Noah Baron, Associate Editor
Ideology: Religious Progressive | Writing from: New York City, NY
I’ve known for a long time that the Salvation Army isn’t exactly a pristine institution. In 2004, I heard about a lawsuit brought against the social services division of the organization when it began to require employees to fill out a form in which they had to: “a) identify their church affiliation and all other churches attended for the past decade, b) authorize their religious leaders to reveal private communications to the Salvation Army; and c) pledge to adhere to the religious mission of The Salvation Army which, according to The Salvation Army, is to ‘preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ.’”
The group’s employment discrimination doesn’t stop there, however: it worked with the Bush administration in order to avoid being subject to laws prohibiting it from hiring prejudice against gay men or lesbians.
While normally such discrimination might be protected by the First Amendment, the Salvation Army receives an annual $83 million from the federal government to implement its programs. As a result, its social services division is not subject to First Amendment protections — it is not permissible to practice discrimination or to evangelize on the government’s dime.
Until this week, I had thought this was the extent of the group’s tenuous commitment to American values.
Unfortunately, this wasn’t the case. In 2004, when New York City was considering legislation which would prohibit corporations doing business with the city from discriminating against gay men or lesbians in health benefits, the Salvation Army — in a fit of childish rage – threatened to close down its soup kitchens if the legislation passed. Apparently, for the Salvation Army — or, as they should be called, the Starvation Army — it’s more important to ensure that people go without health benefits because of their sexual orientation than to provide food for the needy.
Even more recently, a homeless male-to-female transperson, Jennifer Gale, sought a place to sleep for the night in a Salvation Army shelter. There, they refused to provide her admittance unless she used her male name and slept in the same room as and showered with the homeless men.
And, shockingly, according to an ABC subsidiary, the Salvation Army has begun demanding proof of residence — and sometimes even checking the immigration status — of those desiring to sleep in its shelters or applying for Christmas gifts for their children. One blogger put it succinctly: “[before donating to the Salvation Army, remember that]…they run a program where kids are only given toys if they can present a valid birth certification or immigration papers, so that the children of illegal immigrants are punished for their parents’ deeds. At Christmas. While other kids are given toys. That your donation paid for.”
Some might argue that the Salvation Army is better than nothing at all. And, while that might be the case, this isn’t an accurate portrayal of our choices in reality. There are organizations which do not discriminate based on gender identity, sexual orientation, or religious belief — including theCoalition for the Homeless, which provides soup kitchens and shelters, or Women in Need which reaches out specifically to women (a demographic frequently neglected by services for the homeless). It should also be pointed out that by continuing to donate to the Salvation Army while these policies remain in place, you are rewarding that behavior. Perhaps when they see that other groups are thriving because of their inclusive policies, the Salvation Army will change its own.
I, for one, won’t be giving them a cent.
Dear Noah: From yours: “a fit of childish rage” they learned this from their friends in the gov’ts: threaten to close the matquee services to stir up public support. It works! Would you be callig it a “fit of childish rage” if it were a Democrat congressman whining about Republicans trying to cut off their Social Security(which happens every election cycle!)?
Great: the second of America’s great charitable institutions: first the Boy Scouts of America wasn’t good enough, because they required a character oath by the boys, and it wasn’t “gay-friendly”(as if being pederast-friendly would be better), and now the Salvation Army isn’t gay enough, and doesn’t ruin itself providing social services to illegal immigrants.
The Salvation Army is rated by most charitable evaluators as the most efficient provider of social services in the world. They hire from among the faithful, because they’ve learned that that profile provides the best service. There’s something wrong with that?
Noah,
I object to one part of your argument: that they ask what religion an applicant is. Does this not make sense for a religious organization? Do not Muslim and Jewish charities do the same?
Also, if the goal of a charity is to establish a better world, are they not allowed to decide what that means? I’d imagine the goals of a Christian charity to be different from that of a school group, or a non-denominational charity.
Would I prefer that the salvation army adopt my view of Christian morals? Yes. Should I expect it to, enforce it to, or berate it until it does? No.
The group does a tremendous amount of good for our poorest and our veterans – is it perfect? No, of course not.
Direct your anger elsewhere at an organization that actually deserves it.
I’m going to ignore O&D’s trolling about homosexuality being somehow equivalent to pedophilia, because any educated person knows that simply isn’t true.
Anyway, Conor:
First, the Salvation Army would be free to discriminate if it weren’t accepting millions of taxpayer dollars — my money — and using it to discriminate against gay people or to proselytize. Either the Salvation Army should stop receiving government money, or it should stop discriminating and proselytizing.
Second, the Salvation Army is free to have its own view of “Christian” “morality”, but that doesn’t mean that I, or anyone else, have an obligation to donate to them or help them perpetuate their bigotry. The entire point of living in a liberal society is that organizations such as the Salvation Army can exist, but so can organizations opposed to the bigotry of which they are guilty.
