If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Raw Story)   KY children's home enacts anti-discrimination policy to allow LGBT employees in order to avoid losing government funding. KY churches decide to withhold their funding instead. Won't someone please think of the children?   (rawstory.com) divider line 274
    More: Asinine, LGBT, think of the children, LGBT employees, churches, discrimination, financing, Crooks & Liars, WDRB  
•       •       •

3874 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Mar 2014 at 3:47 PM (28 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



274 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-03-11 12:32:59 PM

"Oh, you mean they might possibly encounter a gay person at some point? Well, fark those kids. I'm keeping my money."

brgulker.files.wordpress.com

 
2014-03-11 12:35:23 PM
Look, once those kids get Gay Cooties, it's for life, like Herpes.  Just let 'em go, man.
 
2014-03-11 12:37:29 PM
Christians.  Just... Christians.  Fark.
 
2014-03-11 12:38:07 PM
It's more important to discriminate against gays than to provide day care services to poor people
 
2014-03-11 12:39:16 PM
Tax the churches.
 
2014-03-11 12:39:36 PM
My parents were houseparents at a children's group home when I was growing up. At the time, I didn't understand the way that the director had to play politics with everyone in order to keep funding going, I just heard my parents b*tching about it an awful lot.

Thing is, they forced the kids to attend religious services as a condition of staying there, with the alternative being a "reform school" type of institution. It did not endear Christianity to any of them the way you might think, especially considering that it was such a fundamentalist church.

Having said that, the idea that these churches are somehow "protecting" these kids from gay people is laughable. Here's a hint: these kids already interact with gay people on a daily basis, and nothing you can do or say to these kids will change the fact that some of them will be gay themselves.

The tragedy of this, to me, is that it cost this director his job. He was trying to do the right thing and get funding for these kids. Thing is, no one takes a job like that unless they really do want to do some good; it doesn't pay very well at all, and you have to take the "self-satisfaction" of doing genuinely good work by providing children who have suffered abuse and neglect through no fault of their own with an alternative to the institutions as part of your salary.
 
2014-03-11 12:43:08 PM

netizencain: It's more important to discriminate against gays than to provide day care services to poor people


This isn't day care services; it's for children who have been removed from their parents' care due to abuse or neglect. Sometimes the parents are in prison, sometimes they are drug addicts who can't or won't provide for their children. Places like this provide an alternative to the "boarding school" atmosphere of most state-run facilities. It provides the kids with a more home-like atmosphere, usually with their own bedrooms. The one I spent the most time at even provided private bathrooms for each child. Each home generally has about 6-8 kids and a set of full-time "house parents" who perform mommy and daddy duties on a more personal level than the institutions.
 
2014-03-11 12:49:01 PM

ox45tallboy: netizencain: It's more important to discriminate against gays than to provide day care services to poor people

This isn't day care services; it's for children who have been removed from their parents' care due to abuse or neglect. Sometimes the parents are in prison, sometimes they are drug addicts who can't or won't provide for their children. Places like this provide an alternative to the "boarding school" atmosphere of most state-run facilities. It provides the kids with a more home-like atmosphere, usually with their own bedrooms. The one I spent the most time at even provided private bathrooms for each child. Each home generally has about 6-8 kids and a set of full-time "house parents" who perform mommy and daddy duties on a more personal level than the institutions.


But it's still WAY more important for a good Christian to discriminate against gay people than to provide kids with food, clothing and shelter.

/HEY!  Is that a millstone?  Wow - I've never seen one this close up.
 
2014-03-11 12:49:06 PM

ox45tallboy: netizencain: It's more important to discriminate against gays than to provide day care services to poor people

This isn't day care services; it's for children who have been removed from their parents' care due to abuse or neglect. Sometimes the parents are in prison, sometimes they are drug addicts who can't or won't provide for their children. Places like this provide an alternative to the "boarding school" atmosphere of most state-run facilities. It provides the kids with a more home-like atmosphere, usually with their own bedrooms. The one I spent the most time at even provided private bathrooms for each child. Each home generally has about 6-8 kids and a set of full-time "house parents" who perform mommy and daddy duties on a more personal level than the institutions.


Jesus... that's even worse
 
2014-03-11 12:51:46 PM
So much for "love thy neighbor" and "judge not".
 
2014-03-11 12:54:24 PM
Whose funding would Jesus pull?
 
2014-03-11 12:59:52 PM
I'd really like to know how many children were removed from broken homes of homosexual parents.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-03-11 01:09:42 PM
ox45tallboy:

The tragedy of this, to me, is that it cost this director his job. He was trying to do the right thing and get funding for these kids. Thing is, no one takes a job like that unless they really do want to do some good; it doesn't pay very well at all, and you have to take the "self-satisfaction" of doing genuinely good work by providing children who have suffered abuse and neglect through no fault of their own with an alternative to the institutions as part of your salary.

So nothing at all like religion.
 
2014-03-11 01:10:42 PM
"And we know that, at least for now, the state appreciates that, needs the ministry of Kentucky Baptists to these children, thrilled to have the relationship,"

... what?
 
2014-03-11 01:12:11 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: But it's still WAY more important for a good Christian to discriminate against gay people than to provide kids with food, clothing and shelter.

/HEY!  Is that a millstone?  Wow - I've never seen one this close up.


At first, I was thinking that maybe the churches didn't really want to pull their funding, they were just trying to put pressure on the home to reverse course on a policy. But the director did reverse the policy, and the churches still demanded his head on a pike for even considering the policy.

I once asked my dad if he thought Jesus would refuse to serve a gay couple who came into Joseph's carpentry shot looking for a dining room table. He told me that he really thought he would.

I don't think people read the Bible looking for Jesus's message of love and compassion anymore. In fact, I think they purposefully skip over those parts. I love my dad, but I can't believe anyone would want to subscribe to any religion that taught hate and bigotry. Back when my parents were doing this kind of work, they would have probably threatened to resign if the organization had hired a gay person, especially if that person was ever *gasp* interacting with the children. And that sucks. At least this next generation will hopefully know better.
 
2014-03-11 01:25:52 PM

Relatively Obscure: "And we know that, at least for now, the state appreciates that, needs the ministry of Kentucky Baptists to these children, thrilled to have the relationship,"

... what?


They're technically a religious nonprofit, but it's still up in the air as to whether they are considered a "church" and therefore exempt from such things as the Obamacare contraception mandate and gender discrimination in hiring practices. This goes back to those Republican "faith based initiatives" in which religious organizations could get funding for the government for their ministry as long as they were actually doing good work. Think "feed the homeless" programs run out of some churches, only as a condition for receiving a free lunch (paid for almost entirely by the government, mind you), the homeless people are forced to go through certain religious rituals.

They view themselves as a "government partner" because they receive government funding and in return they demand complete autonomy and exemption from government regulations due to their status as a religious body. By "government partner" what they mean is that they see themselves as helping the government out, not the other way around.
 
2014-03-11 01:26:47 PM
I was told that we didn't need the gubmint to provide what private charities would.
 
2014-03-11 01:32:13 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: But it's still WAY more important for a good Christian to discriminate against gay people than to provide kids with food, clothing and shelter.


So, it's not bigotry when you do it. I get it.
 
2014-03-11 01:40:18 PM

ox45tallboy: Relatively Obscure: "And we know that, at least for now, the state appreciates that, needs the ministry of Kentucky Baptists to these children, thrilled to have the relationship,"

... what?

They're technically a religious nonprofit, but it's still up in the air as to whether they are considered a "church" and therefore exempt from such things as the Obamacare contraception mandate and gender discrimination in hiring practices. This goes back to those Republican "faith based initiatives" in which religious organizations could get funding for the government for their ministry as long as they were actually doing good work. Think "feed the homeless" programs run out of some churches, only as a condition for receiving a free lunch (paid for almost entirely by the government, mind you), the homeless people are forced to go through certain religious rituals.

They view themselves as a "government partner" because they receive government funding and in return they demand complete autonomy and exemption from government regulations due to their status as a religious body. By "government partner" what they mean is that they see themselves as helping the government out, not the other way around.


Okay.  I'm still not sure the sentence I quoted makes any sense at all.
 
2014-03-11 01:43:50 PM

Old_Chief_Scott: Benevolent Misanthrope: But it's still WAY more important for a good Christian to discriminate against gay people than to provide kids with food, clothing and shelter.

So, it's not bigotry when you do it. I get it.


Since when did I say children should be de-funded because the Director wants to hire a Christian?
 
2014-03-11 01:46:57 PM

Old_Chief_Scott: Benevolent Misanthrope: But it's still WAY more important for a good Christian to discriminate against gay people than to provide kids with food, clothing and shelter.

So, it's not bigotry when you do it. I get it.


Huh?
 
2014-03-11 01:48:55 PM
I love the people that think:

"Not allowing me to discriminate as I see fit is a form of discrimination. I should be allowed to discriminate against anyone I choose, and not letting me do that is an infringement of my rights."
 
2014-03-11 01:52:52 PM

Sin_City_Superhero: Old_Chief_Scott: Benevolent Misanthrope: But it's still WAY more important for a good Christian to discriminate against gay people than to provide kids with food, clothing and shelter.

So, it's not bigotry when you do it. I get it.

Huh?


He means, I'm the real discriminator here, for pointing up their discrimination.  It's the same "logic" as the GOP racist playbook.
 
2014-03-11 01:57:46 PM

Relatively Obscure: Okay.  I'm still not sure the sentence I quoted makes any sense at all.


Point taken. Apparently proper use of the English language, especially in a statement to the press, is secondary in importance to these people to f*cking people of the opposite sex.

It came from a pure and holy man of God's mouth that has never had a penis in it, therefore God understands what he meant.
 
2014-03-11 02:02:24 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: Sin_City_Superhero: Old_Chief_Scott: Benevolent Misanthrope: But it's still WAY more important for a good Christian to discriminate against gay people than to provide kids with food, clothing and shelter.

So, it's not bigotry when you do it. I get it.

Huh?

He means, I'm the real discriminator here, for pointing up their discrimination.  It's the same "logic" as the GOP racist playbook.


No, what I mean is that you become what you abhor when you use "Christian" as your label.
 
2014-03-11 02:09:10 PM

Old_Chief_Scott: No, what I mean is that you become what you abhor when you use "Christian" as your label.


I'm not following you. How do you mean that? Can you please elaborate?
 
2014-03-11 02:23:33 PM

Sin_City_Superhero: Old_Chief_Scott: No, what I mean is that you become what you abhor when you use "Christian" as your label.

I'm not following you. How do you mean that? Can you please elaborate?


I'm not sure what h means, but I think what he could mean is that the label of "Christian" just doesn't mean "follower of Christ" the way that "Buddhist" means "follower of Buddha". Most people who use the label in order to defend their actions do so to defend an action that pretty much no one who reads the teachings of Jesus and the accounts of his life could see Jesus as having taken. You just don't see Buddhists do this sort of thing.
 
2014-03-11 02:25:42 PM

Old_Chief_Scott: Benevolent Misanthrope: Sin_City_Superhero: Old_Chief_Scott: Benevolent Misanthrope: But it's still WAY more important for a good Christian to discriminate against gay people than to provide kids with food, clothing and shelter.

So, it's not bigotry when you do it. I get it.

Huh?

He means, I'm the real discriminator here, for pointing up their discrimination.  It's the same "logic" as the GOP racist playbook.

No, what I mean is that you become what you abhor when you use "Christian" as your label.


It's not the same.  Being 'Christian' is a choice.
 
2014-03-11 02:34:29 PM
*sigh*

The point is that by using the label "Christian" instead of the specific "The Kentucky Baptist Convention" you lump all Christians in with the perpetrators. That is the very definition of bigotry, isn't it? It's the same as when someone tosses out "Red State" or "Blue State", it's a convenient way to lump together a group of people for the purpose of marginalizing them in some way.
 
2014-03-11 02:44:31 PM

Old_Chief_Scott: *sigh*

The point is that by using the label "Christian" instead of the specific "The Kentucky Baptist Convention" you lump all Christians in with the perpetrators. That is the very definition of bigotry, isn't it? It's the same as when someone tosses out "Red State" or "Blue State", it's a convenient way to lump together a group of people for the purpose of marginalizing them in some way.


I wouldn't say that it's bigotry, per se. They ARE Christians. Perhaps it's misleading if it makes it seem like ALL Christians are the same way, but it's not incorrect to call them Christians, if that's what they are.
 
2014-03-11 02:48:53 PM

Sin_City_Superhero: wouldn't say that it's bigotry, per se. They ARE Christians. Perhaps it's misleading if it makes it seem like ALL Christians are the same way, but it's not incorrect to call them Christians, if that's what they are.


Your thought being that it's stereotyping but not bigotry?
 
2014-03-11 02:50:08 PM

Old_Chief_Scott: *sigh*

The point is that by using the label "Christian" instead of the specific "The Kentucky Baptist Convention" you lump all Christians in with the perpetrators. That is the very definition of bigotry, isn't it? It's the same as when someone tosses out "Red State" or "Blue State", it's a convenient way to lump together a group of people for the purpose of marginalizing them in some way.


You make a very good point. However, the meaning of "Christian" has changed quite a bit throughout the years, and even today, the definition changes based on geography. In the Middle Ages in Europe, "Christian" meant Catholic and nothing else. Post-Henry VIII, Christian in the UK mean the Church of England. "Christianity" in modern Africa has different elements of former religions of the area, the same way that European Christianity contains Pagan elements such as the "borrowing" of legends of Mithras for the story of Jesus.

Today in America, the "Christian" label has been taken by evangelical Protestants, mainly because they use it more loudly and more often than most other denominations. Like it or not, the actions of these people and the use of this label to justify or explain their actions reflects on everyone else who uses this label. I'm not saying that's the way it should be, just that it's the way it is. I feel it is up to those people who wish to use the label but do not agree with these beliefs or actions to publicly denounce them just as loudly, and use the label the way they feel it should be used.

Then again, I'm a techie guy. I gave up on "hacker" and "cable/DSL modem" a long time ago. They now mean something different than they used to (hell, a cable or DSL "modem" is not in any shape, form, or fashion a "modem" since there is no modulating/demodulating), and I can't do a damn thing about it.
 
2014-03-11 02:58:52 PM

Gecko Gingrich: Sin_City_Superhero: wouldn't say that it's bigotry, per se. They ARE Christians. Perhaps it's misleading if it makes it seem like ALL Christians are the same way, but it's not incorrect to call them Christians, if that's what they are.

Your thought being that it's stereotyping but not bigotry?


Not exactly, but sort of.  My point is that it's not incorrect to refer to a small group of Christians as Christians, except in that you make it seem as though you're referring to ALL Christians.  It's correct to refer to surgeons as doctors.  They ARE doctors.  Just because there are doctors that AREN'T surgeons, doesn't mean that surgeons are not doctors.  It's a sub-set of another group being referred to by the main group's identity.  That MAY or MAY NOT be confusing, but it's not incorrect.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-03-11 03:01:17 PM
Old_Chief_Scott:

He means, I'm the real discriminator here, for pointing up their discrimination.  It's the same "logic" as the GOP racist playbook.

No, what I mean is that you become what you abhor when you use "Christian" as your label.


No it's  not.  This is a comment thread for a specific article.  It's pretty clear what sort of Christian people are referring to.
 
2014-03-11 03:02:53 PM
Let me guess....Baptists?

*checks article*

The Kentucky Baptist Convention, which approves of the anti-LGBT policy, is now back in the Sunrise's corner.

Sweet merciful crap, I wish I were more surprised. These people really have a hard-on for prejudice against gays, don't they?

I'll admit, I'm no expert on their specific denomination and I don't know any Southern Baptists well, but is there some kind of underlined or italicized text in the Baptist Bible that encourages so many of them to be such raging assholes?
 
2014-03-11 03:10:02 PM

Old_Chief_Scott: *sigh*

The point is that by using the label "Christian" instead of the specific "The Kentucky Baptist Convention" you lump all Christians in with the perpetrators. That is the very definition of bigotry, isn't it? It's the same as when someone tosses out "Red State" or "Blue State", it's a convenient way to lump together a group of people for the purpose of marginalizing them in some way.


The most shocking thing is the complacency from all the other Christian groups.  Everyone is upset when moderate muslims don't speak out against jihadists... this is the same thing.  One of the largest Christian organizations in Kentucky is shiatting all over the teachings of Christ.  But $5 says your pastor/priest wont discuss this in Church on Sunday.
 
2014-03-11 03:18:48 PM

miss diminutive: I'll admit, I'm no expert on their specific denomination and I don't know any Southern Baptists well, but is there some kind of underlined or italicized text in the Baptist Bible that encourages so many of them to be such raging assholes?


How would they know?
 
2014-03-11 03:22:03 PM

ox45tallboy: miss diminutive: I'll admit, I'm no expert on their specific denomination and I don't know any Southern Baptists well, but is there some kind of underlined or italicized text in the Baptist Bible that encourages so many of them to be such raging assholes?

How would they know?


Bold text?
 
2014-03-11 03:30:25 PM
Why would any organization fund something that it opposes? You may not like and it may suck but it's perfectly reasonable.
 
