VOTE Katrina Relief Donations

[emdot_ambient]

Sorry, reposting from the Musicians For Katrina Relief CD just so everyone sees it . . .

Here is why I don't want to give money to the salvation army.

So the choice is between a secular bureaucracy that has had problems channeling its resources to where they need to go and an evangelical religious movement engaged in social services offering aid without regard to race, age, sex, creed, or condition.

From what I've seen, and I'm no expert on this--nor am I a follower of any religion--the Salvation Army is attempting to spread their religious beliefs through the practice of acts of love, kindness and humanitarian assistance. That doesn't seem so bad to me. Read their web page and, yeah, they're against abortion and think homosexuality is not sanctioned by God, blah, blah, blah . . . but those beliefs are present in almost all religions. Would you object so much if the Salvation Army were a Buddhist orgainization?

BTW, I'm merely asking questions and pointing out my observations, not trying to start a big debate. I don't really care which organization we donate to.

Anyway . . . Most of what the Salvation Army believes in--as far as how humans should behave--is exactly what Tibetan Buddhism teaches, and probably Judaism and Islam. I don't see the Salvation Army backing the revisionist policies of the Born Again Neo-Con movement and I don't find them particularly offensive.

Still . . . I can understand wanting to keep the donations secular from a sales point of view. Giving to an overtly Christian organization may make it seem we all adhere to their spiritual teachings.

[Guitarjeff]

Maybe it should be divided into percentages according to how many of the participants prefer a certain charity and given to those charities in those percentages.

Seems fair.


Jeff

[Glooper]

Again: this is not someone I want to give money to.
There are other alternatives. Sorry to hear the Red Cross has disappointed you, Glooper, but they still have my confidence.

err.. I voted for red cross?

Ben

[bluedad]

My personal relief donation and my mate's will both be going to Red Cross. If that's where proceeds from the KVR CD set go too, I'll certainly buy it and add that little bit more.

so, if the choice is Salvation Army, does this mean you wouldn't buy a disc?

[Meffy]

emdot: I'm sorry to say that the SA have practiced discrimination in hiring for positions funded by U.S. taxpayers, and have been taken to court over the practice. They also negotiated a secret (but not secret enough) agreement with the Bush administration granting them permission to discriminate against gays. When the story broke, Bush "backed off" verrry quickly from what SA White House contact Karl Rove had engineered.

http://www.workingforchange.com/article ... emID=11613

I have no problem with those who support their agenda donating to the SA. But I won't do.

[Meffy]

bluedad: Yes, that's right. I'd be sorry not to participate, but I'm contributing otherwise to the relief effort. No disrespect intended to you or anyone else. It's a personal choice.

[emdot_ambient]

Can I change my vote?

Habitat For Humanity is an EXCELLENT idea! They are one of the organizations that the corporation I work for sponsors . . . so if we chose that I might actually be able to leverage a little extra marketing power out of our internal communiciations machine. Though I can't promise anything with that.

Meffy, I wasn't aware of those points. As I stated, I'm not really that up on info about them. Thanks for the clarification.

[Guitarjeff]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/07/ ... 7045.shtml
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/07/ ... 6886.shtml

The Problem with the Red Cross is that you might as well just donate directly to their "employee payroll fund".

[Meffy]

I agree with Habitat for Humanity as an excellent charity. I've never seen any allegation that they've practiced religious or political discrimination, though they're very much a Christian organization.

(I have no complaint with religious charities in general. Just those that use politics to commit discrimination against those that don't hew to their line, particularly using my tax money.)

I regret that this seems to have turned into a discussion of religion and politics. Don't see how that could've been avoided, given the decision involved. :-(

Anyway, being poor, most of my relief effort must be of the direct and non-monetary kind.

[Armoor]

Maybe I'm wrong, but does the Salvation Army carry bibles around forcing Christianity down the peoples throats that they help? Or do they just help? Has the Red Cross changed their international name so they can better help a certain group of people? Isn't helping people the concern here - not bashing organizations based on biased press reports. They're both overinflated organizations that are going to squander some relief money on themselves. Religious bias? Remember, most people in the U.S. follow Christianity -(especially in the south). Do your homework then vote. Nah,...I'm probably wrong. Ignore what you just read - you read it on the internet anyway.

[Meffy]

Armoor: I believe that the Red Cross is in the best position to apply aid effectively. Others will disagree, as is their right. Hence the vote.

The press items linked are reporting the facts as the reporters on both sides of these issues see them. It's my opinion that the Red Cross isn't as efficient as they might be, or as accountable. But there's plentiful documentary proof that the SA has engaged in systematic and widespread discrimination of a kind that I simply cannot condone.

My main concern is that relief gets where it's needed. But I also have an interest in people being makign informed choices -- myself not excluded.

[Hovmod]

Again: this is not someone I want to give money to.
There are other alternatives. Sorry to hear the Red Cross has disappointed you, Glooper, but they still have my confidence.

err.. I voted for red cross?

Ben

Hehe - right. I meant GuitarJeff, of course. sorry to you both.

[Guitarjeff]

My main concern is that relief gets where it's needed.

As is mine. I wonder if there is a reliable charity local to the area (not just N.O., but the gulf coast in General) that could get money quickly to those who need it. I don't exactly trust Musicians Unions (or Labor Unions in general).

For National charities though, I think SA has the better track record.


Jeff

[Meffy]

A bit over a decade ago Consumer's Union (IIRC) did a superb study of charities, analyzing how much of their fund-raising went to actual benefits for their recipients and how much was spent on internal costs. At the time, Richmond, Virginia-based Christian Children's Fund topped the list of wastrels, spending far more on themselves than on the kids in the heart-rending photos they used for fund-raising. Since that time CCF has substantially cleaned up their act, and I suspect the CU report had a lot to do with that. (The Shriners didn't come off very well in the report either.)

I wish CU would do another report of this kind! Failing that, I don't know of any place to find accurate, unbiased comparisons of effectiveness of charities.

[freeztar]

I wish CU would do another report of this kind! Failing that, I don't know of any place to find accurate, unbiased comparisons of effectiveness of charities.

Here's one