The state of Christian fundamentalism in Sweden

What is it?

  • Necessary enlightenment of society

    Votes: 22 61.1%
  • Persecution of Christians

    Votes: 14 38.9%

  • Total voters
    36
Joined
Feb 21, 2004
Messages
4,756
http://www.thelocal.se/33656/20110509/
Spoiler :
'Being gay is a sin': Swedish Salvation Army

Leading members of the Salvation Army in Sweden told an undercover journalist that “homosexual sex is a sin” and offered to ask God to help "free" the reporter from the condition.

An undercover journalist from Swedish TV4’s Kalla Fakta (‘Cold Facts’) investigative news programme used a hidden camera to record his conversation with a leader from one of the country’s Salvation Army chapters.

“The Salvation Army’s basic position is that homosexual sex is a sin. A man shouldn’t sleep with a man in the way he sleeps with a woman,” the chapter leader told the TV4 reporter in a programme broadcast on Sunday evening.

Another chapter leader asked God to help free the reporter from his homosexuality.

In an email to TV4, Salvation Army representatives said the exchange was likely due to “a few personal views from a few chapter leaders”.

In subsequent email messages, Kalla Fakta pressed the Salvation Army to explain why the Junior Soldier’s Promise lesson book includes passages saying that children and young people should learn that homosexuality is wrong.

The Salvation Army responded that the material is “outdated in its entirety and is in the process of being reviewed and updated”.

According to Kalla Fakta, the Salvation Army developed an ethics document in 1996 which established that people who live as homosexuals can’t be soldiers in the Salvation Army.

The document was changed this year and no longer includes the text about homosexuality.

Christian Democrat Stefan Attefall, the government minister responsible for deciding which faith communities in Sweden receive grants from the state, doesn’t see the incident as cause to re-examine the government’s support of the Salvation Army.

“All religious communities undoubtedly have opinions and live style requirements that you and I perhaps don’t agree with. But to review communities’ theological views, yeah, well, then we can’t have any support at all,” said Attefall.

In a statement on its website, the Salvation Army accused TV4 of "doing investigative journalism a serious disservice", arguing that the report didn't reveal anything that wasn't already known.

Had reporters asked directly whether or not people who "live a homosexual lifestyle" are allowed to be in the Salvation Army, they would have been told no because we interpret the Bible, which defines sex as something that should happen in a marriage and is something between a man and a woman".

The Salvation Army added, however, that the organisation welcomes everyone to receive help or be a member, regardless of their lifestyle.

This is the dirt journalists dig out on Christians in Sweden. Without going into your personal preferences or what you think of Salvation Army's position on homosexuality - Do you find this to be good journalism? Do the SA have a right to believe and state what they did? Should the SA be forced to accept people who live as homosexuals in the SA?
Would this be ok to pull off against a Imam here in Sweden, in your mind?

It would be interesting to hear your views on this.
 
I find it completely bizarre there are places in the world this would make news. Not a bad thing per say, but very strange.
 
Binary polls don't tend to provide very interesting data. IMO, this incident is neither englightenment nor persecution.

At least here in the U.S. the Salvation Army is a religious organization and it is known for its anti-gay views - not sure of those are firm policies anymore. It's a religious organization, they have their tenets based on faith and some of those beliefs can be seen as discriminatory if one wants to be offended. But you know what? I can't join the Girl Scouts either. Somehow that doesn't make me feel like a victim, though.

Personally, I don't really care about the Salvation Army's outdated perspective on human sexuality. I don't donate to it because I don't agree with its religious views, but I'm not offended that it exists. I just don't want to support it (and IMO, religious organizations shouldn't get tax breaks to begin with, but I don't know if that applies here).
 
Well, I'm not sure what actually happened. I wrote "Persecution" since it APPEARS they are being discriminated against because of their anti-gay views. Though I do admit, it isn't clear to me what is actually happening.

As for religious organizations not getting tax breaks, I can agree them getting tax breaks simply for being religious could be bad (Then again, I see no real point in taxing tithes and offerings, at least in small churches), getting a tax break for charitable work and just so happening to be religious as well is NOT discrimination at all. And besides, if ALL religions are given tax breaks, it cancels out.
 
Binary polls don't tend to provide very interesting data. IMO, this incident is neither englightenment nor persecution.
This isn't a scientific study and I know neither option is really true. See it as a caricature-vote...
 
The Salvation Army can hold any beliefs they want. And they can freely state those beliefs publicly.

