Jews not only monopolized money-lending prior to the fourteenth century, when Christian prohibitions against usury broke down.  The dispersion of Jews throughout the know world, east and west, also gave them international advantages in global trade and finance because family and tribal linkages were maintained on an international scale.  The earliest terrible pogroms against the Jews occurred in northern Europe after the year 1000, the year of the “millennium,” when Christians (but not the Jews) believed the world would come to an end with the second coming of Christ.  As the year approached, more and more Christians tended to become debtors and Jews creditors, Christians naturally believing they would not have to pay off loans after 1000.  Additionally, Christians tended to give their wealth to the church, hoping to secure favorable positions in the afterlife, while Jews continued to pass their wealth on to their children.  When the world did not end in 1000 A.D., economic tensions were inevitable, and for the following three centuries Jews were slaughtered throughout Europe in Crusades and pogroms.

The fact that the Jews throughout the ages have been a mighty force behind the expansiveness of the global economy has in no small way contributed to their survival.  In no less a way has this Jewish instinct for survival through promotion of general economic growth  contributed to the survival of Christianity, as in the Middle Ages.  For while Christianity is not intrinsically biased on the economic issue, neither does it provide a counterforce.  In other words, during contraction the Christian impulse is wholly redistributive, which does nothing to arrest the contraction and turn the economy once again toward expansion.

From The Way the World Works by Jude Wanniski

May is a high risk month to have a baby in Michigan and Uganda.  Why?

Ramadan.

Some parts of Michigan and parts of Uganda have a large Muslim population that fasts during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan which runs from about August to September (It is based on a lunar calendar).  Muslim women who fast during that period put their fetuses at risk during the critical first trimester.

From “Superfreakonomics” by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner

The great Jewish Philosopher Maimonides lived in Spain, Morocco and Egypt between 1135 and 1205. One of his most popular teachings is the eight levels of charity.

The lowest is one who gives unwillingly. Above that is one who gives inadequately but gladly. A better level is one who gives to the poor only after being asked.

The fifth level gives directly to the hands of the poor, but before being asked. The fourth level is when the giver does not know the recipient, but the recipient knows who the benefactor is. The third level is when the giver knows the recipient but the recipient does NOT know who the benefactor us.

The second highest level of direct charity is when neither the recipient nor the giver knows each other. This good deed is devoid of recognition and pride and is thus deemed to be solely for the sake of heaven.

The highest level is to support one with a gift or a loan, or entering into a partnership with him or finding employment for him in order to strengthen him so he is not dependent on anyone. One senses that the Jews see a substantial moral emperative in business.

Because of this hierarchy of charity that I learned in Sunday school years ago, I have been weary of those who publicize their charitable giving. There is a case to be made that such publicity encourages others to also be charitable, but I have a greater admiration for the many generous people who stay quiet about it.

I am bold enough to recommend one level of charity below the lowest; to give in such a way to promote one’s own power while making the recipient dependent on you for life.

That could be worse than no charity at all.

Reverend Robert Sirico, a Catholic Priest, is the founder of the Lord Acton Institute; an organization dedicated to teaching free market principles to clergy. The clergy he had encountered most of his life were largely socialist and ignorant of capitalism.

I had the good fortune to meet Reverend Sirico years ago at a YPO (Young President’s Organization) meeting in San Diego, sat with him and Walter Williams at a scotch tasting. It was a memorable evening, at least for me. He did a great impression of Charles Rangel.

Reverend Sirico has opposed government funding of faith based organizations under Bush and remains consistent in his opposition responding to Obama’s faith based proposal with this article in the National Review.

an excerpt:

Note the implied assumption that if government is not funding something, it is not being done — that if politicians and bureaucrats are not involved, all hands are not on deck. Contrary to what both Bush and Obama seem to believe, it is possible to have hands on deck using primarily private money. Just because taxpayers aren’t paying the bill doesn’t mean it is not happening and it is not making a difference. Why do politicians turn to religious charities in the first place? Because they know we have a secret in caring for the poor — our faith. And only dilution and compromise comes to the faith when it gets entangled with politics.

More blame, then, goes to the Republicans who should have known better — which is precisely what I have said to this administration from its inception. They tend to have more economic understanding and a broader knowledge of the dangers associated with making institutions dependent on government financing. Had Bush not worked so hard for this program, it wouldn’t already be established in a way that permits any future Democrat administration to take it over and use it for its own purposes.Surely there is a lesson here both for charities and politics. Charities need to stay away from politics if they want to maintain their institutional integrity and do their job in a way that is consistent with their ideals. The long-term interests of a charitable institution are best served by an independent and private source of financial support, even if it takes longer to develop than one that comes from the taxpayers.