Skip to main content

the Salvation Army Church?  The do not believe in having the Lord's Supper and they have no form of baptism.  They explain themselves on these matters in a shallow, theologically flimsy little piece here:

http://www.waterbeachsalvationarmy.org.uk/live/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=53:why-does-the-salvation-army-not-baptise-or-hold-communion&catid=34:information&Itemid=58

I yam what I yam and that's all I yam--but it is enough!

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Originally Posted by Ronnie P.:

They are a Army

___

No, Ronnie.   They are indeed a CHURCH.

 

"Unlike other Christian churches the Salvation Army does not recognise any sacraments, such as baptism or communion, as essential."

 

Source:http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/...alvationarmy_1.shtml

 

If you want further information on this question, simply ask any member of the Salvation Army and they will confirm that they are a CHURCH.

I know they want MY money and they don't want to pay taxes on it. I know they help who they think they should based on the lifestyle of the people instead of helping all the needy. I know they refused help to one couple because they were living together without being married, and I know they're no different than any church that gathers money on the pretense of helping people but then discriminate against some of the people that they should be helping.

Last edited by Bestworking
Originally Posted by semiannualchick:

My husband & I recently had a conversation with a couple that worked inside the SA for several years. The FIRST place that money goes to is those in high authority. We're talking about an annual salary of over $600,000, plus expenses, just for the CEO.

Then they are not 'a Army." They are not a CHURCH.

 

They are a business and as such should pay taxes like every other business.

 

Hey! I'ma start ma own church. I like that whole tax exempt status thing.

 

I'ma call it "The Road Puppy Screamin' Rock 'n Roll Church of The Epileptic Jeebus."

 

*We cater to the cool-Not the fool*

 

We'll have The Electric Hellfire Club do AC/DC and Guns 'n Roses cover songs insteada hymns.

 

It'll be righteous, mighteous, and outta-sighteous....

 

 

C'n I git a witness?

 

Last edited by Road Puppy
quote:   Originally Posted by semiannualchick:

My husband & I recently had a conversation with a couple that worked inside the SA for several years. The FIRST place that money goes to is those in high authority.  We're talking about an annual salary of over $600,000, plus expenses, just for the CEO.


Hi Chick,


Evidently your source from "inside the Salvation Army" were suffering from a bad case of sour grapes.  Or, they just like to exaggerate.  The info below comes from the Truth Or Fiction web site:


+++++++++++++++++++++

 

The Head of the Salvation Army Receives only $13,000 in Salary Per Year - Fiction!

TruthOrFiction.com

http://www.truthorfiction.com/...tion-army-salary.htm

 

Summary of the eRumor:    According to this eRumor, the head of the American Red Cross is paid more than $650,000 per year, the head of the United Way is  paid $375,000 per year and the head of the Salvation Army is paid only $13,000 per year, something to keep in mind next time you  are making donations to non-profit organizations.

The Truth:   According to the Salvation Army, Commissioners W. Todd Bassett and his wife Carol A. Bassett jointly received basic living allowances and grants totaling $64,210 for 2004 plus housing valued at $34,116.  That is still considerably less than the salaries of  some of the other top charities.

Marsha J. Evans, the president of the American Red Cross, was paid $651,957 in 2004.  

 

The president of the United Way is now Ralph D-i-c-k-erson Jr. who's current salary is $420,000 per year, according to the Chronicle of Philanthropy.

UNICEF C.E.O. and President  Caryl M. Stern earned $478,645 in 2009 according to a Better Business Bureau report.

The Better Business Bureau also said that Brian Gallagher, CEO of The United Way earns $1,037,410 in 2008.

updated 12/7/10

+++++++++++++++++++++

 

So, it would appear that this Salvation Army COUPLE, i.e., two people -- earned $98,326 total.  Divide that by 2 and the CEO of the Salvation Army earned $49,163 for an annual salary.  I would not say that is an imposing annual salary when the Unite Way CEO earned  $1,037,410. 

 

Where would you invest your dollars you want to go to a charity to help the poor -- one whose CEO earned $49,163 or  one whose CEO earned $1,037,410?

