My spare change often makes its way into the red kettles outside the stores I frequent during the holiday season. Now we’re being urged to direct our donations elsewhere, as the Salvation Army doesn’t serve gays and lesbians:
“The Salvation Army has a history of active discrimination against gays and lesbians. While you might think you’re helping the hungry and homeless by dropping a few dollars in the bright red buckets, not everyone can share in the donations,” Bil Browning notes on The Bilerico Project. “The organization also has a record of actively lobbying governments worldwide for anti-gay policies — including an attempt to make consensual gay sex illegal.
Au contraire, says a Salvation Army spokesman:
“I appreciate the opportunity to correct the record when it does come up. In fact, the Salvation Army serves countless people across the country every day from any variety of backgrounds, including gays and lesbians. This number probably reaches into the thousands, though it is impossible for us to determine, primarily because we would simply never ask about a person’s sexual identity.”
“Because The Salvation Army is a church we do have theological positions on a variety of topics. These positions are intended for our church members or those who are interested in our church. Just as you wouldn’t expect everyone you meet to share all your ideas or beliefs, we would never expect everyone we help, our donors, or even our non-church-member employees to necessarily agree with these theological positions.”
Neither love (in Christian terms) nor respect (in classical liberal terms) requires that we agree with or approve of the behavior of those we love and respect. I wish the advocates for gay and lesbian interests would seriously engage with those traditions, instead of defaulting to accusations of hatred.
Joseph Knippenberg is Professor of Politics at Oglethorpe University.
November 26th, 2011 | 2:19 pm
It’s just a fact that one of the two major opponents to gay rights legislation in New York in the late 1970s was the Salvation Army. Here’s an interesting excerpt from the Wikipedia entry on homosexuality and the Salvation Army:
There are thousands of worthy charities. There is no compelling need to donate to the Salvation Army.
November 26th, 2011 | 2:42 pm
I wish the advocates for gay and lesbian interests would seriously engage with those traditions, instead of defaulting to accusations of hatred.
I didn’t see any accusations of hatred against the Salvation Army in the Huffington Post article. I don’t know why it is so difficult for anti-gay Christians to understand that gay people and people who care about gay rights don’t automatically say, “Let’s agree to disagree with people who believe we’re sinners and who campaign against legal rights and protections for gay people.” The Salvation Army is against same-sex marriage and gay rights. Why should anyone who believes in gay rights support them when (if you are like me) every day in the mail you get appeals from so many worthy charities that you can’t hope to give to all of them? Doctors Without Borders, Plan USA, Save the Children, Habitat for Humanity, Care, The American Red Cross, Unicef, City Harvest, AmeriCares . . . . The list is endless.
One more point. The Salvation Army is a church. One might consider giving to one’s own church before giving to the Salvation Army.
November 26th, 2011 | 7:57 pm
David Nickol, your rant has convinced me, convinced me to rush out and drop some money in one of those kettles. Thanks.
November 26th, 2011 | 8:08 pm
Neither love (in Christian terms) nor respect (in classical liberal terms) requires that we agree with or approve of the behavior of those we love and respect. I wish the advocates for gay and lesbian interests would seriously engage with those traditions, instead of defaulting to accusations of hatred.
I don’t know about “hatred” but I would say those of us who don’t agree with the gay agenda are usually called homophobic.
Why not really engage with religious tradition instead of calling people who disagree homophobic?
November 26th, 2011 | 9:52 pm
David Nickol, your rant has convinced me, convinced me to rush out and drop some money in one of those kettles. Thanks.
Barry Arrington,
I hope that is true (although I bet it’s not), since the Salvation Army is a highly rated charity and I am sure your money will be put to good use. However, I didn’t write a “rant.” I wrote a perfectly reasonable explanation of why people who believe in gay rights might very well want to consider charities other than the Salvation Army. Surely it’s not difficult to understand, no matter how misguided you believe working for gay rights is.
November 27th, 2011 | 12:51 am
hi,
david, you wrote:
“However, I didn’t write a “rant.” I wrote a perfectly reasonable explanation of why people who believe in gay rights might very well want to consider charities other than the Salvation Army. Surely it’s not difficult to understand, no matter how misguided you believe working for gay rights is.”
I don’t think you wrote a rant. but I don’t understand how your post offers a “perfectly reasonable explanation” either. after all, the wikipedia page you referred to describes the salvation army’s personnel procedures and benefits rather than the care and aid they charitably disburse. thus it’s a “perfectly reasonable explanation” to a very particular subset of people. namely the type that views charity through the lens of homosexuality.
out of curiosity, do you grant that the original claim in the huffpo article (the salvation army does not give aid to gays/lesbians) was false, perhaps even slanderous? if so, why was it not worth mentioning before attempting to improve the original argument?
finally, you are correct that the word “hate” nor “hatred” never appeared in the original article. perhaps an improved version of joseph’s closing statement would be: “I wish the advocates for gay and lesbian interests would seriously engage with those traditions, instead of ignoring them on the grounds of obviously false accusations or imputations.”
best,
kristan
November 27th, 2011 | 9:52 am
“One more point. The Salvation Army is a church. One might consider giving to one’s own church before giving to the Salvation Army.”
