So what's so bad about The Salvation Army anyway?

[Bennyboy]

Yeah they are a very christian group, I get that. Not unusual when it comes to charity. We may dislike organized religion but they do a big ass lot of good things too.

I've found no evidence that they discriminate in who they serve, but incomplete evidence on hiring, and the corporate structure, workplace....

I've only seen that they are rated an A as far as the money going to serve rather than overhead and executive salaries.

Do they, as does Goodwill in some places, use handicapped workers that are exempt from worker/minimum wage laws due to a loophole and then pay them $1.81 an hour? (I have found no evidence of this even though that loophole is applicable)

Yeah, one guy in Australia went off his rocker with the "Gays must die" comments, but that was quickly denounced by leadership.....

So let me know what is so bad about the Salvation Armey.....

[Tigress DEM]

1. I'm with you. I don't know.

I do believe in the past and maybe now, the participants in some cases might be required to spend some time in church. In the past definitely.

But that's about as bad as having to sit through a time share spiel that you know you are never going to buy for a free weekend.

[NYC_SKP]

2. Here's a snopes article on the matter:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/sexuality/salvationarmy.asp

I think they catch hell every holiday season, not sure if it's deserved to the extent of boycotting them entirely.

[Schema Thing]

3. AK-47s? chopping off the hands of children?

oh wait, that's the Lord's Resistance Army.


I don't know. Do we hate them here on DU? I'm in for whatever we are currently hating.

Down with the militarization of religious charity!

[A HERETIC I AM]

4. "I'm in for whatever we are currently hating. "

[Brigid]

16. So when is Hate Week?

I just love Hate Week.

[Mopar151]

96. Fifth Tuesday in Febuary! n/t

[hfojvt]

17. unfortunately

I think we are currently hating those who are in for whatever we are currently hating. Buncha fakers without the real burning hate required to be a party member. How I hate them.

[Schema Thing]

26. goddammit!

I'm a perpetual outsider!

[FrodosPet]

109. You too?

Following your own path in life is a lonely place. A clique of one!

OTOH, it gives you a sense of pride when you know your opinions are YOUR opinions.

[Ms. Toad]

5. You are correct in that they do not discriminate in who they serve.

But they do discriminate in hiring, corporate structure, and workplace - and in the past have sent back "tainted" gay money.

Part of implementing that philosophy also depends on local governance. When we hosted a large conference and had food leftover, we searched for anyplace who would accept it - rather than toss it in the trash. Most places would not because we could not verify that it had been prepared (and maintained) in accordance with strict health code standards. The local Salvation Army welcomed it. This was just after the national powers that be had returned a large donation from an openly gay individual. We made clear that the food was coming from an LGBT faith organization, and it didn't make any difference to them - it was food and they had hungry people to serve.

So - while I have absolutely no problem with any individual or group choosing to donate their resources elsewhere, I am more inclined to provide resources which reach hungry people - and it is often organizations with whom I disagree on LGBT matters who do this most efficiently - including the Salvation Army.

I'm gearing up to bake about 20 pies which will end up being served by a shelter which would not hire me (as a lesbian), and every year I donate my spare change to the Salvation Army. Both because it is an efficient use of my charitable resources - and in honor of my grandfather who was a bell ringer for years.

[liberal_at_heart]

108. local shelters and food banks are a much more efficient use of charitable resources.

[Ms. Toad]

123. The Salvation Army is local to the communities they serve.

The food we provided went directly to feed hungry people in our community, and kettle collections are used to serve the local community. Between 84 and 90 cents of every dollar goes to services (depending on which charity watch site I check). Better than some, worse than others.

But my point wasn't that local shelters and food banks aren't more efficient than an entity with a national name - but that many of those (as well as the Salvation Army) are run by people who believe I am going to hell. We progressives are (on average) better at talking about equality and justice than we are at putting food in tummies and providing shelter. So since I'm not in a position to run a food bank or a shelter, I contribute to those that do - which as often as not - has very different political and religious beliefs than I do.

So - I'm in the midst of baking 20 pies (or by now 30, since I have recruited a few more pumpkins than I needed) which will be served on Thanksgiving day at the Haven of Rest, a local Christian shelter & soup kitchen, which serves a Thanksgiving meal to anyone who shows up. They wouldn't hire me, or allow me to serve on their board, but they are doing work which needs to be done - and work which isn't being done so much by organizations with which I am aligned in other ways.

[Yo_Mama]

6. I give to it, because so much of the money goes straight to those who need it.

I'm not interested as to why charitable groups do what they do, but rather as to how much of their money actually gets to people in need and whether the charitable group is focused toward the most needy among us. SA satisfies both those tests for me.

Locally we have an umbrella group that's not affiliated with any one place that brings together a bunch of churches and community orgs, and I give to that.

[840high]

101. I give to them for

same reason. They benefit an enormous group of people.

[JNelson6563]

7. You're all homophobes.

Just wait, someone will be around to tell all of you what homophobes you are for supporting SA. If you even acknowledge that they do some good, you're a homophobe.

I've been down this path on DU so many times it ain't even funny. Well, actually it is. Funny and sad at the same time.

Julie

[Warren Stupidity]

12. Lbgtq rights are a fucking joke?

Thanks for sharing. I find the ongoing struggle to end bigotry and discrimination ludicrous too.

Oh wait, this isn't freerepublic?

[hfojvt]

19. no, the "joke" is

how apparently some people think they can advance lbgtq rights (or any other cause) by spewing hatred and calling names at anyone who is not sufficiently "pure" and doesn't see things the same way they do.

At least that's what J was trying to say, and I agree.

[el_bryanto]

23. If people aren't punished for being bigoted, then they have no incentive to stop being bigoted

Or that's how the argument goes. It is a tricky one for me, because I do think that if I want to help poor people giving them money gives me a fair amount of bang for my buck, but I can certainly understand the other argument as well.

Bryant

[hfojvt]

29. I think it is a weak argument

first of all what is "bigoted"?

Oh, wait, you are talking about the Salvation Army. Which is an organization, and not a "people". I am thinking of the people who continue to support the SA. Are THEY bigotted because they want to help poor people? Should they be "punished" by being called names?

It goes like this

Person X - The Salvation Army should be boycotted because they are homophobic.
Person Y - I support the SA because they help lots of people.
Person X - You are a homophobe.
Person Y - That is funny, and sad.

My question is, does the (perhaps mythical) Person X help his/her cause or hurt it by doing what they do? I would say they hurt it because there is almost no way that Person Y will ever respond with "I am now persuaded to help person X with their cause". They are far more likely to think, and perhaps even say "Wow, this person X sure is a self-righteous a$$hole."

