Christ Centered Gamer

I saw this interesting article on Bruce's facebook

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/1 ... 68500.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I can understand some uncertainty, but if people sincerely want to help, you should accept it. As for me...we have posted reviews from non-believers but felt it was appropriate to post a disclaimer to let the readers know when the author was not a believer.

I think what you said is a good way to be. On the one hand, help is help, and also it shows you don't want to brand others as outcasts. But you also want to make sure you stay true to who you are as a group....That's really cool!

Forgive me for being the grumpy old man here, but I have zero interest in reading an article whose title is "Atheists Show Snobby Christian Soup Kitchen How To Actually Be Good People."

Is it possible that this Christian group was being snobby? Yup. Is it possible that they weren't and the story is being slanted? Yup.

From that title, which is more likely? (And this is the Huffington Post, after all.)

Again, I don't mean to be grumpy about this, but I hear this sort of thing at work all the time and it's getting old.

Is Huffington Post the liberal Fox News? Yes, but just a little more inept and without as much weight.
Was the title facepalmingly bad? Yes, even by their standards. It even offends me.

But, putting the HufPost aside and considering the case in hand, it strikes me as a little more than ironic than in the case where a Christian Soup kitchen turned down a group of Atheists who wanted to help because of their non-theism, that you'd still paint Christians as an underdog victim here.
On the other hand, that title was really bad. Not even just pretentious, it was poorly written.

Here's the thing, there is jilting done by both sides. The soup kitchen here, and the author of the article. You hear that Christians are snobby all the time? I believe you. And here's the thing, they often are. This stereotype didn't come out of no where. And sometime it's difficult to see when you think you hold the truth of All-Mighty in your words, but, yeah, it really comes out that way for some people. We all have experiences with snobby religious people, because they think their position is above reproach because it's "from God." That is quite snobby. It is genuinely something to be addressed.

Just going off the fact they were barred from helping because they were atheist, and taking only the quote from the development director of the soup kitchen, yeah, they were snobby and Pharisaical. This isn't even the first time this sort of thing happened. They were also barred by the Irish Catholics from participating in a St. Patrick's Day Parade because they were atheist. This is not looking like a one-off anymore. You and I come from more liberal areas, but middle america is seemingly a little more slanted in this.

And even here, this ill-doing slid right off your back. And I get why you dodged the whole thing, you're tired of the constant criticism of religion. But here's a chance to admit a wrong-doing, offer a bit of an olive branch, but not actually compromise your position at all, because you didn't do anything wrong, they did.
If there is one thing I could convince people about, it might just be that all these controversies we suffer, it's not about sides, it's about ideas, and as long as we keep drawing up sides, nothing will ever get better. I don't have to protect the atheist side and you don't have to protect the religious side, we just talk and argue about ideas. And here, a religious organization refused help because of the volunteers' non-belief. Was this right or wrong, and why?

To that, I say while it is well within their rights to do so, it is a wrong action. Taking a hypothetical with the personage of Jesus, in true WWJD fashion, would he have turned them out? What would he have said to those who did? How did he respond to people who didn't believe in him? From my readings, he would have had brought them in and treated them as one of his own. If I recall, he had choice words for the religious groups who sought to separate themselves from the others.

And perhaps, may I present this idea, simply to mull over. What if, in your quest to defend religion, you tear apart. Well, in the most respectful, Jesus-y way. As the writings go, he tore down at the religious institutions because they were rotten to the core or rather, their cup was dirty on the inside. Why not become hyper-critical of the infractions that religion commits in order to preserve what's best of religion, and the beliefs you find sacred and true. I wonder how atheists like me would respond...

Jesus consorted with tax collectors, prostitutes social pariah's. (Not that I'm saying atheists are like that.) My point is Jesus hung out with those considered by Jewish culture below him. He toppled hypocritical religious practices and said above all, love God, and love your neighbor. Again that doesn't mean compromising who you are. Now if a group of atheists asked if they could teach a Wednesday night service about theology and biblical truth I can understand hesitation there. That's something that compromises your group integrity. But my gosh some lost souls want to do some good with a group of believers and you turn them down? That's just silly. Again I can sympathize with wanting to maintain your integrity, but I don't see the harm in letting these people aid in a soup kitchen. Heck what better way to minister to them and show Christ's love?

Sorry if I come off as rude. I've just been jilted by A LOT of very religious people. But I've also know those that really love like Christ does. it just get's me mad.I had a friend who killed himself because he was hurting and all the "Christians" said he was to weird to get their help... But then there were also some people that showed him God's love unconditionally. I just wonder what it would have been like if all those "Christians" had acted a bit more Christ like... I hate seeing God's name associated with things he had nothing to do with. But he doesn't need me to defend him..just represent him.

@ArchAngel:

I think you're not seeing where I'm coming from on this, dude. I didn't say anything in defense of that group. What I said was that I'm not likely to accept that article at face value, and that I'm tired of hearing about how awful Christians are.

(Apocalypse averted, we've disagreed again. )

I don't know, nor do I care whether this group is snobby, because I've seen snobs in every possible religious or philosophical group. I just don't care. Jerks are in plentiful supply in this world.

That said, I really have a pet peeve here, in that this kind of thing so often comes off like a "take that!" against Christians in general, and the people who write this kind of drivel don't really care that it's painting people with a broad brush. I'm tired of it. The best people I've ever met in my life were dedicated, pious, active Christians of a variety of denominations and they deserve better than to be pigeonholed.

There are jerk Christians out there? So what? The waste of air that I once called my sister is one of those who thinks she's better than everyone else because she quotes Bible verses. Does that even remotely say something about Christianity in general? Am I supposed to read this article from the Huffington Post and start doubting my faith? Is that reasonable?

So no, my friend. If you want me to agree that there are jerks out here who wear crosses then fine. There are. This isn't exactly news. Here's another newsflash: grass is green.

As I said, I never took up a position to defend the group mentioned in the article because I don't know them, not do I care one way or the other. I think it's probable that the story isn't nearly as one-sided as it seems but ultimately that doesn't matter either. What I do care about is this is this article is the kind of thing that's used as ammunition in circles where people just want excuses to bash Christians. I'm not okay with that. Never will be.

And nobody here is asking for a Christian bash-fest, nor is anyone seeking to make generalistic statements about Christians. The article itself mentions another Christian ministry that accepted the atheist volunteers and commended them on their practices on how they operate. I doubt the intentions was to discredit religion as a whole, but rather probably, just the "snobby types."
What we are seeing here is a group invoking exclusionary practices that are reprimandable. There is an actual issue here that's worth exploring. It's more than just jerks in a religion, it's people who are genuinely think they are doing the right thing based on their interpretation of religious teachings. It's cerebral and it needs to be addressed, by people in the church more than anybody.
But instead of getting angry about that and how these people are misusing your religion, you focused on the crappy title.
To repeat myself from the last post, this shouldn't be about sides, but as long as either party is treating it as it is, it will forever be. The title is divisive, so let's say that drew the first line, but by accepting their terms and playing the us vs. christian line, this won't get resolved. The battle lines just get bigger, and the real issue never gets addressed. Just more angry people lining up.
Even before that title, a group of people of people were denied from participating in feeding the less fortunate because of differences in belief. More lines. More sides. No empathy for anyone else. Just a continuation in outgrouping and tribal politics.

How angry would you get if you read "Christians Show Snobby Atheist Soup Kitchen How To Actually Be Good People." Would your first thought how biased horrid this article must be to atheists, and that these generalistic attacks on Atheists are overbearing. I doubt it. And I sat through countless lectures about "how atheists are like" by people who have no real idea of what goes on in our heads. Even as a Christian, I knew these people were talking from a place of ignorance, and as a minority group, they are being misaligned by people who don't even know. We are talked about like we are immoral, hateful, bitter, ignorant, and borderline satanic at times. They are even barred from volunteering. This is all simply because we do not believe in a god. Absolutely ridiculous. This is a genuine issue, and a lot of atheists step out in the foreground because if they won't speak for themselves, well, we already see what happens if someone else will. So, as it must be apparent now, here's something we share in common. We have emotional impulses to be protective of our respective belief groups.

