I also can’t see the logic in you interviewing people from (THQ) as you have, of course, already met those in charge of the operations/institutions themselves (in the field).
What are the other questions you want answered that you have not already written to us about?
You certainly make a different assessment (demand) of the subjects you want to interview; (so) am I free to choose (determine) how we want to use free speech, or is it only on your terms?
I see a hint of a threat when you write: “So far we do not intend to mention this reluctance on your part in our report, but further delays in responding will lead us to reconsider this”; How am I to interpret this?
2011-03-16 from Salvation Army
I will return here to answer your emails from the 11 / 3 where you return to certain issues. Thank you also for your clarification on certain points.
With reference to contributions (subsidies-support) from governments and other organizations it is obviously not at all controversial for us to share detailed figures. However, it is a very cumbersome process to resource data at the level of detail you request. Neither The Salvation Army or TV4's accounts come under the public information act and for this reason we choose to stand firm and share the data we (have already) decided to share earlier and which is found in our public annual financial statements.
As I said earlier, I reply to all questions received via email and if you can narrow the questions you have about the social service work and the future of The Salvation Army, and how we are to survive as a church and social services provider, you will receive a response. In other words, not only those 'areas (issues) we would like to address'.
With regard to questions of our ethical position, you have already been provided answers in the form of our ethics document, which is now (officially approved by TSA) adopted, and the wording (position) on response to those seeking help and SA soldier's criteria that I have previously sent to you. That's how we see it.
2011-03-31 från Frälsningsarmén
With regard to an interview with leadership, we have carefully considered the matter and have decided to decline your offer.
Feel free to check back via mail if you have further questions and I will answer them via email.
2011-03-31 from Salvation Army
I heard that you sought me and/or others in (SA) leadership yesterday and that you learned that we were not available. As you already know, feel free to ask your questions by e-mail and that's the format by which I will answer your questions. I'm really quite busy with other matters the majority of my working hours, so please use email or voicemail. It is the only (practical) way to reach me.
Someone told me that you asked both the (THQ) receptionist and a visitor who left our worship hall, “what is your view on homosexuality? "
That this very issue was of key focus (issue) by you had not been perceived or understood based on the (actual) questions you posed to me so far. Why have not you told me this? (been more forthcoming?) And what further questions on this subject have I not already answered?
It would also be interesting to know what is the purpose/focus of your (TV) program, that is, have we committed some wrong, something reprehensible or some criminal act?
Typically, Cold Facts take on just such cases.
I believe that, following nearly three months of contact (communication) with me that you ought now to present your probe’s key concern(s), so that we can address it (them). I have been honest with you, but I do not see quite the same level of integrity on your part.
Or, as journalists say, ‘What have you got to hide?’ :)
Kind regards,
Bert Aberg
SA THQ
Stockholm
SA THQ
Stockholm
18 comments:
Fascinating story, Sven. Hope you'll keep us updated!
UKT
former officer, active in my corps
Sunday, 27 March 2011
Vatican tells U.N. that critics of gays under attack
People who criticise gay sexual relations for religious or moral reasons are increasingly being attacked and vilified for their views, a Vatican diplomat told the United Nations Human Rights Council on Tuesday.
Archbishop Silvano Tomasi said the Roman Catholic Church deeply believed that human sexuality was a gift reserved for married heterosexual couples. But those who express these views are faced with "a disturbing trend," he said.
"People are being attacked for taking positions that do not support sexual behaviour between people of the same sex," he told the current session of the Human Rights Council.
"When they express their moral beliefs or beliefs about human nature ... they are stigmatised, and worse -- they are vilified, and prosecuted.
"These attacks are violations of fundamental human rights and cannot be justified under any circumstances," Tomasi said.
The Catholic Church has clashed increasingly in recent years with governments over sexual equality legislation.
In Britain, it had to close down adoption services because they refused to allow same-sex couples to adopt orphans in their care.
It has also opposed the growing acceptance of same-sex marriage in several countries in Europe and the Americas.