But that's what a lot of people say about me too, so what do I know? It's not like I know how to make friends and influence people.

[eqfan592]

34. Given that there are plenty of orgs out there to donate to...

...that don't discriminate, I see exactly zero excuse for donating to one that does.

Now please, tell me how awful it is to be called out for supporting discriminatory organizations.

[hfojvt]

39. except I am donating time

and which are those other orgs? Somebody in years past mention "Toys for tots" so I started giving them a toy, but I am guessing that poor people need more help than just a few toys for their tots.

Kinda hard pressed to find an organization that allows me both to help and to use my musical skills, although I did practice piano at a nursing home for a time.

So where else am I supposed to donate my time, in somewhat limited quantity (a mere 4 hours a day, six weeks in a year)? And who else collects money a mere dollar (or handful of loose change) at a time? Instead of putting a dollar in the kettle, I should mail 50 cents to America's Second Harvest? (using the other 50 cents, of course, to recover my costs for the stamp, envelope and check).

And what happens to that dollar that people do NOT put in the kettle? Does it goto some other non-discriminatory organization? Really? Or is it just spent on a bottle of pop or a pack of gum?

[eqfan592]

42. I've donated and given time to the Red Cross, and worked/supported local...

...soup kitchens and food pantries. I seriously doubt there aren't similar places for you to give your time and money.

[Vashta Nerada]

31. +infinity.

If people aren't punished for being bigoted, then they have no incentive to stop being bigoted

You're exactly right.

[yawnmaster]

43. Wait...the only incentive to change is punishment???

If so, there are so many negative repercussions, I don't see how society can ever change!

I don't punishment is the only means of change. In fact, I believe it is one of the worst means for positive change.

[Vashta Nerada]

47. It's not the only incentive.

But it can help.

We do that to businesses all the time. If we don't like how a subset of people are treated by that business, we boycott said business until they lose money and change. It happened with Barilla a couple of months ago and it worked.

[yawnmaster]

126. businesses are not human and react differently to "punishment"...

businesses, for instance, will usually have a rational response to a fee or a boycott.
Human's react differently.
One must look much deeper than punishment as a solution to problems, for in fact, it may not help at all but actually make matters worse.

[yawnmaster]

45. Bryant, think about what you said, and please correct me if I misunderstand...

but in effect, you are saying that it can be argued that punishment is the only means for change, with bigots, at least.
I think it is dangerous as I think punishment is a poor means to positive change in many other systems, and I think that is probably true for bigotry, as well.

[el_bryanto]

51. Well it's not my argument; it's just me trying to understand the argument being applied

But I think it's sound enough. For one thing, how do you reward people for not being bigoted? Without an implied punishment?

Bryant

[yawnmaster]

127. you open avenues for acceptable behavior in a society...

or close avenues for those using unacceptable behavior.
And in the longer term, education and socialization.
It will not happen, of course, in a single generation.
We have to work towards creating a peer environment for which bigotry is not favored.

[el_bryanto]

128. Isn't closing avenues for bigots the same as punishing them? or how would it be different? nt

[Warren Stupidity]

76. "directing your money elsewhere" isn't exactly punishment.

It is not rewarding bigots. It is rewarding other organizations that do not discriminate.

[NuclearDem]

28. Ah, the "sufficient purity" meme.

Victim complex doesn't look good on people. The SA isn't the worst out there in terms of homophobia, but it does define marriage as heterosexual only.

Even if they aren't calling for the execution of gays, it's still homophobia.

[yardwork]

77. Pointing out homophobia = spewing hatred. Ohhowdull.

It must be Christmas time again. I open DU to learn that anybody who politely declines to put a quarter in the Salvation Army bucket is "spewing hatred."

If I don't support the Salvation Army no matter what, I'm "spewing hatred." Got it.

I didn't eat at Chik-Fil-A today either. I guess I was spewing hatred when I spent my money at Noodles instead.

[eqfan592]

81. Yep, it's about is big a pile of bullshit as I've ever seen.

One thing has become perfectly clear to me here on DU over the last few weeks; discrimination against LGBT's is still acceptable among progressives, so long as you or your organization are doing good things in other areas. But don't you dare question this, or else be accused of "spewing hatred"or trying to establish "purity tests."

[hfojvt]

121. it's not about "not putting a quarter in the bucket"

It's about "castigating people who DO put a quarter in a bucket". I, and J, were talking about "people who call other people names for supporting the Salvation Army". And yes, calling people names on the flimsiest of excuses is "spewing hatred".

It's one thing to point out the homophobia of the Salvation Army. It is another thing entirely to call me a homphobe simply because I DO put a quarter in the bucket, or because I volunteer some time to ring bells and play trumpet for them.

[Warren Stupidity]

130. the op asked what's so bad about the SA.

A few people lept at the opportunity, not to inform the OP what might be wrong with the SA, but to ridicule the valid criticism of homophobic bigoted practices and policies of the SA. What people are being castigated for here in this thread is not putting a quarter in a SA bucket, it is for acting like complete idiots about the issue of workplace bigotry.

[JNelson6563]

100. No but the behavior of some DUers is.

[Vashta Nerada]

8. I had an SA bell ringer tell me to my face that they didn't want my money because of

"my lifestyle".

I haven't bothered to give them a dime since then.

[WillowTree]

102. That bell ringer knew what your "lifestyle" is as you dropped your change in the bucket.......how?

[Vashta Nerada]

103. I was holding hands with my partner at the time.

[eqfan592]

104. Nonsense! Gays aren't real people who do things like hold hands!

That's why it's OK to financially support organizations that discriminate against them. So long as that org is helping SOMEBODY, they can treat any group of people they want like second class citizens (well actually, just LGBT's, because if they did that to somebody based on their race, we'd lose our shit)!!

Seriously tho, I'm sorry you had to go through that. I wish I could say it was the first time I've heard similar stories, but I know several people who I trust a great deal who have experienced similar discrimination from the SA.

[Vashta Nerada]

105. I know.

I know they help the poor. But there's many other organizations out there that help the poor AND who don't discriminate.

I can't believe people on a Democratic message board are sticking up for organizations (and religious leaders) who discriminate against a large segment of the population.

[eqfan592]

114. Agreed. I've been stunned as of late at the attitudes of some.

It's no big deal to them that some people or organizations are bigoted towards the LGBT community. Of secondary importance at best in their minds. Yet I'm certain if the bigotry were of a racial nature, it would be an entirely different story.

[cbdo2007]

9. DU can find a reason to hate anybody

for not being as perfect as they are.

God forbid people in the REAL WORLD trying to help people and make a difference, rather than just some sanctimonius slobs typing on the interwebs all day.

