…and this is a 
I used to always give my spare change to the Salvation Army at this time of year — there they were, ringing their bell outside the grocery store, so sure, I'd give a little. That changed when I learned about their anti-gay policies, though…and now there's another reason to spurn the Salvation Army.
The Salvation Army says it refuses to distribute Harry Potter and Twilight toys collected for needy children because they're incompatible with the charity's Christian beliefs.
The policy has alarmed a Calgarian who volunteered to sift through a southeast warehouse full of unused, donated items and was alarmed when he was told by Salvation Army officials that the two kinds of toys are "disposed of" and not given to other charities.
"I asked if these toys went to another charitable organizations but was told no, that by passing these toys on to another agency for distribution would be supporting these toys," said the man, who wouldn't give his name due to his occupation.
So donors may have handed over popular toys for distribution, not knowing that the destination was going to be the landfill. And it's not because the Salvation Army is concerned about the quality or educational value of the toys…
"I was told to withhold a six-inch Harry Potter figure, but when I picked up a plastic M-16, I was told, 'That's for the 10-year-olds,'" he said.
I feel so dumb for having ever given that organization anything. I should have been clued in by the frickin' name that it was run by a gang of puffed-up sanctimonious looneys.
Comments
Posted by: Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort
|
December 9, 2010 7:58 AM
Stopped donating to them when I heard their anti-gay policies. Won't ever donate to them again.
Plus apparently they don't give all that much to charity anyway (out of 2 billion in donations, 1.6 went to operating costs.) They operate as a church, so they're not taxed, and they are free to make whatever statements they want and not be harassed for it because it's part of their beliefs.
Posted by: SamBarge
|
December 9, 2010 8:07 AM
I never donated to the Salvation Army because I assumed they preach with their charity.
But, reading this makes me even happier that I donated my daughter's old but still good toys (including Harry Potter and Scooby Doo) directly to her school (for the junior and senior kindergarten and daycare). I did the same with all her books (including the Twilight series, which she hated).
Another option for Christmas donations is to directly adopt a family in need. You can usually do this through a local children's aid agency. You're given a wishlist of things to buy for the family and you basically provide them with Christmas. For our extended family, where it's hard to buy for each other because we don't want for much, it's really worked out. We don't buy for each other and instead spend that money on providing Christmas plenty to a family in need.
And, it's all secular.
Posted by: Nino
|
December 9, 2010 8:08 AM
Fortunately I never have given them anything.
For me they were always obnoxious "in the face" religionists and thus a nuisance.
(Plus the fact that I have always had a suspicion that organizations like that consider preaching to be a charitable deed as well and that a good bit of my donation would be wasted on nothing but hot air)
There are many really honorable, secular charities that deserve real support.
Posted by: simply not edible
|
December 9, 2010 8:08 AM
I never fail to be amazed at how "okay" killing apparently is to these "morally superior" idiots.
Yes, a machine gun is a perfectly respectable toy for a ten year old. Sure, no harm there.
Posted by: opposablethumbstoo
|
December 9, 2010 8:08 AM
Isn't it the Sally Army that used to make the homeless listen to sermons and sing hymns before they would give them a meal (I don't think the take-up for sermons and hymn-singing would be as high if people were allowed to eat first). Don't know if they still do that?
Posted by: sidhe1
|
December 9, 2010 8:13 AM
The Salvation Army are a bunch of wankers. Their policies on gay rights are despicable, and we generally refuse to donate to a church just on principle. Also, we haven't donated to them for years because about 15 years ago they called my mom for donations. She hadn't donated for season yet so she agreed to send a check. Three days later, when they hadn't received the check yet (OMG slow mail at the holidays? No way!) they called her and actually used collection tactics on her. She cancelled the check and no one in the family has given to them since.
Posted by: Facehammer
|
December 9, 2010 8:15 AM
If only we still had a skeleton army to oppose them.
Posted by: andycwb
|
December 9, 2010 8:21 AM
I refuse to give money to them not just because they're religious, but because I refuse to fund para-military organisations.
Posted by: Evolving Squid
|
December 9, 2010 8:22 AM
I stopped giving to Salvation Army years ago when they refused a few of the items I wished to donate.
The first was a working stove and refrigerator. They were about 15 years old, but in good working order. The stove had just had a new main element put in, but we wanted a new range with a flat top and some other features. The fridge we were replacing for a more energy efficient model.
Salvation Army was called because we thought these appliances, being fully functional and in a good state of repair and cleanliness would be excellent for, say, someone who needed a fridge and stove. However, Salvation Army told us, in essence, that if the appliances weren't new, they weren't interested.
I complained about this and noted that they were in perfect working order, but they insisted, noting that they have to do all this work to fix them up. I told them they were thoroughly cleaned and I'd be willing to have them stand a military-style picky inspection on that point, but they still refused.
Some months later, we were getting rid of a couch. Again, it was in good repair from a no-animal, no-smoking, no-kids home. But again I was told that if it wasn't new, they weren't interested.
I apologized for wasting their time and have donated nothing to them ever since. My feeling is that if Salvation Army has so much in donations that they can start making demands of their benefactors and refusing donations, they don't need any assistance from me - obviously they've got the situation well in hand.
I did find people in need of a fridge, stove, and couch on my own, however, so I know those items went where they were used.
Posted by: Nancy New
|
December 9, 2010 8:24 AM
In my house, it's the "Salacious Army."
Posted by: halfdeaddavid
|
December 9, 2010 8:31 AM
You know I always gave to the guy ringing the bell, I never knew they were a church. In the past couple years however I have been a strictly debit/credit card user and almost never have cash. Just yesterday I had to walk past one and felt guilty for not giving. Now I feel guilt over giving all the years prior.
Posted by: alessamendes.0514
|
December 9, 2010 8:32 AM
As per the Salvation Army's position statement:
http://www.salvationarmyusa.org/usn/www_usn_2.nsf/vw-dynamic-index/B6F3F4DF3150F5B585257434004C177D?Opendocument
"Scripture forbids sexual intimacy between members of the same sex. The Salvation Army believes, therefore, that Christians whose sexual orientation is primarily or exclusively same-sex are called upon to embrace celibacy as a way of life. There is no scriptural support for same-sex unions as equal to, or as an alternative to, heterosexual marriage."
Posted by: t3knomanser
|
December 9, 2010 8:38 AM
There's nothing wrong with giving a kid a toy gun to play with, so long as said kid is made to understand the distinction between "toy" and "real" (and sometime after they turn 12, it's time to take them out to the range and teach them basic firearm safety- more because guns exist and people should understand how to not get into an accident than for any other reason).
Regardless, the SA is basically evil. While Goodwill was also founded by a church, I haven't heard anything nearly so horrible about them. My spare clothes go there, not to SA.
//There's also a Goodwill donation center a half mile from my house; they're also way more convenient.
Posted by: itsallbs
|
December 9, 2010 8:50 AM
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/salvation-army-says-sorry-for-abuse-20101207-18o2c.html
Another reason to bypass the collection tin. Arseholes.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/DhjBEuJ8pt63x6eBKuPx0Jv9_QE-#7c327
|
December 9, 2010 8:52 AM
I've always hated those bastards. They offer a meal to life's unfortunates: the mentally ill, alcoholics and other street people, provided the recipients sit through a sermon.
Just give them the food and clothing. Let's be honest, with slightly different luck, any of us could be psychotic or hopelessly addicted.
It's a scandal that such a wealthy society has to rely on private charities to help such people anyway. Can you imagine any need for the Salvation Army (why not Navy?) in, say, Sweden?
Posted by: ericab
|
December 9, 2010 8:53 AM
Dress up like Santa Clause next year and stand outside with coin jars and bells and a sign that says "Secular Army"? I mean, obviously, they have the right idea- take charity to "preach"- or rather, teach children about science and the fallacies of religion? Just a though...
Posted by: blu
|
December 9, 2010 8:57 AM
As reprehensible you may find the Salvation Army's position on gays, at least they has a basis for it. Their position on Harry Potter and Twilight is just stupid. Pretty much everyone in the Harry Potter books is a Christian. The magic in Harry Potter is clearly not of the "black, deal with the devil" variety.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/hairychris444#96384
|
December 9, 2010 8:57 AM
Oh, they were off my Christmas card list from year dot.
Salvation? Oh fuck off.
Posted by: Blueaussi
|
December 9, 2010 9:03 AM
If the bell ringers make eye contact with me, I tell them, " I don't give money to hate groups" and stroll on by. It's my standard line when religious groups solicit money from me.
Posted by: christophe-thill.myopenid.com
|
December 9, 2010 9:11 AM
We have the Salvation Army in France too. They have a very quaint image, rather sweet, with their old fashioned uniforms, caroling etc. In Paris, they have a barge anchored on the Seine, which has been converted into a shelter for the homeless. I had no idea they were so bigoted.
Posted by: Victor
|
December 9, 2010 9:14 AM
Yeah, they're pretty bad. A son of a Salvation Army manager showed up at one of our atheist meetings once. He made it pretty clear how religious they are. Hell, he's real screwed up because of how he was raised. He had never read a book until he was in his 20's and out of the house because his dad had him terrified of even touching any non-Bible.
Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold
|
December 9, 2010 9:18 AM
I think there is quite a bit of variation between the Salvation Army in different countries.
Posted by: Creature of the Universe
|
December 9, 2010 9:18 AM
The guy doing the ringing looked like he was in desperate need of a donation, so I gave directly to him. I told him the donation was for him, not the pot. Hopefully he kept it for himself.
Posted by: Papish Delight
|
December 9, 2010 9:26 AM
Their position papers are quite informative. They're anti-abortion, anti-euthanasia, anti-gay, anti-porn, anti-research (at least as far as embryos are concerned), anti-gambling (but only because that's money that should be going to them), in favour of the adoption of a sabbath day by non-Christians, pro-nanny state, and their writings on the death penalty reveal their silent support for the practise.
Finding out that a group of evangelical Christians also have crazy ideas about black magic isn't all that surprising.
Posted by: Quodlibet
|
December 9, 2010 9:26 AM
The bell-ringers are paid an hourly wage:
http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/charity/bellringer.asp
J.K. Rowling asserts that the Harry Potter stories are, in large part, Christian allegory:
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1572107/20071017/story.jhtml
And this just is too much to handle before breakfast - Xians claim that the HP stories are anti-Xian, yet the Church of England is suing Rowling for plagiarizing...the Bible.
http://www.holyblasphemy.net/2010/11/church-files-lawsuit-against-jk-rowling-harry-potter-plagiarizes-bible/jesus-potter
Posted by: madhominem
|
December 9, 2010 9:26 AM
#15: Actually, I think private charities are preferable to government institutions. Competition versus monopoly. :) It's just that in so many areas (as in free market sectors), we can't afford not to ensure that the few organizations providing services don't discriminate or proselytize. SA, it seems, is one of these problem organizations, and I'll recommend to all my friends that they stop donating and visiting SA stores.
