Why I'm Not Supporting The Salvation Army This Year

[This was originally to be posted the week of December 20-26 but was not due to family matters.]

They're ubiquitous at this time of year: red and clear kettles full of change, friendly volunteers shaking sleigh bells. I'm talking about the Sally Ann's Christmas Kettle Campaign of course. It's almost a holiday tradition walking over to one and dropping in a few dollars. I remember doing it with my Dad when I was younger. You'd practically feel guilty if you didn't.

I'm not supporting the Salvation Army this year.

There was something about the Salvation Army that always put me off as a kid. Perhaps it was the 'salvation' part. Or the 'army' part. (The focus on salvation in western religions, and some eastern ones, has always been a point of contention for me. The underlying premise being that humanity is somehow fundamentally flawed, but that is a discussion for another time.) Admittedly, the Salvation Army is an evangelical Christian organization with a semblance of military structure. Imagine my surprise when I found my childhood suspicions confirmed.

Consider this from The Washington Post via AMERICAblog Gay.

The Bush administration is working with the nation's largest charity, the Salvation Army, to make it easier for government-funded religious groups to discriminate against gay people in hiring, according to an internal Salvation Army document.

*SNIP*

"Alright," you say, "but that's the Salvation Army in America, Australia, and Scotland. Not Canada."

To which I give you the following from the Salvation Army's ethics website:

The Salvation Army upholds the dignity of all persons. For this reason, and in obedience to the example of Jesus Christ, whose compassionate love is all-embracing, The Salvation Army does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in the delivery of its services.

The Salvation Army believes that God’s will for the expression of sexual intimacy is revealed in the Bible, and that living fully in accordance with biblical standards calls for chastity outside of heterosexual marriage and faithfulness within it. We do not believe that same-sex attraction is necessarily blameworthy and we oppose the vilification and mistreatment of gays and lesbians. We believe that we are accountable for the ways in which we express our sexuality.

In other words: "Being gay is fine, just don't act on it." They claim to respect the dignity of gays and lesbians, but would ask that they refrain from expressing their love intimately to respect their own sensibilities. I see this canard a lot, and I find the attitude sanctimonious. It is rude for a group to expect special consideration from non-members of the group. Gay and lesbian Christians on the other hand, may feel obliged to follow church teaching, but they may have their own objections as well.

Consider also the following from The Edmonton Sun.

CALGARY — The Salvation Army says it refuses to distribute Harry Potter and Twilight toys collected for needy children because they're incompatible with the charity's Christian beliefs.

The policy has alarmed a Calgarian who volunteered to sift through a southeast warehouse full of unused, donated items and was alarmed when he was told by Salvation Army officials that the two kinds of toys are "disposed of" and not given to other charities.

...

"I was told to withhold a six-inch Harry Potter figure, but when I picked up a plastic M-16, I was told, 'That's for the 10-year-olds,'" he said.

"I was shocked...war-themed toys and toys from TV shows and movies with far more violence than Harry Potter and these were considered appropriate toys?"

This policy, while not universal, misleads otherwise well-meaning donors and deprives children of reading material, compounding problems with illiteracy in those already most vulnerable.

This cuts to the heart of my disillusionment with many charities. While often founded with the intent of doing good, many charities have ulterior motives in addition to their charity work. As I've already mentioned, the Salvation Army is an evangelical Christian organization. Their goal is to bring people to God; to save them. Working with the less fortunate provides the perfect opportunity for this. Beggars can't be choosers, and those that rely on the support of charities like the Salvation Army sometimes feel the need to adopt the charity's views to fit in with the group and feel secure. Alcoholics Anonymous could be another example of this.

I've made donations to the International Red Cross and Doctors Without Borders/MÉDECINS SANS FRONTIÈRES before. I became a monthly contributor to the Canadian Red Cross this year. I'm satisfied with their track record and I believe they'll make good use of my donation.

I'm not going to say that secular charities are immune to this; they can have ulterior motives as well. I think all that this stresses is that care needs to be taken when selecting who receives your charity dollar.

My Sins

It's time for confession.

Sometimes, I stereotype Christians. Even the ones I know. Sometimes I think they're intolerant, self-righteous, arrogant, ignorant (intentionally or otherwise), hypocritical, and so on. I usually manage to catch myself, but it's still disconcerting. Not all Christians are like this of course-and it's the rare few that have all of those traits.

