A Salvation Army member named Captain Johnny Harsh from Wisconsin is facing a battle with the Salvation Army. In June, Harsh's wife died from a heart attack and he has now decided to remarry. The only problem is that his fiance is not an ordained minister, nor part of the Salvation Army's clique. The Salvation Army has released a statement saying that they are reviewing the current situation as an internal matter and that those who marry outside of the Salvation Army are dismissed from their jobs and affiliation with the group.
This is important to the study of religion because it shows how a charitable group that many citizens think of as a Godsend dictates the lives of their ministers. The political aspect of this debate is how a charity that is supposedly known for its do-good character suddenly surprises the country with their zealous control of a person's ability to marry whom they want.
Personally, I am appalled by the Salvation Army's rules for ministers. This is because, after viewing other documentation of Salvation Army acts, the innocent looking red kettles are not that innocent. The money good natured citizens drop into the red kettles does not all go to charity -- a portion actually goes to lobbyists! Yes, that is right -- Washington lobbyists! What for? Well, to spread the word of God by supporting the religious right. Plus, the organization receives local, state, and federal money for their programs. I believe that if the Salvation Army is using our tax dollars to prohibit marriage to those outside of their organization, lobby Washington politicians, and spread the word of God, then they can find an alternate way of funding their programs. Perhaps if they pray really hard, God will slip a few dollars into their red kettles.
Sources:
The Christian Post
Irregular Times
Posts
8 comments:
Just a little something to consider: most charities give a much lower percentage of their profits to charitable outreach programs or whatnot that you might think. When donating to a charity it is important to ask what percent of their profits go to the peoplpe and what portion of their profits go towards lobbying and paying for people to run the organization.
Also I am surprised to learn this about the Salvation Army. As a charitable organization I assumed that they would be a more open and welcoming organization. Instead they require their ministers to marry from within and ostrasize those that dont. I have an entirely different view of the Salvation Army now. While they do do a lot for the community, this just takes away some of the respect that I had for them as an organization.
When you hear the horror stories about Walmart, you are appalled. Intellectually, though, we know that Walmart is "big business," and that corruption is easily assumed with the territory. In other words, while this view needs to be changed -- we expect their wrongdoings and greed to the end of profit.
But when it comes to CHARITIES, we have every right -- intellectually, emotionally, religiously -- to be appalled. Any individual willing to advocate for those less fortunate should be welcomed, encouraged, embraced. What kind of message is the Salvation Army sending by turning away an individual who has long since proven his dedication to the cause?
Transpose this scenario into another example: a male doctor marries a female doctor, she has since died. He has met a new woman, a teacher, but despite his 8 years of dedication to his medical education, not to mention his years of practice, he is dismissed from the hospital, or worse the Medical Board. We could not fathom this happening, nor should anyone be less than appalled by the Salvation Army. ESPECIALLY since they are SUPPOSE to stand for the good and dignity of all people.
It is sad to hear that an organization that does great work would let go of a member for choosing to marry outside of the group. I would be interested in knowing why the Salvation Army does not allow its pastors to marry outside of the group. If their reason for letting him go has nothing to do with inappropriate actions, then I think ti would have to be a pretty convincing argument to agree with this decision.
I think many people would be surprised at how the spending of non-profits and other charitable organizations works. Many charities spend large amounts of things that do not go directly to the services they provide for people. Just because it is an non-profit organization does not mean spending is always done with the best intentions. For those who are interested in where their money goes to once it is donated, the spending of non-profits can be found online through a simple google search.
EWWWW. I had no idea. I really don't see any reason "charities" with these policies should be receiving tax dollars and federal money. It's not so much a religious battle as human-rights. Geez, if any other employeer tried to dictate how employees married, they'd be sued immediately.In fact, in most states "marrital status" is a protected class, meaning that being single or being married won't matter when employement and promotions are considered. I wonder if this can be expanded to include who you're married to.
I guess I'll be donating to the Red Cross from now on.
I concur that this is appalling. The Salvation Army makes it seem like they are collecting money to disperse among those who need it. I never would have guessed that they were in fact discriminating against their own and the very people that they could be giving to. I feel like this is another take on how marriage is under attack by religion. Not only have we seen religion go after those wanting to enter a same sex marriage but now there is a case against two of different occupations. This is not right. The Salvation Army should not be allowed to choose who can marry eachother. I also feel that if the Salvation Army is giving a significant amount of money to lobbyists it should be well known. On the sign that accompanies the little red boxes it should also say that they promote and support lobbyists with this money.
My comment is along the same lines as all the others. The Salvation Army is a charitable organization; with that in mind, you wouldn't expect rules to dictate the lives of its members. I don't approve of those restrictions, but as a religious organization, I suppose they have that right.
I realize that about half of all donations are spent on administrative fees for any charity. I don't like the fact that these charitable dollars are helping lobbyists spread a religious message. The article in the Irregular Times argues that more money is spent on promoting a religious message rather than helping the disadvantaged. The Salvation Army should either spend the money according to their commitments or start advertising how they spend it.
I also found this strange that the Salvation Army would have such strict regulations on marriage. What doesn't smell right is the fact that they get funding from all levels of government - money that is spent on lobbying in Washington, promoting their ideals, and on keeping this zealous organization afloat. Now, the Salvation Army does do a lot of good and we should applaud them for it. I just don't like this idea of strict marital codes within the organization. But, what can I do? I don't have the right, it's a private organization. I do think, if my tax dollars are going to their organization, I should have some say on what goes on there, or we should pull funding from this unbalanced organization.
I Would Have To Say That The Only reason That The salvation Army Does This Is Because We Don't view A Wife as a Passive Partner In The Union We actually Ordain The Women Pastors right Along side the Men There Is no favoritism If You Cant understand Why They Wouldn't want someone who doesn't even know anything about the Organization In that role You are rather thick.
Post a Comment