[FatBuddy]

32. purity trolls

[eqfan592]

35. It had nothing to do with purity, and everything to do with calling a horse a horse. nt

[Vashta Nerada]

33. Yeah, god forbid.

Who cares if the organization hates gays and doesn't want their money. They help the poor!



It's the same lame argument used for the support of the pope.

[cbdo2007]

44. Yeah, when it comes to people having food to eat....so they don't die....

then yeah I'll be happy to throw them some money.

[eqfan592]

48. Because only the salvation army helps the poor.

...oh, wait.

[Vashta Nerada]

50. God forbid gays get equal treatment.

Maybe you should throw your money to charities that don't discriminate against the LGBT community. There are several out there that would appreciate the support.

[eqfan592]

53. From what some say, you'd think no such thing existed. nt

[cbdo2007]

63. I'll give to whomever I want, regardless of internet rumors. Thanks!

[Vashta Nerada]

69. Well bless your heart.

[eqfan592]

82. "internet rumors?"

Here ya go: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2001-07-10/news/0107100221_1_salvation-army-religious-charities-religious-groups

The report, dated May 1, defines the charity's objectives as making sure states and localities can't "impose the category of sexual orientation to the list of anti-discrimination protections" or mandate "equal benefits to domestic partnership" unless religious non-profits are exempt from such provisions.

[cbdo2007]

115. LOL - that's from 2001

[eqfan592]

116. Lol, that matters not.

Unless they've publicly announced a change in position, which they have not. Also, look down thread and you'll find some more recent examples.

Edit: Here ya go http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024090143#post74

[msongs]

10. it seeks out and fires persons who are found to be LGBT or who advocate for LGBT issues. I can

say this with certainty from experience with personal friends who were SA employees or volunteers and were fired by the SA in my area for being LGBT. This is their business policy.

[Savannahmann]

11. Perhaps those who get their information do so from sources we would object to.

Last edited Mon Nov 25, 2013, 03:06 PM - Edit history (1)

Like this meeting of evil incorporated in which everyone is introduced by the leader, Doctor Evil.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/an-ZsHfbmn4mh74n/austin_powers_international_man_of_mystery_1997_henchment_introduction/

Frau Farbissina - founder of the militant wing of the Salvation Army.

[pipi_k]

13. Beats me...

It actually got to the point where I started making an actual list of whom, and what, we're supposed to be hating or boycotting because I just couldn't remember.

Now I suppose I'll have to add little notes in the margins...all the reasons why we're supposed to be hating them.

Anyway, I kind of already knew that we're supposed to be hating the SA because of some homophobia stuff with them.

Here's one I personally cannot figure out...

Ayn Rand.

Why so many people hate...no...despise her.

Granted, I only read one of her books, "We The Living", about five years ago.

It depressed the holy living hell out of me.

I doubt I'll ever read another one of her books again, but I don't hate her. And even if someone has a philosophy that others don't like, what's wrong with just reading the book. Or listening to the person's music. Or enjoying a work of art.

I remember a few years ago when Elton John performed at the wedding of Rush Limbaugh, and some DUers acted like he (Elton John) had just murdered their entire families. OMG!!! They'll NEVER listen to him again!!! OMG!!!

W. T. F. ????

What he did has nothing to do with his music, which I happen to like.

I dunno...maybe it's me.

[hfojvt]

20. I can tell you why I hate Ayn Rand

and not just because I asked her out in 1955 and she rejected me.

No, the point is that she wrote an evil book called "Atlas Shrugged". A book that argues that rich people should be selfish. A book that has thousands of adherents who have done tremendous damage to our society.

Ayn Rand is one of the leading philosophers of the evil philosophy known as Reaganomics, and as such fully deserves every bit of vituperation that can be heaped on her deceased head.

[el_bryanto]

24. OK - that's different- because Ayn Rand was a philosopher who communicated her philosophy

in her novels. If you find her philosophy repugnant as many do, than you kind of oppose her novels as well.

Bryant

[treestar]

67. People hate her philosophy not her

There is also a lot about her, and she was a cold hearted person.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

14. Back in the early to mid 1990s, I volunteered with a Salvation Army program for street youth

The volunteers distributed food and clothing, tutored the youth for their GEDs, and interacted with the youth at the drop-in center. I used to play cards or board games with them, while other volunteers held craft sessions where the youth could make jewelry or learn to knit. Another volunteer organized a softball team that played against other social service agencies and youth groups.

Our job was to model responsible, non-threatening adult behavior, something many of the youth had seen precious little of. Although most of the youth seemed incapable of producing a sentence without either "fuck" or "shit" in it, we were supposed to refrain from using bad language or discussing sex or street drugs. We also could not use street drugs ever (something I never did anyway) or consume alcohol within 24 hours before our shift.

This was before the news about their anti-gay policies broke.

I was surprised, because I never saw any discrimination against the approximately 1/3 of clients who were GLBT.

Far from it, they told us during training that if being around GLBT youth bothered us, we should go home right now, because we would see them every time we showed up.

They offered a church service on Sunday mornings, but no one was required to attend, although those who did show up got pancakes afterward. No religious activities were required for the daily evening meal, though. All the kids had to do was come some time between 5:00PM and 9:00PM. Those who showed up for morning GED tutoring received lunch as well.

A lot of the clients had been thrown out of the house for being gay, and the Salvation Army worked hard to get the parents to take their children back. It was clear that the Salvation Army officers who worked there KNEW that the GLBT kids were not misbehaving but were simply being themselves, because they expressed exasperation with parents who would take their children back only if "they stopped being gay." They knew better than most people that life on the streets could be a death sentence, if not from AIDS picked up through the prostitution that most street youth, gay or straight, work in to survive at one time or another, then from exposure (sleeping outside on cold nights), untreated non-sexual diseases, or even murder. They were appalled that some parents preferred that their child be dead rather than gay. (They also would not force youth to return to their parents if they felt that the parents were abusive but tried to provide educational and training support so the youth would be prepared to live on their own after they aged out of the program.)

Later, the city of Portland reorganized its youth services, and the Salvation Army lost its contract. I occasionally ran into some of the street youth from the previous program in downtown Portland, and they all said that the Salvation Army program had been better run and provided more real help than the new programs.

So I've seen a Salvation Army program from the inside, and it was non-disriminatory. That's why I drop a dollar into the Salvation Army kettle when I pass one. They help people whose existence most of Middle America would rather forget about it, and they have done so since the 19th century.

[hfojvt]

21. cool story

I hear things like that, sometimes from people who put money in the bucket. I have been volunteering about twenty hours a year ringing bells and playing my trumpet since 1998. I sure like to think I am helping.

