Salvation Army says Gays should be put to death

[Buck Godot]

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim

FYI, here is another Australian Salvation Army page, from the main organization, not just the territorial division, that lists Craib as the main contact for media questions related to the Salvations Army's position on human sexuality.

Wait, let me get this straight. This guy was their official spokesmanon human sexuality?? From the interview I assumed he was some random higher-up who was blindsided by the question and had no authorization to discuss policy. If this is their go to guy for media relations regarding sexuality, they really need to find someone else.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Buck Godot

Wait, let me get this straight. This guy was their official spokesmanon human sexuality?? From the interview I assumed he was some random higher-up who was blindsided by the question and had no authorization to discuss policy. If this is their go to guy for media relations regarding sexuality, they really need to find someone else.

Maybe he made the mistake of telling the truth about their views.

[mister nyx]

Originally Posted by Buck Godot

Wait, let me get this straight. This guy was their official spokesmanon human sexuality?? From the interview I assumed he was some random higher-up who was blindsided by the question and had no authorization to discuss policy. If this is their go to guy for media relations regarding sexuality, they really need to find someone else.

No, they don't. If this is their "Biblical" belief, they shouldn't feel any shame sharing it. And every decent human being should be glad that these fuckos are being straightforward. Everything's better when they're honest about their opinions.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by mister nyx

No, they don't. If this is their "Biblical" belief, they shouldn't feel any shame sharing it.

Yes, they should.

Bibical belief is no excuse. The Bible is wrong.

[Revtim]

I think the point is it would better if they didn't actually hold their vile belief. But as long as they do hold it, it's better that their spokesperson does not hide it.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic

Ya, impersonating my cousin is not actually doing a lot for me.

In my humble opinion, Paul was a politician who simply made Christianity more tolerable for the Roman ruling classes. He re-interpreted the gospel, and certainly brought his anti-women point of view to the fore.

Divinely inspired? Right.

Well if Paul of Tarsus was simply trying to make Christianity more popular among the Roman ruling class, he'd probably have tried to get around the whole "no worshipping Emperors" doctrine (which was the primary reason why Christians were persecuted in the Roman Empire). And considering the times, Paul was not a misogynist-he condemned men who did not support their families and believed both husbands and wives had duties to each other.

[Jackmannii]

Originally Posted by cckerberos

Those don't seem to be particularly noteworthy tenants for Christians to hold.

Noteworthy is in the eye of the beholder. Besides, if you're going to hold tenants, make sure it's explicitly allowed in the rental agreement.

[Kimballkid]

insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy.

Sounds like teenagers.

[Snite]

Paul actually didn't write the women hating stuff. The earliest copies on hand of Paul's writings don't mention hating on women, and he refers to a woman as being "foremost amongst the apostles!" He did write that when a woman prophecizes she should probably have her head covered, but no biggie if she doesn't. Based on how the woman hating verses first showed up in copies made in a specific region, and also appeared in various places in the passage, scholars think a copyist wrote some women hating in the column of his manuscript and later copyists wrote it down thinking it was actual verse.

All details my less-than-perfect memory can't provide can be found by reading the works of Bart Ehrman, a biblical scholar who has devoted a lot of effort of making the mountain of research done on the Bible(specifically the New Testament) layman-accessable.

But yeah, what can you expect from any organization who takes its morality cues from a book which demands rapist and rape victim be married, slavery is totaly cool, and a man proves his righteousness before God by offering up his own daughters to mob to be raped in lieu of the total stranger staying in his house for a night? Anyone who calls themselves Christian and isn't actively antagonized by what their own Bible says is good and just is either sticking their fingers in their ears singing "la la la" or is just a terrible person. Actually, the former is pretty terrible too. I know when I was a believer, my soul was in constant agony until I finally decided I would live by my own morality instead of what my Bible told me. And then I eventually realized I would better myself simply by not believing. And to this day, I constantly find myself doing the right thing for it's own sake more than any Christian I know.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Incidentally, it should be noted that in Christian theology all men are considered sinners and thus deserving of death and damnation which made the Atonement necessary. I haven't read the SA book, so I have no idea whether it means this or whether the fellow was arguing that it'd be good to execute homosexuals or its not really "murder".