Tomasi also said the Vatican believed in the inherent dignity of all human beings and condemned all violence against people because of their sexual orientation or behaviour.
"But states can and must regulate behaviours, including various sexual behaviours," he said.
"Throughout the world, there is a consensus between societies that certain kinds of sexual behaviour must be forbidden by law. Paedophilia and incest are two examples."
"The Salvation Army is under attack because it is a religious based charity. At the same time, the city of Boston is subsidizing a mosque that has ties to terrorism. We should fight for the Salvation Army and other religion-based charities to be treated fairly, while charities with ties to terror are shut down or at least hindered in every possible way." From a Boston, Mass. newspaper editorial
A similar attack is under way in Sweden and people are either blind or too comfortable to care.
Our children and grandchildren will pay the price for our laziness and complacency as humanism's and Allah's followers take control.
former
UKT
With regard to TSA coming under attack by media, wanting to expose it - all one has to do is take a look at the history of this site, and the comments, and anyone would have enough ammunition to blow TSA out of the water. Most of us know full well how unjust TSA really is, how much wastage there really is within the organisation. Many of us have left TSA because we couldn't handle belonging to such an unjust organisation.
Many of us can tell stories of the difference between TSA's official view, and their (almost) universal practices. Officially, we know TSA condemns any vilification of the LGBTQ community and 'officially' supports equality for all, but I can tell story after story after story where TSA themselves have knowingly put the lives of LGBTQ persons in danger, denied them services (such as rehab, food handouts, accommodation, clothing, etc) for no other reason then that they are gay - and were told that. And to make matters worse - it was approved from high levels.
With regard to former UKT above and the comment on terrorism... By definition, any organisation or person that denies rights to another etc., is a terrorist. Around the world, it is not just Muslims who are on terror watch lists. All sorts of people - including Christians, Cultists, Survivalists etc., are on terror watch lists. Any religious organisation who lobbies to legally prevent LGBTQ people from having the same rights and privileges as heterosexuals on the basis of religion is by definition a terrorist.
Everyone has a right to an opinion, but when that opinion denies someone the rights that others have, and so relegates them to a second class of citizen, it is no longer an opinion - it is terrorism. Forcing religious adoption agencies to equally consider same sex couples is not a denial of rights. The views of the religious organisation is an opinion. No one is denying them the right to an opinion. It is acting on that opinion that is opposed. All the LGBTQ community wants is to be afforded the same rights as heterosexuals. That is not an opinion. Please understand the difference between an opinion and a right.
Just a few thoughts
Yours in Christ,
Graeme Randall
Former Australian East.
Graeme, your statement, "... I can tell story after story after story where TSA themselves have knowingly put the lives of LGBTQ persons in danger, denied them services (such as rehab, food handouts, accommodation, clothing, etc) for no other reason then that they are gay - and were told that. And to make matters worse - it was approved from high levels." , DO TELL!.
When, where, who and why no lawsuits filed? Me thinks you exaggerate; yes, there may have been a case or two, but mass discrimination and sanctioned by 'high levels'? Give us a break!
Active NY
Last Friday the TV 4 Crew entered IHQ, unannounced and uninvited... more information is expected and will be shared as soon as it's in hand.
I have requested a copy of the Swedish SA's Ethics Paper (Positional Statement) and on receipt will translate and post it. This should be helpful to our understanding and appreciation of TSA's position and their reluctance in providing unfettered access to leadership and other SA personnel. It appears TV 4's objective is far from that stated in their communications.
Swedish church attendance is among the lowest in the world. And their cultural and societal values are a myriad of ethical beliefs drawn from the many multi-ethnic groups that make up this modern, ultra liberal, highest standard of living country in the world.
