Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Basically, in some states you could be sacked for almost any reason.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
quote:It's the true face of one side (the loudest side) of evangelicalism. There have been other voices, especially in the last few days.
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
By their fruits....
This is the true face of "traditional family values" evangelicalism.
quote:Well said. Cowards.
Originally posted by St Deird:
You can't take a moral stand and then jump straight into take-backsies the moment it gets tough.
quote:I suppose the way I look at it is that WV are seeking to provide money for the children. When this was being severely impacted, they made a choice that would enable them to provide what they were trying to do in the first place.
Originally posted by St Deird:
I'm rather pissed off with World Vision, as well.
1) "Hi, we've decided that this is the right thing to do."
2) "...the right thing is too hard."
You can't take a moral stand and then jump straight into take-backsies the moment it gets tough.
quote:Blackmail can work both ways. Anyone willing to launch a campaign for people to support WV if they re-instate their non-discriminatory hiring policy, or for current supporters to pull out if they don't.
Originally posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger:
Nothing short of blackmail.
quote:Now, I'm not saying this is the ONLY reason that World Vision Canada has their policy. Not a bit of it. But I can't help noticing the silently implied flipside: that much of the United States doesn't have such laws.
We comply with provincial laws on this matter which prohibit discrimination in employment.
quote:It might not even be 'some', it might be 'most'. The Human Rights Campaign has a map available on this page that says only 21 states out of 50 have laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
orfeo
Is that really correct, that you can be sacked for being gay in some states? Gordon Bennett. What century are they living in?
quote:I believe it's called a "flexible labor market", "small government", or "light-touch regulation". Someone should write a phrase book for right-of-center euphemisms.
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Basically, in some states you could be sacked for almost any reason.
quote:All of this. I was a bit surprised that the backlash wasn't anticipated-- certainly when the announcement came out on Monday my first thought was "courageous" because I knew there'd be a funding loss. I'd assumed they'd already factored that in-- had reason to believe there would be more liberal Christians who'd step up to fill the void (as some were already beginning to do when the abrupt turn around happened), or one large donor who'd agreed to make up the slack. It was odd.
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
quote:I suppose the way I look at it is that WV are seeking to provide money for the children. When this was being severely impacted, they made a choice that would enable them to provide what they were trying to do in the first place.
Originally posted by St Deird:
I'm rather pissed off with World Vision, as well.
1) "Hi, we've decided that this is the right thing to do."
2) "...the right thing is too hard."
You can't take a moral stand and then jump straight into take-backsies the moment it gets tough.
Yes, it is sad that they did this. I suspect that there are a number of people in WV who are angry and feel compromised themselves. I doubt very much that this was an easy reversal.
Yes I am disappointed with them. But I can understand why their core purpose was being damaged. They are not there to support gay people specifically. They are there to help children in the developing world.
quote:Even in states with protections for gender orientation, religious institutions like WV doing religious work would be exempted. Heck, now we even have places like Hobby Lobby trying to claim they are a "religious organization"-- I've never shopped there, but apparently they must sell Magic Jesus Miracle Yarn and Spiritual Succor Savior Scrapbooks-- and so should also be allowed to discriminate. All in Jesus' name, of course. Cuz it's all about the children.
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
quote:I believe it's called a "flexible labor market", "small government", or "light-touch regulation". Someone should write a phrase book for right-of-center euphemisms.
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Basically, in some states you could be sacked for almost any reason.
quote:Right-wingers have their own style of political correctness.
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
quote:I believe it's called a "flexible labor market", "small government", or "light-touch regulation". Someone should write a phrase book for right-of-center euphemisms.
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Basically, in some states you could be sacked for almost any reason.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:Because it was not blackmail wich caused them to reverse position in the first?
Originally posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger:
I'd agree that World Vision could have taken a stronger stand over this, but the people who have withdrawn their support because of this are a disgrace.
Nothing short of blackmail.
quote:It was the "Christian" evangelicals who first engaged blackmail in this. Wankers.
