Don't Waste Your Money On the Salvation Army

[AvgGuyIA]

QUOTE="AvgGuyIA, post: 10393992, member: 22468"]

Actually, the SA will turn away gay partners from their shelters, unless one of them is willing to sleep somewhere else. I found out about this about three weeks ago. consequently, I cut out some Chic-fill-a coupons and the next time I passed a bell ringer, deposited them in to the kettle.

So are you saying that the homeless should have to put up with two guys ******* while sharing the common shelter the Salvation Army provides them? You can't control yourselves in the presence of others?[/QUOTE]

.

Excuse me, Average, but I don't recall saying that. I figure that you will prove that you are not a liar by quoting anything I posted even remotely similar to the bold part of your post[/QUOTE]



It's implied by your post. The SA doesn't ask if you're gay when they offer shelter. But they also don't allow you to share one of their beds with a dude either.

 

[J.E.D]

How about we all put a few dollars in a kettle tomorrow, along with a little note stating the donation is in the name of "Howey" from the usmessageboard.com.

I can't afford to give them any money because of the homofascist obama's energy policy. So I'm going to give them a Christmas card from Howie.

If you can't afford to donate a dime, don't blame it on Obama; go get a job, moocher.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

He did not say "Before homosexuality". What he said was "...well before homosexuality had found it's place as a hot topic issue in the political arena.".

Is there anyone here who thinks homosexuality has been a hot topic in the political arena since ancient Rome?

Well the issue appears to be a very personal one, which explains his response. However the big issue is the Salvation Army does it's best to help those going through troubled times, and doesn't USE the organization to focus on any particular issue and make statements through a platform message behind its efforts. What we have here is a growing movement that uses politics to enforce their views on other organizations and MAKE it a big political issue when they don't reply in a fashion they find acceptible. That is what is happening here. We have one of the oldest and biggest charitable private organizations in our nation, and the left wants to use the popularity of a well known charity to make a political statement to try an enforce their views on those who may have a difference of opinion ..., but does not want to make it the purpose behind their cause. Why is it always the left who seem to attack those who may share an opinion that is different from theirs, and use political power to then force them to conform to their ideology? Sounds like this country is moving closer to the realm of being a dictatorship, rather than a mixed culture of various backgrounds and beliefs. We should be encouraging charity during these hard economic times, and those who make it their goal to give to others who have a need, not look to bend someone's will and threaten to shut them down. Have we become a nation of Scrooge over compassion?

 

[Vandalshandle]

AverageGuy, you are the problem. You are one of those people who, if the word, "homosexual" is spoken, immediately translate that in your mind into "homosexual sex act". I am sure that the Salvation Army does not arrange for heterosexuals to make love in their shelters, yet, as soon as the word "homosexual" comes up, you seem to think that the first thing they are going to do in a SA shelter is to **** like rabbits. Get your mind out of the gutter, Average. The dirt that you roll in is strictly in your own mind.

 

[martybegan]

when school is about to open, you can see tons of kids getting supplies at the SA. Other churches? no, not unless you are a member
Christmas is the same
during hurricanes or other disasters, your local SA will be nearly empty, your local church....

so yea, keep your assumptions to yourself

Overwhelmingly false: America s Top 50 charities How well do they rate - CSMonitor.com

1 YMCA of the USA - Christian - Income: $5986.1 million
Spends: 87.4%
2 Goodwill Industries International - Unaffiliated/Christian - Income: 4,437.0 million
Spends: 89.0‡‡%
3 Catholic Charities USA - Catholic - Income: 4,437.0 million
Spends: 79.6% or 3412 million
4 United Way - Income: 4,422.8 million
Spends: 90.6%
5 American Red Cross - Unaffiliated - Income: 4,139.9
Spends: 92.2%
6 The Salvation Army - Christian - Income: 3,203.8 million
Spends: 84.0% or 2691 million
7 Habitat for Humanity International - Unaffiliated - Income: 1,490.6 million
Spends: 83.7%
[...]11 Feeding America - Unaffiliated - Income: 1,185.0 million
Spends: 97.2%

Salvation Army is the 6th most effective charity in the US, my claim that other church groups (including the Catholic Church) do more than the Salvation Army is correct.

Whether they are the most efficient charity or not isn't my point.