(Man, I hope the Goodwill has a similarly large selection of old cassette tapes.)
Posted by: Quodlibet
|
December 9, 2010 9:29 AM
Oops, sorry about that last link - the article on plagiarism was a spoof, notice of which I just saw at the very end of the article. I'm not fully caffeinated yet this morning.
Still, I wouldn't put it past them!
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/I61mgs86hNaplV1k8T3pMLrX_SZkEI8rBpYCOzQZ3g--#7c94e
|
December 9, 2010 9:31 AM
In Australia the Salvation Army had a sickeningly cozy relationship with the previous government.
In 1998 then-prime minister John Howard appointed the head of the Salvation Army, Brian Waters, as chairman of the Australian National Council on Drugs.
Waters opposed any form of harm minimization,advocated a zero tolerance approach, and suggested that it was better for addicts to die than to be helped to more safely cope with their addictions.
Posted by: BEG
|
December 9, 2010 9:35 AM
They've been fuckwads for a LONG time. I have refused to patronize them for about fifteen years at least. Goodwill gets all my donations.
Posted by: chrstphrgthr
|
December 9, 2010 9:38 AM
"...When every Christmas come
You buy the youth a pretty toy gun
When every Christmas come around
You buy the youth a fancy toy gun
So you can't blame the youths, when they get bad
You can't fool the youths
You can't blame the youths, of today
You can't fool the youths..."
--Peter Tosh
Posted by: gadow
|
December 9, 2010 9:38 AM
The Salvation Army has been on my excrement list for decades, they have always been bigoted. In the 80s, when I was among the believers, I was a deacon with the Metropolitan Community Church in Tucson. The Salvation Army there told us they would no longer honor our referrals to their homeless shelters, as most of the folks who came to us for help were gay men and Sally Ann HATED having to play the Good Samaritan to such people.
When I give to charity, I support secular non-profits, local when possible. I will not support fundamentalists like the Salvation Army, and I will not support for-profit groups like Goodwill.
Posted by: Abdul Alhazred
|
December 9, 2010 9:39 AM
Salvation Army reading assignment:
Major Barbara by George Bernard Shaw.
;)
Posted by: stvs
|
December 9, 2010 9:42 AM
But it's still okay to seduce their missionaries, right?
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM, CR
|
December 9, 2010 9:46 AM
I'm thinking a piece of folded paper, the size and color of a personal check (or cheque, depending on geography); folded so that it looks like a substantial donation is being put in the pot, and so the actual words won't be seen until the take is being counted: "this would have been a donation, except for the following policies of your organization: [...] I cannot in good conscience contribute to an organization with those views; until and unless you change, my charitable donations will go elsewhere."
And it would make precisely zero difference. But it would make me feel better.
Posted by: captsam
|
December 9, 2010 9:50 AM
i think there is some difference from city to city or state to state but that may be changing for the worst to bad i used to think them not so evil.
Posted by: GaryU
|
December 9, 2010 9:52 AM
Do we know if this is limited to Calgary? Or Canada? Is it true for the US?
Posted by: Lauren Ipsum
|
December 9, 2010 9:55 AM
Yeah, I stopped giving to them the moment I found out about their anti-gay policies. I can't argue with ditching the Twilight materials, though; even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.
If you're in an aggressive mood, there's always the Three-Dollar Bill protest.
Posted by: AJS
|
December 9, 2010 10:01 AM
I've said before, if they were the options, I'd rather starve to death than accept food from these fuckers. Preferably in front of as many of them as possible, so I can imprint myself indelibly on whatever they have instead of consciences.
Dressing up and pretending to be solidiers is a dubious activity anyway and should make all right-thinking people just a little bit scared; but using it to fuck up vulnerable people when their lives are at rock bottom is reprehensible in so many ways.
Just any time I'm feeling a touch needy, let me read this article again to remind me there are some depths to which nobody should ever stoop.
Posted by: Thinker
|
December 9, 2010 10:04 AM
Yahoomess@15
Sadly, they do exist here, although other charities (religious and non-ditto) are more visible. Most of them cover for things the government-run social services either can't cope with or cater to people who may not want to connect with the government.
In contrast with the US, our religious charities (and SA is certainly not the bigger one is this group) are not very "in your face" about their faith, but perhaps that is a reflection of how secularised Sweden is in general; it would be difficult for them to be too far from the general ethos, or donations would dry up...
My donations go elsewhere, though!
Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter
|
December 9, 2010 10:07 AM
My Mom never had a good word for the SA when they refused to help my pregnant unmarried cousin some 40 years ago. She was thrown out of her house by her family and she & her baby lived with us for several years.
Posted by: uberdave
|
December 9, 2010 10:15 AM
So if I understand this correctly, they are literally stealing christmas presents from needy children and destroying them.
Not even the grinch did that.
That's...just evil. That's a level of cartoonishly over the top bad. Are they going to tie a woman to some train tracks next?
Posted by:
|
December 9, 2010 10:17 AM
Am I the only one who wants to kick those bastards in the head when they ring that obnoxious bell outside of stores?
Posted by: don4058
|
December 9, 2010 10:19 AM
I have had a personal policy for many years never to donate to any agency or group that would not hire me or any of my friends simply because of what they are. As two examples, neither the Salvation Army nor the boy scouts would hire me because I am an atheist, nor would they hire anyone I know who is gay. It's an easy decision--they get no money of mine.
Posted by: AmVik
|
December 9, 2010 10:23 AM
Do you have the source for these stats? Not that I don't believe you, it would just be nice to have the info when I get confronted this season.Bullshit. Just about every kid plays with a toy gun at some point. Even if it's just a stick that they pretend is a gun. Very few actually grow up to be murderers. Toys are not parents.
Posted by: mandalay713
|
December 9, 2010 10:43 AM
I saw a story a few years back about an officer with the Salvation Army that was let go because the woman he was planning to marry was not an officer with the SA. He lost his home and his car because they were provided by the SA. I stopped dropping money in their buckets years ago.
Posted by: kariedgerton
|
December 9, 2010 10:47 AM
I cannot stand SA. I'm glad that my work has a no solicitation policy, because those people with the bells scare me. I always think that they are going to attack me or something.
All of my charitable donations go to Planned Parenthood. Between them and SA, I figure that PP is actually making the world a better place.
Posted by: mookiemu
|
December 9, 2010 10:50 AM
I stopped donating to them years ago when I saw "Guys and Dolls". In it they give a sermon to cure the guys from gambling. It's a great number, but that's when I realized that the Salvation Army was a religious organization! Then I found out that they make the poor "down and out" souls who come to them for food to listen to a sermon before they can get any food!
I felt so stupid that I hadn't realized that before given their very pious name! One of things that angers me most about religionists, is that they prey on those that are down and out.
Posted by: anscott1
|
December 9, 2010 10:54 AM
Is there a list somewhere of secular charities?
I know the obvious ones, such as World Vision, Salvation Army, etc. However, it would be cool if there was a "secularity rating" and we could make our decisions based on that.
For example, in Canada we have the YWCA, which is pretty darn secular. I've been to their local camp and there is no religious iconcography anywhere, no grace, etc. I would feel fine donating to them. However, some organizations and churches cleverly leave out any religious naming and call themselves "assembly" or "community cafe".
Anyone know if some kind of charity rating exists?
Posted by: Ol'Froth
|
December 9, 2010 10:55 AM
I've donated in the past because as an emergency responder, the Sallywagon was always there with hot coffee, sandwiches, etc. at a fire, accident scene, or any large event that draws a heavy police/fire/ems response. After reading this and some of the other comments, no more. ANd I'm not taking a sandwich from the wagon again either.
Posted by: jack.rawlinson
|
December 9, 2010 10:55 AM
The Sally army was never on my charity list. I've always had two reasons to hate them: they're Christian, and they're against booze. So screw those putitan killjoys, and their stupid uniforms, and their annoying bloody bands.
Posted by: jack.rawlinson
|
December 9, 2010 10:59 AM
Putitan? Like a putative puritan?
Posted by: vrkosk
|
December 9, 2010 11:01 AM
#15: Salvation Army exists in Finland as well.
http://www.pelastusarmeija.fi/index.php?id=14&L=2
I used to think they were decent people, but then I learned about their evangelism... At Christmas time, they have a nationwide "Christmas pot" collection, and many who donate do so out of tradition, since good-will is part of Christmas. (At least that was the case when I left Finland a few years ago.) You can see on the collection front page the sums many companies and organisations give, also out of tradition:
http://www.joulupata.fi/
Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy
|
December 9, 2010 11:03 AM
When I first saw the word "Calgarian", I thought it was some competing cult. Maybe Brownian has more information on that.
"If only we still had a skeleton army to oppose them."
We had one? What happened to it? Are they loyal to Craig Ferguson now?
"Am I the only one who wants to kick those bastards in the head when they ring that obnoxious bell outside of stores?"
I think my simmering rage has better direction, actually.
Posted by: evilDoug
|
December 9, 2010 11:04 AM
Crap! I've been donating my old VHS movies to a Calgary Salvation Army thrift store. I've got a bunch boxed up ready to go right now. I've long had reservations about SA, and quit giving them money years ago.
They run a pretty big campaign to collect toys at Christmas. It is truly disgusting they do not make it public that they deal with them in this fashion.
I just discovered Habitat for Humanity has some sort of big store in Calgary. Hopefully they can get some value from my old movies.
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
December 9, 2010 11:07 AM
Bullshit. Just about every kid plays with a toy gun at some point. Even if it's just a stick that they pretend is a gun. Very few actually grow up to be murderers. Toys are not parents.
Missed the point. If you take that "discriminating against the acceptableness of toys based on what they promote" as an axiom going in you see that banning Harry Potter and Twilight for being promoting corruptible behavior yet allowing machine guns has an unfortunate implication. *They* already believe apparently that toys can influence children radically, they just feel that the influence toy guns have (presumably promoting violence in some form or another) is acceptable compared to Harry Potter (presumably promoting pidgeon latin)
Posted by: mistereveready
|
December 9, 2010 11:11 AM
http://www.salvationarmy.org/ind\www_ind.nsf/vw-sublinks/80256E520050A2E280256CBA0028A203?openDocument
/facepalm @salvation army
Posted by: Leah Jaclyn
|
December 9, 2010 11:12 AM
Man such hate for the Salvos, out of all the churches, they are the ones that I don't mind giving some money to. I really think that the Salvos must be highly variable country by country, or even state by state, because My mother works with them and has never given a sermon in her life, and she gives things to people all day, in fact she has a muslim family (with two wives) as one of her clients, nobody gets turned away.
Posted by: evilDoug
|
December 9, 2010 11:18 AM
"Is there a list somewhere of secular charities?"
"For example, in Canada we have the YWCA, which is pretty darn secular."
