General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSalvation Army Official: Gays Deserve Death
(From June)
Salvation Army Official: Gays Deserve Death
Just in time to ruin Gay Pride month, a media relations director for the Salvation Army had no problem reminding us and the queer journalists he was talking to that gays should be put to death. In talking to Australian queer journalists Serena Ryan and Pete Dillon on their Salt and Pepper radio show (audio below which was picked up by Truth Wins Out's John Becker), Major Andrew Craibe, a media relations director for one of the organization's Australian branches, had this exchange with the hosts:
Ryan: According to the Salvation Army, [gay people] deserve death. How do you respond to that, as part of your doctrine?
Craibe: Well, thats a part of our belief system.
Ryan: So we should die.
Craibe: You know, we have an alignment to the Scriptures, but thats our belief.
The doctrine they're referring to is, as Queerty's Dan Aver reports, the Salvation Story: Salvationist Handbook of Doctrine, which borrows heavily from Romans 1:18-32 and states:
For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error. . .
They know Gods decree, that those who practise such things deserve to dieyet they not only do them but even applaud others who practise them.
Until this weekend, Craibe's media presence had been mostly non-existent, his last remarks that we found were about children with disabilities, social and financial disadvantages, and their visit to a zoo--not something you would expect from a guy who sounds more or less like a hate monger.
Since Craibe's popped this weekend, the Salvation Army has officially distanced itself from Craibe's remarks with a carefully-worded response. In a statement, Salvation Army spokesman Major Bruce Harmer said Craibe's comments were "extremely regrettable" and Salvation Army members did "not believe, and would never endorse, a view that homosexual activity should result in any form of physical punishment." Harmer goes on to apologize, citing a misunderstanding of the "death" passage (he says the passage refers to "spiritual death" and not physical death):
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2012/06/salvation-army-official-gays-deserve-death/53885/
enlightenment
(8,830 posts)Right.
Then maybe they should rewrite it so it says what they mean - instead of what it clearly says.
Ick.
They're tripping over their own feet in their effort to back pedal on that bit of nastiness.
bevb
(10 posts)Boy Scouts are another org I haven't and won't donate to.
nilram
(2,893 posts)beac
(9,992 posts)found here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021709626
ETA: to make it the same size as a real bill, edit the dimensions to 6" x 2.625"
Care Acutely
(1,370 posts)joeybee12
(56,177 posts)Reminding them why I don't donate.
Lex
(34,108 posts)Dakota Flint
(219 posts)ProudProgressiveNow
(6,129 posts)shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)together with my mother, when it was a matter of need. I don't agree with much that they say, but I donate anyway. If I could bring myself to use their services, notwithstanding their eccentricities, then I should be able to bring myself to donate.
War Horse
(931 posts)No question. Which makes the whole thing even more frustrating, doesn't it?
War Horse
(931 posts)This crap seems to be swept under the rug a lot of the time. I do donate to my local Christian charity when I can. Because they - you know - help people, and that's it. No condemnation or sanctimonious BS.
obamanut2012
(26,137 posts)And, for much of their help, you DO have "BS" you have to go through, often including church services.
War Horse
(931 posts)But in this particular case my cousin works for them, and she's as tolerant as they come . They have an non-official policy of hiring folks who are 'functional', but not necessarily 'clean' to do certain jobs, just so they might catch a break, and I've yet to see any proselytizing.
TrogL
(32,822 posts)if you have to "carefully word" your response, it's not a heart-felt response, it's generally a non-apology along the lines of "I'm sorry people were offended".
Archae
(46,345 posts)JohnnyRingo
(18,641 posts)He doesn't run the organization, nor does he decide where the aid goes. Albeit, he's not very good at his job, but since the SA officially put a firwall between him and the organization I assume his bigoted position is not a model for the Salvation Army as an organization.
I would expect this man to soon find another means of employment. The GOP could always use another media director if he were willing to relocate. If the SA doesn't let him go I'd have to question why not.
Meanwhile, I intend to toss a few coins in the bucket sometime this season, and will give to as many other foundations as financially possible. Until the Salvation Army actually comes out and tells LGBTs to seek help elsewhere, I can overlook one idiot in Australia.
As far as "ruining gay pride month" for anyone, it must be hanging by a thead for that to be true.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)announcements of their own positions, nothing stopping them. It is their name that is sullied with this hate and if they don't rise to defend it the loss is also their own.
Gman
(24,780 posts)Nothing to see here. Just some loudmouth that got canned.
Occulus
(20,599 posts)Still gonna keep writing those checks?
Gman
(24,780 posts)Makes no sense to me.
LibertyLover
(4,788 posts)you are saying that a New York Times article detailing a number of anti-gay actions taken by the Salvation Army are isolated anecdotal incidents?
Gman
(24,780 posts)but that doesn't matter. I don't see where it's been demonstrated that the SA has institutional policies that are anti-gay. All I've seen are reports of workers or local people applying their own opinions to what they think the SA is or ought to be.