[Boyo Jim]

Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi

Incidentally, it should be noted that in Christian theology all men are considered sinners and thus deserving of death and damnation which made the Atonement necessary. I haven't read the SA book, so I have no idea whether it means this or whether the fellow was arguing that it'd be good to execute homosexuals or its not really "murder".

I don't know if anyone here has read the official text, but the damning thing is that the SA's official spokesman on sexual matters in the whole of Australia, has interpreted the text to mean that gays deserve death and God wants them dead. And this guy has been a PR person for the Aussie SA for almost 15 years.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim

I don't know if anyone here has read the official text, but the damning thing is that the SA's official spokesman on sexual matters in the whole of Australia, has interpreted the text to mean that gays deserve death and God wants them dead. And this guy has been a PR person for the Aussie SA for almost 15 years.

I never had the idea that the Salvation Army was of the whole theocratic-type, they seemed to be evangelical but in the relatively mild Billy Graham way.

[Measure for Measure]

Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi

Incidentally, it should be noted that in Christian theology all men are considered sinners and thus deserving of death and damnation which made the Atonement necessary. I haven't read the SA book, so I have no idea whether it means this or whether the fellow was arguing that it'd be good to execute homosexuals or its not really "murder".

The text is available online. I've read the bottom half of page 28. Here it is:

The problem of evil
We do not possess a logical explanation of the existence of evil
in a universe created by a God of love. Both human wickedness
and natural disaster pose enormous problems for Christians.
There is a temptation to ascribe all such evil to the malevolence
of Satan, but while referring to Satan and his angels may shed
some light, it does not fully illuminate the problem. Scripture
offers no explanation of the problem of irrational evil but
teaches that God is in control. Ultimately, even opposing
powers conform to his plans although against their will.
Evil that arises from the wickedness of human beings can be
seen as a risk of our creation as free, personal beings, made in
the image of God. We were made to respond freely to the love
of God, a freedom that must include the freedom to refuse.
God’s plan to save us from the frightening consequences of
rejecting him led to the Cross. (See chapter 7.)

n Genesis 3; 45:5-8 ; Job 1 ; 12:23; Isaiah 45:1-7; Romans 1:18-32;
Ephesians 1:9-10; Colossians 1:19-20

That's it. The passage says nothing about homosexuality: it only cites a passage that is on occasion (mis)used to attack gays. PDF! http://salvationist.ca/wp-content/up...02/sastory.pdf PDF!

Originally Posted by Buck Godot

Wait, let me get this straight. This guy was their official spokesmanon human sexuality?? From the interview I assumed he was some random higher-up who was blindsided by the question and had no authorization to discuss policy. If this is their go to guy for media relations regarding sexuality, they really need to find someone else.

Agreed in full.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi

And considering the times, Paul was not a misogynist-

Misogyny is pretty much misogyny regardless of "the times". If a misogynistic attitude is the majority opinion of the time, that just means that the majority of people at the time were misogynists.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Originally Posted by Measure for Measure

That's it. The passage says nothing about homosexuality: it only cites a passage that is on occasion (mis)used to attack gays. PDF! http://salvationist.ca/wp-content/up...02/sastory.pdf PDF! Agreed in full.

Ok thanks. That's what I thought the handbook was saying.

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

Misogyny is pretty much misogyny regardless of "the times". If a misogynistic attitude is the majority opinion of the time, that just means that the majority of people at the time were misogynists.

I wouldn't say he was a misogynist to-day either, if he were alive. I'm just making the point Paul's ideas weren't just not sexist but actually progressive.

[Boyo Jim]

Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi

I never had the idea that the Salvation Army was of the whole theocratic-type, they seemed to be evangelical but in the relatively mild Billy Graham way.

Read the Wiki page on them, particularly the "Controversy" section. They are very politically active and not at all shy about pressing very hard in lobbying against gay rights.

On the plus side, the page also shows they seem to show a lot more flexibility in adapting their policies than a lot of other crazy religions.

