World vision decides to hire gays, "Christians" freak

[Rachel333]

Aaand, this just in: World Vision caves to the homophobes, and announces that they won't hire openly gay people after all.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/worl ... s-23072525

In other news, fundies continue to complain about being persecuted for their beliefs.

Wow. Way to take a stand there.

I still can't believe that people even care if a gay person works at a charity. Are they going to poison the whole company with their gayness? This is an organization that helps starving children, people who have real problems, and the thing conservative Christians get in an uproar about is whether theoretically a gay married person could work there.

[Snarknado]

Aaand, this just in: World Vision caves to the homophobes, and announces that they won't hire openly gay people after all.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/worl ... s-23072525

In other news, fundies continue to complain about being persecuted for their beliefs.

I would be willing to bet that as an organization they had to make the tough, horrible decision to literally save the children. In other words So many people dropped their sponsorships that children being fed would go back to starving all because some idiots think it really matters (negatively) that a gay person wants to work for a charitable organization.

[FakePigtails]

I would be willing to bet that as an organization they had to make the tough, horrible decision to literally save the children. In other words So many people dropped their sponsorships that children being fed would go back to starving all because some idiots think it really matters (negatively) that a gay person wants to work for a charitable organization.

From what I've read, I agree. Specifically, this quote from the above article:

... its board had prayed for years about whether to hire Christians in same-sex marriages as churches took different stands on recognizing gay relationships. World Vision says its staff members come from dozens of denominations with varied views on the issue.

It's terrible. They don't sound like they took the decision to be more inclusive lightly at all, and presumably trusted that the backlash would be worth dealing with (and the gains would make up for it). What a sad situation, and an unfortunate setback for LGBT inclusion among Christians in contrast with recent good news such as the changes in the UMC.

[Arete]

If you have money you would like to aim at alleviating the worse effects of childhood poverty, you can do no better than UNICEF. They save lives every day with vaccination programs, with resourcing clean water, with working on the food supply at the local community level, with health education aimed at mothers. You don't have to worry about proselytizing and they don't care what their employees do with other consenting adults.

They can back up the effectiveness of their programs with actual statistics.

End PSA

[Anise]

I would be willing to bet that as an organization they had to make the tough, horrible decision to literally save the children. In other words So many people dropped their sponsorships that children being fed would go back to starving all because some idiots think it really matters (negatively) that a gay person wants to work for a charitable organization.

I think the number being thrown around is around two thousand sponsorships dropped in that first day.

I've run across a few good articles on the situation:

theartofuncertainty.wordpress.com/2014/03/26/anti-gay-blackmail-fodder-how-christians-treat-children-in-poverty

kathrynbrightbill.com/post/80748902663/think-of-the-children

[slh12280]

So disappointed. I understand why they reversed the decision but still. I wish the world wasn't like this. Seems like helping people doesn't matter. It is all about a moral agenda where they forget what real morality is.

[DifferentGurl]

If you have money you would like to aim at alleviating the worse effects of childhood poverty, you can do no better than UNICEF. They save lives every day with vaccination programs, with resourcing clean water, with working on the food supply at the local community level, with health education aimed at mothers. You don't have to worry about proselytizing and they don't care what their employees do with other consenting adults.

They can back up the effectiveness of their programs with actual statistics.

End PSA

UNHCR is also good. They help with refugees. WFP helps to provide meals. Just thought I would mention this too.

[salex]

So, Christians[tm][/tm] were saying they would let children starve rather than donate through an organization that hired gay people.

John 11:35

[VixenToast]

LOL exactly, but my point is that marriage has nothing to do with it anyway. Unmarried couples, straight or gay are raising kids and will continue to raise kids. So limiting marriage does exactly....nothing. Not to mention being an ebilfeministlesbian is a pretty great life. :lol:

Teehee. I love those ebilfeministlesbians!!! <3. Good god, it's like they think my aunt is gunna convert me to lesbianism. :roll:

[Loveday]

So, Christians[tm][/tm] were saying they would let children starve rather than donate through an organization that hired gay people.

John 11:35

Sounds like an idea that's right up Ken Alexander's alley, doesn't it? :angry-banghead:

[HereticHick]

Hey Christians, WWJD?

[BravaAmica]

I say good for the Evangelicals for showing the world exactly who they are. Let's hope the world believes them this time, that Evangelicals are a group who will let a child starve because of dogma. I hope this antic of theirs is the death knell of their day in the sun.