You say that as though it’s some kind of new thought we needed to hear, but I can’t imagine anyone who has a close tie to a church *not* merely “considering” that, but having that as a normal practice. Most people actively involved in a church do give there “before” giving to SA or some other group.
But the extra giving sometimes goes to the SA, as they have the resources most churches don’t have for particular tasks.
November 27th, 2011 | 1:40 pm
As a gay activist who strongly supports gay marriage, I tend to listen for nuance and balance in any particular group’s message: not everyone is Wesboro Baptist, after all.
Their statement on same-sex marriage was a Biblical and spiritual one: I heard no statement regarding civil legislation on gay marriage. Nor did I hear anything about throwing gays in jail.
Let the SA continue doing what they’re doing.
I belong to a church where I’m certain a good percentage of members believe that Jews will not be “saved”. While I find this notion appalling, I also know that the church does real and measurable good in their communities to Christian and non-Christian alike, and their beliefs about Jews (and really all non-Christians) is not a motivating factor in their works or even often brought up … so I’m willing to overlook the beliefs of those I find distasteful.
November 27th, 2011 | 2:04 pm
I don’t think you wrote a rant. but I don’t understand how your post offers a “perfectly reasonable explanation” either
It makes perfect sense as soon as you stop thinking of “hate” or “hateful” as somehow having to do with behaviors.
It doesn’t matter that the Salvation Army has not done anything violent, vicious, illegal, or even anything outside the legitimate political process. Behavior is irrelevant; even the best behavior is ‘hateful’ if you’re not in favor of gay rights, and even the most vicious behavior is not ‘hateful’ if you are.
It’s a common left wing strategy: you take an emotionally loaded word (“hate”, “bigotry”) and apply it in a new and novel way – so that you’re actually changing what the word means, but people are still responding to the word’s old meaning, so you can win an argument through trickery. Very useful when you don’t have merit on your side (if gay rights advocates could present a persuasive argument, they wouldn’t have to rely almost exclusively on ad hominem “those people are contagious! SHUN THEM! QUARANTINE THEM! WAGE WAR ON THEM, BEFORE THEY GET THEIR SICKNESS ON YOUR CHILDREN!”)
November 27th, 2011 | 2:24 pm
out of curiosity, do you grant that the original claim in the huffpo article (the salvation army does not give aid to gays/lesbians) was false, perhaps even slanderous? if so, why was it not worth mentioning before attempting to improve the original argument?
kristin,
I do not see in the article an accusation that the Salvation Army, in it’s charitable work, does not provide things like food or disaster aid to gays and lesbians. It is as an employer and a lobbying group that the Salvation Army opposes gay rights, very similarly to the Catholic Church. Of course, from their own point of view, and from the point of view of other Christians who oppose gay rights, they are simply carrying out their Christian mission. My point is that for those who favor gay rights and don’t agree with the Salvation Army’s opposition, it is perfectly reasonable to have at least second thoughts against making donations to them. Now, one who believes in gay rights but thinks that the charitable work of the Salvation Army is so important that the church’s position and actions against gay rights are so valuable as to outweigh its anti-gay-rights stance might reasonable make donations to the Salvation Army.
November 27th, 2011 | 2:50 pm
pentamom,
I think a lot of people don’t fully understand that the Salvation Army is not merely a charitable organization, but a church. If one belongs to a Protestant church with views similar to that of the Salvation Army, and one’s own church does not have the resources to do the charitable work of the Salvation Army, then it would certainly make sense to consider charitable donations to the Salvation Army. For large Protestant churches that have their own major charitable operations, or for Catholics who have charities that do the same thing as the Salvation Army (Society of St. Vincent de Paul, Catholic Charities, Catholic Relief Services), I would think it makes sense to support the charities of your own church.
I don’t know about you, but I know of many more worthy charities than I can possibly give donations to. It is not a difficult decision for me not to give to the Salvation Army. By all accounts I can find, it is a well run, effective charity that does much good. I am not suggesting that anyone who agrees with the values of the Salvation Army should not donate to it. I am making the simple point that for people who advocate gay rights, the Salvation Army is a church that works against them, and it is quite natural to take that into consideration when doing one’s charitable giving.
