Salvation Army refuses Lotto winner's $100,000 donation

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."

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.

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.

It might be true that many evagelical organizations consider gambling poor stewardship of God's money. Many conservative Moslem organisations consider gambling poor stewardship of God's money. I'm trying to argue that Love is being forgotten here. There are principles then there are the higher principles that over shodow them.

You see when I read about the donor incident, my first impulse was to say the SA was right and the donor made too much of a spectacle of him-self,should have given it quietly, ect. ect. The more I thought about it though and tried to argue it inwardly,the more I realized that the truth here is a little more complex. One can't always deduce from articles what the Donor's true heart state was, only that he was very surprised at the SA's refusal...one spokesman called it "sancimonious" on the part of the SA.

The donor didn't consider himself a gambler in the same way that the SA defined it. A point can be made that if the SA accepts funds gained from the stock market(where people lose their shirts as well) isn't that gambling? No, some-one in that local organisation wanted to make A POINT! And because of it, grace is lost!

I see no absolute ban on gambling there...that verse talks about a whole thought process involving the love of and acquisition of wealth with-out regard to means or source of that wealth. Get "rich qick" schemes where one is left poorer is more the arguement here. There is a stronger arguement to made against the stock market here in this verse than the lottery. If gambling became the principle focus of one's life...than yes you could say that verse applies.
That one spends a few dollars here and there for a lottery ticket but other wise pays his bills and taxes, supports his children and other-wise lives productively is not the focus of this verse!(In my opinion....)

Oh, yeah . . . Scrupulous people. They didn't have any scruples about beating a loud MEGAdrum and blaring away on a loud horn while shaking about 30 tambourines at 60Hz or so -- until the damned things nearly broke -- right outside my window for one hour early every Sunday morning when I was a teenager who had just discovered the joys of overimbibing on Saturday nights! Nooooooooooooooooo . . . Couldn't be scrupulous then, could they?! Hadta wait 'til they had a big audience! :-)

How much of it was the donor and how much of it was the press giddy with the excitement of a local man made good, focusing on everything the man was doing? Twain had a few choice things to say about the press as well...did,'t he write about them in "The Muckrakers"?

How many churches celebrate mortgage burning celebrations, puublically...a lot of them. Whe a sinner has his debt discharged by Jesus Christ, it is done so publically in front of people...Heaven puts on a HUGE celebration when one turns to the light! A woman sweeps and sweeps her house to find a lost coin(as Jesus taught), when she finds it, she calls all her friends to celebrate the finding of that coin. A law abiding man wins a zillion bucks in a lottery...psychologically what what would you expect his reaction to be, that of a pious sour puss, or that of a Joyful man? The fact that he remembered his God and donated a tithe of his offering to his favorite churches, as well as various charities counts for something. West Virginia is a poorer state and if a local man in a poor town gets a bunch of money...the economy around him will also benefit. No...think beyond what seems obvious here...more folks than just this man will benefit!

They stuck it to the man publically...branded him a sinning gambler without recognizing that some have differing opinions as to what gambling is. Now are you going to accuse the 2 churches he donated to guilty of of giving in to a "sinning gambler" by accepting his money? I'm sorry but the local SA comes across as smug in its own righteousness here. I'll be willing to bet that the Local SA chapters in some of the larger inner cities would accept the money no questions asked...you see it's crack addicts, aids infected prostitutes and mentally ill homeless they have more of a problem with there...not gamblers!

The donor made a public spectacle of himself...how much of it was the media doing its thing I don't know!

They stuck it to the man publically...branded him a sinning gambler without recognizing that some have differing opinions as to what gambling is ... The donor made a public spectacle of himself...how much of it was the media doing its thing I don't know!

Your last sentance indicates that your first sentacne is incorrect. The man stuck it to himself publicly. He was handing out 100,000 checks at a news event and put the Salvation Army on public display. He must have expected them to be hypocrits that would overlook their beliefs about gambling for a large sum of money. BTW, for comparison, do you hold Clinton blameless for the Lewinsky scandal because some people have differing views as to what sex is? or what the definition of the word is is? If you do, then you would qualify as a hypocrit for sticking it to him publicly for not recognizing that some people have differing opinions of what sex is.

Calling the local Salvation Army "smug in its own righteousness " is just a slander against them. Name calling usually indicates to me that the name caller has no valid argument. Jesus himself, was accused of much of the same things by his detractors. With the law of God, there is no consideration of peoples opinions or negotiation. It is what it is. It does not change, and it doesn't matter what you think of it. The Salvation Army finds gambling to be a sin and will not knowingly participate in it. That is not hypocrisy, that is integrity. Do you have the strength of character to do the same? I doubt that I do, but I won't criticize those that do because of my own shortcomings.

Notice I said local, not the whole SA organization. Secondly, check my other posts...I criticized the donor for making a public spectacle of himself....after all the kettles are still out, he could have donated quietly. The whole thing would have died out had not the media picked up on the story. The local spokesman for the donor who was closer to the situation re: the Local SA, made the comment about the "sanctimoniousness" of the local group. I was reacting to the spokeswoman for the local group and her statements re:"talking both sides out of our mouth" in accepting the donation. Fine, by not accepting the donation, the organization is making a public judgment regarding the donor, (who reacted with understandable anger)...who did not break the law or show evidence of being damaged by the "EVILS" of GAMBLING.

My whole problem is that the principles of love and grace seem to be lost here. I don't think, from all the info I could find on the incident, that the donor was trying to corrupt the local SA...he felt that his type of "gambling" wasn't the same type that that the local SA condemned. I feel that the local SA's response was too reactive, made with haste, and ready to condenm. Meanwhile, the poor and needy were not served. Love is not always served when lesser principles are adhered by! Christ was hung up on the cross by people who stuck to their principles!