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)Homosexuality
The Salvation Army believes that homosexuality can be properly considered only in the broader context of a biblical understanding of human sexuality in general. The creation account set out in the opening chapters of Genesis reveals the following truths:
1. That we are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27);
2. That God created us both male and female (Genesis 1:27);
3. That this differentiation of the sexes is a part of the divine image in the human race (Genesis 1:27);
4. That the loneliness of Adam was remedied by God through the creation of a woman, not a second man (Genesis 2:21, 22);
5. That sexual union leading to a one-flesh relationship is intended to be between male and female (Genesis 2:23, 24);
6. That such union is intended to be in the setting of a permanent and publicly acknowledged relationship forming the basis of a new family unit (Genesis 2:24).
The Bible thus teaches that Gods intention for mankind is that society should be ordered on the basis of lifelong, legally sanctioned, heterosexual unions. Such unions (marriages) lead to the formation of social units (families) which are essential to human personal development and therefore to the stability of the community.
Scripture opposes homosexual practices by direct comment (Leviticus 18:22, 23; 20:13; Romans 1:26, 27; 1 Corinthians 6 ; 1 Timothy 1:10) and also by clearly implied disapproval (Genesis 19:1-29; Judges 19:1-30; 2 Peter 2:1-22; Jude 3-23). The Bible treats such practices as self-evidently abnormal. They reject both the obvious implications of human physiology and the potential for procreation. Romans 1 sees homosexual acts as a symptom of a deeper refusal to accept the organising scheme of God for the created order (Romans 1:23-25).
The Army recognises that same-sex friendships can be enriching, Christ-honouring relationships, bringing joy through mutual companionship and sharing. However, same-sex relationships which are genitally expressed are unacceptable according to the teaching of Scripture. Attempts to establish or promote such relationships as viable alternatives to heterosexually-based family life do not conform to Gods will for society.
For this reason, and in obedience to the example of Jesus whose compassionate love was all-embracing, Salvationists seek to understand and sensitively to accept and help those of a homosexual disposition and those who express that disposition in sexual acts. Salvationists are opposed to the victimisation of persons on the grounds of sexual orientation and recognise the social and emotional stress and the loneliness borne by many who are homosexual.
The Army regards the origins of a homosexual orientation as a mystery and does not regard a homosexual disposition as blameworthy in itself or rectifiable at will. Nevertheless, while we are not responsible for what we are, we are accountable for what we do; and homosexual conduct, like heterosexual conduct, is controllable and may be morally evaluated therefore in the light of scriptural teaching.
For this reason such practices, if unrenounced, render a person ineligible for Salvation Army soldiership, in the same way that unrenounced heterosexual misconduct is a bar to soldiership. The Army recognises the strength of feeling about sexual identity, and the difficulty many find in expressing this identity in keeping with scriptural standards.
However, it believes firmly in the power of Gods grace to enable the maintenance of a lifestyle pleasing to him, including a lifestyle built upon celibacy and self-restraint for those who will not or cannot marry. No one who yields to the lordship of Christ and who undertakes by his grace to live in accordance with the teaching of Scripture is excluded from Christian fellowship and service in the Army.
obamanut2012
(26,137 posts)A "forgiving" reading of that passage would be gays should only be tortured.
Gman
(24,780 posts)But I'll keep donating.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)similar work.
I don't get this stubborn attitude -- just give your $$ to a better, non-bigoted organization. Easy.
Maven
(10,533 posts)Response to Maven (Reply #56)
Post removed
Maven
(10,533 posts)I've seen enough of you to know your allegiances are flexible when it suits you. Quite a true blue dem you are.
FreeState
(10,580 posts)The church claims it holds "a positive view of human sexuality," but then clarifies that "sexual intimacy is understood as a gift of God to be enjoyed within the context of heterosexual marriage." The Salvation Army doesn't believe that gays and lesbians should ever know the intimacy of any loving relationship, instead teaching that "Christians whose sexual orientation is primarily or exclusively same-sex are called upon to embrace celibacy as a way of life."
On its webpage, the group claims that "the services of The Salvation Army are available to all who qualify, without regard to sexual orientation." While the words are nice, their actions speak volumes. They blatantly ignore the position statement and deny LGBT people services unless they renounce their sexuality, end same-sex relationships, or, in some cases, attend services "open to all who confess Christ as Savior and who accept and abide by The Salvation Army's doctrine and discipline." In other words, if you're gay or lesbian, you don't qualify.
The organization also has a record of actively lobbying governments worldwide for anti-gay policies - including an attempt to make consensual gay sex illegal. (Yes, you're paying lobbyists with those donations.)
JoeyT
(6,785 posts)It isn't nice to say it, but it's the truth.
JohnnyRingo
(18,641 posts)I would be much less inclined to help.
Though I'm not gay myself, and I admit things like gay marriage isn't one of my primary driving causes, I won't donate to an organization that discriminates against people who want equality... especially for religious reasons.
Since I don't actively research information on GLBT causes, I was unaware of the Salvation Army's policy on this. I promise to take your cue and investigate further. If what the article claims is true (and I have no reason right now to believe it isn't), and the SA universally discriminates against gays, I'll not give another dime. I thought the SA was a group of individual chapters that are locally governed and the money collected by each chapter stayed in that community. If it proves that the local SA here upholds this policy as a matter of organizational compliance, or if the change collected funnels to the top, I can easily ignore that clanging bell for a month.