But, no, the title wouldn't bother you as much and I think you would be more incensed at why these Atheists are snubbing Christians, and you would be right to be. I'm not saying you'd be fine with that title, and I think you'd oppose it like I oppose the current title. And yes, that title would probably pee me of more, but I'd like to think I'd be shaking my head and growling over what these moron atheists just did.

The only point of this example is how taking sides often biases one against fairness. I think you are so emotionally on guard about any slights or encroaches coming from outside that you are letting some of the ones from the inside not register. Yes, you admitted there are jerks who are Christians, but here, it's more than that. I don't think the people who turned out the atheists are malicious or selfish, I think they are ignorant. They think they are doing the right thing, but it's misguided and hurtful. It is a present prevailing attitude among many Christians and it's something that should be addressed. This is more than "oh look, another jerk." No, this one was done under the direction of religion because they thought this is what God would want, by in this, they lost their love for their fellowman.

So yes, I should think you should be getting angrier about what these groups did in the name of your lord. They did more to the disgrace the reputation of your religion than that title ever did.
If you haven't read the article yet, maybe it's time to.

ArcticFox wrote:(Apocalypse averted, we've disagreed again.

That's what I forgot to mention! So, does the counter go back to zero?

ArchAngel wrote:And nobody here is asking for a Christian bash-fest, nor is anyone seeking to make generalistic statements about Christians. The article itself mentions another Christian ministry that accepted the atheist volunteers and commended them on their practices on how they operate. I doubt the intentions was to discredit religion as a whole, but rather probably, just the "snobby types."

You're giving the Huffington Post more credit for their intentions than I would, but that's a matter of opinion anyway.

ArchAngel wrote: What we are seeing here is a group invoking exclusionary practices that are reprimandable. There is an actual issue here that's worth exploring. It's more than just jerks in a religion, it's people who are genuinely think they are doing the right thing based on their interpretation of religious teachings. It's cerebral and it needs to be addressed, by people in the church more than anybody.

For the sake of looking at all sides, I read the article, and frankly I don't see what you're seeing. You're talking about exclusionary practices. I'm seeing a conflict of interest. I'm a dedicated Java developer. Would I ask you, a .NET guy, to come and help me promote a Java based solution for a project, especially if there was a competing .NET approach?

ArchAngel wrote: But instead of getting angry about that and how these people are misusing your religion, you focused on the crappy title.

Of course, when that title declared the intentions of the author loud and clear. If the title had read something like "Snubbed Atheist Group Finds More Open Christian Group to Work With" that would have advertised a more balanced approach.

ArchAngel wrote:
To repeat myself from the last post, this shouldn't be about sides, but as long as either party is treating it as it is, it will forever be. The title is divisive, so let's say that drew the first line, but by accepting their terms and playing the us vs. christian line, this won't get resolved. The battle lines just get bigger, and the real issue never gets addressed. Just more angry people lining up.

True, which is why I generally avoid these kinds of articles in the first place.

ArchAngel wrote: Even before that title, a group of people of people were denied from participating in feeding the less fortunate because of differences in belief. More lines. More sides. No empathy for anyone else. Just a continuation in outgrouping and tribal politics.

Or, again, a conflict of interest. From the article:

“We are an unapologetically Christian organization, and we always have been,” Julie Larocco, development officer for the Kansas City Rescue Mission, told the paper. “We want to share the message with the people we serve that ‘God loves you, and you are not alone.’ It seemed to us that this (atheist) group probably would not want to deliver those meals.”

Is that unreasonable? If this Christian organization is specifically looking to share the Gospel through this program, wouldn't it put Atheist participants in a position where they might feel their own beliefs are being compromised?

