A New York Times column looks at the issue of donating to homophobic charities and the Salvation Army in particular. Personally, I ceased giving money to charities that include anti-gay efforts in their agenda and in the increasingly rare instances where I see the yule time collection kettles, I make a point of telling their personnel why I have ceased to donate money, clothing or anything else to the organization. In my view, religious based bigotry needs to entail a cost. People can believe what they want, just do not expect me to underwrite their bigotry. There are other worthwhile charities who perform similar services without the anti-gay bigotry. Locally, it seems a number of locations that formerly allowed Salvation Army collection efforts have ceased doing so - perhaps in the hope of avoiding controversy with LGBT customers and their allies. Here are a few highlights: *
With their red buckets and ringing bells out among the shoppers, the Salvation Army reminds people of other worthy uses for their money. The religious organization also has positions on many issues, including homosexuality, which the charity views with disapproval.
*
In The San Francisco Chronicle’s Op-ed pages, Phil Bronstein, the paper’s executive vice-president and editor-at-large, jumps into the debate over whether the organization’s position on homosexuality outweighs the good it does.
*
Is the Salvation Army one of those organizations that is worth supporting for its overall good even if you disagree with some of its policies? Mr. Bronstein says he will drop some money in the bucket. Shea O’Neill at SF Appeal says if “you can stomach the fact that your money has to pass through potentially gay-bashing hands before reaching a family in need (because it will indeed reach them), then by all means drop a quarter in the bucket.” Tim Redmond at the SF Bay Guardian says Don’t Give.
*
It might be remembered in this context that General William Booth, the Englihshman who founded the organization in the mid-19th century, had a view on a related question: accepting money from people you disapprove of (in his case, burlesque dancers).
With their red buckets and ringing bells out among the shoppers, the Salvation Army reminds people of other worthy uses for their money. The religious organization also has positions on many issues, including homosexuality, which the charity views with disapproval.
*
In The San Francisco Chronicle’s Op-ed pages, Phil Bronstein, the paper’s executive vice-president and editor-at-large, jumps into the debate over whether the organization’s position on homosexuality outweighs the good it does.
*
Is the Salvation Army one of those organizations that is worth supporting for its overall good even if you disagree with some of its policies? Mr. Bronstein says he will drop some money in the bucket. Shea O’Neill at SF Appeal says if “you can stomach the fact that your money has to pass through potentially gay-bashing hands before reaching a family in need (because it will indeed reach them), then by all means drop a quarter in the bucket.” Tim Redmond at the SF Bay Guardian says Don’t Give.
*
It might be remembered in this context that General William Booth, the Englihshman who founded the organization in the mid-19th century, had a view on a related question: accepting money from people you disapprove of (in his case, burlesque dancers).
1 comment:
'because it will indeed reach them'
This is one of the rare instances I put aside my beliefs and open my pockets-because it will indeed reach them.
Post a Comment