November 27th, 2011 | 6:19 pm
(if gay rights advocates could present a persuasive argument, they wouldn’t have to rely almost exclusively on ad hominem “those people are contagious! SHUN THEM! QUARANTINE THEM! WAGE WAR ON THEM, BEFORE THEY GET THEIR SICKNESS ON YOUR CHILDREN!”)
Blake,
You’re the only one here who is screaming.
November 27th, 2011 | 6:28 pm
hi david,
thanks for responding to my question.
you wrote:
“I do not see in the article an accusation that the Salvation Army, in it’s charitable work, does not provide things like food or disaster aid to gays and lesbians.”
did you see the comment by browning that was quoted in the original post:
“While you might think you’re helping the hungry and homeless by dropping a few dollars in the bright red buckets, not everyone can share in the donations.”
how do you interpret this statement?
best,
kristan
November 27th, 2011 | 7:11 pm
how do you interpret this statement?
kristan,
I note that in Bil Browning’s piece, he says:
I have read a couple of other stories in which it was alleged that aid from the Salvation Army was withheld because the potential recipients were gay. However, I take the Salvation Army at its word that its policy is not to discriminate against gays and lesbians in its charitable work. Also, I would say a Christian charity is within its rights not to provide shelter for a couple it believes will have illicit sex, although I would certainly hope that charities in general do not take it upon themselves when providing emergency shelter to make sure no illicit sex occurs.
In any case, the case against the Salvation Army in my opinion is that they discriminate against gays and lesbians in hiring, and the church or prominent members of the church use their influence to lobby against gay rights legislation. As a religious organization, it is their right to do so, but you can’t blame people who are in favor of gay rights for not being happy about it.
November 27th, 2011 | 7:27 pm
You’re the only one here who is screaming.
I’m not screaming. I’m singing.
I learned the “Christians Have Cooties!” song back when I was attending a so-called “welcoming” church.
The Salvation Army is really scary to those who think they believe in “tolerance” and “coexistence”, isn’t it?
November 27th, 2011 | 9:38 pm
On the local NPR station in Detroit, there was a piece on a Human Rights Campaign’s recent ordinance for the upper middle class resort town of Traverse City, MI. The station interviewed a Christian opponent who expressed the imminent and legitimate concern for the religious liberty to practice the Christian faith. The HRC representative was suprisingly candid — she said that that is the price for equality and “justice.” Of course she wasn’t paying it. The station’s newsreader made no comment. She didn’t have to.
Mr. Nickel only a propagandist would deny that there is a highly organized and well-funded campaign to destroy religious liberty in this country. The arguments on this site can get fairly heated, but they are among people who for the most part respect faith and the diversity of orthodoxy. You are winning not only the war for the institutions but for the media and the culture. It is only a matter of time before you get your way completely. Show the decency of leaving us alone.
Or is internet freedom the next to go. I’ve come to define a liberal-leftist as someone who is frantic that somewhere, somehow, someone is having an unaffiliated thought of his own.
November 27th, 2011 | 11:11 pm
David
Would the Salvation Army also refuse an unmarried, heterosexual couple permission to sleep together? If so, I’m not sure how that example of the homosexual couple is valid: SA are not denying homosexuals per se so much as people who don’t live according to their ethical code. I’m not saying SA are in fact that consistent, but I have read a lot of arguments of the sort you cite that refuse to allow that SA CAN be consistent for doing so.
I also wonder how independent some SA “parishes” are from others. It could be unfair to tar all of them w/the same brush as the NY SA of the 1970s if they’re more like the Baptists in their organization than like the Catholics.
(Incidentally, I give to St. Vincent dePaul myself.)
November 28th, 2011 | 12:36 am
hi david,
thanks again for your reply.
I understand your position. however, I was asking how you interpreted the statement in the article. given the other quote you culled from browning’s piece, his meaning is obvious to you as well: the salvation army, as a result of its discriminatory beliefs, refuses charitable aid to homosexuals.
I appreciate that you don’t accept this claim (at least beyond the anecdotal). however, let’s start with joseph’s original post and go from there. the argument espoused in the huffpo article is that the salvation army is bad for gays on three grounds:
1. they do not disburse charitable aid to homosexual folks (per browning’s claim)
2. their personnel procedures and lobbying are anti-gay
3. their doctrine is traditionally Christian, that is they believe that a homosexual lifestyle is sinful.
note that the first of these also comes rather close to directly contradicting Christian doctrine.
anyway, I think it’s fairly obvious that (1) is an order of magnitude more compelling to folks like yourself than (2) or (3). that’s the reason why that claim is there. that’s the reason why that claim is important.
by skipping to the argument you find persuasive, I think you’re missing the point of joseph’s post. and that is the deployment of a false claim, (1), above. the modus operandi of browning (and many commenters of the huffpo page) goes beyond “we disagree on a matter of conviction; I’d rather put my money elsewhere.” it is to discredit the very mindset and beliefs of folks like those in the salvation army. they do awful things because of awful things they believe.
