World Vision reverses decision to hir...

World Vision reverses decision to hire Christians in gay marriages

There are 72 comments on the The Montreal Gazette story from Mar 27, 2014, titled World Vision reverses decision to hire Christians in gay marriages. In it, The Montreal Gazette reports that:

Facing a firestorm of protest, the prominent Christian relief agency World Vision on Wednesday dropped a two-day old policy that would have allowed the charity to hire Christians in same-sex marriages.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Montreal Gazette.

First Prev
of 4
Next Last
Dan

United States

#61 Mar 28, 2014
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but the false premise is yours. Making decisions in the best interests of the operation is not the same as making decisions based on compassion, empathy, inclusion and introspection (oh--and good old fashioned science). If their charitable mission is conditionally tied to immoral principles, then their morality is tainted, regardless of whatever other good they may do.
<quoted text>
I WILL say "yes", with the disclaimer that I recognize that doing so could hurt their organization.
As I said, solving real morality for one's self is hard. It can put you out of business. It can get you killed, in the wrong environment. Doing the right thing can sometimes be dangerous, and make a person (or an organization) into a target.
I recognize that sometimes doing the "right thing" has to be avoided for the sake of survival. Morals have to be compromised occasionally. But once you do, you must be able to recognize and admit that you've done so. You can't continue to claim the moral high ground, if it's obvious that you've slipped.
I'm not saying that no one should ever compromise their morals. Sometimes they must. I'm not saying that WV doesn't do good work. I'm sure they do (though I'd be curious whether the "educational" arm of their charity teaches sound material). I'm not saying that they're utterly, thoroughly immoral because of this one action.
But if we're going to discuss morals (and again, it was a discussion with someone else, off topic), then I will assert that building artificial exclusions and separations between human beings, on the grounds that they're in a supernaturally forbidden (but consensual) relationship, is not a moral action. I will continue to assert that adopting such principles blindly, without consideration for their real-world implications, does not represent the presence of a "moral code".
However, I will go so far as to say that most Christians DO use a moral code. It just happens to be their OWN, and it deviates from what the Bible commands. Few Christians KILL gay people. None that I know of own slaves. I've shared pork and shellfish dinners with Christians. They ARE capable of analyzing biblical commands and rejecting the foolish ones. The problem is that they don't admit to themselves that they used their own judgment to do it. They rationalize, they turn Bible verses into loopholes, they tell themselves that they're "interpreting" the Bible more correctly than our ancestors did. They still think that their decision making process is guided by supernatural hands, and that's a failure, but it's better than the alternative.
<quoted text>
That's a little hyperbolic. I've explained my position.
"Making decisions in the best interests of the operation is not the same as making decisions based on compassion, empathy, inclusion and introspection..."

Um, it's a charity. A charity.

"As I said, solving real morality for one's self is hard. It can put you out of business. It can get you killed, in the wrong environment. Doing the right thing can sometimes be dangerous, and make a person (or an organization) into a target."

Why don't we all just skip the hard work and instead have you decide what's the moral code for everyone? You certainly seem willing here. Not sure how you presume this singular sense of discernment-it only works if everyone else (or at least the WV folks) operate in complete absence of any self-awareness AND if your interpretation of the Bible is the only one that counts (Pope Edmond?)

Agreed that it seemes "hyperbolic" to me to declare those who are committed to the success fo a very large charity as having "tainted" morality by sole virtue of their non-compliance with your view of same sex marriage.
Dan

