How Black Lives Matter’s Hatred Of The Family Feeds Its Desire For Revolution

By preserving culture and supporting children, the nuclear family consequently becomes the highest and most effective form of empowerment.

How Black Lives Matter’s Hatred Of The Family Feeds Its Desire For Revolution

By now, people are realizing that Black Lives Matter (BLM) is less an organization committed to improving the black community, and more a Marxist group exploiting racial tensions to push its agenda. According to a recent poll, “70 percent of respondents think that the movement has not improved race relations, with 38 percent saying Black Lives Matter has made race relations worse.” After so much agitation and protest, BLM has little to show for itself besides fomenting chaos in urban America and coaxing millions of dollars from white elites hoping to expiate feelings of guilt.

Besides the lackluster outcome of its campaign, what has bothered people most about BLM is its core beliefs, which often stray from the concerns of many black Americans. In particular, BLM opposes the nuclear family: “We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and ‘villages’ that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.”

The logic of this statement suggests that children do better without parents and outside the home. Rather, the “village” will raise them. More than any other belief of BLM, this one against the nuclear family threatens the most harm to Americans of all races. Dismantling it leaves children extremely vulnerable to social ills.

As former NFL athlete Marcellus Wiley brilliantly explains, children in broken homes “are 5 times more likely to commit suicide, 6 times more likely to be in poverty, 9 times more likely to drop out of high school, 10 times more likely to abuse chemical substances, 14 times more likely to commit rape, 20 times more likely to end up in prison, 32 times more likely to run away from home.” Far from taking responsibility for the children, BLM’s proverbial village usually swallows them whole.

So why does BLM include this claim in its creed? When all evidence suggests that eliminating the nuclear family immeasurably harms minorities, how does an organization advocating on their behalf justify this stance? Answering these questions is worthwhile not only because it highlights the essential virtues of the nuclear family, but it also offers a way to address the great decline in family life already happening.

Families Transmit Culture and Cultivate Empathy

First and foremost, the nuclear family is a civilization’s primary means of cultural transmission. Parents pass on their values, faith, and traditions to their children, who then do the same for the next generation. A person’s politics, religious beliefs, and life goals are largely determined by his parents, who set the expectations. Whatever a school might teach or church might preach, parents usually have the final say for a child growing up, even after they become teenagers.

This is why BLM and progressive activists in general detest the family. They rightly see it as the main obstacle to their cultural revolution. Sure, they will start with toppling statues, painting ugly murals, rewriting history, and canceling dissenting views, but the keystone of culture is the family. A loving home will stubbornly continue to thwart the leftist propaganda projected everywhere. A self-sufficient unit, a nuclear family can preserve its way of life and insulate from damaging outside forces.

Acknowledging this, leftists will defend their hostility by contending that families continue to nurture prejudice and backward views. According to many leftists, the only thing the toxic home passes on to future generations is intolerance and ignorance. This is the stated reason for many pivotal leftists’ desire, such as John Dewey, to separate children from parents.

On the contrary, the nuclear family teaches tolerance and empathy. One can choose his friends, but he cannot choose his family. Respecting the dignity of others regardless of their merits arises from continual interaction with imperfect, unchosen family members.

As Rusty Reno wrote in the American Mind, “The family is a school of loyalty.” Without family, people might never learn to trust others, especially strangers with a different background. They might become intolerant, fearful, and ultimately lonely — perfect candidates for radicalization.

Family Is Empowering

By preserving culture and supporting children, the nuclear family consequently becomes the highest and most effective form of empowerment. Unfortunately, one person’s empowerment is another person’s privilege. Thus, in the name of social justice, BLM would rather deny all people this privilege than extend it to the less fortunate.

To its credit, BLM understands the real importance of the nuclear family, which is why activists explicitly attack it. For far too long, however, the majority of Americans have not understood this and have allowed the family to disintegrate. It wasn’t Plato’s “Republic,” Hobbes’ “Leviathan,” or Marx’s “State” taking children from their parents so they could be indoctrinated and assigned a role in the system. It was a culture that permitted abortion and no-fault divorce, redefined marriage and sex, and replaced fathers with the welfare state. And it was parents who outsourced their children to mediocre schools and mind-numbing screens.