[eqfan592]

40. You were helping. Helping a campaign to aid in discriminatory hiring practices.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2001-07-10/news/0107100221_1_salvation-army-religious-charities-religious-groups

[eqfan592]

38. You understand that people dealing with other branches have experienced discrimination, right?

I'm glad yours was different, but that's hardly the case for each one. I'd rather put my time and money into organizations that don't have these discrimination issues attached.

[FrodosPet]

111. By chance do you have a list?

I never knew about the homophobia. I always supported the SA because they have helped me get my lights and heat back on, helped clothe me and furnish my house, and because they gave my difficult to deal with friend a place to live.

I would appreciate a list of other more worthy organizations with a similar purpose, if you could. Preferably serving places in severe need like Detroit, Pontiac, and Royal Oak Township, MI. Thanks.

[eqfan592]

112. The only national org i give to these days is the red cross.

I support several local charities that I know with food and clothing donations.

But after doing some research, Feeding America seems like a real good alternative that I'm going to start supporting. 97%+ rating on charity navigator.

[etherealtruth]

15. I have very bifurcated feelings about the Salvation Army

I despise their stance on homosexuality ... I applaud the work they do on human trafficking. A very mixed bag ... the good being very good and the bad being very bad

[Nine]

18. This is the first SA controversy I was aware of.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2001-07-10/news/0107100221_1_salvation-army-religious-charities-religious-groups

I haven't had much use for SA since that came out. Too harsh considering the good they do? Perhaps. But I figure there are lots of charities around. Boycotts are tricky things. It's hard to know how much "punishment" a corporation or organization really deserves or whether the message you want to send is really being heard.

[eqfan592]

41. Like you said, plenty of charities that don't have this level of baggage.

If I'm donating money to one, it won't be one that favors institutionalized discrimination.

[enki23]

22. There are some good reasons to be angry with the Salvation Army

The Salvation Army is a Christian Missionary organization dedicated to spreading its versions of its religion. In order to forward this goal, it performs bureaucratic functions for the government and for americans who donate money to it. Its main function, in this sense, is to distribute government and other donated money to people as it sees fit and to take the lion's share of the credit for the resources it distributes.

It uses the goodwill earned by its proximal position in the distribution of charity to promote its particular brand of religion. It's particular brand of religion is discriminatory toward gays, lesbians, and atheists among others. It also has used its resources to actively lobby for the ability of organizations to engage in discriminatory hiring practices while receiving significant government funding. It did this while being an organization that wished to continue its discriminatory hiring practices while receiving significant government funding.

Approving of charity does not require a person to approve of it's fucking middle managers. The Salvation Army is one of the biggest of those middle managers. It's a rent-seeking organization dedicated to diverting some portion of the meager flow of charitable resources into missionary work.

Other than that, it's awesome. Why give to any of the myriad other charities that don't do those odious things when you can send to your money to the theocratic middle men with the cute red kettles?

[el_bryanto]

25. They do have an 82% Charitable Commitment

They aren't the best maybe, but they aren't particularly dishonest.

Bryant

[enki23]

78. They don't need to be dishonest (in that way) to be a problem.

They still take credit for distributing other people's money (and, since they receive a lot of government funding, they get to distribute a bit of *everybody's* money). And they use that credit to push a particular religiously-motivated, "conservative" agenda.

[el_bryanto]

92. Fair enough

I don't know that the poor that they help worry about their religious bigotry though.

Bryant

[eqfan592]

98. Unlikely, unless they themselves are recipients of said bigotry.

Which does happen. But in the end, the SA is far from the only conduit we have to aiding the poor.

[Egalitarian Thug]

27. Lots of things. It is not a charity, it is a church and as such is not subject to any oversight.

According to the best guess that can be made from the data that leaks and that they choose to provide, they run at about 20% of income going to support the organization. There are far worse numbers out there, but 1/5 is far from stellar. Again, this is a best guess made from available data since they have set themselves up to conceal their operational details and accounts.

The SA has created a network of 6 separate corporate entities to cover its operations, four district corporations, a national corporate headquarters, and an international headquarters.

They do some good and they are far from the worst of these "charities", but the way they operate combined with anecdotes that regularly arise cause some of us to decide not to take a chance and go with other, more efficient, transparent organizations.

[Xolodno]

30. No issues.

They are a RELIGIOUS CHARITY..........so, they are going to do what they do in the light of religion. What I'm concerned with is how they do their charity....does it benefit people in need? Yes it does. Are they on the "take" like a Kardashian? No, they are not. So I have no problems in tossing the change I got from the checkout counter in the supermarket. Oh and I don't celebrate Xmas. Just because they have ideas that I don't agree with, doesn't mean they are evil. Nor do I care if some of the money goes to needy republicans...hey...we've all made mistakes....

[eqfan592]

36. Yep, because there are no charities out there that don't have issues with...

...discrimination, so why bother even worrying about it?

[Xolodno]

49. Do they discriminate? Yes, they do....but then...so does every religion in some form or way...

...so deal with it.

Better I toss a few coins to the needy than keep it in my pocket because they "discriminate" in their religious operanda. I'd probably save up and buy something I don't need with that change anyway.

I'm not going to deny food to someone just because they think differently from me. If I did...I would be a Republican.

...oh and, I give what I can to every charity whose proceeds benefit predominately the less fortunate. Throwing a few pennies into red can ain't going to hurt me. But it will hurt others if I decide to take those pennies and fill up my coin jar at home.

Grow up. You may not like their views...and neither do I...but better to help those in need. Even if its a member of the KKK who is starving...I will give, yes they are a bigot and ignorant....but I'm not responsible for their upbringing and twisted thinking. Who knows, perhaps charity will change their biased thinking. If not...I can leave this world knowing I did the right thing.

[eqfan592]

52. I do deal with it, by giving to other charities.

Grow up? When did standing up against discrimination become something only the immature did?

The rest of your post is a massive combination of logical fallacies from false dilemma to straw man.

Sorry, but your excuses for supporting a discriminatory organization fail to impress me.

[Xolodno]

55. Ask me if I care what you think...

To demand a religion to conform to your views....is not only UN-Constitutional....but unconscionable. People have a right to believe...no matter if you, I or anyone think it is crazy. So long it is not hurting them or someone else. The SA gives to people in need, although I don't like the delivery method and absolutely against their religious beliefs....in the end, people are helped....and that's what matters.

Discrimination is awful, period. But it will always be around. And I will give to Christian, Bhuddist, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Zoarastian, etc. charities regardless...so long as it helps those in need. To refuse to give those in need because they "discriminate" makes YOU exactly like them! So congrats....you are a bigot.