I don't know how widespread the policy is, but Boys and Girls Clubs of Calgary (affiliated with B&G Clubs of Canada) is secular by policy, and highly deserving of support. I've met people who have volunteered with B&G Clubs specifically because it is secular & has a non-discrimination policy. I don't know if it is still running, but they did have a program for LGBT kids a few years ago.
I agree with anscott1's assessment of the YWCA.
~~~
The paper that ran the story, The Calgary Sun, is a knee-jerk right wing scummy little rag! They've even published Ann Coulter's shit. She's a perfect fit for them.
Bill Kaufmann, who wrote the article in the Sun, is their token liberal, and does a pretty good job of it.
Posted by: Zabinatrix
|
December 9, 2010 11:20 AM
Quodlibet, #25:
What? That's just... wrong, at least in my opinion. I've collected money for charity for the Red Cross and a branch of the WWF and I never even consider getting paid for standing there with the collection thing.
Evolving Squid, #9: Your story reminds me of an episode of Top Gear. I didn't watch it myself, but as I understand it they were in the US, did some race or something with old cars, and then gave them away. They were giving one car to a church, and it turned out that the car was a year or so older than they had claimed when they first spoke with the church - so the church sued them.
Posted by: ibid
|
December 9, 2010 11:21 AM
I gave as a kid. I used to get money from my parents to put in the collection at church. Not because I wanted to give to the needy. Just for the same reason kids want to be the one to push the button.
I stopped giving for the reasons listed in the comments. They require recipients of their aid to attend sermons. They refuse any aid to gays. A significant amount of donations goes to lobbying governments to make them exempt from non-discrimination laws.
I've started doing something different that I hope you'll share with others. For the month of December I put a jar next to the spot I drop my keys when I come home. Every time I come home I drop my change in the jar. At the end of the month I count up the change and write a check for that amount to my favorite secular charity.
My favorite is Trees For The Future since they work to make desert areas better able to support the local population instead of just feeding them and making more local population.
That's the short version. The long version is on my own blog. [link]
Posted by: jasonmp85
|
December 9, 2010 11:24 AM
PZ, PZ, PZ… The Salvation Army aren't just a Christian charity organization, they're a charity based Christian denomination! See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Salvation_Army, but you should be clued in by the first few words:
"The Salvation Army, or before that The Christian Mission, is an evangelical Christian church known for charitable work."
So yes, shake your head and scowl when the bell ringers make eye contact with you. Give your money to someone better.
Posted by: Beau Nidle
|
December 9, 2010 11:25 AM
@ evilDoug # 54
Careful there. Habitat for Humanity is a christian organization as well. Their policies aren't as in-your-face as the SA, but if you're looking for secular, HfH isn't it.
Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold
|
December 9, 2010 11:26 AM
The idea was the three presenters would fly to Florida, buy three cars from a scrapyard and drive them to New Orleans. On the way they had to decorate each others cars, and one got festooned in guy pride slogans. They stopped for petrol in Alamaba and the woman at the petrol station phone "the boys" to come and beat them up. The just managed to get out of town in time, but they did have stones thrown at them.
When they got to New Orleans the plan had been to see how much they could sell the cars for but they were so shocked by the devastation from Katrina (they were there about 12 months on) they decided to give the cars away instead. And, as you have said, they got sued over one car being older than they thought.
Posted by: rufustfirefly66
|
December 9, 2010 11:30 AM
Give 'em a bunch of Ray Comfort's trillion dollar tracts.
Posted by: Quodlibet
|
December 9, 2010 11:33 AM
Information on some secular charities may be found at:
http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Charities#Secular_Charities_and_Aid_groups
and
http://techskeptic.blogspot.com/2007/12/atheist-charities.html
Posted by: Vicki, Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief
|
December 9, 2010 11:35 AM
Their motto is "Blood and Fire."
Not the most comforting thing to see on the building wall at night, while walking to the subway.
Especially since I know they consider me, at best, a sinner in need of redemption, and more likely the enemy. Yes, enemy. "Army" is a strong metaphor.
Posted by: shonny
|
December 9, 2010 11:40 AM
Anyone who has read Jack London's excellent People of the Abyss know a bit about how the salvos really operate.
No reason to think they have improved all that much.
Once a godfuckers' outfit, always a godfucking outfit.
Posted by: nomen-nescio.myopenid.com
|
December 9, 2010 11:40 AM
@#9:
interestingly, it seems none of the cash i handle is ever brand spankin' new, either. hmm...
@#11: some of the bellringers near me now have credit card swipe machines, especially the indoors ones in the local mall and suchlike.
they're also seasonal, part-time, minimum-wage employees picked up from who knows where. i'd not trust them anywhere near my credit card number, even if i did wish to support their charity.
@#54:
don't know about Calgary, but HfH runs a "ReStore" in my town, and several other communities in the region; it's basically a second-hand store for gently used home furnishings. appliances, furniture, doors, windows, DIY supplies. i've used it, and found it good.
Posted by: coldiez
|
December 9, 2010 11:44 AM
pz - hope you see this
and give ZJ's channel a look. Lots of great Atheist rants there
but this one is poignant.
http://www.youtube.com/user/ZJemptv#p/u/2/FXcSQ6OW6oA
Posted by: SophieFrancoeur
|
December 9, 2010 11:51 AM
"Do you agree with the Salvation Army’s policy not to distribute toys that deal with what it says is “black magic?”
Please pharyngulate the poll:
http://calgary.ctv.ca/
Posted by: Vicki, Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief
|
December 9, 2010 11:59 AM
Nomen Nescio--
If you're not happy letting a seasonal minimum-wage employee near your credit card number, that's a lot of shopping you should be doing with cash if at all.
I won't let them near my credit card, but not because I don't trust the bell-ringer. It's because I don't trust him employers, either not to steal further or not to use the money given them in evil ways.
Posted by: woodsong
|
December 9, 2010 12:11 PM
I haven't given anything to SA for more than 10 years, but not because of their policies. I didn't know anything about that until reading this. OK, I've been clueless. Now that I know... nope. Nothing more from me or the husbeast. We appreciate diversity far too much to support any organization that promotes or practices discrimination.
My reason for not supporting them? Simple: Bells give me a major headache! Especially when the location is a resonant corridor in our local mall. The only time I've been inclined to do anything other than leave the area quickly when I encounter their people is when they're doing something else to attract attention. I'd rather heard out-of-key Christmas carols sung by the most tone-deaf idiot in the world than listen to the persistent dingalings!
Posted by: nomen-nescio.myopenid.com
|
December 9, 2010 12:12 PM
better yet, i do a lot of my shopping online. webmasters and web programmers tend to be salaried, and well paid. but yes, i do often reflect that i'm not using cash as much as i ought to.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
December 9, 2010 12:23 PM
Leah Jaclyn, I hate the Salvation Army and will not apologize for it. They have been part of organizations that strive to make sure that companies can discriminate against LGBT employees. They also have a history of threatened to stop their charities if they have to comply with anti-discrimination ordinances.
They are proud to their hatred. Their track record speaks louder then your indignation.
Posted by: druidbros
|
December 9, 2010 12:28 PM
Thats exactly right Janine. They are so not for equal rights for LGBT individuals. I stopped giving anything to them a long time ago.
Posted by: druidbros
|
December 9, 2010 12:32 PM
@62. - Habitat for Humanity does not discriminate. I have a very good gay friend who just got his H4H house.
Posted by: ChrisG
|
December 9, 2010 12:52 PM
Not to let them off the hook for blatant intolerance and general religious stupidity, but there is more to the story than initially reported:
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/904111--no-ban-on-harry-potter-twilight-xmas-donations-says-sally-ann
They're still dickheads, but there doesn't appear to be a national policy on "magic" toys.
I wonder what they'd do with a Magic 8-Ball?
Posted by: What a maroon
|
December 9, 2010 12:56 PM
Or a puritan puta?Posted by: Beau Nidle
|
December 9, 2010 12:56 PM
@ druidbros #76
They may not discriminate, but they are, by their own definition, a Christian ministry.
I wouldn't consider them a secular charity if that is what someone is looking for, which is why I advised caution.
Posted by: jimmygroove
|
December 9, 2010 1:09 PM
I live in Morris, MN myself. I haven't given to the Salvation Army in a long time, especially after hearing about their trick in DC. But I am also dead poor, so I end up using their store here in town quite a bit. I always feel a little conflicted about that, but I tell myself that they can't be making tons of profit off those things; even if all the items are donated, the cost of the building, power, etc. has to add up. And if I didn't use them I'd be shooting myself in the foot; almost all of my winter clothes are from there, as well as work clothes, furniture, pots and pans...
I hate having to compromise my values on that, but being poor sucks.
Posted by: frog, Inc.
|
December 9, 2010 1:10 PM
The Salvation Army is a church.
What the hell did you think that "Salvation" + "Army" meant?
I guess we can all just be dense some day.
Posted by: KingUber
|
December 9, 2010 1:21 PM
I would to the same thing to any Twilight-related merchandise. Burn it all.
Posted by: NitricAcid
|
December 9, 2010 1:22 PM
#70 That poll is in dire need of attention. I can't believe that, even in Cowtown, they found 46% of people who agree that "black magic" such as Harry Potter should be kept away from kids.
The link again: http://calgary.ctv.ca/
Posted by: P_Smith
|
December 9, 2010 1:24 PM
Never mind the gay hating policies or idiocy about "Harry Potter" books, I would never donate to the Slave Nation Army and the St. Vicious de Paul catholic group under any circumstances. Despite their claims that they don't proselytize, both have a history of saying to the poor, "No religion = no food". Religious participation is expected and both groups get caught doing it every year.
Real charity is given without conditions. It isn't used as a pretext to blackmail the poor when they are a captive audience. They're not dogs, not to be told to "sit up and beg or no treats!"
If anyone reading is planning to give, consider giving to one of these types of groups or organizations:
1) Women's shelters
2) Labour unions
3) Ethnic societies
Among others. There may not be a 100% guarantee of secular charity in such groups, but generally, those receiving will be based on need, not on whether they're willing to bow and scrape to religious morons.
Other considerations for those planning to give:
1) If you buy toys, tell the store that you're planning to give to charity. Some toy stores will offer a discount...but be sure you buy an extra toy, not pocket the savings.
2) Giving foodstuffs to a foodbank is always welcome, but consider buying gift certificates for local supermarkets in $5 and $10 denominations. Many times, local foodbanks won't give everything that the poor need, and a gift certificate gives the recipient some options on what to get. As well, people cannot use gift certificates to buy cigarettes or alcohol, so you can be sure the money isn't going to waste.
3) Don't just think of the little kids. Have you got an old computer you're not using and could refurbish it? How about school supplies or books for teenagers? Board games for a family? Those are just a few possibilities.
As for the Harry Potter books, I doubt it's the content that makes the Salivating Army so pissy. They'd probably object to Encyclopedia Brown or Martin Gardner books because they'll make kids think. Hell, they probably object to reading anything but the buybull.
