Is ‘tolerance’ a one-way street?

[JudgeNot]

Is ‘tolerance’ a one-way street?  Some demand tolerance of their personal lifestyle, yet will not tolerate the core, personal beliefs of others; even the beliefs of a religious nonprofit organization.  In fact, their intolerance of others will work to drive a major charity from New York, thereby hurting untold thousands who are dependent on the charity for food, clothing, shelter and other services.  (Does intolerance run any deeper than that?)  

Of course, those attempting to force acceptance of their behavior on others call their victims the intolerant ones.  They say “See!  The Salvation Army will make thousands suffer because of their intolerance!”  Wait a minute…who is being intolerant here?

So – the question:   Is the root cause of these lost services the fault of the homosexual activists, or is it the fault of the Salvation Army?  (In my opinion, making it the Salvation Army’s fault may be equated to making it God’s fault, since The Salvation Army is abiding by God’s word.)  Is God abandoning the needy in New York, or are the activists forcing abandonment of the needy in New York?  

Hmm.  Today the Salvation Army.  Tomorrow your church?

Here’s the news story:
New York Post OnLine
May 23, 2004 -- The Salvation Army could be marching out of New York.
The evangelical nonprofit organization is facing a major showdown with the city over a bill that would force it to offer health benefits to gay and unwed spouses of New York staffers.
If the organization leaves town, it would give up $70 million a year in city funding.
The loss of public financing - half the Army's yearly budget in the city - would cripple its programs, which serve 5 million New Yorkers, the group says.
Salvation Army insiders said they will refuse to comply with the proposed law because it goes against one of the organization's core beliefs - that marriage is for straight couples only.
"The Army will not change its policy," said one official, who declined to be named.
"You cannot change theological views. Those are so deeply embedded, they form the root of the faith itself."
The result could be a nightmare scenario for needy New Yorkers.
One of the largest private providers in the city, the Salvation Army answers the call for the homeless, HIV sufferers, foster-care kids and troubled teens.
The Salvation Army has several multiyear contracts with the city totaling $250 million. Six city contracts worth $12.8 million are to expire June 30, by which time the bill may be law.
Salvation Army leaders have been debating the issue and are hoping for an exemption that would allow them to continue to operate here without offering the benefits.
But they're recognizing that the existing bill, approved 43 to 5 by the City Council on May 5, has enough council support to overrule the veto that Mayor Bloomberg has vowed.
The Equal Benefits Bill, an extension of a 1998 city law that gave domestic-partner benefits to city workers, does offer an olive branch to religious groups: Benefits don't have to be to a spouse, but can go to any family member.
"I think the bill makes a very fair accommodation for religious organizations," said the bill's sponsor, Councilwoman Christine Quinn (D-Manhattan).
"I would welcome the opportunity to sit down with the Salvation Army and explain how this would work, that they could keep their contracts, abide by the law and not violate their core religious beliefs."

[Alnilam]

In the past I've learned that the media does not always get the story correct, and puts a certain spin on it.  I've not been able to find the bill itself, but have found several summaries, one of which is here :

http://www.religionandsocialpolicy.org/news/article.cfm?id=1417

It would appear that several charities are effected.  If the wording says "any family member" (or words to that effect), is the city really challenging any religious belief ?  

God Bless !

Alnilam

[JudgeNot]

If the wording says "any family member" (or words to that effect), is the city really challenging any religious belief ?  

I think the key word is "family".  The Salvation Army doesn't recognize an unrelated "domestic partner" (of any sex) as "family", and they only recognize a marraige as one between one man and one woman.  I suppose they would recognize an adopted child as family - so will that be twisted to say a domestic partnership or homosexual marraige is "like adoption" in that you are "caring" for another individual?

I don't think God would approve, and evidently the Salvation Army doesn't think God would approve.

[Alnilam]

I agree, "family" is the key word.  AFAIK, the state of New York does not recognize same sex marriage, although I do not know if they would recognize the same from another state.  I don't think the issue has come up yet.

Do any of these charities refuse to hire a candidate on the basis of marital status ?  If they do not (and I think they don't), I don't see providing health benefits as condoning same sex marriage in any way.  If they do, then don't we have a double standard, i.e., you are moral enough to work for us, but not moral enough to get benefits ?

I'm having trouble getting more info on this.  Do you know how the other religious charities are handling this ?

God Bless !

Alnilam

[JudgeNot]

Alnilam,
I couldn't find out much about it either.  I heard it first on a local radio talk show this morning, then did a search with key words "Salvation Army New York" - I found only the NY Post article and two articles on homosexual websites.  They pretty much all said the same thing.

I guess I can understand why a lot of news agencies - particularly the left leaning ones, think it could be in the best interests of their ideology not to report on something about the biggest charity in the city leaving because of policies they support.  Kinda like derailing a train to save a mouse on the tracks - it is in the best interest of most to give the right-of-way to the train.  

There's not a lot to brag about if you win a selfish battle to force others to celebrate your personal lifestyle choices at the expense of innocents.  

[Alnilam]

I found additional information from the NY Times :

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/06/nyregion/06partners.html?ex=1085716800&en=9475f0818e74d65a&ei=5070

It requires a subscription, but it is free to sign up.  It appears to me to be a married spouse/domestic partner issue and not gay/straight per se.  I am a little confused in that the Post article is from the 23rd, while the Times is dated on the 6th and  indicates the city and the charities already reached a compromise.  The Mayor has promised to veto the bill and I can understand why.  Perhaps there is a member here that lives in the area that could provide some more information.

God Bless !