Oh and using "straw man" is very....90's. If fact, its a joke. Everyone knows when you invoke that, it means you know you lost the argument and are going to dismiss everything with a quick generalization...so you look like you saved face (even though, everyone knows you didn't).

[eqfan592]

59. You ask me if you care, then write three paragraphs.

So, yes?

To force a religion to conform by law is unconstitutional, but to refuse to support one financially because of its views? Hardly.

So because discrimination has always been around, you just believe we should throw up our hands and give up? What sort of weak kneed excuse is that?

And logical fallacies aren't fads, they just are what they are. Pointing it out outs hardly admitting to "losing" a debate. It's simply highlighting the poor quality of the argument you have brought to the table.

[Xolodno]

65. Glad you responded...from you last post..it seemed you were going to cut and run....

You don't have to give to the SA...it is your choice..you have a right to it..and I will defend it, even though I disagree. I do so because, in the end, those needed are given benefit. I also know full well that the mind set of the SA will not be changed...and I'm ok with that....just as I'm ok with never seeing a gay or married Pope...and I wouldn't want any of that to change because "I said so". But likewise, they both do good things for a lot of people....and I choose to help them in those endeavors I believe beneficial for people.

And yes, discrimination has always been around...and will continue so long as we have borders (or we all become Brazilian). I don't like it, but have come to terms to work with in it. Call me "philosophical" a "dreamer" or whatever...but I believe helping the less fortunate is an absolute win....even when the delivery is less than desirable. You want to fault me for that..then fine...declare me an un-pure socialist (yes..I'm a socialist).

As for logical fallacies...really? If you said "I don't see how this is part of the debate" I would have answered how I perceived it was...even if you didn't think so. But at least we would have our viewpoints stated and come to an understanding...but to just ignore and dismiss..well, to me, it just means you refuse to acknowledge or understand because you hold your view as absolute and anything contrary is "heresy".

[eqfan592]

68. The entire premise of your argument is based on a logical fallacy.

For what you are doing to make sense (and we're talking about financial support of a discriminatory institution because that institution also aids the poor), the SA would have to be the only game in town in terms of helping the poor. But they clearly and obviously are not. Hence the logical fallacy (false dichotomy in this case). This isn't a choice between not helping the poor or helping the poor but also discrimination. It's a choice between helping discriminatory and non-discriminatory organizations that both help the poor.

If you honestly cared about the discriminatory nature of the SA, yet wanted to find a means of helping the poor, it would not take much effort to do so. You want to help the poor, and that is a respectable goal, but you can do so without simultaneously and knowingly aiding the efforts of a discriminatory organization.

What you do with your own money is your right, but don't be stunned when some who care about the issue of discrimination and are working to combat it call you out for the choices you decide to make and then vocalize.

[Xolodno]

72. Call it discrimontary all you want...

...I also donate to churches...even...actually many.. those opposed to my views.

For me to take your position...I have to be an asshole.

You may not like that I give to a charity that is not "pure enough", but I will say...that was not the end game. The SA has the infrastructure to help others. Plain and simple. Sure the SA is not the only game in town...nor did I say that's all who I supported...they just get the change in my pocket when I leave Stater Brothers. But you are implying, that's all I give...nothing could be further from the truth. But...you want to make this simple gesture of help....into some kind of sin.

Lets get back to logical fallacies, shall we?

According to you:

Giving to an organization that isn't "pure" is wrong.
The SA isn't pure enough for you.
Therefore, the SA is wrong.

My view:
The SA helps people.
My miniscule funds can help people.
Therefore, my miniscule funds to the SA help people.

This is where you fail to understand....

[eqfan592]

75. "pure" enough?

These guys actively campaigned to promote legislation that would make it ok to discriminate against employees based on sexual orientation.

If they had supported similar legislation based on race, would you still financially support them?

Your justification is paper thin. And why you'd have to be an asshole to not support such organizations when there are alternatives available is beyond me.

So you give to other charities? Fantastic. You could always give to them what you give to the SA.

[Xolodno]

86. Well...if you want to get angry...thats your business...

...not going to change my mind.

But given your absolute...and using an analogy...what business does someone who was gay have with the Catholic Church or any organization that is opposed to someones beliefs? Oh and...I'm not Catholic. According to you, if a Bishop was at some supermarket trying to get donations for homeless, an orphanage they ran, a food kitchen etc. your response is...to put this bluntly...."go fuck off because you don't support LGBT rights". Now, I have serious issues with the Catholic Church...but if a member of their clergy asked for help in helping the less fortunate...if it be time or money...I would do what I can....and even if it was Mormon leader, I would still help out (and we all know what they have done on equality issues). Because at the end of the day, I will fight them 100% on everything I disagree with....but will be 100% behind on the issues I do agree with.

Why? That way they can get a clue. But just to be opposed to everything they do because of their stance on an issue...plays into exactly what they want. Its easy to manage a congregation, group, etc. when you tell them "abc told you to go fuck off, that's why we need to stay unified against them". It plays straight into the narratives...the only way to break that, is not fit the narrative. Give them a chance to see otherwise.

Lets make this real...If you are known in your community to be....actually toss that...it doesn't even matter....if you are known in your community, period.....and refuse to toss some pennies into a red can...how do you look and how will your arguments of equality look?

If that isn't plain enough...then let me try this...which sounds better?

1. I gave to xyz, don't like their stance on equality, but at least its to a good cause.

2. I told xyz to take a hike due to their stance on equality.

Oh and don't give me the "your lazy" bullshit to find charities. I do plenty of due diligence on this matter, but because I toss my change into a red can at the grocery store....suddenly I should be "persona non grata"...maybe I should vote repub since according to you I'm not up to your standards.

[eqfan592]

90. Actually, my response would be "I'm sorry, but my money goes to organizations that support...

...the poor without discriminating."

Basically, your ENTIRE POST is one massive, thin as paper attempt to justify financial support of a discriminatory organization, when you KNOW FOR A FACT that there are other organizations you could support that would achieve the same objective (helping the poor) without supporting discrimination.

I don't oppose the SA's efforts to help the poor, but that doesn't mean I intend to financially assist them either, because I know that their efforts go beyond helping the poor and into much darker areas. Instead my money and time will be spent with charities that do not carry around this sort of baggage.

[Xolodno]

93. So basically...

...to hell with the SA because they are religious institution that doesn't support LGBT rights...and to hell with anyone who throws a penny their way. The fact they help the poor, be damned.

Ok got it. I'll make sure during the next election that I vote for ideological purity and not what helps the every day person....nah...on second thought...I'll just call you an ideologue and vote for the betterment of others.....even if you disagree.

[eqfan592]

95. Yep, that's right, fuck the LGBT community for the "greater good."

That's your argument, and you're sticking to it, right?