ArchAngel wrote: How angry would you get if you read "Christians Show Snobby Atheist Soup Kitchen How To Actually Be Good People." Would your first thought how biased horrid this article must be to atheists, and that these generalistic attacks on Atheists are overbearing. I doubt it.

Depends on the source. I would expect a title like that from a known biased source like a Christian based periodical with an axe to grind against Atheists. If I saw a title like that from a news source that has a pretense of objectivity, then yes I'd be annoyed for exactly the same reasons as you. I'm not a fan of divisive language and approaches either. The Huffington Post isn't, as far as I know, a dedicated Atheist newsletter. (Or maybe they are and just pretend otherwise.)

ArchAngel wrote: And I sat through countless lectures about "how atheists are like" by people who have no real idea of what goes on in our heads. Even as a Christian, I knew these people were talking from a place of ignorance, and as a minority group, they are being misaligned by people who don't even know. We are talked about like we are immoral, hateful, bitter, ignorant, and borderline satanic at times.

(Rather like how I keep hearing Christians portrayed in articles like this one.)

ArchAngel wrote: They are even barred from volunteering. This is all simply because we do not believe in a god. Absolutely ridiculous. This is a genuine issue, and a lot of atheists step out in the foreground because if they won't speak for themselves, well, we already see what happens if someone else will. So, as it must be apparent now, here's something we share in common. We have emotional impulses to be protective of our respective belief groups.

But, no, the title wouldn't bother you as much and I think you would be more incensed at why these Atheists are snubbing Christians, and you would be right to be. I'm not saying you'd be fine with that title, and I think you'd oppose it like I oppose the current title. And yes, that title would probably pee me of more, but I'd like to think I'd be shaking my head and growling over what these moron atheists just did.

If that Christian group were being outright hateful, I'd join you in criticizing them, but frankly all I see in the article is a quote that says a lot more about avoiding a conflict of interest than the hate they're being accused of. I'm just not seeing enough evidence to draw the conclusion that they're being exclusionary for its own sake.

ArchAngel wrote: The only point of this example is how taking sides often biases one against fairness. I think you are so emotionally on guard about any slights or encroaches coming from outside that you are letting some of the ones from the inside not register. Yes, you admitted there are jerks who are Christians, but here, it's more than that. I don't think the people who turned out the atheists are malicious or selfish, I think they are ignorant. They think they are doing the right thing, but it's misguided and hurtful. It is a present prevailing attitude among many Christians and it's something that should be addressed. This is more than "oh look, another jerk." No, this one was done under the direction of religion because they thought this is what God would want, by in this, they lost their love for their fellowman.

Not seeing that in the article. I'll go through it below.

ArchAngel wrote: So yes, I should think you should be getting angrier about what these groups did in the name of your lord. They did more to the disgrace the reputation of your religion than that title ever did.
If you haven't read the article yet, maybe it's time to.

Here's my analysis of the article. It isn't very long, so I can go into detail. Of course, I invite you to do the same from your end, and we can compare notes.

article wrote: Even after a Christian soup kitchen told a group of atheists that it wasn’t a “good fit” to volunteer, the generous non-believers tracked down another faith organization to help out.

"Another faith organization?" Representing what faith? Maybe they'll mention it below...

article wrote: The Kansas City Atheist Coalition (KCAC) was eager to deliver Thanksgiving meals to the poor and the elderly with the Kansas City Rescue Mission, a holiday program it had contributed to for the past two years. But this season the door was slammed in the group’s face, The Kansas City Star reported.

"The door was slammed in their face." Not very neutrally phrased, that. Leads one to imagine a group of smiling members of the KCAC standing on the doorstep with some Christian behind the door *BWAM*

article wrote: “We are an unapologetically Christian organization, and we always have been,” Julie Larocco, development officer for the Kansas City Rescue Mission, told the paper. “We want to share the message with the people we serve that ‘God loves you, and you are not alone.’ It seemed to us that this (atheist) group probably would not want to deliver those meals.”

