Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
User Journal

Journal October_30th's Journal: CC: the poor and the environment - not our issues 4

What the hell is wrong with these people?

Four states - Georgia, Alabama, Iowa and Ohio - have decided to split from the group over concerns its changing direction on issues like the minimum wage, the environment and Internet law instead of core issues like abortion and same-sex marriage.

Hunter, who was scheduled to take over the socially conservative political group Jan. 1, said he had hoped to focus on issues such as poverty and the environment.

"These are issues that Jesus would want us to care about," Hunter said.

He resigned Tuesday during an organization board meeting. Hunter said he was not asked to leave.

"They pretty much said, 'These issues are fine, but they're not our issues, that's not our base,'" Hunter said.

*boggle*

I am sure issues like same-sex marriage and abortion are great for making the members of the church feel angry which, in turn, gets them to vote or contribute to fund drives. Fine and dandy - it keeps the business going. However, what does it say about the church - supposedly a christian church - when the people who run it say outright that poverty is not a core issue.? And hate-mongering is?

Why don't they just add "Inc." to their name or register as a political party and stop the charade? Or are they tax-exempt as a church?

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

CC: the poor and the environment - not our issues

Comments Filter:
  • likely they do care for the poor, but they do not see it as a primary responsibility for the church or the government. to them it is a personal responsibility, not something that should be forced in a top-down socialist fashion. to them the church should take care of its own members and not the whole community.
    • likely they do care for the poor, but they do not see it as a primary responsibility for the church or the government. to them it is a personal responsibility, not something that should be forced in a top-down socialist fashion. to them the church should take care of its own members and not the whole community.

      But surely the organisation primarily facilitates co-operation? It doesn't have to be top-down to be a priority.

      If the church's purpose is to take care of its members, it ceases to be a church. The whole point of Jesus's teachings, and (more mundanely) of tax exceptions is that the church looks beyond itself and the interests of its members. Otherwise it is merely a social club or a political party.

    • Luke 9:48

      48 "Whoever receives this little child in my name receives me. Whoever receives me receives him who sent me. For whoever is least among you all, this one will be great."

      49 John answered, "Master, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we forbade him, because he doesn't follow with us."

      50 Jesus said to him, "Don't forbid him, for he who is not against us is for us."

      51 It came to pass, when the days were near that he should be taken up, he intently set his face to go to Jerusalem,

      52 an
  • He wanted the group to expand it's focus, and the group didn't want to - so he told them he didn't want to work with them any more.

    Sometimes you have to turn your back on people to talk the talk but refuse to walk the walk.

    People like that exist. Ignoring them is probably the best choice - otherwise you've given them the attention they crave for being haters.

    Any time I see the name Pat Robertson, I immediately think "media whore". The mainstream media loves him, because he gives them material for people

On the eighth day, God created FORTRAN.

Working...