{"id":6515,"date":"2011-02-07T04:57:38","date_gmt":"2011-02-07T09:57:38","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/?p=6515"},"modified":"2013-04-21T18:54:07","modified_gmt":"2013-04-21T22:54:07","slug":"three-charities-that-dont-deserve-your-money","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/cultural-correspondent\/02\/07\/three-charities-that-dont-deserve-your-money\/","title":{"rendered":"Three Charities That Don’t Deserve Your Money"},"content":{"rendered":"
This is the concluding post of the PBH series Choose Another Charity, comprised of 3 articles on the Salvation Army<\/a>, MADD<\/a>, and ChildFund<\/a>.<\/p>\n Salvation Army<\/strong> [Editor’s note: For a vigorous debate on the Salvation Army, see the comment section of the original article<\/a><\/em>]<\/p>\n Everyone knows the Salvation Army. Whether it\u2019s the secondhand goods at their thrift stores or their collection kettles outside department stores, the Salvation Army is ubiquitous to the holiday season.<\/p>\n However, the Salvation Army\u2019s virulent opposition to gay rights both in public and through persistent legislative lobbying raises the question how donations intended for the needy are being spent. Many people forget that the Salvation Army is in fact an Evangelical church, and as such, it tends to have a hard-right social agenda.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n In fact, the Salvation Army goes so far as to say gay people shouldn\u2019t be having sex. You can find this nugget on their website<\/a>: \u201cChristians whose sexual orientation is primarily or exclusively same-sex are called upon to embrace celibacy as a way of life.\u201d<\/p>\n Starting at the beginning of George W. Bush’s presidency in 2001, the Salvation Army began lobbying for an exemption to equal labor practices for government-funded faith-based organizations. Why? Because the Salvation Army wanted to continue to discriminate against gays and prevent them from being hired<\/a>.<\/p>\n In 2004, the Salvation Army threatened to close all its soup kitchens in the New York City area\u2014which would have ended $250 million worth of contracts with the city\u2014if they were forced to offer benefits to same-sex couples. This move would have lost the Salvation Army around $70 million in direct funding from the city and endangered the lives of several thousand people reliant on the Salvation Army.<\/p>\n Was this supposed to be a principled stand? All the homeless people receiving care from the Salvation Army would be turned out on the street. What would have motivated The Salvation Army to make such a callous move? They said that, by offering benefits to same sex couples, they\u2019d be supporting HIV\/AIDS because HIV\/AIDS is only the product of homosexual intercourse.<\/p>\n AIDS? How does AIDS factor in? Oh yeah, I forgot! Gay people don\u2019t suffer from non-gay sex related maladies. If a same sex couple needs health benefits, it must be from all that AIDS they\u2019re spreading around. Is there any way to construe this as anything but bigotry? <\/p>\n There\u2019s still more, too. The Salvation Army has repeatedly rallied against anti-discrimination laws involving hiring of homosexual employees. They\u2019ve even tried to block a repeal of sodomy laws in New Zealand<\/a>. And in Canada a few days ago, the Salvation Army turned down donations of Harry Potter and Twilight toys<\/a>. The occult connotations of these toys, supposedly, is out of line with their Christian teachings. Harry Potter is Satanic? That’s a rather old-hat Evangelical argument, isn’t it?<\/p>\n Is this the kind of charity you want to be donating to? More importantly, is this a charity that should be receiving government funding? Sure, the Salvation Army does some noble things. Using charity money and government funding to further an anti-gay, Evangelical agenda is not one of them. <\/p>\n The Salvation Army\u2019s tremendous size and omnipresence may provide the illusion of moral rectitude. Sadly, that just isn\u2019t the case. There are plenty of wonderful charities out there without hidden political agendas worth donating to instead of the Salvation Army. Check out websites such as Charity Navigator<\/a> to look for charitable organizations that will spend your money on the causes they support, not political muckery.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Mothers Against Drunk Driving<\/strong><\/p>\n It seems almost blasphemous to say there\u2019s anything wrong with Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD<\/a>). Drunk driving is totally irresponsible and has caused many deaths and disfiguring injuries. At the same time, it\u2019s hard to think of MADD and not imagine your own mother telling you to find a designated driver or take a taxi if you get too sauced. How could anyone fault MADD if its objectives are situated within a universal motherly concern?<\/p>\n Unfortunately, MADD has started to resemble a militant temperance organization than a union of caring moms. While the goal of reducing drunk driving is certainly a goal worth pursuing, MADD has gone too far with its draconian lobbying and bizarre tactics.<\/p>\n Consider what is now the centerpiece in MADD\u2019s anti-drunk driving lobbying: ignition interlock devices (IIDs for short). A car fitted with an IID will not start until the driver blows into a breathalyzer. Some models require periodic blows into the breathalyzer after the car\u2019s been started. At the current moment, these machines are usually installed in the vehicles of repeat DUI\/DWI offenders\u2014in other words, people with significant drinking problems.<\/p>\n This past November, MADD\u2019s National President and Official Spokesperson, Laura Dean-Mooney, proposed that all new cars be fitted with IIDs<\/a>. When you think about it, this is an absurd intrusion into the everyday liberties of American citizens.<\/p>\n First, there\u2019s the unsettling notion that, if this policy were to ever be enacted, drivers would be guilty until proven innocent\u2014every time they start their car. Then there\u2019s the issue of just plain annoyance: most drivers are not in the position of needing a breathalyzer a few times a day. MADD\u2019s trying to act like only drunks would be inconvenienced, but really, aren\u2019t there better ways to curtail drunk driving?<\/p>\n Some have speculated that MADD\u2019s excitement for nationwide IID implementation stems from a backroom deal with IID manufacturers. Although there\u2019s no evidence to support those claims, it wouldn\u2019t be surprising: MADD has acquired a real taste for avarice lately.