The page has been updated quite recently, and includes several comments about Craib's remarks. One passage I find interesting is that there is a claim that the SA "apologized" for his remarks in a statement on June 23rd. But reading the included text, which appears to be incomplete, IMO it is not an apology at all, just a general statement that many of its members hold very different opinions, and suggesting that Craib's comments were more along the lines of a personal belief than official SA policy. But, even with that, it did not specifically disapprove of the comments he made.

[mister nyx]

Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi

I never had the idea that the Salvation Army was of the whole theocratic-type, they seemed to be evangelical but in the relatively mild Billy Graham way.

Really? Well, then, you're remarkably poorly educated for someone who would decide to talk about Christian theology, aren't you? I suppose there isn't really enough time to hear the rest of your misapprehensions about theology, is there? I suppose curfew is coming.

Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi

Ok thanks. That's what I thought the handbook was saying.

Thankfully, there is a spokesperson to spare us from the indefensible error of postulating that the Salvation Army doesn't believe anyone who has had gay sex deserves death. Some Christians may reason otherwise, but the Salvation Army -- as evidenced by their spokesperson -- is quite clear on that point. Anyone who has had sex with someone of the same sex deserves death. They are clear on this point. It doesn't need confounding or confabulation.

[Boyo Jim]

Ok, here is the full text of the June 23 SA retraction of Major Craib's comments, and it is in fact more of a retraction than the Wiki article I linked to above suggests. Not a 100% retraction, but a close approximation meant to sooth hurt feelings.

On edit... the statement claims the SA has never claimed that gays should suffer physical punishment for their sins, but Major Craib never actually said that. He just said they deserve death. And while the statement does refer to all the precious snowflakiness of human life, is doesn't specifically disavow the idea that they are ok with the idea of gays dropping dead because of their gayness.

[Measure for Measure]

Here's the Salvation Army's official stance on homosexuality. http://www.salvationarmy.org.au/abou...sexuality.html

Clarifications

A Salvation Army statement on homosexuality that dates back to the 1990s has been the subject of public debate this week (17 - 24 June 2012).

The Salvation Army today clarified that the statement was not posted as part of the current debate on gay marriage, and has been on The Salvation Army website for many years.

Ok, so they say they've had this posted since the 1990s. What is their policy?

1. Provision of social services by TSA

The Salvation Army does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in the delivery of its services. All Salvation Army social service programs embrace and work with people ONLY on the basis of need. Salvation Army social service centres around the nation have had multitudes of gay people stay and find acceptance, support and love in TSA’s care.

2. Employment and volunteering with TSA

TSA does not consider sexuality a factor in deciding who we employ, or in the engagement of volunteers. Some of our best employees and volunteers are people who are openly gay.

3. Church involvement with TSA

In terms of Salvation Army church life, homosexual people are welcome to worship with, and join in the fellowship of, Salvation Army churches.

TSA is founded on strong Christian principals which drive and underpin its compassion and desire to work with anyone, without giving up, for as long as it takes.

So if you're gay, you can receive services from SA, you can volunteer for SA, you can be employed by SA and you can worship with SA.

[Boyo Jim]

Originally Posted by Measure for Measure

...So if you're gay, you can receive services from SA, you can volunteer for SA, you can be employed by SA and you can worship with SA.

I wonder if any of our Aussie member can comment on whether this might be a faith-based decision or one based on law? The Wiki page notes that the SA has been quite active in several countries, including the US and New Zealand, in opposing legislation to ensure equal rights for gays, opposing gay marriage, and/or denying spousal rights to employees with gay partners.

[Measure for Measure]

That's a fair question, Boyo Jim.

FWIW, this is from the Salvation Army's US website:

Statement in Response to Australian Radio Interview

Alexandria, Virginia (June 25, 2012) - The Salvation Army in the United States fully and emphatically rejects the statements made by the media director of The Salvation Army Australia Southern Territory regarding the LGBT community. The Salvation Army opposes any discrimination, marginalization or persecution of any person. There is no scriptural support for demeaning or mistreating anyone for any reason including his or her sexual orientation. We stand firmly upon our mission to meet human needs in His name without discrimination.

The Salvation Army in Australia has also rejected the opinions stated and provided additional information which you can view here.