You completely missed the point of the article. The issue isn't the SA's right to their beliefs, but their government sponsorship.
 
You completely missed the point of the article. The issue isn't the SA's right to their beliefs, but their government sponsorship.

As I said, the article wasn't clear to me.

In any case, if the government is sponsoring them for their charity, as long as the government isn't saying that they agree with all of their beliefs, what is the problem?
 
The Salvation Army publicly states on its Canadian and USA websites that it is opposed to homosexuality and words it in such a way that is is clear they oppose it but can't get sued for discrimination. They are also opposed to abortion and several other things. So this isn't news, nor is there any christian persecution going on...
 
The Salvation Army publicly states on its Canadian and USA websites that it is opposed to homosexuality and words it in such a way that is is clear they oppose it but can't get sued for discrimination. They are also opposed to abortion and several other things.

How the heck can you "Get sued for discrimination" for being opposed to homosexuality? Are you serious that could happen in Canada?

Here in the US I could post right now "Gays should be stoned to death" and the only punishment I would receive would come from CFC*

*I'm just illustrating a point here, obviously anyone that actually does this is horrible and hateful and every other insult you can think of:p
 
How the heck can you "Get sued for discrimination" for being opposed to homosexuality? Are you serious that could happen in Canada?

Here in the US I could post right now "Gays should be stoned to death" and the only punishment I would receive would come from CFC*

*I'm just illustrating a point here, obviously anyone that actually does this is horrible and hateful and every other insult you can think of:p

If they used a person's homosexuality as a reason to refuse to employ, serve or help them then yes they are discriminating against them on the basis of their sexual orientation which is illegal. While they probably wouldn't get sued for openly denouncing homosexuality on their website it would also be very bad PR, hence the wording of it avoids openly condemning homosexuality while still stating their position against it.
 
You completely missed the point of the article. The issue isn't the SA's right to their beliefs, but their government sponsorship.
No, I don't think that was the main point. The main point was that the SA state that homosexuality is a sin. They aren't liberal enough. People here are terrified of being labeled as discriminatory. Christians are ok to go after without any risk though..
 
If they used a person's homosexuality as a reason to refuse to employ, serve or help them then yes they are discriminating against them on the basis of their sexual orientation which is illegal. While they probably wouldn't get sued for openly denouncing homosexuality on their website it would also be very bad PR, hence the wording of it avoids openly condemning homosexuality while still stating their position against it.

I'm pretty sure you can refuse to hire a person for any reason if the occupation is religious in nature, even in Canada.

Are you suggesting that a Church could not refuse to hire a gay pastor?
 
No, I don't think that was the main point. The main point was that the SA state that homosexuality is a sin. They aren't liberal enough. People here are terrified of being labeled as discriminatory. Christians are ok to go after without any risk though..

Aren't liberal enough for whom?

And because one news show did some reporting about SA's ant-gay views, that means it's okay to "go after" Christians?

You're deliberately exaggerating this situation, apparently so you can complain about what you perceive to be the persecution of Christians. Frankly, you're undermining your own case by extrapolating to such a degree. If there really is widespread "persecution" of Christians in Sweden, you'd provide reams of documentation as evidence, rather than a single non-story about one news station and a single organization. The fact that this is all the evidence you provide for "persecution" of Christians seems to indicate that Christians aren't actually persecuted at all.
 
It must be terrible for a fine upstanding Christian organization like the SA to be so openly persecuted by the Swedish media.

These article appeared in my local paper a couple weeks ago:

Salvation Army is part church, part charity, part business

When the Salvation Army is your probation officer

Hold Salvation Army to account

The Salvation Army's longstanding reputation as a humble charitable service provider has helped it avoid some of the scrutiny and competition that other government contractors receive. But even as a religious organization, the Salvation Army is big business. It is engaged in a range of government functions, paid for with millions in tax dollars or government-controlled fees. It should be more transparent, and it should have to compete for contracts on an even footing with other bidders.

A series by St. Petersburg Times staff writers Sue Carlton, Marlene Sokol and John Martin dispelled the widely held perception of the Salvation Army as a grassroots religious charity that relies on meagerly compensated staff who live not much better than the people they serve. It is a highly professionalized organization with an annual budget in Florida of more than $100 million, and some of its local staff members are housed in high-end homes. The organization drew unfavorable attention after revelations emerged of the free car and $95,000 annual salary it paid to longtime Hillsborough County Commissioner and now state Sen. Jim Norman, R-Tampa. Norman didn't appear to have many formal duties, and he was involuntarily retired soon after unrelated ethics problems emerged.