[snuggles911]

I would be willing to bet that as an organization they had to make the tough, horrible decision to literally save the children. In other words So many people dropped their sponsorships that children being fed would go back to starving all because some idiots think it really matters (negatively) that a gay person wants to work for a charitable organization.

Yes. When forced to choose b/w letting children starve and hiring gays, the starving children won. How sad.

Sunshine Mary has a post about this today: sunshinemaryandthedragon.wordpress.com. Apparently her church sponsored World Vision children but sent an email to its parishoners advising it would no longer be doing so after the announcement.

From the email.

Therefore, as much as we value what WV is doing for the poor around the world, NorthRidge Church can and will no longer partner with or support their ministry. Though this decision has been agonizing and saddens us deeply, we strongly believe that it is the right decision… to honor God and remain true to the mission He’s given us as a church family.â€

SSM supports her pastor's decision. But, she wants him to go a bit further. Since he acknowledges the church shouldn't support gays, she wants him to not support people who have divorced and remarried.

Those who have divorced and remarried but who are not living “as brother and sister†(i.e. in sexual chastity) with one another are adulterers, according to Jesus. Homosexuals and divorced-and-remarried adulterers are both within the group of people who are not practicing biblical sexual morality and who will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Yet on a weekly basis at our church, there is a marriage ministry class. My husband and I have participated in this off and on over the years and had some very good experiences doing so. However, this ministry is led by a volunteer husband-and-wife team, both of whom are divorced from their original spouses and remarried to each other. They are very nice people, but according to the Bible, this man and his wife are adulterers. If they were living in chastity with one another, surely they would have said so during one of the discussions having to do with sex within marriage; they have shared a number of details about their marriage and their previous marriages, and neither of them has ever said they are now chaste, thus we can probably safely assume that they are having sex.

Our church would never accept two “married†homosexuals as leaders of our marriage ministry. Why will our church accept adulterers in this capacity? I have never received an email from our pastor announcing that we would not support this or that ministry or charity because they allow their employees to be divorced and remarried. I have never heard a sermon preached in my church that teaches congregants this truth from the Bible: if you divorce and remarry (unless you are a man who has divorced an unfaithful wife and then married a woman who has never been married before), you are committing adultery on a regular basis.

Gosh, what would these fundies do with their time if they weren't so busy judging everyone?

[Firiel]

SSM is an awful, terrible person. But at least in this case she's being consistent. The Bible (at least on the surface, which is the way fundies read it) condemns divorce and remarriage just as clearly as it does homosexuality (<-- again, at least on the surface). At least she's being an asshole to everyone and not just picking a small, already marginalized group that's easy to discriminate against (teh gheys) while fully accepting a large, not-nearly-so-heavily stigmatized group because they realize they may actually have a chance of being a part of THAT "sinful" group some day.

[Snarknado]

Yes. When forced to choose b/w letting children starve and hiring gays, the starving children won. How sad.

Sunshine Mary has a post about this today: sunshinemaryandthedragon.wordpress.com. Apparently her church sponsored World Vision children but sent an email to its parishoners advising it would no longer be doing so after the announcement.

From the email.

SSM supports her pastor's decision. But, she wants him to go a bit further. Since he acknowledges the church shouldn't support gays, she wants him to not support people who have divorced and remarried.

Gosh, what would these fundies do with their time if they weren't so busy judging everyone?

This akes you wonder how she would deal with a situation such as a non christian who was divorced, later they become a fundie. Even if they are now following all the 'biblical rules', they are still a divorced and then remarried person committing 'adultery. So, in her view, is there no hope for that person? Because even if they went back to the first spouse that they divorced, they would have to divorce a second time and they still will have been with another person. How would she reconcile all of that?

[thekate]

This akes you wonder how she would deal with a situation such as a non christian who was divorced, later they become a fundie. Even if they are now following all the 'biblical rules', they are still a divorced and then remarried person committing 'adultery. So, in her view, is there no hope for that person? Because even if they went back to the first spouse that they divorced, they would have to divorce a second time and they still will have been with another person. How would she reconcile all of that?

Isn't this the case of that woman in Missouri who sometimes pops in here? Joann? Married, divorced, remarried, converted, and then 'lived as brother and sister,' although they later also divorced because he didn't convert. Since her 'true headship' wants nothing to do with her, she seems kind of lost.

[Trynn]

Maybe they wouldn't announce it even if they were chaste because their sex life is none of your business?