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 76
    More: Asinine, LGBT, think of the children, LGBT employees, churches, discrimination, financing, Crooks & Liars, WDRB  
•       •       •

3871 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Mar 2014 at 3:47 PM (26 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-03-11 12:39:16 PM
8 votes:
Tax the churches.
2014-03-11 12:49:01 PM
7 votes:

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 12:39:36 PM
7 votes:
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 01:12:11 PM
6 votes:

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 04:18:56 PM
5 votes:

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 03:10:02 PM
5 votes:

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 01:25:52 PM
5 votes:

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 12:51:46 PM
4 votes:
So much for "love thy neighbor" and "judge not".
2014-03-11 12:49:06 PM
4 votes:

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 05:19:28 PM
3 votes:

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 05:13:50 PM
3 votes:

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 04:51:26 PM
3 votes:
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 04:03:43 PM
3 votes:

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 04:02:27 PM
3 votes:
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 01:48:55 PM
3 votes:
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 01:26:47 PM
3 votes:
I was told that we didn't need the gubmint to provide what private charities would.
2014-03-11 12:43:08 PM
3 votes:

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 12:38:07 PM
3 votes:
It's more important to discriminate against gays than to provide day care services to poor people
2014-03-11 05:41:39 PM
2 votes:

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 04:44:35 PM
2 votes:
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 04:15:30 PM
2 votes:

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 04:15:09 PM
2 votes:
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 04:01:14 PM
2 votes:

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 03:58:12 PM
2 votes:

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 03:47:36 PM
2 votes:

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 03:18:48 PM
2 votes:

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 02:44:31 PM
2 votes:

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 02:23:33 PM
2 votes:

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 01:43:50 PM
2 votes:

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 12:54:24 PM
2 votes:
Whose funding would Jesus pull?
2014-03-11 12:32:59 PM
2 votes:

"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 10:03:45 PM
1 votes:

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 08:21:09 PM
1 votes:

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 08:05:56 PM
1 votes:
theamericanjesus.net
2014-03-11 07:41:52 PM
1 votes:

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 07:26:45 PM
1 votes:

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 07:22:35 PM
1 votes:

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 07:20:33 PM
1 votes:

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 07:05:56 PM
1 votes:

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 06:58:36 PM
1 votes:

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 06:38:30 PM
1 votes:

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 06:29:15 PM
1 votes:

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 06:21:51 PM
1 votes:

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 06:10:35 PM
1 votes:

Fark It: Tax the churches.


And then give the revenue to the children's home.  Everybody wins!
2014-03-11 05:57:02 PM
1 votes:

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 05:43:45 PM
1 votes:

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 05:17:34 PM
1 votes:

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 05:12:49 PM
1 votes:

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 05:12:44 PM
1 votes:

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 05:07:51 PM
1 votes:

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 04:56:51 PM
1 votes:

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 04:53:46 PM
1 votes:

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 04:51:56 PM
1 votes:
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 04:38:15 PM
1 votes:

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 04:31:24 PM
1 votes:

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 04:30:49 PM
1 votes:

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 04:30:29 PM
1 votes:

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 04:14:12 PM
1 votes:

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 04:11:14 PM
1 votes:
OK, but the Catholic run children's homes are still good, right?
2014-03-11 04:06:10 PM
1 votes:
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 04:04:20 PM
1 votes:
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 04:01:39 PM
1 votes:

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 04:00:04 PM
1 votes:

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 03:59:55 PM
1 votes:
There comes a time when awake Christians realize that they have met more demons inside the Church than outside it.
2014-03-11 03:59:21 PM
1 votes:
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 03:56:47 PM
1 votes:
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 03:53:00 PM
1 votes:
People that worship a dead guy on a stick are creepy, anyway.
2014-03-11 03:44:12 PM
1 votes:

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 03:02:53 PM
1 votes:
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 02:50:08 PM
1 votes:

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 02:34:29 PM
1 votes:
*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 01:52:52 PM
1 votes:

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 01:46:57 PM
1 votes:

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?
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-03-11 01:09:42 PM
1 votes:
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 12:59:52 PM
1 votes:
I'd really like to know how many children were removed from broken homes of homosexual parents.
2014-03-11 12:37:29 PM
1 votes:
Christians.  Just... Christians.  Fark.
 
Displayed 76 of 76 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report