For more than two decades, the Salvation Army has held the misdemeanor probation contracts in Hillsborough and Pinellas counties without facing a competitive bidding process. This alone brings the group $3.2 million in annual supervision fees in Hillsborough and $2.4 million in Pinellas. People on probation for minor offenses routinely check in with Salvation Army staff who monitor their progress. In Hillsborough, probationers pay a $55 per month supervision fee, and the contract states that the Salvation Army gets its money before nearly every other fee probationers pay, including victim restitution.

There is every reason to believe that Hillsborough and Pinellas could get a better deal if they sought bids for these services. Other counties are paying less and finding that other providers do better at collecting victim restitution. Pasco County brought misdemeanor probation services in-house in 1993, and last year the program ran a surplus of more than $400,000 that will be returned to the county's general fund. Today's austerity in government should prompt Hillsborough and Pinellas counties to consider alternatives.

Another concern when dealing with a church like the Salvation Army is its lack of transparency. It asserts a religious exemption to avoid filing a public financial statement with the Internal Revenue Service, unlike secular charities and nonprofits that must disclose compensation levels for executives at the top and other key financial details that shed light on the way a group raises and spends money. This opaqueness raises questions about how the Salvation Army does business.

The Salvation Army is not just a small charity that receives loose change in red kettles during Christmas. It is a corporate entity in control of millions of dollars in government funds, and it should be held to the same standards as every other charity and government contractor.
But the news about them promoting homophobia while some of their own leaders turned out to be pedophiles isn't even really news anymore.

The Salvation Army's red kettle of trouble

I have spoken with a number of people who have sought assistance from the Salvation Army in the past, particularly for disaster relief. I was told of how these people were preached to and forced into praying with the Salvation Army folks to their Christian God as a prerequisite for receiving services. If you're Jewish, tough. If you're Hindu, tough. Gotta pray their way, to their God, or else you're not worthy of assistance. It's quid pro quo. Gotta take advantage of people when they're most vulnerable. Contrast this with the secular Red Cross, which just wants to help disaster victims, not save their souls. (In the interest of full disclosure, I personally received help from the Red Cross when my apartment building burned down in 2001. They were extremely helpful and compassionate, and expected nothing in return.)

As if the religious coercion isn't enough, the Salvation Army has also been implicated in a number of cases of alleged sexual abuse, ranging from molestation of child members of the Salvation Army's Red Shield swim team in Seattle to pedophile rings that operated out of Salvation Army run orphanages in Australia and New Zealand. (Yes, they like to "spread the love" worldwide.)

The Salvation Army is also homophobic -- so much so that they would stop helping the poor if it meant they had to respect equal rights for gays and lesbians. In 2004, they threatened to close their soup kitchens in New York City rather than comply with the city's legislation requiring firms to offer domestic partnership benefits to gay employees.

Salvation Army to apologise for abuse

The Salvation Army will officially apologise in Canberra next month to hundreds of survivors of its girls and boys homes for decades of neglect and abuse they suffered in the institutions.

Victims' groups say that the apology, to be delivered by the Salvos' international second-in-command, Commissioner Barry Swanson, is long overdue.
Homes run by the Salvation Army around Australia have been found to have been complicit in the physical and sexual abuse of some of the children who lived and worked in them.

Other documented abuses, including overwork and undereducation, left many of the survivors suffering the lifelong effects of trauma.
 
And besides, if ALL religions are given tax breaks, it cancels out.
Not really. Look at Engle v. Vitale. The SC ruled that when public institutions, such as school encourages prayer it is the government endorsing a religous idea. Religious organizations should retain their tax-exempt status as befiting a non-profit, but there should be stricter requirements in place for that status.
 
I'm pretty sure you can refuse to hire a person for any reason if the occupation is religious in nature, even in Canada.

Are you suggesting that a Church could not refuse to hire a gay pastor?
Dunno about the church aspect, but it would apply to their huge chain of thrift stores which is a buisness (albeit non-profit for charity).

I think Sweden need to go back and re-learn the First Amendment because what they're doing is entirely illegal.
Your post is a little unclear, who is doing what that is illegal? The Swedish government itself isn't doing anything about this, nor does the 1st Amendment apply in Sweden.

when people lose their right to express their Religious ideas, there is a problem in society.
Nobody has lost any right.
 
They can express what they want, but they have to live with it when someone puts his finger on it.

I certainly have no sympathy for alleged discrimination of people who're discriminating people themselves.
 
Top Bottom