Bush
July 10, 2001 10:38 AM   Subscribe

Bush is at it again.
Is the fact that he is able to get away with things like this an indication of a backlash against the more open years of Democrats in the White House?
Is this secretly what the American public wants?
posted by TiggleTaggleTiger (48 comments total)

 
Not surprisingly, the White House is already denying that a deal was made. Which is worse, I wondw: that he'd make a deal like this, or that he'd, Clinton-like, wiggle out of it with semantic shenanigans? Of course, he's just a politician, so words don't mean anything coming from him anyway...
posted by m.polo at 10:43 AM on July 10, 2001


this makes me sick.

if this is really what america wants, i'm leaving.
posted by o2b at 10:43 AM on July 10, 2001


Rafe has a good idea of how to deal with this.

Don't put another cent in their donation coffers. They didn't need this deal, they were already raising plenty of money on their own.
posted by mathowie at 10:49 AM on July 10, 2001


Well, I'm done giving money to the bell-ringers at Christmas, donating clothes, and food, and my time. Seems they don't want my help anyway. This has already been an ugly, long four years, and it's not even a fourth over yet.
posted by headspace at 10:50 AM on July 10, 2001


Don't put another cent in their donation coffers.

I gave up on that long ago. The Salvation Army didn't just now become a front for right-wing bible-thumping zealots.
posted by jpoulos at 10:55 AM on July 10, 2001


The Salvation Army is more than just a charity. It's a denomination, a church, like the Presbyterians or the Episcopalians.

As such, I think giving them money is hard to square with the First Amendment. On the other hand, requiring them to hire homosexuals would be totally wrong. As a church, they deserve even more autonomy from government regulation than a group like the Boy Scouts.
posted by straight at 10:56 AM on July 10, 2001


mpolo: wiggle out of it with semantic shenanigans

bush will say anything. this is the man who was going to give us a tax cut because we were doing so well, and it was only right to share the surplus with everyone, and now it's necessary to jump-start the economy.

straight: The Salvation Army is ... a denomination

I don't *think* that's true. documentation? - rcb
posted by rebeccablood at 11:00 AM on July 10, 2001


I don't *think* that's true. documentation?

Horse's mouth.
posted by holgate at 11:07 AM on July 10, 2001


"a distinctive part of the universal Christian Church" doesn't mean "a denomination" to me. to means part of the body that is comprised of all christian churches, everywhere. "a distinctive part" might mean a denomination and it might just mean nothing.
posted by rebeccablood at 11:11 AM on July 10, 2001


if the government doesn't have the right to force the salvation army to hire gays, how can it have the right to force gays to endure discrimination? ugh.
posted by rabi at 11:15 AM on July 10, 2001


de·nom·i·na·tion n.
A large group of religious congregations united under a common faith and name and organized under a single administrative and legal hierarchy.

The Salvation Army is a distinctive part of the universal Christian Church. Its work is to make known the good news about Jesus Christ and to persuade people to become his followers.

Sounds like a "large group of religious congregations" to me.
posted by jpoulos at 11:18 AM on July 10, 2001


first the scouts, then the Sal. Army---next the Red Cross? No donuts for gays?
posted by Postroad at 11:19 AM on July 10, 2001


i had a friend whose parents where salvation army ministers...I would definately call it a denomination.
posted by th3ph17 at 11:20 AM on July 10, 2001


I am shocked - SHOCKED - to learn that a politician would knowingly tell an untruth. How could this BE? :)

Separation of church and state precludes the government giving tax dollars to a church, regardless of which church. This whole faith-based thing is unconstitutional malarky. The shame of it is that it will divert people's attentions from even stupider ideas - like missile shields - until someone finally realizes that separation of church and state means exactly that. This point is moot, since eventually a court is going to have to stop all this. Have too.

I can't believe people still get so wheezy over whether the person behind them in line for coffee is gay. Whoop dee doo. Doesn't anyone mind their own business anymore?
posted by UncleFes at 11:23 AM on July 10, 2001


The Salvation Army has a right to do whatever it wants, down to excluding people with cross-eyes as long as they stay a private organization. Raking in three hundred million in government assistance a year does not a private organization make.
posted by headspace at 11:24 AM on July 10, 2001


My maternal grandmother was brought up "Sally Ann". That kind of grammatical construction pretty much fits the bill of a denomination.
posted by holgate at 11:35 AM on July 10, 2001


Wait, are they still taking donations from gay benefactors? Or are the bell-ringers going to start asking questions?
posted by MonkeyMeat at 11:38 AM on July 10, 2001


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

First Amendment, Constitution of the United States of America

I suggest that Mr. Bush study the Bill of Rights more closely.
posted by dr. zoidberg at 11:40 AM on July 10, 2001


Anyone else notice "...the Army shows practical concern and care for the needs of people regardless of race, creed, status, colour, sex or age."? I notice that doesn't include regardless of "sexual orientation".