I wonder a bit about the Salvation Army on this decision. Perhaps they are the ones promoting an arrogance rather than a gift of helps.

I'll periodically buy a $1 quickpick. No serious intention or worship that I will be the winner, but I place such things in His hands. If I win, Thank You Lord,..If I lose, Thank You Lord. The game exists and what vetter way to lead those gone amiss back to the Lord than to display that one's winnings are due to Him anyways.

The only clue I see which might indicate otherwise is the donation to the Rotary Club, this might raise eyebrows.

"The money that Mr. Rush received was via the lottery: We preach against gambling,"

I commend the SA for their stand also. As a contrast, last year the SC State newspaper railed for months against the state lottery only to see the voters approve it. The State now prints the lottery numbers each day. Total left wing hyprocrites all. The religious do gooders who fought openly against the lottery are not turning down lottery scholarship money for their children either. More hyprocrites.....

I think if the spokeswoman had come out and cited specific SA bylaw rules regarding donation policies against taking donations that originated in gambling winnings, I wouldn't have even posted on this issue. But all the info I've seen, suggests that they made up the policy out of their own interpretations as to what the SA mission is. If the SA charter, the rules that govern their organisation specifically rules against this type of donation..then indeed, the local SA's hands are tied in the matter.

I can tell you though that public at large views the SA's mission as being helpful to the lost, poor, and needy,(and gamblers). They could care less where the SA gets its money(unless they did so illegally), as long as they are efficient in its usage(which they are...10 percent overhead vs 90 direct ministry). They would tend to look at the people helped by the donation from lottery winnings, not at the supposed hypocrisy of accepting such a donation. After all, everything belongs to God(including lottery winnings), not man....isn't that the highest principle of all? The SA would have been accepting God's money, not Man's money....there would not have been any hipocrisy at all in accepting it.(But we strain at gnats and swallow camels...)

And Paul tells Timothy to "drink no more water but wine to settle the infirmities of the stomach.."

And are we to argue against Christ who turned water into wine....who said don't pour new wine into old wine sacks(the fermentation process would burst them).

And it wasn't grape juice in the cup that Christ offered to the disciples at pass-over(His "blood shed for us")

We are not to get drunk...there are plenty of prohibitions against that!

You have a point about the hype surrounding the lotteries. I also think there is a problem when state governments have to use them to raise revenues for their services...it would have been more honest, therefore more unpalatable to the public just to raise taxes; with no winnings to pay out, at least everybody feels the same pain of monetary loss! Satan could then play upon the unjustness every-one feels towards their over-taxing government and foment social dis-order and chaos....you get my point...Satan will try one trick or another to make people feel miserable, envious, greedy, hateful....

And it wasn't grape juice in the cup that Christ offered to the disciples at pass-over(His "blood shed for us")

I myself wonderd at that, since my church uses wine for Communion!

I think an idle lottery ticket once in a while as a hoot means little. My concern is for the poor wretches who roll coins to frantically buy them, step outsode, rub the scratch tickets, then head back in. It's a sad sight familiar to all convenience store clerks and customers.

It shows how anything can be perverted into something either evil, or at least, unwholesome.

There's plenty against public drunkeness..but no Absolute"THOU SHALT NOT DRINK ALCOHOL!"

There are plenty of passages against the unhealthy pre-occupation with gaining money and unhealthy spending of money but no absolute"THOU SHALT NEVER GAMBLE".

We are supposed to live by Faith"The just shall live by faith". We are supposed to be wise regarding our personal faults and weaknesses."To thine own self be true"(Paul). If you can't drink with-out getting trapped in a life-style of self destructiveness...don't, get help! If you do drink, don't drink around those for whom alcohol is a stumbling block, those folks of weaker faith!

If you buy a lottery ticket without damage to one's life, fine...but if you gamble away regularly, your family's means of survival..get help. If one does occaisionally gamble...don't be a stumbling block to those who have weaker faith!

That's what Christ and the new testament fathers are trying to tell us...We "are to love God with all our heart and mind and strength...and to love our Neighbors as ourselves" on those "two laws hinge all the laws of the prophets" It's not about the blind application of biblical laws just to help frame our debates or hang the sin of the world on a neighbor you are angry with...or the prostitute you would throw a stone at! The American church has lost its first love...even many of our most "publically moral" institutions have substituted the love of Christ for an image of public piousness that doesn't uplift Christ at all or share his message(even the Pharisees had a very moral public image...they kept the law very well, they just didn't keep God's love in their hearts)

If we love God and our Neighbor in spirit and in truth..then in reality, we would never behave in a sinful way, or violate any spiritual law because of God's love permeating our beings.
Now sir...are you still willing to say I don't much about scripture....I can cite a zillion passages chapter or verse regarding my views, but it wouldn't matter...we as a nation have forgotten God, because our bed-rock religious institutions have forgotten their first love, Jesus Christ who died to show us his Father's heart!

I agree with you. You know I do agree with the SA mission. It started in London, as a ministry to help drunks and gamblers find Jesus and spread all over the world. Its ministries have expanded thru the years and it continues to resist pressures to conform to this world.

But I don't like unfeeling theology that forgets its first love, Jesus. A principle was upheld to the detriment of the poor, but the FIRST and SECOND PRINCIPLES of love for God and love for neighbor was not upheld.

The donor should have made his donations quietly and kept his yap shut. He should kept his yap shut when it was refused. The local SA made a hasty, unthoughtful decision regarding the donation, after all I don't think the donor was trying to "CORRUPT" the organisation. But its refusal painted the man publically as a sinner, no wonder his reaction was one of angered surprise. Let's not forget the media's role in this episode...how much they played up or left out aspects of the story we don't know!

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.