United States

#62 Mar 28, 2014
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but the false premise is yours. Making decisions in the best interests of the operation is not the same as making decisions based on compassion, empathy, inclusion and introspection (oh--and good old fashioned science). If their charitable mission is conditionally tied to immoral principles, then their morality is tainted, regardless of whatever other good they may do.
<quoted text>
I WILL say "yes", with the disclaimer that I recognize that doing so could hurt their organization.
As I said, solving real morality for one's self is hard. It can put you out of business. It can get you killed, in the wrong environment. Doing the right thing can sometimes be dangerous, and make a person (or an organization) into a target.
I recognize that sometimes doing the "right thing" has to be avoided for the sake of survival. Morals have to be compromised occasionally. But once you do, you must be able to recognize and admit that you've done so. You can't continue to claim the moral high ground, if it's obvious that you've slipped.
I'm not saying that no one should ever compromise their morals. Sometimes they must. I'm not saying that WV doesn't do good work. I'm sure they do (though I'd be curious whether the "educational" arm of their charity teaches sound material). I'm not saying that they're utterly, thoroughly immoral because of this one action.
But if we're going to discuss morals (and again, it was a discussion with someone else, off topic), then I will assert that building artificial exclusions and separations between human beings, on the grounds that they're in a supernaturally forbidden (but consensual) relationship, is not a moral action. I will continue to assert that adopting such principles blindly, without consideration for their real-world implications, does not represent the presence of a "moral code".
However, I will go so far as to say that most Christians DO use a moral code. It just happens to be their OWN, and it deviates from what the Bible commands. Few Christians KILL gay people. None that I know of own slaves. I've shared pork and shellfish dinners with Christians. They ARE capable of analyzing biblical commands and rejecting the foolish ones. The problem is that they don't admit to themselves that they used their own judgment to do it. They rationalize, they turn Bible verses into loopholes, they tell themselves that they're "interpreting" the Bible more correctly than our ancestors did. They still think that their decision making process is guided by supernatural hands, and that's a failure, but it's better than the alternative.
<quoted text>
That's a little hyperbolic. I've explained my position.
"I will continue to assert that adopting such principles blindly, without consideration for their real-world implications, does not represent the presence of a "moral code".

The same could have been said of their initial decision to allow staffers in same-sex marriages.

There were "real-world implications" for WV, and they were negative. We DO live in the real world, and not everyone in the real world agrees with your or agrees with me on SSM.

The people who have the real-world responsibility for this charity had to make some hard decisions as to not imperil the charitable work. They made them. That's using a "moral code". "Hubris" would be the word for bulling ahead with this in the face of a controversy that would subjugate the charitable work.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#63 Mar 28, 2014
Dan wrote:
"Making decisions in the best interests of the operation is not the same as making decisions based on compassion, empathy, inclusion and introspection..."
Um, it's a charity. A charity.
That doesn't mean they can't put out mixed messages. I'll give them credit for TRYING to improve their morality (for two whole days), but then they went back to putting compassion and inclusion for SOME people ahead of OTHERS. These values don't vary from person to person, from gay to straight.
Dan wrote:
"As I said, solving real morality for one's self is hard. It can put you out of business. It can get you killed, in the wrong environment. Doing the right thing can sometimes be dangerous, and make a person (or an organization) into a target."
Why don't we all just skip the hard work and instead have you decide what's the moral code for everyone? You certainly seem willing here. Not sure how you presume this singular sense of discernment-it only works if everyone else (or at least the WV folks) operate in complete absence of any self-awareness AND if your interpretation of the Bible is the only one that counts (Pope Edmond?)
You go ahead and do the moral solving work for yourself. I'm no pope, but I know that if you reach ANY conclusion which justifies the ostracization, stigmatization, debasement, and exclusion of a group of people on grounds that don't recognize their freedom and well-being, then you've done something wrong.

