ChastisingThe Salvation Army

The following stores are inconvenient by the Salvation Army: Target, Best Buys, Barnes & Noble, Circuit City

By Naomi Aoki, Globe Staff | November 17, 2004

This holiday season's retail conundrum: to silence the bells, or let them ring. As the Salvation Army kicks off its annual red-kettle program today, a growing number of retailers, from Best Buy to Target, are banning Salvation Army bell ringers from their doors -- to avoid having to choose between competing charities and out of concern for customers, they say.

That's created a schism in the retail world, with rival chains banking on kettle-carrying volunteers to set them apart as more civic-minded.

''The Salvation Army has a remarkable history of providing year-round service to families, and Big Lots is proud to continue our tradition of helping with their fundraising goals," said the Columbus, Ohio, discounter in a statement issued last month after Target Corp. said it was banning the bell ringers.

Upon hearing of the Salvation Army's woes -- Target kettles brought in about $9 million last year -- BJ's Wholesale Club Inc. decided to put the nonprofit group's signature red donation kettles in its stores during the holiday season. Auto parts chain AutoZone Inc. and Books-A-Million Inc., the nation's number three-book retailer, also opened their doors to the Salvation Army.

The bell ringers are ''very welcome" in front of Wal-Mart stores, said a company spokesman. Even so, the world's largest retailer imposes restrictions: Salvation Army volunteers can stand outside its stores and solicit for only a total of 14 calendar days, and for no more than three days in a row.

Other retailers say no to bell ringers and other charities out of courtesy for shoppers. ''They are coming here for a reason, and the reason is not for solicitation of any kind by a third party," said Steve Mullen, a Circuit City spokesman.

Some shoppers disagree. ''It's a disgrace," said South Boston resident Phyllis McElaney about the ban. ''The bell ringers remind you of the meaning of Christmas, that it's about love, caring, and giving."

To others, the bells are just more Christmas clutter. ''The bell ringing is annoying," said Stephani Gray as she headed into a Target store in Dorchester.

The bans are a sign of the nation's changing retail landscape. Over the past two decades, national chains like Home Depot Inc., Barnes & Noble Inc., and Circuit City Stores Inc. have replaced regional and independent players like Bradlees Inc. and Caldor Corp. With the national chains have come national corporate policies, including a no-solicitation rule.

Target, however, has made an exception for the Salvation Army, a Christian charity that provides food, clothing, and shelter. Until this year: With more requests coming from nonprofits that wanted to station fund-raisers at Target stores, a spokeswoman for the Minneapolis chain has said, ''It's becoming increasingly difficult to have an exception to our policy, so we decided we would have no exceptions."

Salva el Planeta con Aborto Save Planet with Abortion

Esta historia me dejo mascando pajas; pensar que existen personas con este nivel de preocupacion e ignorancia es sumamente abrumante. La joven, Toni Vernelli aborto y se esterelizo por que un bebe causa contaminacion ambiental osea que consume oxigeno y exhala bioxido de carbono. Que diria Al Gore? Siga leyendo

Toni Vernelli, 35, hopes her actions would ensure her carbon footprint would be kept to a minimum, the Mail reported. The environmental advocate also sees having children as an egotistical act. Other ignorant victims of this irrational thinking are Sarah Irving and Mark Hudson.Most young girls dream of marriage and babies. But Sarah dreamed of helping the environment - and as she agonized over the perils of climate change, the loss of animal species and destruction of wilderness, she came to the extraordinary decision never to have a child. "I realized then that a baby would pollute the planet - and that never having a child was the most environmentally friendly thing I could do." Sarah's boyfriends have been less understanding than Toni's, with the breakdown of several relationships. "I've had boyfriends who wanted children, so I knew I couldn't be with them long term,' says Sarah.

"I've had to break up with a couple of boyfriends because I didn't think it was fair to waste their time. "In my early 20s I had a boyfriend who I really liked, but he wanted to start a family as soon as possible. "I was tempted to stay with him and hope he would change his mind, but I knew I couldn't provide him with what he wanted so I walked away." Sarah started work for the Ethical Consumer magazine, and seven years ago she met her fiancé Mark Hudson, a 37-year- old health- care worker.