What was once the apex of human experience is now seen as a terrible burden. Unsurprisingly, millennials don’t want to marry or become parents, nor does Gen Z, which accounts for the below-replacement U.S. fertility rates the last few years. Inundated with leftist narratives through popular culture, many young adults would prefer to cohabitateown a dog, and binge-watch “The Office.” If they yearn for something more meaningful, they can engage in slacktivism and support causes such as BLM.

Long before Americans see the effect of the upcoming demographic winter, wherein adult diapers outsell children’s diapers and every social entitlement goes bankrupt, they will see a collapse in the culture. Without family acting as a cultural bulwark preserving American ideals in the face of ubiquitous leftist messaging, society will slip into dysfunction and chaos.

To put America first, one must put family first. It’s not enough to simply disagree and prove organizations like BLM wrong. Conservatives and patriotic Americans must support the nuclear family. Without family, the community becomes the mass, a collection of people without ideals to hold them together. With family, the community and its members become stronger, and Americans can finally attain and experience the kind of social harmony and justice they so desire.

Auguste Meyrat is an English teacher in the Dallas area. He holds an MA in humanities and an MEd in educational leadership. He is the senior editor of The Everyman and has written essays for The Federalist, The American Conservative, and The Imaginative Conservative, as well as the Dallas Institute of Humanities and Culture. Follow him on Twitter.
Photo Nappy/Pexels

https://thefederalist.com/2020/07/16/how-black-lives-matters-hatred-of-the-family-feeds-its-desire-for-revolution/


 

A Liberal Order That Seeks To Shut Down Christian Charities Doesn’t Deserve To Survive

Christian post-liberals on the right have seen how readily the liberal center-left and the Chamber-of-Commerce right surrender to the extreme and illiberal left. It makes them wonder: Why not us?

A Liberal Order That Seeks To Shut Down Christian Charities Doesn’t Deserve To Survive

Dec 26, 2019

It is a basic Christian teaching that good works are insufficient for spiritual salvation. We should also remember they are unlikely to suffice for cultural and political salvation either.

Chick-fil-A’s abandonment of The Salvation Army is yesterday’s news, but its lessons should be remembered, for they explain our cultural and political trajectory. That the chicken chain capitulated even though everyone was “eating mor chikin” is instructive regarding the power of the LBGT lobby and its allies. That they directed this power against a Christian organization dedicated to feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and sheltering the homeless — including those who identify as LGBT — is even more instructive.

It exemplifies how hard-liners are driving the cultural left. It is not clear that a majority even of those who identity as LGBT hate The Salvation Army. For example, Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg volunteered for the organization (albeit for a photo op) a couple of years back. Now he is facing criticism from LGBT activists, as those running the movement want total victory, not coexistence. And they are winning.

The campaign included government officials from Buffalo, New York, to San Antonio, Texas, retaliating against Chick-fil-A for its support of The Salvation Army. Even without full control over the government, the left has been aggressive in its use of government power against Christians who believe traditional teachings on human sexuality. The left seems to target particularly those engaged in charitable work, rather than protecting them on account of their good works.

The left’s legal wing is trying to compel Christian hospitals to perform abortions and sex-change surgeries, Christian schools to affirm same-sex relationships, and Christian charities such as women’s shelters to pretend men can be women. A purportedly serious Democratic presidential candidate wanted to tax dissenting Christian organizations, including churches, into oblivion.

The left won’t even spare elderly nuns. When the Trump administration ended Barack Obama’s legal campaign against the Little Sisters of the Poor, various Democratic attorneys general made a point of continuing that unholy effort.

The Rise of Post-Liberal Christianity

This should not surprise us. Jesus promised that the powers of this world would hate his followers, not that they would love us if we were virtuous. While we Christians should always strive to be more like Christ, we should not succumb to a quasi-Pelagianism that presumes our winsomeness determines how others receive the gospel. Christ himself was crucified, and the grace and charity many martyrs exemplified did not save them from persecution unto death.

