Christians who don't make my skin crawl!

[Aruntraveller]

Just seen this, it has long been known that the Sally Army is homophobic. They are clearly trying to distance themselves from it but tis true, from Wiki but other sources are available:

The Bible teaches that God's intention for humankind is that society should be ordered on the basis of lifelong, legally sanctioned heterosexual unions. ... A disposition towards homosexuality is not in itself blameworthy nor is the disposition seen as rectifiable at will. ... Homosexual practice however, is, in the light of Scripture, clearly unacceptable. Such activity is chosen behaviour and is thus a matter of the will. It is therefore able to be directed or restrained in the same way heterosexual urges are controlled. Homosexual practice would render any person ineligible for full membership (soldiership) in the Army.[26]

It doesn't bother me particularly as I am not interested in, nor ever have been, any type of "soldiering".

But the prejudice is there for you to see.

As an aside the local gay pub in Nottingham in days of yore (Gatsby's) was opposite the local Sally Army - they used to come in begging for money every Friday & Saturday nights. Hypocrites or what. We still donated though. Sometimes nice to take the moral high ground.

[SteveH]

Holding a belief that you disagree with is not necessarily prejudice, nor is appealing for money for good causes from people whose lifestyle you disagree with hypocritical.

[Aruntraveller]

Holding a belief that you disagree with is not necessarily prejudice, nor is appealing for money for good causes from people whose lifestyle you disagree with hypocritical.

Holding a belief is fine. It is acting on it that is the problem. Where have I heard that before? 

[ProfessorDavey]

The Sally army will offer help to anybody in distress. If you want to spit in their face, go ahead. You will be the one who looks like a bigot.

Since when did the SA become sacrosanct - a kind of sacred cow that is not allowed to be subject to criticism.

My criticism is completely legitimate and based on their own accounts and publicity materials/policies. How exactly does it make me a bigot to criticise an organisation that discriminates on the basis of sexuality, gander or race in their membership. In this case it is sexuality, in other cases (e.g. certain famous golf clubs) it is gender - I am critical of those organisations too.

Rather than throw around personal insults why don't you actually address my criticisms of the SA namely:

1. That their policy on who can become a member of the organisation is discriminatory on the grounds of sexuality.

2. That they only spend 22% of their income on activities that help vulnerable people (massively out of step with other charitable organisations working in the same space).

3. That their publicity used for their main fund-raising campaign (The Big Collection for People in Need) is disingenuous at best, dishonest at worst in claiming 'Please give as generously as you can as 100% of all donations to the Big Collection will directly support the church and charity’s work to help people in need.' When only 22% is going to help people in need.

[ProfessorDavey]

Holding a belief is fine. It is acting on it that is the problem. Where have I heard that before? 

But the SA do act upon their beliefs via discriminatory action and policy - namely that they will allow a married heterosexual person to become a member but they ban married homosexual people from becoming members. That is clearly discriminatory action.

[ProfessorDavey]

Holding a belief that you disagree with is not necessarily prejudice, nor is appealing for money for good causes from people whose lifestyle you disagree with hypocritical.

How about not telling the people that you are asking for donations that most of their money wont go to helping people in need.

[jeremyp]

What have you got against the Sally Army?

Good question. I think it's the pseudo militaristic schtick.

N.B. - blank statements with no justifying reasons are not very helpful.

I'm describing a feeling I get when thinking about the Salvation Army. I'm afraid you are going to have to just take my word for it that it happens.

[SteveH]

Good question. I think it's the pseudo militaristic schtick.

It's a metaphor, and there are two kinds of metaphor: "and" ones and "but" ones: the first says that the tenor is good, and so is the vehicle, and the second says that the tenor is bad but the vehicle is good. It can at least be argued that the SA's military imagery is of the "but" type: physical warfare is bad, but spiritual warfare is good. This is the same as Paul's imagery of the sword of the spirit, etc.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Good question. I think it's the pseudo militaristic schtick.
I'm describing a feeling I get when thinking about the Salvation Army. I'm afraid you are going to have to just take my word for it that it happens.

I'm waiting for the New atheist answer to it.
Dawkin's Dragoons
Russell's Rangers
Charles Bradlaughs barmy army

After three.......over the hills and faraway.

[jeremyp]

It's a metaphor, and there are two kinds of metaphor: "and" ones and "but" ones: the first says that the tenor is good, and so is the vehicle, and the second says that the tenor is bad but the vehicle is good. It can at least be argued that the SA's military imagery is of the "but" type: physical warfare is bad, but spiritual warfare is good. This is the same as Paul's imagery of the sword of the spirit, etc.

It's a metaphor that makes my skin crawl. Sue me.

[SteveH]

It's a metaphor that makes my skin crawl. Sue me.

Fine. "There's no accounting for taste", as the man said before eating 50 raw eggs. I might add that I am both an admirer of the SA and almost a pacifist.

[ProfessorDavey]

It's a metaphor that makes my skin crawl. Sue me.

The military schtick doesn't bother me that much - it's a bit odd but each to their own. What bothers me is that they discriminate against gay people (banning them from becoming members) and 'market' themselves to the public as an organisation that helps needy and vulnerable people, when those activities represent a small proportion of their overall activities and donations are as likely to be used to support their:

'Church and Evangelism Programmes
This represents Christian worship and the teaching and promotion of the Christian message at our corps, regionally and nationally.'

