They didn’t get their temporary certificate of occupancy until Friday afternoon at 3:30, and something there is that doesn’t love a speech blew Advisory Board Chairman Steven Ruccio’s notes all over the porch. But beyond that, the Salvation Army’s new Montclair Citadel opened without trouble. Territorial Commander Lawrence Moretz wielded the giant scissors. Major Alistair Bate, the Montclair Corps officer, welcomed a crowd of about 100 in for coffee and a tour.
Major Bate says the new building will allow the Army to do more of what it’s already doing, offering after-school care to low-income families and expanding its homelessness prevention and job-training programs. “We’d like to take some of the pressure off the Public Library,” he said.
Opening Day featured a multi-restaurant Tastes of Montclair in the new gym. Among those offering samples: Cafe Rustica Rustic Food, Church Street Kitchen, Gimme Jimmys Janny’s Cookies and Mesiah Event Planners, where toffee maven Nicky Mesiah showed off her Yes We Candy — dark and light flavors together.
Where is it?
Trinity Place–right behind the Siena building.
Oh Great…just what Montclair needs some more homophobes and bigots… Read this from Americablog:
SALVATION ARMY IS A FAR-RIGHT EVANGELICAL CHURCH
The Salvation Army is anti-gay and actively lobbies against pro-gay legislation in the US and abroad (I provide lots of evidence for this below). The money you put in that red can is going to anti-gay evangelical Christian lobbyists. They believe that since they’re a “church” they have the right to not hire gay people because we’re sinners. Great, well this sinner gives his money to real charities this holiday seasons, and not to anti-gay evangelical churches who lobby the White House and foreign governments to take our rights away
Crixi, that you disagree vehemently with one well-known aspect of Salvation Army policy does not really detract one bit from the good works the Sallies still do. Yours is truly a holier/gayer-than-thou and baby-out-with-the bathwater sort of attitude. If applied to most charities, too, very little would get done in terms of feeding the poor and the hungry and the homeless, who likely are not as persnickety as you because they can’t afford to be.
So tamper the self-righteousness and aggrieved sense of sexual demarcation a bit. This is not at all a perfect world, and you might still find General William Booth in heaven when, and if, you yourself get there, by virtue of the Salvation Army’s many real accomplishments. Besides, you have all those “real charities” to support, even as you might be advised to do so silently.
Cathar, your moral equivalency is flawed. Your implication that being outraged by the bigotry of an agency which receives Federal money but refuses to respect peoples civil rights as being self righteous is utterly foolish. By your reasoning, Martin Luther King or Rosa Parks would also be self righteous for standing up for their rights. Sure, the SA may do some good, but the standard of an organizations worth is not the amount of good they do, but rather the amount of harm. If they said they refused to hire any other minority besides gay people you would be outraged, but your response suggests you approve of “this kind” of bigotry. Sorry sister, a bigot is a bigot, and hate is hate. Cloaking hatred in religion is just well dressed hate.
Actually, Crixi (and the “sister” part was quite unnecessary), your own reasoning is flawed and Pharasaical.
The poor and the homeless and the hungry have very little interest in the issue of gender preference. They’d like to see their own needs met.
Throwing in the names of Dr. King and Rosa Parks (what, pray tell, is her relevance here?) was just silly. I’m quite sure that Dr. King (and do you even know his own views on homosexuality? the issue seems to call for less surety than you trumpet) would, before all else, applaud that his brethren at the Salvation Army were helping to fulfill their Christian duty to help the poor.
The issue of anyone’s refusal to hire a “minority” is also a total red herring here. Wipe the froth from your mouth and if you can’t bear to write the Sallies a check, at least shut up about it. They are never discriminatory where it counts most, in the application of aid to all.
Cathar Dahlink… how you do like to go on. For starters Dr. King sets an example of how to effect change when dealing with discrimination. His views on homosexuality are irrelevant. Peaceful protest and boycott as a means to effect change is the point you missed from your lofty pulpit. As for Rosa Parks, she too stood fast in her rightful seat. You are so hung up on the illusion of these so called do gooders that you miss the point that they have told thousands to “get off the bus” . During the early years of the AIDS epidemic and still to this day, they turn gay people away. How Christ like is that? True Christian duty would be to help all the poor, not just straight poor. Gays are not allowed in their federally funded “church”. Contrary to your statement that they are not discriminatory, you are more wrong than you will ever know. They routinely turn people away for any reason they see fit. Even the outreach to indigent men brings them to camps where they are berated into accepting Christ or else they are given nothing to eat. Hardly the way the Gospel describes the charity of the Lord. Even in the 90′s, during the hardest days of the AIDS epidemic, they refused to help. They insisted that people should renounce their being gay before they would offer help. Why is it that one religion can demand that people be able to renounce homosexuality, are you able to renounce heterosexuality…do you really think there is a choice in the matter. You think that because they hand out a bunch of plates of food and some clothing they are sainted, but the fact remains they turn thousands away out of nothing but bigotry. How do I know? Well Sister… I was one of those turned away in the 90′s and I saw them do it to others. They are not as nice as you seem to think. They are rabidly hateful and un-Christian towards gay people. And for the record… I got on my feet, founded a charity and have helped thousands since then. I also received help from Christian groups who’s views on homosexuality are different than mine, but are true to the Gospel and help anyone in need. The Salvation Army is a bigoted charade. And you have the nerve and indignation to act as if using Dr. King as an example of how to effect change is somehow restricted to causes he might support is the epitome of ignorance. Any organization that spends millions of dollars to deny me my civil rights and claims to do so in the name of God is nothing short of evil. How many more meals could they have provided with the millions they waste on political meddling? They are nothing more than hypocritical money changers praying in the square for all to see. Now go to your closet and pray.
Crixi, you sound kind of dumb. Dumb, obsessive and hysterical. Thus no fun to engage with verbally here.
In fact you’re so dumb that you’ve apparently blown off a perfect opportunity to tout your own “charity” here.
Catharsis, once again Sister you miss the point… It is my Constitutional Right to be obsessive and hysterical when addressing issues of discrimination. Anyone who stands up to any form of discrimination has a moral obligation to scream out loud at the injustice. Real change is never affected quietly. ACT-Up in the 90′s brought about the drugs we have today to fight AIDS. Which is more noble: screaming and hysterics in the name of what is right or silent acquiescence in the name of good manners? As for being dumb? Well, guilty I suppose. If being dumb means recognizing that while I have the right to rant and rave over my personal political and religious beliefs, it would be poor judgement to let those opinions effect an unrelated charitable endeavor; than yes I suppose I am dumb.