The LGBTQP site Pink News posted an article titled, “UK Salvation Army chief defends ban on gay members” by Nick Duffy, May 2, 2016 AD. Note that they describe themselves as “We are a business” and “Our mission is to make a positive impact on gay media” and “we are, unsurprisingly, pro-LGBT.” Thus, they are not reporters but bias agenda driven socio-political activists (more on this at the end of this article).
As we will see, it is a very confused bit of writing so see if you can keep up.
“The UK’s Salvation Army chief” noted that the Christian organization “bans gay people from serving as members”: qualifying terms are that it was the “chief” and that it was about whatever “serving as members” means.
We are then told that the Christian org has “policies actively banning gay people from serving as officers, unless they remain celibate”: they can serve as “officers” as long as they are celibate.
We are then told that “the head of the Salvation Army in the UK” noted that they LGBTQP personages are “banned from becoming officers”: this time it was the “head” and a flat statement that they are simply banned (apparently, celibate or not).
Then “Commissioner Clive Adams” had a televised discussion with Paul O’Grady and the article implies that Adams affirmed that while O’Grady, who is a homosexual, could “wear the group’s uniform…he wouldn’t actually be allowed to be an officer”: so apparently, he could be a member and volunteer (whether celibate or not?) but not an officer (celibate or not?).
The article then notes, “Lewis confirmed: ‘You wouldn’t be allowed to be a member’”: no first name or title is provided, no pervious mention of whoever Lewis is in the article but apparently, O’Grady can “wear the group’s uniform” but “wouldn’t be allowed to be a member” so what would he be, a volunteer?
Clive Adams makes a statement is that much too commonsensical to be accepted as is in our emotive world, “You could volunteer for us, you could come to our church services [but if you want to become a soldier in the Salvation Army, you have to commit to what we believe”: FYI: the open bracket that is never closed is sic..
O’Grady is not quoted as addressing this point but, surprise (not!), he is quoted making an emotive statement, “That’s upsetting, really” but why, “because I know so many men and women who are gay and lesbian and they’d be the most wonderful officers.”
So, this is about the “head” the “chief” the “Comissioner” and about being banned outright, as the article implies, or banned unless they are celibate, as the article implies and banned or not from volunteering, from being “members” form “serving as officers” or all three?
As to LGBTQP who would “be the most wonderful officers” is, I would imagine, is not the issue. The issue is that the very activist LGBTQP community can start their own worldwide benevolence organization. More directly, would it be commonsensical to have pedophiles volunteer at, be members of or officers of a children’s daycare center? After all, they could certainly be “most wonderful” in some respects. How about having iconoclastic Muslims (in the literal sense) handle the Vatican’s icons and statues? Certainly, many of them could be “most wonderful” in some respects.
Well, so much for the Pink News confused and confusing piece.
Example of Pink News bias: they report about
Christian outrage but do not ask what on Earth shoes
have to do with mostly naked gay men.
Fair news would be “Shoe company exploits gay men for money.”
For their part, the Salvation Army has a statement on inclusion which states, “We oppose any discrimination, marginalisation or persecution of any person. We find no scriptural support for demeaning or mistreating anyone for any reason” within the context of “We work with people who are vulnerable and marginalised across the world, and offer very practical help, unconditional assistance and support regardless of race, religion, gender or sexual orientation.”
Within the context of who they employ it is noted that they “employ a large number of people of other faiths, cultures and varying sexual orientation and we respect and value the rich diversity of our staff and the communities in which we serve.”
They have a specific statement on “Condemning homophobia” which notes:
The Salvation Army stands against homophobia, which victimises people and can reinforce feelings of alienation, loneliness and despair. We aim to be an inclusive church where members of the LGBT community find welcome and the encouragement to develop their relationship with God.
A diverse range of views on homosexuality may exist within The Salvation Army – as among the wider Christian (and non-Christian) community. But no matter where individual Salvationists stand on this matter, The Salvation Army does not permit discrimination on the basis of sexual identity in the delivery of its social care or in its employment practices.
That was the UK wing, Now, the Internation Salvation Army site has a nondiscrimination statement which makes a point about #fakenews in relation to “an Australian radio station back in June 2012” wherein a now former Salvation Army of Australia spokesperson made statements which were utterly rejected by the org as a whole.
“The interviewers said that The Salvation Army’s doctrine book Salvation Story talked about these texts [“Romans 1:18-32 passage and some Old Testament Leviticus passages”] in relation to homosexuality. That is factually untrue. The book discussed was already out of print and superseded by another book, The Handbook of Doctrine by the time of this interview.” Frankly, this may be a little slippery: is the statement that it is “factually untrue” that it was in the previous book? In such a case the statement was accurate but would not have been dealing with the currect book.
It is noted that “The Salvation Army does not permit discrimination on the basis of sexual identity in the delivery of its services or in its employment practices.” Also, “The Salvation Army stands against homophobia…We want to be an inclusive church community where members of the LGBTQ community find welcome and the encouragement to develop their relationship with God.” Some people seem to not realize that you can stands against homophobia while not hiring LGBTQP personages. I am not Islamophobic but would not hire a Muslim to pastor a Christain church.
They also refers to “Photoshopped images that portray Salvation Army fundraisers alongside anti-gay slogans.”
Now, back to Pink News for a moment, note that their site specifies, “By accessing any websites owned and/ or operated by PinkNews Media Group Ltd, you are agreeing to abide and be bound by the terms and conditions” which they outline just like any org does.
It is as I have argued time and again: there is a vast difference between the friendly neighborhood LGBTQP next door, on the one hand, the LGBTQP activist movement, on the other hand.
The movement actually turns LGBTQP into not only a sexual preference and but a lifestyle and a worldview. So powerful is this movement that they even get non-LGBTQP personages to take on the LGBTQP worldview as their own. I am referring to deciding between all things such as politics, theology, ethics, etc. based on what the politics, theology, ethics, etc. has to say on the one issue of LGBTQP.
Pink News notes, “we may endorse individual candidates regardless of party based on their stance on LGBT issues” which means that they have turned LBGTQP into a worldview.
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.
Continue reading →