The agency had announced Monday that 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 staff come from dozens of denominations with varied views on the issue. The board had said World Vision would still require celibacy outside of marriage and would require employees to affirm that they follow Christ, but would change policy in the U.S. as a way to avoid the divisive debates that have torn apart churches.
But the change drew widespread condemnation, with many donors posting on the agency's Facebook page that they would no longer fund the sponsor-a-child programs that are central to World Vision's fundraising and education.
![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
If we were not already here, I would be tempted to call you to hell for that.
quote:I've always been suspicious that it spends more money on bibles and evangelism than on feeding the hungry with literal food.
Originally posted by The Rogue:
I've never heard of World Vision.
quote:On which part?
Originally posted by orfeo:
You might want to work on your reading comprehension first, dear.
quote:To their credit - loosely speaking - AGC told their members to honour their existing commitments so vulnerable children and families didn't suffer because of the policy - just not take on any new ones. As for some of the other Christian leaders ...
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Let me be clear, though.
I condemn the evangelicals behind the initial threat, World Vision for caving and those who withdrew commitments without reinvesting them in a similar aid group.
In that order.
The reason for the Original Wanksters having primacy should be obvious.
World Vision follows close behind for what they do to charitable giving. While it is anecdotal, my experience is that disillusionment in charitable organisations inhibit giving. Rather than find a suitable agency, many just stop.
Those who withdrew support and did not re-invest the commitment draw third because, whilst I understand the frustration, it is not the fault of those in need,
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
x infinity and lots of swears. Some of them won't be seeing a penny of my money or a shoebox, I'll donate to organisations where good works don't come with an unwanted dressing of bigotry in the future. FTS.quote:One of those is a close friend and shipmate. I fervently wish WV had taken more time with their decision, had waited to see who would step up to the plate to take the place of those who cruelly deserted ship. For a moment there it was looking like a watershed moment, one that might turn the tide in a lot of ways.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I dunno, I know several people who opted to sponsor a child in support of WV's inclusive stance, and every single one of them openly stated they would keep their pledges despite what WV decided. WV might have to reconsider their policies in light of the fact that a good deal of their sponsor load is now gays and liberals.
I think this is turning into a real "by their fruits you will know them" moment.
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
quote:This. Because if we're talking about people who have withdrawn support, the news is about evangelicals withdrawing support, not about LGBT people withdrawing support after the backflip.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:On which part?
Originally posted by orfeo:
You might want to work on your reading comprehension first, dear.
TPFF's statement could be read at being aimed towards the evangelicals or the LGBT supporters. In that case, I could have been more polite.
quote:I think you are correct. Re-reading the thread itself, without clicking any links, it appears I misread.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:This. Because if we're talking about people who have withdrawn support, the news is about evangelicals withdrawing support, not about LGBT people withdrawing support after the backflip.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:On which part?
Originally posted by orfeo:
You might want to work on your reading comprehension first, dear.
TPFF's statement could be read at being aimed towards the evangelicals or the LGBT supporters. In that case, I could have been more polite.
quote:A house divided against itself cannot stand. Regardless of the pious disclaimers of those two national organisations, they will be tarred with the same brush as the US organisation. How can they all work in the international field without running into, and disagreeing with, the USA organisation? It certainly looks like a fast CYA* response.
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
For what is worth:
Both World Vision UK and World Vision Canada state that what their US counterpart does, does not affect their hiring practices.
World Vision UK
World Vision Canada
quote:Leo,
Originally posted by leo:
quote:I've always been suspicious that it spends more money on bibles and evangelism than on feeding the hungry with literal food.
Originally posted by The Rogue:
I've never heard of World Vision.
I've been asked to sponsor children raising money for it and i have given them money so as to support the children who are looking for such sponsorship but i always do so with a disturbed conscience.
quote:Indeed, the charge in the evangelical circles I run in has usually been the reverse, because, you know, feeding hungry people is great but we're really in it for the decisions for Christ. Which may be why this heartbreaking debacle was inevitable sooner or later.
