-17.

This view is illustrated on many other occasions within the Bible for example in Luke 3:10-14, in which John The Baptist declares that if a man were to own two coats, he should give one of them to the poor, as he only needs and can only wear one and the other could be used by someone who needs it.

Many Muslims would agree with the statement, as they believe wealth is given by Allah for the benefit of humanity and so should be shared out, thus, no one should be made to suffer more than anyone else. This view that Allah sees all people as equal in worth to him is evident in Hajj where all people must wear the same and worship in unity. This unity and equality of Muslims is known as Ummah, meaning brotherhood of all Muslims.

Muslims see themselves as the Kalifahs of Allah’s creation and should use their wealth to support others. In Islam, Zakah and Sadaqah encourage Muslims to be compassionate and sharing. Zakah is where Muslims who have a certain amount of wealth, usually 2.5% of savings once a year to help the poor. One aim of Zakah is to transfer money from rich to poor. So Muslims who believe in paying Zakah would agree with the statement that there should be no rich people as long as there is poverty as all wealth belongs to Allah and wealth wouldn’t be accumulated, which is what Allah wants. Muslims also believe in Sadaqah, the voluntary giving to charity, in addition to compulsory Zakah.

Some Christians, especially the more liberal ones would disagree with this statement as they see wealth as something that is a reward. It is seen as a reward for people who have worked hard in their life. People are free to improve their quality of life, especially when they have worked hard for it.

They would counterague the more fundamental Christians, for example Roman Catholics, who say that Jesus taught the dangers of wealth and how it may lead to immorality, and state that Jesus also teaches Christians to be good stewards, and that good stewardship is to use wealth wisely. Christians can be rich but can use their wealth to support the poor also. Wealthy people are in positions to help the poor, and sometimes extremely wealthy people can be more useful to the poor by keeping their wealth rather than sharing all of it. Wealthier people pay higher taxes due to higher incomes, which are used to help the poor through the welfare state, which helps give money benefits, free education and healthcare to less privileged people.

If we were to share everything then this would be in effect, communism. Although this would mean that as everyone was equal, it would mean that, consequently, a man who worked hard and persevered would be rewarded equal to a man who did not work at all. Therefore through a capitalist state, there is individualism and people are rewarded justly. Individuals who wish to better themselves should surely be given the right to do so, so that they may provide the best type of life possible for themselves and their family.

In conclusion, the existence of rich people whilst poor people exist is inevitable due to the greed of some people, and some of the poor peoples inability to use their money correctly. Even if a nation resorted to communism, there will still be wealthier people, i.e. the leaders. Wealth is a material thing that cannot be taken away to the religious after life, which many people believe in, and people view wealth in very different measures. In MEDC’s, society paints a false impression of which jobs are most important and not necessarily best paid.

One question is whether wealth belongs to God or oneself. Muslims believe that everything belongs to Allah, even wealth and so should be shared equally. Christians also believe in equality as in Galatians 3:28, it says that everyone is equal in God’s eyes as it says “there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

So due to the inevitability of there being people more wealthier than others, we should concentrate on trying to share the money so that everyone has a chance in life, and this can be and is done through religious charities, such as Christian Aid and Muslim Aid. Poverty varies among each country but it is up to us to try and share wealth but not to make everyone totally equal, as this would make hard work worthless.

In light of both arguments, one would disagree with this statement because it would be virtually impossible to achieve international financial equality due to the world’s wealth being so erratically divided that, for the rich, the idea of handing over all their wealth is bound to cause difficulties. Historians that have studied communism would agree with me and argue that this has been tried in communist Russia during the 1940s and the richer people opposed violently to what was rightfully theirs being taken away, leading to mass violence and deaths. Furthermore, the religious arguments supporting the statement would only be listened to by those who wish to, and thus cannot be embraced into a multi-faith society consisting of many atheists and liberal religious people. The very idea of ridding of all wealth until poverty is eradicated is very idealistic and unfeasible, however, the need to aid those inflicted with poverty is indisputable, though this must be done through reasonable and rational means.