But that we should expect trouble in this world does not mean we should be disinterested regarding politics, nor does it excuse governments that oppose the church and oppress its people. That our nation seems to be starting down this path has intensified Christian reconsiderations of liberal political theory. Although our government ostensibly protects the freedoms of religion, association, and speech, procedural liberalism increasingly appears insufficient to protect our rights or to ensure a culture of tolerance and pluralism that includes Christians who maintain the traditional teachings of our faith.

The supposedly neutral principles of the legal left consistently restrict the rights and opportunities of orthodox Christians, and the left always pushes the envelope. Christian litigators should, of course, do their best to defend our rights, and thank God for their efforts, but it should be no surprise that more and more Christians are intrigued by varieties of post-liberal thinking, including previously marginalized ideas such as Catholic integralism. It is understandable that Christians are turning against the system of liberal democratic capitalism as it turns against them.

Post-liberal Christians are unlikely to find their minority status daunting, for they see that minorities can win if they are determined and the institutions they face are weak and full of cowards. After all, a minority of hard-line leftists control cultural, economic, and political pressure points that grant them power far beyond their numbers.

For example, the 2020 Democratic field is so radically pro-abortion that even The New York Times has noticed. The Democratic Party stands for abortion today, abortion tomorrow, and abortion forever, as Sen. Elizabeth Warren illustrated in promising that at her inauguration — angels and ministers of grace defend us! — she will wear swag to rep the nation’s largest abortion chain.

Christian post-liberals on the right have seen how readily the liberal center-left and the Chamber-of-Commerce right surrender to the extreme and illiberal left and wonder: Why not us? A decadent and despairing culture with weak institutions and degraded elites is precisely the sort that a determined minority might govern.

Thus, they see an opportunity as our culture disintegrates despite its wealth and technological prowess. Liberal individualism seems to be devouring itself: Fertility is down, loneliness and depression have increased, and deaths of despair from suicide, drugs, and alcohol are way up.

Should Liberalism Be Preserved?

Perhaps it is time to be bold and reorder society toward the highest good, rather than accepting liberalism’s dishonest promises of “live and let live” neutrality. As some post-liberal thinkers note, we increasingly live in a non-Christian integralist society that mandates belief in sectarian dogmas, such as the mystical belief that a man may become — indeed, may already be — a woman. Therefore, they see the alternative to post-liberal Christian politics not as liberalism, but as some sort of post-Christian illiberal politics.

I am sympathetic to some of the post-liberal thought developing on the right. I see the appeal, especially as liberalism’s promise of legal neutrality is exposed as so much fiction. I share many of the critiques of liberal political theory and find its discourse far more interesting than the stale talking points of neoliberals and neoconservatives.

But I am neither Catholic nor Calvinist enough to be much of an integralist, and I remain more skeptical of the likelihood of governmental efficacy and rectitude than many post-liberals seem to be. I also remain attached to many liberal practices, such as the right to trial by jury.

I am, in short, still thinking over these matters and am not entirely in either camp. From this in-between, I would recommend post-liberal thinkers reflect on the frailty and fallibility of human institutions. I also suggest that the defenders of liberal democratic capitalism take the critiques of post-liberals seriously. A liberal order that seeks to shut down Christian charities for nonconformist views on human sexuality does not deserve to survive.

Nathanael Blake is a Senior Contributor at The Federalist. He has a PhD in political theory. He lives in Missouri.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/12/26/a-liberal-order-that-seeks-to-shut-down-christian-charities-doesnt-deserve-to-survive/

4 Ways To Help Your Kids Fight Assimilation Into Cultural Leftism

Equipping our kids might mean talking to them about difficult and uncomfortable subjects long before we’d like to. But choosing not to have them doesn’t protect our kids. It dooms them to leftist assimilation.

4 Ways To Help Your Kids Fight Assimilation Into Cultural Leftism

Dec 16, 2019

 

“You don’t agree with me that gay marriage should be legal?” All eyes around the lunch table were suddenly trained on my sixth-grade daughter. “But that means you hate gay people!” Morgan exclaimed.