We deeply apologize for the hurt that these statements have caused.

http://www.salvationarmyusa.org/usn/...;charset=utf-8

Here's the mission statement of the Salvation Army USA:

The Salvation Army, an international movement, is an evangelical part of the universal Christian Church. Its message is based on the Bible. Its ministry is motivated by the love of God. Its mission is to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ and to meet human needs in His name without discrimination.

[Boyo Jim]

Interesting this came from the US branch. The above noted Wiki page claims that the SA mounted a campaign of some kind in 2001 with the Bush administration to be exempted from anti-discrimination hiring laws pertaining to gays. The deal backfired when it became public, and the White House acknowledged that's what the SA wanted, but wasn't going to get. Then (still in 2001) the SA announced some kind of plan to offer some benefits to partners of gay employees.

Yet for some reason in 2004, the SA threatened to shut down all operations in NYC unless they were exempted from providing certain benefits to gay partners specified by city ordinance. The city, on orders of Mayor Bloomberg, caved, and the exemption continues to this day.

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

Salvation Army War Crimes?

The 21st Century is weeeeiiirrrrrrd.

[kanicbird]

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

An interview with official Major Andrew Craibe, the Salvation Army’s Territorial Media Relations Director for the Southern Territory in Victoria, can be seen partially(and heard in its entirety) here. One of the interviewers reads directly from the Salvation Army Guidebook:

Later on in the interview they talk about allegations that the group refused assistance to a person in need who wouldn’t agree to participate in an “ex-gay” program.

Pit threads should have some emotional involvement and opinion attached to the OP. Looking, looking again, practicing for a objective writing class?, looking one more time, nope, not here.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Measure for Measure

That's a fair question, Boyo Jim.

FWIW, this is from the Salvation Army's US website:

Statement in Response to Australian Radio Interview

Alexandria, Virginia (June 25, 2012) - The Salvation Army in the United States fully and emphatically rejects the statements made by the media director of The Salvation Army Australia Southern Territory regarding the LGBT community. The Salvation Army opposes any discrimination, marginalization or persecution of any person. There is no scriptural support for demeaning or mistreating anyone for any reason including his or her sexual orientation. We stand firmly upon our mission to meet human needs in His name without discrimination.

The Salvation Army in Australia has also rejected the opinions stated and provided additional information which you can view here.

We deeply apologize for the hurt that these statements have caused.

http://www.salvationarmyusa.org/usn/...;charset=utf-8

Here's the mission statement of the Salvation Army USA:

The Salvation Army, an international movement, is an evangelical part of the universal Christian Church. Its message is based on the Bible. Its ministry is motivated by the love of God. Its mission is to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ and to meet human needs in His name without discrimination.

That's good to see.

It's still disturbing that someone could even think it was okay to say that though. Or not be fired for it.

[Condescending Robot]

And yet the Salvation Army USA is as anti-gay as ever, they have just decided that this doesn't constitute "discrimination" be redefining words. But they have gotten a bunch of people to applaud them for stopping short of advocating literal genocide, so hey! Nothing like the low expectations of morality on the part of Christians.

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by kanicbird

Pit threads should have some emotional involvement and opinion attached to the OP. Looking, looking again, practicing for a objective writing class?, looking one more time, nope, not here.

You really think I have to add something along the lines of: I hereby declare that I am against the discrimination and/or persecution and/or killing of homosexuals.?
Consider it said, asshole.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Originally Posted by mister nyx

Really? Well, then, you're remarkably poorly educated for someone who would decide to talk about Christian theology, aren't you? I suppose there isn't really enough time to hear the rest of your misapprehensions about theology, is there? I suppose curfew is coming.

Yes, yes I'm sure you don't make any mistake or erroneus interpretation.

Thankfully, there is a spokesperson to spare us from the indefensible error of postulating that the Salvation Army doesn't believe anyone who has had gay sex deserves death. Some Christians may reason otherwise, but the Salvation Army -- as evidenced by their spokesperson -- is quite clear on that point. Anyone who has had sex with someone of the same sex deserves death. They are clear on this point. It doesn't need confounding or confabulation.