That the only complaint the gays have is that the Salvation Army will not abandon their beliefs (regulating internal matters only). The claim has always been that they are not against anyone's religious beliefs if those religious beliefs are not forced on them. In this case, the beliefs are not being forced on anyone. The charity is a ministry. To expect them to live a Christian life, while working as a Christian ministry is pretty basic stuff.

Let people decide who they give their donations to, but don't expect people to always give money to groups they don't agree with.

Would
I stop donating on the basis they believe something I don't? Depends on the context, and where they put their money. It is the same with every charity.

I am not saying giving money to the SA, is not helpful or welcome. Certainly they do a lot of things in the community.

Though helping the community doesn't make them more beneficial to the community than the Red Cross and other charities.

Some in this thread want to play politics, attack liberals, and not discuss whether or not a view of people within a charity should preclude a donation. I wouldn't donate to a charity on basis of their views, but their work in helping others.

However it's not the Salvation Army that's playing politics here. Rather, this private organization has been meeting needs well before homosexuality had found it's place as a hot topic issue in the political arena. Now that it has become a major issue, you are demanding that a private organization pass a form of litman's test to see if they can legitimately satisfy your ideological political view. It doesn't matter whether the Salvation Army's focus has, and continues to be, using those resources it obtains towards meeting the needs of the less fortunate. I would rather that an organization not get mixed up with the latest politics but simply gives out of necessity. Why is it, along with those nativity scenes and wishes of Merry Christmas that take place during this time of year, that liberals always take issue with views that happen to be contrary to their own? As if they feel the need to force others into conforming to the same ideological view.

Not at all. More power to them. I would just rather give my money to the Red Cross. They don't turn away people because they don't approve of their lifestyle.

Is there any evidence of someone being turned away from an SA shelter or denied help from the SA due to their sexuality?

 

[boedicca]

Overwhelmingly false: America s Top 50 charities How well do they rate - CSMonitor.com
Salvation Army is the 6th most effective charity in the US, my claim that other church groups (including the Catholic Church) do more than the Salvation Army is correct.

Whether they are the most efficient charity or not isn't my point.

That the only complaint the gays have is that the Salvation Army will not abandon their beliefs (regulating internal matters only). The claim has always been that they are not against anyone's religious beliefs if those religious beliefs are not forced on them. In this case, the beliefs are not being forced on anyone. The charity is a ministry. To expect them to live a Christian life, while working as a Christian ministry is pretty basic stuff.

Let people decide who they give their donations to, but don't expect people to always give money to groups they don't agree with.

Would
I stop donating on the basis they believe something I don't? Depends on the context, and where they put their money. It is the same with every charity.

I am not saying giving money to the SA, is not helpful or welcome. Certainly they do a lot of things in the community.

Though helping the community doesn't make them more beneficial to the community than the Red Cross and other charities.

Some in this thread want to play politics, attack liberals, and not discuss whether or not a view of people within a charity should preclude a donation. I wouldn't donate to a charity on basis of their views, but their work in helping others.

However it's not the Salvation Army that's playing politics here. Rather, this private organization has been meeting needs well before homosexuality had found it's place as a hot topic issue in the political arena. Now that it has become a major issue, you are demanding that a private organization pass a form of litman's test to see if they can legitimately satisfy your ideological political view. It doesn't matter whether the Salvation Army's focus has, and continues to be, using those resources it obtains towards meeting the needs of the less fortunate. I would rather that an organization not get mixed up with the latest politics but simply gives out of necessity. Why is it, along with those nativity scenes and wishes of Merry Christmas that take place during this time of year, that liberals always take issue with views that happen to be contrary to their own? As if they feel the need to force others into conforming to the same ideological view.

Not at all. More power to them. I would just rather give my money to the Red Cross. They don't turn away people because they don't approve of their lifestyle.

Is there any evidence of someone being turned away from an SA shelter or denied help from the SA due to their sexuality?

I doubt it. It's one of those "fake but accurate" style accusations that the Left uses to promote collective guilt.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

I made it a point to make a donation yesterday. I will be going back out tomorrow, and I'll make another donation then.

They help a lot of people and I support that.

 

[hipeter924]

He did not say "Before homosexuality". What he said was "...well before homosexuality had found it's place as a hot topic issue in the political arena.".

