h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Hello, PC...

As you will have seen, Blatherskite the tolerant threw me off that thread, so I've come here to say that I was in the Salvation Army for years, so I know their beliefs, thanks.

Doesn't change the fact that Blathers didn't have an answer...
Why did you and your friend want to volunteer if you disagree with the SA and all who sail in it anyway? What's the point? Surely you could have found a secular soup kitchen to work in?

On the other hand, maybe not!

>Why did you and your friend want to volunteer if you disagree with the SA and all who sail in it anyway? What's the point? Surely you could have found a secular soup kitchen to work in?<

The organization that we were both volunteers with was a secular organization. We served *any* shelter/ kitchen in the area. Unfortunately, in the neighborhood I (and apparently he as well, different parts of town back then) was a volunteer in, there were no soup kitchens that weren't operated by SA. I went on to volunteer in other ways, he continued with FNB handing out food on the streets. Worked better for everyone.

I'm sure *you* know the SA's beliefs. Perhaps not everyone else on that thread doesn't. I didn't quote you to pick at you, you asked what seemed like a legitimate question on the thread and I was answering with regards to how things were here. The SA *does* require recipients of its assistance to participate in its rituals. And I happen to think their beliefs are pretty sick.

I just re-checked my posting over there, and I did state that neither of us (and I did mention we were volunteers independently of each other at the time) went back to the soup kitchens once we found out the SA's requirements.

What is sick about the beliefs of the Salvation Army? I can see that you might think their beliefs were sick, if they advocated sacrificing babies on altars, or mass murder of unbelievers, but they don't. So, is it just that you have a problem with Christianity generally? (You do, you've said so, so please don't accuse me of 'getting at you' with that question...)

I have a problem with Christianity, generally, yes. I don't have a problem with the perfectly nice Christians I've met, of which I've met quite a few.

What's sick about the beliefs of the Salvation Army? Aside from the fact that I believe they're based on the delusional belief in an imaginary friend? Their warped views on the worth of human life, especially their views on contraception, women's reproductive rights, and the rights of the terminally ill/ brain dead to die with dignity. Things I think you and I have found we disagree on time and again.

However, I don't think you started this discussion just to start another argument, did you? I can't play down my distate for religion. It's not just Christianity, either. And I don't think you were asking just to have a go at me. But if you already know the answer, why are you asking me?

I have an answer, but it's patently obvious, laughably easy to obtain, and isn't even worth my time. But since you were interested in taking it elsewhere, you shall have my answer.

"The Mission Statement of the Salvation Army USA

The Salvation Army, an international movement, is an evangelical part of the universal Christian Church. Its message is based on the Bible. Its ministry is motivated by the love of God. Its mission is to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ and to meet human needs in His name without discrimination."

Meeting human needs seems almost an afterthought, doesn't it? We certainly see where their priorities lie. Then they go on with a list of 11 doctrines, none of which have anything to do with charity in any way. You can follow the link to the Articles of War psychocandy mentioned, which has those 11 doctrines and a series of pledges, none of which have anything to do with charity specifically. Or you can follow the links to the right instead, which give their positions on such important charitable topics as pornography, military service, and cloning.

http://www.salvationarmyusa.org/usn/www_usn.nsf

There obviously is never going to be any agreement on these issues, between you and me, PC. That's just how it is, and I appreciate that, it's . We just have to agree to disagree.

As for Blathers, he has a hate problem, so I don't expect to be able to discuss anything with him. Sad, but there's nothing that can be done about it.

As I see it, there's *still* nothing sick or evil about their position. I find it quite amazing that positions which IMO, are perfectly reasonable, you both see as 'evil'! Calling good evil, is bizarre. But that you find your disagreements to be a good reason to ignore their charitable work, is IMO, a rationalisation! You need to have a reason to ignore the gist of Roy Hattersley's article, and pretend that his reasonable comments are wrong.

(PS - Isn't he a politician of some sort? No, you're both American and wouldn't know - so forgte the question.)

It has been pointed out by a British member of the thread that Hattersley is a politician, and a stupid git, and incapable of anything resembling reasonable commentary. His article clearly demonstrates the accuracy of the claim.

I do have a hate problem. I absolutely despise aggressive ignorance. Ignorance is a natural state which we all remain in respect to the overwhelming majority of things, but it is human nature to be curious, and make an effort to learn and shed their ignorance wherever they discover it. Such an effort is a constant, worthwhile pursuit, and ultimately elevates civilization and the human condition everywhere.