My Friend, I pray this exonerates the Salvation Army in your mind -- even if they are a Christian organization.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Hi all,

Our Friend, BeterCon, seems to attack the Salvation Army because they do not practice the Ordinances of Baptism and Communion.  Why?  As they tell us in the article, and I agree with them completely -- we are not saved through these ordinances.  We are saved, by the grace of God, through faith in Jesus Christ -- PLUS NOTHING ELSE.  Those ordinances would fall into the category of NOTHING ELSE in their relationship to salvation.

Basically, these are two ordinances left to us by Jesus Christ that we are to do "in remembrance of Him until He returns."  I agree that we should do these things out of love for Jesus Christ.  But, like I will not condemn my Christian brothers and sisters who, in their Liberal Theology churches, deny the authority of the Bible -- I cannot condemn the Salvation Army for not adhering to these two non-salvation ordinances.

To demand these ordinances places one in a position of Legalism -- and that is not what our Christian faith is all about.

 

+++++++++++++++++++++
Why Does The Salvation Army Not Baptize Or Hold Communion? http://www.waterbeachsalvation...mation&Itemid=58


A major difference between The Salvation Army and other religious denominations is that it does not include the use of sacraments (mainly holy communion, sometimes called the Lord's Supper, and baptism) in its form of worship.

The Salvation Army has never said it is wrong to use sacraments, nor does it deny that other Christians receive grace from God  through using them.  Rather, the Army believes that it is possible to live a holy life and receive the grace of God without the use of physical sacraments and that they should not be regarded as an essential part of becoming a Christian.


+++++++++++++++++++++


While I would always want to have these two ordinances in the church I attend -- what this article states about salvation is completely correct.  Our salvation does NOT depend upon performing these ordinances.

So, BeterCon, why do you attack the Salvation Army?

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Originally Posted by Bill Gray:

Hi all,

Our Friend, BeterCon, seems to attack the Salvation Army because they do not practice the Ordinances of Baptism and Communion.  Why?  As they tell us in the article, and I agree with them completely -- we are not saved through these ordinances.  We are saved, by the grace of God, through faith in Jesus Christ -- PLUS NOTHING ELSE.  Those ordinances would fall into the category of NOTHING ELSE in their relationship to salvation.

Basically, these are two ordinances left to us by Jesus Christ that we are to do "in remembrance of Him until He returns."  I agree that we should do these things out of love for Jesus Christ.  But, like I will not condemn my Christian brothers and sisters who, in their Liberal Theology churches, deny the authority of the Bible -- I cannot condemn the Salvation Army for not adhering to these two non-salvation ordinances.

To demand these ordinances places one in a position of Legalism -- and that is not what our Christian faith is all about.

 

+++++++++++++++++++++
Why Does The Salvation Army Not Baptize Or Hold Communion? http://www.waterbeachsalvation...mation&Itemid=58


A major difference between The Salvation Army and other religious denominations is that it does not include the use of sacraments (mainly holy communion, sometimes called the Lord's Supper, and baptism) in its form of worship.

The Salvation Army has never said it is wrong to use sacraments, nor does it deny that other Christians receive grace from God  through using them.  Rather, the Army believes that it is possible to live a holy life and receive the grace of God without the use of physical sacraments and that they should not be regarded as an essential part of becoming a Christian.


+++++++++++++++++++++


While I would always want to have these two ordinances in the church I attend -- what this article states about salvation is completely correct.  Our salvation does NOT depend upon performing these ordinances.

So, BeterCon, why do you attack the Salvation Army?

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill


Bill,

 I disagree with you bit. While I agree Salvation is by faith in Christ without works, clearly Jesus commanded his followers to do two things to both identify with himself and act as a reminder of him, baptism and the Lord's Supper. The Apostles were commanded to baptize and Paul passed that command to the church in 1Corinthians 11 when he said to "keep the ordinances as I delivered them to you".

 While I have no beef with the Salvation army, I don't recognize them as a church. I see them more as an extension of the church. That said, since they are not a church, and their clergy not ordained, they have no biblical aithority to practice Baptism or Communion.

First of all bill we have no way of knowing what they're actually paid. They can list a salary of $10 a year and no one could prove other wise. Word of mouth in an organization usually gets the truth out. They may not list their "salaries" as a high figure, but you will see it states salaries "with benefits". Benefits wink wink. Same old dodge the churches have been using since they started begging for that tax free money. 

Originally Posted by Bestworking:

First of all bill we have no way of knowing what they're actually paid. They can list a salary of $10 a year and no one could prove other wise. Word of mouth in an organization usually gets the truth out. They may not list their "salaries" as a high figure, but you will see it states salaries "with benefits". Benefits wink wink. Same old dodge the churches have been using since they started begging for that tax free money. 


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 Best, all 501c corps have to file a declaration with the IRS every year. These declarations include salaries of all officers and are public info. Just like every corporation on Wall Street is required to do.

Extra is right, finances for a tax exempt 501c is public record.

 

The Salvation Army works year round to help kids, shut ins, the elderly, the homeless, and they even have prison programs. Like the Red Cross, they're on the scene when a disaster hits to help the victims.

 

There are always going to be critics and rumors, but the truth is they help a lot of people across the country and the world. I've done my research and I feel comfortable putting a few bucks in the kettle when I pass it.

 

If a group works year round to help those that no one else would help, wouldn't it be wrong to discriminate against them because they're a church?

 

My wife worked for the Red Cross as a CPR instructor. They do a lot more than people realize as well. Definitely a organization we support because of the work they do in each community, most of which without any fanfare or publicity.

 

We don't support the United Way at all. It's a business, they collect the money and distribute a percentage among charities. You have no idea where you money is going exactly, only that most of each dollar is kept by the United Way for operation expenses. Giving to the United Way mostly benefits the United Way, not the community.

I don't care how many forms they file with the irs or claim is "public record", that was not the point. The point is we have NO way of knowing what they actually rake in and actually pay out to the big "mucky mucks."  

Who does the salvation army help that no one else will help? Discriminate against them? How about the people they discriminate against? Like I said earlier, they want my money, want it tax free, to help the "needy" they claim, yet they decide which needy person they will help based on that person's lifestyle. How christian is it when they refuse to help someone because the couple lives together without being married?  That's not the only complaint against them. 

It's not just the salvation army, all the religious charities do that. Then you have people that will argue how much good they do. IF they want to do good they need to get up off that money and help people for real.

Every time we have cpr classes we have to pay (last time) $35.00 per person, for the instructor to come in, and I'm not sure about this but I think they have to be guaranteed a certain number will attend the class. 

Originally Posted by lexum:

Best, the bumping of your gums in objection to anything posted in the religious forum could just as well be said by simply leaving the post blank. Your name is enough to alert everyone to ‘sound and fury’ to follow signifying nothing.

Wow! Two, mostly correct, English declarative sentences in a row from lexum! It's the end of the world!

Originally Posted by lexum:

Best, the bumping of your gums in objection to anything posted in the religious forum could just as well be said by simply leaving the post blank. Your name is enough to alert everyone to ‘sound and fury’ to follow signifying nothing.

I don't "bump gums", unlike you i have all my teeth. Maybe if you'd used a toothbrush, flossed and had regular dental checkups you'd have them too. This discussion is about the salvation army. pros and cons.  Now why don't you toddle off and be insane somewhere else if you don't like my posts. No one is putting a gun to your head and forcing you to read them. YIOOPOCIS.

Originally Posted by Road Puppy:
Originally Posted by semiannualchick:

My husband & I recently had a conversation with a couple that worked inside the SA for several years. The FIRST place that money goes to is those in high authority. We're talking about an annual salary of over $600,000, plus expenses, just for the CEO.

Then they are not 'a Army." They are not a CHURCH.

 

They are a business and as such should pay taxes like every other business.

 

Hey! I'ma start ma own church. I like that whole tax exempt status thing.

 

I'ma call it "The Road Puppy Screamin' Rock 'n Roll Church of The Epileptic Jeebus."

 

*We cater to the cool-Not the fool*

 

We'll have The Electric Hellfire Club do AC/DC and Guns 'n Roses cover songs insteada hymns.

 

It'll be righteous, mighteous, and outta-sighteous....

 

 

C'n I git a witness?

 

 

 

Pup, you know you can't do that. That would be a rip off of the Rev. LeRoy's Church of What's Happenin' Now. Always one of my favorites. Joy even tried to find a YouTube sermon by the Rev, but no such luck.

Originally Posted by Bill Gray:
Hi Chick,

Evidently your source from "inside the Salvation Army" were suffering from a bad case of sour grapes.  Or, they just like to exaggerate.  T

 Where would you invest your dollars you want to go to a charity to help the poor -- one whose CEO earned $49,163 or  one whose CEO earned $1,037,410?

 I pray this exonerates the Salvation Army in your mind -- even if they are a Christian organization.
Bill

________________________

No, I don't believe they were exaggerating or had a sour anything. They had no reason to lie & worked inside for years. I would believe them before I would a written report that could easily be falsified.

Their being a Christian organization has nothing to do with it. Those are your words, not mine.

 

Thank you, but I'll keep investing my dollars in St. Judes.

 

Bill Gray--

 

The "communion" or "Lord's Supper" or "eucharist" was never an optional thing with the church of the First Century, under leadership of Christ's own apostles. Indeed the historical record documents that coming together for this supper was the principal reason the First Century Christians gathered on the Lord's day. It is clear both from history and from scripture that it was something that was consistently observed by the churches of that period.

 

In establishing this ordinance, Jesus directed his apostles as follows: "This do in remembrance of me." Those who choose NOT to have the Lord's Supper stand in disobedience to this command of Jesus Himself. Jesus said, "If ye love me, ye will keep my commandments."(John 14:15).  In the day of judgment, I would not want to have to explain to Jesus why, in the face of His clear instruction in this matter, I chose not to obey Him.  I do not believe He would look warmly on the excuse that "Well, Lord, I just thought it would be too legalistic."

 

Moreover, Bill, ye do greatly err and misrepresent the Word of God in stating that Jesus established baptism as something that was to be done "in remembrance of Him until He returns." Nowhere does Jesus define baptism in anything like this way. The phrase "in remembrance of Me" was used in his instruction on the Lord's Supper (Luke 22:19). It was never used by Jesus or anyone else in the New Testament to describe the purpose of baptism.  

 

Baptism is "for remission of sins." (Acts 2:38)  Baptism is the place and event ordained by God where the lost sinner comes into contact with the redeeming death of Jesus and rises to "walk in newness of life. (See Romans 6:4)  That is what my Bible says about baptism.  And that is what your Bible should say about baptism.  If you have a Bible that says Jesus established baptism as  something to  be done "in remembrance of Him until He returns,"  then you have a Bible that has been egregiously tampered with!

 

Your careless misapprehension on this matter is most likely  rooted in your insupportable insistence that baptism is a "work" and thus is not a part of the "faith only" concept as you define it.  Baptism is not a human work of merit; any more that is repentance which, as you yourself admit, is necessary for salvation. 

Originally Posted by Bestworking:

I don't care how many forms they file with the irs or claim is "public record", that was not the point. The point is we have NO way of knowing what they actually rake in and actually pay out to the big "mucky mucks."  

Who does the salvation army help that no one else will help? Discriminate against them? How about the people they discriminate against? Like I said earlier, they want my money, want it tax free, to help the "needy" they claim, yet they decide which needy person they will help based on that person's lifestyle. How christian is it when they refuse to help someone because the couple lives together without being married?  That's not the only complaint against them. 

It's not just the salvation army, all the religious charities do that. Then you have people that will argue how much good they do. IF they want to do good they need to get up off that money and help people for real.

Every time we have cpr classes we have to pay (last time) $35.00 per person, for the instructor to come in, and I'm not sure about this but I think they have to be guaranteed a certain number will attend the class. 

The CPR instructor makes $10 per hour. That's not limited to class time, it includes travel time and the time to load equipment and return it.

 

The equipment and teaching materials themselves are very expensive. Plus, you have to factor in the rent per month to store everything in the office.

 

Average class size was about 10 people. Not a lot of profit after expenses. However, when you consider the value of the skill that is being taught as well as the services the Red Cross offers world wide, it's a pretty good deal.

 

As for the Salvation Army, they are involved in the fight against human trafficking, ****ography, helping with drug and alcohol addiction, and missing person searches. See for yourself.

 

http://www.salvationarmyusa.or...sf/vw-local/Programs

 

I think that would count as helping quite a number of people for real.

 

The Salvation Army also makes their views very clear. They do not support homosexuality, however they do not refuse services based on sexual orientation. From their website.

 

"In keeping with these convictions, the services of The Salvation Army are available to all who qualify, without regard to sexual orientation."

 

http://www.salvationarmyusa.or...04C177D?Opendocument

 

So therefore I have a difficult time believing the claim that they refused help to an unmarried couple. Can you provide evidence?

So therefore I have a difficult time believing the claim that they refused help to an unmarried couple. Can you provide evidence?

 

 

I don't have to provide any evidence, you either believe it or not. It was on a complaint site of which there are many, so google it yourself. I have no reason to lie. They were sued too for taking money out of a dead man's account. And if they don't help homosexuals or people they consider living "in sin" they are discriminating, don't deserve a tax exemption, and they certainly shouldn't be giving people the impression that they do help the needy when they pick and choose who they help. As far as the red cross, they should be up front and admit they charge for some services. You'd be surprised at how many people think that when they donate blood it goes to people in need at no charge.

So they are getting money under false pretenses. If they're honest about it, and people still donate their money, that's their business. But they should be forced to tell the truth about their practices. And I don't even know what to say about anyone that thinks they tell the truth about the amount of money they rake in.

The Salvation Army upholds the dignity of all persons. For this reason, and in obedience to the example of Jesus Christ, whose compassionate love is all-embracing, The Salvation Army does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in the delivery of its services.
(That has certainly been disproved)


The Salvation Army believes that God’s will for the expression of sexual intimacy is revealed in the Bible, and that living fully in accordance with biblical standards calls for chastity outside of heterosexual marriage and faithfulness within it.

(And this has been proven when they refused to help the couple they felt were "living in sin")

http://www.salvationarmy.org/c...059AC6E?openDocument

The Red Cross is up front with their charges. It's very easy to find. See for yourself.

 

 http://www.redcross.org/portal/site/en/menuitem.d229a5f06620c6052b1ecfbf43181aa0/?vgnextoid=d8b0f0454556e110VgnVCM10000089f0870aRCRD&vgnextchannel=477859f392ce8110VgnVCM10000030f3870aRCRD 

 

"A lot of things must happen to your donated blood before it can be given to a patient who needs it. The Red Cross must collect, test, process, store and transport the blood to area hospitals and transfusion centers. Each unit must be tracked carefully along the way. There are significant costs associated with each of these processes, and we must charge hospitals to recover these costs."



As for your claim about the Salvation Army denying services to an unmarried couple, if you are unable to provide evidence, then I cannot accept it as true. I will recant that statement if you were able to provide some proof to support your claim.

 

I did a Google search to find any proof to support your claim, I didn't find anything. What I did find and shared on this thread suggests otherwise. I have to follow the evidence where it leads so I cannot believe your claim to be true. No offense.

quote:  Originally Posted by semiannualchick:
quote:   Originally Posted by Bill Gray:

Hi Chick, Evidently your source from "inside the Salvation Army" were suffering from a bad case of sour grapes.  Or, they just like to exaggerate.  

Where would you invest your dollars you want to go to a charity to help the poor -- one whose CEO earned $49,163 or  one whose CEO earned $1,037,410?

I pray this exonerates the Salvation Army in your mind -- even if they are a Christian organization. Bill

No, I don't believe they were exaggerating or had a sour anything. They had no reason to lie & worked inside for years. I would believe them before I would a written report that could easily be falsified.  Their being a Christian organization has nothing to do with it.  Those are your words, not mine.   Thank you, but I'll keep investing my dollars in St. Judes.
 
Hi Chick,

 

Why did you cross out the word PRAY?  Does this word somehow scare you?  Maybe there is hope after all.   Regarding St. Judes -- I agree that this is a wonderful place to invest our charity dollars.  And, like you, I would probably give to them first -- for children have my heart.

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

No offense taken because I know you know it's true, but because I didn't keep a link from one complaint site when I've read dozens it gives you what you think is an "out". I wouldn't have expected any more from you. I don't care what the red cross says, what I posted was about them leading people to believe that the blood they donated went to people in need without charge.

quote: Originally Posted by Jennifer Bestworking:

No offense taken because I know you know it's true, but because I didn't keep a link from one complaint site when I've read dozens it gives you what you think is an "out."   I wouldn't have expected any more from you.  I don't care what the Red Cross says, what I posted was about them leading people to believe that the blood they donated went to people in need without charge.


Hi Jennifer,

 

I agree with you that the Red Cross does charge for the blood it collects.  Also, some years ago, I found that when I put the Organ Donor sticker on my drivers license -- the company collecting the organs charges an arm and a leg for them.  When I discovered this, I put a disclaimer on my license that my family would control the disbursements of my organs if I were to be an organ donor -- and they would only give them to those institutions which do not charge for them.

 

I can see a company or institution earning a fee for collecting and transporting the organs.  But, I cannot see allowing people to get rich from doing this -- as many companies do.  I believe the Red Cross is an honest, reasonable organization which will charge reasonable fees for collecting, storing, and transporting donated blood.

 

But, as Chick says, and I agree with her -- St. Judes would always be my first choice for charity giving.

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

Originally Posted by Bestworking:

No offense taken because I know you know it's true, but because I didn't keep a link from one complaint site when I've read dozens it gives you what you think is an "out". I wouldn't have expected any more from you. I don't care what the red cross says, what I posted was about them leading people to believe that the blood they donated went to people in need without charge.

Please read the site I linked about Red Cross myths. Your statement is directly addressed and proven to be a myth.

 

The Red Cross has to test, store, and transport the blood they collect. They pass that cost to the hospitals. The hospitals pass that cost to the patients. That's how it works, no big secret there.

 

I do not believe your statement that the Salvation Army denied helping a couple because they were not married. If you can prove this claim, I'll recant. Until then, it's simply an urban legend.

 

It's a shame, because the reality is that the SA does a lot of good for a lot of people. I don't agree with all of their beliefs, but I support their work.

I do not believe your statement that the Salvation Army denied helping a couple because they were not married. If you can prove this claim, I'll recant. Until then, it's simply an urban legend.

 

It's a shame, because the reality is that the SA does a lot of good for a lot of people. I don't agree with all of their beliefs, but I support their work.

 

 

Last time. I read all sorts of complaint pages from all around the county. The complaints went from people being touched inappropriately by workers in the sa stores to people denied help for one reason or the other. This was ONE complaint I read on ONE page. So don't worry about "recanting" because even if I did find the page again and post a link you'd only say the girl was lying.

Originally Posted by Bestworking:

Please read the site I linked about Red Cross myths. Your statement is directly addressed and proven to be a myth.

 

No it isn't a myth. I myself was under the impression that was what they did with MY blood when I donated it, and I know plenty of others that believed the same. Sorry I can't give you a "link" to them.

You didn't think they tested the donations before they gave them to the hospitals?

 

As I said, if you can provide evidence to support your claim, I'll believe you. If you can't, I have to dismiss your claim as a rumor. I've always been skeptical of rumors.

Miles<dl class="stats"><dt class="member">Member since:</dt><dd class="member">September 24, 2011</dd><dt class="total">Total points:</dt><dd class="total">20 (Level 1)</dd></dl>

Does the Red Cross really sell donated blood to hospitals?

I've donated blood to the red cross a number of times. However, I'd be rather annoyed if they did in fact sell the blood to hospitals and make a profit.

Is it true or not? If it is, I'll be sure not to donate again 1 month ago.

 

Apparently Miles didn't know either. Is he an urban legend?

http://answers.yahoo.com/quest...0111102033923AAMPhAJ

 

Originally Posted by NashBama:
Originally Posted by Bestworking:

Please read the site I linked about Red Cross myths. Your statement is directly addressed and proven to be a myth.

 

No it isn't a myth. I myself was under the impression that was what they did with MY blood when I donated it, and I know plenty of others that believed the same. Sorry I can't give you a "link" to them.

You didn't think they tested the donations before they gave them to the hospitals?

 

As I said, if you can provide evidence to support your claim, I'll believe you. If you can't, I have to dismiss your claim as a rumor. I've always been skeptical of rumors.

 

 

There's a big difference in a "rumor" and reading a poster's comment on a complaint page. And as I've said you would only call her a liar if I was able to find her post again. Maybe you could find a 10 year old to explain my post. I POSTED: WHEN I DONATED BLOOD TO THE RED CROSS I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION IT WOULD GO TO PEOPLE WHO NEEDED IT AND THAT THEY, THE NEEDY, WOULD NOT BE CHARGED. I FOUND OUT THAT IS NOT TRUE. NOT ONLY ARE THEY CHARGED FOR THE BLOOD BUT THE RED CROSS DOES MANAGE TO MAKE SOME MONEY OFF OF IT. Not sure how much clearer that can be.  A fee for processing the blood was never mentioned in my posts. My problem was donating my blood so a hospital could make money off of it, and the red cross not being up front and saying that would happen. Got that now?

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×