Lawmakers defy atheists and ring Salvation Army bells
FILE -- Salvation Army donation kettles and bell ringer. (Torin Halsey/AP)
A group of Republican lawmakers in Connecticut said they would not allow themselves to be bullied by a bunch of angry, out-of-town atheists.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation, a Wisconsin-based horde of atheists, agnostics and free-thinkers were outraged after they learned that Republican lawmakers were raising money for the Salvation Army.
“I received a letter from the group and they suggested quite strongly that I should refrain from volunteering from any organization or charity that is religious based,” State Sen. George Logan told the Todd Starnes Radio Show. Click here to listen to the entire interview.
For the past several years, Republicans in the Connecticut house and senate have volunteered their time to ring bells during the Salvation Army’s red kettle drive.
But the Freedom From Religion Foundation pitched a hissy fit and fired off a nasty letter to Sen. Logan – obtained by the Connecticut Post.
“We urge you to consider supporting only secular charities in the future,” the group wrote. “This will ensure that representatives do not give the appearance of promoting an overtly Christian mission and will prevent citizens from feeling ostracized by their elected representatives because of their religious beliefs or sexual preference.”
I just can’t imagine people infected with such a deep-seated hatred of Christianity.
What kind of a vile human being would find pleasure in watching people go hungry for Christmas or watching a homeless child shiver outside in the cold?
“Their whole premise is I should not work with any organization that has any religious ties because it may offend someone in the community,” Sen. Logan told the Todd Starnes Show.
The money raised by the bell ringers funds a variety of Salvation Army ministries – from homeless shelters to addiction programs to providing warm coats for children.
Sen. Logan dismissed arguments from the Freedom From Religion Foundation that helping the Salvation Army was a separation of church and state issue.
“It doesn’t mean lawmakers like myself are supposed to turn our back to our faith. That is not the intent,” he told the Todd Starnes Show. “It’s utterly ridiculous. The purpose of ringing those bells is to raise money for the needy.”
So Sen. Logan did what any red-blooded, freedom-loving American would do.
“I decided to ring even more bells for the Salvation Army,” he defiantly declared. “We’ve raised more money than ever now – thanks to all the attention.” (A development that is certain to curdle the atheists’ egg-nog.)
He has also received correspondence from the good, church-going people of Wisconsin – who are irate at the FFRF troublemakers.
“They want it to be known that not everyone in Wisconsin is against the Salvation Army,” he said.
So here’s to Sen. George Logan – an American patriot. He rang the Salvation Army’s bells and he jingled the atheists’ bells. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/12/16/lawmakers-defy-atheists-and-ring-salvation-army-bells.html
Tags
Who is online
69 visitors
It would be a shame if legitimate Christian charities were perceived to be associated with the political activities of the radical religious teavangelical cults that attempt to subvert the Constitution.
As far as I am concerned the " freedom from religion foundation" can go "F" themselves. I onky wish I could get to Connecticut to donate at one or more of those kettles.
Why would you have to go all the way to CT to do that? They're all over the country. And, this story comes out of Maine.
Yeah ark, you can go to any Wal-Mart to donate.
I would really like to donate at one of the kettles manned by one legislators. If any of the "people" from the "offended" organization were there I would like to tell them in person to "F. O. E. S. And. D. " .
The seeded article is about legislators in Connecticut. Comment #1 is a story about the donut shop in Maine. I would like to patronize that shop also.
Knock yourself out.
I'm sure they would be greatly impressed./s
The Salvation Army receives little acknowledgement for the goodwill and time that they give not only to the U.S., but to other countries during disasters.
They are part of the Christmas Season and don't require any negative input from anyone.
Since when did conservatives put any liberal eleeymosynary institution or activity off limits for criticism?
My point is which you already are aware.
How can one criticize the good works of an organization like the Salvation Army? This is a year round charitable organization and not just at Christmas, although, that is their most successful opportunity to raise funds.
My comment was not to liberals, but to anyone.
It's quite possible the local activity of the SA in Portland isn't conforming to what the national leader of the organization insists is their openness to all. Did that ever occur to any of you who jumped all over yet another pair of crap articles by this seeder? No one has advocated for some blanket boycott of the SA kettles. I personally don't choose to give to them but go with other charities I'm more familiar with but I do make it a point to return the bellringers cheerful "Merry Christmas" when I pass.
With passage of the new GOtP tax plan, it's safe to assume that teapublicans will be getting a big piece of any thumper charity pie.
Not to a liberal. As long as it is spent on them, tax, tax away. Most have no skin in the game, anyway.
OMG!
Yet you forget that the blue states givith and the red states taketh away, I am sure that is just a convenience.
For the millionth time...Most red states are hosts to one or more military bases, so, of course, billions of dollars are going to pour into these states to simply run these bases. In addition, most red states have very large minority populations, who, by population percentage, receive the majority of federal handouts.
Here is a story by the Atlantic that spells it all out for you. The top of the list, red states, have the majority of military bases and federal contractors and minorities. The lower portion, with the exception of California, is the exact opposite.
Here is a paragraph from the article that even you may find interesting..
Part of the explanation for why southern states dominate the “most dependent” category is historical. During the many decades in the 20th century when the South was solidly Democratic, its congressional representatives in both the House and the Senate, enjoying great seniority, came to hold leadership positions on powerful committees, which they used to send federal dollars back to their home states in the form of contracts, projects, installations.
So are you going to blame democrats for this?
What kind of a vile human being would find pleasure in watching people go hungry for Christmas or watching a homeless child shiver outside in the cold?
Sounds exactly like those conservative republicans intent on cutting SS, welfare and Medicare, as well as destroying healthcare for the working poor. Trying to disguise it with public posturing may fool other republicans, but if any gods exist, they will know better.