Originally posted by JoannaP:
quote:Leo,
Originally posted by leo:
quote:I've always been suspicious that it spends more money on bibles and evangelism than on feeding the hungry with literal food.
Originally posted by The Rogue:
I've never heard of World Vision.
I've been asked to sponsor children raising money for it and i have given them money so as to support the children who are looking for such sponsorship but i always do so with a disturbed conscience.
Do you have any evidence for your suspicion? I generally regard WV as one of the good guys; in several years as a supporter I have never seen any evidence that they spend money on "bibles and evangelism" rather than helping communities to flourish.
quote:I would (anecdotally) agree with JoannaP. My wife and I sponsored two children through the UK version of World Vision for a number of years. (We only stopped because we moved continent.) Every few months we'd get letters from the children telling us what they'd been doing at school, how tall they were getting, what new toy they'd just got from the charity. I don't remember evangelism being mentioned once. And these two kids were in completely different places, too.
Originally posted by JoannaP:
Leo,
Do you have any evidence for your suspicion? I generally regard WV as one of the good guys; in several years as a supporter I have never seen any evidence that they spend money on "bibles and evangelism" rather than helping communities to flourish.
quote:No - that is why it is merely a 'suspicion', though based on the assumption that evangelicals are often more concerned about people's 'eternal destiny'.
Originally posted by JoannaP:
quote:Leo,
Originally posted by leo:
quote:I've always been suspicious that it spends more money on bibles and evangelism than on feeding the hungry with literal food.
Originally posted by The Rogue:
I've never heard of World Vision.
I've been asked to sponsor children raising money for it and i have given them money so as to support the children who are looking for such sponsorship but i always do so with a disturbed conscience.
Do you have any evidence for your suspicion? I generally regard WV as one of the good guys; in several years as a supporter I have never seen any evidence that they spend money on "bibles and evangelism" rather than helping communities to flourish.
quote:If this really were what Christianity is, I'd be looking for a different religion.
Originally posted by Ariston:
News Flash! Extra, extra, read all about it!
Christian organization motivated by Christianity, believes and does Christian things!
(Continued on A22)
Sometimes they could do a better job of it.
quote:Damn! You're right!
Originally posted by mdijon:
My God, is this the thread for reading posts out of context? It must be fun an everything to get the juices flowing, but I'm pretty sure that Ariston was responding to Leo's post about WV doing the occasional Christian meeting and giving out bibles.
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif){kind=icon}
I feel stupid ... and that happens so rarely! ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:Exactly. Now, I'm not calling homophobia "Christian"—that's the "could do a better job at it" part—but the idea that a Christian organization shouldn't engage in evangelism as well as direct material aid, that they just have to be spending more money on Bibles than food, because they just have to (and some anti-Christian atheist blogger said we should be shocked, shocked that a religious organization acts like they're religious, so of course they are!) is just ridiculous.
Originally posted by mdijon:
I'm pretty sure that Ariston was responding to Leo's post about WV doing the occasional Christian meeting and giving out bibles.
quote:'s all good. No apologies for misreading a sentence that, in retrospect, could be ambiguous, are needed.
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
quote:Damn! You're right!
Originally posted by mdijon:
My God, is this the thread for reading posts out of context? It must be fun an everything to get the juices flowing, but I'm pretty sure that Ariston was responding to Leo's post about WV doing the occasional Christian meeting and giving out bibles.
Apologies to Ariston.
quote:Agreed!
Originally posted by Ariston:
But to expect an ostensibly Christian organization—no matter how susceptible it is to fear of where its funding for continued good works is coming from—to not spread the Good News is patently silly.
quote:well said.
Originally posted by Ariston:
So while I think WV was right cowardly, that they were neither hot nor cold, that they wanted to do the right thing so long as it didn't have any material consequences, that doesn't mean I think they're un-Christian, just that, like many of us, the people who are in charge can succumb to fear. They tried to make a stand, they faced the backlash, and, perhaps motivated by fear for those they care for, perhaps by something less altruistic, they caved.