You are not hearing what I'm saying. I've already stated that it does not represent a moral code for people to blindly follow the Bible... why would I suggest that it DOES represent a moral code to blindly follow ME? I'm not telling anyone to obey my interpretation. I've said over and over that people must figure these things out for themselves... not to be correct, not to come to a necessarily moral conclusion... but to be able to say that they ARE using a moral code. Even if they reach a WRONG conclusion, it needs to be THEIR judgment that they trust, otherwise "moral code" is not the right name for it. Blind obedience to someone ELSE'S moral code will only lead to morality in the same way that a blind squirrel will occasionally find an acorn. You've got to think for yourself before you can call yourself "moral", and deciding to hate and exclude gay people based on the commands of the Bible does not represent thinking for oneself. If you can't explain the deeper connotations of the rules you follow, other than praising the merits of obedience, then you have no grounds to call those rules "moral".
Dan wrote:
Agreed that it seemes "hyperbolic" to me to declare those who are committed to the success fo a very large charity as having "tainted" morality by sole virtue of their non-compliance with your view of same sex marriage.
It's much bigger than same-sex marriage. Clearly you are not gay, and may have never had these issues touch your life in a way that wasn't purely academic. Hatred of gay people is not a default position, it is PERPETUATED. It must be taught, from one person to another, from one generation to another. Each case of trying to shove gay people back in the closet empowers someone else to think that's the right thing to do. Every time someone demonstrates the message that it's ok to disenfranchise law-abiding citizens based on nothing more than their sexual orientation, other people hear that message, and champion it, and spread it. How does the saying go?“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” Opposition to MY rights also damages YOURS.

Here's an interesting aside. A new poll came out yesterday. For whatever polls are worth, this one says that Americans now trust gay people more than they trust evangelicals. These people's "moral" position on gay people is only hurting them (along with their other anti-science, misogynistic nonsense). You can't keep spouting this stuff forever, and expect NO ONE to ever question it.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#64 Mar 28, 2014
Dan wrote:
"I will continue to assert that adopting such principles blindly, without consideration for their real-world implications, does not represent the presence of a "moral code".
The same could have been said of their initial decision to allow staffers in same-sex marriages.
I expect that's true. Allowing such staffers represents a deviation from biblical commands. i.e., they thought for themselves.

But going BACK to the previous policy is where they abrogated their moral code (well, RE-abrogated it). By saying that they would return to biblical principles, they admit that they are not using any kind of PROCESS for measuring compassion and good behavior. Their only process is "obey the Bible".
Dan wrote:
There were "real-world implications" for WV, and they were negative. We DO live in the real world, and not everyone in the real world agrees with your or agrees with me on SSM.
Because they think they've received contravening orders from a supernatural being. Not very "real world".
Dan wrote:
The people who have the real-world responsibility for this charity had to make some hard decisions as to not imperil the charitable work. They made them. That's using a "moral code".
Yes it is. But then they back-pedaled, tossing out that code in favor of spiritual commands from on high.
Dan wrote:
"Hubris" would be the word for bulling ahead with this in the face of a controversy that would subjugate the charitable work.
I understand their decision. I do. The survival of the charity was paramount. However, I would question any attempt to label such a decision as "moral". It was driven by necessity, not by principles. Their FIRST decision was based on principles. They didn't have to do that.

It comes down to this: It is either "moral" or "immoral" to command that gay people NOT pursue the relationships which suit them best, and to scorn and condemn them if they do, and to stymie their legal ability to do so at every step. If it is "moral" to do this, then there must be a sound explanation as to WHY this is moral. "Because God said so" is NOT a sound explanation.
Fundies R Mentally Eel

Philadelphia, PA

#65 Mar 28, 2014
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
"I will continue to assert that adopting such principles blindly
Translation: You'll remain a steadfast bigot and you'll die. Before then you will become even more of an outlier each year, and educated persons will laugh at you.
hi hi

Lancaster, PA

#66 Mar 28, 2014
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
Blind obedience to an unapproachable authority requires abrogation of a moral code.
Absolutely. Absolutely. I was pointing out in another thread that now, in some African nations, it seems that "crime is moral" is the way of life. So long as it's hateful and antigay, literal *CRIME* like *MURDER* is somehow "good."

Doesn't their "bible" claim that good will be called evil and evil good? Look at them. These things they claim of others *ALWAYS* apply to them -- and with great consistency (amorality, in other words), they lie about it (breaking a commandment, of course).

They have no moral code; I've been saying this for approximately 4-6 years now. The antigay *have none*. It doesn't exist. They *pretend* and it does. not. exist.