Not the call I would have made, but they do seem to be coming at it from a position of avoiding a conflict of interest. Would have been nice if the article would have gone into some details about the conversation that transpired between the KCRM and the KCAC. It seems the two organizations have worked together fine before. What changed? Was it a change in leadership in one or both organizations? Did someone complain? What happened?

article wrote: Larocco also noted that since they get hundreds of volunteers around the holidays, they wouldn’t have a problem replacing the atheist group in delivering the estimated 2,400 meals.

Nice, but not relevant.

article wrote: While the atheist group was miffed, it could not be deterred.

Good.

article wrote: As the word spread of how the coalition had been banned, an “overwhelming” number of agencies reached out and asked the volunteers for their help, the organization wrote on its website.

Good.

article wrote: KCAC ultimately decided to lend a helping hand to the Micah Ministry, the outreach mission of Independence Boulevard Christian Church. The group will serve Thanksgiving dinner to people in need on Nov. 25, an event that offers guests the chance to sit and be served in a dignified way without waiting on “food lines.”

Good for the IBCC. They made the call I'd have made.

article wrote: “Senior Minister Lee Chiaramonte has expressed that they do not require an acceptance of faith from those who volunteer, nor do they ask one of those who need a warm meal for the night,” KCAC wrote on its website. “They accept all who enter their doors regardless of faith, sexual orientation, race, creed, or legal standing. We are quite excited to simply work together and sincerely help those who are less fortunate.”

That reads like a very carefully worded statement, to be sure. Not sure what they mean by "accept[ing] all who enter their doors..." Does that mean staff? Visitors? Partners? I only ask because I'm not aware of any church that would refuse to let people of different races, beliefs or sexual orientations come in as visitors (Yes, even the Mormons) but most churches are a lot more specific about who can be pastors, clergy, etc. This isn't made clear here, but the Huffington Post is definitely considerably friendlier toward Christian groups that crow about how progressive they are.

(Admittedly, that's beside the point though.)

article wrote: Perhaps KCAC took a page out of a book from a group of atheists in South Carolina who also recently faced a similar disheartening situation.

When Upstate Atheists offered to volunteer with the Spartanburg Soup Kitchen, the group heard a resounding “no” when the executive director said she would resign from her job before allowing such a group to support her organization, the Christian Post reported.

That sounded a bit harsher than the example from Kansas City, but it would have been nice to get a direct quote to know exactly what was said.*

article wrote: Rather than give up, the group decided to form its own program. Last month, the volunteers got together and doled out 300 care packages to the homless, right across the street from the nonprofit that rejected them. Through an online fundraiser, Upstate Atheists was able to collect $2,000 to buy socks, gloves, deodorant, toothpaste and antiseptic wipes and other items.

Good for them.

article wrote: "I was upset with the hateful remarks. It certainly wasn't necessary," Eve Brannon, president of Upstate Atheists, told the Christian Post. "However, it turned out well. Because we were turned away, we ended up being able to give the homeless care packages that they needed. The people in need are the ones who truly matter."

Since we don't have a direct quote from that case, we can only take Brannon's word for it that the remarks were hateful, I suppose. Maybe they were, maybe they weren't.*

ArchAngel wrote:

ArcticFox wrote:(Apocalypse averted, we've disagreed again.

That's what I forgot to mention! So, does the counter go back to zero?

I think it should... We don't disagree ALL the time and I'd like to think we don't want to rush the apocalypse.

*I searched, and found This article on the South Carolina group. Looks like they were being jerks. Not gonna defend that.

I did also look around a bit for some more info on the Kansas City case, to see if there's another side to the story. I found this article that had a couple of interesting comments:

This year, the Thanksgiving meal will look a little bit different when recipients open up the dinner. They will see a gospel message inside that reads: God loves you and you are not alone.

"If someone was to say 'tell me more' and the person can't because it's against their convictions, I don't feel like that's representative of the Kansas City Rescue Mission,” Larocco said. “We believe that God is our hope."

