Salvation Army says “Gays Need to Be Put to Death”

[Mighty AC]

Wow! This really negates the good charity work they do. The man being interviewed is the media relations director, not just a crackpot volunteer 'soldier'. As Hitchens once said "religion poisons everything."

Major Andrew Craibe, a Salvation Army Media Relations Director, went on public radio hosted by journalist Serena Ryan, to discuss a recent call by LGBTQ parents for a boycott of the nonprofit for its anti-gay policies and beliefs.

“ Ryan: According to the Salvation Army gay parents deserve death. How do you respond to that, as part of your doctrine?”

“Craibe: Well, that’s a part of our belief system.”

Ryan: So they should die.”

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

“Ryan: You’re proposing in your doctrine that because these parents are gay, that they must die.”

“Craibe: Well, well, because that is part of our Christian doctrine"

“Ryan: But how is that Christian? Shouldn’t it be about love?”

“Craibe: Well, the love that we would show is about that: consideration for all human beings to come to know salvation…”

“Ryan Or die…”

“Craibe: Well, yes.”

http://tgvnews.com/2013/06/salvation-army-says-gays-need-to-be-put-to-death/

[Michael Hardner]

The SA will suffer from having this non-Christian in such a prominent position, in my opinion. Unless I hear that he's been shown the door, I will walk past their Christmas donation box this year. There are plenty of secular organizations that aren't confused as he is about what constitutes 'good works'.

[Mighty AC]

The problem is those beliefs aren't just Craibe's personal views; they are spelled out in the 'Salvationist Handbook of Doctrine'. Mr. Craibe is really just being honest about SA beliefs. Showing him the door just sweeps the hate under the rug.

[Argus]

The SA will suffer from having this non-Christian in such a prominent position, in my opinion. Unless I hear that he's been shown the door, I will walk past their Christmas donation box this year. There are plenty of secular organizations that aren't confused as he is about what constitutes 'good works'.

Salvation Army apologizes.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2012/06/24/australian-salvation-army-apologises-for-spokesman-arguing-gays-should-be-executed/

[Michael Hardner]

Salvation Army apologizes.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2012/06/24/australian-salvation-army-apologises-for-spokesman-arguing-gays-should-be-executed/

Further to that - clarifies:

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.

[Guest American Woman]

Unless I hear that he's been shown the door, I will walk past their Christmas donation box this year. There are plenty of secular organizations that aren't confused as he is about what constitutes 'good works'.

I'd just like to point out that by not giving them money you're not hurting the Salvation Army one bit - you are only hurting the recipients of the money they raise.

[Moonlight Graham]

The problem is those beliefs aren't just Craibe's personal views; they are spelled out in the 'Salvationist Handbook of Doctrine'. Mr. Craibe is really just being honest about SA beliefs. Showing him the door just sweeps the hate under the rug.

I listened to the whole interview a few days ago. You're correct, the passaged are (apparently) referenced in the SA Handbook. Craibe himself is a religious nutcase. He stated several times he supports the view that gays deserve to die.

Important to note that lots of good people work for the Salvation Army, and many of them are not even Christian or religious. They should amend these views and remove the hateful parts of the Handbook.

[cybercoma]

I'd just like to point out that by not giving them money you're not hurting the Salvation Army one bit - you are only hurting the recipients of the money they raise.

Would you support terrorists if they were building schools for children? Because they do, you know.

[Mighty AC]

Important to note that lots of good people work for the Salvation Army, and many of them are not even Christian or religious. They should amend these views and remove the hateful parts of the Handbook.

I agree completely, but I expect that they will just stick with the 'you're interpreting it wrong' bit and leave the handbook as is.

[Guest Peeves]

Update. perhaps a misunderstanding? A misinterpretation? \

Salvation Army Australia apologizes for official's anti-gay comments

The SA will suffer from having this non-Christian in such a prominent position, in my opinion. Unless I hear that he's been shown the door, I will walk past their Christmas donation box this year. There are plenty of secular organizations that aren't confused as he is about what constitutes 'good works'.

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/06/26/12422740-salvation-army-australia-apologizes-for-officials-anti-gay-comments?lite

Excerpt;

"On Saturday, two days after the interview, Salvation Army Australia issued a statement seeking to clarify its stance on gays and lesbians.

“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 behavior. 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,” the statement said.

“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 statement added: “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.”

The Salvation Army bills itself as one of the world’s largest Christian social welfare organizations, with more than 1.65 million members working in at least 123 countries."

[Mighty AC]

A misinterpretation? I may have bought that line if the Salvation didn't actively lobby against equal rights for homosexuals, and their spokesperson hadn't done the interview listed in the OP. I hope they just update their handbook.

[Michael Hardner]

I'd just like to point out that by not giving them money you're not hurting the Salvation Army one bit - you are only hurting the recipients of the money they raise.