“No it doesn’t,” Faust daughter replied. “My grandma is gay, and I love her. So, what is your argument?”

“Well, if a man and a woman who love each other can get married, then two men who love each other should be able to get married, and two women who love each other should be able to get married. There’s no difference.”

“The difference is that a man and a woman make a baby,” Faust daughter responded again. “A man and a man don’t make a baby, and a woman and a woman don’t make a baby.”

“Oh, I guess that’s true. But the two men or the two women could just adopt if they wanted a baby.”

“No. Adoption is not about giving kids to adults. Adoption is about finding homes for children who don’t have parents. And all children need moms and dads,” Faust daughter insisted.

“Well, I think kids just need adults who love them,” came the response.

“No, dads teach kids certain lessons; moms teach kids other lessons. And kids need both kinds of lessons,” Faust daughter concluded.

Amazingly, No.1 Faust daughter was able to identify three truths about marriage and family that escape most adults: 1) The public purpose of marriage is not about adult feelings, it’s about children. 2) No adult has a right to a child. 3) Men and women offer distinct and complementary benefits to child-rearing.

As she retold this lunch-time drama, I remember thinking, “Wow, it worked!” No. 1 Faust daughter had retained and could explain much of what we had been talking about at home. It was proof that not only can kids handle these big conversations, they thrive on them.

Parenting Is About Training

After our eldest daughter’s relatively sheltered elementary school life, my husband and I decided it was time for the “Great Equipping.” Our philosophy throughout her first decade of life had been focused on filtering out damaging ideas about worldview, gender, sex, etc. We strove to saturate her in truth and beauty during the phase wherein kids unquestioningly absorb everything they see and hear.

We limited her exposure to distorted depictions of sex, violence, and competing worldviews whether from media or agenda-driven adults. We encouraged scripture memorization, modeled imperfect-but-healthy relationships, and emphasized the purpose and inherent goodness of sex within marriage. But the time for sheltering was at an end because she was about to enter the ultimate worldview battleground — a woke Seattle public school.

The Great Equipping is the time in a child’s development when critical thinking begins, accompanied by questions like, “How do we know that’s true?” “But what if you’re wrong?” It’s easy for children to catch their parents off guard when they begin challenging core theological concepts that, only a month before, they were happily regurgitating. But fear not, these questions are an indication your kid is ready for more. They are ready to be experts.

We tell every one of our kids upon entering middle school, “We want you to know more about controversial topics than all your friends.” Yes, the Great Equipping means talking about difficult and uncomfortable subjects with our kids way before we’d like to.

But we really don’t have a choice, because the world is messaging to our kids nonstop about sex and transgenderism and every other topic that may make us squeamish. To the world, our discomfort is irrelevant. Having conversations with our kids about abortion or pornography may be discomforting, but choosing not to have them doesn’t protect our kids. It dooms them to leftist assimilation.

Uncomfortable as it is, the goal of parenting is not to keep kids safe or happy. The goal is training.

1. You Are the Primary Educators

Pre-parenthood, my husband and I worked in youth ministry. We witnessed both ends of the parenting spectrum: the laissez-faire, uninvolved-and-unaware-of-what’s-going-on-in-their-child’s-world parents. Those kids were so overwhelmed by the messages and pressures of the world, they were often swallowed whole by the time they graduated high school.

On the other end of the spectrum were the Christian kids smothered with protection. These kids often fell apart when they went to college. Their parents’ extreme sheltering meant they never had a chance to come up against a worldview challenge, whether evolution or sexual morality or the veracity of scripture, which left them woefully outgunned when they encountered the slightest pushback.

My husband and I decided on a middle road: train our children on every question the world would throw at them while they were under our roof. That middle road demanded we take our role of “primary educators” seriously. Not only by laying a solid foundation of truth and beauty when our kids were young, but also by introducing them to competing worldviews in middle school. The summer before our oldest entered sixth grade, we studied abortion, transgenderism, same-sex attraction, socialism, and more.

Being the “primary educators” of our children means being the first to talk with them about difficult subjects. Why? Because the person who introduces your child to a new something, especially a sensitive something, is the person your kid will consider the authority.

