Salvation Army says Gays should be put to death

The BBQ Pit
101

No you can’t, because it hasn’t been posted. What has been put forward are excerpts: those who don’t want to listen to the 30 minute interview (like me for example) don’t have a solid grasp of what the rep was referring to.

I’ll quote the excerpt in full and add my comments: RYAN: . . . that says, according to the Salvation Army, that [they] deserve death. How do you respond to that, as part of your doctrine? Me: Misleading question. CRAIBE: Well, that’s a part of our belief system. Me: Sure it is. It’s standard Christian theology: see Qin’s link on substitionary atonement. Christians believe that Jesus offers the path to eternal life: those not making use of that door suffer eternal death. It’s a little mean (and has been softened with the doctrine of the righteous pagan) but it’s not exclusive to homosexuals. Quite the contrary. RYAN (cutting in): So we should die.

CRAIBE: You know, we have an alignment to the Scriptures, but that’s our belief.

RYAN:  Wow. So we should die. So Craib didn't exactly *say* those things: he gave the verbal equivalent to a nod.  I think "Putting words in his mouth" applies, as the rep presumably became befuddled by his attempt to not deny scripture.

We don’t know how Craib responded to Ryan’s last (mis)interpretation of Romans because we don’t have links to a full transcript.

What about Truth Wins Out? That was some awful reporting by Ryan, and their refusal to post the full transcript smacks of rank hypocrisy.
All that said, my personal guess is that if the transcript was posted, that Craibe would still appear at best incompetent, and most probably a befuddled loon. I’m not convinced that he should lose employment with the group: I doubt though whether he should be allowed to wander anywhere near the media office.

102

So Craib didn’t exactly say those things: he gave the verbal equivalent to a nod. I think “Putting words in his mouth” applies, as the rep presumably became befuddled by his attempt to not deny scripture.
[/QUOTE]

Craib indicated he agreed with the statement. He was the ‘officer’ that his branch of the SA army chose to represent them on these issues. It’s not as though some LGBT group managed to grab someone out of their accounting office. I wouldn’t expect most people working for the organization to represent them before the media. But that’s what this guy’s job was, and that’s what they paid him for. He was the person that the SA trained and entrusted to communicate their message about LGBT people. And given everything else about the organization’s track record, the SA saying this is not exactly a big shock.

It’s annoying, but calling a group rankly hypocritical because they didn’t pay for a transcriptionist is a pretty big stretch.

103

Crap: I have to retract again.

  1. The transcript is from a radio show, so Truth Wins Out can’t post it without copyright issues.

  2. The reporters are hosts of a gay talk show. Salt and Pepper’ takes a salacious look at the week that was. Think of it as a queer media watch’ Serena, the salty one and Pete,the peppery one, are a couple of grumpy old journo types who bring you an overview of the week in media. From Royal Wedding wank to the simplest of idiots making stupid errors, we will look at media treatments of gay events around the world, and the headlines that you didn’t read right here in our own back yard. No one is immune – not event our own joystars. Join them to hunt through headlines, and wade through mediocrity, and just have a rollicking time. Guest spots over the series will include an etiquette guide from the modern gay and lesbian kids, brought to you by the fabulous Noni Hazlehurst, along with a bevy of special guests, most of them insomniacs. Salt and Pepper is a show like no other and that’s more than likely a good thing. Hosting a narrowcast show is different from a news segment. I think their questions were bogus, but media reps should be able to handle that sort of thing.
    http://www.cpod.org.au/page.php?id=307

Cross post: Damn, nyx beat me to the punch.

104

Ok, I downloaded the .mp3 and listened to ~6:15 - 9:10. The radio DJs would ask questions, then cut the guy off before he could fully answer the question. That’s fine: that’s entertainment.

I don’t really have a good grasp on the Salvation Army’s stance. But it does seem that the 2 DJs weren’t especially interested in it: they spoke for far longer than their guest did, who was not even permitted to complete his sentences.

It was a bullshit interview.

105

And, as pointed out to you before, it’s a basic Christian belief that ALL PEOPLE DESERVE DEATH. So he’s not singling out Gay people. You aren’t being persecuted by this. There’s really nothing wrong with what he said other than the fact that it sounds bad.

You’ve been shown that your interpretation of what was said is based on ignorance. You refuse to change your mind. You just have to believe that they must have been persecuting you.

Isn’t that the same shit that Christians get made fun of for?