2014-03-11 03:32:34 PM

miss diminutive: ox45tallboy: miss diminutive: I'll admit, I'm no expert on their specific denomination and I don't know any Southern Baptists well, but is there some kind of underlined or italicized text in the Baptist Bible that encourages so many of them to be such raging assholes?

How would they know?

Bold text?


Okay, how would they know about the bold text?
 
2014-03-11 03:44:12 PM

Old_Chief_Scott: *sigh*

The point is that by using the label "Christian" instead of the specific "The Kentucky Baptist Convention" you lump all Christians in with the perpetrators. That is the very definition of bigotry, isn't it? It's the same as when someone tosses out "Red State" or "Blue State", it's a convenient way to lump together a group of people for the purpose of marginalizing them in some way.


Isolated incident, folks. Nothing to see. Move along.

Hey, I know -- pointing out the other Christian groups that are jumping in to make up the lost funding would go a long way towards making me think you have a leg to stand on. Heck, maybe even two legs. Actions/words, etc.
 
2014-03-11 03:47:36 PM

Contrabulous Flabtraption: Why would any organization fund something that it opposes? You may not like and it may suck but it's perfectly reasonable.


The Baptist church opposes children's homes? That doesn't sound right.

Ohh you mean it opposes hiring homosexuals. Because of all those passages in the bible about not hiring homosexuals.

Which passages are those?
 
2014-03-11 03:50:22 PM
KY Jelly.
 
2014-03-11 03:50:23 PM
Too much KY plus children in one headline
 
2014-03-11 03:50:46 PM
Whenever people tell me about all the charitable work that churches do I always respond that it's too bad that the good stuff they do is so completely caked in shiat that it doesn't matter.
 
2014-03-11 03:52:00 PM

miss diminutive: Let me guess....Baptists?

*checks article*

The Kentucky Baptist Convention, which approves of the anti-LGBT policy, is now back in the Sunrise's corner.

Sweet merciful crap, I wish I were more surprised. These people really have a hard-on for prejudice against gays, don't they?

I'll admit, I'm no expert on their specific denomination and I don't know any Southern Baptists well, but is there some kind of underlined or italicized text in the Baptist Bible that encourages so many of them to be such raging assholes?


I bolded the part that explains why they are such a bigoted, backwards, primitive bunch even when compared to other Christian denominations.  Hope that helps.
 
2014-03-11 03:52:09 PM

scottydoesntknow: I'd really like to know how many children were removed from broken homes of homosexual parents.


I'd really like to know how many children were created by homosexual parents.
 
2014-03-11 03:52:15 PM
Jesus wanted little kids suffering though, IIRC.
 
2014-03-11 03:52:34 PM

Sin_City_Superhero: I love the people that think:

"Not allowing me to discriminate as I see fit is a form of discrimination. I should be allowed to discriminate against anyone I choose, and not letting me do that is an infringement of my rights."


Contrabulous Flabtraption: Why would any organization fund something that it opposes? You may not like and it may suck but it's perfectly reasonable.


No, read above. You do not have the right to decide who gets your money.
 
2014-03-11 03:53:00 PM
People that worship a dead guy on a stick are creepy, anyway.
 
2014-03-11 03:53:36 PM
Did someone say "KY" and "children"?

2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-03-11 03:53:39 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: Christians.  Just... Christians.  Fark.


Pretty much this.  Church is the new white hood.
 
2014-03-11 03:54:09 PM

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: Jesus wanted little kids suffering though, IIRC.


Well, he did say, "Suffer the little children..."
 
2014-03-11 03:56:34 PM

ox45tallboy: miss diminutive: ox45tallboy: miss diminutive: I'll admit, I'm no expert on their specific denomination and I don't know any Southern Baptists well, but is there some kind of underlined or italicized text in the Baptist Bible that encourages so many of them to be such raging assholes?

How would they know?

Bold text?

Okay, how would they know about the bold text?


Are you implying that they don't read the bible...or that they collectively suffer from an inability to read bold text?
 
2014-03-11 03:56:47 PM
It's almost funny in a way to see these whacky fundies keep fighting a battle that's already over. Like those batshiat crazy old Japanese guys in New Guinea, shaking rusty bayonets at the locals and screaming out "Emperor take New York!``
 
2014-03-11 03:58:11 PM
This facility will be closed within 24 months.
 
2014-03-11 03:58:12 PM

ox45tallboy: Old_Chief_Scott: *sigh*

Then again, I'm a techie guy. I gave up on "hacker" and "cable/DSL modem" a long time ago. They now mean something different than they used to (hell, a cable or DSL "modem" is not in any shape, form, or fashion a "modem" since there is no modulating/demodulating), and I can't do a damn thing about it.


Totally OT but... since when?

DOCSIS uses QAM, which has Modulation right in the acronym:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOCSIS#Features

Similar with DSL modems that use very high frequencies. They require a filter so you can use a standard phone with them, because otherwise you interrupt the modulation/demodulation.

Now, it's not using the classic audio-frequency level modulation of a traditional telephone modem, but it's still quite assuredly a modem.
 
2014-03-11 03:59:21 PM
Once again, regardless you say it's for peace, whatever, it's all a scam;. It's about holding others down;. Doesn't matter how they coat it, it still stinks like a shiat sandwich.
If they're gay, Bi, or whatever, supposedly you say it's gods will what he does with these people, but I know, if these people were speaking for me, I'd be tempted to go all old testament on their asses. I'd do it Korea-style too. 3 generations.
 
2014-03-11 03:59:55 PM
There comes a time when awake Christians realize that they have met more demons inside the Church than outside it.
 
2014-03-11 04:00:04 PM

Friction8r: scottydoesntknow: I'd really like to know how many children were removed from broken homes of homosexual parents.

I'd really like to know how many children were created by homosexual parents.


www3.pictures.zimbio.com
"Oh, Marcus and I are the proud parents of 28* wonderful children.... wait, what?"



*This is actually true. They have five children of their own and had custody of 23 different foster children for at least some time
 
2014-03-11 04:00:55 PM

miss diminutive: ox45tallboy: miss diminutive: I'll admit, I'm no expert on their specific denomination and I don't know any Southern Baptists well, but is there some kind of underlined or italicized text in the Baptist Bible that encourages so many of them to be such raging assholes?

How would they know?

Bold text?


I think he was subtly implying they don't actually read the Bible.
 
2014-03-11 04:01:14 PM

Contrabulous Flabtraption: Why would any organization fund something that it opposes? You may not like and it may suck but it's perfectly reasonable.


"We want to help children but they might come into contact with the gay, so we will pull your funding and because you even considered employing the gay you should lose your job."

Yep, perfectly reasonable.
 
2014-03-11 04:01:39 PM

Contrabulous Flabtraption: Why would any organization fund something that it opposes? You may not like and it may suck but it's perfectly reasonable.


They aren't required to, but it really isn't reasonable. They're using children as pawns in their bullshiat, which is as slimy as it gets. We're perfectly allowed to call them out on their Christian behavior.
 
2014-03-11 04:02:04 PM
Nice of the Feds to hold a Children's Home hostage.
 
2014-03-11 04:02:27 PM
Anyone who has any kind of moral center in KY will immediately stop giving money to the church and will give the same amount directly to this children's charity.

It is so repulsive that this church group feels that spreading and enforcing their hate is more important than a children's charity.
 
2014-03-11 04:03:29 PM
I dunno if they want to fund this or that with their charity money that is their decision, maybe a secular charity group can take up the mantle.
 
2014-03-11 04:03:43 PM

miss diminutive: Are you implying that they don't read the bible...or that they collectively suffer from an inability to read bold text?


There are Bibles that put words attributed to God/YHWH in all caps, and words attributed to Jesus in red letters. I guess you could have thought I meant that.

But I mean the first thing. I've seldom met a Southern Protestant of any flavor that knew the Bible better than me, and I stopped going to church when I was 18 and became an atheist soon afterwards.

Jesus would not have behaved the way these churches have.
 
2014-03-11 04:04:20 PM
Children are always pawns.  We just pay them lip service.
 
2014-03-11 04:04:20 PM
As we all Know Jesus VERY clearly said in Matthew 25:41 ""Then He will also say to those on His left, 'Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; for you were occasional not a humongous dick to a gay person, and you once in a while treated them like a human being and did not take every opportunity to hurt them or marginalize them, or anyone who ever treated them decently'

So really what is a "Christian" church gonna do?
 
2014-03-11 04:06:10 PM
ox45tallboy: They're technically a religious nonprofit, but it's still up in the air as to whether they are considered a "church"

No, it very much isn't.

They receive government funding, therefore they've openly declared themselves not a church in their charter.

The government, especially the federal government, isn't legally allowed to give money to churches.
 
2014-03-11 04:06:10 PM

Sin_City_Superhero: I love the people that think:

"Not allowing me to discriminate as I see fit is a form of discrimination. I should be allowed to discriminate against anyone I choose, and not letting me do that is an infringement of my rights."


Believe it or not, I had this very argument with a Christian friend of mine a couple of weeks ago.  He feels strongly that (so-called) Christian businesses (like Hobby Lobby) have every right to require employees and customers adhere to the religious beliefs of the business owners.

That includes the freedom  to discriminate.
 
2014-03-11 04:07:25 PM

miss diminutive: Let me guess....Baptists?

*checks article*

The Kentucky Baptist Convention, which approves of the anti-LGBT policy, is now back in the Sunrise's corner.

Sweet merciful crap, I wish I were more surprised. These people really have a hard-on for prejudice against gays, don't they?

I'll admit, I'm no expert on their specific denomination and I don't know any Southern Baptists well, but is there some kind of underlined or italicized text in the Baptist Bible that encourages so many of them to be such raging assholes?


Never go fishing with just one Baptist, he'll drink all of your beer.
 
2014-03-11 04:07:44 PM
I bet their membership is proud of their church... to the tune of Seven Million (plus) Dollars they have previously donated.
 
2014-03-11 04:07:46 PM

MilesTeg: Nice of the Feds to hold a Children's Home hostage.


Ooh, I'd love to hear the reasoning behind this.
 
2014-03-11 04:08:15 PM

Pitabred: Totally OT but... since when?

DOCSIS uses QAM, which has Modulation right in the acronym:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOCSIS#Features

Similar with DSL modems that use very high frequencies. They require a filter so you can use a standard phone with them, because otherwise you interrupt the modulation/demodulation.

Now, it's not using the classic audio-frequency level modulation of a traditional telephone modem, but it's still quite assuredly a modem.


They're digital signal converters. There is no modulation/demodulation from digital to analog, which is where the telephone modem got it's name - it converted the digital computer signal to analog tones. You don't call anything that modulates a modem just because it modulates - the name was applied specifically to devices which made the D/A conversion for use on an analog phone line.

/okay, that's enough threadjack. If you still don't agree, shoot me an email.
 
2014-03-11 04:08:26 PM

mainstreet62: Did someone say "KY" and "children"?

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 700x554]

 
2014-03-11 04:08:38 PM
"Now that our churches have confidence in the leadership of Sunrise and the direction of Sunrise, we'll give them the opportunity to re-invest in this ministry to children We are disgusting bigots," Kentucky Baptist Convention Executive Director Paul Chitwood told WDRB.

FTFH.
 
2014-03-11 04:10:27 PM

ox45tallboy: netizencain: It's more important to discriminate against gays than to provide day care services to poor people

This isn't day care services; it's for children who have been removed from their parents' care due to abuse or neglect. Sometimes the parents are in prison, sometimes they are drug addicts who can't or won't provide for their children. Places like this provide an alternative to the "boarding school" atmosphere of most state-run facilities. It provides the kids with a more home-like atmosphere, usually with their own bedrooms. The one I spent the most time at even provided private bathrooms for each child. Each home generally has about 6-8 kids and a set of full-time "house parents" who perform mommy and daddy duties on a more personal level than the institutions.


My ex's brother lives in Louisville now. He's unequivocally stated that gay people are going to Hell. He's made comments that make me believe he thinks his nephew is illegitimate since his mother and father were not married when he was conceived. I bet that if he knows about this organization, he would be cheering the churches who are intentionally withholding money from these neglected children.
 
2014-03-11 04:11:14 PM
OK, but the Catholic run children's homes are still good, right?
 
2014-03-11 04:11:31 PM
It's just the iron fist of the government - attached to a limp wrist.
 
2014-03-11 04:12:29 PM
Because priests hate competition?
 
2014-03-11 04:14:12 PM

Old_Chief_Scott: Benevolent Misanthrope: But it's still WAY more important for a good Christian to discriminate against gay people than to provide kids with food, clothing and shelter.

So, it's not bigotry when you do it. I get it.


You need to call a doctor. Lack of a humerus bone is a frightening way to live life, Sir.
 
2014-03-11 04:14:55 PM

Sin_City_Superhero: I love the people ASSHOLES that think:

"Not allowing me to discriminate as I see fit is a form of discrimination. I should be allowed to discriminate against anyone I choose, and not letting me do that is an infringement of my rights."


FTFY.
 
2014-03-11 04:15:09 PM
So gays boycott the Salvation Army for their anti-gay stance. Churches cut funding to children's home for accepting gays. Both circumstances involve a group of people "voting with their wallet" for what they believe in. What's the difference, honestly?
 
2014-03-11 04:15:30 PM

Headso: I dunno if they want to fund this or that with their charity money that is their decision, maybe a secular charity group can take up the mantle.


Well, it's not that simple. Often these organizations are run with a specific charter, and their legitimacy comes from the church organization that they are affiliated with. They can't "break away" from the church any more than a Catholic school could break away from the diocese.

Also, keep in mind that the director of the home that was fired was basically the CEO of the company - he proposed this new policy of accepting LGBT people, but it was never enacted because it was shot down by the Board of Directors, who are in all likelihood clergymen and other leaders in Baptist churches in the area.

The fact that this sort of proposal was made public in the first place shows that someone on the Board didn't like him and played petty politics to get donor pressure up in order to show him the door.
 
2014-03-11 04:16:34 PM
And Jesus said unto them, "Fark your neighbors. Only love Christians who aren't gays."
 
2014-03-11 04:17:21 PM
This seems like a great opportunity for GLBT, atheist or liberal charities to set up.   Maybe they can show some real tolerance and compassion by reaching into their own pockets instead of pointing out other peoples failures.

This is not a defense of the people withdrawing funding.
 
2014-03-11 04:18:56 PM

TerminalEchoes: So gays boycott the Salvation Army for their anti-gay stance. Churches cut funding to children's home for accepting gays. Both circumstances involve a group of people "voting with their wallet" for what they believe in. What's the difference, honestly?


Gays decide to boycott SA because they discriminate. The church decides to cut funding because the children's home won't discriminate.

If you don't see a difference, I don't think anyone can help you.
 
2014-03-11 04:18:59 PM

scottydoesntknow: Contrabulous Flabtraption: Why would any organization fund something that it opposes? You may not like and it may suck but it's perfectly reasonable.

The Baptist church opposes children's homes? That doesn't sound right.

Ohh you mean it opposes hiring homosexuals. Because of all those passages in the bible about not hiring homosexuals.

Which passages are those?


Oh, it's in there somewhere.  Probably near the back.
 
2014-03-11 04:19:30 PM

Friction8r: scottydoesntknow: I'd really like to know how many children were removed from broken homes of homosexual parents.

I'd really like to know how many children were created by homosexual parents.


They are out there. I have a friend who's dad is gay.  She's cool, and so is he and his boyfriend.
 
2014-03-11 04:21:11 PM
Ironically, religion (a choice) is a protected status, but sexual preference (not a choice) isn't.
 
2014-03-11 04:24:17 PM
For shame, subby. KY, gay people, children getting screwed, and not a single lube comment?
 
2014-03-11 04:24:50 PM

grumpfuff: MilesTeg: Nice of the Feds to hold a Children's Home hostage.

Ooh, I'd love to hear the reasoning behind this.


Well, obviously, it was the Feds that started this ruckus in the first place by requiring that they not discriminate if they wanted government funding to continue. At that point, the Baptist organization had no choice but to withhold their own funding or else they would be damned for eternity. Duh.
 
2014-03-11 04:24:53 PM

scottydoesntknow: TerminalEchoes: So gays boycott the Salvation Army for their anti-gay stance. Churches cut funding to children's home for accepting gays. Both circumstances involve a group of people "voting with their wallet" for what they believe in. What's the difference, honestly?

Gays decide to boycott SA because they discriminate. The church decides to cut funding because the children's home won't discriminate.

If you don't see a difference, I don't think anyone can help you.


This.
 
2014-03-11 04:26:02 PM
Meh, people can spend their money however they want to spend their money. I'm not too thrilled with a children's home being funded by religious folks anyway. They usually attach strings or least try to get people to read their incredibly violent and pornographic novelization of Hebrew history.
 
2014-03-11 04:26:22 PM

MilesTeg: Nice of the Feds to hold a Children's Home hostage.


A+++++++.  Would LOL again.
 
2014-03-11 04:26:54 PM

Old_Chief_Scott: Benevolent Misanthrope: But it's still WAY more important for a good Christian to discriminate against gay people than to provide kids with food, clothing and shelter.