.
Posted by: lordsetar
|
December 9, 2010 1:41 PM
I stopped liking the Salvation Army when a Salvation Army pastor presided over my late great-grandmother's funeral and turned it into an avenue to proselytize. It was slightly okay until he started to play music...then he put The Gospel Train on and everything just went off a cliff with not-so-subtle hints and Bible verses.
After reading about their antigay policies, I walked past the red kettle outside a liquor store last weekend. I also do not give to hate groups, and reading this (and the comments here) makes me want to participate in the three dollar bill protest even though I'm Canadian.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/SaqGVG0xvJEQVwURVamS3DTCdvov0BLhXK1jOsYPPJQ-#b4893
|
December 9, 2010 1:45 PM
Jeez, PZ, get with the program. I stopped donating to them years ago.
Examine the goals of Goodwill. A much better cause -- it's not even close.
MikeM
Posted by: kitzy
|
December 9, 2010 1:48 PM
Thank you for sharing this. I often feel guilty with people out on the freezing cold ringing bells...so I dig out a dollar to put in the bucket each time. BUT...come on...kids would adore getting Harry Potter toys! There is a "Toys for Tots" box that is getting my contributions this year. And, I'm going to buy some Harry Potter stuff. I wonder if they accept "Twilight" stuff? If they rejected THAT I might have some respect! Seriously, thanks for giving this enough attention that I'm keeping my dollars and using them to enrich JK Rowling even more!
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
December 9, 2010 1:49 PM
Yahoomess, this is not a case of PZ just finding out about the policies of the Salvation Army. There are always new readers of this blog. It is more for the benefit of the newcomers who might not be aware. Just think of all of the commercials that the Salvation Army runs at this time of year, pointing out all of the "good" that they do.
Posted by: daveau
|
December 9, 2010 1:51 PM
I never donate to any religious charity, even if 90% of the money gets where it is supposed to. They do just fine without me. There are plenty of secular causes that need support.
Posted by: Xenithrys
|
December 9, 2010 2:01 PM
I'm like Daveau @ 89 on this. The Salvation Army was very active in the campaign against decriminalizing homosexuality in New Zealand in the 80s, and I haven't given to them since. But I've mellowed, and now I just tell them I only give to secular charities. When kids come round asking for sponsorship for World Vision's 40-hour famine, I tell them I'll give to Red Cross instead, because in spite of their name they're secular.
Posted by: Xenithrys
|
December 9, 2010 2:08 PM
I also hate it when the news media fawningly use the Salvation Army's self-assigned silly ranks.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawn5J-Po4gIli-UhApif7UMgGVjX8zMkdZE
|
December 9, 2010 2:10 PM
As someone who grew up in an SA family in the UK (now atheist) thought you might like to know another funny tale...
a few years ago some of my SA relatives (with whom I have no quarrel, they're genuine, not homophobic, and as likely as anyone on here to rant at the SA leadership's dumber policies) were offered an all-expenses-paid trip to the US over Xmas.
Thing is,the SA won a court judgement around the time of 'Guys & Dolls' which makes it an offence to impersonate a Salvationist musician - that means they pick up a fee for performing every time there's one those heartwarming Xmas scenes with a Sally Ann band in a Hollywood film...
only these days Californian Salvationists are too lazy to actually turn up and play, so they invite foreign musicians like my relatives over, get them to do some carol playing..
I know, crazy, but apparently the fees from the films are so big, and the monopoly so powerful, that they can afford to do it!
Posted by: martha
|
December 9, 2010 2:14 PM
Years ago I was on a United Way panel to determine whether and how much to give to various charities that applied for our dollars. The Salvation Army was always a difficult and close question. The local things the SA did in our community were notable. They provided a homeless shelter. They provided transitional housing to families. There was no religious test to what they did and they did it well.
But the Army itself, very weird and problematic. I remember the "officers" of the army talking about how a woman in the army cannot have a higher rank than her husband and if she married down her rank would drop.
We gave them money. We funded programs and the programs were solid and in need of funding.
Personally, I never give to them, I give to the least desirable charities, like abortion clinics. I am glad that they provide some paid work for the bellringers. Now that I know they are doing a job, and do not necessarily have a cause, I'll be sure to nod and smile at the ringer.
Posted by: Kamaka
|
December 9, 2010 2:15 PM
I volunteered with Habitat for Humanity to help build a house for a friend of mine.
The first thing they asked me at sign-in was not "What's your name?" but "What church are you with?"
The whole experience was a god-soaking. Praying at lunch, preachin' breaks...no shit, all work would stop for some guest cleric's arrival, who's only contribution for the day was lip-farting.
The job foreman was a good guy and I might have gone with him to the next project, but I just couldn't take the "workin' for jeebus!" presupposition.
And when I was a young'un bumming around the country, I ate at "The Sally" a few times, and it was always preachin' first, food later. We all found it rather demeaning.
Posted by: Flapjack
|
December 9, 2010 2:16 PM
Well everyone knows the Salvation Army have a militant wing thanks to Frau Farbissina, though I have to say I'd sooner invest my money in Frau's causes...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frau_Farbissina
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtTNkL3q12Q
Posted by: imnotandrei
|
December 9, 2010 2:22 PM
I was immunized against the Salvation Army by the Chicago-area radio program The Midnight Special, which played a song I've since discovered is more traditionally ascribed to the Temperance Union:
"We never eat cookies because they have yeast,
and one little bite turns a man to a beast,
Oh can you imagine a sadder disgrace,
than a man in the gutter with crumbs on his face?
Away, away, with rum, by gum,
with rum, by gum,
with rum, by gum,
Away, away, with rum, by gum,
The song of the Salvation Army*"
It took me a little while (since I first heard it when I was just a wee kid) to realize it was a spoof -- and by that time, I was curious as to why they got that spoofing -- and did my research.
Nompe, no money for you, you #*$)(*)&$# annoying bell-ringers!
(put me in the camp of "I wish I could remove the clappers from your bells!")
*or Temperance Union, as the case may be.
Posted by: Dude... Real Men Watch Ponies!
|
December 9, 2010 2:26 PM
Don't forget clothing, blankets, or basically just stuffs that keep people warm (and shoe and socks).Posted by: feralboy12
|
December 9, 2010 2:30 PM
When I see people ringing bells in the public square, I like to imagine them chanting "bring out your dead...bring out your dead."
Posted by: necronomikron
|
December 9, 2010 2:39 PM
I'll probably give to Child's Play again this year. If you don't know about them, they donate toys and games to Children's Hospitals (yes, they do discriminate on toys - for sanitary reasons! No bears, furry toys, stuffed animals, etc.). These are the very same toys and games that children waiting on surgery or what have you get to play with. This helps bring their mind off of their issues, and let them relax in a rather stressful environment. Often, there aren't enough game systems to go around.
Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD)
|
December 9, 2010 2:49 PM
@98
I'd love to see that.
Posted by: NitricAcid
|
December 9, 2010 3:05 PM
#90- They didn't pick the name for religious reasons; they simply reversed the flag of Switzerland for their emblem.
Posted by: Kodie
|
December 9, 2010 3:12 PM
I've never donated anything to SA but I had no idea they were so horrible. I knew they were Christian, but I assumed they were doing good deeds with that in mind, helping out the poor in need, and having their thrift stores. I wouldn't donate to a Christian charity, but I really had no idea they were so bad.
The thing about them throwing toys in the garbage made me mad. I don't suppose they really like that to get out. They would rather throw a few toys in the trash than to... maybe hope you would donate a toy they approve of. I don't plan to donate anything to them, but if someone I know intends to, I would at least like them to spend their money on a gift that some child will actually be able to have and play with.
I think a good and easy thing to do - SA is always outside the grocery stores and major dept. stores with their bells - most supermarkets I have seen have a program where you can pick up an empty bag with a tag on it for some various amount you want to give, and they will put food in that bag for some families. I appreciate that person upthread who adopts a family in lieu of giving gifts in his or her family; not all of us can do that, but we can, without a lot of effort, buy $5-25 (or more) worth of food in the same spirit. Dept. stores and book stores often have a receptacle for "Toys for Tots" or some other organization that will distribute gifts for poor children, and you're already there, so....
Posted by: MadScientist
|
December 9, 2010 3:16 PM
Meh; I dumped 'em well over a generation ago. They were creepy and delusional back then and I doubt they improved.
Posted by: dadamstowel
|
December 9, 2010 3:16 PM
to #25 - that third story regarding the lawsuit is satire.
http://www.holyblasphemy.net/2010/11/church-files-lawsuit-against-jk-rowling-harry-potter-plagiarizes-bible/jesus-potter
"***This is not a real news article; it’s a hypothetical reaction to the book, Jesus Potter Harry Christ, created for promotional purposes.***"
This message can be found at the bottom of the article.
That said, my personal embargo against the Salivation Army continues. Just keep in mind that many bell-ringers are homeless themselves, and working for a minimum wage. I do not harass them, just explain that I have no cash and keep going. The organization/church's policies have nothing to do with them personally. They're just trying to eke out an honest living, or something close to it.
Posted by: ButchKitties
|
December 9, 2010 3:21 PM
@99
Child's Play is a favorite of mine. I'm kind of torn, because the Twilight dvds are on the wishlist for Riley Hospital. Part of me wants to donate it to spite the SA, part of me wants to not donate it because that movie portrays breaking into a girl's house to spy on her as romantic.
Ooh, they have the Dungeons & Dragons animated series on the list. Dilemma solved!
Posted by: mathemaniac
|
December 9, 2010 3:40 PM
These "charitable" jerks in the Texas Panhandle make the kids show some form of identification to verify they're US citizens. Otherwise, no toys for them. What do children know of such issues? And the anti-gay behavior? They don't get the time of day or even a glance from me.
Posted by: wirelizard
|
December 9, 2010 3:54 PM
The Smellvation Army is pretty firmly anti-labour as well.
A few years ago our unpleasant right-wing provincial gov't unilaterally ripped up most of the health-care sector's contracts, and allowed employers to de-unionize their facilities. (Third parties run old age homes and such here, often, but most of the money is still from gov't).
So who was the very first to de-unionize the old age home they ran?
Yup, our good friends in the Salvo. The city labour council had been in the habit of giving them money around Xmas too. Not anymore...
When that particular gov't policy was sued into oblivion and unions were allowed back into those workplaces, the first to re-uionize was the local Salvo house. Good for them.
Posted by: Alley Cat
|
December 9, 2010 4:15 PM
Why not give to DonorsChoose - http://www.donorschoose.org/ instead? Con: Oprah endorsed it once. Pros: it is a worthy cause and it has a sciencesaurus section.
I haven't found much religious crap there (haven't looked too hard either, I admit) and they seem genuinely concerned with education.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
December 9, 2010 4:22 PM
I stopped putting a buck into the Salvation Army kettle when I found out about their anti-GLBT stance. I don't support bigots.