Blessings, sven
I think because someone disagrees about a lifestyle and shares it as their opinion should never be clasified as a terrorist. Call the person what you will (in your opinion). Perhaps a bigot, close -minded or something of that nature. Classifying anyone as a terrorist brings serious consequences and puts them at risk. What if heterosexuals went around calling gays and lesbians terrorists ? That is so insane. I have never discriminated against ANYONE for services and basic human need , nor do most American officers or case workers. Using that term for a Biblical disagreement is a ploy to stop people from even sharing theological views and personal opinion. A real terrorist causes TERROR such as blowing up people and killing them or threatening with bodily harm. That can happen to anyone but calling someone that who disagrees with a lifstyle ? Sounds like a new agenda. Too bad.
USA East former
Whoosh! I haven't been to this site for awhile now because I've been really busy with other computer work. What a can of worms to come back to! Talk about an interesting subject with interesting comments and food for thought all around. (Thanks Sven.)
A couple of points: First I tend to agree with Graeme's assessment concerning abuses toward gays in TSA---but to a point and only to a point. I also find myself in agreement with the comment after his by "Active New York."
I try very hard to distinguish TSA from the unloving, unkind acts of some individual soldiers, officers and employees (on all levels) who often times literally need to have their heads examined as to their motivations for being cruel and un-Christ-like to people who are different from them.
TSA is changing as it has always changed on a variety of hot button social issues in any given time period during its 145 year history.
I happen to know personally of a "very straight" officer who was on the ethics committee recently who lobbied for the Commissioner's Conference to have the USA's positional statement on homosexuality to be more in accordance with the Canadian positional statement--- eliminating the Bible verses at the end of the USA statement that are used (actually, make that misused)by fundamentalists to condemn gays. Interestingly, except for possibly one holdout everyone on her committee (including another officer with a Ph.d)was in agreement.
Lest we forget in the 1890s the American War Cry often used "darkie" language for humor and before the 1920s blacks (negroes then) were not allowed in any SA shelters in Chicago and probably a lot of other places too!
If the Army had positional papers back in the 1950s and 60s one also wonders what would have been said about civil rights?!!! I still remember as a kid how many American SA officers thought and talked back then.(Don't forget that the Gaithers received death threats from some Salvationists when they were married in 1967!)
I have no doubt that something would have been officially written about treating everyone with dignity and respect. I also suspect that the right-wingers in the Army would've made sure that something was also written about respecting the authorities by not engaging in civil disobedience and how it is best that the races don't inter-marry for the children's sake who wouldn't be accepted by either race. I imagine that at the end of the statemnent would be a slew of verses by St. Paul including the one in Acts about God appointing all the peoples of the world to their own boundaries, etc! By the 1980s/90s the whole thing would've been scrapped, seen as an unfortunate part of Army history and "officially" been glossed over by HQ as something that never really happened!
(because of space limits I will have to continue with the ending in another post...)
Daryl Lach
USA Central
Continuing......
Secondly, I feel I must respond to the second comment by "Anonymous" who quoted the Pope and an Archbishop of the RC Church. I for one am not impressed (nor ever will be) impressed by homophobic and/or "we-re-being-persecuted-by-the-secular-world-for-our-godly-moral-stands" statements from leaders of ANY denomination. If the history of the institutional church has shown us anything it's that the motivations of the leaders making many of these statements can never be totally trusted!
Another related case in point: Back in the 1990s while at my cousin's birthday party I struck up a conversation with a flaming queen who was once a Catholic Seminarian but left just before he took his vows. He was telling me (and there was no reason for him to lie!)that he had a long-standing affair with the Bishop of the diocese his seminary was located in. He joked that the other seminarians (most of whom he claimed were gay)often referred to him as "The First Lady of......(insert here the name of the diocese!)What was even more bizarre about our exchange was that when I realised the time frame he was in the seminary it was easy to figure out the name of the Bishop. When I asked for confirmation of the name he responded, "Yep, that was my honeybuns!"
It turns out that I had just read an article in a major news magazine two months before about a paper "Honeybuns" wrote for the Pope outlining the RC Church's position on homosexuality and reiterating the church's position that though "the condition was blameless the act was morally reprehensible, blah, blah, blah blah, blah, blah..." Today "Honeybuns" (whom shall remain nameless) has worked himself up higher in the bureaucracy, into a position of even greater respect and importance. Go figure.