But to expect an ostensibly Christian organization—no matter how susceptible it is to fear of where its funding for continued good works is coming from—to not spread the Good News is patently silly.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
quote:"Preach the Gospel. Use words if you have to." St Francis (att)
Originally posted by Ariston:
But to expect an ostensibly Christian organization—no matter how susceptible it is to fear of where its funding for continued good works is coming from—to not spread the Good News is patently silly.
quote:Does it have to be an either/or proposition, though? Should those who work among the poor, sick, and needy not be told why those who are rich, comfortable, and healthy, seemingly against all sense and self-interest, voluntarily give of themselves and sacrifice to work with "the least of these?" Good works are not simply a bribe to get people to listen to the Gospel; rather, the Gospels are an explanation, a defense, for going against the ways of reason and self-interest, and for doing the work of God. The action and the reason for acting should be inseparable.
Originally posted by Rev per Minute:
quote:"Preach the Gospel. Use words if you have to." St Francis (att)
Originally posted by Ariston:
But to expect an ostensibly Christian organization—no matter how susceptible it is to fear of where its funding for continued good works is coming from—to not spread the Good News is patently silly.
Spreading the Good News means caring for the poor, the sick and the needy, not giving Bibles to those poor, sick and needy. We bring Christ's love to people by our actions, not our sermons. If World Vision are about helping the poor, then that should be their focus, not counting the converts. Those will come as they are seen to imitate Christ, not by handing out tracts.
I thought that we had put this sort of thing behind us after the Victorian missionaries and colonial Christianity. Or is this what some people want to go back to?
quote:No, no, no! You are going too far.He will begin to believe he is rational and the will use these words as a reason to be let out of the manacles. Some kind-hearted, but misguided, soul will do so and it will be Hell getting him back in. It took months to get all the clown shit out of the air ducts last time.
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Ariston, you're on a roll!
quote:Yes.
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
This is an interesting blog article that gives some insight to what happened (with some commentary thrown in.)
Let's talk about What Happened at World Vision
quote:You're not the only one. I thought specifically of the Christian missionary who recently read an "apology" to the North Korean people for his activities. It's a sad day, indeed, when leading figures in American evangelicalism are functioning in the role of the North Korean regime!
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:Yes.
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
This is an interesting blog article that gives some insight to what happened (with some commentary thrown in.)
Let's talk about What Happened at World Vision
Honestly (and I could only say this in hell) when I read the statement on Monday side-by-side with the one on Wed.-- both ostensibly written by Stearns with the "overwhelming majority" of the board, what struck me was not just the change in message & tone, but the change in language and argumentation. So much so that it seemed more like someone reading off a script someone else had written. The (yes, hellish, but so be it) image that kept coming to me was of a North Korean hostage reading one of those "confessions" with a gun to his head.
quote:That's the Christian way.™
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But in this case the North Koreans got even more devious and didn't put the gun to the missionary's head, but to the kids'.
quote:Oh my. What a reliable and unbiased source of information.
Originally posted by leo:
This blogger claims that it gives bibles as part of its 'aid'. They also hold evangelistic summer camps.
quote:From the article:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
This is an interesting blog article that gives some insight to what happened (with some commentary thrown in.)
Let's talk about What Happened at World Vision
quote:Not quite the point.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Well, the Bangladeshi kid we sponsor through WV was already Christian before our money ever got near her. Does that mean they're allowed to give her school a Bible or two for the pupils to read, or not?
quote:Looks like WV are damned if they evangelise and damned if they don't.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:Not quite the point.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Well, the Bangladeshi kid we sponsor through WV was already Christian before our money ever got near her. Does that mean they're allowed to give her school a Bible or two for the pupils to read, or not?
WV had a week-long campaign signing people up outside my supermarket this week. No mention of Christian evangelism on their display or materials. They are conning people into thinking that all their donations are going to feed the hungry - with food.
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
My God, is this the thread for reading posts out of context? It must be fun an everything to get the juices flowing, but I'm pretty sure that Ariston was responding to Leo's post about WV doing the occasional Christian meeting and giving out bibles.
quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
Damn! You're right!