106

:rolleyes: And as been pointed out before, that’s not what he said. He’s being faulted for what he said, not what you wish he had said. And that’s not what that those verses in Romans under discussion – the ones he agreed with – say either. I reread them and they do not remotely say that all people “deserve death”.

The SA spokesman in question said that LGBT people deserve death on account of who we are. There’s something very fucking wrong with that statement, whether or not your astonishingly defective brain can understand it. It “sounds bad” because it’s fucking appalling, no matter how many lame-ass excuses you try to make for it.

No, no one has shown me any such thing. The most that has been pointed out was something I conceded on page one – that he didn’t in fact call for LGBT people to be put to death, merely said that we deserve death.

I don’t know what the fuck this bullshit about “persecuting me” has to do with anything. He’s safely on a different continent from he, so he’s not persecuting me. I can still say safely that what he said is absolutely unacceptable, no matter how much whining you do.

:rolleyes: For once in your life, shut up, you useless fucking imbecile. I know you think the experience gained from eating can after can of Spaghetti-Os in your mom’s basement somehow gives you some unique perspective with which to moralize at everyone else but let me assure you, it does not. The endless torrent of sniveling idiocy that pours forth from you does not disguise the fact that you are a tedious ninny who has no more business advising us on moral correctness than you have on how best to perform brain surgery, how to find a boyfriend or girlfriend, or how to avoid getting Cheeto dust all over our genitals. Since you know nothing about these topics or pretty much anything else at all, just fucking shut up.

107

This was good. Just wanted to let you know it didn’t go without notice.

108

Aww, thanks!

109

Cite? And by that I mean, “Give me the quote.”
And look. Listen to the interview. The transcript above is misleading, as it doesn’t explicate that they cut off the spokesman at every turn.

Here’s my transcript. Edits are welcome:

RYAN: Because it’s really interesting. I had a little read last night all 170 pages of it. Um, and I came across a couple of chapters that kind of worried me. One of which is the problem of evil. And um it talks about human weakness and um it posing an enormous problem for Christians and it referred to the Romans, which is Book 1, 18 to 32.
My comment: I quoted the 181 word section on the Problem of Evil here. It does not mention human weakness, nor does it allude to homosexuality as far as I can tell. It does speak of free will though. It cites 6 passages of the Bible, one of which is Romans, and quotes none of them. RYAN: And it talks about the evil of women engaging in natural sexual relations with other women and the same way that men abandon natural relations with women and are inflamed with lust for one another. Um look it kind of concerns me that although this says that although they know God’s righteous decree, that those who do such things deserve death. That’s in Romans 18 to 32 and that’s in your book of doctrines - it’s part of the handbook that you give out to your soldiers. No that’s not part of the handbook. The handbook has a cite: that’s all. And as we’ve established upthread, Ryan’s characterization of Romans is bunk. RYAN: Now if I’m a fledgling homosexual and I find that I might need some religious dogma or guidance and I go to the salvation and I have not declared my homosexuality to myself so I’m not going to declare it to you. If I go and I read that, and I connect to my sexuality Andrew, then that says that according to the Salvation Army, that I deserve death. How do you respond to that, as part of your doctrine?

CRAIBE:  Well, that’s a part of our belief system, you know we...

RYAN (cutting in):  So we should die.

CRAIBE: We have an alignment to the Scriptures, but that’s our belief.

Me: Full disclosure. Ryan doesn’t cut him off here, but she doesn’t give him a pause either. Craibe thinks, “Alignment to the scriptures” covers things - there’s the cock-up.
RYAN: Wow. So we should die. So this on page 28 of the Salvations Story that you can download on line. It’s wonderfully available I love that.
MfM: Highly misleading, as Ryan is aware. The quote is not on page 28 of the Salvations Story. RYAN: Um if we go a bit further into sin which on page 61 and 63 again it’s going into Romans again… Me: Those pages cite Romans 7:7-25, which I have not reviewed, as well as 4 other passages of the Bible. The referenced passages of the SA handbook doesn’t mention homosexuality explicitly, though they discuss sin in general. Highly misleading presentation.
RYAN: …and look you know I accept that you’re out there wanting to help people. I don’t consider myself part of the oppressed or the marginalized. Um, I don’t accept that this sexuality that is part of my DNA is a choice. I also don’t accept the support of any religion in a financial sense, and this is what the gay community is up in arms about: that you’re proposing in your religious doctrine and the way that you train this is part of your training of your soldiers that because we’re gay, that we must die. If you go to Romans, book 1, 18-32, it’s all there, mate. I mean, how can you stand by that? How is that Christian?