So, it's not bigotry when you do it. I get it.


Ahhhh...The ironing is delicious.
 
2014-03-11 04:28:40 PM

Jim_Callahan: No, it very much isn't.

They receive government funding, therefore they've openly declared themselves not a church in their charter.

The government, especially the federal government, isn't legally allowed to give money to churches.


I beg to differ, sir. Their legitimacy as an organization receiving Bush's FBO funds depends on their affiliation with an organized, established religion. I can't create the "Ox45's Church of the Tall Can" and get government funding for my homeless shelter through a Faith-Based Initiative program - I'd have to get a congregation up first.

I could do it differently as a secular organization, but this is not a secular organization.

Now, they do have to abide by certain guidelines, and they're not supposed to proselytize or mandate religious worship or rituals as a condition for disbursement of aid paid for by the government, but many do, and it's difficult to enforce. But a church food bank most certainly can receive federal funds as long as they are not shown to have violated the rules for Faith-Based Organizations. Normally the church where the food bank is located would just set up a separate organizational and accounting structure, but to say it is not owned and controlled by the church it resides in and shares personnel and management with is laughable.
 
2014-03-11 04:30:29 PM

TerminalEchoes: So gays boycott the Salvation Army for their anti-gay stance. Churches cut funding to children's home for accepting gays. Both circumstances involve a group of people "voting with their wallet" for what they believe in. What's the difference, honestly?


One is on the right side of history, and one is not.
 
2014-03-11 04:30:43 PM

ox45tallboy: Headso: I dunno if they want to fund this or that with their charity money that is their decision, maybe a secular charity group can take up the mantle.

Well, it's not that simple. Often these organizations are run with a specific charter, and their legitimacy comes from the church organization that they are affiliated with. They can't "break away" from the church any more than a Catholic school could break away from the diocese.


it seems a number of churches stopped funding the home, that is who I was referring to.
 
2014-03-11 04:30:49 PM

CheekyMonkey: Oh, it's in there somewhere.  Probably near the back.


Revelations. You can make Revelations say anything.

It's a literary acid trip.
 
2014-03-11 04:31:24 PM

TerminalEchoes: So gays boycott the Salvation Army for their anti-gay stance. Churches cut funding to children's home for accepting gays. Both circumstances involve a group of people "voting with their wallet" for what they believe in. What's the difference, honestly?


One of these things is not like the other. One of these things doesn't belong.
 
2014-03-11 04:33:27 PM

hardinparamedic: CheekyMonkey: Oh, it's in there somewhere.  Probably near the back.

Revelations. You can make Revelations say anything.

It's a literary acid trip.


Whenever I had to go to church, I'd always whip out the bible in the pew and just read Revelations. Pretty much the only thing that interested me while there. It's definitely a trip.
 
2014-03-11 04:36:46 PM

oldtaku: For shame, subby. KY, gay people, children getting screwed, and not a single lube comment?


I grew up in one of these places. It's hard to be objective enough for snark.
 
2014-03-11 04:38:01 PM

Gary-L: Sin_City_Superhero: I love the people that think:

"Not allowing me to discriminate as I see fit is a form of discrimination. I should be allowed to discriminate against anyone I choose, and not letting me do that is an infringement of my rights."

Believe it or not, I had this very argument with a Christian friend of mine a couple of weeks ago.  He feels strongly that (so-called) Christian businesses (like Hobby Lobby) have every right to require employees and customers adhere to the religious beliefs of the business owners.

That includes the freedom  to discriminate.


The obvious question to such a claim is to ask them to define which religions get to ignore which laws? I presume he wouldn't claim a Cthulhu cultist should be free to murder anyone they like in their quest to wake the sleeping God to avoid infringing his religious beliefs, so presumably the line gets drawn somewhere, and by someone.


If only some "real" religions rules take precedence over the law, who decides what is a "real" religion and which ones don't count. Secondly which laws are not "real" laws and can be ignored by anyone that claims religious beliefs that conflict with that law? Do laws that can be set aside for religious belief get appended with a religious asterisk when drafted? And who makes the decisions as to what religions are "real" and what laws are negotiable?
 
2014-03-11 04:38:15 PM

oldtaku: For shame, subby. KY, gay people, children getting screwed, and not a single lube comment?


People like this guy are why the dynamics of HIV and other STDs are changing from being hotbeded in the urban areas, to being epidemic in rural areas. All of those proud, straight, gay hating men and women are getting it on with other proud, totally straight, gay hating men and women of their own sex.

They never had sex with a same-sex partner, after all. Why would they need to use protection?
 
2014-03-11 04:41:27 PM

That Guy Jeff: Meh, people can spend their money however they want to spend their money. I'm not too thrilled with a children's home being funded by religious folks anyway. They usually attach strings or least try to get people to read their incredibly violent and pornographic novelization of Hebrew history.


This is true; it was in our house rules that all kids must attend "worship services". There was a policy that if any kid wanted to attend a different church, the organization would work with that church to arrange transportation to and from services, but it wasn't exactly advertised to the kids. We all went to a local church that donated money, and about every two months we would all take a road trip to a different church that gave us money and show the congregation what nice Christian children the home was raising. Praying before each meal was also not optional.
 
2014-03-11 04:44:01 PM

Headso: it seems a number of churches stopped funding the home, that is who I was referring to


As I said upthread, it was politics more than anything. One of the board members leaked this proposal by the director (which was never enacted) and got enough churches to withhold their funding to pressure the board to ask for the director's resignation.
 
2014-03-11 04:44:35 PM
These churches need to be re-classified as hate groups. Their tax exemption should be pulled, and all members should be put on a watch list.

You don't like living in a free nation? Get out.
 
2014-03-11 04:45:40 PM

ox45tallboy: Headso: it seems a number of churches stopped funding the home, that is who I was referring to

As I said upthread, it was politics more than anything. One of the board members leaked this proposal by the director (which was never enacted) and got enough churches to withhold their funding to pressure the board to ask for the director's resignation.


yeah,  and if they want to do so with the money they give as charity then they should IMO.
 
2014-03-11 04:46:56 PM
Gotta go against the churches on this one.  That's a d!ck move guys.
 
2014-03-11 04:47:12 PM

Pitabred: Contrabulous Flabtraption: Why would any organization fund something that it opposes? You may not like and it may suck but it's perfectly reasonable.

They aren't required to, but it really isn't reasonable. They're using children as pawns in their bullshiat, which is as slimy as it gets. We're perfectly allowed to call them out on their Christian behavior.


Call them out, I guess, if that makes you feel good. It's no different than if I was funding a group and my religion forbade people walking on stilts. Then the group goes and hires people who walk on stilts. I pull my funding. It's is entirely reasonable. It may not be good or moral but reason isn't about those things.
 
2014-03-11 04:47:56 PM

Tyee: This seems like a great opportunity for GLBT, atheist or liberal charities to set up.   Maybe they can show some real tolerance and compassion by reaching into their own pockets instead of pointing out other peoples failures.

This is not a defense of the people withdrawing funding.


No, it's just a red herring.
 
2014-03-11 04:49:54 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: Christians.  Just... Christians.  Fark.


This sums it up.
 
2014-03-11 04:51:26 PM
A little background on this case is that Sunrise, previously known as Kentucky Baptist Children's Home, was involved in a 15-year lawsuit centered around the termination of an employee for announcing that she was a lesbian.  There were also taxpayer claims brought against the Home and the State for funding it.   This suit was finally settled last year.  The discrimination claim was dismissed a while back because Title VII doesn't recognize sexual orientation as a protected category, but Kentucky still had to address its funding of an organization that required kids to attend church and fired gays, etc.

I'm pretty sure Sunrise changed its name partly in connection with the bad publicity of this lawsuit.  In any event, while I don't have much sympathy for Sunrise given that it started all of these problems by firing someone for being a lesbian, I also feel some sympathy for the recent director who found himself stuck between state and church funding, unable to satisfy both.

The bigger lesson here is that the use of religious organizations to perform government functions has unintended consequences down the road.  Here, a lot of children are directly dependent on an organization that will lose a significant portion of its funding (State or church donors) based on whether it keeps or drops a discriminatory policy.  We should probably avoid entanglements or else find ourselves in this impossible position.
 
2014-03-11 04:51:56 PM
FTFA: However, the policy of discrimination puts Sunrise at risk of losing government funding, which provides 85 percent of its $27 million budget.

Sunrise Children's Services is working to recover from a massive budget shortfall after Kentucky churches withheld $7 million

But the damage was done, and Sunrise Children's Services was already facing a $7 million budget shortfall


Except that with $7m being paid in by KY churches, the government would need to pay $39 million to be 85% of the budget.  The total then, of almost $47m, is higher than the sum of all totals mentioned in this article combined = 7 shortfall + 7 church + 27 budget = $41m.

I'm not commenting on the meaning in this article, but I don't trust the author/editor's math.
 
2014-03-11 04:53:18 PM

Contrabulous Flabtraption: Pitabred: Contrabulous Flabtraption: Why would any organization fund something that it opposes? You may not like and it may suck but it's perfectly reasonable.

They aren't required to, but it really isn't reasonable. They're using children as pawns in their bullshiat, which is as slimy as it gets. We're perfectly allowed to call them out on their Christian behavior.

Call them out, I guess, if that makes you feel good. It's no different than if I was funding a group and my religion forbade people walking on stilts. Then the group goes and hires people who walk on stilts. I pull my funding. It's is entirely reasonable. It may not be good or moral but reason isn't about those things.


People who walk on stilts are not inherently disadvantaged compared to abused and neglected foster children.
 
2014-03-11 04:53:46 PM

Headso: yeah,  and if they want to do so with the money they give as charity then they should IMO


I don't think anyone's saying that they don't have the right to fund whatever charitable organization they choose.

I think everyone is saying they're colossal douchebags who do not follow the teachings of Christ for refusing to fund an organization that helps kids (you know, like Jesus said to do) simply because a gay person might someday work there.

You might have the "right" to do tons of things just because you want to do them, but many of the things you might choose to do will make you a colossal douchebag. The fact that they're wrapping it up with a big shiny cross, as if to say, "Well, sheesh, we'd love to help you, it tears our heart out that these kids will suffer, but, you know, we don't want to go to hell," makes them scum as well.
 
2014-03-11 04:55:01 PM

Contrabulous Flabtraption: Call them out, I guess, if that makes you feel good. It's no different than if I was funding a group and my religion forbade people walking on stilts. Then the group goes and hires people who walk on stilts. I pull my funding. It's is entirely reasonable. It may not be good or moral but reason isn't about those things


Then what is it about? What makes not walking on stilts more important than kids having a home?
 
2014-03-11 04:56:51 PM

boyofd: A little background on this case is that Sunrise, previously known as Kentucky Baptist Children's Home, was involved in a 15-year lawsuit centered around the termination of an employee for announcing that she was a lesbian.  There were also taxpayer claims brought against the Home and the State for funding it.   This suit was finally settled last year.  The discrimination claim was dismissed a while back because Title VII doesn't recognize sexual orientation as a protected category, but Kentucky still had to address its funding of an organization that required kids to attend church and fired gays, etc.

I'm pretty sure Sunrise changed its name partly in connection with the bad publicity of this lawsuit.  In any event, while I don't have much sympathy for Sunrise given that it started all of these problems by firing someone for being a lesbian, I also feel some sympathy for the recent director who found himself stuck between state and church funding, unable to satisfy both.

The bigger lesson here is that the use of religious organizations to perform government functions has unintended consequences down the road.  Here, a lot of children are directly dependent on an organization that will lose a significant portion of its funding (State or church donors) based on whether it keeps or drops a discriminatory policy.  We should probably avoid entanglements or else find ourselves in this impossible position.


Thank you for that. Have a month of TF.
 
2014-03-11 04:57:16 PM

Contrabulous Flabtraption: Pitabred: Contrabulous Flabtraption: Why would any organization fund something that it opposes? You may not like and it may suck but it's perfectly reasonable.

They aren't required to, but it really isn't reasonable. They're using children as pawns in their bullshiat, which is as slimy as it gets. We're perfectly allowed to call them out on their Christian behavior.

Call them out, I guess, if that makes you feel good. It's no different than if I was funding a group and my religion forbade people walking on stilts. Then the group goes and hires people who walk on stilts. I pull my funding. It's is entirely reasonable. It may not be good or moral but reason isn't about those things.


Yea, going by the definition of 'reasonable' (having sound judgment; fair and sensible), I would not say that's fair or sensible, or made with sound judgment. It's petty and vindictive.
 
2014-03-11 04:57:39 PM

ox45tallboy: Headso: yeah,  and if they want to do so with the money they give as charity then they should IMO

I don't think anyone's saying that they don't have the right to fund whatever charitable organization they choose.

I think everyone is saying they're colossal douchebags who do not follow the teachings of Christ for refusing to fund an organization that helps kids (you know, like Jesus said to do) simply because a gay person might someday work there.

You might have the "right" to do tons of things just because you want to do them, but many of the things you might choose to do will make you a colossal douchebag. The fact that they're wrapping it up with a big shiny cross, as if to say, "Well, sheesh, we'd love to help you, it tears our heart out that these kids will suffer, but, you know, we don't want to go to hell," makes them scum as well.


It's a grotesque violation of the doctrine of double effect. Giving money to this agency is clearly intended to help the most needy of children and not to employ gay people. I bet none of these people would have a problem with me killing somebody if they were pointing a gun at my head or my child's head, but if you reject DDE, you should find me guilty of murder.
 
2014-03-11 05:00:10 PM

ox45tallboy: boyofd: A little background on this case is that Sunrise, previously known as Kentucky Baptist Children's Home, was involved in a 15-year lawsuit centered around the termination of an employee for announcing that she was a lesbian.  There were also taxpayer claims brought against the Home and the State for funding it.   This suit was finally settled last year.  The discrimination claim was dismissed a while back because Title VII doesn't recognize sexual orientation as a protected category, but Kentucky still had to address its funding of an organization that required kids to attend church and fired gays, etc.

I'm pretty sure Sunrise changed its name partly in connection with the bad publicity of this lawsuit.  In any event, while I don't have much sympathy for Sunrise given that it started all of these problems by firing someone for being a lesbian, I also feel some sympathy for the recent director who found himself stuck between state and church funding, unable to satisfy both.

The bigger lesson here is that the use of religious organizations to perform government functions has unintended consequences down the road.  Here, a lot of children are directly dependent on an organization that will lose a significant portion of its funding (State or church donors) based on whether it keeps or drops a discriminatory policy.  We should probably avoid entanglements or else find ourselves in this impossible position.

Thank you for that. Have a month of TF.


You rock.  Muchos thanks.
 
2014-03-11 05:00:51 PM

Katolu: Benevolent Misanthrope: Christians.  Just... Christians.  Fark.

This sums it up.


Indeed. And if decent people who call themselves Christians are upset by this kind of generalization, they can do something about it. They can say publicly and on a regular basis that asshole "christians" aren't Christians at all. Until then, they're just like the "good" cop who lets the bad cop do what he wants.
 
2014-03-11 05:01:34 PM

grumpfuff: No, it's just a red herring.


Are you saying GLBT, atheists and liberals don't have charities?  Or that they don't care about, or give to children?  Or they are just as bad as these churches because they didn't give in the first place?  What is the red herring?

Why can't liberal, atheist or GLBT charities fill the need out of their own pockets if the Baptist won't empty theirs any longer?
 
2014-03-11 05:04:15 PM
I've been 100% pro-gay rights for as long as i can remember and thought Clinton was a douche for DOMA and DADT, but I have an issue with having an issue discriminating against "openly gay" employees.  My issues is a church should be able to discriminate against openly sexual employees whether heterosexual or openly gay.  You don't work for a church and come to work and talk about sucking cauk or eating at the Y while at work.  It's not the place for lifestyle attention whoring.  If an employee won't shut up about their gayness or their hetero exploits or sexuality, you should be able fire them.  If an employee doesn't shut up about their black supremacy, racial superiority, or Jew hate, you should be able to fire them too.  Nobody should be forced to employ a person they find detestable and nobody should be forced to work for somebody they despise.  It's a two-way street.  Government employment should be different.
 
2014-03-11 05:06:39 PM

TerminalEchoes: So gays boycott the Salvation Army for their anti-gay stance. Churches cut funding to children's home for accepting gays. Both circumstances involve a group of people "voting with their wallet" for what they believe in. What's the difference, honestly?


One group is fighting so that ALL people have the same rights. The other group is fighting to keep another group from enjoying the benefits that they themselves enjoy. It's not even "apples & oranges". It's "apples & cow pies".
 
2014-03-11 05:07:39 PM

Sin_City_Superhero: I love the people that think:

"Not allowing me to discriminate as I see fit is a form of discrimination. I should be allowed to discriminate against anyone I choose, and not letting me do that is an infringement of my rights."



I always find it weird when they want to carry on about wanting to be against intolerance when it comes to people being intolerant of their intolerance. I suppose it seems despicable to them to be in favor of intolerance, so the mental acrobatics they go through to equate the concepts, of coexisting with people and treating them as humans, to being horribly intolerant is kinda fascinating in a way.
 