Posted by: llewelly
|
December 9, 2010 4:25 PM
I read some of their material in the mid-1990s. I've been convinced they were evil ever since then.
Posted by: Samantha Vimes
|
December 9, 2010 4:46 PM
I disliked them once the SCOTUS ruling that anti religious discrimination policies didn't apply to religious groups and they fired the Jews, etc who were working for them.
Posted by: Alley Cat
|
December 9, 2010 4:47 PM
Just noticed I was a bit off-thread there - more to the point, any organization telling me that I won't go to the same imaginary cloud as them, picking and choosing honest donations - and, most demeaning of all, telling hungry people they have to sit up and beg before being fed - can b*ll*ck off, and SA is a prime example.
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
December 9, 2010 4:48 PM
That is good to know. I was going to suggest donating to your local hospital pediatric ward, but an organization that vets and cleans the toys sounds like a great idea.
Posted by: sandiseattle
|
December 9, 2010 4:53 PM
It isn't that I object to the Salvation Army that I don't donate to the kettles, it the damn bells! Get a new instrument. A kazoo, a pennywhistle, any thing!
Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD)
|
December 9, 2010 5:03 PM
@114
Vuvuzela?
Posted by: sandiseattle
|
December 9, 2010 5:08 PM
@ 115 maybe, if they actually play a tune
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmIy583OeID4gkC1g3Lk4g2stdIyYqzUyw
|
December 9, 2010 5:16 PM
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_eeYt1gOHtiQ/TMt2UEE7UOI/AAAAAAAAALs/fz4tz9qVIm4/s1600/V85+Scientology+today.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_eeYt1gOHtiQ/TMt1_wzNK-I/AAAAAAAAALo/h1ggqOablYg/s1600/v84D+These+prophets+are+killing+us.jpg
Posted by: seanpboyd1968
|
December 9, 2010 5:18 PM
My late brother enrolled in one of their drug treatment programs a couple of years before his death. He left after a day or two, because they forced him to listen to preaching, and he was as anti-Jesus as I am. Not their fault he's dead, of course, but even so, seeing those red kettles all over the place this time of year prompts a few unpleasant memories.
Posted by: Nick
|
December 9, 2010 5:33 PM
Indeed, so active that they helped collect a massive petition against law reform. It later came to light that a lot of the signatures on the petition were fraudulent - children, pets, dead people. This is a Christian organisation that was prepared to lie and cheat to further it's bigoted agenda. One of these saintly types came to my Mothers door to get a signature. My Mother let her have it with both barrels. The SA does it's charity work because it sees it as part of a larger mission to prosthelytise. Don't give them a cent. There are plenty of good charities that work with the disadvantaged without the need to spread the evil of Christianity at the same time.Posted by: elronxenu
|
December 9, 2010 6:23 PM
For many years I was pretty neutral toward the Salvos (as they are affectionately known in Australia) and would donate unwanted goods and toys to their collection centre. I think their reputation in Australia was pretty innocuous but recently it turns out they've raped and beaten boys in their homes here. I also didn't know about their anti LGBT policies.
The worms are apparently coming out of the woodwork now. I won't support them any more.
Posted by: Cosmic Snark
|
December 9, 2010 6:28 PM
I should drop my ouija board in the next kettle I walk by.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/l9r4uasxqOCc427SHAp4Etm1Y68BcA--#918ab
|
December 9, 2010 6:34 PM
As a teenage runaway I stayed at different Salvation Army's from time to time. They always required me to attend a church service before feeding me (bastards).
If you look at their mission statement, their primary focus is creating Christians. Their alleged humanitarian focus is merely a way of preying on vulnerable people to promote their intolerant mythology.
Posted by: sophia-daniels
|
December 9, 2010 7:16 PM
doesn't the salvation army know that twilight is about christian vampires? ok... mormon vampires... ok... i can see them not liking that.... maybe if they were catholic vampires....
Posted by: Susan Silberstein
|
December 9, 2010 7:32 PM
My donations go to the National Council of Jewish Women, which raises money for "child welfare, women's rights, and reproductive freedom". Easy choice.
Posted by: mxh
|
December 9, 2010 7:54 PM
I'm with the several people above who say that they never donate to any religious charity, even if all the donations go to a good cause. There are plenty of less-supported secular charities.
As for the bell-ringers, they really piss me off (especially when they try to talk to me - i.e. make me feel guilty). I wonder if writing to the stores that host them would help in any way. I mean maybe they aren't aware that they're letting homophobic religious nuts annoy their customers.
Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom
|
December 9, 2010 8:30 PM
Frick. I just gave these folks a few bucks yesterday.
Posted by: dadamstowel
|
December 9, 2010 8:52 PM
If you're in northern NJ, I highly recommend the AIDS Resource Foundation for Children, who run three St. Clare's Homes for Children. Despite the religious-sounding name, they are a secular organization.
For years, my mother would comb yard and garage sales in upscale neighborhoods on Sundays (typically the final day of the sale) and ask that they donate any leftover clothing, furniture, and toys to ARFC. Most people were happy to help. ARFC will pick things up, clean them (all toys must be sterilized prior to being put into the hands of the kids in their homes), and place them with someone who needs them.
Posted by: paulmurray
|
December 9, 2010 10:11 PM
Yes, the SA were (and still are) a methodist mission.
And HP is basically Jesus - the scar on his forehead is a giveaway. He even dies and is resurrected in the finale.
Posted by: DB
|
December 9, 2010 10:14 PM
It is apparently only the calgary branch that is doing this and one story at least says the offending toys are being given to a different charity to distribute.
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20101209/salvation-army-black-magic-toys-101209/
Posted by: AlisonS
|
December 9, 2010 11:28 PM
I have never given the SA bastards a penny. I don't support any charity associated with religion. I do donate my clothes and unneeded household goods to either women's shelters or the local psychiatric hospital. The hospital operates a store, run by the patients, where they can buy what they need for a tiny amount. This gives a sense of autonomy to the patients as well as helping them get ready to function in society when they leave the hospital.
Posted by: doctoratlantis
|
December 9, 2010 11:33 PM
I'm very skeptical of the "anonymous source" behind this story. But even if it is true, there is no evidence that this is a organization-wide policy. The research I did showed it to be "Sally Ann" - the Canadian branch of the group.
One story had a comment which said, "She says each individual Salvation Army unit makes its own decision about what it will distribute. For a number of years, the Calgary unit has also chosen to not give out toy guns in its hampers as well." Which makes the toy-gun question... -er... questionable?
Whatever. The point is, that we can easily make a story like this go viral and then look like idiots if we don't do any fact-checking. It is so easy to see something that sounds like what you'd expect from some group and then to assume that it is true. But this story sounds very fishy to me.
That, of course, has little to do with whether or not you should donate to the group. I just like to know the facts when I can.
Posted by: becominginvisible
|
December 9, 2010 11:57 PM
SA had a few "bell ringers" in Kansas City that did a nice one person percussion band. A few years back one was performing in front of a grocery store I go to and I put a few dollars in and told him I enjoyed his version of bell ringing. He asked if I was "ready for christmas" and when I told him I wasn't christian he flipped and started yelling at me. I just walked in the store. Manager came up to me as I was at the checkout and apologized. I told him it really didn't bother me. But that was the last year that they were allowed in front of the store. Company that has that store decided not to allow them at any of their grocery stores. Seems as SA expands, their intolerance comes out and fewer organizations want to partner with them.
Local food bank Harvesters (part of Feeding America) has an area wide system that gathers food and distributes to food kitchens, shelters, and places that distribute food to the mostly poor. Grocery stores have the usual food bins to place purchased food, money can be donated at check outs and the cash goes for whatever the food bank needs. This year they have added a donation category for helping Veterans. Some of the churches in my area don't ask people who show up anything. No sign up, no joining in with jebus voodoo poems. One of my neighbor helps out at one when it distributes groceries. "Feeding America" site has links to local food banks. Not shopping at some of their corporate sponsors, but they help a large number of organizations in my area that don't discriminate or help those who have been the target of discrimination.
Then there's Child's Play....The Crazy that Mike and Jerry started. They buy new games/toys for children's hospitals. And have encouraged/taunted other gamers into raising money for Child's Play. I donated to the fourth annual Desert Bus Marathon, I think tee shirts are still available. There are other fund raisers going on >Penny Arcade >Child's Play >Events.
Posted by: goodlookingfatman
|
December 10, 2010 12:36 AM
When are you materialist zealots going to stop with the "we are just as compassionate" line? You're not. Something about the "God delusion" drives people on average further than the godless when it comes to charity. http://www.bigquestionsonline.com/columns/susan-jacoby/good-for-goodness-sake. Most of your charities wouldn't even exist were it not to catch up with the "sanctimonious looneys." Discuss.
Posted by: evilDoug
|
December 10, 2010 12:45 AM
"I'm very skeptical of the "anonymous source" behind this story. But even if it is true, there is no evidence that this is a organization-wide policy. The research I did showed it to be "Sally Ann" - the Canadian branch of the group."
First, "Sally Ann" is simply a slang term for The Salvation Army. I believe in Britain, they are commonly called the "Sally Army".
I am satisfied that the story is legitimate. The "anonymous source" was interviewed, on camera, by CTV Calgary, but only the back of his head was shown. The station that did the interview is in general quite reputable. The SA is pretty well supported in Calgary, and neither TV nor newspapers here would be predisposed to unjustly tarnish their image. Someone "of rank" from the SA in Calgary confirmed the story, but refused to say what the disposition of the toys actually was.
My position is that the Calgary SA has acted in an unethical and fraudulent fashion, by accepting toys from people who believed that they would be given to children. If the SA made a point of asking people not to donate certain types of toys, I would soften my attitude considerably. That there is no uniform policy on the matter - tant pis.
I believe a similar story with SA in Chicago has surfaced.
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
December 10, 2010 1:07 AM
@133
P.R.A.T.T
How nice it must be to have "the God delusion" which lets you magically know the compassionate level of people and gives you the arrogant certainty to judge others as inferior by their intrinsic nature.
Btw...
"HAHA I'm more compassionate than you, and I demonstrate this by being a total ass who shows no sense of empathy or recognition of you as human beings!"
Due, the fuck?
Posted by: Icaria
|
December 10, 2010 2:09 AM
Did some volunteer work for Anglicare, a charity associated with the Anglican church/CoE, a while back.
They were getting paid by the gov't to give items donated to them, to refugees. Where that money went was anyone's guess. They were also loading donated PCs up with crapware and selling them at inflated prices. Again, no idea where that money went. They ran soup kitchens but there were largely self-sustained, growing all their own veg. They'd occasionally drop a few dollars to buy a replacement part for something that was donated to them and employed a handful of people but the numbers never did seem to stack up. The whole thing seemed more like a pawn shop than a charity.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/pA8r2k12mv9CewXIwXxyanx.3Mb9nD1ysw--#754b3
|
December 10, 2010 3:47 AM
I was a precocious little atheist tot (of maybe 12 or 13) when I stopped donating to The Salvation Army. I dropped a little change into one of their buckets and was handed the standard little card...with a Bible verse. Something about that seemed wrong, even then.