[one minor point: it is tempting to excuse browning of his slander on the basis of his experience with uncharitable folks in the salvation army; but this is obviously flawed. if I thought all catholics were unloving because a priest refused me -- a protestant -- communion, that would represent a deficiency of love and intellect on my part.]
as I understood it, that modus operandi was the thing that caught joseph’s eye in the original post. I hope he corrects me if I’m wrong.
happy sunday.
best,
kristan
November 28th, 2011 | 12:54 am
Graham Combs,
Are you claiming that not giving to the Salvation Army is an attack on religious liberty? Would you say the same about not giving to Planned Parenthood? Or boycotting corporations that support Planned Parenthood? Or not giving to charities that support embryonic stem-cell research?
November 28th, 2011 | 1:13 am
Jack,
While searching the web for information about the Salvation Army, I came across this, which I don’t doubt is true of at least the part of the Salvation Army the writer was familiar with:
Also, in the Wikipedia quote I reproduced above, we are told that “the Salvation Army approved a plan in October 2001 to start offering domestic-partnership benefits to gay employees” but never implemented the plan, apparently because of outside pressure.
November 28th, 2011 | 9:22 am
Joseph Knippenberg: Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I am persuaded to give more attention to red kettles in hope that the 97%-98% of the homeless and hungry are not denied comfort due to a generalized allegation by the 2%-3%.
November 28th, 2011 | 9:58 am
1. they do not disburse charitable aid to homosexual folks (per browning’s claim)
2. their personnel procedures and lobbying are anti-gay
3. their doctrine is traditionally Christian, that is they believe that a homosexual lifestyle is sinful.
kristan,
The spokesperson for the Salvation Army gives, in my opinion, a satisfactory response to (1), does not touch on (2), and gives a reasonable response to (3).
Since I am aware of the Salvation Army’s efforts against gay rights, in part by reason of having been in New York when the Salvation Army fought Mayor Ed Koch’s executive order prohibiting discrimination in hiring, it is (2) that most concerns me. The Salvation Army (and the Catholic Church) fought for the right to discriminate in hiring in carrying out work they were doing with government funds.
I do not endorse every complaint against the Salvation Army, and if it was Joseph Knippenberg’s sole purpose to refute the charge that the Salvation Army discriminates against gay people in its charitable works, then I have no quarrel with his post. In my comments I have focused on (2), which for me, personally, is enough to keep me from donating to the Salvation Army. Some might find (3) sufficient reason not to donate to the Salvation Army. I don’t have to think deeply about that, since (2) is the determining factor.
It may be somewhat inconsistent of me, but I do donate to Catholic Relief Services. The Salvation Army no doubt does a lot of good work, but as I have said a number of times, I am aware of many more worthy charities than I can possibly contribute to. If the Salvation Army were doing work that no one else does, and if I felt that work was vital, I might very well overlook their attitude and actions against gay rights. But there are so many worthy charities, deciding whether or not to donate to the Salvation Army is not a dilemma for me.
I do object to Joseph Knippenberg’s saying, “I wish the advocates for gay and lesbian interests would seriously engage with those traditions, instead of defaulting to accusations of hatred.” I saw no accusations of hatred in the linked articles, and even if some gay advocates go overboard in their accusations, some opponents of gay rights go overboard as well. I am not accusing the Salvation Army or any other conservative Christians of ipso facto hating gay people because they oppose gay rights. As for “engaging with those traditions,” there are endless discussions in almost every forum I have ever participated in about whether the conservative Christian position on homosexuality is correct. I don’t think it is, but I don’t take the position that Christians who hold that position necessarily “hate” gay people. But it would be foolish to maintain that hatred of gay people is a figment of gay-rights-advocates’ imaginations. People are still bullied, harassed, beaten, and even killed because they are gay.
November 28th, 2011 | 10:46 am
Barry Arrington and SteveP,
You can donate to the Salvation Army online here. Let me know when you have done so.
November 28th, 2011 | 11:24 am
Barry
David Nickol, your rant has convinced me, convinced me to rush out and drop some money in one of those kettles. Thanks.
There does seem to be a double standard here. The Salvation Army considers giving employees who are in same-sex relationships benefits , Focus on the Family screams and demands people punish it by donating elsewhere. That’s OK. A supporter of gay rights, though, urges more or less the same thing and that’s ‘hate’ and ‘a rant’?
pentamom
You say that as though it’s some kind of new thought we needed to hear, but I can’t imagine anyone who has a close tie to a church *not* merely “considering” that, but having that as a normal practice. Most people actively involved in a church do give there “before” giving to SA or some other group.
