The Salvation Army Denies ‘Going Woke’ After Getting Slammed for Racism Guide
“They have claimed that we believe our donors should apologize for their skin color, that The Salvation Army believes America is an inherently racist society, and that we have abandoned our Christian faith for one ideology or another. Those claims are simply false, and they distort the very goal of our work.” - C.Leaders
- 6 views
Some are seeing “wokeness” behind every bush now… with “canceling” the offenders as the goal.
The parallels with McCarthyism are interesting… there really were a lot of semi-secret communists and communist sympathizers, but a) most weren’t dangerous and b) Joseph McCarthy’s persecution (today we call it “cancelling”) approach was counterproductive.
Why are people so reluctant to just fight bad ideas with good ideas?
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
I hardly see fighting against the cultural pressures of the “woke” movement to be some sort of bogieman “McCarthyism”. That’s just an intimidating tactic to shut down legitimate discussion of actual concerns.
Kenny Xu, a friend of mine and a guy who spent his four years at Davidson College in my Small Group Bible Study, has done a lot of research on the whole “Racism” debate from his perspective as a person of “color” — just not the “color” that gets the headlines. Here’s an article he wrote on the TSA issue that I found very balanced and productive.
https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/10/03/salvation-army-imposes-racial-wo…
Whether the recent accusations about “woke” are true or not, I don’t know, but the Salvation Army has been sliding away from the gospel for many years. The SA is more about social issues than gospel.
Wally Morris
Charity Baptist Church
Huntington, IN
amomentofcharity.blogspot.com
[DLCreed]I hardly see fighting against the cultural pressures of the “woke” movement to be some sort of bogieman “McCarthyism”. That’s just an intimidating tactic to shut down legitimate discussion of actual concerns.
You don’t seem intimidated or shut down.
People often mistake counterarguments for efforts to shut down discussion, but in this case it’s nothing more than a little skepticism.
In general I’m seeing a lot of sensationalism related to all things perceived as remotely touching CRT, weather real or imaginary. So claims like this one against the Salvation Army meet with quite a bit of skepticism in my mind.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Aaron Blumer]Some are seeing “wokeness” behind every bush now… with “canceling” the offenders as the goal.
The parallels with McCarthyism are interesting… there really were a lot of semi-secret communists and communist sympathizers, but a) most weren’t dangerous and b) Joseph McCarthy’s persecution (today we call it “cancelling”) approach was counterproductive.
Why are people so reluctant to just fight bad ideas with good ideas?
Actually, the difference with “cancel culture” to the way we are talking about wokeness is this — most of those of us who are anti-woke just want organizations like the Salvation Army to recognize the problem and stop pandering to woke activism. We don’t want these organizations to cease to exist. In fact, we want these organizations to get back to their prior “good ideas” thinking. Our side believes in forgiveness and 2nd chances.
Those who are just trying cancel those who believe in “cancel culture” don’t realize that they are part of the problem.
Dave Barnhart
For sure, the “anti-woke” side (whatever that means) believes in 2nd chances and forgiveness. Until, of course, the organization/person in question refuses to toe the “anti-woke” line.
The cancel culture has always existed. The only thing that’s changed is that those who historically have wielded the power in deciding which things get stocked on the approved expressive individualism buffet is changing and has changed in certain contexts.
[John E.]For sure, the “anti-woke” side (whatever that means) believes in 2nd chances and forgiveness. Until, of course, the organization/person in question refuses to toe the “anti-woke” line.
You do realize that forgiveness is dependent on repentance and recognition of wrong?
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I won’t campaign for TSA to shut down, nor will I declare that they are irredeemable, which is one of the defining points of “cancel culture.” I simply won’t support them when their ideals clash too much with mine. If that changes to my satisfaction, I would likely support them with gifts again. That’s 2nd chances and forgiveness.