Is there anyone here who thinks homosexuality has been a hot topic in the political arena since ancient Rome?

Homosexuality has always been a hot political issue since those times, of course in recent times widespread harassment and imprisonment of homosexuals within the western world has mostly ended.

Oscar Wilde is a good example of someone that affronted society, and lost his career because of his relationship with men.

So it has been a hot political issue well before, and then during the founding of America. Of course back then they had to solutions: imprisonment or mental help, so it wasn't as if they had to debate it vigorously.

 

[boedicca]

I made it a point to make a donation yesterday. I will be going back out tomorrow, and I'll make another donation then.

They help a lot of people and I support that.

I have several boxes of items I'm going to drop off in downtown Oakland this weekend. S.A. has a huge donation facility there, and does a lot of good things for the city.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Overwhelmingly false: America s Top 50 charities How well do they rate - CSMonitor.com
Salvation Army is the 6th most effective charity in the US, my claim that other church groups (including the Catholic Church) do more than the Salvation Army is correct.

Whether they are the most efficient charity or not isn't my point.

That the only complaint the gays have is that the Salvation Army will not abandon their beliefs (regulating internal matters only). The claim has always been that they are not against anyone's religious beliefs if those religious beliefs are not forced on them. In this case, the beliefs are not being forced on anyone. The charity is a ministry. To expect them to live a Christian life, while working as a Christian ministry is pretty basic stuff.

Let people decide who they give their donations to, but don't expect people to always give money to groups they don't agree with.

Would
I stop donating on the basis they believe something I don't? Depends on the context, and where they put their money. It is the same with every charity.

I am not saying giving money to the SA, is not helpful or welcome. Certainly they do a lot of things in the community.

Though helping the community doesn't make them more beneficial to the community than the Red Cross and other charities.

Some in this thread want to play politics, attack liberals, and not discuss whether or not a view of people within a charity should preclude a donation. I wouldn't donate to a charity on basis of their views, but their work in helping others.

However it's not the Salvation Army that's playing politics here. Rather, this private organization has been meeting needs well before homosexuality had found it's place as a hot topic issue in the political arena. Now that it has become a major issue, you are demanding that a private organization pass a form of litman's test to see if they can legitimately satisfy your ideological political view. It doesn't matter whether the Salvation Army's focus has, and continues to be, using those resources it obtains towards meeting the needs of the less fortunate. I would rather that an organization not get mixed up with the latest politics but simply gives out of necessity. Why is it, along with those nativity scenes and wishes of Merry Christmas that take place during this time of year, that liberals always take issue with views that happen to be contrary to their own? As if they feel the need to force others into conforming to the same ideological view.

Not at all. More power to them. I would just rather give my money to the Red Cross. They don't turn away people because they don't approve of their lifestyle.

Is there any evidence of someone being turned away from an SA shelter or denied help from the SA due to their sexuality?

No, of course not

Leftist can't find shit on the SA so they have to make it up, and hope no one calls them on it

 

[EastCoastLiberal]

I give to Heifer International. Buy a farmer a goat or cow and his whole family and village benefits. AND you can also buy a goat, cow or chickens in someone else's name. Makes a great Christmas present

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

How about we all put a few dollars in a kettle tomorrow, along with a little note stating the donation is in the name of "Howey" from the usmessageboard.com.

I can't afford to give them any money because of the homofascist obama's energy policy. So I'm going to give them a Christmas card from Howie.

If you can't afford to donate a dime, don't blame it on Obama; go get a job, moocher.

I have a job and I don't mooch. Obama wants me to mooch and depend on government and vote for his party as a result of gov Christmas presents so that is part of why he wants a bad economy. I donate time and effort. What do you donate, obama apologist?

 

[WinterBorn]

He did not say "Before homosexuality". What he said was "...well before homosexuality had found it's place as a hot topic issue in the political arena.".

Is there anyone here who thinks homosexuality has been a hot topic in the political arena since ancient Rome?

Homosexuality has always been a hot political issue since those times, of course in recent times widespread harassment and imprisonment of homosexuals within the western world has mostly ended.

Oscar Wilde is a good example of someone that affronted society, and lost his career because of his relationship with men.