May not be a ‘new thought’ but it is something that might be helpful to keep in mind. The SA is, in fact, a Church but it may be easy to forget that and view them as simply a do-gooder type secular charity because they are very low key about their religion. Baptists who would never give to a Catholic Church or Catholics who’d never give to a ‘Protestant’ one both often give to the SA without thinking about that. If, though, you think theology and doctrines are very important then maybe one should consider giving to charitable operations their own churches (whether they are pro or anti-gay relationships) are doing before ‘mindlessly’ giving to the SA. Somehow I just don’t see a lot of bad coming from people putting a tad more thought and research into where they donate.
James
Their statement on same-sex marriage was a Biblical and spiritual one: I heard no statement regarding civil legislation on gay marriage. Nor did I hear anything about throwing gays in jail.
I agree here, except for the claim that they ‘lobby’ in foreign countries for laws making gay relationships illegal. Is this, in fact, true? If it is, esp. for the rather loathsome anti-gay campaigns Nigeria has been having recently it would seriously make me reconsider giving. On the other hand, I find it hard to believe because the SA cultivates such a low key approach to everything that’s not direct charity.
Jack
Would the Salvation Army also refuse an unmarried, heterosexual couple permission to sleep together? If so, I’m not sure how that example of the homosexual couple is valid:
It’s nice that you think you get to decide what is and isn’t a ‘valid concern’ when you’re talking about other people’s money! I for one, would be less inclined to donate to a charity that provided emergancy housing for either homeless people or diaster victims if it first ‘screened’ them for violating Christian rules about sex. I don’t object to charities that incorporate their religion into their work. I don’t object, for example, a Catholic charity that ran a soup kitchen that required all who got a meal there to listen to a sermon from a priest on the virtues of the Catholic faith. But I don’t think it would be hateful if someone who didn’t share that faith, say a Baptist or Jew, choose to donate elsewhere as a result.
The fact is the SA appears to be a secular charity, an image they cultivate for obvious reasons. But its fair for those donating to it to ask are they such or are they not? If opening up on that means a few less donations to the SA and a few more to other outfits like the Red Cross then so be it. I don’t think that’s ‘driving’ anyone out of business or forcing anyone to do anything. As you point out, while some may not want to donates others might be willing to give more to a charity that is ‘mildly religious but not overbearing about it’.
There’s an element of having one’s cake and eating it too going on here. A religiously based charity can choose to appeal almost exclusively to fellow believers, or it can appeal to everyone. Both have pros and cons. If you want a lot of donations, you probably need to take a secular approach to your charity. But this may turn off fervent believers of your faith who will see this as ‘watering it down’. A large Catholic charity may strip almost all religious references to itself in its appeal while a ‘very Catholic’ will do the opposite (think of a strict Baptist getting one appeal from a charity showing a large Church with a plain cross talking about the new children’s cancer ward they want to open….and another one drenched in images of saints, the Virgin Mary and pictures of the Pope). But while tempting it maybe, a religious charity doesn’t have a right to have it both ways. If its going to appeal to the general public as a non-denominational charity, then that’s what donars will expect. If they learn that they are really a bit less non-denominational than they appear they will question that and rightly so.
David
Also, in the Wikipedia quote I reproduced above, we are told that “the Salvation Army approved a plan in October 2001 to start offering domestic-partnership benefits to gay employees” but never implemented the plan, apparently because of outside pressure.
So confirming the double standard. If a few people even dare to ask the SA to be more open to gays, that’s a horrible terrorist campaign to destroy religious liberty! But yet the SA could be forced by ‘outside pressure’ to delay an internal policy and that’s not the religious right infringing upon liberty!
November 28th, 2011 | 12:02 pm
Barry
It’s nice that you think you get to decide what is and isn’t a ‘valid concern’ when you’re talking about other people’s money!
I didn’t use the phrase, “valid concern”; that’s all you. If you want to get worked up over that, that’s fine.
I merely refer to what is consistent activity on the part of SA. I’m more concerned with a valid argument, and I didn’t think David was making one there.
I for one, would be less inclined to donate to a charity that provided emergancy housing for either homeless people or diaster victims if it first ‘screened’ them for violating Christian rules about sex.
I would object to active screening, but that is not the point (nor is it clear to me from the example that SA were “actively” screening, but I’ll put that aside for the sake of argument).
My question is whether it’s reasonable to scream “homophobia” merely because a gay couple was asked to split up, when an unmarried, heterosexual couple might be asked to split up, as well. Those who want to normalize homosexuality essentially base their accusations of homophobia against Christian groups on the assumption that Christians tolerate irregular sexual relationships and activities unless they are homosexual relationships. I happen to think that’s a salient argument, when true; for example, I find it perplexing that conservative Episcopalians get worked up about gay bishops, but not about their denomination’s tolerance for abortion. I don’t sympathize with the attempt to intimidate them out of their beliefs by name-calling, but I do find it odd.
