Christian group hassles Cancer charity

[andycal]

BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/4289915.stm)

Makes you wanna puke don't it?

[Marquis de Carabas]

I'm not certain which is more saddening: that they refused good money based on some Christian extortionist group, or that their stated reason for the refusal (the "grave risk of alienating Christian donors") would probably have proven true.

[andycal]

Most Christian groups that have bothered to say anything are quite rightly appauled by the whole affair.

Unfortunately, it's the cranks that make the news.

[wollery]

This is the same christian group that published the addresses of BBC executives when the Jerry Springer Opera was aired.

How christian of them! :nope:

[Yahweh]

I'm sure Jesus wouldnt say "the people suffering from cancer will just have to deal with it."

[Ladewig]

How does one read the Gospels and end up threatening a charity? I am dumbfounded.

, , , , , , , ,

One a completely different note. Isn't it creepy how much David Soul looks like Jerry Springer?

[Bentspoon]

From Ladewig "How does one read the Gospels and end up threatening a charity? I am dumbfounded. "

What on god's earth makes you think anyone read any gospels, the babble or anything else with printed word.

Babbles are for thumping

Proper use of Babble:

1) close book tightly and never, ever open it again
2) hold babble horizontally on left hand
3) using index finger of right hand, thump cover of babble hard enough to be heard
4) commence screaming and resist listening

Bentspoon

[c4ts]

I'll bet they just read it in tiny little blurbs that are not in order, context, or even together at the same time.

[Kopji]

...He said: "We will probably bring a private prosecution against them for the common law offence of blasphemy.

"Having seen the thing, if this is not blasphemy, nothing is. There will be nothing sacred if we cannot successfully prosecute the BBC."


Oh how dire. I can't wait.

[mummymonkey]

This was the statement released by the charity:

Maggie’s is committed to providing cancer support and information for everyone affected by cancer through our growing network of cancer centres across the UK. We are a non-religious organisation, with no affiliation to any religious or political group. Our goal is to provide support for people affected by cancer, whatever their background or beliefs may be.

Jerry Springer the Opera offered Maggie’s a donation of £10 per ticket sold for the matinee performance of the show on 18th February, 2005. This amounted to £3,000.

The day before the performance, we were contacted by Christian Voice, the organisation that lobbied against the BBC. They told us that if we accepted the donation we would cause offence and that they would take action against us, effectively blocking our ability to work. They said that they would picket our centres, send out a press release deploring our action and email their 50,000 members. We felt that these actions would have prevented us from being able to function effectively. We also came under similar pressure from a second organization, UK Life League.

We decided that we would withdraw because we believe that our job is to help the people who come to us for support with their own battles for living with cancer. We believe that this had the potential to be an extra battle, not of their own choosing, that they didn’t have to fight.

Not only were we very concerned about the disruption to our centres and our services, but most importantly, the impact of this disruption on the people diagnosed with cancer who come into our centres on a daily basis.

We then prepared a statement for use when people contacted us about the situation. It said:

‘As a result of contact on 17 February from an organisation called Christian Voice, Maggie’s Centres, the cancer care charity, has taken the decision not to accept the proceeds from today’s performance of Jerry Springer the Opera.

Following an approach from Christian Voice informing us that to support this performance would upset Christians all over the world, we consulted internally and decided that we would not accept the proceeds. Maggie’s exists to help cancer sufferers, their families, friends and carers and to risk causing offence to anyone seemed unnecessary.’

We are a small charity with limited resources and our primary aim must be to provide people affected by cancer with the practical and emotional support and information they need.

I hope that this explanation helps you understand the difficult decision we had to take.

With best wishes

Laura Lee
Chief Executive

[Ladewig]

I'm not entirely convinced that all the U.S. laws on the books are properly written, but that concern not standing, things would be a lot easier over here.

If the charity took the money and the "Christians" did those things, it would not take much to file conspiracy charges against them under the RICO act.

Still, I hope the charity had the guts to say to the extortionists," we really could use the 3000 pounds so why don't you cut us a check so we don't have to take their's."

[MLynn]

This seems to be the same mentality as if the charity was receiving a donation from a brothel or the Mob...peaceful protest is one thing, but to threaten a charity in such a manner is wrong, very wrong IMO.