Ok, that gives us a bit more context. What changed was that there seems to be more of a Christian theme to the event than there had been in the past. Now I can see a little better why the two groups could work together before, but now there's a conflict. It's being combined with missionary efforts. An Atheist group would be put in a morally compromising position of asked to do this. Imagine it the other way: If an Atheist group were handing out food and expounding on the virtues of shedding religion, would you reasonably expect a Christian charity to participate in that?

Here's another snippet:

The Kansas City Rescue Mission has asked the Atheist Coalition to help with other projects throughout the year. The coalition said it will consider but this holiday it will instead adopt a family.

Funny the Huffington Post article didn't mention this. So the KCRM isn't blowing the Atheists off. They seem to be perfectly willing to keep working with them on other projects, but I can see why this one isn't a good fit anymore.

And my source is an NBC site, which tends to lean left. If they can find a way to mention that part, then the HP truly has no excuse.

Good sleuthing on those articles.
Just to be clear, I'm not defending that HuffPost article. It's demonstrably poorly done. Frankly, I agree with most of your criticism of it. My comments you found irrelevant to the article were based on the climate in which the article was written and in no defense of the article itself.

But, in order to prevent the ressurgence of the apocalypse, let's talk about conflict of interests. Now, that's certainly more representative than just "being snobby," but it doesn't quite address our criticisms of it. I agree they aren't exclusionary in motive, which is more than what we can say for the Spartanburg Soup Kitchen, in all their southern stereotype glory, but they ended up as exclusionary in practice.
As I've said before, I don't think KCRM were jerks and they meant to do the right thing, but they were misguided in their outlook.
I like that you made a Java/.NET example, but I feel that'd it'd be more apt if it was about being an elder of a church. They are handing out food. Surely, Java and .NET guys can come together to feed the homeless? (well, maybe not. Let's get religious living together before we start tackling the bigger problems). And yes, they expressed their concern about what happens when someone asks about God. I think here is where they made their mistake. There isn't evidence from either sides's commentary that suggested they brought this to the KCAC and the Atheists said they couldn't comply. In fact, the KCRM director's imply that they didn't. If this was the case, they would have left on equal terms.
If they said they'd be perfectly find directing them to someone who would speak to them about God, I no longer see the conflict of interests. I actually know a lot of ministries where the average volunteer is asked to direct someone to a pastor rather than answer the questions themselves. If I, as a .NET guy, agree to help you with some DBA work for your new project and direct any code concerns to you, that would resolve conflict of interests. And let's not forget, I was also a Java developer for a couple years before conver-- hey, this analogy is working pretty well. Except wouldn't .NET be a more organized religion and Java be a more open-sourced atheism? Oh, dang. Fell apart... Whoa, I got off topic.
Anyhow, this brings you to wonder how close does someone have to be to their theology to be able to work at their kitchen? What if someone, claiming to be Christian, answered "as long as you live a good life, God will let you in heaven," and another preaches hellfire and brimstone. That would actually be counter-productive to their message. So, some ministry guidelines and controls would need to be in place, and I don't see why the atheists seeking to help should automatically be excluded from complying with these.

Anyhow, the segment from the NBC article does shine a much better light on KCRM by showing they are not opposed to help from Atheists at all, but I'm not entirely sure if that's because of the recent fallout or not. Not enough is known to make an assumption in either way.

ArchAngel wrote:Good sleuthing on those articles.

Thanks... My wildest fantasy is to be able to find a news source that's objective and complete enough that I can get a genuine understanding of an event without having to go on a quest across the web to consolidate different sources. I'll probably find better luck daydreaming about riding a dragon to work every morning.

ArchAngel wrote: Just to be clear, I'm not defending that HuffPost article. It's demonstrably poorly done. Frankly, I agree with most of your criticism of it. My comments you found irrelevant to the article were based on the climate in which the article was written and in no defense of the article itself.

But, in order to prevent the ressurgence of the apocalypse, let's talk about conflict of interests. Now, that's certainly more representative than just "being snobby," but it doesn't quite address our criticisms of it. I agree they aren't exclusionary in motive, which is more than what we can say for the Spartanburg Soup Kitchen, in all their southern stereotype glory, but they ended up as exclusionary in practice.