The truth is sometimes I think this way about all types of religious people. I only single out Christians above because they're the most familiar to me and the ones I come into contact with the most. If I lived in Israel I might feel the same way about Jews, or Muslims if I lived in Saudi Arabia. (Although I might not express my thoughts, given the blasphemy laws some middle eastern countries have.)

I read a lot of American and global news. I read about the rise of Christian nationalism in the United States, religiously motivated cliterodectomies in Africa, and honour killings in the middle east and even parts of the first world. I also read a few atheist blogs, some of which appear in the sidebar. These blogs occasionally discuss events from around the world that exemplify the horrors of fundamentalist religion. As an atheist, these things scare me.

I don't come from a religious background. I don't have that experience. This makes it difficult for me to understand religious people on a fundamental level. If you have ever given a dog a command and the dog is unsure what to do, it will often cock its head to the side as it looks at you. I feel like that dog sometimes when I talk to religious people.

I hope you can forgive me.

Bonk!

If the title makes no sense to you, watch this. If it still doesn't make sense, well, it wasn't intended to address the issue anyway.

I've started reading Inferno. The cantos are fairly short, and I should have the book done fairly soon. I'm hoping to have the review up in a week's time. Eve: A Novel of the First Woman and Wicked were the runners-up, so those will appear in the poll for the next review.

I'm not going to comment on the Prop. 8 ruling in California other than to echo the sentiments of the Pharynguloid hordes. The problem is not with California's supreme court, but California law and the members of the electorate that voted for the amendment in the first place.

Work on the C.O.F. charter is somewhat slow, mostly due to my own laziness. I want the meaning of the articles to be clear, but pen and paper doesn't lend itself well to frequent editing and revising. I think I'll have a far easier time once I import it into an electronic format.

While I'm on the subject, I'd like to plug the following column by Greta Christina, and this follow-up interview as well. To me, it sums up much of what I'd been trying to express but couldn't elucidate. It also represents some of what I hope for in C.O.F. as a philosophical 'movement' - not simply a club created between friends.

I got my course registration package from the college this week but I can't register for any courses until June tenth. I'm not disappointed, I'm just eager to start.

I think I may go downtown yet again this Saturday. I found awesome and win at the comic shop, and I can't wait to share it. I want to keep mum on exactly what it is until Saturday evening though to maintain the suspense.

It's been said before by other people, but it's worth repeating. Thursdays and Saturdays have become the highlights of my week. I can't wait to get together tomorrow and I think I'll bring Dirty Minds too. Also Storyteller, you were right. The peach cider is very good.

TMI Tuesday on Marriage

It's been over a month since I made my last post. How am I ever supposed to be a successful blogger if I don't write an entry at least once a week?

I was originally going to write about some of the weirder news articles of the past week, but TMI Tuesday (May be NSFW) came through with some interesting subject matter that I would like to address. Yes, I know, I'm nearly a week behind on this too.

Q: Do you believe in marriage?

Personally, I think the wording of this question is a little vague. Do I believe in marriage in the sense that marriage exists? Yes. Do I believe in the virtues of marriage? No, not really. I think marriage is a social construct and any perceived virtues associated with marriage are a construct as well.

Q: What is marriage to you?

Warning: Long Rant

To be legalistic, (and this is the definition I prefer,) marriage is a social contract. From antiquity, marriage has been used to combine ownership of possessions (or transfer them outright, i.e., dowries) and cement relationships. I don't necessarily mean a relationship between two people either; marriage has just as easily cemented alliances between families.

While this is still mostly true in regards to property, I think that the concept of marriage is outdated. In fact, I think it is largely unnecessary. A lot of people ascribe spiritual attributes to marriage. I see no reason why the former cannot exist without the latter in any other loving relationship.

If marriage is a social contract between two persons, the judicial branch of government has valid reason to record such contracts, in the event of divorce or other disputes. However, I do not think governments should provide tax benefits to married persons. It is my opinion that governments provide tax benefits to married persons with the intent of a) encouraging reproduction (this is not true in all marriages) and b) creating a healthy, stable environment where children can be raised. Governments do this to ensure a source of labour, sales, and investment for the economy. In a democratic society, a strong economy benefits everyone. (At least theoretically.) However, I believe that the interests of the individual trump the interests of the majority. Thus, governments should not provide tax benefits to married persons because it is discriminatory to those who choose to remain unmarried. A simpler, more equitable solution would be to provide tax benefits to those with children.

[I recognize that this is an exercise in logic; you must accept the presuppositions for the argument to work.]

Q: If you are married, why did you do it? If you are not, why have you not married?