Period.
hi hi

Lancaster, PA

#67 Mar 28, 2014
Rainbow Kid wrote:
<quoted text>
People always become angry when they discover a trusted charity is toxic
Thank you sir; I agree.
Dan

United States

#68 Mar 31, 2014
Fundies R Mentally Eel wrote:
<quoted text>
Translation: You'll remain a steadfast bigot and you'll die. Before then you will become even more of an outlier each year, and educated persons will laugh at you.
Um, that's not my line, idiot. It's Edmonds.

Stop troling-watch Edmonda dn hi hi for tips on how to present an argument.
hi hi

Lancaster, PA

#69 Mar 31, 2014
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Um, that's not my line, idiot. It's Edmonds.
Stop troling-watch Edmonda dn hi hi for tips on how to present an argument.
I thought you were making fun of me for a second, and was about to say, "Am I a mess?" BUT I GET IT, hahahaha. You are kind.

“Common sense prevails.”

Since: Mar 14

3rd rock from the sun.

#70 Mar 31, 2014
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Social experiments are conducted with human subjects in the real world that typically investigates the effects of a policy intervention by randomly assigning individuals, families, businesses, classrooms, or other units to different treatments or to a control condition that represents the status quo.
That's what happened here.
WV floated a new policy RE: its staff. That's why I used the term-it fits here.
The rest of your post is your reaction to a term you think is somehow a pejorative.
I agree that to WV it IS a social experiment....to them and them alone. Unfortunately their little experiment blew up in their faces. Not because of gay couples, but because of those loving, non-judgmental "Christians" who threatened to pull the money rug out from under their feet.

WV wouldn't be a major charity anymore, they made the "right" business decision (in my mind).

If I applaud them for anything, it's for pushing the envelope to begin with. So....they caved pretty quick. Can't help but notice that in all this heated furore.....the children they help got forgotten pretty quick, didn't they?

Just think, about one in ten of these children are probably gay.....
Dan

United States

#71 Apr 1, 2014
DebraE wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree that to WV it IS a social experiment....to them and them alone. Unfortunately their little experiment blew up in their faces. Not because of gay couples, but because of those loving, non-judgmental "Christians" who threatened to pull the money rug out from under their feet.
WV wouldn't be a major charity anymore, they made the "right" business decision (in my mind).
If I applaud them for anything, it's for pushing the envelope to begin with. So....they caved pretty quick. Can't help but notice that in all this heated furore.....the children they help got forgotten pretty quick, didn't they?
Just think, about one in ten of these children are probably gay.....
All sides of the argument forgot the children; WV for not thinking about the ramifications for its donor base prior to making the initial change, some of the people who bitched the loudest, and some in the LGBT commmunity who get excited and put out blog posts to support the charity only on the new condition that they hired SSM couples-and then comdemned them for reverting to former polciy.

“Common sense prevails.”

Since: Mar 14

3rd rock from the sun.

#72 Apr 1, 2014
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
All sides of the argument forgot the children; WV for not thinking about the ramifications for its donor base prior to making the initial change, some of the people who bitched the loudest, and some in the LGBT commmunity who get excited and put out blog posts to support the charity only on the new condition that they hired SSM couples-and then comdemned them for reverting to former polciy.
When charities become that large they have to be a business. A religious business has to have one foot in the spiritual world and one in the real world. Very tricky to contemplate and even harder to accomplish.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Auburn Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Arrest made in deadly Federal Way shooting (Jul '08) Jun '16 Lol 27
etizolam powder for sale May '16 etizolam253 1
iso herbal incense/ potporri (Jul '15) Jul '15 wesfacehiatt 1
News Lil Wayne vs. Drake (Oct '14) Nov '14 TheAfroHedgehog 2
News Thriftbooks.com Enjoying Sales Influx as Strapp... (Mar '09) Oct '14 Fran0219 15
George Hirtman (Jan '12) Oct '14 IFYOUONLYKNEWTHET... 4
Speed limit on Main Street (Sep '14) Sep '14 Dan Hodson 1

Auburn Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Auburn Mortgages