"Salvation Army says 'Gays Need to Be Put to Death'”

[TPA85]

Words: I have none...

http://tgvnews.com/2013/06/salvation...-put-to-death/

[AZTheta]

I think that Snopes has further information on this.

Not as black and white as your article posits.

[DrPhil]

Yeah I thought the initial article seemed too "Chik-Fil-A" to me.

I shop at Salvation Army a few times a year. I used to volunteer as one of those donation bell ringers when I was in high school.

I will keep my eyes on Salvation Army and am prepared to tell them to kiss my ass in the name of Jesus.

[AOII Angel]

I don't know, it sounds from the Snopes article like The Salvation Army got caught making a very inflammatory statement and are trying really hard to back track.

[TPA85]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

I don't know, it sounds from the Snopes article like The Salvation Army got caught making a very inflammatory statement and are trying really hard to back track.

This.

That was the feeling I got, too.

[pshsx1]

I refuse to support Salvation Army because they refuse to support me. End of story.

[Sen's Revenge]

Originally Posted by pshsx1

I refuse to support Salvation Army because they refuse to support me. End of story.

Pretty much.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

I don't know, it sounds from the Snopes article like The Salvation Army got caught making a very inflammatory statement and are trying really hard to back track.

Eh, I don't know. Sounds to me like an individual said things that the leadership had to backtrack from. Granted, that individual was a (regional?) media relations director, but still, while a media director can speak on behalf of an organization, he's not the pope—what he says doesn't automatically equal what the Sally Army teaches.

And I can't help feeling the questions have a bit of a when-did-you-stop-beating-your-wife vibe. I have to quibble with the claim that the the Romans passage cited says gays "need to be put to death." What Paul says is that wicked people—among whom he counts not only those who are "given over" to "unnatural desires," but also gossips, idolaters and a variety of others—continue in their wickedness even though they know that under the Law they "deserve death." Of course, before it's over with, Paul will go on to say everyone is a sinner who deserves death, which is why he says the Gospel is good news.

I'm not trying to defend the Sally Army—I don't agree with their position on this subject, and I completely understand the feelings of pshsx1 and Sen. But when I see an "interview" like this one, I can't help feeling that the interviewers weren't really trying to understand the Army's position, but were instead trying to set it up. Either that or they were just couldn't be bothered to understand the Scripture references at issue. Either way, at no time did anyone say gays "need to be put to death, nor did the Army "[go] on record recently" saying so.

My feeling is that if you're going to disagree with a position taken by a group, do so honestly. Don't mischaracterize or caricature their position, much less slander them by saying something like they support people being put to death for being gay. All that does, in my opinion, is undermine opposition to the position by undermining credibility.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Eh, I don't know. Sounds to me like an individual said things that the leadership had to backtrack from. Granted, that individual was a (regional?) media relations director, but still, while a media director can speak on behalf of an organization, he's not the pope—what he says doesn't automatically equal what the Sally Army teaches.

And I can't help feeling the questions have a bit of a when-did-you-stop-beating-your-wife vibe. I have to quibble with the claim that the the Romans passage cited says gays "need to be put to death." What Paul says is that wicked people—among whom he counts not only those who are "given over" to "unnatural desires," but also gossips, idolaters and a variety of others—continue in their wickedness even though they know that under the Law they "deserve death." Of course, before it's over with, Paul will go on to say everyone is a sinner who deserves death, which is why he says the Gospel is good news.

I'm not trying to defend the Sally Army—I don't agree with their position on this subject, and I completely understand the feelings of pshsx1 and Sen. But when I see an "interview" like this one, I can't help feeling that the interviewers weren't really trying to understand the Army's position, but were instead trying to set it up. Either that or they were just couldn't be bothered to understand the Scripture references at issue. Either way, at no time did anyone say gays "need to be put to death, nor did the Army "[go] on record recently" saying so.

My feeling is that if you're going to disagree with a position taken by a group, do so honestly. Don't mischaracterize or caricature their position, much less slander them by saying something like they support people being put to death for being gay. All that does, in my opinion, is undermine opposition to the position by undermining credibility.

Alright, I'll amend that to a highly placed representative of the Salvation Army was caught making a highly inflammatory statement and they are now trying to walk it back. Whether or not the interviewers were trying to understand the Salvation Army's position is neither here nor there. If the representatives of the organization are unable to articulate their position in order to counter that they do NOT believe homosexuals should be put to death, they have issues.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

Alright, I'll amend that to a highly placed representative of the Salvation Army was caught making a highly inflammatory statement and they are now trying to walk it back. Whether or not the interviewers were trying to understand the Salvation Army's position is neither here nor there.

Of course it is. The interview was either one of two things—an attempt to examine/understand the Salvation Army's position or an attempt to embarrass the Salvation Army. The former is the usual purpose of an interview, but the latter seems to be what was going here.

My problem is that this seems to be an incompetent interview (or a set-up) of an incompetent media director who either can't articulate the Salvation Army's actual position or can't recognize when words are being put in his mouth, all followed by news reports that mischaracterize what was actually said. No where does the (stupid) SA representative say gays "need to be put to death."

Like I said, I'm not defending the Sally Army's position on homosexuality. I just prefer to see it taken on honestly.

[AZTheta]

Many (most?) people should NEVER talk to the media. Seriously. This includes me.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Like I said, I'm not defending the Sally Army's position on homosexuality. I just prefer to see it taken on honestly.

I agree. I never like picking sides when I don't know the sides. Why do you type "Sally"?

AZTheta talks to the media everyday. I have proof.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Of course it is. The interview was either one of two things—an attempt to examine/understand the Salvation Army's position or an attempt to embarrass the Salvation Army. The former is the usual purpose of an interview, but the latter seems to be what was going here.

My problem is that this seems to be an incompetent interview (or a set-up) of an incompetent media director who either can't articulate the Salvation Army's actual position or can't recognize when words are being put in his mouth, all followed by news reports that mischaracterize what was actually said. No where does the (stupid) SA representative say gays "need to be put to death."

Like I said, I'm not defending the Sally Army's position on homosexuality. I just prefer to see it taken on honestly.

I agree with what interviews are typically after. The words did not come out of his mouth, but he agreed with what they said and said those were their beliefs. That is not the same as getting into a "So when did you stop beating your wife?" situation. He said what he said and didn't defend their beliefs or deny some pretty heinous accusations. I call BS on this being a misrepresentation of this guy's understanding of the Salvation Army's position. If he didn't hear them, wow, he needs to pay better attention. Either way, he did say all of that when asked those questions, so I stand by my statement that it sounds like the Salvation Army is trying to walk back a highly inflammatory statement made by one of their minions. You have to own it when you make a mistake.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

Either way, he did say all of that when asked those questions, so I stand by my statement that it sounds like the Salvation Army is trying to walk back a highly inflammatory statement made by one of their minions. You have to own it when you make a mistake.

Agree on owning it when you make a mistake, and agree that the Salvation Army is having to walk it back. But I stand by my assertion that he didn't say everything that some of the reports are saying "the Salvation Army says."

And I definitely agree that most people shouldn't be talking to the media. Things are really bad when you can't trust your media person to talk to the media, though.

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Why do you type "Sally"?

"The Sally Army" is an old nickname for the Salvation Army.

[AZTheta]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

AZTheta talks to the media everyday. I have proof.

You a blabbermouth. You in Big Trouble.