Can somebody tell me how in a civilised society, weird private agenda-driven pop-ups like this are even permitted in times of a crisis?
I mean, shouldn’t they simply be handing over the facility and all equipment to trained professionals anyway? Or just supporting efforts financially?
Surely it can all be commandeered if these flaky evangelicals start to get all selective?
We already see horrific strategies of the catholic church and evangelical ministries buying up regional hospital systems specifically to control access to abortions for large areas.
Catholics are buying up hospitals at frankly alarming rates specifically to deny women healthcare.
Why would religious field hospitals that ban decent people from working there be a surprise?
I wonder if this “humanitarian aid organization” is tax-exempt. If so…
They have a track record of holding government money hostage on condition of doing their prayer meetings.
So, regardless I don’t like them.
If we see some indication that this sort of bias is taking place, I’ll be in full agreement with you. But I haven’t read of anything similar happening. I’d like to think (and hope that it’s true) that they treat everyone equally.
That’s fair. That seems like an onerous way to give aid to desperate people.
So, serious question:
How do red letter Christians feel about The Gospel of Thomas? It’s pretty cool, as far as religious texts go, and it’s got a lot of stuff that got cut out of the synoptic gospels.
Jesus had amazing gaydar, according to the bible. Can’t remember which chapter and verse. It’s somewhere towards the back, I think.
Fuck’s sake. Priorities, people (specifically Samaritan’s Purse). At no point should treatment be based on who you sleep with, birth-assigned gender or anything other than, you know, needing medical help.
Here, I have signed your “morality” pledge.
It’s in Jude, Chapter Fifty Three, verses one hundred and twelve through one hundred and fourteen:
"And verifly it was said that the lord upon this earth, the Christ who God gave to us to redeem us, did knowst the men among you with impure thoughts, and the man who layest with men, and who layest with his sister, and with goats, and with fruitbats, and with cereal, and with very small rocks, and with… "
Well it goes on for a bit…
it can be legal and at the same time reprehensible. They aren’t mutually exclusive.
Whenever someone hands me a Bible I say “No thanks, I already know how it ends.”
Even worse, he’s a bearded middle-eastern anticap rabble-rouser. They wouldn’t just not open the door to him, they’d be trying to get him an extraordinary rendition to a CIA black site.
I have seen the xtianist mentality before
I haven’t asked them. I expect you’ll get a different answer everytime depending on who you ask, it’s a non-denominational movement.
The punchline of which is “you cannot serve both God and money.”
But the kindest words you might find in the New Testament is that when you give to the poor, it’s as if you were helping God as though you found him in the same predicament. Think of how much more benevolent Christians would be if they actually took that to heart.
Not that I’m anything but an atheist.
I find that Atheists often grok the actual message of Christ better than most Christians.
While New York City requires those workers to keep their bigoted ideas to themselves and treat everyone.
The Oneida Community (the longest-lived & most-influential American commune) called it “Bible Communism.”