2014-03-11 05:07:51 PM

punkhippie: Katolu: Benevolent Misanthrope: Christians.  Just... Christians.  Fark.

This sums it up.

Indeed. And if decent people who call themselves Christians are upset by this kind of generalization, they can do something about it. They can say publicly and on a regular basis that asshole "christians" aren't Christians at all. Until then, they're just like the "good" cop who lets the bad cop do what he wants.


But... they are Christians.  "Church is the people", is the phrase Christians are fond of.  Well, there's a reason I and many other people have the opinion that, when someone tells us they are a Christian, we put our hands on our wallets and look for the door.  "Christian" has come to mean "people like these asshats" over time, because of their behavior.

Like miss diminutive, I'm not one little bit surprised that this was done by a Christian organization - be it Baptist, Catholic, Presbyterian or anything else.
 
2014-03-11 05:08:00 PM

Tyee: grumpfuff: No, it's just a red herring.

Are you saying GLBT, atheists and liberals don't have charities?  Or that they don't care about, or give to children?  Or they are just as bad as these churches because they didn't give in the first place?  What is the red herring?

Why can't liberal, atheist or GLBT charities fill the need out of their own pockets if the Baptist won't empty theirs any longer?


I see you've graduated from red herring to begging the question.
 
2014-03-11 05:11:25 PM
Benevolent Misanthrope: "Christian" has come to mean "people like these asshats" over time, because of their behavior.

Like miss diminutive, I'm not one little bit surprised that this was done by a Christian organization - be it Baptist, Catholic, Presbyterian or anything else.


Fair enough. I'm an ex-believer and so glad I'm free of that toxic bullshiat. But I still know a few decent people who call themselves Christian, so I can't condemn them all. Just most of them.
 
2014-03-11 05:12:44 PM

Tyee: grumpfuff: No, it's just a red herring.

Are you saying GLBT, atheists and liberals don't have charities?  Or that they don't care about, or give to children?  Or they are just as bad as these churches because they didn't give in the first place?  What is the red herring?

Why can't liberal, atheist or GLBT charities fill the need out of their own pockets if the Baptist won't empty theirs any longer?


Argumentum ad odium.

Christians outnumber Atheists and Non-Christians in the country 8 to 1. Therefor, logic would reason they have a larger financhial base to donate to causes, and can hurt social causes far more by withdrawing funding. Withdrawing funding, in addition, that is done so in a manner hypocritical to their own religious teachings of charity, samaritanism, selflessness and altruism.
 
2014-03-11 05:12:49 PM

Big_Fat_Liar: I've been 100% pro-gay rights for as long as i can remember and thought Clinton was a douche for DOMA and DADT, but I have an issue with having an issue discriminating against "openly gay" employees.  My issues is a church should be able to discriminate against openly sexual employees whether heterosexual or openly gay.  You don't work for a church and come to work and talk about sucking cauk or eating at the Y while at work.  It's not the place for lifestyle attention whoring.  If an employee won't shut up about their gayness or their hetero exploits or sexuality, you should be able fire them.  If an employee doesn't shut up about their black supremacy, racial superiority, or Jew hate, you should be able to fire them too.  Nobody should be forced to employ a person they find detestable and nobody should be forced to work for somebody they despise.  It's a two-way street.  Government employment should be different.


You're aware that this organization takes care of a needed government service (helping take care of and raise children abused and/or neglected by their parents) in exchange for government money?

And what in the world does someone's sexuality have anything to do with their at-work behavior? Here's a link to the incident described above by boyofd. The person in question had worked there for a while before someone found out she was romantically involved with a woman; obviously she was not "going on about her gayness" at work. Some people had a problem with the organization thinking it had the right to take government money and still discriminate on religious grounds, hence the lawsuit.
 
2014-03-11 05:13:50 PM

Big_Fat_Liar: I've been 100% pro-gay rights for as long as i can remember and thought Clinton was a douche for DOMA and DADT, but I have an issue with having an issue discriminating against "openly gay" employees.  My issues is a church should be able to discriminate against openly sexual employees whether heterosexual or openly gay.  You don't work for a church and come to work and talk about sucking cauk or eating at the Y while at work.  It's not the place for lifestyle attention whoring.  If an employee won't shut up about their gayness or their hetero exploits or sexuality, you should be able fire them.  If an employee doesn't shut up about their black supremacy, racial superiority, or Jew hate, you should be able to fire them too.  Nobody should be forced to employ a person they find detestable and nobody should be forced to work for somebody they despise.  It's a two-way street.  Government employment should be different.


What places of employment have you worked at where a straight man openly talked about the fantastic blowjob his wife/fiancee/girlfriend gave him last night? What places of employment have you worked at where a straight women described in vulgar terms how her husband/fiance/boyfriend ate her twat to an earth-shattering orgasm last night? Unless my experience is atypical, this shiat simply does not happen. No, what happens most of the time is people calling their spouses to let them know plans for the day, hanging up innocent pictures of the couple together in their office/cubicle, or making G-rated small talk about what you did over the weekend. That's what gay people want to be able to do. They want to be able to politely mention their significant other/spouse in company. They want to put up pictures of their loved ones. They want to openly talk about their weekends without censoring out the fact that they have a loved one that they spend time with.
 
2014-03-11 05:17:34 PM

scottydoesntknow: Whenever I had to go to church, I'd always whip out the bible in the pew and just read Revelations. Pretty much the only thing that interested me while there. It's definitely a trip.


The whole book is like that! There's talking bushes, giant man-eating whales, plagues of locusts, and 900 year old men. The Bible is like the print version of the SyFy network.

Big_Fat_Liar: My issues is a church should be able to discriminate against openly sexual employees whether heterosexual or openly gay. You don't work for a church and come to work and talk about sucking cauk or eating at the Y while at work. It's not the place for lifestyle attention whoring. If an employee won't shut up about their gayness or their hetero exploits or sexuality, you should be able fire them. If an employee doesn't shut up about their black supremacy, racial superiority, or Jew hate, you should be able to fire them too.


Fair enough. But does a woman mentioning "my wife" in passing, or a man mentioning "my boyfriend" qualify? Because that's all it takes, and that really isn't disruptive behavior, to any reasonable adult.
 
2014-03-11 05:17:51 PM

hardinparamedic: Argumentum ad odium.


Or that.
 
2014-03-11 05:19:28 PM

Contrabulous Flabtraption: Pitabred: Contrabulous Flabtraption: Why would any organization fund something that it opposes? You may not like and it may suck but it's perfectly reasonable.

They aren't required to, but it really isn't reasonable. They're using children as pawns in their bullshiat, which is as slimy as it gets. We're perfectly allowed to call them out on their Christian behavior.

Call them out, I guess, if that makes you feel good. It's no different than if I was funding a group and my religion forbade people walking on stilts. Then the group goes and hires people who walk on stilts. I pull my funding. It's is entirely reasonable. It may not be good or moral but reason isn't about those things.


A couple of points, first, the principal guide for Christianity, the Bible, does not require anyone to refuse to hire LGBT people.  If anything, the Bible teaches people who are without sin to cast the first stone (meaning, butt out of other's business).

Second, the problem isn't so much that the "churches" pulled the funding, but that the "churches" set up a religious organization that discriminates, and then sought government funding (which kept that government funding from going to other groups that would not discriminate), and then it holds the Home hostage when it seeks to join the 21st century.  The long history of this Home makes it extremely complicated and complex, but at the end of the day, the analogy I would make is:

A church told the government that it would build an interstate across it's property if the government gave it > 50% of the funds to do so, and then 1/2 way through, when people start asking whether everyone will be permitted to drive on the interstate, the church says, "We won't take the Irish," and threatens to abandon the project if they have to.  I understand why the church is free to stop work on the project, but we all made a huge mistake when we thought that letting the church provide a government function (and paying for it) was a good idea in the first place.  Let's not do that anymore.
 
2014-03-11 05:21:18 PM

Sin_City_Superhero: scottydoesntknow: Whenever I had to go to church, I'd always whip out the bible in the pew and just read Revelations. Pretty much the only thing that interested me while there. It's definitely a trip.

The whole book is like that! There's talking bushes, giant man-eating whales, plagues of locusts, and 900 year old men. The Bible is like the print version of the SyFy network.


Yea but there's so much crap to slog through to get to the good stuff. Revelations is the only one that's insane in the membrane from beginning to end.

/Judges was pretty good too
//Violent farkers in that book
 
2014-03-11 05:24:22 PM
You never go full Kentucky.

/I know
/live in Kentucky.
 
2014-03-11 05:24:33 PM
Hey Farkers, how about instead of biatching about how all those bigots make decisions about when and where to donate their money, why don't you just show them how wrong they are...

https://sunriseorg.worldsecuresystems.com/donate

that's what I thought... carry on.
 
2014-03-11 05:28:15 PM

ox45tallboy: Big_Fat_Liar: I've been 100% pro-gay rights for as long as i can remember and thought Clinton was a douche for DOMA and DADT, but I have an issue with having an issue discriminating against "openly gay" employees.  My issues is a church should be able to discriminate against openly sexual employees whether heterosexual or openly gay.  You don't work for a church and come to work and talk about sucking cauk or eating at the Y while at work.  It's not the place for lifestyle attention whoring.  If an employee won't shut up about their gayness or their hetero exploits or sexuality, you should be able fire them.  If an employee doesn't shut up about their black supremacy, racial superiority, or Jew hate, you should be able to fire them too.  Nobody should be forced to employ a person they find detestable and nobody should be forced to work for somebody they despise.  It's a two-way street.  Government employment should be different.

You're aware that this organization takes care of a needed government service (helping take care of and raise children abused and/or neglected by their parents) in exchange for government money?

And what in the world does someone's sexuality have anything to do with their at-work behavior? Here's a link to the incident described above by boyofd. The person in question had worked there for a while before someone found out she was romantically involved with a woman; obviously she was not "going on about her gayness" at work. Some people had a problem with the organization thinking it had the right to take government money and still discriminate on religious grounds, hence the lawsuit.


This.

Also, legitimate churches are typically exempt from Title VII requirements, meaning your local Catholic Church can restrict itself to hiring good Catholics to be the Priest's secretary, or the janitor.  That exemption ends when you open up a gym and start selling memberships, for example.  But it is pretty obvious that there is no reason for the "church" to be permitted to discriminate when its business is not running a church, but providing homes to neglected and abused children, especially when the majority of the funding comes from the government.
 
2014-03-11 05:30:16 PM

jpadc: Hey Farkers, how about instead of biatching about how all those bigots make decisions about when and where to donate their money, why don't you just show them how wrong they are...

https://sunriseorg.worldsecuresystems.com/donate

that's what I thought... carry on.


Because with the firing of the Executive Director, the Board of Directors has shown that they are unrepentant. The kids' needs are taken care of now, so any additional money donated to them will support their bigotry and not actually help the kids. The organization has not budgeted for my donation the way they have for the donations of the churches insisting on discrimination in the workplace.
 
2014-03-11 05:33:49 PM

TerminalEchoes: So gays boycott the Salvation Army for their anti-gay stance. Churches cut funding to children's home for accepting gays. Both circumstances involve a group of people "voting with their wallet" for what they believe in. What's the difference, honestly?


Gays, as a group, don't profess to be looking out for and loving their fellow man. It's the hypocrisy, not the dick move.
 
2014-03-11 05:36:17 PM
Freedom of Sex  >  Freedom of Religion
 
2014-03-11 05:37:55 PM

jpadc: Hey Farkers, how about instead of biatching about how all those bigots make decisions about when and where to donate their money, why don't you just show them how wrong they are...

https://sunriseorg.worldsecuresystems.com/donate

that's what I thought... carry on.


Do I have to specifically donate to this one organization to adequately prove that I care about disadvantaged youth?
 
2014-03-11 05:41:39 PM

Big_Fat_Liar: If an employee won't shut up about their gayness or their hetero exploits or sexuality, you should be able fire them.


Here's (one of) the actual lawsuits about this. (Waning: PDF, Start on Page 3's Statement of Facts.) The woman was hired in March of 1998. In August of 1998, a picture of her and her partner taken at an AIDS charity event was displayed at the Kentucky State Fair. She was questioned in September 1998 about the picture, and subsequently ordered to resign.

Apparently she couldn't shut up about her gayness so much that no one had any idea she was in a committed homosexual relationship the entire time she was employed there, and someone found out only because a picture of her and her partner was displayed someplace without her knowledge or consent.

Your post was silly, and this thread is now sillier for you having posted it.
 
2014-03-11 05:43:24 PM

jpadc: Hey Farkers, how about instead of biatching about how all those bigots make decisions about when and where to donate their money, why don't you just show them how wrong they are...

https://sunriseorg.worldsecuresystems.com/donate

that's what I thought... carry on.


(1) That challenge would be better if the Home had made the policy change, and the Churches had carried through on their threat.  As it stands, you are asking us to be an additional source of revenue for an organization that steadfastly refuses to entertain a non-discrimination policy.

(2) As I wrote above, if you only pay attention the last act of withdrawing support, your argument makes some sense.  But if you follow from the beginning, a religious organization has offered to take care of kids in exchange for millions and millions of government money over the years, preventing appropriate non-discriminatory organizations from stepping in.  They aren't solely to blame, but I hope you agree that it is a mistake to create this type of entanglement in the future.
 
2014-03-11 05:43:45 PM

Serious Black: Do I have to specifically donate to this one organization to adequately prove that I care about disadvantaged youth?


I would think putting effort into preventing religious organizations from instilling their particular flavor of beliefs into a child as a condition for a roof over his head and food in his belly might demonstrate some care for disadvantaged youth.
 
2014-03-11 05:44:33 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: Like miss diminutive, I'm not one little bit surprised that this was done by a Christian organization - be it Baptist, Catholic, Presbyterian or anything else.


I'm just not surprised that it was Baptist. I know plenty of Christians from other denominations who don't care whether or not someone is gay or straight and just want people to live out their lives and be happy.

I was simply commenting on a trend I've noticed. Whenever I read a story about some religious group in the US excelling in hyper-douchiness, 8 times out of 10 the group is Baptist.

/anecdotal evidence is anecdotey
 
2014-03-11 05:45:23 PM

ox45tallboy: Jesus would not have behaved the way these churches have.


There's evidence that he would have: "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's; render unto God what is God's."

Exactly which owns what is what we're working out now. If "charity for abused children" is correctly to be usurped from the sacred world in favor of the secular, then the churches previously donating should find better use for their money fulfilling the mission they've chosen. The church members already pay taxes, which fulfills their obligation to the government.
 
2014-03-11 05:48:46 PM

ox45tallboy: Serious Black: Do I have to specifically donate to this one organization to adequately prove that I care about disadvantaged youth?

I would think putting effort into preventing religious organizations from instilling their particular flavor of beliefs into a child as a condition for a roof over his head and food in his belly might demonstrate some care for disadvantaged youth.


True, but I was thinking more from the aspect of helping third-world kids get health care (DWB, Direct Relief), feeding indigent children from the community (Harvesters), and helping children and adults with developmental disabilities (Northwest Center), all of which I currently do. Do I not care about the disadvantaged if I continue donating to those organizations in lieu of donating to this one?
 
2014-03-11 05:48:59 PM
I'm a bit torn, here. On the one hand, I don't care for religious organizations. But on the other hand, I want kids to suffer. Do I donate or not?
 
2014-03-11 05:56:22 PM
s3.amazonaws.com
 
2014-03-11 05:57:02 PM

miss diminutive: Let me guess....Baptists?

*checks article*

The Kentucky Baptist Convention, which approves of the anti-LGBT policy, is now back in the Sunrise's corner.

Sweet merciful crap, I wish I were more surprised. These people really have a hard-on for prejudice against gays, don't they?

I'll admit, I'm no expert on their specific denomination and I don't know any Southern Baptists well, but is there some kind of underlined or italicized text in the Baptist Bible that encourages so many of them to be such raging assholes?


Let me introduce myself then. I'm a Baptist, raised in Louisiana in a place so small it was referred to as a village. When I was growing up, being openly gay wasn't accepted by most people. In fact, in many places it was an open invitation to beat a gay guy up if he revealed himself.

I, on the other hand, put myself in harms way to protect gay guys and girls through high school and college and I'm still friends with many gay guys and girls to this day.

Being a Baptist doesn't make someone an asshole. Assholes are born that way.

I'll admit, there are a lot of hell and brimstone Baptists out there and there are a lot of Baptist "preachers" who'll scream the bible at you as you walk by. But I'm not one of them and not all of us are like that.

I was walking in the quad with a good female friend of mine and we walked past a screaming Baptist "preacher". I turned to her embarrassed and said, "At least you don't have to deal with Bible screamers like that representing your religion." She gave me a hard look and I said, "Oh. Well, honestly, I never thought of those people as Muslims... at least not the kind of Muslim *you* are."

You see, she was walking with me because she was scared of people who would retaliate against her for being Muslim. This was shortly after 9/11 and she had good reason to be scared of the rest of the idiots in this country.