Posted by: raven
|
December 10, 2010 4:45 AM
When the xians stop hating gays, atheists, scientists, Democrats, each other, Moslems and any other group they can even spell. When the xians stop threatening to kill us and all those OTHERS. When they stop killing those OTHERS.
The galaxy will burn out first.
Xianity was never a benign religion and it never will be.
Posted by: illdoittomorrow
|
December 10, 2010 5:51 AM
Not telling donors that certain non-xian approved items will not be passed on is definitely dishonest. Gee, lyin' fer Jeebus, who'da thunk?
One thing overlooked so far: in order to believe that items having to do with "black magic" could be harmful to kids, you pretty much have to believe that black magic is real and has real effects. In other words, that Jeebus doesn't have a monopoly on supernatural power.
What happened to the Calgary SA's good Christian faith?
Posted by: John Morales
|
December 10, 2010 6:01 AM
GLF:
What's to discuss? You make a stupid claim, and offer no evidence nor reasoning.
Here, have a taste of your own medicine:
Most of your charities aren't charities, but scams.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/jzDNVVkMkfTD0SU.t855.VXEYvt0Ga6dRU_NlSlx#b335b
|
December 10, 2010 7:07 AM
Blood and fire, people. Blood and Fire!*
Of course the Sally Army has always been a church. What on earth else could it be? But if their bellringers are people who are people genuinely in need then there is no problem paying them. That said, Jack London's already been cited on this thread? Charity as a vehicle for evangelism and the focus on the evangelism is nothing new.
* The motto of the Salvation Army
Posted by: gplaine
|
December 10, 2010 7:15 AM
Some of us remember Jennifer Gale.
Can we go back to the good old days of lobbing brickbats at them?
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
December 10, 2010 8:44 AM
You know we shouldn't look at how much religious give...we should look at how much % wise they give compared to secular. Who wants to bet seculars that give have an edge since they don't give that 10% to a church?
I've seen those studies on church genorasity claim donations to the church itself, payment for church events, and donations to the REPUBLICAN party as charity.
Posted by: Jennie
|
December 10, 2010 12:10 PM
Hello I am posting here in hopes someone out there would be willing to Adopt my family for Christmas! I am unable to work due to possible Fibromialgia and with fifteen days left till Chistmas I have nothing for my kids, I am a single mom of three, ages 4 yr old girl and 2 boys ages 8 yrs and 11 yrs. I do not need Critizism it is hard enough going out like this and asking for help! if you'd like more info please email me
jnncttn18@yahoo.com
Thank you
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
December 10, 2010 12:13 PM
wtf
Posted by: ButchKitties
|
December 10, 2010 12:53 PM
Comparisons of how much believers vs non-believers give to charity are worthless they don't look at where that money is being spent.
I don't consider buying the pope a new pair of Prada shoes, or paying a massive court settlement to someone who was raped by a priest, to be charity. I just looked at the financial report of my old church. 11% of their funds went to charitable disbursements. 34.5% was spent on salary and benefits for church employees. 14% was spent on making cosmetic upgrades to the church and rectory. My parents write off 100% of their tithing as a charitable donation.
There's no fucking way I would give any money to a non-profit that only spends 11% of its revenue on program expenses.
Posted by: necronomikron
|
December 10, 2010 7:17 PM
@Jennie: I see that you've made some posts elsewhere, and did not contribute to the conversation here. I apologize, but, I must wonder where you found us. While adopting a family isn't beyond what many here would be willing to do, this is rather random and somewhat off-topic, as such, feels rather like spam or scam.
There are programs in place for family adoption, which you should contact. Contact social workers in your area and see what assistance is available to you.
Posted by: raven
|
December 10, 2010 7:54 PM
I did some research on how much the churches take in and where it goes. My sources are mostly xian ones FWIW.
Of the money donated to the churches, 86% is used internally for salaries, utilities, materials and so on. What is left is the passthrough. Most of that goes to the national organization for their bills. You think the Vatican is cheap to run?
Some of that 14% is spent on missionary activities. These days, that means xians poaching members from those awful Fake Xian cultists in the church down the road. Some of it goes to "charity". Of the total, not a whole lot.
I automatically don't donate to any charity group with a religious affiliation these days. Looks like the vast majority of it just goes to keep the churches running.
Posted by: ottoman
|
December 10, 2010 9:17 PM
The Salvation Army was originally created as an active branch of the Church of England. Gen. Booth, in fact, had an Anglican funeral. A vestige of this remains within the Anglican communion as "the Church Army." It is 'army' to reflect the aspect of "the Church militant here on earth."
There are wide difference in practice of the SA not only on a national but on a local basis. You may read that to mean that some SA officers are humane people and some are bigots. Locally, the SA accepts all the 'forbidden' items - especially books - for seasonal giving. Local free-thinkers (including my spouse) are active bell ringers. We live in a small enough place that we can see what is being done here. The last family I referred to them for help were some recent African immigrants (Moslem). That help was gracefully given.
Let's not emulate the born-agains by lumping everyone we disagree with into one pile.
Posted by: John Morales
|
December 10, 2010 9:30 PM
Ottoman:
Can you explain what is meant by being a "bell ringer"?
So the Salvos is a franchise, then, and some franchisees aren't True Salvos™?
Posted by: ottoman
|
December 10, 2010 9:48 PM
The people standing by the kettle, ringing a bell (or not, if the mall management objects) are mentioned in our household calendar as bell-ringers.
And not so much franchise as some of their clergy believe more in Good than God.
Posted by: John Morales
|
December 10, 2010 9:57 PM
Ottoman, I'm still unenlightened.
Why do they stand by a kettle and ring a bell?
Posted by: ottoman
|
December 10, 2010 10:07 PM
John, I'll let you in on the secret - it is to annoy you, so that you will give money. If you give bounteously, all SA's will stop ringing. (I liked it better when they had brass bands - our town is too small to support one.)
Posted by: John Morales
|
December 10, 2010 10:25 PM
Ah, thanks Ottoman.
Don't have such where I live, thank goodness.
In-your-face beggars, who beg on behalf of others. Bah.
--
(It does sound damn annoying, and the last thing I would do is appease the annoyer by giving money to them. But I'm not normal.)
Posted by: mikee
|
December 11, 2010 11:34 PM
I've never forgiven the Salvation Army for their significant opposition to the homosexual law reform in New Zealand in the 1980's, as several others have mentioned on here.
And if you want another example of christian arrogance try this:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/christchurch/3977369/Non-Christian-volunteers-not-wanted-by-food-bank-organiser
Posted by: karlfrankjr
|
December 12, 2010 12:39 AM
For what it's worth...this is likely a local issue and should not reflect on the organization as a whole. Of course, you may have other reasons not to support them, but this probably shouldn't be one of them:
Hi Karl:
Thanks for the note and for expressing concern over what appears to be a very localized decision regarding SA toy distribution at Christmas time. Ruth and I have been Salvation Army officers for over 33 years (here in the states). The only time we were ever instructed to withhold toys from use or distribution was when they were on a published list of toys that were deemed unsafe or unhealthy because of chemical compounds or lead paint used in their manufacture. This directive applied more to the used toys donated year round to our many Red Shield Thrift Stores. Very few, if any, of the new toys purchased for Christmas would be on that list. (This listing was put out several years ago and, to my knowledge, it's not been resent since.) Along with the listing of unsafe items was information on how and where to properly 'dispose' of the toys listed.
I do know that there are some individuals who have strong opinions about what is or is not appropriate as a child's toy. And there will be as many opinions as there are adults to discuss them. As for us and Gateway and the Midland Division, if the toys are purchased and donated for distribution, they will be put out to be selected by parents and children as Christmas gifts.
Thanks, again for bringing this article to my attention. I'm sure there will be others with similar questions and concerns.
We so enjoy having your mom and boys as a part of our congegation. (Randy's OK too! :-) I look forward to meeting you sometime in the future.
Have a blessed Christmas!
Bob
Major Bob Fay
Corps Officer (Pastor)
"Know God . . .
Show Christ . . .
Grow in the Spirit . . .
Help others do the same."
The Salvation Army Gateway Citadel
824 Union Road
Saint Louis, MO 63123
Office: (314) 631-1133
Cell: (314) 603-2454
Fax: (314) 631-3494
www.gatewaycitadel.org
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
December 12, 2010 12:42 AM
What about their stance on Homosexuals?
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
December 12, 2010 12:58 AM
"Know Fiction . . .
Show Lies . . .
Grow in the Delusion . . .
Help others do the same."
yup, that's religion in a nutshell.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
December 12, 2010 1:03 AM
For what it's worth...this is likely a local issue and should not reflect on the organization as a whole.
exactly how many instances of "local issues" shall we consider before one can then conclude it reflects on the organization as a whole?
reminds me of the first defense of the CC from child abuse charges:
local problem; not reflective of the church as a whole; repeat ad nauseum until every diocese has been covered independently.
uh huh.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
December 12, 2010 1:15 AM
Just so you know, karlfrankjr, I despise the Salvation Army for what they stand for nationally. (The US.) And from what other people from around the world are saying, internationally.
The over arching organization is against equal rights and the decriminalization of LGBT people.
Posted by: LucysHuman
|
December 12, 2010 2:43 PM
I appreciate the Salvation Army for making it clear for what they believe in. Too many times there is the belief that "Christian" organizations are supposed to just roll over and allow others to walk on them. They aren't forcing anyone to ...give up their own beliefs in order to receive services from them, so this crap that they are supposed to be doormats to make it comfortable for everyone else really escapes me. If you want a Harry Potter book, go buy one of your own at Walmart. They are not anti-guy, either. That rumor is a misperception that has been circulating for a long time by people who don''t have the guts to actually contact them and check it out, but rather take the easy way out and just pass along stuff they have heard.
Their own beliefs don't make them bad people, just as the people who are sitting on the mountain looking down on them aren't bad people. Get over it and agree to disagree, and in the very least be grateful that they are serving the volume of people your aren't able or willing to serve.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
December 12, 2010 2:47 PM
Um that's exactly what everyone is doing. Agreeing to disagree that they are a worthwhile organization to donate to considering their beliefs.
So thanks for your utterly worthless comment.
No but they are anti-gay. It's not a rumor and you are a gullible little clown.
Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa)
|
December 12, 2010 2:49 PM
Excuse me? I feed homeless people at a liberal Christian church (of all places), so I probably do a lot more than you on top of a moral high horse. We don't need to use a sanctimonous organization to do charity.
Given their anti-gay policies, we have more than enough reason to not support them. (It's not a rumor and you spelt it wrong.)
