By HOWARD TROXLER, Times Columnist
Published November 15, 2005
Flee also youthful lusts; but follow righteousness, faith, charity...
- II Timothy 2:22
Joe Redner, best known for his nude-dancing clubs, would make it much simpler for his critics if he stuck only to deeds that they considered to be immoral.
Instead, Redner is a frequent donor to good causes around here. Somebody has finally complained, and hence the dilemma has been brought to a head.
The "somebody" is Ronda Storms, the Hillsborough County commissioner and freelance social critic. Storms noticed that Redner was one of the sponsors of an upcoming charity event to help poor and abused kids.
Storms objected to Redner's role, even taking it upon herself to call some of the other sponsors. As a result, one embarrassed charity that would have benefited pulled out.
As Storms sees it, Redner's core business is based on the exploitation of women. He seeks to buy respectability with his profits. Tying Redner's name to a kids' charity event exploits the kids, too.
As Redner and Storms' other critics see it, this shows Storms is willing even to hurt little kids to satisfy her never-ending efforts to find new things of which to disapprove.
Putting aside for a minute this collision between two of the most interesting people in the Tampa Bay area, Storms raises an ancient question.
If you believe a dollar was earned by immoral means, should you still accept it for the sake of a good cause?
I asked this general question (and not for a comment on the specific Storms-Redner situation) of local clergy.
Rabbi Richard Birnholz of Congregation Schaarai Zedek in Tampa told me that Jewish law has addressed this many times. If the question is simply whether to accept the donation of what you believe to be ill-gotten money, the answer is yes.
"You never know," Birnholz said, "when an individual may be getting ready to turn the corner and do what's right. You never take away their opportunity to do a righteous act."
But what if you have reason to believe, I asked, that the donor has an ignoble motive (as Storms believes of Redner) such as buying respectability? "That," he replied, "changes the complexion completely."
The Rev. H. Clark Edwards of First United Methodist Church in St. Petersburg told me that money obtained wrongly means that somebody was harmed or disadvantaged along the way. The church has a duty not to assist.
"Put simply," Edwards said, "to gain from another's unethical practices makes me a party to the unethical behavior, even if the money were being contributed to a good cause."
Monsignor Laurence Higgins of St. Lawrence Catholic Church in Tampa concurred. "Charity received from evil means generally cannot be used," he said. On the other hand, he said yes when I asked whether someone truly repentant could donate his past assets in pursuit of a new life. (Somehow, I don't think this applies here.)
Ahmed Bedier is the Central Florida director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, and he consulted with local imams on my question. He told me that Islamic tradition holds that such a donation may be put to the service of good.
"The person receiving the charity is not the one doing anything wrong," he said, adding that if a donor has committed a sin to acquire the money, "that's between them and God, and God will judge them."
He also pointed out that not every person earns every dollar in an illegitimate way. For example, a Muslim merchant who violates the restriction on sale of alcohol might still contribute to charity from his other income. (This would work out fine for Redner, who owns health clubs, real estate and other businesses as well.)
As you can see, there are different approaches to this question. In the end each of us must be guided by our own beliefs. Me, I would take Redner's dough for a good cause - but I would not begrudge someone else who turned it down out of principle. Really, the only thing I would dislike would be somebody in the government telling everybody else what they ought to be doing.