Their own words in their annual report - they spend pretty well the same amount of the money you donate on this as they do on community programmes helping vulnerable people. Shame they don't make this clear when asking for donations.

So if you want most of the money you donate to be spent on helping vulnerable people, donate to Crisis, Centre-point and any number of other charities working in our communities. If you want most of the money you donate not to be spent on helping vulnerable people, donate to SA.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Anchs,

I thought I already responded.
The interpretation of Christian marriage which the SA espouses as a Christian church -which it is - is in accord with mainstream Christian evangelical thought.

Then "mainstream Christian evangelical thought" is institutionally homophobic too.

That's not a good thing by the way.

[Rhiannon]

Anchs,

Then "mainstream Christian evangelical thought" is institutionally homophobic too.

That's not a good thing by the way.

Love the sinner, hate the sin blah blah.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Rhi,

Love the sinner, hate the sin blah blah.

For several reasons one of the most contemptible of all Christian sentiments in my (rarely humble) opinion.

[SteveH]

Rhi,

["Love the sinner, hate the sin is f]or several reasons one of the most contemptible of all Christian sentiments in my (rarely humble) opinion.

Why?

[bluehillside Retd.]

SteveH,

Why?

Because:

- It treats (in this case) homosexuality being a “sin” – ie, somehow immoral - as a given;

- It then covers the tracks of that nasty little prejudice with the hypocrisy of, “but look I’m a nice guy too – I’m prepared to love those who do it nonetheless”;

- It provides intellectual cover for those who would act on it – from “conversion therapy” types to those who would beat up gay men on the street. “Well, the Church thinks it’s bad so really I’m just going a bit further in my attitudes and behaviour”.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

SteveH,

Because:

- It treats (in this case) homosexuality being a “sin” – ie, somehow immoral - as a given;

- It then covers the tracks of that nasty little prejudice with the hypocrisy of, “but look I’m a nice guy too – I’m prepared to love those who do it nonetheless”;

- It provides intellectual cover for those who would act on it – from “conversion therapy” types to those who would beat up gay men on the street. “Well, the Church thinks it’s bad so really I’m just going a bit further in my attitudes and behaviour”.

That is ridiculous. There is a big difference between telling somebody that what they do is wrong, and beating them up in the street. Our church teaches that homosexual sex is wrong, and should be confessed to a priest. If you are not a member of our church, you do not have to live by our rules.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Humph,

That is ridiculous. There is a big difference between telling somebody that what they do is wrong, and beating them up in the street. Our church teaches that homosexual sex is wrong, and should be confessed to a priest. If you are not a member of our church, you do not have to live by our rules.

But you are affected by them – so long as we privilege the claims of clerics over just guessing (by giving them seats in the legislature, having schools set aside for their teachings, consulting them in the media on issues of morality etc) they have authority and influence they extends beyond those who would turn up on a Sunday to hear this bile.

In short, they contribute to the Zeitgeist.   

[Walter]

As I said before, you are insisting that your definition of faith is the only possible one.

my skin is crawling !!!!

[SteveH]

SteveH,

Because:

- It treats (in this case) homosexuality being a “sin” – ie, somehow immoral - as a given;

- It then covers the tracks of that nasty little prejudice with the hypocrisy of, “but look I’m a nice guy too – I’m prepared to love those who do it nonetheless”;

- It provides intellectual cover for those who would act on it – from “conversion therapy” types to those who would beat up gay men on the street. “Well, the Church thinks it’s bad so really I’m just going a bit further in my attitudes and behaviour”.

You said you hated "love the sinner, hate the sin" in general, not with reference to homosexuality.

[Rhiannon]

Why?

I share BHS’s opinion here, in my case because love is a universal concept, but sin is a Christian invention that has little to do with love. Feel free to hate evil; homosexual relationships do not fall into that category.

[SteveH]

I share BHS’s opinion here, in my case because love is a universal concept, but sin is a Christian invention that has little to do with love. Feel free to hate evil; homosexual relationships do not fall into that category.

I agree that loving, faithful, lifelong homosexual relationships are not evil; indeed are positively good.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

Humph,

But you are affected by them – so long as we privilege the claims of clerics over just guessing (by giving them seats in the legislature, having schools set aside for their teachings, consulting them in the media on issues of morality etc) they have authority and influence they extends beyond those who would turn up on a Sunday to hear this bile.

In short, they contribute to the Zeitgeist.

Blue,

That is the Anglican church, which is not the church to which I belong. FTR the main complaint about the Orthodox Church in the cold war era was that some of the priesthood would snitch to the communist authorities some of the things that they heard in confession. Those that did not could end up in prison, many did.

[Rhiannon]

I agree that loving, faithful, lifelong homosexual relationships are not evil; indeed are positively good.

I feel the same about short, fleeting relationships based on great sex. They aren’t sinful either, gay or straight or poly or whatever, so long as they aren’t exploitative.

Now I know some really fucked up ones with a ‘lifelong commitment’, but that’s a whole other story.