"Betterment of others" my ass. There's that false dichotomy again.

[Egalitarian Thug]

57. Then why don't you just toss that money to the needy yourself?

Any place you are going to find these bell-ringers you will walk or drive by several people in need, so why support the negative and finance the rake for a bigoted, secretive organization when you can do what they say they'll do, yourself.

[eqfan592]

60. Honestly, i think it's laziness.

This group is everywhere, making donating simple, and they do indeed help the poor. Given that, many are willing to overlook the discrimination or ignore it outright it seems, rather than take the time and effort to support other charities.

[Xolodno]

73. Wow....suddenly donating to causes you don't agree with is "laziness"...

...didn't know there was a "standard" for donating and helping others....

[eqfan592]

84. Nice straw man argument.

And no, not saying that cuz it's a fad. It really is a straw man. Never said donating to causes that I don't agree with is "laziness." I said that, in this specific case, because how easy the Salvation Army makes it to donate, that laziness does become a factor.

It's either that, or it's because people really don't give two shits about LGBT issues, which I'm starting to think more and more is the case on this forum given some of the topics of the last few weeks.

[Xolodno]

87. I get attacked for donating from an unapproved charity by you...

....and you call my reasoning a strawman.....just because you don't agree with it.

Wow.

I've never asked you to donate to them....

But you are demanding me...and everyone else...not to.....in order to satisfy YOUR ABSOLUTE BELIEFS...

...and you say because the SA makes donating easy...everyone who does is just "lazy". Well shit then, I should stop donating completely because I don't know what is a "lazy organization" or not.....must be a serious cake walk to help the needy. You know what, people should just lift themselves by their boot straps if they won't accept help from an approved charity by eqfan592!!!

[eqfan592]

89. You're supporting an organization that supports discrimination.

It has nothing to do with it being an "approved" charity, that is just the simple fact, and I'm highlighting that fact.

If you don't like that fact, then find a new charity. That's all I've said all along. And no matter what you think about my position, that doesn't change the fact that your argument was a fallacious one.

I'm not demanding anything of anybody. People are free to do what they will with their money. But then YOU have to accept the consequences of those actions, and one of the consequences of supporting an organization that supports discrimination is having people point that out.

[Xolodno]

91. No....you are demanding....don't lie...

...that's is the reason you responded the whole time.

Fact: I donate to (albeit pennies) to an organization you don't like...and even admitted to that they help the poor.

Fact: According to you, this is unacceptable because, they don't hire/promote of the LGBT.

Fact: I recognize them as a semi-religious institution....you demand they be public. When...they never represented themselves as a "public" institution.

Fact: The SA helps many in need.

Fact: According to you, I should not toss them my change because they don't support LGBT rights...the needy are irregardless.



Reality:..this all about me throwing my change into a red can for those in need, whose organization is highly "religious" and you sneering at it because they don't hire/promote from the LGBT community.

I don't like their stance on LGBT...but, I am not going to deny that they do help many in need. Last I checked, there were plenty of other groups/organizations/government officials that block reform.

I can look past of centuries of persecution for the betterment of others....apparently you can't.

[eqfan592]

94. Yeah, when you start putting words in my mouth, you've officially admitted defeat.

You support a discriminatory organization, pure and simple. Hide behind all the weak justifications you want, that is the reality.

I don't care that they are religious. They are free to believe whatever they like as part of their religion. But that doesn't mean I'm going to to be supporting them.

"I can look past of centuries of persecution for the betterment of others....apparently you can't. " See, you keep saying that I'm condemning you, but the reverse is true. Not only do you support a discriminatory organization, but now you're attempting to condemn those who REFUSE TO! You're not looking past anything, you're ACTIVELY SUPPORTING persecution. You can easily find ways to help others without doing so, but you refuse to do so. You can take that as a condemnation if you wish, but what its simply the cold, hard reality that you refuse to see.

[Xolodno]

61. I do.

...even if they don't ask. Before I've walked into stores...noticed somebody...get what I needed inside...then bought something else...and gave it to them. Their beaming smile is all that I needed to make my day.


....sadly..only on DU do you need to defend yourself for helping others.

[Egalitarian Thug]

64. I don't think you need defend yourself for doing good, but the picture you've painted

makes no sense.

The SA is secretive (has gone to some lengths and expense to avoid being subject to any oversight) and is regularly accused of a range of misdeeds.

In view of these facts, what I don't understand is why would a presumably helpful, caring, and genuinely concerned person like yourself, even take the chance that your donations will be financing practices which you would not approve of when there are so many completely transparent and demonstrably effective places that need the money you yourself do not give directly to those in need?

[Xolodno]

71. I don't see the SA as "secretive"...just usually religious..and maybe thats where we part ways...

...and don't get me started on religion....The SA probably gets 10 cents on average when I go to the store...if 6 cents goes to the needy...I'm ok with that. I do far more on other "avenues". To me, the world isn't black and white. I know full well that money I give may support someone who is a die hard racist purist who blames everyone else with their problems...and I'm ok with that. Because I know this racist will have children...of which one or more might not agree with the family views...and only because, they were helped in their time of need. And I say this because I know of people who were in this predicament.

Lets face facts...the local church is often the help to the poor....despite my animosity (just an FYI..I'm not an atheist...just a USDA Grade A, guaranteed and absolute heretic). So I'm willing give to them, the SA or anyone else, because I know they are the current best vehicle to do so. Likewise, the SA isn't my preferred charity...but tossing the change I have in my pocket will ultimately help others.

You may believe that the SA pockets a lot..I will disagree....despite my disagreements on their views. But I will help out when I can...even when its not acceptable on DU.

[Xithras]

37. I look at the SA the same way I look at the Boy Scouts.

It's an organization that, overall, has done (and continues to do) wonderful things for many people. But it's also an organization that holds some policies that I find highly objectionable.

Do their objectionable policies negate the good they do? Not really, but that doesn't mean that we give them a pass on those policies either. As progressives, our goals should always be to improve ALL of society, and that means that we should support the good while opposing the bad. In the case of these two organizations, that generally means that we keep pressure on them until their discriminatory practices are ended, without actually causing the destruction of the organizations themselves. And yes, I'm aware that there are some extremists right here on DU who would like to see both the Salvation Army and the Boy Scouts abolished completely...but they tend to be a vocal minority.

The world isn't black and white, and organizations are rarely "good" or "evil". As progressives, we simply have to use our judgement when deciding how (and when) to push those organizations to change their policies. We don't have to pick one side or the other.

As a bisexual man, I drop coins in the Salvation Army buckets every holiday season and I feel no guilt about doing so. I don't donate to support the Salvation Army, I donate to feed the poor who would otherwise go hungry during the holidays. Maybe there's a bit of cognitive dissonance there, but I chose to err on the side of feeding homeless people.