CRAIBE: Well, well, because that is part of our Christian doctrine, that's...

RYAN (cutting in):  But how is that Christian? Shouldn’t it be about love?

CRAIBE: ...that’s our understanding of that. Well, the love that we would show is about that: consideration for all human beings to come to know salvation ...

RYAN: (cutting in) Or die. . .

CRAIBE: (befuddled) Well, yes...

DILLON: (cutting in) I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings but we’re all going to die. It’s just [a matter of] when. I just want to bring up something else which is part of your articles of war. When you’re becoming a soldier with the Salvation Army, there are certain beliefs or covenants that one must agree to. One of those states that we believe that the scriptures of the Old and New Testiment that were given by the inspiration of God so that there any constitute the divine rule of Christian faith and practice. In those said Testiments we want to talk about Old Testiment …Leviticus. Me: …and that’s where I stop listening. Jumping from “We believe in the Bible”, to “Ah-Ha! Here’s a zinger passage!”, is silly.

Let all note the wild imbalance between the length of the questions and the length of the answers. That did not happen because the SA spokesperson was curt: it happened because they wouldn’t let him finish his sentences.
Finally, I’d like to offer a crazy hypothesis. People don’t join the Salvation Army because of their mastery of the fine parts of Christian theology. They do it because they like to help people, especially the downtrodden.

110
  • Footnote. To my ears, some editing in the audio occurs at this point – though it could have also been some sort of artifact. If indeed editing occurred, this could be a Breitbart level deception. I raise this possibility but lodge no accusation. After all, we have established dishonesty on the part of the radio hosts.
111

I’m going to start by addressing what I’d consider the key bit.

This bit, on its own, is damning, in my view. I would say that calling it a “cock-up” is kinda insufficient.

Well aware of that. And I agree, as I think I made clear way earlier in this thread, that I don’t think the questions were fair. However, that doesn’t make me think the answers that Craibe gave were defensible.

Agreed. And I would think it would be ridiculous, in and of itself, to hold the Salvation Army to this point in much the same way that I think it would be ridiculous to hold observant Jews or Christians to account for Psalm 137. But what’s at issue was that their spokesdude agreed with the passage. Many other Christians adhere to the Bible and have ways of understanding these anachronistic passages – after all, there are plenty of Christians who believe whole-heartedly in equality for LGBT people. This guy, manifestly, is not one of them. I know Christians who find Craibe’s viewpoint just as appalling as I do; it’d be awfully unfair to treat his views as equivalent to theirs.

I’m not sure I agree. I reread that chapter of Romans a couple times over the course of this thread to make sure I wasn’t in error. It’s got some . . . problematic bits.

As I pointed out earlier in the thread, the Salvation Army is not just a charitable group; they are also a Christian denomination in their own right. Which means they espouse a certain dogma and I think they ought to be held to account for the really unacceptable bits of it.

They also have a long history of opposition to LGBT equality, and well I can’t help but get more pissed off at their shitty fucking attitudes when they spout absolute bullshit lies about being opposed to discrimination against us (when they not only do it themselves, both in employment and in provision of charitable services, but also use their money to campaign against our legal equality). None of this changes the good works they do, to be sure, but I think it’s a bit short-sighted to assume that those who join their organization don’t hold with the organization’s views.

112

And just WHO is this, may I ask, that does the unaccepting of it, hmmmmmm?

113

That would be those of us who are not so sociopathic that we think that LGBT people “deserve death”, as this person does.

114

Well, I don’t think so either. That’s why I added that squib about the passage from the twelfth chapter of Romans. I don’t think this Salvation Army person paid any attention to that. I doubt they ever do. :frowning:

115

SA is a cult hiding as a charity.:wink:

116

SA is a cult/scam hiding as a charity
Scientology is a cult/scam hiding as church
OTOH That’s how us Freemasons set them up to confuse the rest of the world so they won’t find out we’re secretly trying to control the world’s coffee supply and the BCS.

:smack: Ooops, I shouldn’t have told you that last bit.

YOU DO NOT SEE THE FNORD:dubious:

117

A poster on another forum (not even a Christian), claimed that the SA restricting services to heterosexuals was no different from a charity specifically for pregnant women.