Why Salvation Army is bad.

[Halicia]

At the bottom of the link is a site where you can find charities that don't have agendas

am i the only one that thinks this is a contradiction ?

i'm not about to donate money to the GOP and then act shocked when they use it to fund anti-Obama ads.

If you're giving money to a cause, you should know what they stand for. If you don't agree with it, find one that you do want to support.

[darkwarrior42]

am i the only one that thinks this is a contradiction ?

i'm not about to donate money to the GOP and then act shocked when they use it to fund anti-Obama ads.

If you're giving money to a cause, you should know what they stand for. If you don't agree with it, find one that you do want to support.

To an extent you're right, but a common perception of the Salvation Army (one that they help to promote) is that they're a charity, which means that their cause is to raise funds and other assistance for those in need. Different charities focus on different causes.... but I feel like you're confusing a cause with a political agenda.

You bring up the GOP, and that's a good example. Nobody should donate to the GOP and then be surprised when they fund republican advertisements, but the GOP isn't a charity; they may do charitable things at times, but they have their own agenda. Same thing is true of the Salvation Army; they do charitable things, but they aren't a charity. That's largely the point of this thread I believe: to clarify that the Salvation Army, despite how they portray themselves, are not a charity.

In short, I completely agree that if you're donating money to a cause you should know what that cause represents.... but I think there are a lot who don't realize the Salvation Army *is* a cause in that sense, as opposed to a charity that just seeks to help those in need.

[Alixie]

Well damn. Now I feel bad about the quarter I donated to them that one year..

[Feranor]

If there was no beliefs in the world, this organization would still lobby for other things, be it progressing education or suppressing rights. Regardless of the fact that they are lobbying, and regardless of their beliefs(which is just a scape goat) the thing I'm concerned with is them not doing as they say they are doing.

Let me put it in terms slower people may understand.

1. There is a group of people
2. This group of people has a goal(good or bad)
3. This group of people finds a reason to justify their goals(religion, politics, economics, science, hot dogs, burritos, grasshoppers, etc)
4. This group of people come up with an idea to get support by lying about their goals(lobbying instead of charity in this case)
5. This group of people doesn't do what they said and instead pushes towards their goals using #3 to back them up
6. Goal(good or bad) is met and no one knows they were conned.

The flaw lies with step 2. "Goals" don't just randomly assemble themselves out of thin air. People don't just arbitrarily decide to "hate the gays", or to help the needy. Decisions have causes. And it's not like they're trying to hide their agenda; their websites states very clearly what they think about homosexuality and even references a couple of <censored> verses.

Now, if you want to claim that this is just a "scape goat" (I'd explain the irony if the forum rules allowed me to, but alas) then what do you think is the cause for their actions/stances, if not <censored>?

[Silhouette of Seraphim]

I never understood donating to charity, why can't I just give money to homeless people in the street?

Well, they're more likely to just go spend it on sweet, sweet hooch.

Though based on most charities, they'll get more use out of that, anyway.

---------- Post added 2011-12-15 at 09:03 AM ----------

Wow, after doing 5 seconds of research I found plenty to back that up, they are indeed a church. I was always raised to think of them as a charity. Wow, just wow, let me go pick up the pieces of my mind.

Makes me glad I've never put a dime into that red pot around the holidays.

Especially since my train of thought is "I'm not giving you money for giving me a headache with that fucking bell."

[Tyrianth]

Now that I've crossed Salvation Army, PETA, and Red Cross off my list, as well as every cancer association, what's left?

Doctors without Borders.

[Extrazero8]

Now that I've crossed Salvation Army, PETA, and Red Cross off my list, as well as every cancer association, what's left?

Doctors without Borders, ASPCA, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital.

I also like to give to the National Center for Science Education but some might find what they do controversial.

[Venant]

I know somebody who's wife works in the higher echelons of management over there, she was earning over $200k a year before she left her job to raise kids.

[maximusCat]

I am extremely cynical regarding organized charities for the following reasons:

1. The % of donation money spent on administration (salaries). The size of salaries of those who run these organizations in comparison to my own salary.
2. The % of donation money spent on fundraising.
3. The measly portion that is left over which actually goes to the cause.
4. Have I been mislead about exactly what it is that measly portion goes towards?
5. The main goal of every charity is to continue its own existence. Actually solving the problem that is the reason for their existence causes them to become obsolete.
6. The volunteers that aren't so aware of all these points that charities take advantage of. Minions work for free, organizers take home huge salary, that seems about right.
7. The fact that tax laws provide incentives for this. That means that every person in society is paying for this ugly "charity" machine



There are some charities where the specifics of each of these points look pretty good, but they are rare and I don't have the expertise or time to identify them.

People who close their eyes, give money to charities blindly and feel good about it make me sad. I want to call them stupid or engage them in a discussion about it, but perhaps the blissful ignorance and that fuzzy feeling is worth more?