Apologies to Ariston.
quote:Oh fine, that just leaves me looking like the bad guy then.
Originally posted by Ariston:
's all good. No apologies for misreading a sentence that, in retrospect, could be ambiguous, are needed.
quote:Ariston and I got together and planned it that way! It worked perfectly!
Originally posted by mdijon:
Oh fine, that just leaves me looking like the bad guy then.
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
quote:Shit, me plan a piss-up in a brewery? Wouldn't happen.
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
quote:Ariston and I got together and planned it that way! It worked perfectly!
Originally posted by mdijon:
Oh fine, that just leaves me looking like the bad guy then.
quote:You forget "anti-Muslim."
Originally posted by Ariston:
otherwise, we're bigoted, anti-Semetic, and unnecessary.
quote:I've mostly seen him harming his cause.
Originally posted by Ariston:
He can do it when he feels like it and when he thinks it helps his cause...
quote:Their various websites obscure their expenditure on evangelism.
Originally posted by mdijon:
(Shall I ask Leo for thoughts or even evidence on the proportions given to bible buying vs food? Best not to over-exert where returns are unlikely).
quote:Proof?
Originally posted by leo:
quote:Their various websites obscure their expenditure on evangelism.
Originally posted by mdijon:
(Shall I ask Leo for thoughts or even evidence on the proportions given to bible buying vs food? Best not to over-exert where returns are unlikely).
quote:I am both shocked and appalled. Someone needs to think of the children ... Oh, wait
Originally posted by Ariston:
News Flash! Extra, extra, read all about it!
Christian organization motivated by Christianity, believes and does Christian things!
(Continued on A22)
Sometimes they could do a better job of it.
quote:How to prove something that doesn;'t exist.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Proof?
Originally posted by leo:
quote:Their various websites obscure their expenditure on evangelism.
Originally posted by mdijon:
(Shall I ask Leo for thoughts or even evidence on the proportions given to bible buying vs food? Best not to over-exert where returns are unlikely).
quote:It's covered by "domestic and international programmes". Most charities divide up spending in the way they do - programmes, admin / fund raising and investment. Most people look at the amount a charity spends on admin and fund raising. 17 cents in the dollar is a fairly small proportion. Only you would complain that a charity is spending most of their money on the actual work they do. Why are you donating to a charity you don't approve of?!
Originally posted by leo:
quote:How to prove something that doesn;'t exist.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Proof?
Originally posted by leo:
quote:Their various websites obscure their expenditure on evangelism.
Originally posted by mdijon:
(Shall I ask Leo for thoughts or even evidence on the proportions given to bible buying vs food? Best not to over-exert where returns are unlikely).
I have just said that their websites, where they give a breakdown of expenditure, do not mention evangelism.
See this, for example and their accounts for 2012-13
quote:No you didn't. You said they obscure their spending on evangelism. A claim of intentional deception.
Originally posted by leo:
I have just said that their websites, where they give a breakdown of expenditure, do not mention evangelism.
quote:The English language is a wonderful thing. Words have a very specific meaning that says as much about those saying them as what they're describing.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:No you didn't. You said they obscure their spending on evangelism. A claim of intentional deception.
Originally posted by leo:
I have just said that their websites, where they give a breakdown of expenditure, do not mention evangelism.
. quote:The Bebbington Quadrilateral IS helpful (though I've yet to have a Catholic friend mock it. Perhaps Walker needs better friends).
Criticisms of evangelicalism are unending. For some, we’re mired in whatever is the latest “scandal” of the evangelical mind. We lack a gravitational center; at least we’re told. The minimalism of the Bebbington Quadrilateral remains helpful, despite mocking from Catholic friends.
quote:In his rush to score cheap shots at the supposed moral relativism of other denoms, he apparently forgets that a good percentage of evangelicalism lies within mainline Protestantism. But, as we (evangelicals) have seen time and time again, once you try to go down the "purity" road, we keep drawing the lines narrower and narrower. So now we're going to cut off the evangelical Presbyterians, the evangelical Methodists... this group and that until we have a tiny group of 8 people huddled around Walker's dining room table.