On the other hand, a lot of Christians who do not accept homosexual relationships are somewhat more rigorous in their sexual ethics; Catholic priests, for example, are not allowed to marry homosexuals, but neither may they marry a heterosexual couple that has been living together outside marriage. That does not strike me as discriminatory. I don’t know what the situation is with the SA, and David spoke as if he knew quite a bit about it, having mentioned the situation in NY 35 years ago. Hence my questioning, and while David’s answer didn’t satisfy me, I understand that he doesn’t really know, either.
November 28th, 2011 | 12:12 pm
Boonton — the comparison to Catholics vs. Protestants giving to one another’s churches isn’t quite valid, since the red kettle money only goes for the SA’s social service activities, not for its church buildings or more “churchly” activities.
In fact, (here goes my personal can of worms) if I thought the money was going to the religious aspect of the SA, I wouldn’t give them a dime, since the Salvation Army is actually not a church according to the definition of my theological tradition, as they refuse to practice the sacraments (for reasons which they defend on principle, but still do not do away with my concern.) And an institution that calls itself a church but is not one, is not one that would get my aid for any of its “churchly” activities. However, they are one of the best out there are caring for the indigent and severely disadvantaged, so they can certainly get a few mites out of my abundance now and then.
Anyone who thinks that the SA is a “secular charity” in the sense of having no religious ties isn’t thinking too hard — the word “salvation” really ought to set off a light bulb and raise a question. But giving to their social programs is not the same as giving to the religious organization that most of neither their clients, nor their volunteers, nor their employees, are affiliated with. Only a small proportion of the people who raise funds and provide services with SA are religious SA members.
November 28th, 2011 | 12:12 pm
Boonton,
Excellent points all.
Joseph Knippenberg says, “I wish the advocates for gay and lesbian interests would seriously engage with those traditions, instead of defaulting to accusations of hatred.” Well, I wish the anti-gay-rights Christians would consider the best arguments from gay-rights advocates instead of trolling news sources and blogs for things to be outraged about.
November 28th, 2011 | 12:35 pm
Jack:
I merely refer to what is consistent activity on the part of SA. I’m more concerned with a valid argument, and I didn’t think David was making one there.
I think that would be a valid argument against David if he said his primary concern was consistency and wanted to donate to a charity that was more consistent than the SA. He posted that gay rights is one of his concerns so he would take that into account when deciding to give to the SA versus any other charity. Why is this not ‘valid’?
My question is whether it’s reasonable to scream “homophobia” merely because a gay couple was asked to split up, when an unmarried, heterosexual couple might be asked to split up, as well.
It may or may not be over the top. I find it objectionable to use someone in a desperate circumstance (being hungry, being homeless etc) to try to force some theological change in them. I would be equally aghast at, say, a gay charity that entered a Red State type area that suffered a diaster holding out food and shelter to desperate people only to tell them that they first must support SSM. I think in that respect many religious charities share a similiar point of view.
On the other hand, a lot of Christians who do not accept homosexual relationships are somewhat more rigorous in their sexual ethics; Catholic priests, for example, are not allowed to marry homosexuals, but neither may they marry a heterosexual couple that has been living together outside marriage. That does not strike me as discriminatory.
No I don’t think its discriminatory. Those are the current doctrines of the Catholic Church, if you don’t like them then get married elsewhere. But churches often enter secular life and then rules do change a bit. Just suppose for the fun of it that the Catholic Church decided to buy Taco Bell and run it as a profit making business open to the general public. If they let in everyone except known gays, well then I would say that’s discriminatory. Likewise I would say a charity that’s set up to be secular has to operate on more secular rules than one that isn’t otherwise its going to get its more secular orientated donars to start questioning it. It would be one thing if it wanted to convert every Taco Bell into a Church for Catholics only. Long story short its hard to be both a floor wax and a desert topping.
November 28th, 2011 | 1:53 pm
Boonton,
He posted that gay rights is one of his concerns so he would take that into account when deciding to give to the SA versus any other charity. Why is this not ‘valid’?
The specific example to which I was responding would not be a gay rights issue if the extension I suggested were in fact true.
November 28th, 2011 | 2:27 pm
pentamom
Boonton — the comparison to Catholics vs. Protestants giving to one another’s churches isn’t quite valid, since the red kettle money only goes for the SA’s social service activities, not for its church buildings or more “churchly” activities
That’s good to know and is in line with a ‘secular charity’ model that many churches do to appeal to a donar base beyond their actual believers. There’s a slew of Catholic charities that range from the more or less secular types to highly religious orientated.