For example, if the first time your kid hears about porn is when a fifth grader with a smartphone shoves a video in his face, where do you think he goes for more information? Even if your initial conversation is not exhaustive, the first person to tell your kids about tough issues has to be you. As the mothers who lead the grassroots marriage movement CanaVox often say, “Better a year too early than five minutes too late.”

2. Include Your Kids in What You’re Already Doing

While good programs are helpful, don’t think this training requires formal curriculum. My husband and I have opted for more of a Deuteronomy 6 approach wherein you incorporate worldview conversations as “you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up.”

This brand of training is more of an incremental handoff than a course-completion. I once heard of a discipleship model that encapsulates this slow equipping:

Step 1. I do, you watch.
Step 2. I do, you help.
Step 3. You do, I help.
Step 4. You do, I watch.

By the time your kids exit childhood, you should be done with Step 1. Your kids should already have observed you living it. Our kids have witnessed their parents read about and work through difficult scriptural and worldview questions.

They’ve watched us respond to situations with, “I don’t know. Let me learn more and get back to you.” They’ve listened to us listen to political and worldview-forming podcasts. They’ve seen us survive the real-life fallout of speaking unpopular truth about cultural topics. Your kids should understand healthy marriage, friendship, and conversations because they’ve witnessed you living them. Modeling is a critical part of Step 1. You are “doing,” and they are “watching.”

When they are near the end of the innocent phase, you should introduce Step 2. As a Federalist reader, I assume you are engaged in apologetic or policy discussions online, yes? Invite your 10-year-old or 12-year-old to read your exchanges and discuss your critic’s objections. Ask your daughter to help you with your response.

What part of your argument is the strongest and the weakest? What would she add? When you want to share a powerful pro-life video, watch it with your son and ask him to help you write a few lines about the “rape exception” in abortion. You are “doing.” They are “helping.”

When they hit that phase where the Great Equipping begins, you should be in the midst of Step 2 and moving into Step 3. If they’ve been saturated in truth and beauty and received honest answers to honest questions, the urge to further investigate and defend their worldview comes naturally. They will likely start pushing back in their classrooms, engaging in difficult conversations with friends, or identifying objectionable content in the shows they are watching (preferably with you sitting on the couch next to them).

Step 3 done right looks like this: Your middle-schooler reports that his class discussion was based on the idea that “slaveholders in the South must’ve been Republicans because Republicans are racist.” You stay your fingers from typing an angry email to the teacher and instead ask your son, “Would you like to watch a video on the history of the Democratic Party together?” or “Would you like to read the first Republican Party platform, which denounces slavery as one of the ‘twin relics of barbarism’?” You “help” while they “do.”

Ideally, by the time our kids graduate high school, they regularly dwell in the land of Step 4. You “watch” them from the sidelines responding to objections. They are drafting their own social media comments about the harms of puberty-blockers and writing pro-life essays all on their own.

A precaution: There is no shortcutting this. Do not live in the fantasy that you can skip from Step 1 to Step 4. You arrive at Step 4 only after your kids have had a couple years in Step 2 and Step 3 and have had many opportunities to practice grappling through difficult topics in the safety of your home.

3. Balance Protection and Exposure

I don’t knock any parent who chooses private school or homeschool to protect their children from the world. The only mommy war I fight is the one that really matters — to insist that every child has a right to his or her mommy (and daddy). Whether your child takes a bus to school or just has to come to the kitchen table, Christian parents are responsible for equipping their kids.

Some Christians bristle when I tell them our children are in public school. They ask, “How could you allow them to be subjected to that liberal agenda?” Their concern is justified, of course. This educational path is wrought with daily political and religious friction. We have to evaluate, child by child and year by year, whether this friction is sharpening our kids or grinding them down. If it’s grinding them down, we retreat and regroup. If the friction results in stronger mental and spiritual acumen, then they remain.