In American evangelicalism, you can’t believe in anything you want and call yourself an evangelical. That what Mainline Protestantism is for.
quote:"Professional dissidents"? I'm thinking some of the pre-exilic prophets were called worse. RHE stands well in their tradition.
That’s the route that “professional dissidents ” like Rachel Held Evans want evangelicalism to become, but that only leads to eternal pottage.
quote:bzzzzzz. Wrong.
And that’s why I remain skeptical at trend lines that suggest that younger evangelicals will embrace same-sex marriage.
quote:More Catholic-bashing. This is fundamentalism at it's ugliest-- prideful, arrogant, narrow.
We weren’t having it. But there were no Papal Bulls. There were no Councils. There were no Synods. There was only evangelicalism with Bibles open, recognizing that a line had been crossed.
quote:He got one thing right-- evangelicalism desperately needs to rediscover it's core identity, and the Bebbington Quad is central to that.
Modes of baptism may be negotiable, but even then, we all insist that it is water that must be present. The same couldn’t be said about the bitter pill World Vision was asking evangelicalism to swallow. Evangelicals know that the structure and design of human embodiment has a biblical telos to it, that marriage is something, but World Vision was saying something different.
...Their steps to reverse a horrifically wrong stance are commendable. And good for evangelicalism to have the identity it does to know what its identity is and isn’t.
quote:You're fully welcome, cliffdweller! And I want to emphasize that my anger is definitely not directed at all evangelicals. It's important to distinguish those evangelicals who are giving the Gospel a bad name from those who truly express what it means to be committed to "good new."
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
May I join you, Thomas?
Indeed, the article is as offensive to me, an evangelical, as it is to you.
quote:It should be, shouldn't it? But somehow, in Walker's mouth, it doesn't sound very Good.
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
That should be "good newS"!
quote:I've got visions of an aid worker towering over a young child and saying "No more gruel for you until you've read a chapter of Colossians!"
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Are we talking about aid workers with food in one hand and a Bible in the other trying to convert the young from the religion of their parents
quote:It does look like Humpty Dumpty is posting.
Originally posted by Tubbs:
The English language is a wonderful thing. Words have a very specific meaning that says as much about those saying them as what they're describing.
Tubbs
quote:Convert or starve!
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:I've got visions of an aid worker towering over a young child and saying "No more gruel for you until you've read a chapter of Colossians!"
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Are we talking about aid workers with food in one hand and a Bible in the other trying to convert the young from the religion of their parents
quote:I've had a chance to see WV's programs in action in central Africa, and of course, it's far from that model. Evangelism is soft-pedal, non-covercive, and a sideline to the main focus of food, clean water, development.
Originally posted by Tubbs:
quote:Convert or starve!
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:I've got visions of an aid worker towering over a young child and saying "No more gruel for you until you've read a chapter of Colossians!"
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Are we talking about aid workers with food in one hand and a Bible in the other trying to convert the young from the religion of their parents
Tubbs
quote:I have only done so when some of my pupils have been on some sort of sponsored fund-raising so as not to discourage them for thinking of someone else for a change.
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Why are you donating to a charity you don't approve of?!Tubbs
quote:So when are you starting a new donation drive? Sponsored silence? Encouraging thinking of someone else for a change? It might bleed the floating fund (and our food budgets) dry, but I think we've got an army of donors right here!
Originally posted by leo:
quote:I have only done so when some of my pupils have been on some sort of sponsored fund-raising so as not to discourage them for thinking of someone else for a change.
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Why are you donating to a charity you don't approve of?!Tubbs
(The best ones are sponsored silences!)
Christian Aid is my charity of choice.
quote:LOL. But only if it is for Christian Aid.
Originally posted by Ariston:
quote:So when are you starting a new donation drive? Sponsored silence? Encouraging thinking of someone else for a change? It might bleed the floating fund (and our food budgets) dry, but I think we've got an army of donors right here!