Daryl Lach
USA Central
P.S. Sven. Be sure to let us know what happens with the Swedish television documentary. It does look like they're digging for something to do the Army dirty and I for one hope it back fires on them.
"You Must Go Home By the Way of the Cross, To Stand with Jesus in the Morning!"
Does this article suggest there has been a leak of confidentiality within Sweden Territory for this information to now be available to us?
I acknowledge as a Salvation Army we should be transparent and a lack of response to 'Cold Feet' could easily suggest we have something to hide. None of this sounds good to me.
Concerned Active UKT
I want to applaud the SA person who has been responding to the media in this situation for his patience and stickability to see this through.
I recall some years ago working with a DC who would say: 'Don't justify yourself' - if you know you have nothing to hide and have done nothing wrong 'Don't justify yourself'. I wonder now after the invasion of these journalists should the SA's response now be 'No further comment' Let's face it whatever we say will be wrong.
Active UKT
Hmmm? Gaither as General. Nominated three times? What was the problem?
I always felt that Commissioner Gaither was a good man of God and would have made a good General. Some may say that there were other specific reasons why he never became General. I say it was because he was African-American. Talk about discrimination and holding on to an archaic tradition. That disgusts me.
USA East former
In Australia, the anti-discrimination legislation constantly exempts religious organisations from adherence to it and consequent litigation for acting in a discriminative way. As a result, religious organisations can (and often do) act in a very discriminative way. One has no legal recourse on the grounds of discrimination against a religious body. The situations I referred to were/are real, and those who perpetrate those discriminations are supported by DHQ and THQ as 'doing the right thing'. The attitude really is 'why should we take away the resources from 'good people' to give to people like them?'
As for my Terrorist comment... Let me think.... When someone says things like 'if you come out of the closet, or engage in that kind of sexuality, we will exclude you from fellowship', 'We will do everything we can to make sure you can't have the same kinds of support (as found in marriage) that we have if you continue to engage in those practices', 'We will do everything we can to make sure you don't have access to the same kinds of financial resources that we have', or 'if you continue in that way of life, we will make sure you have no access to your children (there are a lot of gay parents)', and many other such statements - that sounds like spreading terror to me. That stuff goes on all the time. Deny it all you like - but it goes on all the time. There are a lot of Christian leaders who are on national and international Terror watch lists for making just such statements - they are legally and internationally classified as 'terrorists'. Not only that, such teaching ALWAYS! WITHOUT FAIL! incites and inspires such hatred, discrimination, and violence that inevitably leads to death and murder. We can be shocked all we want when we read about people like Stephen Shepherd or anyone else on the long list of those who have been murdered for no other reason then their sexuality, but we CANNOT get away from the fact that it is the fruit/result of our teaching. What did Christ say? something about 'You shall know them by their fruit?' It's irrelevant that we say 'that's not our intention', or 'we can't be held responsible for how people interpret our teaching'. Our very actions support it by lobbying to deny people access to the same funding that heterosexual couples have access to, by denying people access to family benefits, by lobbying to make sure gay parents don't have access to their children, by denying gay persons the blessings of being part of a family. By reducing an entire group of people to second class citizens.
(post continued in next post)
The media doesn't have to dig too hard, or discover a leak of confidential information to get dirt on TSA. Yes, TSA does do a lot of good, but it also does a lot of harm. It can be forgiven if it doesn't know that what it is doing is causing harm, and so corrects it when it is brought to their attention. But when TSA denies it does such harm when it is told about it, then it can't be forgiven. It is guilty of perpetrating it and supporting it.
I know this has opened a massive can of worms, and people don't like being told the ugly truth - but this is really going on. This really is how it is (at least in Australia), and even here in the UK, TSA does not allow gay persons to be soldiers, and experience the same level of fellowship that Soldiers are afforded, or given support in adopting children etc.