But she felt safe to walk with a Baptist.
 
2014-03-11 05:57:28 PM
I quick GIS shows the GLTB charities seem to only give to other self interested GLBT causes rather than the community at large.  Maybe this is an opportunity created by Baptist intolerance for the GLBTs endear themselves to the community.
 
2014-03-11 05:58:27 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: Christians.  Just... Christians.  Fark.


u gaiz hey u gaiz

u gaiz u guise

...
..
.

Christians

:D

.
.. amirite?!?

LELZ LELZ LELZ
 
2014-03-11 06:01:13 PM

Gabrielmot: But she felt safe to walk with a Baptist.


Well of course she felt safe with you, she didn't have any beer and you weren't fishing.
 
2014-03-11 06:06:15 PM

Serious Black: Big_Fat_Liar: I've been 100% pro-gay rights for as long as i can remember and thought Clinton was a douche for DOMA and DADT, but I have an issue with having an issue discriminating against "openly gay" employees.  My issues is a church should be able to discriminate against openly sexual employees whether heterosexual or openly gay.  You don't work for a church and come to work and talk about sucking cauk or eating at the Y while at work.  It's not the place for lifestyle attention whoring.  If an employee won't shut up about their gayness or their hetero exploits or sexuality, you should be able fire them.  If an employee doesn't shut up about their black supremacy, racial superiority, or Jew hate, you should be able to fire them too.  Nobody should be forced to employ a person they find detestable and nobody should be forced to work for somebody they despise.  It's a two-way street.  Government employment should be different.

What places of employment have you worked at where a straight man openly talked about the fantastic blowjob his wife/fiancee/girlfriend gave him last night? What places of employment have you worked at where a straight women described in vulgar terms how her husband/fiance/boyfriend ate her twat to an earth-shattering orgasm last night? Unless my experience is atypical, this shiat simply does not happen. No, what happens most of the time is people calling their spouses to let them know plans for the day, hanging up innocent pictures of the couple together in their office/cubicle, or making G-rated small talk about what you did over the weekend. That's what gay people want to be able to do. They want to be able to politely mention their significant other/spouse in company. They want to put up pictures of their loved ones. They want to openly talk about their weekends without censoring out the fact that they have a loved one that they spend time with.


You have never worked in the hospitality, transportation, manufacturing or financial sectors have you? Because there's always at least one person who is hypersexual or with a need to be seen as socially dominant (whether male or female) who brings up sexual exploits regularly. Grantee we are not talking cubeville and if you are one of the miserable denizens trapped in the hellholes of business school engendered culture then you probably haven't heard much like that-- the Minders have to keep the culture nicely sterile (one big reason I refused the business schools that tried to recruit me).

Sure most workplaces have policies against such talk... even those where the manager puts sticky notes on the backs of women saying "Buns of Steel" and on guys saying "I like boys." Or they gay guy who is in a pissy mood is asked "What's wrong, fell asleep with a dick up your ass?" and his response "it was the one in my mouth that did it."

Yes those were both real examples from different workplaces. I could tell many others. I don't think I could work in an environment that didn't have that kind of back-and-forth.
 
2014-03-11 06:07:37 PM

Old_Chief_Scott: So, it's not bigotry when you do it. I get it.


24.media.tumblr.com

ROFLELZ

Christians...

:D :D :D
 
2014-03-11 06:09:16 PM

chknjetski: TerminalEchoes: So gays boycott the Salvation Army for their anti-gay stance. Churches cut funding to children's home for accepting gays. Both circumstances involve a group of people "voting with their wallet" for what they believe in. What's the difference, honestly?

Gays, as a group, don't profess to be looking out for and loving their fellow man. It's the hypocrisy, not the dick move.


Funny, I thought the whole "loving their fellow man" was their defining feature.
 
2014-03-11 06:10:21 PM
Hate the gays, starve the children. It's what Jesus would have done.
 
2014-03-11 06:10:23 PM

Gabrielmot: Being a Baptist doesn't make someone an asshole. Assholes are born that way.


Thanks for the background info, and I'm happy to hear you stood up for those people.

To elaborate, I'm not saying all Baptists are assholes, just that it seems like a disproportionate number of their organizations seem to be populated by people who engage in asshole-like behaviour.
 
2014-03-11 06:10:35 PM

Fark It: Tax the churches.


And then give the revenue to the children's home.  Everybody wins!
 
2014-03-11 06:10:57 PM

Tyee: I quick GIS shows the GLTB charities seem to only give to other self interested GLBT causes rather than the community at large.  Maybe this is an opportunity created by Baptist intolerance for the GLBTs endear themselves to the community.


Well, as long as you've done such thorough research on the topic, who are we to argue?
 
2014-03-11 06:12:34 PM

jpadc: Hey Farkers, how about instead of biatching about how all those bigots make decisions about when and where to donate their money, why don't you just show them how wrong they are...

https://sunriseorg.worldsecuresystems.com/donate

that's what I thought... carry on.


For what reason should I provide any support to an organization that openly and willfully discriminates against homosexuals?
 
2014-03-11 06:13:02 PM

gerrymander: ox45tallboy: Jesus would not have behaved the way these churches have.

There's evidence that he would have: "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's; render unto God what is God's."

Exactly which owns what is what we're working out now. If "charity for abused children" is correctly to be usurped from the sacred world in favor of the secular, then the churches previously donating should find better use for their money fulfilling the mission they've chosen. The church members already pay taxes, which fulfills their obligation to the government.


Funny, seems like Caesar is saying "don't discriminate."
 
2014-03-11 06:14:42 PM

grumpfuff: Tyee: I quick GIS shows the GLTB charities seem to only give to other self interested GLBT causes rather than the community at large.  Maybe this is an opportunity created by Baptist intolerance for the GLBTs endear themselves to the community.

Well, as long as you've done such thorough research on the topic, who are we to argue?


I did a GIS for GLTB charities. It was less fap-worthy than I had hoped.
 
2014-03-11 06:18:57 PM

Gabrielmot: Assholes are born that way.


do they have the gay gene? liek black people?

/wow

themoarustare.jpg
 
2014-03-11 06:21:51 PM

grumpfuff: who are we to argue?


Seems we're in agreement, lets encourage LBGT charities to pick up the slack and help out other communities besides themselves.
 
2014-03-11 06:28:15 PM

Mouser: Funny, I thought the whole "loving their fellow man" was their defining feature.


Only in bathroom stalls.

Out in the daylight it's all hate all the time.
 
2014-03-11 06:29:15 PM

ox45tallboy: You don't call anything that modulates a modem just because it modulates - the name was applied specifically to devices which made the D/A conversion for use on an analog phone line.


A modem is any device that both modulates and demodulates a signal.  It is not limited to serial modems that operate on POTS lines.  A broadband modem also meets the definition.

If you compare a V.32 serial modem with a G.992.x DSL modem, you will see many of the same principles at work on the analog side.  Data is encoded into symbols, which is then passed through a D/A converter into a PSK or QAM baseband signal, which is then encoded into a carrier signal.  The basic concepts of framing, control frames/channels and error correction are all still there, too.


Gary-L: I had this very argument with a Christian friend of mine a couple of weeks ago. He feels strongly that (so-called) Christian businesses (like Hobby Lobby) have every right to require employees and customers adhere to the religious beliefs of the business owners.


He can argue that, but laws in the US and Canada generally tend to frown upon business owners projecting their personal values upon a business in such a way that it impacts their customers' and employees' ability to shop and work.  It is especially true when dealing with people of a protected class.  Business comes first.

Of course, there is a gray line between what constitutes a business and a private organization.  There are a number of church run schools, hospitals and charities that conduct commerce, but are still classified as private religious organizations.  There can be a fair amount of abuse just on the lee side of that line.  But as long as you don't cross it, you're organization's private values are free to reign.
 
2014-03-11 06:29:46 PM

Tyee: grumpfuff: who are we to argue?

Seems we're in agreement, lets encourage LBGT charities to pick up the slack and help out other communities besides themselves.


Woot, way to misquote me and intentionally misrepresent my sarcasm!

Or do you really think a "quick GIS" is thorough research?
 
2014-03-11 06:29:55 PM
It is hard to believe, but for most of the last millennium the church was the place of all things charity. Health care for the sick, feeding the poor, housing the homeless, etc.

There were obviously politics involved, especially with religious wars and all. But from my limited understanding, they were the social safety net. Seeing them today actively campaign against health care reform and removing support for foster homes show the church being LESS progressive than they were 500 years ago!
 
2014-03-11 06:31:11 PM

Tyee: grumpfuff: who are we to argue?

Seems we're in agreement, lets encourage LBGT charities to pick up the slack and help out other communities besides themselves.


I think we're in agreement that everyone can do more to help children's homes, but in disagreement about your insistence on dickish insinuations.

I'm willing to match your contribution up to, let's say, $150. You in?
 
2014-03-11 06:34:20 PM

miss diminutive: Let me guess....Baptists?

*checks article*

The Kentucky Baptist Convention, which approves of the anti-LGBT policy, is now back in the Sunrise's corner.

Sweet merciful crap, I wish I were more surprised. These people really have a hard-on for prejudice against gays, don't they?

I'll admit, I'm no expert on their specific denomination and I don't know any Southern Baptists well, but is there some kind of underlined or italicized text in the Baptist Bible that encourages so many of them to be such raging assholes?


miss diminutive: To elaborate, I'm not saying all Baptists are assholes, just that it seems like a disproportionate number of their organizations seem to be populated by people who engage in asshole-like behaviour.


they can't help it, they were born that way

they have the southern baptists gene, with big bones and gayblack bacteria in their guts (that's why they can't lose weight)

so you have every right to discriminate against them and mock their genetic born traits

*clicks profile*

Me No Likey
- the sound of my alarm clock
- people who say "same difference"
- throwing out old food that gets lost in some forgotten corner of my fridge
my student loan paid off, wooot!
- willful ignorance
- blatant hypocrisy


welcometogayfarkchan/b/.jpg

~Fin
 
2014-03-11 06:34:46 PM
Gabrielmot:

Let me introduce myself then. I'm a Baptist, raised in Louisiana ... rest of the idiots in this country.

But she felt safe to walk with a Baptist.


You sound like a great person. But you do realize that your leaders, those who determine what your faith's beliefs are, are the very people being discussed in this thread. If you don't believe what they do, then perhaps you should consider a conversion of some sort.


Like it or not, you are judged by the company you keep in life.


/my friends are all members of NAMBLA
//but I don't agree with that
///we're still cool, right?
////why are you hiding your children?
 
2014-03-11 06:38:30 PM

Hickory-smoked: I'm willing to match your contribution up to, let's say, $150. You in?


For way more than that already, but for you I'll add another $150 to a children's charity and I'll give in the name of Hickory-smoked.  My charity of choice is a orphanage in Haiti that I've  helped since the earthquake.  Thanks for the push, They need the $150.00 more than me.!
 
2014-03-11 06:40:47 PM

I drunk what: they can't help it, they were born that way


Religion isn't a choice?
 
2014-03-11 06:41:39 PM

Mouser: chknjetski: TerminalEchoes: So gays boycott the Salvation Army for their anti-gay stance. Churches cut funding to children's home for accepting gays. Both circumstances involve a group of people "voting with their wallet" for what they believe in. What's the difference, honestly?

Gays, as a group, don't profess to be looking out for and loving their fellow man. It's the hypocrisy, not the dick move.

Funny, I thought the whole "loving their fellow man" was their defining feature.


Well played.

+1
 
2014-03-11 06:41:56 PM

fusillade762: Hate the gays, starve the children. It's what Jesus would have done.


No. I'm pretty sure Jesus would've also blown-up some brown people, somewhere along the line.
 
2014-03-11 06:44:57 PM

Tyee: Hickory-smoked: I'm willing to match your contribution up to, let's say, $150. You in?

For way more than that already, but for you I'll add another $150 to a children's charity and I'll give in the name of Hickory-smoked.  My charity of choice is a orphanage in Haiti that I've  helped since the earthquake.  Thanks for the push, They need the $150.00 more than me.!


Challenge accepted. Though I'm giving mine to Sunrise Children's Services, since they are the subject of this debate.

/And as long as we're talking Haiti, I have friends who work with the Konbit Shelter Project. Check them out sometime.
 
2014-03-11 06:49:41 PM

ox45tallboy: the label of "Christian" just doesn't mean "follower of Christ" the way that "Buddhist" means "follower of Buddha".


never met a chinese buddhist I see
 
2014-03-11 06:51:34 PM

ox45tallboy: miss diminutive: Are you implying that they don't read the bible...or that they collectively suffer from an inability to read bold text?

There are Bibles that put words attributed to God/YHWH in all caps, and words attributed to Jesus in red letters. I guess you could have thought I meant that.
But I mean the first thing. I've seldom met a Southern Protestant of any flavor that knew the Bible better than me, and I stopped going to church when I was 18 and became an atheist soon afterwards.
Jesus would not have behaved the way these churches have.


It's even more pathetic when a Jew knows their Book better than they do.
 
2014-03-11 06:53:16 PM

ox45tallboy: Sin_City_Superhero: Old_Chief_Scott: No, what I mean is that you become what you abhor when you use "Christian" as your label.

I'm not following you. How do you mean that? Can you please elaborate?

I'm not sure what h means, but I think what he could mean is that the label of "Christian" just doesn't mean "follower of Christ" the way that "Buddhist" means "follower of Buddha". Most people who use the label in order to defend their actions do so to defend an action that pretty much no one who reads the teachings of Jesus and the accounts of his life could see Jesus as having taken. You just don't see Buddhists do this sort of thing.


In another thread someone suggested that instead of using the moniker "Christians" we should label folks who call themselves "Christians" either "Paulians" or "Jesusians", depending on whether the pay more attention to what Paul wrote in the Bible or what Jesus himself said.

At the risk of oversimplifying it, the misogynists and homophobes would be Paulians and the Jesusians would be a lot more feminist and gay-friendly.

Unfortunately, the Paulians would never agree to this: they'd insist, all evidence to the contrary, that they were following the actual teachings of Jesus just as much as the Jesusians and thus deserved the title. I suspect it would be rather like how young earth creationists insist what they believe is just as scientific as "evolutionism" and deserves equal coverage in the science classroom.
 
2014-03-11 06:53:58 PM

Hickory-smoked: Tyee: Hickory-smoked: I'm willing to match your contribution up to, let's say, $150. You in?

For way more than that already, but for you I'll add another $150 to a children's charity and I'll give in the name of Hickory-smoked.  My charity of choice is a orphanage in Haiti that I've  helped since the earthquake.  Thanks for the push, They need the $150.00 more than me.!

Challenge accepted. Though I'm giving mine to Sunrise Children's Services, since they are the subject of this debate.

/And as long as we're talking Haiti, I have friends who work with the Konbit Shelter Project. Check them out sometime.


//... and I still say your insinuations were unnecessary and dickish.
 
2014-03-11 06:55:27 PM

Hickory-smoked: I have friends who work with the Konbit Shelter Project.


I know where that is, not to far from Kenscoff and Petion-ville area where I go.  I'm helping build/moving the Orphanage up to Fort Jaques.  Right now its on leased property but we're building on newly purchased land.
 
2014-03-11 06:57:47 PM

ox45tallboy: I don't think people read the Bible looking for Jesus's message of love and compassion anymore. In fact, I think they purposefully skip over those parts. I love my dad, but I can't believe anyone would want to subscribe to any religion that taught hate and bigotry.


True. Most evangelicals and fundamentalists confine themselves to Genesis, Leviticus, a few other of the nasties bits of the Old Testament then skip straight to Paul's letters and on to Revelation. The last thing they want to read, or think about, is that no-good hippy liberal who shows up for a bit then gets what he deserved.
 
2014-03-11 06:58:36 PM

netizencain: Old_Chief_Scott: *sigh*

The point is that by using the label "Christian" instead of the specific "The Kentucky Baptist Convention" you lump all Christians in with the perpetrators. That is the very definition of bigotry, isn't it? It's the same as when someone tosses out "Red State" or "Blue State", it's a convenient way to lump together a group of people for the purpose of marginalizing them in some way.

The most shocking thing is the complacency from all the other Christian groups.  Everyone is upset when moderate muslims don't speak out against jihadists... this is the same thing.  One of the largest Christian organizations in Kentucky is shiatting all over the teachings of Christ.  But $5 says your pastor/priest wont discuss this in Church on Sunday.


Some of us belong to churches with assigned readings on Sundays--unless this particular topic has something to do with one of the readings, which are called "lessons" and the sermon is teach a lesson related to one of the readings (OT,NT, Psalm or Gospel) why would they?
 
2014-03-11 07:00:45 PM

MilesTeg: Nice of the Feds to hold a Children's Home hostage.


Explain the logic underlying that conclusion.
 
2014-03-11 07:01:20 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: ox45tallboy: miss diminutive: Are you implying that they don't read the bible...or that they collectively suffer from an inability to read bold text?