As noted below, the Salvation Army has retracted the statement and a spokesman is still a human being-he isn't just a walking/talking version of his organization's handbook who can and does hold opinions not in them or even contradictory to them. Look at the Catholic Church for example-it includes everybody from fascist-sympathizing reactionary Opus Dei types to ultra-feminist nuns.

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim

I wonder if any of our Aussie member can comment on whether this might be a faith-based decision or one based on law?

I happened to look up Australian discrimination law to see if they had an equivalent of a protected class for homosexuality. As I recall, there isn't one for the entire country, but New South Wales passed one for homosexuality in 1977. The Catholic Church and the Seventh Day Adventists asked to be exempted (again, from memory).

[Kimstu]

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim

On edit... the statement claims the SA has never claimed that gays should suffer physical punishment for their sins, but Major Craib never actually said that. He just said they deserve death. And while the statement does refer to all the precious snowflakiness of human life, is doesn't specifically disavow the idea that they are ok with the idea of gays dropping dead because of their gayness.

To "be ok" with the idea of one's deity smiting folks to death for being homosexual is appalling, but it is not the same thing as saying "gays should be put to death".

A mortal sin is not the same thing as a capital crime.

Originally Posted by mister nyx

Calm down, man. The Salvation Army spokesperson said that anyone who's had gay sex deserves death. As Kimstu rightly said, untwist your panties, because it's totally ridiculous to get upset about that.

No, of course I didn't say that it was ridiculous to get upset about that. I said it was dishonest to try to equate that with the Salvation Army spokesperson literally wanting gay sex to be made a capital crime. Which it is.

It is certainly reasonable to be upset about the Salvation Army spokesperson or anyone else considering gay sex to be a sin that deserves death. But getting so upset that you inadvertently confuse that attitude (or worse, deliberately conflate it) with actually calling for the state to make gay sex a capital crime is counterproductive.

Either the constriction from your bunched panties is affecting the oxygen supply to your brain, or you have cynically decided that it doesn't matter what the Salvation Army spokesperson actually said as long as you can pretend he said something else.

[Boyo Jim]

Originally Posted by Kimstu

To "be ok" with the idea of one's deity smiting folks to death for being homosexual is appalling, but it is not the same thing as saying "gays should be put to death".

A mortal sin is not the same thing as a capital crime. ...

Did I say anything contrary to this? I am interpreting your citing of my post above my response as some kind of argument against it. My point was that the apology didn't specifically refute what Major Craib actually said, while using rather slippery language to disavow a more outrageous idea (humanity actually punishing gays) that Craib never made. To me it is a rather smooth shifting of attention away from the actuality that they are not disavowing Major Craib's comments.

[Kimstu]

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim

My point was that the apology didn't specifically refute what Major Craib actually said, while using rather slippery language to disavow a more outrageous idea (humanity actually punishing gays) that Craib never made. To me it is a rather smooth shifting of attention away from the actuality that they are not disavowing Major Craib's comments.

Exactly, and a very good point it was. (Sorry if I seemed to be arguing with you about it, that wasn't my intention.)

My point was (meant to be) that the "smooth shifting of attention" was made possible by the very distortion and misinterpretation of Craib's remarks that I've been objecting to. To wit:

1) Craib declares that his organization's doctrine holds that homosexuals "deserve death";

2) opponents make that declaration sound even worse by implying that the organization is actually seeking to have homosexuals executed;

3) and the organization gets to tapdance out of the controversy by responding "Mercy no, we never said we wanted homosexuals executed!" and not addressing what they actually said.


This is one of the reasons why it's good not to try to pretend that something an opponent said is worse than it actually was: the opponent gets to indignantly deny the "worse" part and avoid taking responsibility for what they did say.

[Boyo Jim]

Originally Posted by Kimstu

...My point was (meant to be) that the "smooth shifting of attention" was made possible by the very distortion and misinterpretation of Craib's remarks that I've been objecting to...

I disagree with this. It may be made easier, but it is certainly possible (and frequently done) without some intervening misinterpretations. It is a tried and true tactic to deny comments that sound like (but aren't) the actual comments that were made. Most people don't notice the difference, and while the rest are kinda scratching their heads and going, "Wha...?", the denier is already onto calling the whole mess "yesterday's news".

