Posted on 12/28/2002 3:32:10 AM PST by Fighting Irish
Lottery winner David Rush was irked Friday to find out local Salvation Army officials rejected his $100,000 donation.
The religious charity, popularly known for its bell ringers outside shopping malls during the holidays, preaches against gambling.
"The money that Mr. Rush received was via the lottery: We preach against gambling," said spokeswoman Maribeth Shanahan, who spoke on behalf of Cleo Damon, who heads the Collier County chapter and decided not to accept the donation. "To accept it would be to talk out both sides of our mouth."
Rush, a financial adviser, doesn't see lottery money as gambling. In his view, the money reaped from Wall Street investments involves a risk-gain factor, not unlike a lottery ticket.
"Everybody has a right to be sanctimonious if they want to be," Rush said. "I respect the Salvation Army's decision. I do not agree with it, but that is their prerogative."
Instead, he will donate the money to other groups with similar missions.
The Marco Island resident donated to charities such as the Salvation Army prior to his windfall last week, which amounted to a 25 percent share of the $100 million lottery jackpot.
The 71-year-old took a lump sum payment of $14.2 million.
Earlier this week at a Rotary Club of Marco Island luncheon, he handed out checks for $100,000 to the Salvation Army, $100,000 to Habitat for Humanity of Collier County, and $50,000 to the Rotary Club.
Jerry Brunette, the Rotary Club's Salvation Army liaison, accepted the check, not knowing there would be a problem.
Even so, Brunette said he understands why the Salvation Army rejected the money.
"If everyone acted as strongly on their principles, we wouldn't need a Salvation Army" to help the poor and needy, Brunette said.
In addition to those three groups, Rush said he made contributions to his other favorite charities, including two churches.
Shanahan, the local Salvation Army director of community relations and development, stressed the group could have used the money.
Over the holidays, from Nov. 18 until Christmas Eve, local Salvation Army bell ringers collected more than $105,000, Shanahan said.
There's not a final figure on the total donations collected by the group, which, she said, helped more than 6,000 people with food, toys or clothing during the holiday season.
I'm not so sure I agree with that. I think the publicity given to large donations like that causes the donations from regular people to increase. It's kinda like a conscience nudge.
And tell me how you could covet your own stuff? You can't. If it's not yours, its someones elses (thy neighbors).
(I hate it when an article like this appears...it's a values test for a lot of us).
One way to think of the lotteries is as voluntary taxation, with some of those who choose to donate to the cause of bigger, more expensive government actually getting their money back.
It could even be called the "stupid tax", since so many people spend so much on it that it affects their ability to lead normal, financially secure lives. I can see the Salvation Army saying that gambling causes more problems for their recipients than $100,000 will ever cure. On the other hand, the argument could probably be made that the people who gamble beyond their means would probably waste there money on something else with no promise of return if there were no lotteries.
So, on one hand, I'm saying good for the Salvation Army...hoorah for principle. But, on the other hand I'm thinking that the Salvation Army would give that money to the needy instead of having the government provide more, which would mean more forced taxes. That same side of me is saying it's not up to the Salvation Army to judge people. As long as the officers of the group are not involved in lottery ticket purchases for a few dollars when the prizes get huge (which is financially not a bad idea if it's money one would spend on something unnecessary anyway).
And this is coming from a person who won the lottery. He didn't have to give anything to anyone. He took the profits from this voluntary form of taxation (which he could afford) and gave it to a group that services those who are victimized by the lottery. That's good.
I think I'm coming down on the side of "take the money". But it's real complex. Maybe it's because this is an effect of the problem, which is in the very existence of lotteries. Maybe that's what the discussion should be about...are the lotteries worth the harm they do? Are they gambling or taxation? Is the government too dependent on the revenue they generate? Do I care since it's better to have the choice when it comes to the government raising money?
Ouch...my brain is whirling.
I disagree with this opinion. Gambling and Wall Street investments are not the same thing at all. When you gamble, the house has the advantage. The odds are set up so that the house always wins in the end and the gambler always ends up losing (unless he is disciplined enough to walk away from a big win and never play again). On the other hand, the Wall Street investor holds all the cards. A wise and educated investor will win nearly all the time. At the same time, the investor can feel good that his investments are helping to drive the U.S. economy. The investments he makes puts people to work and allows corporations to innovate and deliver goods and services to the marketplace that improve life for everybody.
The only people that really lose on Wall Street are those with the "gambling" mentality. The day-traders. The ones looking to make "a killing." If you carefully research the stocks before you buy them and have a "long-term" strategy, you are likely to build wealth. On the other hand, if you adopt a "long-term" strategy in Las Vegas, you are guaranteed to be bankrupt.
As for state lotteries, they are even more morally bankrupt than the casinos in Las Vegas. The odds are far more stacked against the player in the state lotteries than they are on any casino floor and it is usually those who can least afford to play the state lotteries that play them.
I applaud the Salvation Army for rejecting this money on principle. I will feel much better about throwing money in the kettle next time I see one.
Could you explain why this is hypocritical? The way I see, it would have been hypocritical for them to accept gambling proceeds since they oppose gambling. Also, how have they not extended Christ's Grace? All Salvation Army branches that I know of make an effort to reach out to the gamblers, drunkards, etc. to help them heal and restore thier lives.
That said I think they are goofy on this. First of all I can't find anything in my Bible that prohibits gambling. And secondly in whose hands do they think this money is most likely to serve God's purposes? Theirs or a local car dealer's or luxury item vendor's??
Logic dictates that if they take the money it will be put to a higher use that if it is spent on QVC. I would say that you could make a pretty good case that they have a Moral Responsibility to accept the money and get it out of the wrong hands.
ok, Im glad for you (quizzical wrinkled brow)
.45/70
You're kidding, right?
The primary motivation for many people is publicity and exposure.
Reminds me of one of my favorite Mark Twain quips: "Some people, when they discharge an obligation, the report can be heard for miles around..."
Proverbs 28
22 He that hasteth to be rich hath an evil eye, and considereth not that poverty shall come upon him.
If playing the lottery is not hastening to getting rich, I don't know what is
I think it falls under the Thou Shalt Not Have Any Fun commandment that some of the others on this thread have included in their edition of the Bible.
The money just magically appeared in the "account". It was not "other peoples" money that you are hoping to get.
Very funny...
When you read the entire verse, it doesn't say what you say it says.
Then you have to explain Deut 14:26, where God tells the Israelites to spend their tithe on strong drink, among other things. Here is the context:
Deu 14:22 Thou shalt truly tithe all the increase of thy seed, that the field bringeth forth year by year.
Deu 14:23 And thou shalt eat before the LORD thy God, in the place which he shall choose to place his name there, the tithe of thy corn, of thy wine, and of thine oil, and the firstlings of thy herds and of thy flocks; that thou mayest learn to fear the LORD thy God always.
Deu 14:24 And if the way be too long for thee, so that thou art not able to carry it; [or] if the place be too far from thee, which the LORD thy God shall choose to set his name there, when the LORD thy God hath blessed thee:
Deu 14:25 Then shalt thou turn [it] into money, and bind up the money in thine hand, and shalt go unto the place which the LORD thy God shall choose:
Deu 14:26 And thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever thy soul desireth: and thou shalt eat there before the LORD thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, thou, and thine household,
Deu 14:27 And the Levite that [is] within thy gates; thou shalt not forsake him; for he hath no part nor inheritance with thee.
IOW, you are wrong.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.