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.
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/uploads/2009/02/sastory.pdf PDF!
Agreed in full.
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.
Ok thanks. That’s what I thought the handbook was saying.
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.
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.
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.
[QUOTE=Qin Shi Huangdi]
Ok thanks. That’s what I thought the handbook was saying.
[/QUOTE]
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.
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.
Here’s the Salvation Army’s official stance on homosexuality. http://www.salvationarmy.org.au/about-us_65047/media-centre/current-media-releases/human-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.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
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/www_usn_2.nsf/vw-dynamic-arrays/A2AF0257B165B3C085257A28005D5F1E?openDocument&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.
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.
Salvation Army War Crimes?
The 21st Century is weeeeiiirrrrrrd.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes, yes I’m sure you don’t make any mistake or erroneus interpretation. :rolleyes:
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.
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).
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.
:rolleyes: 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.