Charity.. noble act ???

What is charity? many people speak of charity as a noble deed that helps others and is beneficial to the community in particular and the society in general.

But how far is it genuinely beneficial? and is it really noble?We have been brainwahed from our childhood about how we should all involve in and encourage the system of charity, and thus "give back" to the society

We conveniently have forgotten how to think and reason. Why is charity noble? Is it because it helps a poor person or is it because it reduces one's so called EVIL wealth??
When you contribute to charity, you are actually feeding or rather even making parasites, who are far from worthy, and money is not evil. its lack is the root of evil, as someone rightly said.

Money is a noble idea of exchange, and of respect and recognition for a person's ability.
But charity is feeding and appreciating a persons inability and destroying his already maimed conscience. He loses his interest to work for his own sustenance.
Every man is born with an ability to think,reasin and introspect, and everybody should recognize this. By donating money to a person, are we not killing his ability to create more wealth for himself and his family?Are we not sowing the seed of disease in a healthy conscience?? IS this sin or nobility?
It is okay to help a person with a disability ( physical or mental), but only mentally disabled persons qualify for charity,as they are lacking in our gift to think.Even physically challenged people can fend for themselves though they deserve a support to start. We in our selfishness to look noble and cleanse your sins donate to them and kill their soul.
So, with all these reasons, if people still cant stop thinking of charity as a noble deed, we must include them in the category who cant think.

What is PATRIOTISM??

Would people care to achieve independence.had the Britishers been good to us Indians? if they had abolished some things like Zamindari system which the people found bad, and not been openly intent to make us servile, would anyone have revolted? It was just because the people were oppressed ,that they lost the comforts they had had, that they revolted. the ones who were given plum posts by the Britishers were happy under the Raj. the ones who weren't sought a government which would. so is it ultimately a quest for a satisfaction of the ego in some cases and comforts in certain others? Would the Father of the nation have come back to India leaving his job there, had he not been insulted and his ego hurt?
Had the Britishers been just in ruling and more peasant friendly , would we not have accepted them and given them the demi-god status that many film stars and cricketers enjoy today?
Would it not be just like Sri Rama killing Raavana and installing justice and peace in his country?? So in the end, what is patriotism, because even Bhagat Singh(whom i adore) joined the movement after a single large incident of the Jallianwallah bagh . so was the urge for independence a result of not wanting foreigners to rule our land or for installing peace, in which case any native ruler too would have been revolted upon and dethroned.. ex: french revolution against their native king!
And is Patriotism only called so when it is in the majority populace? because if it not, the Lankan Tamils were also fighting for a cause just like ours.. they were fighting for the privileges of natives.. were they not patriots in their own right??