When they started dating in 2003, they immediately discussed their views on children. "To my relief, Mark was as adamant as me that he didn't want a family. After a year of dating, we started talking about sterilization," says Sarah. "I didn't want to have an 'accident' if contraception didn't work - we would be faced with the dilemma of whether to keep the baby."

While other young couples sit down and discuss mortgages, Sarah and Mark discussed the medical options for one or the other to be sterilized. "We realised it was a much more straightforward procedure, safer and easier, for a man to be sterilised through a vasectomy than a woman to be sterilised," says Sarah. "In January 2005, Mark had a vasectomy and we both felt incredibly relieved there was no chance of us having a baby."

Ironically, the couple who have decided to deny themselves children for the sake of the planet, actively enjoy the company of young children. Sarah says: "We both have nieces who we love dearly and I consider myself a caring, nurturing person.

"My sister recently had a little girl, and that has taken the pressure off me because my parents wanted to be grandparents. "At first, they were surprised by my decision, but they have never criticized us. "I'd never dream of preaching to others about having a family. It's a very personal choice. What I do like to do is make people aware of the facts.

"When I see a mother with a large family, I don't resent her, but I do hope she's thought through the implications." Mark adds: "Sarah and I live as green a life a possible. We don't have a car, cycle everywhere instead, and we never fly.

"We recycle, use low-energy light bulbs and eat only organic, locally produced food. "In short, we do everything we can to reduce our carbon footprint. But all this would be undone if we had a child. "That's why I had a vasectomy. It would be morally wrong for me to add to climate change and the destruction of Earth.

"Sarah and I don't need children to feel complete. What makes us happy is knowing that we are doing our bit to save our precious planet."
By NATASHA COURTENAY-SMITH and MORAG TURNER - More by this author » Last updated at 22:05pm on 21st November 2007
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=495495&in_page_id=1879

Suspended Over Candy Cane Distribution

Estudiantes de una escuela en Massachusetts fueron suspendidos pro distribuir "Candy Cane" con un mensaje religioso. Pero lo mas peligroso e inmoral es que estas escuelas distrubuyen condones y anticonceptivos.

A group of Christian high school students in Massachusetts who were suspended for distributing candy canes with a religious message attached filed a lawsuit in federal district court on Monday, January 13, claiming school administrators violated their right to free speech.
According to Liberty Counsel, the legal defense organization representing the students, just before Christmas break in December 2002, students of the L.I.F.E. Bible Club passed out approximately 450 candy canes to their fellow students during non-class time. A folded card that contained information about the Bible Club meetings, a Scripture verse, and the story of the candy maker who wanted to invent a candy to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ was attached to each candy cane.
Prior to distributing the candy, some of the members of the Bible club sought permission to distribute the candy during non-class time from Westfield High School Principal Thomas Daley. Daley refused, saying the Christian message may offend some of the other students and so denied their request. He then consulted with Superintendent Thomas McDowell, who agreed with Daley that the message might offend some students and thus denied the students’ request, too. The students were warned that if they went ahead with distributing the candy canes they would face disciplinary action. Nevertheless, the students forged ahead with the distribution, “believing that God called them to share the Gospel message.”
After the group returned from Christmas break, they were suspended for distributing the candy canes. Six of the seven members then sought legal recourse.
“This case underscores the blatant hostility by some government officials toward the Christian message and the ignorance of school officials regarding the constitutional rights of students,” said Mathew Staver, president and general counsel of Liberty Counsel.
School officials said their policy prohibits students from distributing any material unrelated to the curriculum. So far, they have declined any interviews.
“As far back as 1969, the United States Supreme Court declared that students do not shed their constitutional rights when they enter the schoolhouse gate,” Staver continued. “Students are citizens under the Constitution and are protected by the First Amendment right to freedom of speech and freedom of religion.”
Staver is asking the court to declare the school district’s policy and actions unconstitutional and to immediately remove the suspensions from his clients’ files.
“The students as the recipients of the educational system will now become the educators, teaching the Westfield Public School officials the meaning of the Constitution’s guarantee of free speech,” he said.
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/3085/CWA/freedom/index.htm
1/16/2003 By Tanya L. Green, J.D.