I'm not married. I don't think I'm old enough, nor do I have an S/O. As I wrote earlier, I think marriage is unnecessary. I sometimes quip that I won't get married until I'm at least 27.

Q: Do you believe in divorce?

Again, this is vague. We all know that divorce exists. Legal contracts are routinely rendered null and void and I see no reason why marriage should be an exception. I'm not the first to say that it would be terrible to be stuck in an unloving relationship for life.

Q: If you are divorced, why did you do it? If you have not, are there certain circumstances under which you would agree to a divorce?

I'm not divorced. There are certain circumstances under which I would agree to a divorce. Irreconcilable infidelity, for example. I say 'irreconcilable' because non-monogamous relationships can, and are, stable. Poly-amourous and swinging relationships, for example.

Q: Do you believe that same sex marriages are a threat to traditional marriages?

Until traditionalists sufficiently prove to me that gay marriage is a threat to heterosexual marriage, No. In fact, until they sufficiently prove to me that marriage is sacrosanct, No. Straight people seem to have enough trouble maintaining the 'sanctity' of marriage.

I'm leaving on vacation tomorrow morning, so don't expect any posts for several weeks. I'll try to write some new material for you all while I'm away.

Christians, Baha'i's and Buttons, Oh My!

I know a lot of people are going to ask "Why have you been criticizing Christianity so much lately?" or "Why don't you criticize a different Abrahamic religion? Why not even a non-Abrahamic religion?" Well let me try to explain things to you.

I do not necessarily believe that faith is a bad thing; it is when faith is not tempered by reason that it concerns me. I am more than willing to allow someone to hold and express their beliefs as long as they do not interfere with my rights to the same. I don't think that I would particularly mind if someone called me a "Satan worshiper" and that I would "burn in Hell" as long as they let me say how ridiculous I think that their beliefs are. Of course, if they repeatedly harassed me, I would have no compunction against taking them to civil court. If our roles were reversed, I would expect them to do the same.

Yesterday, I had a Christian evangelist tell me "I'm not tolerant and I'm proud of it." He also said "One way to God, right?" Frankly, a find this level of zealotry disturbing. I wouldn't even classify it as an extreme level of zealotry, considering what you see on the Internet and in the Middle East.

I don't buy that there is one way to God either, if there is one (which I doubt). I can see four possibilities if God does exist: God is malevolent, God is indifferent, God is omni-benevolent and our perception of God is completely inaccurate, or God is insane. If I say that God may exist, I shouldn't discount that a multitude of gods could exist either.

Now that that's out of the way, I want to address something. I want to point out that the Baha'i faith is probably one of the most tolerant I've seen. I'm not going to pick at any of their theological or metaphysical beliefs, but rather a few things that I think will create issues for the faith in the future.

1) The Baha'i faith views scientific inquiry as essential to expanding Human knowledge and deepening the faith of Baha'i adherents. Considering that I believe that God or some other divine aspect cannot be proven or disproven I find it interesting that the Baha'i faith supports scientific inquiry when historically most religions have been opposed to it. Historically, most religions are opposed to scientific inquiry because of contradictions with various beliefs within those religions. Just take a look at Galileo or Darwin. But consider this: What if the existence of a divine entity could be empirically disproven? I am sure that it would very much shake the Baha'i religion to its very core. I doubt that this could happen however, and I find it more of an interesting question to pose than something I could see becoming an issue. The one place where the Baha'i faith and science knock heads is #2.

2) The Baha'i faith rejects homosexuality. This is the one place I know of where science and the Baha'i faith have a contradiction. While the Baha'i faith teaches equality between people and the elimination of prejudices, sexual orientation is absent from their list of groups of Humans where prejudice should be eliminated. Others have said it before me, and I predict that this will cause tensions within the Baha'i faith in the future.

3) Women are excluded from serving on the Universal House of Justice. This is mostly for the same reasons as #2, with the Baha'i faith's teachings of equality and elimination of prejudice.

4) Followers believe that there will eventually be a single world government. I'm not going to deny that it could happen, but I doubt it. The closest we have come to this is the United Nations, and I doubt that we will go much farther. Groups of people with similar ideals would break off from a united world government and form their own nations. Self-determination has happened many times in the past and I don't see why this would change in the future.

5) It had been my understanding that the Baha'i faith also believed in a single unifying language for humankind. However the official website of the Baha'i International Community cites "the need for a universal auxiliary language."

And just a couple minor notes to finish off with:

The link to Nick Gisburne's website is no longer in the sidebar. He has taken down his website because he is no longer interested in discussing Atheism. This means some of the links in my older posts may not work correctly.

