The Salvation Army- thoughts?
It was Australia, from the look of it and they rapidly backtracked.
You mean it was one person who made the comment and the Salvation Army rapidly disassociated itself from it ?
I’m sure with a bit of googling you’ll find a committed atheist who has made outrageous comments concerning gays.Posted 4 years ago
Yes Ernie. I’m sure with a bit googling I could find committed X who said Y (for varying X and Y). Unfortunately it is in the DNA of religious types to either hate people like me, think me ‘disordered’ (actually I am a fairly tidy person) or that I’m wallowing in something called ‘sin’ and to be pitied. That ‘person’ was a senior official for the Salvation Army in Aus, not a chap off the street. If it were, I dunno, someone from Microsoft I’d stop and go ‘eh?’. Not so religion.
Here’s some more for you. I guess we could be doing this for a very long time…
I would suggest googling christianity hating gays but I think somehow you’d most probably spend the rest of your life reading the results.
It’s just as well I don’t have to justify where I give my money to, eh?Posted 4 years ago
😕 Erm, your link just emphasises my point, ie, it was a comment made by one individual which the Salvation Army rapidly disassociated itself from.
From your link :
In a statement, the Salvation Army “sincerely apologizes” for Craibe’s “miscommunication” and the “serious misunderstanding” of the group’s beliefs. The scripture in question “is not referring to physical death, nor is it specifically targeted at homosexual behavior,” says Maj. Bruce Harmer of Salvation Army Australia. Instead, the church believes that “no human being is without sin, all sin leads to spiritual death (separation from God),” and that “it would be inconsistent with Christian teaching to call for anyone to be put to death.”
I’m not defending the SA or its views on homosexuality, but to use one apparently outrageous comment by one individual, which the SA quickly disassociated itself from, to provide the basis of the SA’s views on homosexuality, is clearly unfair.Posted 4 years ago
Yes Ernie, the backtrack does say that. Weasel words, as far as I’m concerned because it falls into the religious “quick switch to allegory and woo” type. “Err, we mean’t *spiritual* not physical.” Either that or the man talking wasn’t au fait with his own religion.
Just out of interest – how many ‘outrageous comments’ would it take for me to not be ‘clearly unfair’? Some of the others within the link perhaps? 10? 20? 100?
Lets just say that I refuse to give money to the SA, as I refuse to give money to any religious institution and leave it at that shall we? If you like, this christmas you can put a pound in the SA bucket and say “That’s for Adam”. I’ll add a bit more onto my AKT donation on your behalf.Posted 4 years ago
Yes Ernie, the backtrack does say that.
Do you understand what “backtrack” means ? It means saying one thing then saying the opposite. The SA never said that gays should be put to death, one individual made that comment, they didn’t “backtrack”.
The fact that you have to keep hanging on to one comment which one individual made, rather than looking at what the SA as an organisation says, suggests that you are struggling. How about a link which clearly spells out the SA views on homosexuality by the SA itself ?
It is a historical fact that some of the leading anti-gay activists, specially in the United States, have been gay themselves. Even the persecution of gays by nazi and neo-nazi organisations have been in some instances been led by gays. I don’t however denounce all gays because of the anti-gay activities of a few gays.
If you like, this christmas you can put a pound in the SA bucket and say “That’s for Adam”. I’ll add a bit more onto my AKT donation on your behalf.
For a variety of reasons I’m not a huge fan of the SA, for that reason I am unlikely to make a donation Christmas or at any other time.Posted 4 years ago
Ah Ernie, you’re doing it again. Every single time I have any discussion with you it turns into a sort of argument. And I’m usually a happy-go-lucky chap.
Tell you what.
From henceforth please don’t interact with me. And I won’t with you. I think it will be better all-round if that’s the case.Posted 4 years ago
Vey gay. As gay as you can get! 🙂
Twice before I have “discussed” things with Ernie. The first time ended up being quite heated and led to me feeling that STW was such a bag of poo that I avoided the forums for over a year. Left a bad taste (no, don’t go there….!). The second time I was accused of flouncing a year or so ago. It’s a shame as I think that on a political level we probably have similar views. However I have not had any other altercations with any other member (not even Fred or TJ).
I guess I do have a good memory which could be a bane and tend to pop in and just touch on topics as opposed to have big discussions, so will remember them when they occur.
Anyhoo my views are clear: I don’t give to any religious organisations and look askance at the SA. That’s the last I’m saying on this thread and will now move on to — oo – “Glistening thighs”. Sounds right up my street! 😯 😀 😆Posted 4 years agokonabunnyMember
I’m sure with a bit googling I could find committed X who said Y (for varying X and Y).
Or you could just read the link I posted before which dealt with that very event in Australia!
We’ve gone a long way from “In the US they have refused to help anyone gay. Apparently the boss over there thinks gay parents should be put to death” to “one provincial press officer in Australia once said something to a couple of provincial DJs which was rejected by the organization”.Posted 4 years agoDavidBSubscriber
I think they have serious bottle. I’ve been in some really rough old pubs close to closing time and the SA old ladies cheerily breeze in and try to sell Warcry. No amount of abuse phases them and in the end I’ve seen them disarm total yobs with a nice elderly smile. Much more bottle than the Jehovahs who have prepared an escape route from your front door and I doubt spend much time in Moss side.Posted 4 years agozokesMember
But not when someone has a different opinion to you ? ffs
It probably depends on how that opinion is voiced. Your usual means of voicing contrary opinions, ernie, is to antagonise. Whether that’s deliberate or not I don’t know, but it is how you frequently come across. I accept the pot/kettle situation in me saying this, and I’m actively trying to change that myself.Posted 4 years agoTooTallMember
My tiny personal experience of them:
They were running a superb soup kitchen in Peterborough. Peterborough is probably one of the worst places I’ve ever been to. The SA there were helping people at the bottom of that place. They were doing it with a smile, with good grace and without any bias or hatred in their hearts. Every organisation has good and bad.Posted 4 years ago
It’s hardly “arguing” to point out that it is obviously not the aim of the Salvation Army to have gays put to death. Whatever one individual might have said.
Unfortunately it’s clear that AdamW is not used to anyone having the temerity to contradict anything he says with regards to all gay related matters. So if he says the aim of the Salvation Army is to have gays put to death then no one must dispute it. Apparently.Posted 4 years agohoraMember
They were running a superb soup kitchen in Peterborough. Peterborough is probably one of the worst places I’ve ever been to. The SA there were helping people at the bottom of that place. They were doing it with a smile, with good grace and without any bias or hatred in their hearts. Every organisation has good and bad.
There used to be a place called the King St mission in Huddersfield that I’d describe as similar. I think I’ll volunteer to help out on Christmas day.Posted 4 years ago
The topic ‘The Salvation Army- thoughts?’ is closed to new replies.