Monday, November 13, 2006

 

Red Kettle Boycott: Just Say "No" to the Salvation Army

Below is a slightly altered version of an article I wrote almost three years for the Michigan Indymedia Center under a pseudonym.

A November 27, 2003, Salvation Army (SA) press release notes, "In a dazzling nationally televised half-time performance during today's Dallas Cowboys' annual Thanksgiving Day game, country music superstar Toby Keith helped kick-off The Salvation Army's 2003 Red Kettle Campaign." That same week I kicked off my second annual seasonal boycott of businesses that host the SA's Red Kettles.

You see, what the press release doesn't tell you and you wouldn't learn from the half-time show is that the Salvation Army (SA) is a conservative church organized in a military structure and operating on "war" footing. Among other things, its official doctrine states:
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.
If you do not "accept and abide by" these and other doctrines--for example, total abstinence from the use of alcohol and tobacco--then you cannot be a member of the SA "church body." By contrast, Jesus maintained a fellowship that welcomed the socio-religious outcasts of his day; some of these persons were deemed impure in their very being. Yet, Jesus violated the purity codes and communed fully and openly with them. The Gospels record that when Jesus sat down at the Last Supper, he ate and drank with Judas, knowing that he had already agreed to, and would, betray him; with Peter, knowing that very soon he would deny him thrice; and, with his other disciples, knowing that while still at the table some would quarrel over 'which of them should be accounted greatest.' Jesus did not eschew communion with the betrayer, the denier, or the self-aggrandizing quarrelers. Would God that the SA and other 'traditionalists' and 'revisionists' should follow Jesus' example of, yes, the inclusive table.

The SA doesn't depend solely upon their faith in God; they are also active in politics. SA leaders saw George Bush's "Faith-Based and Community Initiative" as an opportunity for increased funding and to "allow us to integrate social services and spiritual services more." So, in 2001, according to a SA memo obtained by the Washington Post, the SA offered the administration its financial and other support for lobbying efforts to increase the flow of federal taxpayer money to religious organizations. In return, the SA asked for a pass from the White House to permit them violate local and state employment non-discrimination laws that protect lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people.

The SA eventually got much of what they wanted in December 2002--just in time for Christmas--George Bush signed Executive Order 13279. According to the official press release, it "amends a previous Executive Order to ensure that religious organizations receiving Federal contracts are able to take their faith into account in making employment decisions." Since LGBT people do not have any federal protections against discrimination, they are the people most adversely affected by this change.

In November 2001, the Western US territory of the SA decided--at least partially in response to local and state nondiscrimination laws--to start providing health benefits to the same-sex domestic partners of its employees. In explaining the decision Col. Phil Needham wrote:
I cannot conceive of the God of agape love saying to us: "Yes, provide needed health care access to these sinners, but not to those." Do I support the gay lifestyle? No. Do I think that refusing to provide access to benefits to a gay partner of an employee will serve to alienate us further from gays in general and confirm further the perception by probably most gays that Christianity is not for them? Yes.
After a weeklong onslaught of anti-LGBT criticism from the so-called Religious Right, including a funding boycott led by the American Family Association, the national headquarters reversed the policy.

While I support the rights of the Salvation Army and its members to freedom of religion and expression, until they change their policies, I will not knowingly support them or any business that supports them; I am also opposed to them (or any other religious organizations) receiving public funds. Charity is important but the good that the Salvation Army does must be balanced against the harm they do to LGBT people by their promotion of baneful "religious" doctrines. More importantly, in most places there are nondiscriminatory alternative organizations to which people who normally give to the Salvation Army can divert their money.

If you are offended by the presence of the SA's Red Kettle at a business you support then I encourage you to explain your concerns to the management. You can let the SA know by dropping an $3 bill or a Soulforce voucher (PDF) in the Red Kettle. Finally, don't forget to express your gratitude to businesses that don't permit the SA to solicit funds on their property.

Note: Col. Phil Needham's statement quoted above no longer appears on the Salvation Army web site. You can read excerpts of it here on the web site of the right wing Concerned Women for America.

See also:

Labels: , , , ,


Comments:
I don't understand why you can believe as you do and the salvation army can't believe what it does. If you do not wish to contribute - don't. Why do you think you are right to carry this to the next level where you would deny their right and the right of the business to choose who they would support? Your message is lost in hatred yourself. You point one finger at the salvation army and three point back to you.
 
They do have their right. No one has taken that from them. We are only saying that it's our right and our choice not to contribute to an organization that believes in hatred.
 
NO ONE has the right to hate and oppress other people and call it a "Deeply Held Religious Belief" - period.

http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-9na0L1QyYqQroi4qB1x2fv3E?p=123
 
Mike, I agree with the "oppress" part but not the "hate" part. And in reference to the story behind your blog post, I think it's fine that a Minneapolis city bus driver got official permission not to drive any bus that carries a gay-themed ad as long as everyone else employed by the transit authority has the same rights of conscience. It would be great if drivers opted out of driving busses with military recruiting ads, for example.
 
Well, then, I guess I have to carry this argument to it's logical conclusion as the author of this same article also did. If people are allowed to legally discriminate against any minority or group of people (civil servants in particular)then would it be okay for firefighters to refuse to put out fires in buildings that housed "objectionable" groups? Would it be okay for ambulance drivers and policemen to refuse to help anyone they see as "morally objectionable". And, I have to say this argument doesn't include just GLBT people but any minority or group of people seen as undeserving of the same rights and justice in society.
This did happen in Germany during Kristallnacht (http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/holocaust/h-knacht.htm) and history was a witness to the ultimate conclusion of this insanity and "right" to discriminate.

We need to sepearate what we’re talking about here. I've said this in my blog before and in the interest of saving space here, it’s not about just a matter of opinion. It’s not about a matter of you like this flavor and I like another. It’s a matter of injustice and denial of basic human rights to groups of people based soley on religious fear and ignorance.
 
Mike, you've taken this argument not to its "logical conclusion" but to its illogical conclusion. The bus driver in your blog post got a "reasonable accomodation" that did not jeopardize anyone's life, limb, or property. Allowing "firefighters to refuse to put out fires" etc. would not be such a "reasonable accomodation."
 
Post a Comment



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?