Also, if you're wondering what's been happening with the buttons, you have no need to fret. I decided that it would be easier to post all the buttons once the challenge is over than to post them every week.

ReligiousTolerance.org Article

Baha'i International Community Website

Chuck Norris Has Lost All My Respect and Adoration.

I did intend to make this post about my trip to Europe, but through the glory that is Nick Gisburne's website, I found my way to Objective: Ministries. I will now, for your pleasure, create a list of humourous things (or at least things that I find humourous) that I have found on the website.

1. They claim that the Internet was created by the United States of America, that the United States of America is a Christian nation, and that it is their Internet.

2. They have a section on "Evolutionist Propaganda," a section entitled "Those Wacky Evolutionists," and use a racial slur: "Chinamen."

3. Their "Mall Missions" section is too large for me to give a full account. At one point, they draw conclusion about the names of various retail stores. Here's my favorite bit, describing teenagers: "Called "Mall Rats" in their nihilistic Secular culture, they can often be found hanging around malls after public school doing nothing constructive."

4. Their "Anti-Occult" section. Again, this is too large for a full account. It has an image of druids performing a ceremony in front of a tree. The caption reads: "Typical Druid coven sacrificing a human to a tree." I recommend that you listen to their recording of a druid ceremony for additional hilarity.

5. Their "4 Kidz" [sic] section. My favorites are "Habu's Corner" which is nothing but a testimony to ignorance (Hindus are henotheistic, not polytheistic) and "Spiritual Safety Tip" which provides information on what a child should do if they encounter an atheist. Go ahead, click on Mr. Gruff's head! He's right about one thing: "Coffee's the only thing that gives me solace!"

6. Their online store features clothing with images of a laughing Jesus with the caption LOL (Love Our Lord.) Unfortunately, this includes a thong with a laughing Jesus conveniently missing the "LOL: Love Our Lord." NOW I know why Jesus is laughing.

7. The banner ads. Here are some highlights:

-One of those banner Flash games where you need to hit something. You need to hit a "beatnik atheist" carrying a sign reading "I hate God" with a Bible. The prize? A free Bible, how unimaginative.

-A National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools ad featuring Chuck Norris as a spokesman. Chuck Norris, you have just lost all my respect. ...Please don't kill me.

-"Armor of God" Pajamas. This doesn't need explaining.

-I'm just going to quote this one: "The Presidential Prayer Team For Kids. Hey kids! President Bush needs your prayers!" The Hell he does.

-"Bible Bar: Contains the eight foods of Deuteronomy 8:8"

-"His Essence: Candles that smell like our Lord."

-"Useabeliever.com: Because I don't want my money supporting non-Christians." I didn't know that Christians had their own Yellow Pages.

-Biblical Action Figures. Enough said.

-An ad for the Christian Hackers Association reading: "JESUS IS L33T3R THAN NEO" or "GOD HAS UNIVERSAL ROOT."

-"Have you seen pornography on the Internet? It is illegal to distribute obscene material over the Internet. make a report!" Bullsh*t. The Internet is an unregulated medium for the transfer of information.

-"Did you know that Pat Robertson can leg press 2000 pounds? How does he do it?" [insane laughter] Apparently he uses protein shakes.

-An ad that in part reads "Fact: Being gay takes 30 years off your life! That's not cool..." That's also not true, fundie.

-I can't read the banner ad for this one, so here's the website.

-An ad for 1-in-3 Trinity Christian Energy Drink. "Refuel your Faith!"

-"Straight Pride [Trade Mark]. Show your pride, get a bride! Got a womb? Get a groom!" I can't wait to hear the feminists rage about this one.

-"Works Through Faith: W.T.F. Ministries." I don't need to explain this, do I?

-"Larry Dye, The Creation Guy!" How bad is it when you need to parody a name that's lame to begin with? (All apologies to Bill Nye, The Science Guy. We know you're awesome.)

-An ad for Fight the Good Fight Ministries. It has the caption "Satan wants your children!" with a pair of blond lesbians kissing. I'm sold.

-This ad features a gun pointed at the reader with the caption "Evolutionists want to murder you. You are just an animal to them."

-"Book 22: Intimacy products for married couples." It's a reference to the Song of Solomon. I admit, I don't think I've ever heard of a sex store catering specifically to Christians before. After taking a look at their merchandise, I don't think that (their) God would approve.

Peace out, readers. The Muse is stopping here.

Day of Silence

Speak up for those who can't.

[/irony]