Faith-Based Discrimination

I've often said I will never support the Salvation Army. This usually gets me looks of disgust from anyone within earshot, even from those who are also non-religious. The reaction is usually something along the lines of, "The Salvation Army has nothing to do with religion, it’s just a name! It's there to help the poor!"

My response is that I will support charities that help the poor but don't force religion on them. Or sometimes I'll say, "What does god have to do with helping the poor? Can't we help the poor without needed to bring religion into it?"

I've always felt a little bad about my stance that I won't help charities that have a religious foundation. I've wondered if what everyone tells me is true, that they are just religious people doing good deeds. Well in that case of the Salvation Army, I know that my stance was justified.

Enter the AlterNet article:

As part of President Bush's "faith-based initiative," US taxpayers gave the Salvation Army's children services division $47 million this year -- 95% of its total budget. Several Salvation Army employees refused to take the Salvation Army's pledge "proclaiming Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord," reveal which church they belong to or identify gay co-workers -- and were summarily fired.

Read the rest of it here.

Not only does this point out the truth that Bush's "faith-based initiative" is exactly what it first seemed, a blatant violation of church-state separation by having tax payer funded religious discrimination, but also that my fear of religious charities was justified, especially regarding the Salvation Army.

The author of this article makes a good point. Over 95% of Salvation Army's children services division monies come from tax payers’ dollars. How then is it nothing more then a government organization under the guise of being an independent charity?

But there is bigger issue that angers me about “faith-based charities.” For me, the bottom line is to question the purpose of charities. If the point of a charity is to help those in need, then religion has no need to play a role. A religious ideological backing or having religious people working for charities do not make it a better charity. The only reason to add the faith element is to promote a religious belief, which distracts from the main point of the charities which is to help people.
It’s fair to say that I fully support the separation of church and state, but that I also think there should be the complete privatization of religion. Religion, in my opinion, should be a private matter. It should be in the heart, mind, home and church. We do not need and should not have religion interaction with the public sphere. Now I don't mean to say people can't be motivated by religious beliefs to do acts in the public sphere, but we don't need those acts trumpeted as religious acts. The reason to do these acts is because they are the right thing to do, not because it gives you the chance to "prove" your religiousness to the world.

People always get mad when atheists quote the Bible, but I'm going to do it anyway. I was raised as a Christian and know a bit about the Bible. There is a passage that I think summarizes my feelings on this issue and it comes from Matthew, Chapter 6:

Beware of practicing your piety before men in order to be seen by them; for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven. Thus, when you give alms, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by men. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your alms may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.