But "creed" could be defined pretty broadly, though: A system of belief, principles, or opinions. Isn't homosexuality a belief, principle or opinion of sorts?
posted by msacheson at 11:46 AM on July 10, 2001


Robert L. Woodson Sr, one of the early backers of the President's faith-based initiative, indicates that the President's legislation has it wrong. He espouses what I think is a sensible approach to the inclusion of faith-based programs in government spending: client vouchers. (article from march 19)
posted by rebeccablood at 11:48 AM on July 10, 2001


what I don't understand is why gays would want to work for these sorts of places in the first place. Let the hate mongers hang out in their little ignorant hate-filled societies. I'll hang with the open-minded.
maybe the point is to change the place from the inside, but it would take a lot of work. i'd hate to have to work in an environment where the way I am is disgusting to the people I work with.
posted by themikeb at 11:57 AM on July 10, 2001


I've always asked myself that, too, but on the other hand, that's a lot like saying "I don't see why blacks would want to live in the South, anyway." (let's pretend that the civil rights movement hasn't happened yet.)
posted by rebeccablood at 12:00 PM on July 10, 2001


Is this secretly what the American public wants?

Yeah, maybe. We'll never know because extreme numbers of this public refrained from voting for or against the Son Of a Bush. Or we may know via polls. Some democracy we're tuirning out to be.
posted by caraig at 12:01 PM on July 10, 2001


msacheson, I think most modern opinions (not, demonstrably, the opinion of the Salvation Army, mind you) would say that homosexuality is not a creed. Both of the definitions of creed at your link at least imply a concious choice to accept that creed. No matter what the Salvation Army may choose to think, the biological state of being a homosexual - that is, that one feels sexual attraction to other individuals of one's own sex - isn't a choice like "Should I go to confession and take communion?" The "nature vs. nurture" debate will straggle on forever, I think, but the "you're born that way" contingent really seems to be holding the field.
posted by m.polo at 12:07 PM on July 10, 2001


*sigh* I'm going back to bed. wake in me 2004.
posted by Hackworth at 12:09 PM on July 10, 2001


It's true that the Salvation Army is a religious group, a christian denomination. And certainly, there needs to be separation between church and state.

But if the SA is using government funds for a program (say: Christmas Angels), and they need a director for that federally-funded (and non-denominational) program, they should NOT be able to discriminate against that person. If they don't like it, they should raise those funds on their own.
posted by jennak at 12:12 PM on July 10, 2001


"first the scouts, then the Sal. Army---next the Red Cross?"

The Red Cross already does. "You must not donate blood if you [are a man who has] had sex even once with another male since 1977." Apparently, it's an FDA regulation of some sort. One which was upheld in Sept 2000 despite admissions that it's discriminatory and outdated.

Apparently, Canadians face the same issue.
posted by CrayDrygu at 12:31 PM on July 10, 2001


I haven't given to the SA since they stopped making the bell ringers dress up like Santa Claus. I mean, you gotta show a little effort to get my dollar, that's what I say.
posted by norm at 12:34 PM on July 10, 2001


Well, Santa Claus is a Christian icon, after all. :-) Maybe they were trying to be more inclusive. Hee hee.
posted by girlhacker at 12:47 PM on July 10, 2001


Anyone else notice "...the Army shows practical concern and care for the needs of people regardless of race, creed, status, colour, sex or age."? I notice that doesn't include regardless of "sexual orientation".

The Salvation Army is willing to minister to ("show practical concern and care for") homosexuals, they just don't hire people who don't agree to try to practice their doctrine, which, among other things, excludes sex outside of heterosexual marriage.

And yes, they are a Christian denomination. I have several friends who have been part of the Salvation Army. If you ask them what church they went to growing up, they say "the Salvation Army."
posted by straight at 1:15 PM on July 10, 2001


Well, Santa Claus is a Christian icon, after all. :-) Maybe they were trying to be more inclusive.

