Whilst She Who Must Be Obeyed and I enjoyed a drink in a lovely pub in Southwold this weekend, a chap from the Salvation Army came around collecting donations. I've always admired the work and dedication of the organisation so I shoved a few quid in the pot and in return he gave me a copy of the day's War Cry, the Salvation Army's publication.
I opened it and... oh, boy. It was essentially a paean - not to God, but to the gods of Climate Change.
I have no settled opinion on the topic, though I am deeply skeptical about the assertions made with pseudo-certainty by the green crowd about the effects of man on the environment, and I regard the straight-faced, portentous predictions of apocalypse-next-Tuesday-unless-we-tithe-to-Al-Gore with a healthy dose of cynicism. I find the gibbering intolerance displayed by that clique's advocates to any who dare to question their position deeply disagreeable, too. Altogether then, the Salvos bowing down to this secular eco-religion makes it less likely that I will donate next time, rather than more.
This got me thinking about the extent to which charitable organisations more generally might harm themselves by adopting positions outwith their raison d'etre which can actually harm the prospects of receiving funds rather than assist. Because it's not just the Salvation Army. Speaking only for myself of course, although attracted to their core message, I am less likely to donate to the following organisations for the following reasons:
The National Trust and the RSPCA - oppose hunting
Christian Aid and Oxfam - both oppose free trade
The NSPCC - opposes smacking
Perhaps you can think of others, too.
It was this edition of War Cry, but the relevant stuff is not online