<\/p>\n Consider MADD\u2019s goal of increasing excise taxes on beer and wine\u2014but not hard liquor. MADD\u2019s reasoning seems to be that hard liquor is taxed enough, while beer and wine are given a pass. On the surface, that might make some sense; it makes even more sense, however, when you consider that the liquor industry has donated to MADD and partnered with MADD on several of their advertising campaigns.<\/p>\n Why would MADD partner with liquor companies when their other policies seem rather neo-prohibitionist? Because MADD is more interested in self-perpetuation than it is in serving its cause. For instance, take a look at MADD\u2019s 990 Tax Form for 2008.<\/a> MADD spends half its revenue on salaries. For a nonprofit, this is unacceptable. It\u2019s even more egregious in light of MADD\u2019s current 3.5 million dollar deficit.<\/a><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Once you consider other expenses such as MADD\u2019s preposterous new line of non-alcoholic beverages<\/a>, the likelihood of any donations actually preventing drunk driving is actually quite slim.<\/p>\n However, none of these are the most damning indication of how much MADD has strayed from their mission. The founder of MADD, Candace Lightner, left MADD in 1985 but is still speaking out against the organization. In 2002, Lightner was quoted in the Washington Post: “It has become far more neo-prohibitionist than I had ever wanted or envisioned. I didn’t start MADD to deal with alcohol. I started MADD to deal with the issue of drunk driving.”<\/p>\n Between its irrational anti-alcohol motives and suspicious fundraising methods, MADD has shown itself to be undeserving of your money. Drunk driving is certainly a problem worth solving but MADD\u2019s interests clearly lie elsewhere. With all of their faults, would your mother want you to donate to MADD?<\/p>\n <\/p>\n ChildFund<\/strong><\/p>\n ChildFund\u2019s commercials can almost be recited by rote: Alan Sader (or, conversely, Sally Struthers) toots around a third world hamlet, kneeling next to anemic skeleton-children, begging you to donate a few cents a day to sponsor these kids and save their lives. Melancholy piano music tinkles in the background while middle-class guilt is triggered nationwide.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n These commercials are probably ChildFund at their most consistent, as otherwise ChildFund\u2019s goals are murky and ill-defined. Beneath the surface, the charity is in a constant state of identity crisis, which has manifested itself in several ways.<\/p>\n ChildFund was known as Christian Children\u2019s Fund from 1951 to 2009 (before that, it was China\u2019s Children Fund). The name change, in this case, is seemingly due to the organization\u2019s inconsistent attitude toward Christianity. ChildFund is baffling in this regard\u2014many devout Christian donors dislike the organization\u2019s secular leanings, while others are uncomfortable with ChildFund\u2019s occasional religious gestures.<\/p>\n For instance, ChildFund has never done any proselytizing and Gospel-spreading when providing assistance to impoverished areas. The nonprofit has claimed that they\u2019re more interested in the Christian virtue of caring for the less fortunate than they are with religious conversions. Conservative Christians have felt a little misled that ChildFund was not ministering to its sponsored children, while most found ChildFund\u2019s position agreeable.<\/p>\n However, if they\u2019re not concerned with issues of religious dogma, then why have they refused donations on religious grounds? Back in 2008, Gen Con, a convention for pen-and-paper and tabletop RPG games, offered the then-Christian Children\u2019s Fund a donation of $17,398. Gen Con planned to donate this money with the best of intentions; they were honoring their recently-deceased founder, who had often given money to Christian Children\u2019s Fund while he was alive.<\/p>\n Most nonprofits who claim not to be interested in spreading \u201creligious messages\u201d would have gladly taken this money. However, ChildFund did not. According to Gen Con officials<\/a>, the charity didn\u2019t feel comfortable with the donation because of Gen Con\u2019s relationship with the popular pen-and-paper game, Dungeons & Dragons. Dungeons & Dragons is a popular target of fundamentalist Christians because of all the Satanic elements the game endorses\u2026 such as pretending to be a dwarf, rolling dice, and listening to a lot of bad progressive rock.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n So, if ChildFund takes a fundamentalist Christian stance, but doesn\u2019t have an evangelizing agenda, what do they support? Many donors have also noticed inconsistencies between ChildFund\u2019s goals and their collection methods. Previously, ChildFund had charged donors a small handling fee if they wanted to give a cash gift to their sponsored child. However, ChildFund\u2019s new policy is to assess a fee of 20% on every gift donation\u2014regardless of size. <\/p>\n ChildFund claims these fees are to ensure that the money is safely and efficiently delivered, but a 20% fee seems excessive. If a donor sends a gift of $1,000, that\u2019s $200 that goes right into ChildFund\u2019s pocket. That\u2019s considerably larger than a $2.50 handling fee.<\/p>\n The multiple name changes, religious flip-flopping and hefty fees depict ChildFund as a confused, mismanaged organization. This is corroborated by its financial information. As its excess income has increased decently for the last several years, its actual capacity has been decreasing<\/a>. What is anyone supposed to make of that?<\/p>\n Although ChildFund has a good-natured vision, it simply isn\u2019t a clear one. The organization has previously held high ratings with charity watchdog groups, and it might again. However, ChildFund must refine its ideologies and practices to prove to donors what it\u2019s actually committed to. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" This is the concluding post of the PBH series Choose Another Charity, comprised of 3 articles on the Salvation Army, MADD, and ChildFund. ********** Salvation Army [Editor’s note: For a vigorous debate on the Salvation Army, see the comment section of the original article] Everyone knows the Salvation Army. Whether it\u2019s the secondhand goods at […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":549,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[259],"tags":[],"yoast_head":"\n