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
December 12, 2010 2:53 PM
Read alessamendes.0514 post #12 and the link therein. They are officially anti-gay. Gays aren't real people who can enjoy consensual sex and marriage. Like in all things, individual chapters may not fully agree with the dogma, but it is still there.Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline.
|
December 12, 2010 3:43 PM
The last coupla years the Danish SA has adopted the motto "(Give us) The money, or we sing".Posted by: LadyWithAPurpse
|
December 13, 2010 9:54 AM
As an employee of The Salvation Army in the US, I read conversations like this from time to time and they sadden me.
I'm sure that we're a flawed organization -- we are, after all, made of people. At the same time, we are attempting, in the words of former General Evangeline Booth, to be "doing the most good for the most people in the most need."
I hope someday you will be able to see the young person released from raising his siblings and enabled to go to college ... the households who were on the edge of losing everything after 2007 but were able to hang on because of the rent or utility help they got.
We "don't ask" when we provide services. We are motivated and empowered by our love of the same Jesus Christ who befriended tax collectors and prostitutes.
Well, time to go. There are thousands of children's gifts to give out in the next few days. Merry Christmas to all!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
December 13, 2010 10:02 AM
Individual's flaws aren't the issue, it's the entrenched flawed policies of the organization that are in question.
Posted by: KG
|
December 13, 2010 10:17 AM
No you're not - you're a hate group as far as gays are concerned, and a bunch of loonies when it comes to throwing perfectly good toys away because they are associated with a harmless fantasy.
Posted by: AC Smith
|
December 14, 2010 12:25 PM
If you believe toys are more important than the clothing and food they donate to people, then you are delusional.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
December 14, 2010 12:27 PM
If you think that's what anyone here thinks, then you're a moron.
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
December 14, 2010 12:29 PM
@169
If you think that's the issue you're delusional.
Seriously "Oh ok I'm wrong about this but...THAT'S NOT IMPORTANT"
Their overhead sucks anyway.
Posted by: AC Smith
|
December 14, 2010 12:29 PM
Then permit me to add you bigdumb chimp, what is the harm in donating clothing and food, instead of money?
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
December 14, 2010 12:31 PM
@172
Are you literate?
Posted by: AC Smith
|
December 14, 2010 12:33 PM
Did I type those comments?
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
December 14, 2010 12:33 PM
I'll subtract you Smith.
a) They're discriminatory and misrepresent what they're about
b) They suck at it because their overhead eats up donations.
Posted by: AC Smith
|
December 14, 2010 12:38 PM
So because they misrepresent that they are against gays and they are not great at covering their ongoing business expenses, we should no donate clothes and food for them to distribute without discrimination (other than the fact they are poor and starving), even though some local chapters are quite efficient at it? Sorry I questioned you guys.
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
December 14, 2010 12:39 PM
#174
Not coherently, nor are you apparently able to read the thread
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
December 14, 2010 12:41 PM
Shifting the goalposts so quickly?
Where is the question on Money there?
Posted by: AC Smith
|
December 14, 2010 12:42 PM
There are plenty of other toys less fortunate children will be happy to play with and not think twice about getting a Harry Potter figure.
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
December 14, 2010 12:45 PM
@179
It doesn't' matter what YOU think. It's not about you. And turning down the Potter toy means that there's possibly some kid that would have gotten a toy that now gets none.
YES! There are better organizations that don't discriminate, it's better to patron those.
Posted by: AC Smith
|
December 14, 2010 12:46 PM
Maybe I should clear that up, I retract statement #169, in light of misrepresenting my point.
Posted by: AC Smith
|
December 14, 2010 12:48 PM
"And turning down the Potter toy means that there's possibly some kid that would have gotten a toy that now gets none."
No it doesn't. They substitute a toy for that child if I read correctly.
Posted by: AC Smith
|
December 14, 2010 12:50 PM
Wait, I didn't read that, I saw it happen in real life when I volunteered at a distribution center the other day. Only instead of pulling out a Harry Potter toy they pulled out a bible and put in CandyLand. But, that shouldn't really matter if they are so bad, because nothing could make up for banning Harry Potter.
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
December 14, 2010 12:50 PM
@182
They threw the toy out. They were down toys. Toys they could have given away. You confuse ask for add but surely you understand math.
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
December 14, 2010 12:53 PM
@183
You want a minute to get your story straight?
They pulled a nontoy and gave a toy. This one is they pulled a toy, THREW THE TOY OUT SO NO ONE WOULD GET IT, and gave another toy. That's less toys given away. And it's cruel to the poor to say that 'we the rich decide what donations you get and by extension what is good for you to like and believe'.
Posted by: AC Smith
|
December 14, 2010 12:54 PM
From the article.."though many of those decisions are made by the local ministry unit operating the warehouse"
This was one exception, it doesn't mean all of them are doing that.
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
December 14, 2010 12:57 PM
@AC
Oh so now we go from "they did nothing wrong" to "not all of them did something wrong".
Sure you don't need some time to figure out your point?
All of them are still discriminatory, some are just more so than others.
And it's not like it's a choice between giving to them or not being charitable. There are better alternatives.
Posted by: AC Smith
|
December 14, 2010 1:02 PM
Sorry my writing seemed to go over your head between posts 182 and 183. I never said it there are only two choices either. I am not arguing what the SA in Calgary did was right. Please don't confuse that. I am stating that there is nothing wrong with donating a game like Scrabble or other educational games in addition to clothing and food to the Salvation Army.
Posted by: AC Smith
|
December 14, 2010 1:04 PM
I also never stated there are not better alternatives.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
December 14, 2010 1:12 PM
Like donating to other charities, ones who don't discriminate against clients and who don't throw donations away because "gawd would be offended."
Posted by: AC Smith
|
December 14, 2010 1:19 PM
Correct, there is also nothing wrong with that.
Posted by: Vicki, Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief
|
December 14, 2010 1:28 PM
AC--
What you're saying is that we shouldn't point out that the SA is a cult that actively advocates discrimination and spends a lot of the donations that people think are buying food and clothing to proselytize or pay their own staff, because it might discourage people from donating? And besides, there are better alternatives, but we shouldn't be pointing that out either?
Does not compute. If the SA was literally the only game in town, that might be an excuse for saying "give them money anyway." But they aren't. I am not dropping money in a kettle so someone can lobby against my rights.
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
December 14, 2010 1:29 PM
We shouldn't give to the SA and should give to better ones because the more we do and stop supporting even the local ones, the weaker the main organization gets. Which will either cause it to change it's practices or it'll loose it's hold in the public mind and be replaced by another hopefully better organization as the default charity.
Posted by: AC Smith
|
December 14, 2010 1:34 PM
" I am not dropping money in a kettle so someone can lobby against my rights."
Agreed, I am not either, because I have learned recently just like the others here that the seem to have an agenda that doesn't work with the advancement of society.
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
December 14, 2010 1:37 PM
@194
Well good this was one of the rare thread debates that got something done then.
Posted by: AC Smith
|
December 14, 2010 1:39 PM
I agree as long as you can agree there isn't anything wrong with when I said "I am stating that there is nothing wrong with donating a game like Scrabble or other educational games in addition to clothing and food to the Salvation Army."
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
December 14, 2010 1:42 PM
@196
I stated why I disagreed with that. It's better to give the clothing and toys and food to a better org.
Posted by: AC Smith
|
December 14, 2010 1:46 PM
I see, one of those die hards. I'll let it go, we seem to be in at least the same book.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
December 14, 2010 1:53 PM
Just like when some books are banned. I mean, it's not like there aren't other, less offensive books out there for people to read.
But those darn die-hards just can't ever seem to see this point.
Posted by: AC Smith
|
December 14, 2010 1:56 PM
@199 No, toys are different than books, I am sure you know that. To equate book banning with a toy is an interesting idea, however if you think that is what I am advocating you are wrong.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
December 14, 2010 2:03 PM
Clearly they're different.
But rather than simply stating they're different, please explain why you don't agree with book-banning and yet have no problem with the idea of banning certain toys because of the ideas in the books they're based on.
Posted by: AC Smith
|
December 14, 2010 2:06 PM
Please refer to #188.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
December 14, 2010 2:14 PM
188 doesn't deal with my question.
If an organisation was known to ban books it didn't agree with, would you still argue there's nothing wrong with donated books they won't ban to that organisation?
Posted by: AC Smith
|
December 14, 2010 2:18 PM
Well, I don't really have all the facts to make an informed decision. Please give me a background on this organization, when were they founded, who started it, how large is their world reach, what their beliefs are, and what books they are banning.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
December 14, 2010 2:22 PM
...or you could try using google, maybe?
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
December 14, 2010 2:24 PM
There are plenty of other toys less fortunate children will be happy to play with and not think twice about getting a Harry Potter figure.
or a train.
or a toy horse.
or a toy truck...
you're fucking point is, what?
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
December 14, 2010 2:30 PM
I don't understand why most of that's relevant, unless you think I meant they're banning those books everywhere, for the entire populace.
In this case, I mean an organisation like the Salvation Army who takes in donated books and redistributes them, unless they happen to be books like the Potter or Twilight books. Those they throw them away.
In other words, of all the children's books that are donated to them, they only distribute the ones they deem acceptable.
Posted by: AC Smith
|
December 14, 2010 2:34 PM
@ 207 - Is this the case for every single distribution center or just one?
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
December 14, 2010 2:39 PM
If it were just one, then I hardly think you and I would be having such an inane conversation, now would we?
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
December 14, 2010 2:39 PM
@ 207 - Is this the case for every single distribution center or just one?
here's a better question:
does the overarching organization publicly disapprove of individual distribution centers doing things like this, or not?
Posted by: AC Smith
|
December 14, 2010 2:44 PM
Your the one making claims about the place, you tell me?
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
December 14, 2010 2:48 PM
Your the one making claims about the place, you tell me?
you're a lazy ass.
If you actually cared, you already would either know, or be looking yourself.
If I actually did post something, you'd simply say, "how can I trust you, you're biased"
fucking trolls, how do they work?
Posted by: AC Smith
|
December 14, 2010 2:51 PM
No, you are talking about some fantasy book banning distributor no one knows anything about. Don't try to spin this on me.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
December 14, 2010 2:55 PM
Simple: rather than saying, "Despite my earlier claim, I in fact have no problem with book-banning under certain conditions X, Y, and Z," they'll waste your time with inane questions that don't move the discussion along.
Someone interested in resolving a discussion would say, "How big is the organisation? I ask this because I think there's a practical difference, blah blah, blah."
Oh, but you weren't really asking me, were you?
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
December 14, 2010 2:59 PM
Oh, but you weren't really asking me, were you?/i>
the proper answer of course is:
"It's a miracle!"
Posted by: Ewan R
|
December 14, 2010 3:03 PM
Yes there is.