In fact, (here goes my personal can of worms) if I thought the money was going to the religious aspect of the SA, I wouldn’t give them a dime, since the Salvation Army is actually not a church according to the definition of my theological tradition, as they refuse to practice the sacraments
For a while I was reading a lot of Chesterton both because he is good to read and also free on the Kindel I got for my birthday….I recall reading a line where he bashed the SA which struck me as really odd since the SA seems so mild and friendly but then I figured there had to be a bit more to the whole SA thing than a friendly charity.
Anyone who thinks that the SA is a “secular charity” in the sense of having no religious ties isn’t thinking too hard — the word “salvation” really ought to set off a light bulb and raise a question.
When you use or see a word over and over again it begins to lose its meaning and become more of a brand. Salvation can also have a secular meaning, esp. for a charity (think of bringing food and shelter to someone starving on the street).
November 28th, 2011 | 4:15 pm
Boonton — the word CAN mean that. Have you ever actually HEARD of the word being used that way in common practice? Wouldn’t most people at least wonder, not usually hearing the word “salvation” used for the idea of feeding and sheltering people? Do charities really go around saying, “We offer people salvation” when ALL they mean is food and shelter?
November 28th, 2011 | 5:24 pm
pentamom,
The point, for me anyway, is that I think many people don’t know the Salvation Army is a church. I think many people think of them as a charity that collects money for good works at Christmastime. I have no idea what the Salvation Army does, aside from its charity work. Do they have church buildings? Do they have Sunday services? I really don’t know. I have never met anyone or worked with anyone who said their religion was the Salvation Army.
November 28th, 2011 | 5:57 pm
David Nickol: While I thank you for your attempt to facilitate almsgiving, I really do prefer the red kettles: my understanding is that the bell ringers are volunteers from local congregations or fraternal organizations; the collection is split between the ringer’s organization and the SA. The situation may be specific to this locality.
November 28th, 2011 | 7:24 pm
Mr. Nickol (and everyone else sincerely curious) an excellent history of the beginnings of the Salvation Army is “General Next to God.” It is a biography of its founder, William Booth.
It is my understanding, from the book, from reading signs on Salvation Army buildings, from their web site, and from what my parents have told me (Both have had extensive dealings with Salvation Army officers.), that the Salvation Army local churches are called “missions.” They have Sunday morning services, like other Christian churches. The missions are usually built for more than religious purposes, and the Sunday services may be held in rooms where soup is served to the poor at lunch time, or AA meets four evenings each week, etc.
The Salvation Army has always had a broader donor base than those who regularly attend its religious services and/or receive its social services. Early supporters with cash and professional services were English Anglicans, Catholics, and dissenters. (The Army’s beliefs are Holiness/Methodist in their closest origins.) Some early missions were self-supporting, making goods like soap, matches, and uniforms that the Army could both use and sell. This also provided jobs for the down-and-out the Army helped. In addition, within a few years (if I remember correctly) of its founding, the Army was using soup kettles to collect donations from all passersby, including the drunks and gamblers who populated San Francisco’s Barbary Coast, which is where the soup kettles were first used to collect donations.
November 28th, 2011 | 9:35 pm
I wonder if too much is being made about the need for couples to “split up” for the night at a shelter.
I think that many homeless shelters are segregated by sex, so heterosexual couples (married or not) sometimes have no choice but to “split up” if they need to stay. Some shelters are for families only, so single men and women cannot go there, either. I have worked for a charity that provides dinners for anyone, but its homeless shelter is only for single men. They do what they can, but they can’t do everything.
Most shelters have rules—no alcohol, no drugs, no fighting, no thieving, etc. Probably no sexual activity, too. They have to be out by 8 AM. They have to be actively looking for work. I am sure many people would find this objectionable, too.
November 28th, 2011 | 10:08 pm
For the last several years, my parish has taken that first week after Thanksgiving and supplied volunteers to ring the bell for the Salvation Army kettle at the local supermarket.
100% of the collection goes to their outreach missions. We split nothing, but do it because it’s the right thing to do.
November 29th, 2011 | 7:36 am
The point, for me anyway, is that I think many people don’t know the Salvation Army is a church.
The words “salvation army” clearly indicate a church.
It is not unreasonable to expect citizens to have a basic grasp of the English language, or a basic familiarity with the history of America – in either case, they will know the Salvation Army is religious.
At what point does one person’s ignorance become someone else’s responsibility?
November 29th, 2011 | 8:51 am
The point, for me anyway, is that I think many people don’t know the Salvation Army is a church.