Therefore, I have nothing but contempt for defective individuals who adopt a position based entirely on ignorance, and adamantly refuse to learn and grow in the face of overwhelming evidence.

Hey ho! That's enough tolerance for you, Blathers, if all you can do is spout utter sh1te against people who have the bold faced cheek to disagree with you...

BTW, *what* thread? If you mean the 'Business forum', you threw me off that, remember? Contrary to what y'all believe, I have a life, and other boards, and I don't bother to read threads I've been thrown off, mate. You're just not that important to me...

That's not shit at all. That's a character profile, well-documented and accurate. The proof is right here, where you profess to have been a member of the SA and yet are unaware of their true purpose. The ease with which you were proven wrong is astonishing, and yet you'll continue to deny the point, won't you? Of course you will. None so blind as those who won't see, after all.

Character profiles, is it? Well, you will recall the character profile of the 'angry internet atheist' I posted from Bede essays, yesterday.

What 'true purpose' do you imagine the Salvation Army to have? World domination? Mass killing of homosexuals? It would be funny if it wasn't so sad...

Bored already. If you can't be civil, you're on my 'ignore' list - that's a great feature of my home-away-from-home board, what h2g2 used to be, from 2001-04... I fantasise about an ignore feature here - if they had one, and I put you and the members of the sad-cabal on it, I wouldn't even see your posts! How would that be?

>>What 'true purpose' do you imagine the Salvation Army to have?<

Religious indoctrination, first and foremost. As they state quite clearly in their 11 doctrines and their Articles of War. And its the religious indoctrination I take umbrage with.

Which you have to admit, PC, is just your personal issue.. Of course their purpose is what you call 'indoctrination' - they make no secret of that, and why should they?

It's like being against Michelin, because their purpose is to sell tyres, and you hate motoring with a passion.

It would be my personal issue if I were the only one they were trying to indoctrinate. Unfortunately, I'm not. There's needy people out there seeking help, and the SA is trying to indoctinate *them* as a prerequisite for obtaining the help they depserately need. That's a much bigger issue.

Actually, it's more like being against a tire company because they sold faulty tires. Doesn't matter if they realized the tires were defective or not... before you push your product on someone else, you'd better make sure it works.

<>

Oh but it does, with millions of satisfied customers around the world.

Those millions of "satisfied customers" (i.e., people who lack the imagination to grow and learn past the imaginary friend phase) should go ahead and enjoy themselves. But they shouldn't be shoving forcing other people to participate in their delusion in order to receive food, shelter, etc.

And, if they're going to offer "counseling", they need to get a grip on reality before they try to talk a grieving family out of euthanizing a completely debilitated loved one, or telling a woman who is already struggling that her reproductive rights are anyone's business but hers. It's hardly charitable when you add fear of an imaginary god with a mean streak to the equation.

You and I both know we're never going to agree. Unless I get a blow to the head, I'm not going to suddenly become delusional. And you're not going to change, either. Oughtn't we quit flogging the dead horse? Until the next time, of course.

Okay, as you wish!

Thanks. Of course, as the discussions continue elsewhere, you're welcome to question here if you like. Though I'm sure you won't like my answers. Whatever!

Incidentally, your tire analogy cracked me up. We've had three blowouts in the last two months, and of course the shop won't warranty them. Apparently the tire manufacturer (shouldn't print the name, it's probably libelous to do) has proven itself no more reliable than religion.

Talking of tyres, are you aware of the controversy at the Indianapolis Grand Prix? Ralf Schumacher had a crash on the Friday at turn 13, and Michelin investigated all the tyres used on Friday, and decided they were not safe to race on. A number of possible solutions were proposed, a temporary chicane at turn 13, which would slow the cars down and render them safe. Max Mosley, head of the FIA, vetoed this. The Bridgestones were perfectly safe, so the teams using them were unconcerned about their own safety. A number of other solutions were proposed - such as having the Michelin cars go through the pit lane each time, but this would have wrecked the race. In the end the Michelin runners just pulled out and there was a six car race. The result was a foregone conclusion, and the sorriest GP I've ever seen.. The tyres you've had a problem with weren't either of those were they?

<> (pc)

Meanwhile, they *don't* push their products onto others, other than through advertising. Unlike evangalistic religious types who bother you at home, at shopping centres, in the street, and who actually seek out people in need of help in order catch people when they are down and perhaps desperate. This is something I also find quite despicable.


az