Now spanning grades four through 11, our kids often share with us the difficult conversations they’ve had with friends or a ridiculous statement from a teacher, or lament some biased curriculum. Such conversations are followed by a heavy does of Step 3 as we conduct joint research into what the Bible says about that subject, as well as supporting natural law and social science arguments. Our two oldest have spent hours investigating the character of Christopher Columbus, whether our Founding Fathers were racist, the sexes wage gap, the truth claims of Islam, and more.

For example, recently, No. 2 Faust daughter stormed in and told me, “Mom, you wouldn’t believe what Jenna said! She said abortion was okay because ‘my body, my choice.’ I was so mad, but I didn’t know what to say.” Three hours later, after an exploration of videos on natal development and some research on pro-choice talking points, No. 2 Faust daughter said confidently, “The next time one of my friends says ‘my body, my choice,’ I’m going to say, ‘If it was your body you’d be the one dead at the end of the abortion.’”

I have seen the fruits of this Great Equipping in my friends’ children as well. One friend’s sixth-grade daughter, championing the pro-life cause while riding the school bus, successfully converted four pro-choice classmates by simply being prepared to have the conversation. Another friend found out during her seventh-grader’s conference that her child had spoken directly to the history teacher himself regarding his obvious political bias in the classroom, which resulted in a humbled, more mindful educator.

Of course, not every conversation will result in such tangible “wins.” Many times our kids will experience the same rejection we adults face when we stand for our convictions. The sure result will be, however, that every oppositional interaction they have will help to sharpen their minds, and that is always a win.

4. Stay Connected

One last thing, and it’s a big thing. These conversations will be impossible or have little effect if we aren’t connected to our kids. Connection comes not only from physical proximity — driving them to school, joint dinner prep, working in the yard together — but also from emotional proximity.

If your kids are going to navigate a hostile world of competing ideas, they must know you are the safe place to put all their questions, feelings, and doubts. You demonstrate this by not freaking out when they tell you their friend came out as bisexual, or when your little girl says she wants to marry Taylor Swift, or when your son wants to know what “trans” is. While your head may say “WTH!” your face needs say, “I’d love to talk with you about that.”

Have my husband and I achieved the right balance of modeling and exposing, sheltering and training? I hope so. But we are only at the virtual half-time in this parenting game. I’ll tell you what the scoreboard says in another decade when the game is over.

What I can say is that my kids can hold their own. They can spot a lie when they hear one. They know that answers to the hardest questions do exist, even if they don’t yet know what those answers are. They know their parents are in the fight with them. And they know that while they may lose friends if they speak up, they earn the respect of their friends who remain.

Katy Faust is the founder and director of the children’s rights organization Them Before Us and the Washington state leader of CanaVox. She is married and the mother of four children, the youngest of whom is adopted from China. You can follow her on Twitter @Advo_Katy.

Chick-fil-A Should Take A Lesson From The Salvation Army And Stop Bowing To The LGBT Left

In the left’s crusade against the Christian faith, it harms the people it purports to defend. This means good people must ensure no one in need is left behind, and for the record, The Salvation Army is very good people.

Chick-fil-A Should Take A Lesson From The Salvation Army And Stop Bowing To The LGBT Left

Nov 21, 2019 by By Chad Felix Greene

Chick-fil-A stated Monday that starting at the beginning of the year it will no longer donate to The Salvation Army, to which the restaurant franchise gave $115,000 in 2018. This decision came shortly after LGBT groups pressured Chick-fil-A into closing its first location in the United Kingdom.

Chick-fil-A was accused of donating money to, as CNN reported, “anti-LGBTQ” organizations, including The Salvation Army. GLAAD, an LGBT organization, argued LGBT people should “greet today’s announcement with cautious optimism,” while LGBTQ Nation dismissed the change as merely a PR move to make more money. The accusation of The Salvation Army as an “anti-LGBTQ” organization, however, requires a deeper dive.

If you read The Salvation Army’s page dedicated to LGBT concerns, you might imagine it was from any major LGBT advocacy website. The first posted statement concerns housing obstacles for some LGBT people. It states, “Because LGBTQ Americans living in poverty often experience unacceptable homophobia and transphobia, many become homeless.”