So it has been a hot political issue well before, and then during the founding of America. Of course back then they had to solutions: imprisonment or mental help, so it wasn't as if they had to debate it vigorously.

It was not a hot topic in the political arena. Almost no politician would touch it in Wilde's day. There is a difference between "hot topic in the political arena" and taboo.

 

[hipeter924]

He did not say "Before homosexuality". What he said was "...well before homosexuality had found it's place as a hot topic issue in the political arena.".

Is there anyone here who thinks homosexuality has been a hot topic in the political arena since ancient Rome?

Homosexuality has always been a hot political issue since those times, of course in recent times widespread harassment and imprisonment of homosexuals within the western world has mostly ended.

Oscar Wilde is a good example of someone that affronted society, and lost his career because of his relationship with men.

So it has been a hot political issue well before, and then during the founding of America. Of course back then they had to solutions: imprisonment or mental help, so it wasn't as if they had to debate it vigorously.

It was not a hot topic in the political arena. Almost no politician would touch it in Wilde's day. There is a difference between "hot topic in the political arena" and taboo.

False. It was both a hot political issue, and a taboo at the time. Politicians did touch the issue, passing sodomy laws: Oscar Wilde Sodomite

 

[WinterBorn]

He did not say "Before homosexuality". What he said was "...well before homosexuality had found it's place as a hot topic issue in the political arena.".

Is there anyone here who thinks homosexuality has been a hot topic in the political arena since ancient Rome?

Homosexuality has always been a hot political issue since those times, of course in recent times widespread harassment and imprisonment of homosexuals within the western world has mostly ended.

Oscar Wilde is a good example of someone that affronted society, and lost his career because of his relationship with men.

So it has been a hot political issue well before, and then during the founding of America. Of course back then they had to solutions: imprisonment or mental help, so it wasn't as if they had to debate it vigorously.

It was not a hot topic in the political arena. Almost no politician would touch it in Wilde's day. There is a difference between "hot topic in the political arena" and taboo.

False. It was both a hot political issue, and a taboo at the time. Politicians did touch the issue, passing sodomy laws: Oscar Wilde Sodomite

And how much opposition was there to those laws?

 

[hipeter924]

It was also put in the bill of rights of the original thirteen US states. So you don't know what you are talking about, if you claim it wasn't a hot topic or a political issue.

 

[WinterBorn]

And Oscar Wilde was hardly a citizen of Rome in 2 BC.

 

[hipeter924]

And Oscar Wilde was hardly a citizen of Rome in 2 BC.

Before Christianity came to the fore, homosexuality while deriled in many circles, was tolerated and many engaged in 'sodomy'. There were plenty of political disputes, and with the rise of Christianity, laws began to be passed to make it illegal.

 

[hipeter924]

He did not say "Before homosexuality". What he said was "...well before homosexuality had found it's place as a hot topic issue in the political arena.".

Is there anyone here who thinks homosexuality has been a hot topic in the political arena since ancient Rome?

Homosexuality has always been a hot political issue since those times, of course in recent times widespread harassment and imprisonment of homosexuals within the western world has mostly ended.

Oscar Wilde is a good example of someone that affronted society, and lost his career because of his relationship with men.

So it has been a hot political issue well before, and then during the founding of America. Of course back then they had to solutions: imprisonment or mental help, so it wasn't as if they had to debate it vigorously.

It was not a hot topic in the political arena. Almost no politician would touch it in Wilde's day. There is a difference between "hot topic in the political arena" and taboo.

False. It was both a hot political issue, and a taboo at the time. Politicians did touch the issue, passing sodomy laws: Oscar Wilde Sodomite

And how much opposition was there to those laws?

The size of an opposition or lack there of, doesn't make it less of a debate. Even if the debate came down to punishment of 'sodomy' vs 'treatment' or DADT like attitudes.

 

[WinterBorn]

And Oscar Wilde was hardly a citizen of Rome in 2 BC.

Before Christianity came to the fore, homosexuality while deriled in many circles, was tolerated and many engaged in 'sodomy'. There were plenty of political disputes, and with the rise of Christianity, laws began to be passed to make it illegal.

And here I thought the point of language was to communicate.

I think we all understood what he meant when he said "hot button topic". You know, like removing those archaic laws and stopping the outright persecution of gays?