More likely, Santa was seen as "keeping the Christ out of Christmas". Plus, those costumes cost money. Plus...oh, I don't know. They're just big dumb stupidheads!
posted by jpoulos at 1:30 PM on July 10, 2001


The Red Cross already does. "You must not donate blood if you [are a man who has] had sex even once with another male since 1977." Apparently, it's an FDA regulation of some sort. One which was upheld in Sept 2000 despite admissions that it's discriminatory and outdated.

That's really a separate issue, isn't it? Their policy may be somewhat misguided, and it probably costs them a significant number of blood donations, and I think that they should modify it somewhat, but there's a pretty big difference between not employing someone and not accepting a blood donation from them. I don't see giving blood to the Red Cross as a right.
posted by anapestic at 1:58 PM on July 10, 2001


anapestic, YHBT, HAND.
posted by dhartung at 2:02 PM on July 10, 2001


I don't know what "YHBT" means.

And if "HAND" means "Have ANother Donut," well, the Red Cross really doesn't want me.
posted by anapestic at 2:06 PM on July 10, 2001


anapestic: YHBT.
posted by pnevares at 2:32 PM on July 10, 2001


Here's an idea for you. Let's not tax people and redistribute their money in the first place. Perhaps we can leave it up to them.

Second, if some company/charity/organization is so full of hatred that they won't hire the BEST person they can afford to pay because of something that has no bearing on their ability to do the job then that company/charity/organization will soon find one without those issues doing a better job.
posted by revbrian at 3:16 PM on July 10, 2001


[The Red Cross already does. ...Apparently, it's an FDA regulation ]

Discrimination would be the law itself, not the organization following the law.
posted by revbrian at 3:17 PM on July 10, 2001


Don't these organizations have both a secular and religious arm that allows them to sidestep the issue of federal money? I'm pretty sure we've gone over this before.

What's really interesting is the "right" to give blood. As a donor I could care less if they do or do not want my blood. But considering the late (look it up) shortages in blood banks its the patients who are getting the shaft. Its more a patient's rights question than a donor rights.

Obviously this is a regulation to keep HIV out of the blood banks. Either this is an admission that their HIV tests do not work (or work well enough) or that they discriminate against homosexuals. Then again I don't think they'll take your blood if you just got a tattoo or ate a hamburger in Europe in the last 12 months.
posted by skallas at 4:47 PM on July 10, 2001


anapestic, YHBT, HAND.

Would it have been so difficult to actually use the proper English here, rather than obscure abbreviations that needed separate explanations? This is an Internet fueled trend I find most depressing.
posted by ljromanoff at 5:36 PM on July 10, 2001


This is an Internet fueled trend I find most depressing.

Oh, the horror of people using acronyms! I bet if dhartung were a REPUBLICAN you wouldn't mind his abbreviations!

(That's a joke.)
posted by jpoulos at 5:58 PM on July 10, 2001


or: (TAJ)
posted by rebeccablood at 6:00 PM on July 10, 2001


TAJS
(gender-biased foghorn leghorn version)
posted by quonsar at 6:14 PM on July 10, 2001


"anapestic, YHBT, HAND."

It wasn't a troll. In fact, I can't even imagine what would make you think it was a troll. It wasn't posted to provoke a flame. It wasn't "sucker bait." Maybe you could explain it to me?

"Discrimination would be the law itself, not the organization following the law."

True enough, I guess. So change my first sentence to "The FDA already does..." (even though it suddenly takes my post out of context if you do) and it still stands, though. The effect is the same.
posted by CrayDrygu at 7:30 PM on July 10, 2001


From the article:  "The Salvation Army projects spending $88,000 to $110,000 a month in its endeavor to boost Bush's charitable choice effort."

Hmm... usually you never see who the Salvation Army is actually saving.
posted by blackholebrain at 8:25 PM on July 10, 2001



From the Salvation Army's website :

"Alongside this primary aim, the Army shows practical concern and care for the needs of people regardless of race, creed, status, color, sex or age."

Yes, clearly.
posted by dong_resin at 9:54 PM on July 10, 2001


TAJS
(gender-biased foghorn leghorn version)

Gender-biased?
How exactly?

Oh, and is it National Homophobic week in America or something?
posted by fullerine at 12:21 AM on July 11, 2001


Bush reads MF!
posted by TiggleTaggleTiger at 11:00 AM on July 11, 2001


TAJS
(gender-biased foghorn leghorn version)

Gender-biased?
How exactly?


thats a joke, SON.
posted by quonsar at 12:19 PM on July 11, 2001


« Older We want 'em shorter.   |   Who benefits Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments