Do you mean just in the US, or worldwide? If you mean worldwide, how about the United Church of Canada?
Bottom line, for me, is I’m not gonna give my limited charity dollars to a church, for chrissakes.
I would suggest Oxfam as a non-secular alternative.
I think you mean secular, not non-secular.
They look pretty interesting. I’ll have to do some further investigating of course before donating. Thanks Bippy!
There are secular organizations that feed the hungry. Second Harvest is one that does offer domestic partner benefits (on a national level - I believe each food bank has its own structure).
I prefer to give my charitable dollars to children’s causes and women services anyway - particularly rape crisis counseling and battered women’s services. While feeding the hungry is a worthy cause, it isn’t my cause.
I mean just the US. And there could be ones here that I don’t know of.
It would be a tragedy if most any of the charities were to go away. Some are more direct and immediate than others. The Salvation Army helps many of those “less deserving” in addition to the more popular needy.
Anyone can stroll into Glide Church in San Francisco, and many other missions, and get a hot, nutritious meal. And other services.
I don’t think lap dancers make that much. 
You gotta get out more, like to the Big City. 
You’re totally correct, the wiki article phrasing through me off.
Yes Oxfam is as far as I know completely non-religious. But not in an anti religion way. They seem to be into long term measures like fair trade which I think is the best way to use charity money.
You’ve never seen Sonia ring that bell and swing that bucket. She is en fuego! The peeling off a piece of clothes for every $75 helps the take immensely.
The bell ringers are hot babes in Berkley, you’re sayin’?
Hah! I wish! If I started to peel, passersby would pay me to keep my clothes on. I’m a middle-aged New Englander of limited physical attraction who dresses in ultra-respectable twin-sets, wool skirts, penny loafers and pearls. The reason I get a lot of money put in my pot is because I know almost everybody in town.
Try the Unitarian Universalist Church.
Just sayin’.
Isn’t the term “bigot” a bit harsh? The SA isn’t intolerant of others, they just don’t extend domestic benefits to the partners of unmarried employees. As far as I know they’ve never refused services to anyone who needed them or refused to hire someone who was qualified (clergy notwithstanding).
I understand if you don’t want to give money to a religious organization, but please don’t insult them by claiming they’re something they’re not.
They are on record as saying that homosexuality is unnatural. I think that’s pretty bigoted and I don’t think that is a harsh word for that stance. You may not. That is your perogative.
But if it doesn’t affect how they treat people or distribute their services or how they hire people to drive the trucks and run the food shelves, what difference does it make.
I have some familiarity with SA culture through my wife’s job and through my own volunteer work with them (I’ve also volunteered for after school programs as well as the bell ringing). While their positions on homosexuality are somewhat backwards, I have to say that it’s not an issue that I’ve ever heard them make a big deal about. In fact, I’ve rarely heard them ever talk about political or social issues at all. That kind of moralizing is not what they see as their mission. They really do feel that evangelization is accomplished through actions and example, not by words. When it comes to providing services, they give them to anyone who needs it and they do it without a lot of proselytization or brow beating. Salvationists mightthink that homosexuality is sinful, but I can’t remember ever hearing any of them say it out loud and I know it doesn’t affect how they serve people.
I’m not exactly a defender of the Fundies around here but I can say that my own experiences with SA have convinced me that Salvationists are not your typical judgemental, loud, angry bigots. It’s a different kind of culture than that. Aside from the occasional Bush or pro-life bumper sticker, you’d never even know what kind of political or social views they have. It’s just not something they expend a lot of energy on.
They’ve helped some of your fellow Dopers, too.
I have limited charitible dollars. I can support a number of organizations with my money. There are far more organizations deserving of my support than I can afford to support, so charities need to compete for my dollar. There are lots of criteria for competing for my charitable dollar - some the SA does a great job meeting - things like low overhead, filling a real need. I’m not supporting one that believes that homosexuality is unnatural. That’s ok, though, the letters from the CWA show that the SA made the right decision to maximize their dollars.
As I said, I buy wreaths from the boy scouts, so it isn’t absolute. But that is a special case of someone running a troop in stealth mode. It appeals to the revolutionary in me that we have “one on the inside” so I support his troop - and just his troop.