There are Bibles that put words attributed to God/YHWH in all caps, and words attributed to Jesus in red letters. I guess you could have thought I meant that.
But I mean the first thing. I've seldom met a Southern Protestant of any flavor that knew the Bible better than me, and I stopped going to church when I was 18 and became an atheist soon afterwards.
Jesus would not have behaved the way these churches have.

It's even more pathetic when a Jew knows their Book better than they do.


Or an atheist.
 
2014-03-11 07:01:46 PM

Hickory-smoked: //... and I still say your insinuations were unnecessary and dickish.


Say what you want, I don't care and I don't see them giving $ to any other causes than other GLBT causes. I've been wrong before, in 1978,... May I think.

BTW, The  $150.00 absolutely will get there from me and mine with much more.
 
2014-03-11 07:02:46 PM

ciberido: ox45tallboy: Sin_City_Superhero: Old_Chief_Scott: No, what I mean is that you become what you abhor when you use "Christian" as your label.

I'm not following you. How do you mean that? Can you please elaborate?

I'm not sure what h means, but I think what he could mean is that the label of "Christian" just doesn't mean "follower of Christ" the way that "Buddhist" means "follower of Buddha". Most people who use the label in order to defend their actions do so to defend an action that pretty much no one who reads the teachings of Jesus and the accounts of his life could see Jesus as having taken. You just don't see Buddhists do this sort of thing.

In another thread someone suggested that instead of using the moniker "Christians" we should label folks who call themselves "Christians" either "Paulians" or "Jesusians", depending on whether the pay more attention to what Paul wrote in the Bible or what Jesus himself said.

At the risk of oversimplifying it, the misogynists and homophobes would be Paulians and the Jesusians would be a lot more feminist and gay-friendly.

Unfortunately, the Paulians would never agree to this: they'd insist, all evidence to the contrary, that they were following the actual teachings of Jesus just as much as the Jesusians and thus deserved the title. I suspect it would be rather like how young earth creationists insist what they believe is just as scientific as "evolutionism" and deserves equal coverage in the science classroom.


I stand by my term, Paulists. The "moral majority" tend to fit in there. The actual Christians, you never hear about, because they actually follow Jesus's teaching, and minding your own business and being polite to others just isn't newsworthy.
 
2014-03-11 07:03:08 PM

chknjetski: Gabrielmot:

Let me introduce myself then. I'm a Baptist, raised in Louisiana ... rest of the idiots in this country.

But she felt safe to walk with a Baptist.

You sound like a great person. But you do realize that your leaders, those who determine what your faith's beliefs are, are the very people being discussed in this thread. If you don't believe what they do, then perhaps you should consider a conversion of some sort.


Like it or not, you are judged by the company you keep in life.


/my friends are all members of I give money to NAMBLA and attend their meetings
//but I don't agree with that
///we're still cool, right?
////why are you hiding your children?



I think this is a bit more comparable.
 
2014-03-11 07:04:02 PM

TerminalEchoes: So gays boycott the Salvation Army for their anti-gay stance. Churches cut funding to children's home for accepting gays. Both circumstances involve a group of people "voting with their wallet" for what they believe in. What's the difference, honestly?


Apart from one group being on the side of tolerance and acceptance and the other group being against those things, very little, I suspect.
 
2014-03-11 07:05:15 PM

Tyee: Hickory-smoked: //... and I still say your insinuations were unnecessary and dickish.

Say what you want, I don't care and I don't see them giving $ to any other causes than other GLBT causes. I've been wrong before, in 1978,... May I think.

BTW, The  $150.00 absolutely will get there from me and mine with much more.


So, you're mad because charities meant to promote equality for LGBT individuals, are using the money they get to fund LGBT causes?

I'm assuming then, that you are equally mad that some Christian charities only donate to causes they consider Christian?
 
2014-03-11 07:05:56 PM

miss diminutive: Gabrielmot: Being a Baptist doesn't make someone an asshole. Assholes are born that way.

Thanks for the background info, and I'm happy to hear you stood up for those people.
To elaborate, I'm not saying all Baptists are assholes, just that it seems like a disproportionate number of their organizations seem to be populated by people who engage in asshole-like behaviour.


Baptists as a denomination have high poverty rates, and this is historically true. They made a vice out of virtues: No drinkin', smokin', or dancin' is a good thing if you're trying to get out of poverty, but it also gives you a free pass to feel holier than the better-heeled heathens in your area.  The Southern Baptists have become better off and are trying to legislate their dogma on the heathens, like good Christian soldiers[SIC] should.
 
2014-03-11 07:06:53 PM
In case you didn't know, Martin Luther King, Jr was a Southern Baptist! Not all Southern Baptists are bad people. Stereotypes are dangerous things...
 
2014-03-11 07:07:30 PM
Risk ~$23M of gov't funding for $7M of church funding. Hm.

I stand corrected. Arithmetic is hard.
 
2014-03-11 07:12:12 PM

allylloyd: In case you didn't know, Martin Luther King, Jr was a Southern Baptist! Not all Southern Baptists are bad people. Stereotypes are dangerous things...


Not all southern Baptists are Southern Baptists.
 
2014-03-11 07:13:50 PM

punkhippie: Katolu: Benevolent Misanthrope: Christians.  Just... Christians.  Fark.

This sums it up.

Indeed. And if decent people who call themselves Christians are upset by this kind of generalization, they can do something about it. They can say publicly and on a regular basis that asshole "christians" aren't Christians at all. Until then, they're just like the "good" cop who lets the bad cop do what he wants.



*coughs*

As a decent person who calls herself a Christian, I say publicly and on a regular basis that this kind of discrimination isn't Christian at all.

Do I win a prize or something?
 
2014-03-11 07:14:34 PM

Slartibartfaster: ox45tallboy: the label of "Christian" just doesn't mean "follower of Christ" the way that "Buddhist" means "follower of Buddha".


never met a chinese buddhist I see


No, I haven't. The Buddhists I have known all just look to the Buddha as an example of how to live a fulfilling life, but never get caught up in dogma the way most Christians seem to.

I'm willing to bet in China that many people consider themselves "Buddhist" simply because they were exposed to the teachings early, but aren't really devoutly into it. Kind of like American Catholics.
 
2014-03-11 07:16:31 PM

Big_Fat_Liar: I've been 100% pro-gay rights for as long as i can remember and thought Clinton was a douche for DOMA and DADT, but I have an issue with having an issue discriminating against "openly gay" employees.  My issues is a church should be able to discriminate against openly sexual employees whether heterosexual or openly gay.  You don't work for a church and come to work and talk about sucking cauk or eating at the Y while at work.  It's not the place for lifestyle attention whoring.


2004 called.  They say their strawman is old and tired and they want him back so he can finally have a nice rest.
 
2014-03-11 07:19:13 PM

grumpfuff: I'm assuming then, that you are equally mad that some all Christian charities only donate to causes they consider Christian?


I hope you don't mind I changed that slightly  so I could say that I would encourage them to diversify as I have just done with the other groups, I'll be consistent.   I give support to at least two local  "Christian Charities" that help people regardless of faith.
 
2014-03-11 07:20:33 PM

ciberido: Unfortunately, the Paulians would never agree to this: they'd insist, all evidence to the contrary, that they were following the actual teachings of Jesus just as much as the Jesusians and thus deserved the title. I suspect it would be rather like how young earth creationists insist what they believe is just as scientific as "evolutionism" and deserves equal coverage in the science classroom.


My family believes (and this is common in the Church of Christ) that Paul's words should carry as much weight as Jesus' because he was an Apostle of God, and his words were inspired by God. Anything that Jesus was unclear on, like homosexuality, we should refer to Paul's teachings as if they came from Jesus himself, because Paul was kind of "filling in the gaps" of what didn't make it into the written stuff, and demonstrating how to apply Jesus' teachings in real life situations.

Because of this, they believe slavery is okay, but it wasn't commanded. This is the main reason I dismiss Paul's teachings - I'm not going to let anyone claim to be a moral authority I should listen to when they say human slavery is okay as long as you don't treat your slaves too badly.
 
2014-03-11 07:22:27 PM

Tyee: grumpfuff: I'm assuming then, that you are equally mad that some all Christian charities only donate to causes they consider Christian?

I hope you don't mind I changed that slightly  so I could say that I would encourage them to diversify as I have just done with the other groups, I'll be consistent.   I give support to at least two local  "Christian Charities" that help people regardless of faith.


You'll have to forgive me for not being upset or shocked that a charity focuses their giving on what their stated cause is.
 
2014-03-11 07:22:35 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: It's even more pathetic when a Jew knows their Book better than they do.


I've known several Jews who study the records of Jesus. He was a pretty cool guy that gave some good advice that we should listen to, whether or not he was the son of God.
 
2014-03-11 07:26:45 PM

Slartibartfaster: ox45tallboy: the label of "Christian" just doesn't mean "follower of Christ" the way that "Buddhist" means "follower of Buddha".

never met a chinese buddhist I see


In any internet discussion of religion, as the thread continues, the odds that someone will claim that all religions are bad will increase towards certainty; after that claim is made, if the thread continues on long enough, it is inevitable that someone will claim that Buddhism is an exception to that rule.

I call it "ciberido's 7th law," but only because I don't have a better name for it.  I'm sure someone observed it long before I did.
 
2014-03-11 07:28:11 PM

ox45tallboy: He was a pretty cool guy that gave some good advice that we should listen to, whether or not he was the son of God. who doesn't afraid of anything.


/sorry
//couldn't help it
 
2014-03-11 07:28:43 PM

ox45tallboy: My parents were houseparents at a children's group home when I was growing up. At the time, I didn't understand the way that the director had to play politics with everyone in order to keep funding going, I just heard my parents b*tching about it an awful lot.

Thing is, they forced the kids to attend religious services as a condition of staying there, with the alternative being a "reform school" type of institution. It did not endear Christianity to any of them the way you might think, especially considering that it was such a fundamentalist church.

Having said that, the idea that these churches are somehow "protecting" these kids from gay people is laughable. Here's a hint: these kids already interact with gay people on a daily basis, and nothing you can do or say to these kids will change the fact that some of them will be gay themselves.

The tragedy of this, to me, is that it cost this director his job. He was trying to do the right thing and get funding for these kids. Thing is, no one takes a job like that unless they really do want to do some good; it doesn't pay very well at all, and you have to take the "self-satisfaction" of doing genuinely good work by providing children who have suffered abuse and neglect through no fault of their own with an alternative to the institutions as part of your salary.


Of course they're protecting kids from gay people.  These kids get to see that gay people are hated and kicked out of jobs, so they'll learn how to treat gay people badly and discriminate against them.

And for the ones who are gay, as there will inevitably be a few, they can learn a sense of shame about themselves, and possibly keep it in the closet, except in airport restroom stalls like good Republicans.  Or even better they can hate themselves so much that they'll go ahead and eliminate one more gay person, saving the good christians the trouble of having to drag him behind their truck to send him to hell.
 
2014-03-11 07:30:17 PM

Tyee: grumpfuff: I'm assuming then, that you are equally mad that some all Christian charities only donate to causes they consider Christian?

I hope you don't mind I changed that slightly  so I could say that I would encourage them to diversify as I have just done with the other groups, I'll be consistent.   I give support to at least two local  "Christian Charities" that help people regardless of faith.


Liar, you are a stupid old man that doesn't do anything for anyone.
 
2014-03-11 07:30:23 PM

allylloyd: Some of us belong to churches with assigned readings on Sundays--unless this particular topic has something to do with one of the readings, which are called "lessons" and the sermon is teach a lesson related to one of the readings (OT,NT, Psalm or Gospel) why would they?


Interesting. Why not? Pat Robertson and other TV evangelists don't seem to have a problem with teaching their views in light of world events. Why don't more pulpit preachers do the same?

I do some work helping my sister's church send an aid package to Guyana every few months when I'm around. Recently, they asked me to redo the computers they are sending down there, and put on a Bible app and stuff, and get a router set up that they're all ready to connect to. They're teaching the people there a brand of Christianity I don't care for (same fundamentalist Church of Christ I grew up in), but they are providing good assistance of clothes and medication (and technology) to these people.

I don't find myself to be hypocrite for donating my time and work to this cause, any more than anyone else who attends this church and participates in this mission work is a hypocrite because they have some more minor difference in dogma. Good work is good work, even if you don't agree with everything being done.
 
2014-03-11 07:33:13 PM

ciberido: 2004 called.


OMG DID YOU WARN THEM ABOUT BENGHAZI!!?!?!?!?!?
 
2014-03-11 07:33:55 PM

grumpfuff: You'll have to forgive me for not being upset or shocked that a charity focuses their giving on what their stated cause is.


Isn't that what the Baptists are doing?  Focusing on what their cause and where their beliefs?  You might not agree with their interpretation of scripture but they are not giving to something they believe is counter to their beliefs.  I'm sure they still give to other causes, just not the 180 off type.  It would be like the LGBT charity stopping support funding anti-gay activists would you be getting upset over that?  I wouldn't think so.
 
2014-03-11 07:40:52 PM

CynicalLA: Liar, you are a stupid old man that doesn't do anything for anyone.


http://mlf.org/locations/minneapolis/
http://www.cesmn.org/

I love the fact that you seem to relish being wrong, over and over,  it can't be for real so keep up the act!  We're all cheering for you!
 
2014-03-11 07:41:52 PM

DarkVader: Of course they're protecting kids from gay people.  These kids get to see that gay people are hated and kicked out of jobs, so they'll learn how to treat gay people badly and discriminate against them.

And for the ones who are gay, as there will inevitably be a few, they can learn a sense of shame about themselves, and possibly keep it in the closet, except in airport restroom stalls like good Republicans.  Or even better they can hate themselves so much that they'll go ahead and eliminate one more gay person, saving the good christians the trouble of having to drag him behind their truck to send him to hell.


I linked to this earlier, but here it is again (warning: PDF). This is from one of the several lawsuits filed against this organization stemming from their firing of a counselor/teacher when they discovered she was a lesbian. I thought this was appropriate to show how non-hyperbolic your statement actually is:

23. On information and belief, KBHC seeks to instill its version of Christian values and
teachings to the youth in its care by, among other things, taking the youth to Baptist church services,
hiring only staff who model KBHC's version of Christian values and lifestyles, denying the youth
access to healthy adult gay and lesbian role models, providing informal Christian training to the
youth through KBHC staff, and placing foster children in Baptist foster homes. KBHC's
Christ-centered mission permeates KBHC programs and the services that KBHC provides to youth
in its care.
24. KBHC requires all employees to "exhibit values in their professional conduct and
personal lifestyles that are consistent with the Christian mission and purpose of the institution."


-SNIP-

28. Shortly thereafter, Jack Cox informed PEDREIRA that the KBHC Cabinet decided
to ask PEDREIRA to resign because she is a lesbian. PEDREIRA refused to resign. Shortly
thereafter, PEDREIRA was informed that she would be terminated because her sexual orientation
was inconsistent with KBHC's religious beliefs.
29. PEDREIRA and Cox decided that it would be clinically dangerous if PEDREIRA's
departure were not explained to the youth in her care, who might feel abandoned if they thought her
departure was voluntary, or might feel that their trust was violated unless they were told the true
reason for her departure. Therefore, for therapeutic reasons, PEDREIRA agreed to explain to the
youth the reason she was being fired, and she and Cox met with the young men for this purpose.
PEDREIRA had never discussed her sexual orientation with any of the young men until this
meeting.
30. PEDREIRA suffered great humiliation and embarrassment as a result of being
forced to disclose her sexual orientation, and the fact that she was being terminated because of it,
to the youth in her care. Nonetheless, she told the young men in order to protect their well-being.
31. The following day, PEDREIRA led a regularly scheduled group session with the
young men. Several of them were upset because another KBHC staff member told them that
PEDREIRA, who the young men had come to trust, was no better than a murderer because she was
gay and therefore deserved to be fired. Several of the youth expressed fear that they could be
expelled from KBHC if they were gay.
PEDREIRA did her best to calm them and tried to reassure
them that they would be protected.
32. PEDREIRA suffered further humiliation and embarrassment as she helped the
young men in her care understand and accept her termination and worked to repair the sense of
abandonment, betrayal, and instability caused by KBHC.the youth in her care. Nonetheless, she told the
young men in order to protect their well-being


How in the living f*ck is this the best thing for the kids?
 
2014-03-11 07:43:34 PM

Tyee: grumpfuff: You'll have to forgive me for not being upset or shocked that a charity focuses their giving on what their stated cause is.

Isn't that what the Baptists are doing?  Focusing on what their cause and where their beliefs?  You might not agree with their interpretation of scripture but they are not giving to something they believe is counter to their beliefs.  I'm sure they still give to other causes, just not the 180 off type.  It would be like the LGBT charity stopping support funding anti-gay activists would you be getting upset over that?  I wouldn't think so.


Notice that I am not taking issue with them not donating to non-Baptist causes. I am not taking issue with them not funding LGBT causes. I am taking issue with them withholding funding unless the receiver practices bigotry. What they are saying to me is "Condemning the homogheys is more important than helping children in need."

You'll have to forgive me, but I'm pretty sure Jesus wasn't too big on judging, and was pretty big on helping those in need.
 