[Kimstu]

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim

I disagree with this. It may be made easier, but it is certainly possible (and frequently done) without some intervening misinterpretations.

Good point. Again.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Kimstu

Exactly, and a very good point it was. (Sorry if I seemed to be arguing with you about it, that wasn't my intention.)

My point was (meant to be) that the "smooth shifting of attention" was made possible by the very distortion and misinterpretation of Craib's remarks that I've been objecting to. To wit:

1) Craib declares that his organization's doctrine holds that homosexuals "deserve death";

2) opponents make that declaration sound even worse by implying that the organization is actually seeking to have homosexuals executed;

3) and the organization gets to tapdance out of the controversy by responding "Mercy no, we never said we wanted homosexuals executed!" and not addressing what they actually said.


This is one of the reasons why it's good not to try to pretend that something an opponent said is worse than it actually was: the opponent gets to indignantly deny the "worse" part and avoid taking responsibility for what they did say.

Very good post.

It's why it's in someone's interest to speak out against outlandish claims by those on their own side of an issue as well as on the other.

[mister nyx]

Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi

As noted below, the Salvation Army has retracted the statement and a spokesman is still a human being-he isn't just a walking/talking version of his organization's handbook who can and does hold opinions not in them or even contradictory to them. Look at the Catholic Church for example-it includes everybody from fascist-sympathizing reactionary Opus Dei types to ultra-feminist nuns.

So where's the part where they fired him again?

Besides, we're looking at a retraction that contains straight-up lies. The SA is known for refusing to provide services on an equal basis to queer people, and they have legally fought for the right to be discriminatory in how they run their organization, as well as fighting for laws protecting discrimination against queer people in general.

So, uh, how does their lie-filled retraction exonerate them, exactly?

[Boyo Jim]

Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi

...As noted below, the Salvation Army has retracted the statement ...

"As noted below..." where, exactly? Have I missed it? The SA disavowed an idea that Craib did not actually express. They have not disavowed the idea that he DID express.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Originally Posted by mister nyx

So where's the part where they fired him again?

Besides, we're looking at a retraction that contains straight-up lies. The SA is known for refusing to provide services on an equal basis to queer people, and they have legally fought for the right to be discriminatory in how they run their organization, as well as fighting for laws protecting discrimination against queer people in general.

So, uh, how does their lie-filled retraction exonerate them, exactly?

I'm not attempting to defend that. But there is a difference between advocating death for gays and not giving benefits to same-sex partners. There is no evidence to suggest SA believes in the former.

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim

"As noted below..." where, exactly? Have I missed it? The SA disavowed an idea that Craib did not actually express. They have not disavowed the idea that he DID express.

I'm pretty sure persecution includes murder (even in the sense of "we won't actively go out and kill them but won't mind if someone else kills them"):

Alexandria, Virginia (June 25, 2012) - The Salvation Army in the United States fully and emphatically rejects the statements made by the media director of The Salvation Army Australia Southern Territory regarding the LGBT community. The Salvation Army opposes any discrimination, marginalization or persecution of any person. There is no scriptural support for demeaning or mistreating anyone for any reason including his or her sexual orientation. We stand firmly upon our mission to meet human needs in His name without discrimination.

OTOH, as I noted above, it is traditional Christian theology that all humans are sinners and therefore deserving of death making the Atonement necessary. If you mean that, one can hardly them to retract such a core belief.

[Boyo Jim]

The SA of Australia has not made such a pronouncement. The SA of the United States actively promotes discrimination against gays within its own membership, so their statement is not credible.

Please show me a cite which demonstrates the SA as a matter of policy believes every human deserves death.

[mister nyx]

Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi

OTOH, as I noted above, it is traditional Christian theology that all humans are sinners and therefore deserving of death making the Atonement necessary. If you mean that, one can hardly them to retract such a core belief.

I'm not arguing "traditional Christian theology". I'm discussing what this guy said, which was not a statement that all humans deserve death.

[pikey pete]

when people are worrying about other people's sex lives...they have way to much time on their fucking hands.

