Salvation Army's anti-gay stance to blame for drop in donations?

[mystictiger]

At least speaking in terms of UK / Scottish law, there isn't any great kudos that comes from being registered as a church. The only thing that matters are the benefits that attach to being a charity - the Sali Army are therefore reigstered as a charity.

Also, be very wary of citing discrimination laws. They are, at least in terms of UK law, obliged to be non-discriminatory in terms of employment, but not in terms of who they can give stuff to. If you follow the line of argument about discrimination laws being applied to the targets of the charity, then how on earth are you going to legally have a charity that gives to orphans, or HIV positives, or whatever?

[Ket]

I can't believe this (but I do, I just find this incredible), their stated mission is:  "The advancement of the Christian religion as promulgated in the religious doctrines—which are professed, believed and taught by the Army and, pursuant there to, the advancement of education, the relief of poverty, and other charitable objects beneficial to society or the community of mankind as a whole."  So, the good stuff comes after the "advancement of the Christian religion" -- makes me wonder about their priorities and how they get off calling themselves a charity.

I'm certainly not donating to them anymore.

I'm not sure where you grabbed this mission statement from, but on their US website the mission statement is:

The Salvation Army, an international movement, is an evangelical part of the universal Christian Church. Its message is based on the Bible. Its ministry is motivated by the love of God. Its mission is to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ and to meet human needs in His name without discrimination.

Now, if you ask me, those last two words, without discrimination, means that if they are turning people away, then they are blatantly going against their own mission statement, regardless of religious affiliation. If they do want to discriminate against some groups, then they need to reword their mission statement.

In addition - they should also reword their position statement on homosexuality.

Homosexuality

The Salvation Army holds a positive view of human sexuality. Where a man and a woman love each other, sexual intimacy is understood as a gift of God to be enjoyed within the context of heterosexual marriage. However, in the Christian view, sexual intimacy is not essential to a healthy, full, and rich life. Apart from marriage, the scriptural standard is celibacy.

Sexual attraction to the same sex is a matter of profound complexity. Whatever the causes may be, attempts to deny its reality or to marginalize those of a same-sex orientation have not been helpful. The Salvation Army does not consider same-sex orientation blameworthy in itself. Homosexual conduct, like heterosexual conduct, requires individual responsibility and must be guided by the light of scriptural teaching.

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.

Likewise, there is no scriptural support for demeaning or mistreating anyone for reason of his or her sexual orientation. The Salvation Army opposes any such abuse.

In keeping with these convictions, the services of The Salvation Army are available to all who qualify, without regard to sexual orientation. The fellowship of Salvation Army worship is open to all sincere seekers of faith in Christ, and membership in The Salvation Army church body is open to all who confess Christ as Savior and who accept and abide by The Salvation Army's doctrine and discipline.

Scriptures: Genesis 2:23-24; Leviticus 18:22; Mark 2:16-17; Romans 1:26-27; Romans 5:8; I Corinthians 6:9-11; I Corinthians 13; Galatians 6:1-2; I Thessalonians 4:1-8; I Thessalonians 5:14-15; I Timothy 1:15-16; Jude 7

By stating that they are accepting of homosexuals, then in reality refusing them service, they are going against their own doctrines. Now, I'm sure that if they were to actually accept a homosexual person into their organization then the person must agree to become celibate; however, their statements say nothing in regard to helping those who are homosexual only if they can prove they are celibate. They are going against their own tenets, and that in itself is wrong.


In the US, the SA is a church for several reasons. 1. Because it is, after all, a church. 2. Churches, unlike non-religious non-profits, are not required to disclose their financial information publicly. 3. Churches, unlike non-religious non-profits, are not required to have a board of directors that has no affiliation with the organization. Therefore, the people who makes the decisions about what is best for the SA are high-ranking people who are paid by the SA and that is their job. In a non-secular non-profit, this is not the case so that the decisions of the board are not influenced by their own best interests.

[Sure]

Trieste, I am aware of the incident you are speaking of, and it is not about distribution of charity. Further, they didn't even want the right to not hire homosexuals, they wanted the right to not have to ordain homosexual ministers and extend benefits to same sex partners. Like the vast majority of companies do not.

And whether or not it's lobbying is debatable. They weren't trying to change or create a law, but reactively trying to control how it affected them as an organization. They justified their position with an existing law, as well, rather than trying to overturn the law they were being threatened with in the legislature.

You know, Ket, nobody's actually shown that they've refused any homosexual service. They claim they would not refuse a homosexual service, and none of these articles claim they have.

If you want to try to vote with your money and not donate to the Salvation Army because they don't ordain homosexual priests or extend benefits to same sex partners, that is not my business, but please don't claim the SA is doing anything beyond that without evidence. Further, I'd wonder whether you intend to start boycotting every company that doesn't extend benefits to same sex partners? If not, why not?

(On a somewhat unrelated note, that's not a bad idea...)

[Jude]

Personally, it isn't the homosexuality thing that bothers me as much as the overarching evangelical religious component.  Took a quick look at their website and found this under a heading of "programs that help" > anti-pornography.

