Recently, someone on my Twitter feed retweeted a screenshot of the Salvation Army website which emphasized one paragraph.
The Salvation Army has an official stance on homosexuality, which is that I and all my fellow ten percenters are doomed to a painful eternity in Satan’s private theater, wearing feather boas fashioned of hot coal and glittery hotpants made with broken glass while we dance to off-key renditions of the songs Andrew Lloyd Weber crumpled up and threw away.
What followed was a slew of vows to boycott the Salvation Army and donate to other, more gay-friendly causes. If you took that vow, let me first thank you for caring about my rights, and secondly, let me explain why you’re wrong.
EXHIBIT A: THE INTERNET
It took me five interseconds to discover that whoever took the original screenshot had to position the scrollbar very carefully to make sure you didn’t see the text on either side of that inflammatory paragraph. Fortunately, I also have the power of screenshots! Behold, three more from the Salvation Army website, emphasis added by me just as it was added by the person who took that first screenshot.
Then comes the part we already saw, about how we shouldn’t have sex because we might make gay babies. Or… well, whatever it is that’s supposed to be so awful. We’re not supposed to do it. And after that:
Well, I’m glad they noticed. I never could find the “Thou shalt stomp upon the glittered with thy manure-caked farmboots” part of the Bible either. And finally:
Abused women with short haircuts are safe from discrimination. Thoup will be therved to hoboth who have lithpth. Like most Christians, they officially believe in hating us with their thoughts, not with their actions. It’s really the second-best we could ask for!
Many charities are run by Christians–at least the SA is publicly promising not to let it interfere with who receives their aid.
EXHIBIT B: YOUR PRIVILEGE
Those of you taking this vow to boycott the Salvation Army must have a surplus in the first place (or you wouldn’t have anything to withhold). So with this power comes the great responsibility of making sure that these items go to someone who believes all the same things you do, right? People without warm clothing, homes, food, or physical safety must be officially as queer-friendly as you before they’re allowed to have your old jeans or shelter paid for by your spare change?
Oh, my bad, that’s actually not what you’re saying. What you’re really saying is that the people who distribute your donations have to believe the same as you. So even if the destitute, the homeless, the elderly, recovering addicts, the families of prisoners, and women and children saved from human trafficking are perfectly accepting of queers, and in fact, may be queer themselves, they don’t get your charity because the proxy is Christian.
Take a minute to pat yourself on the back. It’s okay, I’ll wait.
The point of charity is to help others, not to make some self-satisfied political statement you can talk about over your turkey dinner. Please stop boycotting a charity and just make LOLcats about it instead.
EDIT: I did say in the comments at LiveJournal that if anyone could prove they were spending the money on political action against GLBT interests, I’d strike-through the whole post and make LOLcats of me. I only found one source that had looked any deeper than I did, and while I’m still not convinced that your old coat is going to somehow make gay marriage illegal instead of keeping someone warm, you should read this before considering monetary donations. The writer of that article also claims they discriminated against him when he was homeless.
Since I found it (and am still on the fence about how reliable it is), I will not strike-through the entry, but I will offer LOLcats of me. (Hold on, I’m still making them.)
4 Comments
What worries me more, and the reason I don’t donate/shop with SA, is that a non-trivial amount the money you’re giving to them is going to lobbying efforts for things like “faith-based initiatives,” which is code for a free pass on federal hiring regulations for church-based organizations doing federally funded work, among other things.
It’s more complicated than this, though.
A while back I found the full policy (not the bowdlerized version), after friends (a gay couple) were turned away after a tornado, unlike all their neighbors. Implementation of policy is left to the various local generals and majors, and they don’t necessarily cleave to it.
I also worked with someone who volunteered at the Sally Ann and told me proudly about the things they throw away as unhealthy — children’s books and games that mention magic, adult books that contain sex, “hoochie-mama clothes” (quote from co-worker).
When I have other donation options — particularly ones that won’t put my extra copy of Edward Eager’s *Half Magic* in the dumpster — why should I not take them?
Oh, I think you should! If there’s an alternative that you approve of, take it. I wish more people would bother to discover charities that weren’t right in front of their faces in general, not just as an aversion to an organization they’re morally allergic to.
In researching some of the contents in my mirrored post on LiveJournal, I found more evidence of stuff I would personally find worrisome–exactly what you mention, in fact, as well as some tertiary evidence that they fund lobbying against GLBT interests.
I’m still in favor of donating because the Salvation Army is in a position to do a lot of good, worldwide, and the instances in which they’re dicks are still far outweighed by the good they can do. But I don’t think it hurts to pay attention to the things you brought up, and in the future, I will!
Certainly donating to the Sally Ann beats not donating — no question there. And if we’re talking cash money (as we say in the South), I’d rather give it to the SA than the Red Cross. (I’ll spare you that rant.)
For me, there’s a larger question of Quis Custodiet. Namely, I’ve been involved with various nonprofits over the years, and the people who give the most time and energy to them sometimes have a laissez-faire attitude toward doing things exactly right. There’s a tendency to write off mistakes and malfeasances with “Oh, but she gives so much of herself, and it’s a volunteer organization, for heaven’s sake!” I understand that position, but it makes nonprofits less effective. Public scrutiny — including public criticism and, if called for, boycotts — is perhaps the best way to keep nonprofits up to the standards they set for themselves.
Post a Comment