Originally posted by leo:
quote:I have only done so when some of my pupils have been on some sort of sponsored fund-raising so as not to discourage them for thinking of someone else for a change.
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Why are you donating to a charity you don't approve of?!Tubbs
(The best ones are sponsored silences!)
Christian Aid is my charity of choice.
quote:The wallet is out, the credit card is ready, my own charity fund raising efforts are temporarily diverted. If anyone wants a thank-you letter written in medieval Latin—specifically, the dialect used in 12th Century Sudtirol—I'll send you one as an incentive.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Oh look, someone has to say it. Who's up for sponsoring leo to be silent?
quote:But in practice, it does.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Yes! And the children that die in the meantime are justifiable casualties.
One need not exclude the other.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:Are you sure the Admins have sufficiently considered the possible revenue stream this could generate?
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
... Funny leo jokes aside, y'all do realize that nobody can shut another shipmate up just by throwing money at the Organ fund?
![[Tear]](graemlins/tear.gif)
quote:Organ fund?
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
... Funny leo jokes aside, y'all do realize that nobody can shut another shipmate up just by throwing money at the Organ fund?
quote:Really? My goodness!
Originally posted by Firenze:
But Leaf, he hates poetry.
quote:I was heartsick when I thought it was 2,000. This is just horrible. For all the reasons Dan mentioned.
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
So it turns out that 10,000 third world children lost their sponsorships because of the change in policy. 10 fucking thousand!
"Let the children starve to death. The mail clerk is into dudes." ---1 Graham 3:19
quote:Frankly, the rest of the world is already tired of America placing any form of its many ridiculous earmarkings on its few and ridiculably small (per capita/per GDP) aid contributions. You'll see a similar result, similar numbers of children dying, if you ban aid from getting to Uganda because of their nationally instated (extreme) homophobia. Which I've heard calls for from the Left (and is the case with Sweden, cancelling its aid to Uganda).
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
So it turns out that 10,000 third world children lost their sponsorships because of the change in policy. 10 fucking thousand!
"Let the children starve to death. The mail clerk is into dudes." ---1 Graham 3:19
quote:Being able to make such distinctions should also apply in the thread about the sacked CEO.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Cancelling financial aid to the government of Uganda is not the same as 'banning aid from getting to Uganda'. Just saying.
quote:Got up early to make pancakes and bacon for my sons before they begin the annual 30 hour fast to support World Vision's famine relief efforts. They do this every year, but it took on extra significance this year with the conversations we have had around the table re: the loss of funding and bullying tactics.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:I was heartsick when I thought it was 2,000. This is just horrible. For all the reasons Dan mentioned.
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
So it turns out that 10,000 third world children lost their sponsorships because of the change in policy. 10 fucking thousand!
"Let the children starve to death. The mail clerk is into dudes." ---1 Graham 3:19
Jesus wept.
quote:Dan
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
So it turns out that 10,000 third world children lost their sponsorships because of the change in policy. 10 fucking thousand!
"Let the children starve to death. The mail clerk is into dudes." ---1 Graham 3:19
quote:It came from a World Vision employee:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
quote:Dan
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
So it turns out that 10,000 third world children lost their sponsorships because of the change in policy. 10 fucking thousand!
"Let the children starve to death. The mail clerk is into dudes." ---1 Graham 3:19
I don't mean to question your credibility, but do you have a source for the figures?
quote:Yes, and I'm the one who's making that distinction, by saying that privately donating some money to an anti-gay cause 6 years ago is not the same as discriminating against your gay employees against company policy.
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
quote:Being able to make such distinctions should also apply in the thread about the sacked CEO.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Cancelling financial aid to the government of Uganda is not the same as 'banning aid from getting to Uganda'. Just saying.
Just saying.
quote:I don't move in the circles in which you're notorious. Thus my folly in thinking I could possibly out-argue you.
Originally posted by orfeo:
If you're going to try and exchange abstract comparisons with me of all people, a bloke who is notorious in many circles for his ability to analyse concepts down to a fine powder, you are going to find that you've bitten off a very, very large mouthful. How are your chewing muscles?