The Salvation Army firmly believes that sexuality is a gift of a loving Creator. It deplores pornography as a distortion of God's design for human happiness and well being. Pornography is a harmful scourge on society, endangering and degrading the physical, psychological, moral, and spiritual welfare of all persons. Thus, the following pages are offered to provide critical information about pornography's devastating effects, equip people with the means to protect themselves and their families from pornography's reach, and to extend hope to those struggling with pornography addiction.

They clearly have an agenda I don't agree with, so I'm not helping them.  It's pretty simple.

On the homosexuality issue, check this out:  http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3944/is_200112/ai_n9013637/

EDIT:  And while I was researching, I came across this:  http://salvationarmykroccenterprotest.com/information.php - it's absolutely hilarious.  Like a Birther's website.

[Noelle]

Also, be very wary of citing discrimination laws. They are, at least in terms of UK law, obliged to be non-discriminatory in terms of employment, but not in terms of who they can give stuff to. If you follow the line of argument about discrimination laws being applied to the targets of the charity, then how on earth are you going to legally have a charity that gives to orphans, or HIV positives, or whatever?

In the US, because they are a church and not just a non-profit charity organization, I believe they are allowed to discriminate against whoever they so choose in terms of employment. It's why fraternities like the Freemasons or Shriners can deny entry to women (though some branches choose not to), and it was also the cause of the fuss in an already-cited example where they threatened to shut down some of their branches because they didn't want to be forced to give benefits to same-sex couples who worked for them.

I guess why some of their messages leave me mostly unbothered is that they don't seem to be incorporating those elements into their charity work. They're not screening the recipients of their donations to see if they watch porn or if they're engaging in gay sex at home. How much of the money they take in for their charity is going back into the church itself? That would be the one thing that bothers me. If I know any part of my donation is being used to propagate their religious messages (such as the anti-porn one), that would be cause for me to pull my money away and take it somewhere else. From my understanding as it is, it seems like the church and charity are somewhat separate from one another.

[Oniya]

Just because I've actually heard the talk on this one (it's part of the tour of the George Washington Masonic Temple), women who want to become part of the Freemasons join the Order of the Eastern Star.  It's sort of the corresponding sorority.

[Serephino]

The SA was very helpful to me recently, and I'm a gay witch.  Of course they didn't know that.  They didn't ask, which is why I'm not getting up in arms about it.  I told them I'm a struggling disabled person, and they told me where to go for help, and that if I didn't qualify for those social programs, they would help me.  I can understand them pointing me to government programs first.  Their funds are limited.

Also, they're a Christian organization, so, what exactly did you expect of them?  Christians believe they are the one true religion and they must save your soul.  I can't fault them or hate them for following the teachings of their religious book.  It also looks like in order to receive ministry from them, you have to go to them.  That's not half as annoying as those people that go door to door.   

[Caehlim]

Since I found out about their stance on this matter a few months ago I have stopped giving any donations to the salvation army. My motivation is simple, I don't trust their sense of morality which makes it hard to trust them as a charity.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

So which Charity did you entrust with your donations?

[Trieste]

That's kind of irrelevant to this thread, but you can ask him in PM if you want. :)

As far as the topic goes, it's been long enough that there might be some data floating around. It would ve interesting if someone managed to crunch the numbers.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

How so?  The question directs the person intended to answer which charity is more trust worthy than the Salvation Army has proven to be in the past.  In previous posts the topic was touched upon several times that the Salvation Army does indeed give the vast majority of their donations to the causes they claim to help.  That they are a charity that indeed helps the poor and the needy.  He is making a claim that the Salvation Army is not trust worthy and he has ceased his donations. 

My question is no more irrelevant than his statement.  To say, well I don’t think they are trustworthy so I stopped giving them donations is no more debatable or contributing to a discussion than my question.   

[Trieste]

Well, the topic is whether the SA's anti-gay stance caused the drop in their donations. I'd say he answered that quite handily. :)

[Caehlim]

The question directs the person intended to answer which charity is more trust worthy than the Salvation Army has proven to be in the past.

And what's the point. I say 'I donate to Oxfam International, Premiere's fund for QLD flood victims and Heart Foundation' and where does the conversation go from there?

I assume you want to show some degree of hypocrisy to my choices and thus invalidate my opinion. Wouldn't it be easier to just establish a positive case for the Salvation Army, saying 'here is why they are worthy of trust'. This wouldn't require any knowledge of my other donation recipients.

Perhaps S.A. gives a greater percentage of their income to recipients than Oxfam, or has a lower administrative overhead that the Heart Foundation (random examples, I haven't researched this) and you could show that. But how could you possibly compare that to various positives (also not real examples), such as Oxfam targets people in greater need or the Heart Foundation employs more qualified personnel.

Ultimately charities are difficult to compare, being a case of apples and oranges, and it all comes down to your trust in the organisation as a personal choice. My point is that S.A.'s stance makes it difficult for me to have that kind of faith in their ability to make moral choices.

Maybe I've misread your question and it's leading somewhere else, but if we went through that whole conversation I've paraphrased above it would simply bring me back to my original point. I can't trust a charity when I don't believe that its members have good moral judgement, discrediting other agencies won't change that, I don't grade on a curve.

[Caehlim]

Well, the topic is whether the SA's anti-gay stance caused the drop in their donations. I'd say he answered that quite handily. :)

Well that's what I was trying to do. At least within my own personal experience.