[pipi_k]

117. That's really

how I see it, too.

Or, to put it in reverse terms, say there's an organization that doesn't discriminate against any group whatsoever, but very little of what people donate actually goes toward the people who need it. The organization keeps most of it.

Why on earth would I want to donate to such a charity if the people I mean to get my donation don't even receive it.

We donate to help people...not the charities.

[Bluenorthwest]

120. Why would you be ok with some of your donation being used to do harm while some does good?

Don't you have a local food bank? Or is that too much work, to find them and donate? Your choices are NOT wasteful organizations or bigoted organizations. That's what you tell yourself but it is a huge steaming pile of rationalization on the half shell.
Feel free to contribute to legal funds to fight equality, that's your choice and you are making it.
I do wonder what your local food bank shelves are like this holiday....

[Johonny]

46. Besides the guy from the Salvation Army calling me a jew last year

nothing. But I kind of remembered that and gave to other charities this year

[Are_grits_groceries]

54. Let me ask this:

If they were also singling out African-Americans, someone who is Jewish, or another group would you be so accepting of 'a little bigotry'?

It is not ok. Their charity provides needed services, but they also use it as a cover for their bigoted views and missionary goals. If they are criticized, their good works are thrown up as a shield. Posts here prove that.

Is it a purity test? If that's what you call it then yes. Why is not giving aid to a group that advances bigotry a purity test? I think it is a reasonable request.

Oh, and some of those kids they feed now will be shunned later by them. In addition, people who receive their help are in a lot of cases likely to also give more credence to their beliefs. Bigotry spreads in many ways.

There are many groups who provide services for the needy without a side of nasty. They also have good ratings for how much of their money actually goes to charity.

So give your heart out to the Santa bells. Just realize they aren't ringing just for peace, goodwill, and donations.

[Starry Messenger]

58. +1

[eqfan592]

62. Huge +1.

It seems like a little discrimination is ok against some groups over others, even among progressives.

[lunasun]

83. It seems like it yes

[myrna minx]

66. Thank you. To think that the fight for LGBTIQ equality is sneered by some here as a "purity test"

is just awful. It's always easier to bargain away someone else's rights.

There are plenty of wonderful charities who do not have such discriminatory, bigoted structures.

[Vashta Nerada]

106. +1

[Niceguy1]

56. I think they do

A lot of good, as the Portland posted.


I will continue to drop money in the bucket

[Warren DeMontague]

70. I prefer to donate my goods, services and money to organizations that aren't bigoted.

That's just me.

[xchrom]

74. here's a few links to educate you and others

Why You Shouldn't Donate to the Salvation Army Bell Ringers
Read more at http://www.bilerico.com/2011/11/why_you_shouldnt_donate_to_the_salvation_army_bell.php#vDRVvl3gPVUF5CVv.99

***SNIP

Since 1986 the Salvation Army has engaged in five major assaults on the LGBT community's civil rights and attempted to carve out exemptions that would allow them to deny gays and lesbians needed services as well as employment.

When New Zealand considered passage of the Homosexual Law Reform Act in 1986, the Salvation Army collected signatures in an attempt to get the legislation killed. The act decriminalized consensual sex between gay men. The measure passed over the charity's objections.

In the United Kingdom, the Salvation Army actively pushed passage of an amendment to the Local Government Act. The amendment stated that local authorities "shall not intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality" or "promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship." The law has since been repealed, but it led many schools and colleges to close LGBT student organizations out of fear they'd lose their government funding.

In 2001, the organization tried to extract a resolution from the White House that they could ignore local non-discrimination laws that protected LGBT people. While the commitment would have applied to all employees, the group claimed that it needed the resolution so it "did not have to ordain sexually active gay ministers and did not have to provide medical benefits to the same-sex partners of employees." After lawmakers and civil rights activists revealed the Salvation Army's active resistance to non-discrimination laws, the White House admitted the charity was seeking the exemptions.
Also in 2001, the evangelical charity actively lobbied to change how the Bush administration would distribute over $24 billion in grants and tax deductions by urging the White House deny funding to any cities or states that included LGBT non-discrimination laws. Ari Fleischer, White House press secretary, issued a statement saying the administration was denying a "regulation sought by the church to protect the right of taxpayer-funded religious organizations to discriminate against homosexuals."

In 2004, the Salvation Army threatened to close all their soup kitchens in New York City to protest the city's decision to require all vendors and charities doing business with the city to adhere to all civil rights laws. The organization balked at having to treat gay employees equal to straight employees.

Read more at http://www.bilerico.com/2011/11/why_you_shouldnt_donate_to_the_salvation_army_bell.php#vDRVvl3gPVUF5CVv.99

7 Companies That Don't Support Gay Rights

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/16/anti-gay-companies_n_4110344.html

4. The Salvation Army
If those ringing bells every holiday season weren't enough to make you not want to donate, this will.
You'd think as a charitable organization The Salvation Army would be all about charity. However, that's not exactly the case.

"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."

If that doesn't make you feel uneasy, then how about the fact that they believe gays need to be put to death?

Major Andrew Craibe, a Salvation Army Media Relations Director, went on public radio hosted by journalist Serena Ryan, to discuss a recent call by LGBTQ parents for a boycott of the nonprofit for its anti-gay policies and beliefs.

Is the Salvation Army anti–LGBT? Yes

http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/blogs/bostonspirit/2012/11/is_the_salvation_army_antilgbt.html

Significant anti-lgbt moments in the Salvation Army’s past include:

In 2002 the charity made waves when it announced a policy that would have offered health insurance for a “legally domiciled adult” living with an employee. Essentially granting health benefits for same-sex partners of employees. This policy was reversed after only 2 weeks

In 2003 the Washington Post reported that the Bush administration was working with the Salvation Army in an effort to issue a regulation making it easier for government-funded religious groups to discriminate against gay people in hiring. According to an internal Salvation Army report the Bush White House gave the charity a “firm commitment” to work to protect them from state and city laws that prevent discrimination against gays in hiring and domestic-partner benefits

At the time the Salvation Army spent approximately $100,000 to lobby in favor of President Bush’s faith based initiative. (The Bush administration wound up not working with the Salvation Army on the regulation)

In 2004 the charity threatened to leave New York City if Mayor Michael Bloomberg enforces a new ordinance requiring all groups with city contracts to offer benefits to the same-sex partners of employees. Bloomberg was against the ordinance and did not enforce it.