There are too many other, perhaps more worthy charities, that I don't have to give to anyone in particular. Thanx for the tip.
plantwomyn
(876 posts)Without Gods wrath, his love would become sentimentality. It is not arbitrary or subject to emotion but is a natural consequence of sin, which is seen working itself out in history and in human society as well as in the lives of individuals (Hosea 5:10; John 3:36; Romans 1:18-32; Ephesians 2:3).
Romans 1:18-32 is in the OP.
"It is not arbitrary or subject to emotion but is a natural consequence of sin..."
Any thinking person would come to the conclusion that the Salvation Army's Doctrine calls for the "natural consequence" for homosexuality should be "God's wrath" as called for in Romans. In short, DEATH.
We cannot allow this deflection and diversion tactic can't go on.
The Republican Party put a firewall between themselves and Mourdock and Akin. But, as with the SA Official and their Handbook, there is NO difference in their doctrine document and what their representatives stated. They simply don't have the gonads to stand up for their TRUE core beliefs in the face of media examination. In short they are COWARDS.
Tomorrow, they will soften their message, they will find someone to express the EXACT SAME DOCTRINE in a way that makes them seem reasonable. The question is whether we will stay vigilant enough to call them to task, even when they are wolves in sheep's clothing?
Not that I have anything against wolves.
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)as a ....media person.
John Metz Denny's Obamacare Surcharge Stirs Big Mess For Restaurant Chain
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014313137
Response to JohnnyRingo (Reply #7)
Maven This message was self-deleted by its author.
lindysalsagal
(20,731 posts)Religion just scares me.
sarcasmo
(23,968 posts)jtuck004
(15,882 posts)"... a view that homosexual activity should result in any form of physical punishment. ..."
In other words "they are wrong, sinners, blah, blah, blah, but WE are okay because we don't want to just kill 'em."
I don't see that as much improvement
sarcasmo
(23,968 posts)Donate zero dollars to the Salvation Army.
loyalkydem
(1,678 posts)if people will ever accept us.
Jasana
(490 posts)I know it's hard. I was mostly brought up by my grandparents but my Mom was gay and I spent a few years living with her in the 1970s.
One atrocious memory I have is when one of my best friends suddenly wasn't allowed to be around me. I was so hurt when she just started ignoring me. At some point in school though, she pulled me aside and told me she wasn't mad at me. She said she had seen my Mom kissing Gerry and she had never seen two women kissing before so she asked her parents about it. She said her parents freaked out and didn't want her talking to me anymore.
Now mind you, I was not gay. I was just a seven year old child and those parents punished me too by taking my friend away. I could tell you other stories but you get my point.
My overall point is... it may not seem like it right now but things are slowly getting better. This is a long hard slugfest we're going to be in and we can't give up to people who hate so blindly. People are slowly starting to come around.
reACTIONary
(5,771 posts)sibelian
(7,804 posts)They only have organised religion as a template to compare. They think homosexuality is a form of rebellion.
santamargarita
(3,170 posts)donations to suffer because he can't keep his goddamn mouth shut!
obamanut2012
(26,137 posts)And preach.
santamargarita
(3,170 posts)Jasana
(490 posts)But somebody up thread mentions putting notes in the kettle to remind them of why. I never thought of this before. I'm going to do it this year.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Another one added to my list
plantwomyn
(876 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Matariki
(18,775 posts)obamanut2012
(26,137 posts)Nor do my parents nor my sister and brother. We all give to local hate-free charities instead.
Mosby
(16,350 posts)You all know they need permission to set up outside stores, if their bigotry was more widely known I can't see every grocery store in the country allowing them access to their property like they do now. Just today alone I saw them outside sams club, walgreens and safeway. Nothing like taking a huge financial hit to change a bigots tune.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)Until they change their stance on gays. That is a promise.
jaded_old_cynic
(190 posts)The anti-gay stance is only one of the reasons why. I don't like to give to organizations who apply conditions for their help. Sure you can come into our shelter and have a hot meal, so long as we can proselytize to you. I just happen to believe that helping those in need shouldn't be conditional.
Peace.
kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)NuttyFluffers
(6,811 posts)St. Paul's letters, of which this quote from Romans is from, is a well-known quite hateful screed to one's fellow man (look up all the fun stuff on women next! ) and in general colors the 4 Gospels -- the core text of Christian faith and generally a pretty revolutionary theosophy based on individual worth (salvation) and the belief of a loving God -- in a horrible light due to association.
i many not expect my 2000 year old theosophers to be as progressive in their thinking as we may be today, but given the contrast within the singular testament corpus itself, it's rather embarrassingly unacceptable. Jesus was very interesting; St. Paul, though crucial to Christianity's modern founding, is pretty much just an asshole.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)I can't imagine why anyone would choose them.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)Monopoly money.
A voided check made out to "Sorry, I don't contribute to homophobia."
A used hanky.
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)They make a clink.