[Measure for Measure]

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim

The SA of Australia has not made such a pronouncement. The SA of the United States actively promotes discrimination against gays within its own membership, so their statement is not credible.

Please show me a cite which demonstrates the SA as a matter of policy believes every human deserves death.

I'm losing track here.

1. As I understand it, SA-USA wanted flexibility to deny benefits to same-sex partners among their ministers c. 2000. This doesn't exactly destroy their credibility when they state their doctrine. Or have I missed something?

2. SA-USA says, "There is no scriptural support for demeaning or mistreating anyone for any reason including his or her sexual orientation." I think "Kill" falls under "Mistreatment".

3. The "Deserve death" remark in fact was never stated by a representative of SA. It was an interpretation of a gay rights activist of Romans, which wasn't effectively refuted by the representative of SA. (In fact, the rep said, "Well that's our doctrine" - not good).

4. SA-Australia says,

Salvation Army members do not believe, and would never endorse, a view that homosexual activity
should result in any form of physical punishment. The Salvationist Handbook of Doctrine does not
state that practising homosexuals should be put to death and, in fact, urges all Salvationists to act
with acceptance, love and respect to all people.
The Salvation Army teaches that every person is of infinite value, and each life a gift from God to be
cherished, nurtured and preserved.
Question: Why include in your handbook the Romans text from The Bible, which indicates that God
insists that homosexuals deserve to die?
This is a misunderstanding of the text referred to. The Scripture in question, viewed in its broader
context, is not referring to physical death, nor is it specifically targeted at homosexual behaviour. The
author is arguing that no human being is without sin, all sin leads to spiritual death (separation from
God), and all people therefore need a Saviour.

So there's your quote. They continue:

Question: Isn't this inherently anti-Christian, to believe people should be put to death?
The Salvation Army acknowledges that the response in the interview has led to a serious
misunderstanding of our teaching and that clarification should have been given during the interview.
The Salvation Army believes in the sanctity of all human life and believes it would be inconsistent
with Christian teaching to call for anyone to be put to death. We consider every person to be of
infinite value, and each life a gift from God to be cherished, nurtured and preserved.
Question: Do you feel you owe an apology or explanation to all those gay and Lesbian volunteers
and people your organisation supports?
The Salvation Army sincerely apologises to all members of the GLBT community and to all our
clients, employees, volunteers and those who are part of our faith communities for the offence
caused by this miscommunication.
Conclusion
The Salvation Army encompasses a diverse community with a wide range of opinions on human
sexuality and other subjects.
The leadership of The Salvation Army continues to reflect on Christian and Biblical tradition, and
especially on the themes of justice and mercy, to further deepen the understandings of our own
members and build a more healthy relationship with the GLBT community.
We pledge to continue to offer services to all Australians and to treat each person with dignity,
respect and non-discrimination.
Major Bruce Harmer
(Communications and Public Relations Secretary ± Australia Eastern Territory)

This site gives a link to the .pdf, which has the above statement in full. It's a press release, so I didn't worry about copyright. http://www.salvationarmyusa.org/usn/...;charset=utf-8

[Measure for Measure]

Originally Posted by Measure for Measure

1. As I understand it, SA-USA wanted flexibility to deny benefits to same-sex partners among their ministers c. 2000. This doesn't exactly destroy their credibility when they state their doctrine. Or have I missed something?

Point 1 is mangled, and I did some googling.

NYT! , Dec 2011: Allegations that the church denied aid to a homeless gay couple unless they broke up. At the end of the article are denials of a sort by the SA rep.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim

The SA of Australia has not made such a pronouncement. The SA of the United States actively promotes discrimination against gays within its own membership, so their statement is not credible.

The Australian SA also has issued a retraction:

http://www.samesame.com.au/news/loca...eath-quote.htm

which specifically addresses the issue:

This is a misunderstanding of the text referred to. The Scripture in question, viewed in its broader context, is not referring to physical death, nor is it specifically targeted at homosexual behaviour. The author is arguing that no human being is without sin, all sin leads to spiritual death (separation from God), and all people therefore need a Saviour.

Please show me a cite which demonstrates the SA as a matter of policy believes every human deserves death.