Alnilam

[ollie]

Is ‘tolerance’ a one-way street?  Some demand tolerance of their personal lifestyle, yet will not tolerate the core, personal beliefs of others; even the beliefs of a religious nonprofit organization.  In fact, their intolerance of others will work to drive a major charity from New York, thereby hurting untold thousands who are dependent on the charity for food, clothing, shelter and other services.  (Does intolerance run any deeper than that?)  

Of course, those attempting to force acceptance of their behavior on others call their victims the intolerant ones.  They say “See!  The Salvation Army will make thousands suffer because of their intolerance!”  Wait a minute…who is being intolerant here?

So – the question:   Is the root cause of these lost services the fault of the homosexual activists, or is it the fault of the Salvation Army?  (In my opinion, making it the Salvation Army’s fault may be equated to making it God’s fault, since The Salvation Army is abiding by God’s word.)  Is God abandoning the needy in New York, or are the activists forcing abandonment of the needy in New York?  

Hmm.  Today the Salvation Army.  Tomorrow your church?

Here’s the news story:
New York Post OnLine
May 23, 2004 -- The Salvation Army could be marching out of New York.
The evangelical nonprofit organization is facing a major showdown with the city over a bill that would force it to offer health benefits to gay and unwed spouses of New York staffers.
If the organization leaves town, it would give up $70 million a year in city funding.
The loss of public financing - half the Army's yearly budget in the city - would cripple its programs, which serve 5 million New Yorkers, the group says.
Salvation Army insiders said they will refuse to comply with the proposed law because it goes against one of the organization's core beliefs - that marriage is for straight couples only.
"The Army will not change its policy," said one official, who declined to be named.
"You cannot change theological views. Those are so deeply embedded, they form the root of the faith itself."
The result could be a nightmare scenario for needy New Yorkers.
One of the largest private providers in the city, the Salvation Army answers the call for the homeless, HIV sufferers, foster-care kids and troubled teens.
The Salvation Army has several multiyear contracts with the city totaling $250 million. Six city contracts worth $12.8 million are to expire June 30, by which time the bill may be law.
Salvation Army leaders have been debating the issue and are hoping for an exemption that would allow them to continue to operate here without offering the benefits.
But they're recognizing that the existing bill, approved 43 to 5 by the City Council on May 5, has enough council support to overrule the veto that Mayor Bloomberg has vowed.
The Equal Benefits Bill, an extension of a 1998 city law that gave domestic-partner benefits to city workers, does offer an olive branch to religious groups: Benefits don't have to be to a spouse, but can go to any family member.
"I think the bill makes a very fair accommodation for religious organizations," said the bill's sponsor, Councilwoman Christine Quinn (D-Manhattan).
"I would welcome the opportunity to sit down with the Salvation Army and explain how this would work, that they could keep their contracts, abide by the law and not violate their core religious beliefs."

"The Salvation Army could be marching out of New York.
The evangelical nonprofit organization is facing a major showdown with the city over a bill that would force it to offer health benefits to gay and unwed spouses of New York staffers. "

Why would the Salvation Army not give these services to the lost as well as the found? Why would they need be forced to show Christian love to the sinner? Does not sound like a very good way to show Christ to a dying world. It does not sound like the Salvation Army I know.

ollie

[I_Believe]

Ministering to those in open rebellion (sin as a lifestyle) is much different than teaming with them to minister to others.

Unbelievers:
Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers; for what fellowship does righteousness have with lawlessness? And what partnership does light have with darkness? And what agreement does Christ have with Belial? Or what part does a believer have with an unbeliever? And what agreement does a temple of God have with idols? For you are the temple of the living God, as God has said, "I will dwell in them and walk among them; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people." Therefore come out from among them and be separated, says the Lord, and do not touch the unclean thing. And I will receive you and I will be a Father to you, and you shall be My sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty. (2Co 6:14-18)

Believers:
But if your brother shall trespass against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. But if he will not hear you, take one or two more with you, so that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he neglects to hear the church, let him be to you as a heathen and a tax-collector. (Mat 18:15-17)

I wrote to you in my letter to have no company with sexual sinners; yet not at all meaning with the sexual sinners of this world, or with the covetous and extortioners, or with idolaters; for then you would have to leave the world. But as it is, I wrote to you not to associate with anyone who is called a brother who is a sexual sinner, or covetous, or an idolater, or a slanderer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner. Don't even eat with such a person. For what have I to do with also judging those who are outside? Don't you judge those who are within? But those who are outside, God judges. "Put away the wicked man from among yourselves." (1Co 5:9-13)

Finally, brothers, pray for us, that the word of the Lord may spread rapidly and be glorified, even as also with you; and that we may be delivered from unreasonable and evil men; for not all have faith. But the Lord is faithful, who will establish you, and guard you from the evil one. We have confidence in the Lord concerning you, that you both do and will do the things we command. May the Lord direct your hearts into the love of God, and into the patience of Christ. Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother who walks in rebellion, and not after the tradition which they received from us. For you know how you ought to imitate us. For we didn't behave ourselves rebelliously among you, (2Th 3:1-7)

If any man doesn't obey our word in this letter, note that man, that you have no company with him, to the end that he may be ashamed. Don't count him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother. (2Th 3:14-15)


"Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers"

This would include marriage, business ventures, charities, etc.

[infotechadviser]

The Salvation Army has several multiyear contracts with the city totaling $250 million. Six city contracts worth $12.8 million are to expire June 30, by which time the bill may be law.

Therein lies the problem. Montesque wrote that if you wanted to bring a religion under control, instead of trying to ride roughshod over it, you subsidize it!

The 501-c3, besides these government subsidies, is a ticking time bomb, more effective that any other totalitarian tactic, that has shut the mouths of preachers and pastors more than prison would!  (Ezekiel 33-34)