Salvation Army is stupid!

[so.cal.fan]

I just saw on the news where a man who hit a big lottery, gave a hundred thousand dollar check to the Salvation Army to help the homeless and they TURNED IT DOWN.......because.....IT WAS FROM GAMBLING!!!!

I wonder if anyone who buys and sells stocks donates to Salvation Army?

Oh yeah, that's not gambling..........:confused: :confused: :confused:

[ranchwest]

A lot of churches have this position on gambling proceeds.

My problem with it is that the Bible teaches that we should hate the sin and love the sinner. Based on that, the question should not be how the money was derived, but rather whether the person is giving with a pure heart and without strings attached. If the money was derived through sin (I'm not saying gambling is necessarily a sin), God can forgive. If the money is not illegal, it should be available to the church, IMHO.

Additionally, I believe the money changers in the temple were not gamblers but rather were bankers. They were drawing lots, but that was incidental, so I'm not so sure the Bible is explicitly against gambling.

Even with the above, I still respect the Salvation Army for standing by their principles to the tune of $100,000. Not many folks will do that.

[hurrikane]

maybe knowing the guy won 170 mil and only offered 100k. ticked them off. :D

[anotherdave]

I agree with you, socal. In the news story here he says

"There's no bigger gamble than investing in the stock market," said Rush, a financial adviser. "For them to say this is gambling is an overstatement."


http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/South/01/01/lotto.rejection.ap/index.html

AD

[sq764]

Talk about gambling.. Try being an alter boy anymore..

[Bob Harris]

Gambling, like alcohol and chocolate cake, are only problems if they are abused. The Salvation Army should have taken the money and put it into programs which would help those with gambling problems...nobody would have raised an eyebrow.

The Bible doesn't forbid gambling...I'm a Baptist minister's son and get challenged on this from family and friends on a regular basis. The best argument they can come up with is trying to put it under the umbrella of "greed or laziness". When I ask them how their 401k did last year it usually puts a rapid close to the conversation.

[Lefty]

They used to come in a bar where I worked regularly, soliciting donations.
Here in Vegas one day I was on a bus and about 6 guys were talking about how they did gambling that day. All six got off at Salvation Army saying they had to hurry or they wouldn't get their meal and a bed for the night.
I know longer will give to these organizations, opting to support my own gambling, not guys like these.

[smf]

And you can add the Red Cross to the "Stupid List", SCF.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/30/eveningnews/main534783.shtml

(CBS) FDA inspectors found more than 200 safety violations by the Red Cross. And as CBS News Correspondent Sharyl Attkisson reports, many of the violations were offenses the Red Cross has repeatedly been ordered to fix.

The Red Cross shipped infected blood, failed to screen out risky donors, even some who admitted having HIV, and lost track of more than a thousand units, including small amounts infected with HIV or Hepatitis C. And some Red Cross employees were told to skip safety steps or falsify records to allow infected blood to be released.

Despite years of violations, the Red Cross has insisted things can't be that bad because not many people are getting sick from transfusions.

But the new FDA report finds the Red Cross failed to adequately investigate infections to even determine if bad blood was to blame.

One man got deadly hepatitis C from a transfusion with infected Red Cross blood - but only found out after he forced an investigation. He told CBS News the Red Cross couldn't have cared less about what went wrong.

When he notified the Red Cross that he had gotten hepatitis C from their blood, the response was apathetic.

"They told me that certain publications I could read about hepatitis C," he says.

Even Red Cross workers told FDA inspectors there's a "culture to hide problems" meaning they'd been instructed to "falsify documents ... to hide mistakes" and feared retaliation if they reported problems.

In response to the latest FDA findings, the Red Cross says it "understands more work needs to be done to further strengthen our processes" and they're committed to working with the FDA "to enhance our systems." The Red Cross has also just beefed up its work force on quality, and promises to improve employee training.

But some critics say the charity has broken repeated promises to fix the blood supply and argue it's time for a radical change.

"The FDA needs to, if not take over, heavily oversee a re-design of the blood system. And in some cases they need to start from scratch," Paul Cololery, editor in chief of Non-Profit Times tells Attkisson.

That's something the government apparently isn't willing to take on, at least not now. Critics say the Red Cross is counting on the fact that even if it's not managing the blood supply the way it should be - nobody else is eager to have the job.

[ranchwest]

Protecting the blood supply should be a primary concern of the government, since nobody else is going to monitor it.

Just think of how betrayed you would feel if you got a deadly disease from a blood transfusion. Seems pretty awful to me.

[so.cal.fan]

All these "BIG" charities are just that .....too big.....things slip through the cracks.
I'm sure all the Red Cross and Salvation Army operations are not that bad....but hey, it only takes a few....
My late father, hated the Red Cross, back in WW2, he claimed they didn't give stuff that was sent to the soldiers in Europe.
A relative sent him some knit wool socks, and he never got them.
He held a grudge all his life against the RC.
I know here in So. Cal. where I live, the RC really screens the blood donations.

[Larry Hamilton]

More government is never the answer. The best example of that is Welfare. The"great society" impletmented by LBJ to take care of the nations poor with a government financed welfare state has cost 3 trillion bucks since it's inception 40 years ago. Are there less poor and homeless since 1960...or more?

[ranchwest]

Originally posted by Larry Hamilton
More government is never the answer. The best example of that is Welfare. The"great society" impletmented by LBJ to take care of the nations poor with a government financed welfare state has cost 3 trillion bucks since it's inception 40 years ago. Are there less poor and homeless since 1960...or more?

Sure, Larry, when you get AIDS because some moron pumped you up with tainted blood, call the local crack head for help!

Just because the government hasn't always figured out how to properly dole out money doesn't mean that doling out money is inherently wrong.

[Larry Hamilton]

I agree, someone needs to help, all I am saying is that the federal government is exactly the wrong people to be doing it.

[ranchwest]

The federal government is exactly who needs to be doing it. There is nobody else who can mandate public safety and health issues uniformly across the country.

Unfortunately, the feds have a very bad track record of being mired in beaurocracy and being dominated by people lining their own pockets, so progress is very slow.

[Larry Hamilton]

Have you read the constitution? I missed the part about welfare.. Just in case I missed that "right" I looked up the amendments here they are....Point out the one about helping poor people for me

Amendments

Amendment I [Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly, Petition (1791)]

Amendment II [Right to Bear Arms (1791)]

Amendment III [Quartering of Troops (1791)]

Amendment IV [Search and Seizure (1791)]

Amendment V [Grand Jury, Double Jeopardy, Self-Incrimination, Due Process (1791)]

Amendment VI [Criminal Prosecutions - Jury Trial, Right to Confront and to Counsel (1791)]

Amendment VII [Common Law Suits - Jury Trial (1791)]

Amendment VIII [Excess Bail or Fines, Cruel and Unusual Punishment (1791)]

Amendment IX [Non-Enumerated Rights (1791)]

Amendment X [Rights Reserved to States (1791)]

Amendment XI [Suits Against a State (1795)]

Amendment XII [Election of President and Vice-President (1804)]

Amendment XIII [Abolition of Slavery (1865)]

Amendment XIV [Privileges and Immunities, Due Process, Equal Protection, Apportionment of Representatives, Civil War Disqualification and Debt (1868)]

Amendment XV [Rights Not to Be Denied on Account of Race (1870)]

Amendment XVI [Income Tax (1913)]

Amendment XVII [Election of Senators (1913)

Amendment XVIII [Prohibition (1919)]

Amendment XIX [Women's Right to Vote (1920)

Amendment XX [Presidential Term and Succession (1933)]

Amendment XXI [Repeal of Prohibition (1933)]

Amendment XXII [Two Term Limit on President (1951)]

Amendment XXIII [Presidential Vote in D.C. (1961)]

Amendment XXIV [Poll Tax (1964)]

Amendment XXV [Presidential Succession (1967)]

Amendment XXVI [Right to Vote at Age 18 (1971)]

Amendment XXVII [Compensation of Members of Congress (1992)]

[ranchwest]

Preventing life threatening disease is not welfare. Of course, the Constitution does not prohibit welfare, either, but that is not at issue in this discussion.

[ranchwest]

Larry, show me the one that prohibits welfare.

[Larry Hamilton]

YOu have twisted this around to be meaningless, now I must do the impossible--prove a negative.

Ill pass, you may now piss away someone else's time

[ranchwest]

Uh, isn't that what you were trying to do?

[Lefty]

Larry, I believe the amount that has been thrown down the rathole in the guise of helping the poor now exceeds 5 Trillion.
And we still have all these poor...

[Tom]

Originally posted by Larry Hamilton
More government is never the answer. The best example of that is Welfare. The"great society" impletmented by LBJ to take care of the nations poor with a government financed welfare state has cost 3 trillion bucks since it's inception 40 years ago. Are there less poor and homeless since 1960...or more?

What we have now are 3rd-4th generation welfare recipients.
At what point do the lazy, shiftless, bums get forced to stand up and support themselves?
There many dserving people who are NOT getting the support/help they need becase of the minority of bums we are carrying. Anyone who thinks throwing more money at something makes it better should talk to a recent high scholl graduate from our liberal-based education (?) system.
I have no problem contribuing taxes to help those who need it - but those who don't are stealing it from me an I say put them in jail...or worse (MUCH worse).

[Tom]

Originally posted by ranchwest
The federal government is exactly who needs to be doing it. There is nobody else who can mandate public safety and health issues uniformly across the country.

Unfortunately, the feds have a very bad track record of being mired in beaurocracy and being dominated by people lining their own pockets, so progress is very slow.

Maybe what we really need is a new governement.
One the is truly OF the people, BY the people, and FOR the people instead of one IN SPITE OF the people, like the bunch of loose-zippered, cash eating, intern-murdering, lobby-beholding, check-boucncing, segregrationist scum-bags we have in congrees today.
One a clear day, you can smell Washington as far north as NY.
It ain't pretty. More of them should fly small airplanes like that boob a couple of months ago. Karma.

[Tom]

When you think about how to stop welfare, a couple of things come to mind.
My friend once told me that his dog eats canned peas and it was cheap to feed him. I told him that a dog would not eat canned peas and he replied, " Not at first."
Hmmmmmmm?

The other thing is all the money we throw at illegal aliens coming in from Mexico. That one is easy. Two words: Land mines.

[ranchwest]

There seems to be a lot of confusion here among protecting our citizenry and meeting the basic needs for our citizenry and squandering money.

Protection takes several forms, including military defense and defense against potential medical problems.

If the government doesn't protect us from tainted blood, then just who is it that has that capability? Or would you have us ignore the problem and then I have to just hope I'm not the next one to be stricken with a debilitating disease?

[sq764]

How about putting a time limit on the welfare and once that deadline is passed and they do not have a job, the government does not cut off thier welfare payments, but they do out them to work..

How about making them do roadwork, like filling potholes, cleaning up trash along the side of the road, cutting the grass on the state highways?? You know, the things that our tax money goes to, which they are receiving..

Once they work outside picking up trash for a measly welfare check, I bet you it may motivate some people to take that data entry job paying $10 an hour or take that $8 an hour job at McDonalds...

[Tom]

I agree with both of your last posts completely.

[ranchwest]

There are people who genuinely need assistance. I have a friend whose back was crushed in an industrial accident. I don't have a problem with people like that being on some type of long-term program.

I do agree that able-bodied people need to be seeking gainful employment.

[sq764]

Ranch,

Wouldn't your friend be eligible for Workman's Comp?

[fmazur]

If the powers that be in the Govt. would go back and read the PREAMBLE to the constitution, which I believe states the following

PROVIDE for the common defence.

PROMOTE the general welfare.

We would then all be better served. Somewhere, somehow it got all scred up.

[ranchwest]

Originally posted by sq764
Ranch,

Wouldn't your friend be eligible for Workman's Comp?

I don't know anything about his eligibility situation, but to the best of my knowledge he did not get any.