2014-03-11 07:46:22 PM

Tyee: grumpfuff: You'll have to forgive me for not being upset or shocked that a charity focuses their giving on what their stated cause is.

Isn't that what the Baptists are doing?  Focusing on what their cause and where their beliefs?  You might not agree with their interpretation of scripture but they are not giving to something they believe is counter to their beliefs.  I'm sure they still give to other causes, just not the 180 off type.  It would be like the LGBT charity stopping support funding anti-gay activists would you be getting upset over that?  I wouldn't think so.


That makes no sense. Are you saying feeding the children is the greater evil compared to discriminating against LGBT-inclusive organizations? And don't pull the false-choice crap-- in the overall calculus of determining what's more important in the Lord's eyes, are you saying they made the right decision?
 
2014-03-11 07:49:08 PM

ciberido: punkhippie: Katolu: Benevolent Misanthrope: Christians.  Just... Christians.  Fark.

This sums it up.

Indeed. And if decent people who call themselves Christians are upset by this kind of generalization, they can do something about it. They can say publicly and on a regular basis that asshole "christians" aren't Christians at all. Until then, they're just like the "good" cop who lets the bad cop do what he wants.


*coughs*

As a decent person who calls herself a Christian, I say publicly and on a regular basis that this kind of discrimination isn't Christian at all.

Do I win a prize or something?


Nope.
 
2014-03-11 07:59:07 PM
The government cares more about kids that christian conservatives do.
 
2014-03-11 08:02:40 PM

rzrwiresunrise: are you saying they made the right decision?


No.

.

grumpfuff: unless the receiver practices bigotry


Maybe they don't see it as bigotry.Maybe they interpret it as willful disobedience to God.  You may, but I'm not going to judge them for what and/or how they believe.   I will say this, I would do it much differently.

 You'll have to forgive me, but I'm pretty sure Jesus wasn't too big on judgingI'll forgive you but it isn't my forgiveness you seek

G'night for now I'm off to a ball game.
 
2014-03-11 08:05:56 PM
theamericanjesus.net
 
2014-03-11 08:07:45 PM

Tyee: You may, but I'm not going to judge them for what and/or how they believe.


If they want to believe a group of people should be treated as second-class citizens, I am absolutely going to judge them.
 
2014-03-11 08:13:22 PM

grumpfuff: If they want to believe a group of people should be treated as second-class citizens, I am absolutely going to judge them.


You have that right, just so you don't look at them as something  less than you while you do it,  because, well....

~gone
 
2014-03-11 08:18:17 PM

allylloyd: In case you didn't know, Martin Luther King, Jr was a Southern Baptist! Not all Southern Baptists are bad people. Stereotypes are dangerous things...


Fair enough.

But we are talking about the epic scumbags in this church (and yes, the members who give the church their money implicitly support decisions of their church).

Holding the welfare of children hostage to force a charity to express and enforce your hate is truly repulsive and amoral.
 
2014-03-11 08:21:09 PM

ox45tallboy: I don't think people read the Bible looking for Jesus's message of love and compassion anymore. In fact, I think they purposefully skip over those parts. I love my dad, but I can't believe anyone would want to subscribe to any religion that taught hate and bigotry.


1) Nowhere do any of the earliest known New Testament manuscripts use the name "Jehovah," "YHWH," or any variation thereupon to describe "the Father."

2) Jesus stated prior to his crucifixion that his death would drive out "the prince of this world." It is widely agreed that "the prince of this world" refers to "the devil." John 12:31.

3) Paul states that the "god of this world" has "blinded" people to the truth. It is widely agreed that "the god of this world" here refers to the devil.

4) The devil reportedly offered Jesus "all the kingdoms of the world" to stray from the true path, suggesting that all the kingdoms of the world were his to give.

5) Popular interpretation of Genesis holds that Jehovah created this world.

6) Throughout the Old Testament, it is clear that Jehovah is the "god of this world."

7) Nowhere does either testament indicate when or why Jehovah handed over "the keys to the kingdom," so to speak, to the devil.

Conclusion: the evil "god of this world" who tempted Jesus, who had "blinded" people to the truth, was to Christ's apostles Jehovah Elohim.

Implication: virtually all of contemporary Christendom has been duped into worshiping the devil, in the guise of Jehovah Elohim. The "New Covenant?" It and all its predecessors are contracts with the devil.

Anyone whose faith tells them that discriminating against homosexuals matters more than providing for needy children has accepted that contract with the devil.

"Without a doubt Paul is identifying the Lawgiver with the "god of this aion." Obviously Paul's God was not simply the "God of the Bible" as so many Christians presume today."
 
2014-03-11 08:22:11 PM

gerrymander: ox45tallboy: Jesus would not have behaved the way these churches have.

There's evidence that he would have: "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's; render unto God what is God's."

Exactly which owns what is what we're working out now. If "charity for abused children" is correctly to be usurped from the sacred world in favor of the secular, then the churches previously donating should find better use for their money fulfilling the mission they've chosen. The church members already pay taxes, which fulfills their obligation to the government.


I disagree.
Mark 2:15-17
15 Later, Levi invited Jesus and his disciples to his home as dinner guests, along with many tax collectors and other disreputable sinners. (There were many people of this kind among Jesus' followers.) 16 But when the teachers of religious law who were Pharisees saw him eating with tax collectors and other sinners, they asked his disciples, "Why does he eat with such scum?"

17 When Jesus heard this, he told them, "Healthy people don't need a doctor-sick people do. I have come to call not those who think they are righteous, but those who know they are sinners

I am not remotely trying to imply that I think homosexuality is a sin, I'm merely pointing out that if they wanted to be Christ-like, they would never do anything to shun someone they felt in need of saving. Rather they would welcome them and try to convert them by showing them how wonderful being a Christian can be. They are hypocrites and are intellectually lazy and dishonest.

/the relevant passage for who is a sinner and isn't would be Matthew 7:1
//for clarity, ex-RC atheist
 
2014-03-11 08:23:42 PM

Baz744: Conclusion: the evil "god of this world" who tempted Jesus, who had "blinded" people to the truth, was to Christ's apostles Jehovah Elohim.


There were gnostic sects that believed exactly this.
 
2014-03-11 08:30:43 PM

Baz744: Anyone whose faith tells them that discriminating against homosexuals matters more than providing for needy children has accepted that contract with the devil.


I'm an atheist; I don't believe in any of the stuff about gods and miracles and all that. But I think Jesus had some good points. Even if he were a fictional character, he gave some really good advice that we would all do well to listen to. Treat other people with love and compassion, not just even if, but especially if you think they are a "sinner".

These people that claim to be following him when they act with a "better than you" attitude towards other people are just... not.
 
2014-03-11 08:34:35 PM

ox45tallboy: Baz744: Anyone whose faith tells them that discriminating against homosexuals matters more than providing for needy children has accepted that contract with the devil.

I'm an atheist; I don't believe in any of the stuff about gods and miracles and all that. But I think Jesus had some good points. Even if he were a fictional character, he gave some really good advice that we would all do well to listen to. Treat other people with love and compassion, not just even if, but especially if you think they are a "sinner".

These people that claim to be following him when they act with a "better than you" attitude towards other people are just... not.


Ghandi said it best.

www.smsandquotes.com
 
2014-03-11 08:38:40 PM

ciberido: punkhippie: Katolu: Benevolent Misanthrope: Christians.  Just... Christians.  Fark.

This sums it up.

Indeed. And if decent people who call themselves Christians are upset by this kind of generalization, they can do something about it. They can say publicly and on a regular basis that asshole "christians" aren't Christians at all. Until then, they're just like the "good" cop who lets the bad cop do what he wants.


*coughs*
As a decent person who calls herself a Christian, I say publicly and on a regular basis that this kind of discrimination isn't Christian at all.
Do I win a prize or something?


Si. Burrito.
/Kosher, even.
 
2014-03-11 08:46:18 PM

Agent Smiths Laugh: ciberido: punkhippie: Katolu: Benevolent Misanthrope: Christians.  Just... Christians.  Fark.

This sums it up.

Indeed. And if decent people who call themselves Christians are upset by this kind of generalization, they can do something about it. They can say publicly and on a regular basis that asshole "christians" aren't Christians at all. Until then, they're just like the "good" cop who lets the bad cop do what he wants.


*coughs*

As a decent person who calls herself a Christian, I say publicly and on a regular basis that this kind of discrimination isn't Christian at all.

Do I win a prize or something?

Nope.


Awww.  I was hoping for a cookie at least.
 
2014-03-11 08:50:31 PM

ox45tallboy: demaL-demaL-yeH: It's even more pathetic when a Jew knows their Book better than they do.

I've known several Jews who study the records of Jesus. He was a pretty cool guy that gave some good advice that we should listen to, whether or not he was the son of God.


It's more along the lines of:
1. A desire to understand literature, which makes extensive references to mistranslations of our Book, as well as that other one.
2. In order to understand the source of arguments being aimed at us, and to help us respond as nicely as possible.
3. As a cultural reference. (It's not the same as 1. above.)
4. In order to better prepare our children for what they'll encounter. (Proselytizing, jerks, bigots, and the like.)
5. To understand the profound differences.

An example of 5.: The good advice is a somewhat distorted reflection of Pirkei Avot. Tzedakah, for example, - mandatory charity, justice, and righteousness - is a classic missing-in-translation concept.
 
2014-03-11 08:57:16 PM

Baz744: ox45tallboy: I don't think people read the Bible looking for Jesus's message of love and compassion anymore. In fact, I think they purposefully skip over those parts. I love my dad, but I can't believe anyone would want to subscribe to any religion that taught hate and bigotry.

1) Nowhere do any of the earliest known New Testament manuscripts use the name "Jehovah," "YHWH," or any variation thereupon to describe "the Father."

2) Jesus stated prior to his crucifixion that his death would drive out "the prince of this world." It is widely agreed that "the prince of this world" refers to "the devil." John 12:31.

3) Paul states that the "god of this world" has "blinded" people to the truth. It is widely agreed that "the god of this world" here refers to the devil.

4) The devil reportedly offered Jesus "all the kingdoms of the world" to stray from the true path, suggesting that all the kingdoms of the world were his to give.

5) Popular interpretation of Genesis holds that Jehovah created this world.

6) Throughout the Old Testament, it is clear that Jehovah is the "god of this world."

7) Nowhere does either testament indicate when or why Jehovah handed over "the keys to the kingdom," so to speak, to the devil.

Conclusion: the evil "god of this world" who tempted Jesus, who had "blinded" people to the truth, was to Christ's apostles Jehovah Elohim.

Implication: virtually all of contemporary Christendom has been duped into worshiping the devil, in the guise of Jehovah Elohim. The "New Covenant?" It and all its predecessors are contracts with the devil.


Marcion of Sinope would like a word with you.
 
2014-03-11 09:28:57 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Tzedakah, for example, - mandatory charity, justice, and righteousness - is a classic missing-in-translation concept.


Jesus' doctrine of love and compassion for everyone, especially those seen to be the "least" of people, was somewhat revolutionary where he taught it, but he was not necessarily the first to teach that sort of thing. There are those who believe he spent some time in the far East and picked up the contemporary teachings there of charity and justice, and brought them back to the Middle East, repackaged for a Jewish audience.
 
2014-03-11 09:35:09 PM

ciberido: Big_Fat_Liar: I've been 100% pro-gay rights for as long as i can remember and thought Clinton was a douche for DOMA and DADT, but I have an issue with having an issue discriminating against "openly gay" employees.  My issues is a church should be able to discriminate against openly sexual employees whether heterosexual or openly gay.  You don't work for a church and come to work and talk about sucking cauk or eating at the Y while at work.  It's not the place for lifestyle attention whoring.

2004 called.  They say their strawman is old and tired and they want him back so he can finally have a nice rest.


Strawman?  Whatever.  I support the rights of all people.
 
2014-03-11 09:38:12 PM

ox45tallboy: demaL-demaL-yeH: Tzedakah, for example, - mandatory charity, justice, and righteousness - is a classic missing-in-translation concept.

Jesus' doctrine of love and compassion for everyone, especially those seen to be the "least" of people, was somewhat revolutionary where he taught it, but he was not necessarily the first to teach that sort of thing. There are those who believe he spent some time in the far East and picked up the contemporary teachings there of charity and justice, and brought them back to the Middle East, repackaged for a Jewish audience.


Except every concept attributed to him was either directly state-of-the-art Judaism or a minor modification.
I alluded to Pirkei Avot earlier. (That is a link without the commentary.)
The nonsense about Pharisees was added later, since his reported teachings were pretty much identical with those of the Pharisees.
 
2014-03-11 09:42:59 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: Christians.  Just... Christians.  Fark.


Speaking as a transgender, bisexual person who's nonetheless devoutly Christian...

Not all of them.
 
2014-03-11 09:43:26 PM

ox45tallboy: Jesus' doctrine of love and compassion for everyone, especially those seen to be the "least" of people, was somewhat revolutionary where he taught it,


No. No, it was not. (Leviticus 19)
 
2014-03-11 09:44:43 PM
Churches should be taxed.  If you are going to interject yourself into political issues then you get to pay the same taxes as the rest of us.
 
2014-03-11 09:44:44 PM

miss diminutive: I drunk what: they can't help it, they were born that way
  Religion isn't a choice?

not according to this rocket scientist:

Gabrielmot: Assholes are born that way.


you pointed out that SO MANY southern baptists are a-holes, and he simply noted that they were born that way..

no argument there

it's the southern gene that makes them so idiotic ;)

encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com

so it's not religion's fault that they are retarded, they're just born that way..

baptist
 
2014-03-11 09:58:21 PM
Jesus is mythological, God is make believe, and your beliefs are stupid.

fark off and die, Christians.
 
2014-03-11 10:03:45 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: ox45tallboy: Jesus' doctrine of love and compassion for everyone, especially those seen to be the "least" of people, was somewhat revolutionary where he taught it,

No. No, it was not. (Leviticus 19)


Um... the entire rest of Leviticus, with the whole "eye for an eye" and "stone your disobedient children to death"? The doctrine of "always forgive others" and "love your neighbor as yourself, even those neighbors from foreign lands that you've never met" doesn't exactly match up with Mosaical law.
 
2014-03-11 10:23:34 PM

ox45tallboy: gerrymander: ox45tallboy: Jesus would not have behaved the way these churches have.

There's evidence that he would have: "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's; render unto God what is God's."

Exactly which owns what is what we're working out now. If "charity for abused children" is correctly to be usurped from the sacred world in favor of the secular, then the churches previously donating should find better use for their money fulfilling the mission they've chosen. The church members already pay taxes, which fulfills their obligation to the government.

Funny, seems like Caesar is saying "don't discriminate."


That is awesome.  May I quote you?
 
2014-03-11 10:31:35 PM
ox45tallboy's position and knowledge of the topic have reshaped how I look at the issue.

I think putting functions like this in the hands of nongovernmental organizations is like privatizing prisons.  You put way too much power in the hands of people who do not answer to the body of voters.  You give too influential a voice to people who have an agenda that does not serve the Constitution.

But that is the best that two shots of first rate bourbon can come up with.
 
2014-03-11 10:37:11 PM

That Guy Jeff: Meh, people can spend their money however they want to spend their money. I'm not too thrilled with a children's home being funded by religious folks anyway. They usually attach strings or least try to get people to read their incredibly violent and pornographic novelization of Hebrew history.


Now this, I can tolerate a lot better than some others.

You hate all Christians.. but at least you explain WHY you hate them.

/is Christian
//is LGBT
///Your head asplode
 
2014-03-11 10:52:04 PM

Tyee: grumpfuff: You'll have to forgive me for not being upset or shocked that a charity focuses their giving on what their stated cause is.

Isn't that what the Baptists are doing?  Focusing on what their cause and where their beliefs?  You might not agree with their interpretation of scripture but they are not giving to something they believe is counter to their beliefs.


If the charity was somehow exclusively for gay kids or something, that might be a rational argument. Instead, they've cut off support for a children's home because the home opted to comply with a state anti-discrimination law.

I won't claim I've been a regular church-goer in a number of years, but it's not a question of interpretation to say that attitude goes against literally everything I've ever read about Christ.


It would be like the LGBT charity stopping support funding anti-gay activists would you be getting upset over that?  I wouldn't think so.

Are you suggesting that Sunrise Children's Services is now being managed by anti-Christian activists? If not, pause and reflect on how silly that argument is.

And just be clear, I know for a fact that there are gay men and women involved in a great many charitable causes, including human rights, poverty, education, and almost certainly you've worked alongside them in Haiti. The fact that you Googled "GLBT charities" and saw orgs focused on GLBT rights doesn't mean that's all they do.

You understood all of this already, right?
 
gja [TotalFark]
2014-03-11 11:08:21 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: ox45tallboy: Jesus' doctrine of love and compassion for everyone, especially those seen to be the "least" of people, was somewhat revolutionary where he taught it,

No. No, it was not. (Leviticus 19)


That was "God" (in big booming voice) not Jesus. Sorry, but I don't see the bible to be a good source of Jesus' true teachings.
The translations over the millennia amount to a published version of the "telephone" game. Lots lost in the translation.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2014-03-11 11:10:41 PM
Benevolent Misanthrope: Christians Baptists.  Just... Christians Baptists.  Fark.