There is a lot to think about. I do not seek to deny theological debate - I RELISH it. However, until we are able to thoroughly thrash it out and come to a uniform decision that firmly states our policy that we are definitely practice discrimination against homosexuals, let's practice equality across the board. Either we support all people seeking financial benefits regardless of sexuality or we support no-one. Either we support all persons wanting to adopt or we support no-one. Either we support all persons wanting to experience the blessings of marriage and family or we support no-one. We CANNOT have any kind of theological debate if we are saying we are open to debate theologically while at the same time practising discrimination.
Yours in Christ,
Graeme Randall
Former Australian East
Graeme
While I agree that we must treat everyone equally when it comes to providing services in our community and coial services I do not agree with you on ignoring scripture about homosexual practice.
Note that I said practice not inclination or temptation. Being tempted or being inclined to practice same sex physical love is ( and I truly believe this) is not a sin BUT the particpation and practice is. And I also believe that encouraging others to do so and suggesting it is a choice that is acceptable is tantamount to luring others into sin.
No matter what you think of how God treated the people of Sodom and Gomorrah throughout scripture there is condemnation of same sex physical acts of sex.
The Salvation Army and any Christian Church wouod be taking itself out of God's Will and God's Family if it accepted the idea of full membership for such. It would also be sinning against God by allowing for same sex marriages in our Corps.
While we all probably know of Officers who practiced same sex relationships I would suggest that unless we faced the issue strongly at the time through counselling and if necessary taking away Offciership and Soldiership from practcing homeosexuals we would be doing Satn's work and not God's.
Now Graeme before you condemn me as a terrorist let me tell you that throughout my career in Government Corrections I had collegues who were homsexual in their orientation and practices. For the most part we got along fine as work colleagues and in some cases were friendly but they all knew what my belief structure was and is but they still at times would come to me to discuss problems (personally and professionally) because they also knew that I treated them as I try to treat all.
The Corps I attend and am active in in its striving to be inclusive have people who ( as you would say ) are homosexually oriented. They have been and would in the future be made welcome and allowed to particpate in Corps life
and that included playing in band and singing in songsters since we allow anyone who can play or sing to participate whether soldier or not, whether uniformed or not. However they would never be allowed to teach Sunday School or Preach.
And I would suggest to you that is also how we should treat those living together without benifit of marriage or those whose sins are also in the public eye.
I will agree with you that TSA in dealing with those especially Officers who are caught in sin has been less that Christian at times. We tend to shot our own when they sin but reach down or out to others whose life is one of sin. That is a dichotomy we should correct.
I will end here Graeme but let me tell you that I do pray for you as you strive to follow Christ in your life even if I disagree with your stand on this issue.
John Stephenson
Canada amd Bermuda
SALVATION ARMY is an autobiographical novel by a Moroccan expatriate Abdellah Taïa from the North African Arabic diaspora. Salvation Army is a coming-of-age novel that tells the story of Taïa's latent homo)sexual tensions in the poor city of Salé, through a sexual awakening in Tangier. He travels to the 'west', Geneva, where a gay friend who promised shelter stands him up and Taia, penniless and stranded turns to, who else, The Salvation Army, and there begins a new life and the writing of his first book.
The Salvation Army? Yes, we welcome gays.
Active UKT
In the USA things are not the same as you are stating , Graeme. I know some discrimination goes on , including that against Christians too almost anywhere. I need to remember that I am speaking of where I am in the world and you from your physical location. Most officers I know are more than fair in basic human services and for anyone to attend or visit their locations. Most I know would not "knowingly" make a gay or lesbian person a soldier or support them to be an officer. I would not either on Biblical grounds. Do I love gays and lesbians with a Christ-like love? Yes. Jesus tells me to. Would I make someone a soldier who co-habits with someone not their spouse who has sexual relations ? Absolutely not. I think you know where I stand as far as the Bible goes. YOU may call me close minded or old fashioned or a fundamentalist (which I am not), but am I a terrorist ? People that treat others with a mean spirit regardless of differences can be called into question, are they even a Christian?
USA East, former
Post a Comment