Arguing that nearly one-third of transgender people have been rejected from homeless shelters around the country, The Salvation Army provides details about a dorm in Las Vegas it built specifically to help this vulnerable group. Their messaging addresses substance abuse, access to food, job training, and suicide prevention.

Stating that a donation to its cause can provide three nights of shelter, the charity assures the reader, “When a transgender person seeks help from us, we serve them in the same manner as any other person seeking assistance.” It even offers rental and utility assistance, arguing on behalf of LGBT Americans, which it states are more likely to be poor.

This information is not buried deep within the website, either, to be found only through dedicated searching. On its What We Do page, The Salvation Army includes “Serving the LGBTQ Community” right alongside “Love the Elderly” and “Stop Domestic Abuse.” It clearly communicates that the burdens of LGBT people in need are just as urgent and important as everyone else’s.

Pop Culture Clashes with The Salvation Army

Yet British singer Ellie Goulding recently told her fans she would refuse to participate in the Dallas Cowboys versus Buffalo Bills game on Thanksgiving Day, sponsored by The Salvation Army, saying, “[S]upporting an anti-LGBTQ charity is clearly not something I would ever intentionally do.” Goulding previously worked with The Salvation Army and posted on her Instagram the work she had done.

She did so with pride. It was only after fans began inundating her with outrage that she changed her position. One fan lamented, “A little disappointed considering the salvation army has a long standing history of anti lgbtq+ rhetoric. i appreciate the positive things they do but there are other, better organizations that don’t discriminate against others.” Another said, “They only help *certain* people. Very homophobic, transphobic, anti-LGBTQIA+ organization. Please do your research before endorsing a company that continues to hurt our community.”

Goulding gave The Salvation Army an ultimatum. “Upon researching this, I have reached out to The Salvation Army and said that I would have no choice but to pull out unless they very quickly make a solid, committed pledge or donation to the LGBTQ community,” she said.

Jon Rich, a Salvation Army commander in the area serving the upcoming football game, quickly responded: “It brings attention to how inclusive we are as an organization and serving everyone no matter who they are, what their sexual orientation is, what their station in life is. We serve without discrimination.” After reaching out to Goulding and reassuring her of The Salvation Army’s equal treatment of all people, she agreed to do the show.

The Salvation Army Northern Division FAQ page provides insight, addressing concerns related to how it engages with LGBT people. The page firmly states, “Any person who comes through our doors will receive assistance based on their need and our capacity to help.”

The organization investigates and takes action in cases of alleged discrimination. It has spent $300,000 on diverse lobbying efforts in the last two decades, 0.0009 percent of its income. As Rich stated regarding same-sex employees, “Now, nationwide we offer health benefits to same-sex couples, no questions asked.” He continued, “But we think everyone should have access to healthcare. So why wouldn’t we do that?”

LGBT Media Goes After the Salvation Army Regardless

Despite this overwhelming assurance that The Salvation Army in no way endorses or engages in discrimination or hatred toward LGBT people, LGBT media overwhelming include it in lists of “anti-LGBT” organizations. ThinkProgress in 2019 argued, “The Salvation Army has a long record of opposing legal protections for LGBTQ Americans.” The Huffington Post cited the same reasoning, “The Salvation Army, which has an extensive record of anti-LGBTQ advocacy.”

Transgender activist Zinnia Jones published a list of the organization’s anti-LGBTQ history on the Huffington Post back in 2013, and it has been referenced ever since. The list begins in 1986 and covers the organization worldwide, which is active in 130 countries.

The official list includes five examples. In 1986, the New Zealand Salvation Army helped collect signatures to oppose a law that would decriminalize homosexuality and issued an official apology in 2008. In 1998 a branch in San Francisco chose to turn down money from the city that included a requirement to provide benefits to employees with same-sex partners.

In 2000, the Salvation Army of Scotland submitted a letter to Parliament opposing the teaching of homosexuality in public schools. In 2001, the U.S. branch lobbied to protect religious institutions from being held liable under anti-discrimination policies. The Salvation Army addressed this, saying, “[T]he effort was solely focused on allowing our clergy and those involved in our religious activities to work on federally funded social service programs without having to compromise core religious beliefs.”

