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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Actually, they clearly indicate an army.

An army that is focused on the salvation of souls.

Which is what they are.

Actually, they clearly indicate an army.

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:

The Nazis rarely had an original idea. Almost always what made the Nazi policies different was that they intensified, magnified, and institutionalized the age-old methods of persecution.

The oldest reference to using mandatory articles of clothing to identify and distinguish Jews from the rest of society was in 807 CE. In this year, Abbassid caliph Haroun al-Raschid ordered all Jews to wear a yellow belt and a tall, cone-like hat.1

But it was in 1215 that the Fourth Lateran Council, presided over by Pope Innocent III, made its infamous decree. Canon 68 declared:

Jews and Saracens [Muslims] of both sexes in every Christian province and at all times shall be marked off in the eyes of the public from other peoples through the character of their dress.2

What do you think? Are humanists on the same level, psychologically, as Christians were in 1215?