In June of this year the following passage appeared on the official website of the Australian Salvation Army:

"[Homosexual activity is] as rebellion against God's plan for the created order... Homosexual practice, however, is, in the light of Scripture, clearly unacceptable. Such activity is chosen behaviour and is thus a matter of the will. It is therefore able to be directed or restrained in the same way heterosexual urges are controlled. Homosexual practice would render any person ineligible for full membership (soldiership) in the [Salvation] Army."

[Bennyboy]

79. thank you.....

good info........

[enki23]

80. I'll add the following

http://www.tampabay.com/news/religion/salvation-army-is-part-church-part-charity-part-business/1158156

Once again: The Salvation Army is a *church,* first and foremost. Like other churches, they engage in some degree of charitable work. It makes for good propaganda and proselytizing opportunities. *Every* arm of its charitable work receives government funding. That is to say that they spend much of their time working as government contractors to help provide some taxpayer-funded assistance to (certain) people in need. Its managers are ordained ministers who get to live in tax-free mansions, and due to their status as a church they get to keep huge portions of their finances secret (which makes the various quotes of their overhead percentage pretty dubious, as we don't really get to know about much of the cash flow that goes on, or all the trickery that could be engaged in under the cover of religious secrecy.)

Yeah. They're awesome. Theocratic gatekeepers of large amounts of federal money. Gotta fucking love 'em. If you don't, you're a purity-obsessed asshole who hates poor people. Also, bitching about sexual assaults in the military means you fucking hate soldiers. And on. And on. And fucking on. And holy fuck this bullshit gets old.

[eqfan592]

85. "Purity test" has become code word for "I want it to be OK for me to support people and orgs that...

...discriminate against members of the LGBT community, and I want to be able to shame those who call me out for it."

[Renew Deal]

88. Thanks

[Vashta Nerada]

107. Thank you for posting those links.

Hopefully the people who are supporting the SA in this thread will read those links and understand why the SA is not a good organization to give money to.

[hunter]

97. I'm mixed on this. One of my great aunts was an S.A. officer.

She wouldn't have let anyone starve or freeze to death.

But she did think homosexuality was a moral flaw.

My personal horror story...

I had a girlfriend who used me to prove to herself and her family she wouldn't rather be sleeping with a woman.

It did not end well.

She sleeps with her wife and she had the high-power lawyers to make it so years before there was any such thing as "gay marriage."

In a better world we all could have avoided all that crap.

[Liberal In Texas]

99. I don't want anything to do with something that has

Salvation and Army in it's name.

[LeftyMom]

110. The Salvation Army fought for hiring discrimination with federal faith based funds.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4945299

[Bluenorthwest]

119. Those who donated to them helped fund that legal agenda. It is that simple.

nt

[TBF]

113. The Christian part is ok, the homophobe part is not -

There has been a lot of back & forth on this with some individual Salvation Army offices claiming they are not bigots.

Snopes has a pretty good write up:

"The Salvation Army has expressed their Christian beliefs in the past, stating that they do not accept the LGBTQ lifestyle, nor do they stand up for gay marriage."

Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/sexuality/salvationarmy.asp#qKyq2L49pBddxlH4.99

[Bluenorthwest]

118. I understand Scientology does much 'good work' do you give to them as well? KKK community out

reach programs exist, they clean up roads and have food drives, would you give to them in spite of what they essentially are?
I and anyone in the US can give money to local Food Banks that don't use that money in part to oppose the happiness of anyone.
What do you think is so good about Salvation Army that it mitigates their anti minority stances? What good is so great that adding a dollar to that good is worth adding one to some law suit against fair hiring practices?
Would you make the same arguments for a group with racist agenda and policy?

[TheKentuckian]

122. The interesting thing about this thread is the lack of alternatives offered.

Are the alternatives hidden because a little digging might show them to have less than stellar connections in other areas or is there a lack of viable alternatives with a similar mission with the footprint of the Salvation Army or is that folks are so hot under the collar that it doesn't occur to them despite stating that there are similar out reaches that are as or more effective in caring for the poor?

The thread interested me because outside of some experiences with individual bell ringers, I've not herd a lot of guff over the years on this group.

I dunno but I think with this much heat, there would be more light shined on better organizations that don't discriminate AND care for the poor.

[Xithras]

124. One of the real problems with "alternatives"...

...is that once you get outside of the major urban areas, there often aren't any. Where I live, there are three options:

1) The Salvation Army.
2) A private homeless "mission" program run by an uber-fundy evangelical local church (it actually requires homeless people to pray several times a day in order to use their services, and openly rejects any homeless who refuse to take part).
3) About a half-dozen other small scale food pantries run by other local churches.

So, if you're not willing to pipe your money through a church, your ONLY OPTION is the Salvation Army. They are the least bigoted of the options. They're also the ONLY option that pipes some of that money into non-food aid, including gifts for local children and warm clothing for the poor.

Those chiming in about "alternatives" must be lucky enough to live in a place where they have secular, progressive options for helping the local poor, where the money actually gets spent on those in need, but the majority of the American population doesn't live in those places. For me, it's a simple matter of deciding which is more important...standing on my ideals, or helping actual hungry people to eat. I choose to help feed people, even if it impinges on my social and political goals a bit.

[TheKentuckian]

125. Why do they not name those at least? I saw only one alternative and that was

The local homeless shelter and soup kitchens. I'm left thinking there are few to no alternatives with similar footprint but await correction of this mistaken impression.

[LeftyMom]

132. The Salvation Army IS a church.

[LeftyMom]

131. I almost posted a local alternative, but I didn't because it wouldn't be generally helpful

It would help the OP though, we live in the same town unless I'm mistaken: http://www.sfbs.org/

[TheKentuckian]

134. That is kind of the thing. No doubt the organization is worthy but by definitely they don't have the

scope or reach. A little can almost always go further because of massive buying power alone.

There is no shortage of need at all, as many directions as help can come from the better because all of it is woefully insufficient anyway and scale of economy does not suggest that redirecting resources from the larger organization would net more actual benefit.

I believe many alternative means are out there but little in the way of a direct alternative in the same vein.

[LeftyMom]

135. Locally their programs are MUCH wider reaching and more comprehensive than SA.

It's not even close.

If the OP wants to address poverty where he lives, SA would be a significantly less effective choice.

[Le Taz Hot]

129. I visit their Thrift Stores

but other than buying merchandise, I don't donate money, mainly because of their anti-LGBT beliefs. I donate food to the food bank and I donate money to our one of our local charities that serves 2 hot meals per day, provides medical and dental services to the homeless and poor and provides a place to sleep for homeless families. I KNOW that 100% of my donations go directly to the needy.

[therehegoes]

133. They fed my friends husband when he was working a crash site

For over 2 weeks.

She says she always donates to them now.