This is true, but honestly... I think one of the things that can allow groups of disparate beliefs to live together is knowing when not to force it and just let different groups do their own thing.

ArchAngel wrote: As I've said before, I don't think KCRM were jerks and they meant to do the right thing, but they were misguided in their outlook.
I like that you made a Java/.NET example, but I feel that'd it'd be more apt if it was about being an elder of a church. They are handing out food. Surely, Java and .NET guys can come together to feed the homeless? (well, maybe not. Let's get religious living together before we start tackling the bigger problems). And yes, they expressed their concern about what happens when someone asks about God. I think here is where they made their mistake. There isn't evidence from either sides's commentary that suggested they brought this to the KCAC and the Atheists said they couldn't comply. In fact, the KCRM director's imply that they didn't. If this was the case, they would have left on equal terms.

Also true, and I'd like to think that such a conversation took place but, as you said, there's no evidence of it from here.

ArchAngel wrote: If they said they'd be perfectly find directing them to someone who would speak to them about God, I no longer see the conflict of interests. I actually know a lot of ministries where the average volunteer is asked to direct someone to a pastor rather than answer the questions themselves. If I, as a .NET guy, agree to help you with some DBA work for your new project and direct any code concerns to you, that would resolve conflict of interests. And let's not forget, I was also a Java developer for a couple years before conver-- hey, this analogy is working pretty well. Except wouldn't .NET be a more organized religion and Java be a more open-sourced atheism? Oh, dang. Fell apart... Whoa, I got off topic.

LOL and the fact that I used to be a .NET guy closes the circle... but you're right about .NET being analogous to organized religion. An inversion between us to be sure.

ArchAngel wrote: Anyhow, this brings you to wonder how close does someone have to be to their theology to be able to work at their kitchen? What if someone, claiming to be Christian, answered "as long as you live a good life, God will let you in heaven," and another preaches hellfire and brimstone. That would actually be counter-productive to their message. So, some ministry guidelines and controls would need to be in place, and I don't see why the atheists seeking to help should automatically be excluded from complying with these.

Interesting point. I wonder what would have happened if a local Mormon congregation wanted to jump in. I suspect there'd be a similar problem as Protestant Christians would not want Mormons answering their Gospel questions.

Honestly, my perception of a lot of Protestant groups as being snobbish stems from past reactions I've seen toward Catholics and Mormons. In fairness though, I've seen plenty of snobbery in Mormons and Catholics, too. Snobbery is one of those flaws that goes right across ideological lines. The thing I take exception to is when examples of it are used to advance an agenda. That's painting with a broad brush and I see it all the time in religion, politics, football and software development.

ArchAngel wrote: Anyhow, the segment from the NBC article does shine a much better light on KCRM by showing they are not opposed to help from Atheists at all, but I'm not entirely sure if that's because of the recent fallout or not. Not enough is known to make an assumption in either way.

Given that they'd been working with that particular Atheist group in the past, I'm inclined to think it's not related to the recent fallout. Can't be sure either way though, it's true.

ArcticFox wrote:Interesting point. I wonder what would have happened if a local Mormon congregation wanted to jump in. I suspect there'd be a similar problem as Protestant Christians would not want Mormons answering their Gospel questions.

This I do find a curious point. I know, frequently out of ignorance of mormonism, that many Christians shun that branch, labeling it as a cult. The church of Mormon certainly has a strong history of prejudice against them, of which I don't need to tell you about. You're definitely not foreign to the concept of exclusion from mainstream Christianity.
Sometimes a person just needs to meet some Mormons to realize they are darn nice people, and man, can they make music. Seriously, man.
Also, the Celestial Kingdom room in one of the visitor centers at the Salt Lake Temple was pretty nice. I can majorly relax there. There is something that fascinates me about Mormonism as sort of the "American" religion. Anthropologically, it's pretty interesting.