Of course, they are a large organization, and not being a millionaire or supporting them with very large gifts, they hardly know me, and they have every right to ignore losing donations from people like me. I just happen to hope that the losses from enough former donors would be large enough to convince them to return to what they previously espoused. If not, then they can figure how to move ahead with different supporters. That’s how things should work.
Dave Barnhart
That’s what I said, just with different words. If an organization and/or person doesn’t submit to the anti-wokeness ideology of the “anti-woke” crowd (and repent), they get cancelled.
[John E.]That’s what I said, just with different words. If an organization and/or person doesn’t submit to the anti-wokeness ideology of the “anti-woke” crowd (and repent), they get cancelled.
I guess I make a distinction between “loss of support” and “cancellation.” Clearly, you are thinking those are the same thing, while I think there are significant differences.
Dave Barnhart
Good for you, Dave, on your personal distinction and your benevolence in not wanting the Salvation Army cancelled if they fail to repent and be sufficiently “anti-woke” for you. Unfortunately, not all of your “anti-woke” comrades feel the same as you.
[John E.]Good for you, Dave, on your personal distinction and your benevolence in not wanting the Salvation Army cancelled if they fail to repent and be sufficiently “anti-woke” for you. Unfortunately, not all of your “anti-woke” comrades feel the same as you.
Your dripping sarcasm notwithstanding, I already posted above that I think those who want to “cancel the cancelers” are part of the problem. I happen to be a strong believer in the principle that speech I disagree with should fought by other speech, not by removing speakers I disagree with from the conversation. That’s as true for me in this conversation on this thread as in the greater conversation about TSA. I realize that my thinking on that point is not universally shared, even among everyone on SI, but hey, if you’d rather direct your energies at those fighting cancellation instead of those doing the cancellation, knock yourself out.
Dave Barnhart
[dcbii]You do realize that forgiveness is dependent on repentance and recognition of wrong?
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I won’t campaign for TSA to shut down, nor will I declare that they are irredeemable, which is one of the defining points of “cancel culture.” I simply won’t support them when their ideals clash too much with mine. If that changes to my satisfaction, I would likely support them with gifts again. That’s 2nd chances and forgiveness.
Hey, I’m definitely on-board with shutting down the TSA!
Oh… Different TSA. ;)
I also understand how a weird, expressive individualism-styled solipsism can be a part of your worldview package. And there’s zero sarcasm in this comment, for the record.
[Aaron Blumer]My failure to shut down or be intimidated is a source of frequent frustration in others and likely one of my many instances of lacking appropriate discretion. Some however, do wilt at pejoratives. But I think we can agree that “McCarthyism” as a label is probably as much of an incendiary charge as is being “Woke” or supporting CRT in the hands of others. That aside, I find those that expose directional shifts, misguided bandwagon jumping and flat-out embraces of noxious notions are doing a service I appreciate as I try to stay abreast of this rapidly changing culture. I don’t think my wanting to know where a historic organization whom I’ve nominally supported for quite some time is leaning these days on a controversial subject is exactly channeling the late Senator from Wisconsin nor do I think those who are concerned enough to write about it are either.You don’t seem intimidated or shut down.
People often mistake counterarguments for efforts to shut down discussion, but in this case it’s nothing more than a little skepticism.
In general I’m seeing a lot of sensationalism related to all things perceived as remotely touching CRT, weather real or imaginary. So claims like this one against the Salvation Army meet with quite a bit of skepticism in my mind.
The Salvation Army’s guide is straight out of the Henry Rogers (aka Ibram X Kendi) school of anti-racist thought and incorporates a “definition” of racism very similar to the one Kendi gave and at which his sympathetic audience laughed.
“Racism is a marriage of racist policies and racist ideas that produces and normalizes racist inequities.”
The guide is CRT/Marxist propaganda. The person who brought the guide to light expressly stated that he was not “cancelling” TSA, he was merely not going to financially support them while they embrace apostate doctrine. Somehow, that’s a bad thing?
Link to his post here:
https://www.facebook.com/447311695334722/posts/4475055825893602/
Discussion