They arbitrarily decide that donations will be, for all intents and puproses, destroyed - maybe it's Harry Potter today, maybe it's Candyland tomorrow (depicting heaven in a boardgame! Sacrilidge!!!), perhaps they don't want to give out black T-shirts next year because they lead to satan worshipping.
As soon as a charity starts throwing out perfectly good donations for batshit insane reasons any and all donations to them are a bad idea and would be better off going to an organization that isn't batshit insane.
(and that's skipping the whole anti-gay bit which is justification enough for avoiding them altogether)
Posted by: AC Smith
|
December 14, 2010 3:03 PM
Nope. But maybe you can answer my questions. By not having all the facts it sets a trap I don't want to fall in. Surely you can appreciate that. I mean, it would have been just as easy to say they only have 1 center and they want to ban the Encyclopedia Britannica. I would have said no, I would not advocate donating books to them that is fucking retarded. Or they could have said there are 500,000 centers total and just 1 wants to ban the encyclopedia, and I would have said yes you should just not donate to that one.But Ichthyic is just as guilty as not moving the discussion along, by not just making up more stuff.
Posted by: AC Smith
|
December 14, 2010 3:11 PM
@ 216 - Your probably right, when I was volunteering my time putting those 18-24 month old clothes and shoes in a bag the other day, I was a fool to think it would benefit anyone. It seems I was contributing to hating gays even though I don't. Shit, I guess what it boiled down to was I thought I could at least share the belief that helping people is a good thing and see for myself how many toys were thrown away. Whoops.
Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death
|
December 14, 2010 3:19 PM
Yes. You were. It's completely possible to inadvertently harm people you otherwise care for. You weren't just sharing about your helping. You were sharing about contributing to an organization that causes harm. Don't expect applause for it, especially when better options are out there.Now, not knowing the harm they do is one thing. But you're continuing to defend them after the fact. Stick to defending your own actions (which appear to be well-intentioned) and leave SA out of it. They deserve no credit.
I'm so fucking sick of the "but they do some good!" schtick I could puke.
Posted by: AC Smith
|
December 14, 2010 3:26 PM
I am defending the one center that I worked at only in so far as I saw first hand how many kids would have been helped. Would someone else have picked up the slack if the SA here was gone? Hopefully.
Again I wasn't giving them money to continue to build their empire. And obviously the one in Calgary is fucked. To say the distribution center I worked at deserves no credit is also wrong. Due to their organizational skills and our manpower we were doing good.
My new question is what are the gay, lesbian, transgender organizations doing this winter to help children who do not have adequate clothing this year?
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
December 14, 2010 3:29 PM
I can indeed appreciate that, but from my perspective it's probably not the best way to avoid traps on a blog, where there's a response time lag and a record of what's been said, so it's easier to demonstrate a trap-setter is not arguing in good faith. It just gets frustrating.
I suspected that's what you were doing, but thanks for the explanation.
Posted by: Nepenthe
|
December 14, 2010 3:34 PM
what are the gay, lesbian, transgender organizations doing this winter to help children who do not have adequate clothing this year?
I dunno, doing their job of advocating for LBGT people and their families, children included. It's not the purpose of these organizations to do that kind of work.
I imagine that their members, like me, help with secular organizations that distribute food and clothing, many of which have been listed in this thread.
Something tells me that your question is disingenuous though, so you probably don't care much about the answer.
Posted by: AC Smith
|
December 14, 2010 3:35 PM
@ 221 I could somewhat see where Ichthyic was going, but when we start adding in a host of "what ifs" that also doesn't help the discussion.
Posted by: AC Smith
|
December 14, 2010 3:47 PM
The thing was I was working with the Rotary, a known secular organization. The issue with my area is that the other secular organizations always do some weak shit like Atheist movie day, and Atheist potluck, just getting fat and bitching. I want to help people not talk about it.
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
December 14, 2010 3:48 PM
Dunno. What does the Salvation Army say to gay, lesbian, and transgender families and children?
Posted by: AC Smith
|
December 14, 2010 3:48 PM
Forgot a comma, might make more sense.
The thing was I was working with the Rotary, a known secular organization. The issue with my area is that the other secular organizations always do some weak shit like Atheist movie day, and Atheist potluck, just getting fat and bitching. I want to help people in my area, not just talk. Sounds like I need to tell them what's up.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
December 14, 2010 3:59 PM
Talking can be a form of helping people called advocacy.
But if you'd rather your organisation do other things, then I think you do need to tell them what's up.
Good luck!
Posted by: AC Smith
|
December 14, 2010 4:06 PM
I agree with the "counseling" philosophy, but that isn't being put into practice either. Thanks for the support though. While I have read this blog for sometime now, I never really jumped into a conversation, but now I see that it can help hone debate skills. It seems that many people are just full of shit, but there are some that want to help this species advance past the silly bullshit. :)
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
December 14, 2010 4:59 PM
Then stop spinning it like a troll.Try actually answering ours first. You, the claimant, prove your point with evidence. Then we refute it. That is how the science works. You attempt to prove your point, preferably with good evidence. And we have evidence of SA doing not-so-nice things.Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
December 15, 2010 9:31 AM
Ok, so I say "An org that does wrong should be eschewed in favor of a better one if at all possible" while you say "WHY ARE YOU ATTACKING THEM THEY DID GOOD WORK ITS NOT EVERYONE I HELPED WITHT HEM WHY ARE YOUS AYING THATS WORTHLESS!? WE SHOULD SUPPORT THEM NO MATTER HOW MUCH THEY DISCRIMINATE OR WASTE" and I'm the diehard?
And yet you're sure, SURE, that the organization is good and that you should support it? ...and I'm the diehard?"I know you are but what am I!?"
The SA is a branch of a church...are you saying Church's do not do that community building? Even if the Aorg was embezzling and trafficking children, doesn't make the SA any less inane
Yes. That is what we should work for as I stated. That way either the SA stops doing what they're doing wrong or someone else takes the place. I don't care which as long as we fix this efficiency and fairness problem in the charity. If SA decides to change practices to do everything right they will be worthy of unhesitating support.
No one said they didn't. They could do better. They get some credit not full credit. Being anti-gay is HUGE anti-credit. They were good as you said because of organization skills and the manpower...so nothing inherent in the organization? If you started volunteering to one that didn't have this bullshit problems you would be able to build up the other's organization and numbers to an equivalent level.
For not being anti-gay you sure make a great impression of it. So to defend the SA you attack an entire minority implying they don't care about children? And I"M the die hard?
Honey, passive aggressive stuff like that is what people who are full of shit do.
One of us has pointed out the problems with the SA, how it can be fixed, etc. The other has insisted there's no problem, made emotional appeals, attacked atheists and secularists as noncharitable and attacked the gays as noncharitable.
Posted by: AC Smith
|
December 15, 2010 10:13 AM
I agree with how the SA could be fixed, by working with them to show them they are wrong. And the mention of what the lesbian and gay community was/wasn't doing wasn't an attack, I really wanted to know, #222 cleared it up. Thanks for acknowledging the SA organizational skills and manpower deserve some credit. So what else? Please I want to get this straight in my head.
Posted by: djg
|
December 16, 2010 10:46 PM
That gang of puffed-up sanctimonious looneys has done many, many great things for people in need, and while they certainly need to change the policies regarding gays, etc, it shouldn't take away from the good that they do. I have given to them for years and NEVER had anyone preach at me, unless saying Merry Christmas or God bless you is considered preaching. Again, I think it is terrible that they censor the toys based on an anti-gay policy, but they also do a lot of charitable things.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
December 16, 2010 10:52 PM
Apparently you are unaware that there are other charities that do good things and don't have the policies that the SA does.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
December 16, 2010 11:09 PM
djg:
They don't just censor toys; they refuse to pass those perfectly good toys on to a charity which does not base their work on bigotry. Instead, they go to a landfill, which is hardly helping anyone or anything, now is it? The Salvation Army is also notoriously anti-gay and won't ever see a penny from me for that reason alone.
If you think it's terrible, why would you continue to stand up for and support them? There are many good charities which do not discriminate as they aren't god-based.
Posted by: TimKO,,.,,
|
December 18, 2010 11:21 AM
There's no scriptural support for flying in an airplane or eating chocolate.
Posted by: bignose.whitetree.org
|
January 3, 2011 11:35 PM
I'm joining this discussion late. But for anyone in Australia who's angry about this, we have The Smith Family as a secular charity with no religious agenda.
Their focus is on helping disadvantaged families in Australia, and their About Us page shows a much more direct focus on those principles. So they are a good choice for actually doing what is promised by the Salvos's adverts.
Posted by: bignose.whitetree.org
|
January 3, 2011 11:37 PM
(fixing the links)
I'm joining this discussion late. But for anyone in Australia who's angry about this, we have The Smith Family as a secular charity with no religious agenda.
Their focus is on helping disadvantaged families in Australia, and their About Us page shows a much more direct focus on those principles. So they are a good choice for actually doing what is promised by the Salvos's adverts.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/XfpghSkkuI74vrjF5zt1XvBvTfZmUbD_#4850c
|
January 13, 2011 2:06 PM
Do you want to know another reason why to boycott the Salvation Army? Let's just say that you happen to be extreme Christian, and do not believe in gay rights... or in the whole twilight or harry potter thing... Okay. PERHAPS. I think those things are ridiculous, but I am willing to concede people have a "right" to believe stupidity if they want to... HOWEVER....
I am a person with Diabetes in the USA. I got hired by the Salvation Army on 12/23/10... And on my first day of work found out they refused to give employees more than a 15 minute "lunch" break for an 8 hour shift. In the state of Iowa, they can get away with this, because Iowa makes no provisions on employers needing to give breaks to anyone over the age of 16... HOWEVER, the Americans with Disabilities Act states that a proper meal break for a person with Diabetes to manage their condition is a REASONABLE accommodation. I went in with my concern, and made a request... and I was promptly cussed out by the manager on my first day of work and told how he was tired of us "sick people" taking time away from working for all their selfish things like going to doctor appointments. I promptly started looking for a different job, and tried to hang in there until I got a new one -- yet they started making up things about me to get me fired because they didn't want a "sick" person working for them... After just 5 days of employment! I later found out from another ex coworker that they routinely steal donated items, etc, among other horrible things. Trust me, folks... this is NO Christian charity, no matter what they claim.
Posted by: RitchWatch
|
December 1, 2011 12:45 PM
Wow!
How hypocritical.
Let's see - Harry Potter or help a fire victim.
Vampires or a disaster victim.
Great priorities.
The Salvation Army helps anyone who needs it - regardless of their beliefs - regardless of their orientation.
I will support the Salvation Army before I support any other charity.
You don't like the Salvation Army? Great! Don't support them. But, don't spread lies about them either. Find out what you're talking about before placing judgemment.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
December 1, 2011 2:21 PM
RitchWatch
It's not a lie that the Salvation Army discriminates against GLBT people as a matter of official policy.