The whole idea behind substitionary atonement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substitutionary_atonement

Originally Posted by mister nyx

I'm not arguing "traditional Christian theology". I'm discussing what this guy said, which was not a statement that all humans deserve death.

I'm not defending this fellow, I'm just saying you can't say that this is in anyway representative of the views of the Salvation Army as a whole.

[mister nyx]

Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi

I'm not defending this fellow, I'm just saying you can't say that this is in anyway representative of the views of the Salvation Army as a whole.

. . . he was the person that chapter of the Salvation Army specifically chose as their representative on matters pertaining to sexuality.

[Measure for Measure]

Originally Posted by mister nyx

. . . he was the person that chapter of the Salvation Army specifically chose as their representative on matters pertaining to sexuality.

Wonderful. And the Australian and US branches have retracted his remarks, which incidentally were essentially shoved down his throat by a gay activist.
---------------------------------

Romans:

insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy.

Originally Posted by Kimballkid

Sounds like teenagers.

...or teenaged assholes, as it were. Given first century life expectancy, the superficial target of Paul's attack may very well have been males under the age of 21.


I know it's going to come as a shock to many in this thread, but not all same-sex activities are pure manifestations of deep love and commitment. Some of it is recreational of course (not that I have a problem with that), but other variants are violent and non-consensual. Same sex relationships aren't all pride parades and rainbow flags: in modern times we have something called prison rape, which is inflicted partly for reasons of dominance. That's the sort of scenario we see in Genesis, and it may have very well been what Saint Paul had in mind when he spoke of the assholes in the next town over. So yeah the passage in Romans is homophobic, but it also seems to me to be mostly about other matters.

[mister nyx]

Originally Posted by Measure for Measure

Wonderful. And the Australian and US branches have retracted his remarks, which incidentally were essentially shoved down his throat by a gay activist.

They were remarks he made freely. After being trained in the Salvation Army's stances and beliefs.

I really don't see why I should take a retraction more seriously, given that it came after the well-warranted backlash, and given that the retraction shared in this thread, as I pointed out earlier, is full of lies. It's hard to take a discriminatory organization's retraction seriously when it contains the out-and-out lie that they don't even support discrimination.

I know it's going to come as a shock to many in this thread, but not all same-sex activities are pure manifestations of deep love and commitment. Some of it is recreational of course (not that I have a problem with that), but other variants are violent and non-consensual. Same sex relationships aren't all pride parades and rainbow flags: in modern times we have something called prison rape, which is inflicted partly for reasons of dominance. That's the sort of scenario we see in Genesis, and it may have very well been what Saint Paul had in mind when he spoke of the assholes in the next town over. So yeah the passage in Romans is homophobic, but it also seems to me to be mostly about other matters.

It's impossible for me to imagine what possible relevance this could have, unless you're under some crazy misapprehension that every instance of straight sex is consensual and non-violent. Otherwise I don't see why you'd bring this up. And it has nothing to do with the Biblical text in question, either, certainly: I wouldn't normally describe a prison rape to assert a hierarchical dominance as an example of "men burning with passion for one another".

[Measure for Measure]

Actually, re-reading the Romans verses, my interpretation might be a bit of a stretch. Not wholly implausible, just somewhat dubious.


As for SA, we've established in this thread that the remarks referenced in the OP have no basis in SA's official documents and that furthermore they have been retracted and characterized as a miscommunication.

You are correct though that their stance on discrimination is at odds with their 2004 lobbying of the City of New York. From the New York Times:

And in 2004, in response to a City Council ordinance requiring that organizations with city contracts offer benefits to gay employees’ partners, the Salvation Army threatened to stop operating in New York City. In 2006, the New York State Court of Appeals ruled that Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg did not have to enforce the ordinance, which had been enacted over his veto; the Salvation Army never left New York City.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Measure for Measure

Wonderful. And the Australian and US branches have retracted his remarks,

I find it hard to support an organization that would allow someone like that to be employed at all.

which incidentally were essentially shoved down his throat by a gay activist.

Come on. He said them. He is responsible. What a crock.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Measure for Measure

characterized as a miscommunication.

Lame excuse. We can read the transcript ourselves. It was pretty clear.