I am exercising my right to free speech in condemning their damnable practice — but you will notice that I am not calling for government intervention.
Noah,
Across the board, the US gives money to organizations that may discriminate somewhat.
The Church, synagogues, faith-based projects, the boy scouts, etc etc.
Groups are allowed to decide whom they choose to help. Is a program that receives government money to help black children get an education racist against white people? No. It just has different goals.
Is the salvation army, which does more charity than most other orgs in the US allowed to have a code of morality? I’d say yes – and I’m surprised based on your history with FIRE etc, that you don’t agree.
Conor,
I’m opposed to faith-based projects because I believe they violate the separation between Church and State.
As far as I’m aware, the federal government does not provide funding for the boy scouts, but does permit it tax-exempt status as a non-profit organization.
Furthermore, there is a difference between a group saying that it wants to specifically help a historically disadvantaged group (ex. black people) and saying that it wants to specifically discriminate against another group.
In either case, I do not think that the federal government should be providing funding in such matters. Instead, the money should be allocated to already-existing federal programs which for the most part serve the same purpose, sans bigotry.
Lastly, I never said that they weren’t allowed to have whatever principles they please — they are. Additionally, however, I am perfectly free, in a free society, to OPPOSE those principles. And I do.
Why is it that a so-called “Christian” group can be as flagrantly bigoted as it wants, but those who dare to exercise their free speech to oppose it are somehow terrible people?
Liberal society is about government not interfering with discourse in order to promote its own goals — not individuals being forced to respect everyone’s beliefs. Liberal society is not “let’s all get along and love another”. Rather, it functions ONLY BECAUSE it allows for biting and relentless criticism.
I’m not officially involved with FIRE anymore, but I can say that, as far I have understood it, FIRE’s position is that universities should be held to the standards to which they claim to hold themselves in their advertisements. Usually these standards involve protections of freedom of speech and belief. FIRE believes that this is important because campuses are places where free discourse is especially important, because the college campus is where the next generation is educated. With broken epistemologies, our education can be stunted.
But this has nothing to do with what we’re talking about, so I’m not really sure why you bring this up. While FIRE does believe that universities should be forced to recognize groups of all kinds and permit them control over membership, it does not believe that other groups shouldn’t be allowed to exercise their free speech in attempts to convince them that they are wrong; nor does FIRE believe that other opposed groups shouldn’t be allowed to try to convince other students not to donate to the group.
While in your mind you might equate my refusal to donate to the Salvation Army — and my call for others not to donate either — to college administrators shutting down groups with which they disagree, this is not the appropriate comparison. Rather, an appropriate comparison would be between my use of my free speech and college students who criticize a campus group that refuses to allow gay students to participate on the basis of the sexual orientation, and urge fellow students not to donate to the group.
Lastly, I should point out that there is necessarily a difference between discrimination based on status (race, sexual orientation, etc.) and belief (belief in a welfare state, belief that homosexuality is immoral, etc.). For example, the Supreme Court has forbidden political parties from banning African Americans from voting in their political parties, but the recent move by the Republican Party to impose a political litmus test has obviously not aroused any legal suspicions.
Are you really trying to suggest that the government’s money prevents the Salvation Army from having any right to institutional association?
A private association can discriminate for any reason it so desires. Apparently you missed the Boy Scouts of America v. Dale case, a case in which the Supreme Court overturned your home state’s Supreme Court decision to the contrary.
I don’t see why you seem to think that everyone else has some sort of obligation to validate your beliefs. Every time I read one of these posts, its screams of, “I’m gay and everybody should agree with me, it’s fine to be gay!”
Well guess what, Noah? I agree with you. But the majority do not, and probably will not in your lifetime. The majority don’t think short people are worthy of equal pay, either. Or women. Or blacks. Or any other group you can think of.
Perhaps instead of trying to validate what you think through other people, you should just be more secure in yourself and tell everyone else to fuck off. I personally don’t care if someone thinks that I’m less than them because I’m short. And you shouldn’t care that there are gay bashers either.
The answer to your question is that Christian groups can be as bigoted as they want because homosexuality has been prohibited by our religion for thousands of years. It may be politically unpopular today, but it is theologically sound and isn’t going anywhere. That’s why I don’t understand this whole backlash. Politics is not going to trump the religious beliefs of billions of people. I know you’ll cite liberal sects of Christianity, to which the entire mainstream Christians will respond to you that they are wrong, too. As a matter of theology, there really is no question. Being gay, a sodomite, or being a fornicator or whatever is expressly prohibited and you can expect the hardcore bible thumpers to come out against those sorts of behaviors.
I like a good bj just as much as the next guy, but I certainly don’t expect a bunch of bible thumpers to take my side.
Wow, I find it creepy that I actually agree with O&D. Perhaps it’s just because this post is just that bad, and nothing more than a cry for attention than any legitimate analysis. I guess even a broken clock is right twice a day.