I can give the money to other organizations that serve the same goals. It makes no difference to me. They're asking for something and I'm not going to respond. Anyway, the point is moot - I accept their response to this, so I will give (the little amount I do)

[Guest American Woman]

I can give the money to other organizations that serve the same goals. It makes no difference to me. They're asking for something and I'm not going to respond. Anyway, the point is moot - I accept their response to this, so I will give (the little amount I do)

My point is that people give money to the SA at Christmas because they are right there ringing their bell, with their little red bucket. It's not a planned effort on the part of the people who give, The SA are there, so people give a bit - because they are there and it's easy to give just a bit here and there; and it adds up. It's the children who don't get toys and the families who don't get food who are hurt when people don't give. The SA isn't hurt at all. Just thought it was worth pointing that out.

I also think it's worth pointing out that Craibe is hardly "the spokesperson" for the SA; he is simply a representative of one part of Australia. To have judged the whole organization by his interpretation was rather harsh .

Edited June 12, 2013 by American Woman

[kimmy]

This is hardly the Salvation Army's first brush with controversy relating to homosexuality. I decided quite a while ago to support other organizations instead. I am sure that the bell-ringers around at Christmas are well-meaning people, and I feel a little bad passing them by, but it's not about them.

-k

[Michael Hardner]

My point is that people give money to the SA at Christmas because they are right there ringing their bell, with their little red bucket. It's not a planned effort on the part of the people who give, The SA are there, so people give a bit - because they are there and it's easy to give just a bit here and there; and it adds up. It's the children who don't get toys and the families who don't get food who are hurt when people don't give. The SA isn't hurt at all. Just thought it was worth pointing that out.

They're not hurt in the same way that a company is hurt by a boycott, but I do think their feelings are hurt and their image ... changes a bit. Evidence for this could be the reaction from the PR wing of the SA.

The fact is that same-sexness is tolerated and accepted by mainstream society today, so institutions that have a moral problem with it have to adjust to the changing values. For many Christians, such as the ones in my family, this is not an adjustment at all. Many of us have been interpreting the "hate the sin, not the sinner" idea this way for years.

I also think it's worth pointing out that Craibe is hardly "the spokesperson" for the SA; he is simply a representative of one part of Australia. To have judged the whole organization by his interpretation was rather harsh .

Well, you're right. But from the OP he seemed to have a rather lofty title. It wasn't so much that I expected that he spoke for the whole organization, but rather I was curious as to how they would react to his (IMO) hateful remarks.

[cybercoma]

This is hardly the Salvation Army's first brush with controversy relating to homosexuality. I decided quite a while ago to support other organizations instead. I am sure that the bell-ringers around at Christmas are well-meaning people, and I feel a little bad passing them by, but it's not about them.

-k

I think they are responsible in some ways. They might mean well, but they're supporting an organization with reprehensible policies by volunteering for them and continuing to belong to them.

[Guest American Woman]

I think they are responsible in some ways. They might mean well, but they're supporting an organization with reprehensible policies by volunteering for them and continuing to belong to them.

So must think all Muslims are responsible and you must find Islam reprehensible too ....

Edited June 13, 2013 by American Woman

[cybercoma]

So must think all Muslims are reprehensible then ....

Islam has no central authority.

[Guest American Woman]

Islam has no central authority.

It has the Quran.

[The_Squid]

So must think all Muslims are responsible and you must find Islam reprehensible too ....

If an individual Muslim belonged to a particular church that espoused violence and knew about it, then yes... it would be reprehensible.

It has the Quran.

Your analogy is a bit broad...

Edited June 13, 2013 by The_Squid

[Guest American Woman]

If an individual Muslim belonged to a particular church that espoused violence and knew about it, then yes... it would be reprehensible.

An "individual?" As opposed to the whole? Please.

[The_Squid]

An "individual?" As opposed to the whole? Please.

Please what?

If an individual supports a particular organization that espouses reprehensible views, then they are at least partly responsible... what's so difficult to understand about that?

[Guest American Woman]

Please what?

If an individual supports a particular organization that espouses reprehensible views, then they are at least partly responsible... what's so difficult to understand about that?

So all Muslims, then. Or are you saying that all Muslims don't believe in the Quran?

[The_Squid]

So all Muslims, then. Or are you saying that all Muslims don't believe in the Quran?

Not all Muslims believe in violence and not all Muslim organizations promote violence or hatred. Much like Christians and the bible. There is a lot of violence and hatred in the bible as well... slavery, genocide, stonings... You name the violent act, and it was done in the name of God for some silly reason or another... but not all groups or individuals are hateful, despite believing in the book.

If you want to paint all Muslims with the same brush, but not Christians, feel free. It's your right to be a bigot.

[Guest American Woman]

Not all Muslims believe in violence and not all Muslim organizations promote violence or hatred. Much like Christians and the bible. There is a lot of violence and hatred in the bible as well... slavery, genocide, stonings... You name the violent act, and it was done in the name of God for some silly reason or another... but not all groups or individuals are hateful, despite believing in the book.

If you want to paint all Muslims with the same brush, but not Christians, feel free. It's your right to be a bigot.

Much like members of the Salvation Army and the SA doctrine?

Seems to me I'm not the one painting anyone. Perhaps you wouldn't recognize a bigot if it bit you in the - well, you get the idea.