[UPDATE: since this post is on the rec. list, here's an action item; at this page you can submit a comment to WBUR concerning the story discussed on this post. Polite comments will, of course, get the best response. My suggestion would be to assume the best, that the story was a 'regrettable mistake'. You might also suggest WBUR run a story on secular, non-Christian and non-discriminatory charities to which public radio's listeners could donate money.]
Christmas is coming, and with the mounting recession it's very important to support organizations that take care of the needy and homeless in America. But it's also important to pay attention to which organizations we support.
Typically I wake up ten to fifteen minutes after my wife, and today I was a bit late to turn off the radio she'd turned on, which was tuned to a Boston, Massachusetts public radio station: WBUR.
I found myself listening to a story which appeared to be an infommercial for a religious charity: the Salvation Army. The story concerned a drop in donations to the Salvation Army, and it directed listeners to a Salvation Army web site where they could donate to the organization.
There's some relevant history to consider here. As described in a 2004 press release, concerning a newly filed civil liberties lawsuit,
Margaret Geissman, the former Human Resources Manager for Social Services for Children with the Salvation Army, said she left the charity rather than provide personal information about employees. "When I refused to answer questions that I felt were clearly illegal and violated my employees' privacy, I was harassed to the point where eventually I resigned. As a Christian, I deeply resent the use of discriminatory employment practices in the name of Christianity."
When did Boston public radio stations begin to fund raise for charity groups that conduct religious witch hunts and force employees to sign Christian loyalty oaths ? Perhaps I don't listen enough to public radio.
In February 2004 the New York ACLU filed a lawsuit charging the Salvation Army with religious discrimination. As the NYCLU press release stated,
The New York Civil Liberties Union today filed a lawsuit in federal court charging The Salvation Army with religious discrimination against employees in its government-funded social services in New York City and on Long Island...
The Salvation Army provides social services for more than 2,000 children each day who are placed with the charity by the government. The programs are funded almost exclusively by taxpayer money. The agency receives $89 million in taxpayer funds for social services and employs about 800 people.
The case arose after The Salvation Army began to require all employees in its Social Services for Children division to fill out a form on which they: a) identify their church affiliation and all other churches attended for the past decade, b) authorize their religious leaders to reveal private communications to the Salvation Army; and c) pledge to adhere to the religious mission of The Salvation Army which, according to The Salvation Army, is to "preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ."
In 2005 Pulitzer Prize-nominated author Stephen Pizzo, writing for Alternet, bluntly delineated the issue at stake:
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.
Let's parse this event out. The money came from American taxpayers, many of whom are not Christians. Nevertheless the workers were fired for refusing to pledge allegiance to the Christian prophet. They were also fired for failing to disclose their own religious affiliations, if any. And finally, they were fired for refusing to rat out their co-workers.
Sounds like something that would happen in Communist China, doesn't it?
The Salvation Army has received hundreds of millions of dollars during the years of George W. Bush's presidential administration, during which time the nonprofit has also subjected its employees to a maximally bigoted Christian religious loyalty oath that Salvation Army employees must sign or else be fired from their jobs.
The Salvation Army's witch hunt has worked to root out Salvation Army employees who are gay, Jewish, Muslims, Hindu or professing atheists. And, every year the group gets large amounts of federal funding for its evangelical social aid programs.
As Dr. Bruce Prescott wrote, in May 2006, for Talk To Action,
I have a vague recollection of reading newspaper articles about the Salvation Army receiving federal money while purging itself of homosexuals and non-Christians, but Michelle's account of her interview of Anne Lown, daughter of the nobel prize winning physician and peace activist Dr. Bernard Lown, personalized the issue and clarified the values that are at stake.
Here's a quote from [Michelle Goldberg's book] Kingdom Coming:
Lown, who had been an employee at the Salvation Army for twenty-four years and oversaw 800 workers, said religion had never had anything to do with her job. As long as she'd been there, the New York social services division had been independent from the evangelical side of the organization. Her office ran more public programs than any Salvation Army division in the United States, most of them for children. Almost all of the money came from the state and local government, and Lown assumed that it would be illegal to infuse taxpayer-funded services with Christianity. Her division had gay, Jewish, Muslim, and Hindu employees, reflecting the city it served. (p. 130)
Before this administration took office, it was "illegal to infuse taxpayer-funded services with Christianity." When those responsible for enforcing the law and upholding the constitution refuse to do so and actively work to undermine it, anything is permitted.
Apparently, the Salvation Army decided to take advantage of this administration's lax enforcement of the first amendment. Colonel Paul Kelly was brought in to "heighten the agency's evangelical aspect." Here's another quote:
According to the complaint filed by the NYCLU, Kelly asked the human resources director at the Salvation Army headquarters, Maureen Schmidt, whether one of the human resource staffers at the social services division, Margaret Geissman, was Jewish, because she had a "Jewish sounding name."
Schmidt told him she was not. Geissman, who described herself to me as a conservative Catholic, told me that Schmidt then started asking her to point out gay and non-Christian employees at the division. She refused to answer, but day after day Schmidt kept pushing. "She said Kelly wanted to know and that eventually they were going to find out about everyone," Geissman told me. "She said the new vision for the Salvation Army was to have Christians and Salvationists and not to have homosexuals." (p. 131)
Anyone who has studied the holocaust knows the resonances of these conversations.
Now, were I concerned with thoroughly corrupted media I would focus my attention on Fox News. But, American public radio is far from thoroughly corrupted. Nor is Fox a nonprofit institution which can receive tax-free donations. Public radio can.
For that reason we, as American taxpayers who subsidize public radio institutions, have every right to expect that public radio stations should not fund raise for partisan, Christian nationalist organizations that conduct witch hunts against non-Christian minorities.
Concerned readers can comment on WBUR's story, via a form on WBUR's web site, here.