In 2012, the only stated accusation of discrimination, Danielle Morantez, a case worker for the office in Burlington, Vermont, claimed she was fired after coming out as bisexual. The story’s latest update appeared in 2012 on the GLAAD website. Jones recognized then that The Salvation Army had already set up pro-LGBT pages and removed reportedly offensive information on its site.

Confusion Over Biblical Teaching on Sexuality

Also in 2012, a controversy arose, as the Washington Blade reported, “[A] Salvation Army spokesperson told an interviewer that gay people deserve death, according to scripture.” The Salvation Army addressed this as well, stating, “The officer was responding to a question about a Bible passage which most Christians understand to be a discussion of spiritual death, meaning a separation from God, their creator.” The organization widely condemned the statements shortly after the interview was reported.

Essentially, the issue for LGBT activists, despite the information the organization has provided over the last two decades, is as Jones puts it, “These statements completely ignore the reality that the Salvation Army continues to maintain anti-gay theological stances.”

Time and time again, the biblical belief system of the organization itself comes up as a fundamental argument used to demonstrate the hatred and bigotry the organization represents: “The Salvation Army states clearly they believe, The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments were given by inspiration of God, and that they only constitute the Divine rule of Christian faith and practice.” For many on the left, this alone is enough to dismiss the organization as hateful.

In 2013 Jones made the plea, “Supporting the Salvation Army this season, whether by tossing your change in their red kettles or donating your used goods to their resale shops, means assisting an aggressively anti-gay church in furthering its goals of discrimination.”

In 2018, LGBT author James Finn wrote, “Did you know that when you give money to the Salvation Army, you’re giving money to a church? Did you know that the Church is viciously homophobic and transphobic, fighting all over the world for the right to discriminate against LGBTQ people?” This reasoning, in part, motivated Noah Michelson to pen his 2018 Huffington Post article titled “If You Really Love LGBTQ People, You Just Can’t Keep Eating Chick-fil-A.”

The Good Guys Shouldn’t Bow to the Outrage Mob

Regardless of the factual information, the context of several decades, scattered accusations firmly condemned by the core organization, and the open welcoming of LGBT people, all that matters for the left is the idea of Christian faith behind it all. As CNN reported, “The Salvation Army has said in the past that the Bible forbids sexual intimacy between members of the same sex, that gay Christians should embrace celibacy and that scripture does not support same-sex marriages.” This on its own seems enough to justify the left’s hatred.

The thing about attempting to appease those who hate you is that whatever you do will only deepen their suspicion of you. As GLAAD’s director of campaigns and rapid response Drew Anderson cautioned, “In addition to refraining from financially supporting anti-LGBTQ organizations, Chick-fil-A still lacks policies to ensure safe workplaces for LGBTQ employees and should unequivocally speak out against the anti-LGBTQ reputation that their brand represents.” It will never be enough when the opposition views you as a threat based on what they think you believe rather than on what you express to the world.

Christians should follow The Salvation Army’s lead and continue to stand for their faith while speaking to the accusations against them and opening their arms as they would anyway. But we cannot underestimate the power of propaganda and simply hope Chick-fil-A realizes the mistake it has made. The Salvation Army argued, “When misinformation is perpetuated without fact, our ability to serve those in need, regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity, religion or any other factor, is at risk.”

In the left’s crusade against the Christian faith it refuses to understand or tolerate, it harms the people it claims to defend and protect. This means good people must step up to ensure no one in need is left behind in the meantime, and for the record, The Salvation Army is very good people.

Chad Felix Greene is a senior contributor to The Federalist. He is the author of the “Reasonably Gay: Essays and Arguments” series and is a social writer focusing on truth in media, conservative ideas and goals, and true equality under the law. You can follow him on Twitter @chadfelixg.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/11/21/chick-fil-a-should-take-a-lesson-from-the-salvation-army-and-stop-bowing-to-the-lgbt-left/


I am a Salvation Army volunteer, including for  Katrina, and a former Board Chairman and former Board member 

Create your website with WordPress.com
Get started
%d bloggers like this: