12/26/2011 Don't be scroogin'.

[Mr. Brightside]

1 ) Salvation Army collection pots in real life are clearly marked with the organization's name. Aggie's collection pot isn't.

2 ) As lilithanat says, the standard Santa costume isn't the exclusive intellectual property of the Salvation Army.

3 ) Does anyone really think Aggie, who appears by this time to have long-since embraced her gayness and to have been out to her family and friends for years, would volunteer for an organization that wasn't LGBT-friendly?

I have never seen someone collecting in a Santa suit, with a pot of that design, who wasn't with the Salvation Army. It's the same way storefronts are often left blank in comics (and colors, for that matter). Although the elements themselves aren't trademarked, you could say the same about letters of the alphabet; if it weren't for the PR nightmare, they could probably (not sure about non-profits...) shut down anyone collecting in this way. And Aggie, at least in high school, was an idiot when it came to these things, railing against figurehead monarchies and then spilling her guts the minute a police officer came knocking, lecturing Cyndi on animal suffering and then going out for ice cream, acting like Penny was somehow a symbol of bourgeois excess as she spends hundreds of dollars on an ephemeral prank.

(At least no one carped on what the characters are wearing. Thank Heaven for small mercies.)

Bah! A trenchcoat that might well have come from the nineteenth-century? It's bad enough she spits on Daphne (and herself) with her money, does she have to so viciously shove her aside in fashion?!

[TCampbell]

And the very subject of the strip is supposed to be all warm and fuzzy, so I feel like people are being a little hard on Aggie, anyway. Just 'cause an organization doesn't share all of your beliefs doesn't mean they're 100% evil.

I wasn't sure whether to weigh in, but this is pretty much how I feel about it. I didn't mention Salvation Army to Jason, just "supermarket Santa." I don't know if that specific kettle design is exclusively an S.A. thing or not.

But if it is... look, I'm a member of the Boy Scouts of America. I appreciate the ideals it stands for, and while I know some have abused those ideals for homophobic ends, I also know that the members of my troop handled a certain QUILTBAG-related situation with decency and as much grace as they could. I don't believe homophobia is part of either organization's core values, and I think both organizations will outlast abuses like that.

[JackFairy]

Pressuring people to convert to Christianity in conjunction with the help offered IS a core value of the Salvation Army though. I mean, just consider the name. The point of the organization was to emulate military force in bringing Christianity to the masses.

[TCampbell]

Pressuring people to convert to Christianity in conjunction with the help offered IS a core value of the Salvation Army though. I mean, just consider the name. The point of the organization was to emulate military force in bringing Christianity to the masses.

I also believe homophobia is a loathsome, anti-Christian practice, a barnacle to be scraped off the bow of true Christianity and flung into the sea. And that's really all I should say about that.

[TCampbell]

Oh, wait, maybe you mean that Aggie should have trouble working with the Salvation Army because she's not Christian? That's a sticky one. She's worked with Christian organizations in Penny and Aggie before, and hesitated to do so before. Generally speaking, she's capable of suspending her own religious qualms as long as she perceives the mission to be more about feeding the hungry, helping the sick and housing the homeless than about spreading the Word.

[Emma]

I like the idea that in six years the Salvation Army will have moved on.

As it stands I am afraid that an anti LGBT stance is part of its 'core values' very openly. (Due to this it is an organization with very negative connotations for me and my family. )

http://cdn.unicornbooty.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/A-Friendly-Holiday-Reminder-that-The-Salvation-Army-Hates-Homos.png is the relevant piece of the official statement, but you can certainly visit the Salvation Army's site yourself to make sure that this is not photoshopped.

[Shadrach]

http://cdn.unicornbooty.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/A-Friendly-Holiday-Reminder-that-The-Salvation-Army-Hates-Homos.png is the relevant piece of the official statement, but you can certainly visit the Salvation Army's site yourself to make sure that this is not photoshopped.

I see, on the part of whomever titled that image capture "The Salvation Army Hates Homos," some rather selective understanding of their position. Right below, in the portion the image capture includes, the part that says the organization states there's no scriptural support for same-sex relations or marriages, it says that likewise, neither is there any scriptural justification for "demeaning or mistreating" anyone on account of their sexual orientation. It says further, again, in the very part captured, that the organization's services are open to "all who qualify, regardless of sexual orientation."

Now let me emphasize that I personally disagree with the notion that same-sex anything is wrong, as well as with the idea that people who are of a homosexual orientation must be lifelong celibates. (And, being Jewish, I'm neither authorized, nor have a vested interest, to speak for any Christian organization, evangelical or otherwise.) But what I'm seeing here isn't remotely a "GOD HATES F*GS SO IF YOU'RE A F*G, NO SERVICES FOR YOU" message. Indeed, it states rather the opposite.

There is a tendency in some (not all, but some) sectors of the LGBT community, and more broadly, of the non-Christian, non-religious and especially the "new atheism" community, to assume that every Christian is a Fred Phelps and that every Christian organization is the Westboro Baptist Church.

And it's wrong. Stereotyping is stereotyping, and prejudice is prejudice. And as I've often had occasion to tell fellow Jews with regard to Arabs and Muslims, "they do it to us" is NO justification for "let's do it to them."

[Alice Macher]

On a hotel Internet room computer here, on a skin-sparing break from the beach, so haven't read through the thread, but I just want to say a big hearty YES to this strip. Regardless of what future Penny and Aggie are to each other at this point, it's clear the good-natured, affectionate snark and push/pull dynamic will be with them as long as they both live. Which in my heart, regardless of what they are to each other, will be forever. <3

[Mec]

Two young women sarcassing each other, with side tangents about religion, materialism, sexual identity, and charity. That's vintage P&A all right!

I agree with Penny in panel two. One aspect of charity is humility and service for the donor, but a little of that goes a long way. Another aspect is actually improving the lives of a lot of people, and that's the part I care about. To be sure, if someone who is a plant geneticist or a lawyer or a doctor or a software engineer or a journalist or a carpenter can contribute actual work -- but nearly all of us can contribute money and money travels well and buys millions of useful things.

It costs $5 to immunize a kid and there's a lot of unimmunized kids. Most of the time, for most first world people, it's more effective to work several hours, earn $50, and send a check to GAVI than it is to travel somewhere and wield a hypodermic.

The "building houses" arc bugged me because for the price of the plane fares there and back, Aggie and Lisa and Katy could have contributed thousands of dollars to a charity to buy bricks and hire local people to lay them.

[Adrishiana]

There is a tendency in some (not all, but some) sectors of the LGBT community, and more broadly, of the non-Christian, non-religious and especially the "new atheism" community, to assume that every Christian is a Fred Phelps and that every Christian organization is the Westboro Baptist Church.

And it's wrong. Stereotyping is stereotyping, and prejudice is prejudice. And as I've often had occasion to tell fellow Jews with regard to Arabs and Muslims, "they do it to us" is NO justification for "let's do it to them."

This isn't what's going on here, though. This isn't people going, "Aggie is working with a Christian organization, so clearly she is a homophobic bigot who protests at military funerals and adfkadsljfadk *froth*. This is people saying, "Huh, I find it kind of strange that LGBT Aggie is working for/with what may be an organization with a very well-documented hate-on for LGBT individuals."

And in the future, you might want to think twice about accusing people who point out prejudice of prejudice.

[Shadrach]

This isn't what's going on here, though. This isn't people going, "Aggie is working with a Christian organization, so clearly she is a homophobic bigot who protests at military funerals and adfkadsljfadk *froth*. This is people saying, "Huh, I find it kind of strange that LGBT Aggie is working for/with what may be an organization with a very well-documented hate-on for LGBT individuals."

I didn't say people were saying that about Aggie. I'm saying that just because the Salvation Army doesn't personally approve of same-sex relations doesn't mean they "have a hate-on" for anyone, when they explicitly say they will not refuse service based on one's sexual orientation.

The Salvation Army does a damn lot of good, and just because they hold opinions on certain matters that we (including myself) find objectionable doesn't cancel out a damn whit of that good.

And in the future, you might want to think twice about accusing people who point out prejudice of prejudice.

Even if they (and by "they" I don't mean anyone in this thread) further their own prejudice in doing so? No, I stand by my words.

[Adrishiana]

This isn't what's going on here, though. This isn't people going, "Aggie is working with a Christian organization, so clearly she is a homophobic bigot who protests at military funerals and adfkadsljfadk *froth*. This is people saying, "Huh, I find it kind of strange that LGBT Aggie is working for/with what may be an organization with a very well-documented hate-on for LGBT individuals."

I didn't say people were saying that about Aggie. I'm saying that just because the Salvation Army doesn't personally approve of same-sex relations doesn't make them hateful bigots, when they explicitly say they will not refuse service based on one's sexual orientation.

And in the future, you might want to think twice about accusing people who point out prejudice of prejudice.

Even if they (and by "they" I don't mean anyone in this thread) further their own prejudice in doing so? No, I stand by my words.

They say a lot of things. But there have been actual reports of them refusing service to LGBT individuals, from numerous individuals, from numerous quarters. There was also an incident a few years back where the SA was fully prepared to close up soup kitchens in New York and walk out if the city passed legislation requiring firms that deal with New York to offer health benefits to the partners of gay staffers. How is that not bigoted?

[Shadrach]

They say a lot of things. But there have been actual reports of them refusing service to LGBT individuals, from numerous individuals, from numerous quarters.

Well, as T says re the Boy Scouts, just because some of them may do it, doesn't mean the organization as a whole does it.

[Adrishiana]

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree here. You think that numerous incidents of anti-gay behavior does not a bigoted organization make, I don't. I'm done arguing.

[Tamar]

Ok my turn on the hotel computer thing! I love this bonus comic so thanks to the thoughtful hubby for commissioning it and thanks to T and Jason for sharing that extra little bit of P&A with us. Love you all, g2g.