They are a special spin-off-from-hell sect. I have yet to meet one that didn't hate ME because....."yankee cath-o-lick type".

They are what they are. I steer well clear of their hate-speech-from-a-pulpit type.

Anyone that thinks they are doing gods work by screaming at you at the top of their lungs that you're a sinning POS and will burn in hades unless you blindly follow and hate what they hate....well forget it.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2014-03-11 11:15:10 PM

JesusJuice: Jesus is mythological, God is make believe, and your beliefs are stupid.

fark off and die, Christians.


And you expect to be taken seriously with such vitriol dripping from the snarling corners of your mouth?
Chill, and maybe take a 'lude or a xanax, dude.
 
2014-03-11 11:17:38 PM

ox45tallboy: demaL-demaL-yeH: ox45tallboy: Jesus' doctrine of love and compassion for everyone, especially those seen to be the "least" of people, was somewhat revolutionary where he taught it,

No. No, it was not. (Leviticus 19)

Um... the entire rest of Leviticus, with the whole "eye for an eye" and "stone your disobedient children to death"? The doctrine of "always forgive others" and "love your neighbor as yourself, even those neighbors from foreign lands that you've never met" doesn't exactly match up with Mosaical law.


Eye for eye referenced upthread? That's written in the language of monetary compensation for injury - silver.
Stoning disobedient children? About that. (Cf. Sanhedrin 71)

Forgive? 19:18
Love neighbor? 19:17-18
Foreigners? 19:10, 33-34 "strangers"

Remember: It's OUR Book When your interpretations are wrong, it's not your fault. Because it's not your Book. (NSFW language)
 
gja [TotalFark]
2014-03-11 11:27:31 PM

TheNewJesus: These churches need to be re-classified as hate groups. Their tax exemption should be pulled, and all members should be put on a watch list.

You don't like living in a free nation? Get out.


0/10, too overt
 
2014-03-11 11:51:03 PM

0z79: That Guy Jeff: Meh, people can spend their money however they want to spend their money. I'm not too thrilled with a children's home being funded by religious folks anyway. They usually attach strings or least try to get people to read their incredibly violent and pornographic novelization of Hebrew history.

Now this, I can tolerate a lot better than some others.

You hate all Christians.. but at least you explain WHY you hate them.

/is Christian
//is LGBT
///Your head asplode


Being LGBT doesn't preclude someone from believing really stupid shiat. I'm also know a feminist Muslim. So people just can't bring themselves to part with what they were indoctrinated with as children, no matter how much their cult hates them.
 
2014-03-11 11:51:04 PM

Contrabulous Flabtraption: Why would any organization fund something that it opposes? You may not like and it may suck but it's perfectly reasonable.


Because 'helping children' is more important than 'gay people having jobs'?
 
2014-03-11 11:56:35 PM
Those fundies are always looking for government handouts.
 
2014-03-12 12:43:52 AM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Eye for eye referenced upthread? That's written in the language of monetary compensation for injury - silver.
Stoning disobedient children? About that. (Cf. Sanhedrin 71)

Forgive? 19:18
Love neighbor? 19:17-18
Foreigners? 19:10, 33-34 "strangers"


Dude, I'm an atheist. I think all of the holy books from every religion were written by men giving the best advice they could for the people and the culture of the time. Some things are applicable today, some aren't. There's an awful lot of overlap between religions in the stuff that still works today, things like being good to your fellow man. Not so much in things like haircuts and dietary requirements and slavery and women being property and virginity being valued and human sacrifices and all that.

It really doesn't matter to me who the first to say something intelligent was, any more than it matters who the first to tame fire or use a wheel was - it's all knowledge that is now part of the human experience.
 
2014-03-12 12:46:09 AM

That Guy Jeff: Being LGBT doesn't preclude someone from believing really stupid shiat. I'm also know a feminist Muslim. So people just can't bring themselves to part with what they were indoctrinated with as children, no matter how much their cult hates them.


www.logcabin.org

static.wixstatic.com

 
2014-03-12 12:49:33 AM

ox45tallboy: That Guy Jeff: Being LGBT doesn't preclude someone from believing really stupid shiat. I'm also know a feminist Muslim. So people just can't bring themselves to part with what they were indoctrinated with as children, no matter how much their cult hates them.

[www.logcabin.org image 580x120]

[static.wixstatic.com image 500x143]


Ah, the Uncle Ruckus of the Republican Party?
 
2014-03-12 12:54:44 AM

hardinparamedic: ox45tallboy: That Guy Jeff: Being LGBT doesn't preclude someone from believing really stupid shiat. I'm also know a feminist Muslim. So people just can't bring themselves to part with what they were indoctrinated with as children, no matter how much their cult hates them.

[www.logcabin.org image 580x120]

[static.wixstatic.com image 500x143]

Ah, the Uncle Ruckus of the Republican Party?


I was going more along the lines of "Being LGBT doesn't preclude someone from believing really stupid shiat."
 
2014-03-12 01:37:25 AM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Remember: It's OUR Book When your interpretations are wrong, it's not your fault. Because it's not your Book. (NSFW language)


I propose a new law. We can call it HHL's Law or something, and would be phrased like this(Godwin inspired):

As any discussion of Judaism and Christianity grows longer, the probability of HHL posting the "Not your fault, not your book" bit by Lewis Black approaches 1.

/loves that bit
//not being snarky
 
2014-03-12 08:24:19 AM

Sin_City_Superhero: Old_Chief_Scott: *sigh*

The point is that by using the label "Christian" instead of the specific "The Kentucky Baptist Convention" you lump all Christians in with the perpetrators. That is the very definition of bigotry, isn't it? It's the same as when someone tosses out "Red State" or "Blue State", it's a convenient way to lump together a group of people for the purpose of marginalizing them in some way.

I wouldn't say that it's bigotry, per se. They ARE Christians. Perhaps it's misleading if it makes it seem like ALL Christians are the same way, but it's not incorrect to call them Christians, if that's what they are.


Well, there's a test for that.   When these things happen, the "we're not all like that" Christians will make their case in the media and provide alternate funding so that the people affected by the bigots don't suffer.

You see it all the time.

OK - well, not ALL the time, but most...

OK - well not "most", but there are several good examples...

OK - well I can't think of any, but the "we're not like that" Christians ASSURE me that even though they have absolutely no visibility at all, and never seem to actually confront the extreme Christians who swamp the media, our elected bodies, and well - everywhere else - they AREN'T LIKE THAT...

... they're just so incredibly stealthy about it, that NINJA are jealous of their mad chops.  So stealthy that you'll never actually see any effect of their never-ending "not being like that" drive and ambition.
 
2014-03-12 08:26:54 AM

ox45tallboy: Friction8r: scottydoesntknow: I'd really like to know how many children were removed from broken homes of homosexual parents.

I'd really like to know how many children were created by homosexual parents.

[www3.pictures.zimbio.com image 594x413]
"Oh, Marcus and I are the proud parents of 28* wonderful children.... wait, what?"

*This is actually true. They have five children of their own and had custody of 23 different foster children for at least some time


... and IIRC, aren't they ALL girls?   I've always found that a little telling...
 
gja [TotalFark]
2014-03-12 09:17:34 AM

ursomniac: Sin_City_Superhero: Old_Chief_Scott: *sigh*

The point is that by using the label "Christian" instead of the specific "The Kentucky Baptist Convention" you lump all Christians in with the perpetrators. That is the very definition of bigotry, isn't it? It's the same as when someone tosses out "Red State" or "Blue State", it's a convenient way to lump together a group of people for the purpose of marginalizing them in some way.

I wouldn't say that it's bigotry, per se. They ARE Christians. Perhaps it's misleading if it makes it seem like ALL Christians are the same way, but it's not incorrect to call them Christians, if that's what they are.

Well, there's a test for that.   When these things happen, the "we're not all like that" Christians will make their case in the media and provide alternate funding so that the people affected by the bigots don't suffer.

You see it all the time.

OK - well, not ALL the time, but most...

OK - well not "most", but there are several good examples...

OK - well I can't think of any, but the "we're not like that" Christians ASSURE me that even though they have absolutely no visibility at all, and never seem to actually confront the extreme Christians who swamp the media, our elected bodies, and well - everywhere else - they AREN'T LIKE THAT...

... they're just so incredibly stealthy about it, that NINJA are jealous of their mad chops.  So stealthy that you'll never actually see any effect of their never-ending "not being like that" drive and ambition.


First bolded section: Yeah, about that. See, I make it a point NOT to make my charitable contributions known. And choose to donate anonymously.
So if you're following WWJD guidelines, that's how you're supposed to do it.

On the second bolded section, what s the point of me confronting assholes like the ones in TFA?
They are using the label like something to hide behind. And all that will happen is my BP will go up and my fist will itch from suppressing my desire to crotch-punch them for their lack of humanity.
 
2014-03-12 09:30:10 AM

ursomniac: Well, there's a test for that.


What if I told you

that even those ninja xians aren't christians at all...?

Sin_City_Superhero: but it's not incorrect to call them Christians, if that's what they are

I think I found the problem

it is incorrect. they aren't
 
2014-03-12 10:40:06 AM

kbronsito: I bolded the part that explains why they are such a bigoted, backwards, primitive bunch even when compared to other Christian denominations.  Hope that helps.


You do realize that "Southern Baptist" is the full and proper name of the denomination, and that the phrase does not mean "Baptists located in the southern portion of the US" in this context?

Now, if you do realize that, and I misunderstood you, I apologize.

But if you do understand that, you must also understand that Southern Baptists are the douchiest of the douchey denominations.  This is, after all, the denomination whose erstwhile President, Rev. Dr. Bailey Smith, said in recent history that "God Almighty does not hear the prayer of a Jew".  You know, the Tribe He led out of bondage and into which His only Son was born?  Doesn't have the time of day for `em anymore.

My extended in-laws are all Southern Baptists.  Lucky me.
 
2014-03-12 11:26:58 AM

Deucednuisance: kbronsito: I bolded the part that explains why they are such a bigoted, backwards, primitive bunch even when compared to other Christian denominations.  Hope that helps.

You do realize that "Southern Baptist" is the full and proper name of the denomination, and that the phrase does not mean "Baptists located in the southern portion of the US" in this context?

Now, if you do realize that, and I misunderstood you, I apologize.

But if you do understand that, you must also understand that Southern Baptists are the douchiest of the douchey denominations.  This is, after all, the denomination whose erstwhile President, Rev. Dr. Bailey Smith, said in recent history that "God Almighty does not hear the prayer of a Jew".  You know, the Tribe He led out of bondage and into which His only Son was born?  Doesn't have the time of day for `em anymore.

My extended in-laws are all Southern Baptists.  Lucky me.


Fun fact: Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee are Southern Baptists.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2014-03-12 11:45:57 AM

grumpfuff: Deucednuisance: kbronsito: I bolded the part that explains why they are such a bigoted, backwards, primitive bunch even when compared to other Christian denominations.  Hope that helps.

You do realize that "Southern Baptist" is the full and proper name of the denomination, and that the phrase does not mean "Baptists located in the southern portion of the US" in this context?

Now, if you do realize that, and I misunderstood you, I apologize.

But if you do understand that, you must also understand that Southern Baptists are the douchiest of the douchey denominations.  This is, after all, the denomination whose erstwhile President, Rev. Dr. Bailey Smith, said in recent history that "God Almighty does not hear the prayer of a Jew".  You know, the Tribe He led out of bondage and into which His only Son was born?  Doesn't have the time of day for `em anymore.

My extended in-laws are all Southern Baptists.  Lucky me.

Fun fact: Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee are Southern Baptists.


Explains SOME of the doucheiness.
 
2014-03-12 12:02:03 PM

Big_Fat_Liar: If an employee won't shut up about their gayness or their hetero exploits or sexuality, you should be able fire them.


And where in TFA is that mentioned since they, you know, didn't actually hire any gay people?
 
2014-03-12 01:33:15 PM

JesusJuice: Jesus is mythological, God is make believe, and your beliefs are stupid.

fark off and die, Christians.


Fun Fact:  IDW used to get censored and banned for posting this sort of stuff.

www.cristyli.com

the modmins have been given a poe's law test, let's see how they handle it...

LELZ  :D

also also wik

he was frequently give timeouts for "name calling" and "trolling"

ready for the punchline?

the "trolling" posts were direct quotes from other farkers in the thread who were magically not censored-banned

:)
 
2014-03-12 02:13:39 PM

I drunk what: Fun Fact:  IDW used to get censored and banned for posting this sort of stuff.


I guess that's what pushed you over the edge.

The new meds seem to be having a positive effect. You're still talking about yourself in the third person though ... so there is still a ways to go.

Buck up little camper.

img.fark.net
 
2014-03-12 02:24:11 PM

That Guy Jeff: 0z79: That Guy Jeff: Meh, people can spend their money however they want to spend their money. I'm not too thrilled with a children's home being funded by religious folks anyway. They usually attach strings or least try to get people to read their incredibly violent and pornographic novelization of Hebrew history.

Now this, I can tolerate a lot better than some others.

You hate all Christians.. but at least you explain WHY you hate them.

/is Christian
//is LGBT
///Your head asplode

Being LGBT doesn't preclude someone from believing really stupid shiat. I'm also know a feminist Muslim. So people just can't bring themselves to part with what they were indoctrinated with as children, no matter how much their cult hates them.


Well.. my church is actually very accepting of me; as a matter of fact, quite a few have been asking about me, wondering why I don't attend; they're actually thinking about a LGBT outreach program; not to convert them, but to welcome them and remind them of the more compassionate bits of a really great guy's message a couple thousand years ago.

All that ain't a hill of beans to your need for an acceptable target, though.. hey, we all need something to rail against.

My something is willful ignorance on both sides of the fence.
 
2014-03-12 06:22:11 PM

Big_Fat_Liar: ciberido: Big_Fat_Liar: I've been 100% pro-gay rights for as long as i can remember and thought Clinton was a douche for DOMA and DADT, but I have an issue with having an issue discriminating against "openly gay" employees.  My issues is a church should be able to discriminate against openly sexual employees whether heterosexual or openly gay.  You don't work for a church and come to work and talk about sucking cauk or eating at the Y while at work.  It's not the place for lifestyle attention whoring.

2004 called.  They say their strawman is old and tired and they want him back so he can finally have a nice rest.

Strawman?  Whatever.  I support the rights of all people.


I'm not denying that.  I'm saying the example you gave ("come to work and talk about sucking cauk or eating at the Y while at work")  is not representative of the issue.  But others explained that point already.
 
2014-03-12 09:34:39 PM

I drunk what: JesusJuice: Jesus is mythological, God is make believe, and your beliefs are stupid.

fark off and die, Christians.

Fun Fact:  IDW used to get censored and banned for posting this sort of stuff.

[www.cristyli.com image 336x500]

the modmins have been given a poe's law test, let's see how they handle it...

LELZ  :D

also also wik

he was frequently give timeouts for "name calling" and "trolling"

ready for the punchline?

the "trolling" posts were direct quotes from other farkers in the thread who were magically not censored-banned

:)


i278.photobucket.com

www.bonkersinstitute.org
 
2014-03-12 11:16:35 PM

ox45tallboy: allylloyd: Some of us belong to churches with assigned readings on Sundays--unless this particular topic has something to do with one of the readings, which are called "lessons" and the sermon is teach a lesson related to one of the readings (OT,NT, Psalm or Gospel) why would they?

Interesting. Why not? Pat Robertson and other TV evangelists don't seem to have a problem with teaching their views in light of world events. Why don't more pulpit preachers do the same?

I do some work helping my sister's church send an aid package to Guyana every few months when I'm around. Recently, they asked me to redo the computers they are sending down there, and put on a Bible app and stuff, and get a router set up that they're all ready to connect to. They're teaching the people there a brand of Christianity I don't care for (same fundamentalist Church of Christ I grew up in), but they are providing good assistance of clothes and medication (and technology) to these people.

I don't find myself to be hypocrite for donating my time and work to this cause, any more than anyone else who attends this church and participates in this mission work is a hypocrite because they have some more minor difference in dogma. Good work is good work, even if you don't agree with everything being done.


Charity with strings attached is pretty shiatty charity, and isn't really charity at all, it's more akin to bribery. I kinda find it an abhorrent practice, requiring people to convert and be taught your brand of religious in order to get aid.
 
2014-03-12 11:47:12 PM

I drunk what: JesusJuice: Jesus is mythological, God is make believe, and your beliefs are stupid.

fark off and die, Christians.

Fun Fact:  IDW used to get censored and banned for posting this sort of stuff.

[www.cristyli.com image 336x500]

the modmins have been given a poe's law test, let's see how they handle it...

LELZ  :D

also also wik

he was frequently give timeouts for "name calling" and "trolling"

ready for the punchline?

the "trolling" posts were direct quotes from other farkers in the thread who were magically not censored-banned

:)


Here you go, just for you

i.walmartimages.com
 
Displayed 274 of 274 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report