My statement to the Salvation Army leaders who came to my home on Tuesday, November 20, 2001
Why I can no longer support the Salvation Army
It is hard for me to know where to start. I tend to be
a random thinker but by writing down some of my thoughts, I hope you will
be able to understand my opinions even if you do not agree with them. Also,
I am a mom and a retired teacher. I am not a Biblical scholar or an authority
on the Salvation Army. I especially want you to know that this is a house
where a gay man is madly loved by each member of his family. He is welcomed
home from California each Christmas and this year-for the first time-at
age 38, he will bring his partner. I appreciate your willingness to come
here today and your desire to resolve the issues that
would cause PFLAG to initiate the reminder bill project.
I do not think that is possible. The mission of PFLAG is to promote the
health and well being of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender persons,
their families and friends, through support, education and advocacy. I
believe that the beliefs of the
Salvation Army are deadly to our glbt citizens. Though
your organization is Christian, it has chosen to become involved in the
secular world through its charitable and social work. It is my understanding
that your organization is the largest charity and receives about $300 million
per year in government funds. You have 45,000 employees including 5000
ministers. I also know that you the SA lists homosexual behavior-not homosexuality
as a sin. Since gl people are not allowed to marry, the only
solution is to lead a celibate life or live in sin .
I believe this is wrong. I do not believe that the love
and sexual expression my son and his partner have for each other or any
of my gl friends is any less natural and beautiful than my relationship
with my husband.
Because of the beliefs of SA and other Christians, lesbian
and gay youth grow up with several strikes against them before they even
discover or name their sexual orientation. At a young age, children observe
society's dislike and disapproval of homosexuality.
As these kids enter adolescence, (often to their great
dismay), they do not line up with society's expectations. By this time,
they have learned their lessons well and this can have devastating consequences
including very self-destructive behavior- even suicide. Some are amazingly
resilient. They must cope with a society that labels them as sick, bad,
unhealthy and discriminates against them. This insures that many will remain
invisible. Most religious group condemn homosexuality. There is no relief
on Sunday for these kids. School personnel often allow staff and students
to harass even abuse those who are or perceived to be homosexual. The curriculum
is silent failing to give accurate information about sexual development,
health issues and the great contributions of glbt people. Families reject,
abuse, harass or
even disown their child who is glbt. It is a wonder to
me that most of our glbt loved ones manage to overcome low self esteem,
alienation, despair and become wonderful contributing, honest, hard working
tax paying members of this society- A society that continues to discriminateagainst
them and their families.
I have seen my son and other glbt loved ones navigating
these treacherous waters for a very long time. I must do what I can to
make a difference.
Mary Scholl
Letter to the editor, Flint Journal
I read with interest Cathy Wyatt's unequivocal statement "As a lifelong
member of the Salvation Army, I have known many gay people who were
employees around the country. I don't know how many times it can be
stated; the church does not discriminate against gays."
Is Ms Wyatt aware that national Salvation Army derailed a new policy of
their western division granting benefits to Salvation Army employees'
domestic partners? Last week the Salvation Army announced a new national
policy denying their divisions the power to set employee benefits and
limiting benefits to spouses and dependent children. This happened only
a few short days after the national had approved the change.
In explaining why the Western Territory would offer benefits, Captain
Robert Rudd, second in command of 13 western states said, "the reason
why we made this choice was so we could be fair and equitable to our
employees who we hire without discrimination."
Colonel Phil Needham says the following about providing benefits: "In
order to be consistent in holding the non-extension position, one would
have to show that the Salvation Army does not otherwise offer support of
any kind to help people who violate our Salvationist moral convictions.
However, the benefits we make available to the spouses of employees
'support' many, many relationships characterized by immoral acts that
violate most of our position statements…"
He also writes, "Just as we would not argue that our compassionate
assistance to a gay couple in need of services does not constitute an
endorsement of their relationship, I cannot conceive of the God of agape
love saying to us: 'Yes, provide needed health care access to these
sinners but not to those….'
It seems that many members of the Salvation Army disagree with member
Cathy Wyatt and this gives me hope that in time the organization will do
what is fair and just. I believe the decision to rescind benefit was an
economic one-no matter what spin the Salvation Army leaders put on it.
They simply found very soon that they would lose more money from
evangelical Christians than they would gain by following local laws that
require those receiving government funds to not discriminate in benefits
given to their employees based on sexual orientation.
If employers were allowed to decide to disallow benefits based on their
interpretation of morality, most if not all flawed humans would lose
benefits. Perhaps then we could easily see the discrimination that can
happen when we mix religion and state. It is easier to recognize
unfairness when religion's zealots practice it if it directly
affects our safety or economic well being.
Mary Scholl
Letter to the editor,Flint Journal November 29, 2001
It is good that the American Family Association of Michigan and other
concerned individuals and groups will try to make sure there are no
economic consequences to the Salvation Army from PFLAG's reminder bill
project. The Salvation Army's dedication to serving the needy is well
known and admired by most including those of us who will not support them
because of their policies that hurt our loved ones. Two of the
organizations that will receive our donations this Christmas season are
the Triangle Foundation which provides assistance to victims of hate
crimes and Linda's Meals which provides nutritious meals for those
homebound with HIV/AIDS. There are many wonderful inclusive organizations serving
those who need extra help for whatever reason. There is
much to be done in all seasons. I would like to suggest to those who are concerned about the
discriminatory policies of the Salvation Army that you also include a
reminder bill along with your donation. In this way, you can help the
Salvation Army continue their service to the poor. And, at the same time
ask them to consider opening their hearts and benefits to all of their
employees as the Western Territory tried to do before being overruled by
the national leaders of the Salvation Army. Or, if you choose to donate to
another local organization that works with the needy, drop a note in the
Salvation Army kettles telling them so.
Reminder bills can be found at our website
Mary Scholl
Letter to the Detroit Free Press December 11, 2001
Regarding the Salvation Army Dec. 11, B1
Much of this is also part of an earlier letter written to the Flint Journal.
Why did the national Salvation Army derail a new policy of their western division granting benefits to Salvation Army employees' domestic partners? Less than a month ago, the Salvation Army announced a new national policy denying their divisions the power to set employee benefits and limiting benefits to spouses and dependent children. This happened only a few short days after the national had approved the change.
In explaining why the Western Territory would offer benefits, Captain Robert Rudd, from the western region said, "the reason why we made this choice was so we could be fair and equitable to our employees who we hire without discrimination."
Colonel Phil Needham says the following about providing benefits: "In order to be consistent in holding the non-extension position, one would have to show that the Salvation Army does not otherwise offer support of any kind to help people who violate our Salvationist moral convictions. However, the benefits we make available to the spouses of employees 'support' many, many relationships characterized by immoral acts that violate most of our position statements…"
He also writes, "Just as we would not argue that our compassionate assistance to a gay couple in need of services does not constitute an endorsement of their relationship, I cannot conceive of the God of agape love saying to us: 'Yes, provide needed health care access to these sinners but not to those….'
It seems that many members of the Salvation Army disagree with the stance of the leaders that the Free Press chooses to quote. This gives me hope that in time the organization will do what is fair and just.
I believe the decision to rescind benefit was an economic one-no matter what spin the Salvation Army leaders put on it. They simply found very soon that they would lose more money from groups such as the American Family Association than they would gain by following local laws that require those receiving government funds to not discriminate. It is ironic to note that Gary Glenn's American Family Association was advocating boycotting the kettles just days ago before the Salvation Army reversed its policy regarding extension of domestic partner benefits. Now Gary Glenn calls us "cold and callous" for doing the very thing his organization recommended when the Salvation Army was going to allow a change in their discriminatory policies in the western region.
As for the hospice for AIDS patients, perhaps the Salvation Army could turn that building over to a group that does not discriminate and can thus be eligible for government funds. They may also want to rent space in the future. As more and more cities follow the example of 103 that do not allow discrimination based on sexual orientation, they may find that more of their buildings will stand empty for lack of government money.
If employers were allowed to decide to disallow benefits based on their interpretation of morality, most if not all flawed humans would lose benefits. Perhaps then we could easily see the discrimination that can happen when we mix religion and state. It is easier to recognize unfairness when religion's zealots practice it if it directly affects our safety or economic well being.
Mary Scholl
Advocacy
Contact
Us
Home Page
Meetings
Mission
Start
Page
This
Month
PLEASE: Notify Us Of Any Errors Of FACT: ErrorOfFact@PFLAGGC.org
Contact
Us - Site Index- Page
last revised 12/04/01