A Christian Organization Blackmails UK Cancer Charity
Independent Homesteads
23-02-2005, 15:15
An cancer chairty in the UK has returned a donation of GBP3000 that it received from the producers and cast of a stage show, "Jerry Springer the Opera".
It did this because a christian organisation "Christian Voice" said accepting the donation would be a PR disaster, and that christians would stop donating to the charity if they thought it took money from such an evil, blasphemous source. And Christian Voice would protest outside the charity's office.
So did Christian Voice blackmail the charity, whose name I can't remember?
Katganistan
23-02-2005, 15:16
Source?
Grothistan
23-02-2005, 15:21
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/4289915.stm
How nice... Now their beliefs are more important than helping suffering cancer-patients.
Bastards...
Independent Homesteads
23-02-2005, 15:22
From the horse's mouth:
http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/Springer10.html
Dontgonearthere
23-02-2005, 15:23
I admit that its stupid, but its perfectly legal, and its something that lots of other organizations do all the time.
Iztatepopotla
23-02-2005, 15:25
I admit that its stupid, but its perfectly legal, and its something that lots of other organizations do all the time.
Yes, it's not illegal, but is it ethical?
Lil Bush
23-02-2005, 15:25
British Charity Spurns Jerry Springer Musical Donation (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=stageNews&storyID=7713443)
Grothistan
23-02-2005, 15:30
The fact that it's legal doesn't make it just. It is clearly blackmail and mob-tactics from Christian Voice, who would rather see people die of cancer, than to give money to the same organization as "heretics". Would Jesus have acted this way? I doubt it....
Lil Bush
23-02-2005, 15:30
In the end its the cancer patients who are going to suffer for this idiocy. I mean, its one thing to have morals and ethics and to stand up and voice your opinion of them; its quite another thing to refuse help to people who suffer just so you can make a point. Its sad really.
Dontgonearthere
23-02-2005, 15:31
Yes, it's not illegal, but is it ethical?
Ethics, like sanity, is defined by the majority. These days it seems that a majority of religious, political, and other other such organizations main purpose is to protest things.
If you look just about anywhere you can see the GSA, or Athiests United, or anything else, protestsing something for similar reasons.
The Winter Alliance
23-02-2005, 15:44
If any of you read the article at the Christian Voice website you would have noted that Christian Voice pledged even more then the lost £3000 from the Jerry Springer opera, and given the outrageous plot has every reason to protest the content.
Independent Homesteads
23-02-2005, 15:55
If any of you read the article at the Christian Voice website you would have noted that Christian Voice pledged even more then the lost £3000 from the Jerry Springer opera, and given the outrageous plot has every reason to protest the content.
The christian voice guy on Today never mentioned giving any money.
The Alma Mater
23-02-2005, 15:57
If any of you read the article at the Christian Voice website you would have noted that Christian Voice pledged even more then the lost £3000 from the Jerry Springer opera, and given the outrageous plot has every reason to protest the content.
They could of course just give that pledged money anyway AND allow the donations from the show...
Independent Homesteads
23-02-2005, 15:58
what would jesus do?
Reformentia
23-02-2005, 15:59
If any of you read the article at the Christian Voice website you would have noted that Christian Voice pledged even more then the lost £3000 from the Jerry Springer opera, and given the outrageous plot has every reason to protest the content.
So we have options 1: They can still donate JUST AS MUCH money, nothing stopping them after all. They can go out and say anything they like about how horrible they think the Springer Opera is and tell people not to watch it, and they can still let the people suffering and dying from cancer ALSO have the other 3000.
Option 2: They can be big obnoxious pricks and insist on throwing a tantrum, and force the horrible nasty Springer show to... keep their money for themselves and be 3000 richer rather than have them donate to the same charity as their own holier than thou organization.
Ooh, yeah, option 2 is definitely the way to go. That'll show em!
They're hurting precisely one group of people. The ones that could have used that money to alleviate some serious suffering.
Iztatepopotla
23-02-2005, 16:03
Ethics, like sanity, is defined by the majority. These days it seems that a majority of religious, political, and other other such organizations main purpose is to protest things.
If you look just about anywhere you can see the GSA, or Athiests United, or anything else, protestsing something for similar reasons.
Yes, protest is all well and good. But keeping help from getting to people or making people suffer as a form of protest is beyond reasonable. It's stupid from the Iranian government to refuse help from Israel and the US after an earthquake. It's stupid from this organization to keep money away from cancer patients because they don't agree with the donor. Especially calling themselves a Christian organization; after all, didn't Jesus spend a lot of his time with prostitutes?
Independent Homesteads
23-02-2005, 16:05
Yes, protest is all well and good. But keeping help from getting to people or making people suffer as a form of protest is beyond reasonable. It's stupid from the Iranian government to refuse help from Israel and the US after an earthquake. It's stupid from this organization to keep money away from cancer patients because they don't agree with the donor. Especially calling themselves a Christian organization; after all, didn't Jesus spend a lot of his time with prostitutes?
And he took a donation of a bottle of oil from one of them.
There is an alarming trend in the UK for the tiny religious minority to use mob tactics and threats to try to silence criticism, suppress contrary opinions, and ram home their oddball agendas. Then again, I deliberately avoid giving money to Christian charities, despite the good work they undoubtedly can do -- because I don't know how much of my donation they would waste on buying Bibles and pushing fairy stories.
The State of It
23-02-2005, 16:09
"The whole world would be christian, if it were not for the fact Christians are so unlike their Christ." - Muhatma Ghandi
What bothered me the most was the way these fundamental groups contacted members of the BBC and their families, warning them of "terrible things" that would happen to them if they broadcast 'The Jerry Springer Opera'. It doesn't surprise me that they do something as unethical as this too. How can you possibly reconcile threatening and frightening the children and families of BBC executives with the broader philosophies of Christianity? How can taking money from charities be considered fair?
These people aren't religious, they're self-interested despots who deny the will of the majority and free speech. That is flagrant hypocrisy.
UpwardThrust
23-02-2005, 18:51
"The whole world would be christian, if it were not for the fact Christians are so unlike their Christ." - Muhatma Ghandi
Have not heard that quote before :) thanks