I was thinking about this, and you know I might have a perfect solution: we could make them carry warning labels, so that people who want to shun them – or people who worry that Christians have too much influence over the world economy – can know them for what they are, and make sure they are marked out so that decent people will know better than to do business with them.
It would be appropriate, since it was a Christian who first started the idea of “warning labels” on people:
What do you think? Are humanists on the same level, psychologically, as Christians were in 1215?
November 29th, 2011 | 12:31 pm
The words “salvation army” clearly indicate a church.
Actually, they clearly indicate an army.
November 29th, 2011 | 2:11 pm
The words “salvation army” clearly indicate a church.
Actually, they clearly indicate an army.
An army that is focused on the salvation of souls.
Which is what they are.
November 29th, 2011 | 4:07 pm
By this reasoning we should also assume the Lord’s Resistance Army of the Congo and Uganda is also a Church.
November 29th, 2011 | 4:35 pm
By this reasoning we should also assume the Lord’s Resistance Army of the Congo and Uganda is also a Church.
That doesn’t follow logically.
The credibility of the Salvation Army is that they do in fact do good work, and are one of the best and most respected charities in America. That is why they are allowed to ring their bell at local stores, and why people donate money.
If you drop money into their kettle, that money will be used for charitable purposes.
There is no reason why they need to be clearly labeled as a “church”, for three reasons:
1. Their name clearly indicates a religious association.
2. Anyone old enough to be donating money is also old enough to take responsibility for knowing where their money goes
3. There’s nothing wrong with being a church, and no reason why churches should be singled out as having to be marked or labeled as such. Unless of course the people who hate and fear churches are seriously arguing that churches need to be stigmatized, which seems to be what you are suggesting.
November 29th, 2011 | 7:00 pm
The credibility of the Salvation Army is that they do in fact do good work, and are one of the best and most respected charities in America….
We aren’t talking about the work the SA does. We are talking about what a reasonable person would guess by just hearing their name alone. You may recall you wrote:
The words “salvation army” clearly indicate a church.
You also wrote:
It is not unreasonable to expect citizens to have a basic grasp of the English language, or a basic familiarity with the history of America – in either case, they will know the Salvation Army is religious.
So clearly you were talking about language alone. Ohhh and also a ‘basic history of America’. Which is amusing since the Salvation Army’s origins isn’t America but England. It’s hard to keep up sometimes when these comments are coming fast and furious, but do try to keep up with your own. Commentators who blithly make Nazi comparisions are fair game to have any and all errors called out on them without mercy.
November 30th, 2011 | 4:41 am
We aren’t talking about the work the SA does.
I thought we were talking about why some people apparently feel the Salvation Army should be marked out as a church, so that those who feel church people should be treated differently (in a bad way) can know better than to interact with them on a normal basis.
November 30th, 2011 | 11:12 am
I thought we were talking about why some people apparently feel the Salvation Army should be marked out as a church, so that those who feel church people should be treated differently (in a bad way) can know better than to interact with them on a normal basis.
Blake,
This is yet another example of you reacting to your own invented arguments rather than to what people say. I said: “The Salvation Army is a church. One might consider giving to one’s own church before giving to the Salvation Army.” I never suggested that the Salvation Army should be identified as a church so that people who disapprove of churches can know to avoid it.
November 30th, 2011 | 1:58 pm
This is yet another example of you reacting to your own invented arguments rather than to what people say. I said: “The Salvation Army is a church. One might consider giving to one’s own church before giving to the Salvation Army.” I never suggested that the Salvation Army should be identified as a church so that people who disapprove of churches can know to avoid it.
I had rather gotten the impression that “the point” involved some general principle that humanists apparently believe in, that any group collecting donations from the public with which to do good works is obliged to submit to humanist values as a precondition for being allowed to exist (or at least being allowed to operate without restrictions).
My apologies if you didn’t actually mean to make any negative insinuations about the Salvation Army. Of course they don’t believe what you believe – but I’m glad if you agree that this is not a bad thing.
December 1st, 2011 | 12:35 pm
I thought we were talking about why some people apparently feel the Salvation Army should be marked out as a church, so that those who feel church people should be treated differently (in a bad way) can know better than to interact with them on a normal basis.
No one said they should be ‘marked out’ as a church. The closest I saw on this blog were a few people who said that people should be aware that that they are a church, and also people who belong to churches of their own should be aware of the charitable programs those churches may have. Curious how you manage to equate this to Nazism.
I had rather gotten the impression that “the point” involved some general principle that humanists apparently believe in, that any group collecting donations from the public with which to do good works is obliged to submit to humanist values as a precondition for being allowed to exist (or at least being allowed to operate without restrictions).
You seem to get that impression not based on anything anyone says but by your own imagination’s desire to puff up your already chronic condition of self-righteousness.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact