Stanek weekend question: Would you accept food donations from Planned Parenthood?
The pro-abortion side of this weekend’s question is above.
But a few days ago I spoke to Craig Robbins, the director of Paul’s Pantry, and got the other side of the story.
Paul’s Pantry is a a ministry of the St. Vincent de Paul Society, a lay Catholic organization. It is the largest free food pantry in Wisconsin, located in Green Bay. (Click all photos to enlarge.)
Craig told me Planned Parenthood of Green Bay called the pantry and asked it to send a truck to pick up food it had collected in a drive. Craig told the lady calling the pantry was unable to send a truck. He gave PP no reason why but did not want to co-mingle with PP, nor did he want to give PP a photo op. He gave the caller names of other local food pantries. There are 20 in the area.
“Within 20 minutes I was getting phone calls and emails calling us pieces of sh**,” Paul told me. “The calls that day came from the Milwaukee area, where Planned Parenthood is headquartered. We have caller ID.”
Craig said he did tell one of the callers they could simply drop off their donation, “which happens about 100 times a day – in that case we don’t know where the food comes from.”
But if an organization wants a receipt, Paul’s Pantry has a gift acceptance policy. “If the donation is going to hurt us, we don’t accept it,” explained Craig.
Craig said it never got to that point with Planned Parenthood, though. PP invented the rest of the story. “What was their purpose?” asked Paul. “If they really intended to feed the poor they should have just dropped the food off and left it at that. But was it for their own self-promotion?”
It appears so. Liberal website Daily Kos was apparently alerted about the commotion and suggested its readers harass Paul’s Pantry, which they did. Then Breitbart’s Big Journalism wrote about the fracas, at which time “I received so many emails in support,” Craig said, “and contributions from all over the United States.”
Craig said he received counsel from a pastor at their cathedral, who said they did “absolutely the right thing.” The pastor explained Paul’s Pantry could no more knowingly take food from Planned Parenthood than it could the mafia or al-Qaeda. Planned Parenthood is a murderer of even greater infamy.
Craig said he based his decision on two guiding Bible verses:
Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness. ~ II Corinthians 6:14
Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. ~ Ephesians 5:11
Your thoughts?
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
So then, the opinion of one of the Facebook commentators notwithstanding, it would appear that St Paul told the Corinthians and the Ephesians exactly what Jesus would or would not have done.
“Your thoughts?” you gave the answer->
Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. ~ Ephesians 5:11
So let me get this straight. PP wants to feed the children it was not able to kill……yeah, K.
So feeding the poor is now a fruitless deed?
Come on now, PP couldn’t have taken the food there themselves? Isn’t that what donors usually do? People donate to pantries, goodwill, the salvation army, thrift stores, etc. all the time without identifying themselves, and if they do identify themselves, they don’t have to say where they live or work.
Also, instead of making an issue of it, certainly any number of other pantries would accept the donations and apparently did so PP doesn’t have to lose any sleep over anyone going hungry because their donations weren’t accepted.
Absolutely charities have every right to refuse donations from those that offend their religious or ethical sensibilities in any way. Didn’t Mayor Giuliani refuse a donation from a member of Saudi Arabian royalty for victims of 911? Would a charity have the right to refuse a donation from a white supremecist or any type of hate group? Absolutely.
Mary – I believe that a charity has the RIGHT to refuse any donation for any reason.
I don’t believe telling a starving kid they can’t have food because they didn’t like the source of where the food came from – I don’t believe that makes much sense.
EGV,
LOL, please cut the theatrics. Churches, the Salvation Army, charities, and food pantries all provide assistance. Didn’t the donations go to another pantry?
Please EGV, the folks at PP could have just taken the donations and left them, no questions asked. People do it all the time. Do you know of any pantries that provide a trucking service? That right there makes the whole thing sound very fishy to me.
Mary -
So you are saying it is a hoax, but if they dropped it off it would have been okay?
Okay. That works for me.
Mary – I was answering the general question though of the site – not this particular example.
If I ran a food shelf, yes, I would.
While we’re all speculating what Jesus would or wouldn’t have done, we can reflect on something he said: “So whenever you give alms, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may be praised by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward. But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your alms may be done in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you” (Mt 6:2-4). What was the point of making the call if not to create a “heads I win, tails you lose” situation? No, this was all a cheap bit of agitprop by Planned Barrenhood to put a bit of polish on their halos and compromise a Catholic charity.
Yes, I think Paul’s Pantry did the right thing. Planned Parenthood should be utterly rejected from participating in the community in any meaningful way. An anonymous donation would be one thing, but by knowingly accepting a donation from Planned Parenthood, this organization would be–if only in a small way–validating them. By refusing them, they avoided doing so.
This is PP trying to save it’s image. “Look at us! We give food to hungry people! How could you not like us?” They don’t really care about feeding the poor. They just want to try and recoup some of their PR losses. Good on Paul’s Pantry for not giving them that chance.
EGV,
I said it sounds fishy. Pantries don’t usually have trucking service, people drop donations off. Trucks cost money to maintain and the pantries have all they can do to keep the shelves stocked. I imagine people of every ilk drop off donations and charities can’t interview each person and check their background. However if someone tells me the donations came from an organized hate group I will refuse them. Since PP made a point to call Paul’s Pantry, then Paul’s Pantry had a right to refuse on the basis of their religious conviction. Running a charity I can’t know the source of everything, it could be stolen property. However if I do know and accept, no that is not right. PP gave their donations to another pantry so what’s the big deal?
If you ran a food shelf, yes you would what? I’m curious EGV, would you take donations from the local chapter of a virulently anti semitic group?
PP receives a substantial income from the slaughter of innocent human beings. Of course they’re less than familiar with the concept of “blood money.”
a). The Daily Kos’s harassment campaign was stupid.
b). Does anybody really believe that no Catholic charity has ever knowingly accepted money from a member of the Mafia, who are so Catholic that their fictional counterparts have even won the admiration of pro-lifers for their wife-beating anti-abortion stance?
Whether PP bought the food with money they obtained by killing babies OR the employees of PP brought in the food themselves purchased with money they obtained from killing babies it’s still a hard pill for most to swallow. “Eat this bread…a baby died so you could have it.” It’s morbid!
That’s an easy answer…HELL NO!
What I think is bizarre is PP’s handling of the whole thing. If someone from PP just dropped off the food instead of making a big deal out of their affiliation, all of this would have been avoided. They obviously did it for their own self promotion or they wouldn’t have asked the pantry to come pick it up. What’s this about wanting a gift receipt? Is that why we give food to the hungry? I don’t think so.
No child was starved because of this stance. And no abbettors of child killing were given free publicity. A win / win situation, if you ask me.
Donations from Planned Parenthood are similar to blood money, and were probably paid for with blood money. Let PP distribute the food themselves, after all, they claim to help millions of poor women who don’t have $9 a month to buy birth control at WalMart.
HELL NO.
Not unless/until they’ve totally turned from their population reduction agenda!
I wouldn’t trust the safety of any food items they offered. Recall F. Jaffe’s intent to put anti-fertility drugs in the public drinking water, and the dangers of the pill and most if not all of their other “services”
St. Vincent’s huge food pantry in Green Bay Wisconsin blows off Planned Parenthood Promotion. Good Job!!
Don’t you wish the Churches would similarly blow off big government and cut the financial ties?
“Would you accept food donations from Planned Parenthood?”
Yes.
“Would you accept food donations from Planned Parenthood?”
NO. Ewww
It seems Planned Parenthood, the Standard Oil Octopus of the 21st century, is willing to destroy anyone and anything that doesn’t bow before it, including food pantries. ”This level of extremism…must be stopped.” The pantry did the right thing, if PP really wanted to give they could have brought it themselves without the political histrionics; you don’t accept monetary donations from crooked people who make bad investing choices, so you certinaly shouldn’t give aid and comfort to an organization that has killed millions of human beings for money.
I’m thinking they wanted to create more controversy. Think about it: if there are multiple food pantries in Green Bay to choose from (as they stated by saying they donated the food elsewhere), why would an abortion provider pick a Catholic charity where they are most likely to face opposition?
Absolutely I would NOT accept donations from PP.
The victimizers try once again to paint themselves as the victims.
Boo hoo PP. Some of us don’t ever forget what your main purpose is.
Paul’s Pantry is “impeding” people from getting food? Really? Paul’s Pantry is the only channel in the Green Bay area through which food can be distributed? And yeah, why couldn’t PP have just dropped it off anonymously? That would have been problem solved.
Good point too that someone raised above, ie, why did PP choose a Catholic food pantry to try to donate to? The person who made that decision was either really not thinking very clearly or was simply looking to stir up trouble. In charity, I guess I have to go with the first option.
I’m thrilled Paul’s Pantry said no. This reminds me of a story I heard a few years back about the director of a homeless shelter in Albuquerque who refused a $50 donation from a strip club. I was so happy he refused it, I sent him about $250 over the next few years. No one who makes a living off of other people’s degradation and dysfunction (and the sex industry is a very close relative of the abortion industry) should be validated in that way. And as above, if the strip club owner just wanted to help the shelter, he could have done so anonymously. Hopefully Paul’s Pantry will have a few more bucks coming in when people hear about their refusal to do business with PP.
Its always about publicity with PP. And look how they react. If you don’t do things their way they set out to destroy you. They care sooooo much about breast cancer and hunger that they are HARASSING two charities fighting breast cancer and hunger? Their true colors are always showing!
Mary -
Yes I would – if something good could come out of a bad group or bad situation.
Plus, as a Christian, I’m taught not to bury my head in the sand. Groups are filled with people that need to be reached – and the only way to reach people is through interaction.
My guess is if you asked this question to Jesus, he’d accept the food, multiply it, and witness to the people who brought the food.
I think that the same people screaming at the food pantry for not accepting a PP donation are the same ones who screamed at Mother Theresa for accepting donations from a drug lord. In a word – hypocrites.
I also think that PP was insane asking a food pantry to send a truck. Very few food pantries have trucks. Why not drop off the donations like everyone else does?
They should have called an atheist-run food pantry…. oh wait.
EGV, 10:38PM
That would certainly be your prerogative to accept the donation, just as it would be the prerogative of people to refuse. While I am not a religious person, I cannot imagine that Jesus would have any tolerance for any organization promoting hatred.
Ex-GOP: The money changers in the temple had all kinds of wonderful assets on hand. Did Jesus acknowledge the value of their currency, of their McDoves, and “multiply” it? No. He raised Hell on the temple mount and sent ’em scurrying for the exits.
Appeals to the meek and mild Jesus – as if he was a one-dimensional person incapable of righteous intolerance – are shopworn and threadbare cliches.
I think it’s hilarious that PP on the one hand acts as if Komen grants are depriving poor women of health care, then they turn around and can afford to donate food.
Planned Parenthood, the lily-white paragon of all virtues! Our Lady of Perpetual Dismemberment!
Let PP continue to push their weight around bullying people and organizations. The behavior validates a self-destructive downward spiral.
It is well documented that they leak stories JUST to place their “innocent” twist on it first. SGK is an excellent example of this. PP is a BULLY plain and simple. They know that they are losing ground (Thank God!) and are getting desperate. Desperate times call for desperate measures. I suspect we will be seeing much worse from them in the near future.
So, to answer the question NO St. Paul’s did the right thing. Although, I have to admit I am ignorant when it comes to the Bible.
This PP chapter is just doing what the national organization did but on a smaller scale.
It’s Alinsky tactics but with the goal of stealing donors.
They pick a target, freeze it, make it personalize it and polarize it. Usually this is done to shut down the target. But, here, they are tying down the target and stealing donors.
Now, there are people who, instead of giving to the food pantry will instead give that money to PP because PP has made it seemed as if they are the victim.
Other people who sympathize with the food pantry may step up to replace those donors but PP has still benefitted. The donors who replaced the lost ones are not people who ever would have supported PP. PP just succeeded in taking money away from feeding poor folks and rerouting it to their political agenda.
That’s what they did with Komen. They have taken dollars from cancer research and rerouted it to their national organization.
It’s as if the only medical services a woman ever receives or needs to receive is contraception and abortion. Poor people being fed, women facing cancer–that takes a back seat to their abortion agenda.
No, I would not accept soylent green from PP!
Just like with Senomyx, after I found out how they develop their “flavor enhancers” I can’t drink/eat Pepsi or Nestle products without thinking “It’s people! It’s made of people!” from the movie ;) I know not literally in the food, just…. uhg, dead people made that food…… *shudder*
Paul’s Pantry was absolutely right to say no. This wasn’t about feeding the poor, this was about Planned parenthood’s self-promotion. They knew that either way they would be able to use it to make themselves look like they were the good guys. I am not surprized that they lied about what really happenned either.
NO! its blood money!
Paul – thank you! Fixed!
It’s already been said, but I’ll drop my 2 cents in. It’s not like the food pantry has a mandatory sign in sheet and complusitory interview before they accept a donations. If PP wanted to donate food for the hungry all they needed to do was drop it off. That’s clearly not what they wanted. They wanted the good publicity from having donated food for the hungry. A decent oganization does not toot the horn for an indecent one in exchange for goods. That’s called selling out.
If someone came up to me and said ‘i’ll pay off your debt, but in exchange you have to tell everyone PP is a noble organization’ I’d tell them to take a flying. But if the exact same person just went and paid the bills, i’d be thankful for their individual charity, not particulalry concerned with their morals, since *this* act was a simple act of charity. The same thing applies. It was absolutely appropriate for a charity to turn down a ‘strings attatched’ donation from an inmoral source.
Off the top I thought it wrong to refuse.
I needed to read all of this to arrive at my decision that Paul’s Pantry did the right thing.
If the staff wants to donate to the poor they should just do so on their own – not use PP to try to make them look charitable. I think it’s good that this pantry is standing against them – even in this. They will find donations elsewhere.
Definitely an attempt at a photo op on Planned Parenthood’s part.
Robbin’s of Paul’s Pantry is a wise man.
They played it perfectly: willing to take the food, unwilling to be compromised and give Planned Parenthood bogus P.R. that shows them somehow co-operating in promoting PP.
But Abram said to the king of Sodom, “I have lifted up my hand and sworn to the
Lord, God Most High, the Possessor and Maker of heaven and earth, that I would
not take a thread or a shoelace or anything that is yours, lest the Sodomite king
should say, “I have made Abram rich.””
It is difficult to conceive any human being with an iota of decency knowingly receiving anything from a whore house that profits by the murder of innocent children.
Whoever kills any person [intentionally], the murderer shall be put to death on the testimony of witnesses; but no one shall be put to death on the testimony of one witness.
So you shall not pollute the land in which you live; for blood pollutes the land, and no atonement can be made for the land for the blood shed in it, but by the blood of him who shed it.
And you shall not defile the land in which you live, in the midst of which I dwell, for I, the Lord, dwell in the midst of the people of Israel.
And they shall testify, Our hands have not shed this blood, neither have our eyes seen it.
Forgive, O Lord, Your people Israel, whom You have redeemed, and do not allow the shedding of innocent blood to be charged to Your people Israel. And the guilt of blood shall be forgiven them.
[If you [profess ignorance and] say, Behold, we did not know this, does not He Who weighs and ponders the heart perceive and consider it? And He Who guards your life, does not He know it? And shall not He render to [you and] every man according to his works?]
So shall you purge the guilt of innocent blood from among you, when you do what is right in the sight of the Lord.
It looks like there is plenty of food available, and no one is going to go hungry because St. Vinnie’s refused a grocery bag from Planned Parenthood.
Poor women enter Planned Parenthood, every day. And they leave $460 poorer, crying and even more devastated. Planned Parent could help them out with a gift of food from their generous staff, if they really cared.
Ex-GOP says:
“I don’t believe telling a starving kid they can’t have food because they didn’t like the source of where the food came from – I don’t believe that makes much sense.”
========================================================
Please provide us with evidence of a just one ‘starving kid’ in Green Bay, Wisconsin or even an indigent adult who went hungry because Paul’s Pantry refused a donation from pp.
Your talents at equivocation and obfuscation are stunning.
Do you do it for love or are you a prostitute?
This is not Darfur!
Ex-Gop via Ken the Birther, for that matter, even if it was Darfur it’s still morally correct to turn down inappropriate donations. A couple of African nations have recently began rejecting pro-offered aid from some European nations because the strings attatched aren’t worth the humanitarian aid. They would rather reject desperately needed aid than be forced to compromise their country’s morals and culture.
Rasqual -
If planned parenthood was selling bread for sacrifies in the temple, I think that would be an allowable argument you threw out there.
Jespren – can you detail out the “strings”? Haven’t read about this and would be interested. An article link works as well. Thanks.
I completely agree with the decision Paul’s Pantry made. As a Catholic myself, there is no way I would ever knowingly support PP. If they happened to drop off food and I didn’t know where it came from, then I’d accept it without knowing it was from PP. The reaction PP had in response to this is crazy.
Please provide us with evidence of a just one ‘starving kid’ in Green Bay, Wisconsin or even an indigent adult who went hungry because Paul’s Pantry refused a donation from pp.
Your talents at equivocation and obfuscation are stunning.
Do you do it for love or are you a prostitute?
This is not Darfur!
Well-put, ken! Bravo! *applause*
If the Pantry accepted the food donations PP most likely would have used that as evidence of duplicity on the part of Catholics in general and the operators of Paul’s Pantry in particular. It was a good call by Craig. Evil does nothing good.
Jesperen wrote:
“It’s already been said, but I’ll drop my 2 cents in. It’s not like the food pantry has a mandatory sign in sheet and complusitory interview before they accept a donations. If PP wanted to donate food for the hungry all they needed to do was drop it off. That’s clearly not what they wanted. They wanted the good publicity from having donated food for the hungry.”
As both an individual who’s volunteered for various food pantries/soup kitchens & has been on the receiving end of services as well, this whole ordeal just rubs me the wrong way. I agree and will add that it’s never been just about helping the poor, it was all about PP wanting to gain support through positive publicity. When PP didn’t get to do their little publicity stunt, they temper tantrumed like a toddler and turned their supporters loose on the organization and it’s clients they were supposidly wanting to help, despite alternative donation options, and made it clear towards the end of the Daily Kos’ article that it wasn’t about helping the poor at all, but gaining support for PP and abortion rights through this faux charitable gesture.
I just want to clearify that PP & abortion rights supporters in the Daily Kos article made it clear it wasn’t about helping the poor at all, but gaining support for PP and abortion rights through this faux charitable gesture.
On one hand, if my enemy is stupid enough to give me something that helps me, I may take him up on it. On the other hand, there are plenty of other places to get food donations, and some “gifts” come at a greater cost to the recipient than the giver, if you know what I mean (I think anybody who has played the Family Christmas Gift Politics Game will unfortunately get it).
Ex-Gop, I figured you’d know what I was refering to, I didn’t keep any specific links but it’s been hitting the news recently (and not so recently). More recently, back in Nov 2011 I think, the UK announced it would lower or cease funds to countries that didn’t legalize homosexuality. I know Ghana and Zambia have both, from their government, officially told the UK to go take a long walk off a short peer, they aren’t going to legalize what their culture sees as a grave evil to maintain aid funds. I think it was Uganda and Malawi who have also unofficially said the same thing. I haven’t heard if the UK is sticking by it’s threat yet or not.
Also late last year Zambia rejected aid from the U.S. because the offered shipment of food was genetically engenered corn and Zambia said their starving citizens were not guinea pigs to be tested on. I know sometime last year another country rejected aid tied to population control requirements, but I can’t remember the details.
Um.. a couple of years ago the African Anglican Church rejected aid from all churches who accept practicing homosexuals, prompted by the U.S. Episcopal Church ordaining it’s first practicing homosexual as a bishop.
And then there was that ‘dog food’ thing in ’06 where Kenya rejected as offense and dehumanizing a “nutritional supplement” made/offered by a New Zealand dog food company. (The company claimed it was not dog food but a complete and balanced powder that was fully compatible for humans)
And then many years ago Uganda rejected AIDS/HIV funds from the UN because it required a condom based ‘safe-sex’ approach, they went on to be the only African country to lower AIDS rates by instituting the ABC approach (abstinent until marriage, be faithful afterwards, use a condom if necessary). Unfortunately they relented under international pressure and started accepting the condom-based funds, only to see their AIDS rate start to climb again. (As it has in every single other country that has been flooded with condoms and the West’s free-sex ‘help’)
Anyway, if you do a google search on ‘africa rejects aid’ (or ‘funds’) you should be able to find some detailed stories, but a lot of them were published by African news sources not the Western media.
The fact that we are hearing about this incident of no consequence makes it clear that it was a Planned Parenthood publicity stunt.
They can’t make themselves look good, so they have to try to make someone else look bad.
Stupid and nasty. So typical of PP.
Well Jespren, it’s also been hypothesized that part of the decline in Uganda’s HIV prevalence was the result of the death of AIDS-infected individuals. Also, PEPFAR has had a pro-abstinence focus for years, and it appears–shocker–that rates are climbing again. Hmm. Also, curious that your incoherent little rant about cultural imperialism neglected to mention the very deep ties anti-gay “activists” in Uganda have had with US evangelical leaders. As long as we’re exporting the “right” type of morality, it’s all cool, even if people die.
:) Rasqual, I’ve missed your soliquies; that one (2-11-12, 11:37 AM) was ambrosia to the ears (or eyeballs, actually)!
EGV wrote, at 10:38 PM:
Plus, as a Christian, I’m taught not to bury my head in the sand. Groups are filled with people that need to be reached – and the only way to reach people is through interaction.
Well and good, up to a point; but Christ (by Whose sole identity and teaching Christianity exists and has meaning) also commands us not to do evil, or to scandalise (i.e. make it easier to sin) anyone, in the process. No possible good–not even the feeding of every last starving person, the cure of every last person suffering illness/malady, the equitable balance of every last scrap of money/goods/etc. on earth–justifies even one evil act. Common sense should tell you that, if nothing else: Christ did not heal every last sufferer of physical ailments in the world, nor did He feed every last hungry person in the world, nor did He redress all financial wrongs in the world, etc., despite the fact that He is God, and the working of those universal miracles is not beyond Him. This world and its mammon will pass away (thanks be to God!); the true and only goal is the salvation of souls, which depends utterly on our free choice to embrace Him and His Will (i.e. the only true good), and our free choice to reject what is evil. More on that, in a moment.
My guess is if you asked this question to Jesus, he’d accept the food, multiply it, and witness to the people who brought the food.
I’m afraid this makes very little sense, given that (as many people have pointed out already) Planned Parenthood was obviously concerned with a “photo-op”, and not so much with the care of the poor (which they could have done by a simple drop-off of the food, with no questions or fuss). Any public welcome of Planned Parenthood by the Catholic service organisation would have done far more harm (in the spiritual order, which is of far greater importance) than good; to play with a well-known phrase: what would it profit them to gain the entire food delivery, and yet endanger the souls of all who might be scandalised by the apparent friendly rappport with a prime player in the Culture of Death?
EGV wrote, in reply to rasqual:
If planned parenthood was selling bread for sacrifies in the temple, I think that would be an allowable argument you threw out there.
Oh, come now! Surely you realise that rasqual’s point (in union with many of us) was to highlight the fact that Jesus did not take a “we must take advantage of every last scrap of financial resource we find” approach, heedless of the scandal and spiritual harm it might engender? Have you forgotten so soon that Jesus is God, and that He could have delivered manna from Heaven (again!) if He so chose, without taking so much as a raisin from Planned Parenthood (or its equivalent)? The idea of “We’ve got it, we might as well use it!” makes no sense when talking about the omnipotent God Who created it in the first place, and could make an entire planet out of bavarian cremes, if He so chose!
Megan wrote, in reply to Jespren:
Also, curious that your incoherent little rant about cultural imperialism neglected to mention the very deep ties anti-gay “activists” in Uganda have had with US evangelical leaders. As long as we’re exporting the “right” type of morality, it’s all cool, even if people die.
(*sigh*) I don’t suppose you’d notice the irony inherent in using a morally and logically incoherent rant to decry someone else’s comment as an “incoherent rant”?
So long as you embrace moral relativism (which you obviously do, given this and other comments of yours), I’m afraid your decrials of any other groups’ activities make very little sense; unless you hold to an objective standard of morality (i.e. beyond anyone’s personal opinion/view/knowledge), your complaints have no more or less of a moral gradient than had you said “my stomach is upset, today”… to which the only reasonable reply would be: “Hm. Right. Well… I hope you feel better, soon!”
Since PP supposedly does so much for low income women, then why not just give each low income client a bag of groceries to take home and save her a trip to Paul’s Pantry or any other local pantry?
Megan, my reply was neither incoherent nor a rant. I was, as requested, giving Ex-Gop specific examples of times when countries/peoples in desperate need have turned down aid because of it’s source or strings attatched. Not sure why that is confusing to you. Your mention of ties to anti-homosexual activists is not only irrelevent it’s completely nonsensical. The cultural stigma against homosexualism in nearly all of African culture predates not only current Western culture, but Western contact entirely. That those who support traditional values (in any culture) tend to align with others who also support traditional values isn’t weird or underhanded, it’s normal association. I choose those examples not out of any attempt to show off ‘right’ morals (I did include one on genetically modified food and ‘dog food’), they were simply the examples that got the most press. I’m sure if you looked hard enough you could find someone in a desperate situation that turned down aid from a Christian organization specifically because they were Christian. My point to Ex-Gop was to demonstrate that many people’s feel it necessary to turn down ‘charity’ if they don’t agree with it’s source, it’s neither abnormal nor weird. People don’t lose their right of association or right to religion/morals/values just because they need help.
Paladin -
I fully agree that in this case, PP seemed most interested in a photo op (if it was a real opportunity to begin with – early in this thread with Mary I said that I realized that, and I was answering the question generally that was posted).
I acknowledge your point. I’ll also say that if we, as Christians (and again, I’m speaking to the general question and not this specific instance) look for any way possible to throw dirt in the faces of sinners even when they choose to do something good, they have one more reason to hate the church.
Well food is food, right?
Jespren – I found it. It appears in Tanzania, Ghana, Uganda, and a few other countries – being homosexual is a sin, and European countries tried to tie humanitarian aid to them overturning that. In Tanzania somebody who is gay can get five years in prison. In ghana being gay is a misdemeanor. In Uganda, they have a bill working to get life in prison or even the death penalty for any homosexual relations.
I can see if Europe wanted them to put Elton John as a countries prime minister and have gay pride parades every day – that’s one thing. I don’t know if it is out of line for Europe to say “hey, if we’re going to give aid to you, we don’t think you should throw people in prison if they are gay”. I mean, if that is the moral thing to do, do you think the church in America should be pushing for that?
Ex-Gop, whether it was out of line for the U.K. to demand decriminalization is immaterial to the point I was making, which was even desperate people have a right to refuse aid with strings attatched that they don’t like. The U.K. mandate could have been ‘make road signs green’ or ‘abolish fgm’ or ‘institute rape crisis centers’ and it still would be their perogretive (perogrative? Sp?) To turn it down.
But, since you asked my personal opinion on the matter…I don’t think the laws banning practicing homosexuality (or adultery or fornication) should have been overturned to begin with, and I never would have voted for them to be. That being said, I think it would be detrimental to America to recriminalize private homosexual behavior (for a number of reasons, none of them having to do with morals. What is, or should be legal in America does not necessarily follow what is moral) or fornication (I do think adultery should be recriminalized). I do think the current mentality of legally promoting a dangerous and immoral lifestyle (which applies equally to fornication and homosexuality) is both morally indefensible and legally reprehensible. I do not think we should treat practicing homosexuals any differently than we treat anyone else, the problem is right now we are treating them very differently. Perfect example, a post of this type is likely to get me vilified, called all sorts of names, and even illicit threats (depending upon the company), yet if this post had been about thinking drunkness should be legal to practice but in no way promoted no one would say boo about it. And very few people will revile me or accuse me of bigotry if it was just about fornication. Certainly I’ve never been threatened with physical harm for telling someone I disagree with sex outside of marriage, and the worst name I’ve been called is along the lines of ‘represed Bible thumper’, telling someone I also disagree with homosexual sex, however, can be more than your job is worth, can provoke physical, including death threats, and get you called every name under the sun.
I don’t know, I’m struggling with this. Jesus Christ came to save sinners. What would Jesus do? Would Jesus have turned down the donation knowing it was going to help poor and needy families? Of course, he would say sin no more. But, if believers are only around other believers, how can non-believers be brought to conversion? I mean maybe by Paul’s Pantry reaching out, a person/persons hearts would be converted to save pre-born children? Sometimes it just takes one encounter for God’s grace to penetrate one’s heart. I try and not shop at places that donate to PP, but there are probably some businesses that I am not aware of. It does sound fishy, though. One shouldn’t announce that they are doing a charitable deed or work of mercy. It should be kept quiet.
No, but remember to pray for them. They need conversion, desperately.
I just sent a donation to Paul’s Pantry in support of their decision. Not trying to “sound a trumpet before [me], as the hypocrites do” just thought others might want to do the same.
If a Christian organization accepts donations from PP then they are VALIDATING what PP does. In the OT and the NT the Bible is clear that sinners who would NOT repent were not to included. They were ostracized basically. I am talking about levitical law and then St. Paul admonishing churches about what to do when a member was in error and would not repent.
now I know that PP is not a member of a church. They are sinners. But I think the point remains that by accepting the donation you are saying “Hey, what you do is okay! Sure you promote lasciviousness and butcher unborn children made in God’s image but you’re feeding the poor so its all good!” Where is the conviction for PP workers in THAT? But maybe by a Christian organization’s refusal to cooperate with PP even for a donation, there will be workers who stand back and re-evaluate why the organization they work for is considered to be so tainted.
As pointed out, God owns the cattle on a thousand hills. He doesn’t need the blood money of child killers to accomplish His will. It reminds me when Satan tempted Christ and offered Him all the kingdoms of the world if only Christ would fall down and worship Satan. Stupid, as Christ already OWNED all the kingdoms of the world. This is GOD’S EARTH. He owns it all. All resources are HIS and nothing is too hard for Him. Silly PP. They have the same mindset that Satan did as he tempted Christ.
I just donated to Paul’s Pantry. I encourage others who support their decision to do the same.
No, i would not accept food knowingly from Planned Parenthood.
The point of PP is to provide abortions and sexual “health” anyway, so they shouldn’t be giving food to the poor because they’re not a food bank. Maybe if they didn’t buy so much food, they wouldn’t need to beg to Obama and Komen for money.
EGV wrote, in reply to my comment:
I’ll also say that if we, as Christians (and again, I’m speaking to the general question and not this specific instance) look for any way possible to throw dirt in the faces of sinners even when they choose to do something good, they have one more reason to hate the church.
I’m not sure how that principle would even apply, here. Had the food pantry heard about the offer from Planned Parenthood, and then quickly called a press conference to “denounce the whole messy business” and humiliate PP, I might see your point; but from all accounts, the food pantry did NOT publicise the matter: Planned Parenthood (and/or its allies) did. This situation could be much more fairly characterised by the image of “Planned Parenhood threw mud on their own faces, and then pointed to the food pantry and cried out, ‘look what they did!’…”
Frankly, I see absolutely nothing that the food pantry did wrongly, nor do I see anything that Planned Parenthood did rightly! Food is not more important than are the souls of those whose hearts might be misled into being warmed to Planned Parenthood and their “mission”; and Planned Parenthood was being either scheming and duplicitous, or else spectacularly stupid, in their specific choice of a Catholic food pantry as the recipient of their oddly-timed “largesse”.
I’ll say this again, in case it’s not utterly clear: the idea that material alms-giving (as good as it is, under other circumstances) is NOT the highest good for any Christian; the soul is worth far more than is any amount of food, money, or earthly goods. If every last starving child could be fed in perpetuity, but at the cost of even one other child’s soul, it would be an evil and unworthy bargain. Every Christian knows this.
Sydney @ 11:21: masterfully said, and it should be put on every bill-board from here to the other side of the world! Bravo! :)
Doe wrote:
I don’t know, I’m struggling with this. Jesus Christ came to save sinners. What would Jesus do? Would Jesus have turned down the donation knowing it was going to help poor and needy families?
Doe, Jesus is God: as the devil pointed out, He’s capable of making bread (for poor and needs families) from the very stones, or even out of nothing at all. We can sometimes fall into a mental trap of viewing Jesus as “being God only part-time”, and otherwise being dependent on the donations, etc., of other humans. He isn’t. He came to save souls, not to gather or make food (though the latter is certainly a good thing to do, all other things being equal). He urges us to feed the poor in order to *train us in love*–not because He “needs” us (in the sense that He can’t do it without us)! It’s a grave error for us to reduce the Gospel message to mere alms-giving (which–forgive me–a good many politically liberal Christians are wont to do; it’s far easier to hear a message of “feed the poor!” than it is to hear a message of “repent of your sins, stop lusting, stop lying, and commit your ENTIRE life to Christ!”).
Of course, he would say sin no more.
He certainly would. That’s the entire point: to save souls, and to bring us to Heaven. Food, however good, will not do that.
“Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves. Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of man will give to you; for on him has God the Father set his seal.” (John 6:26-27)
But, if believers are only around other believers, how can non-believers be brought to conversion?
That’s not what the food pantry was doing. Individual members of the food pantry might, for all I know, be protesting at the very Planned Parenthood clinic which sent the donations! This wasn’t a matter of “shunning sinners” (though even that is necessary, in the right circumstances); it was a matter of refusing “blood money”. A Christian would do well to share the Gospel with a prostitute and urge her to give up her sins; but he would be quite wrong to “accept her services” in the process, simply on the pretext of “meeting the sinners where they are”.
I mean maybe by Paul’s Pantry reaching out, a person/persons hearts would be converted to save pre-born children?
Paul’s Pantry DOES reach out to people; but they’re not free to reach out in evil or scandalous ways which ennoble or otherwise white-wash Planned Parenthood and their evils.
Sometimes it just takes one encounter for God’s grace to penetrate one’s heart.
It does. But we are absolutely forbidden (by God) from sinning, in the process! We can’t just pick any old way we please; we need to take “marching orders” from Jesus, not from our own hearts (which are quite unreliable guides… see Jeremiah 17:9).
I try and not shop at places that donate to PP, but there are probably some businesses that I am not aware of.
Of course. What you’re doing is good and praiseworthy; and God does not hold you responsible for what you do not know.
It does sound fishy, though. One shouldn’t announce that they are doing a charitable deed or work of mercy. It should be kept quiet.
Exactly. And who’s preventing Planned Parenthood from giving up abortion? If they abandoned abortion and sex-promotion and instead started doing nothing but feeding the poor, do you imagine that anyone (much less the food pantry) would ever refuse the donation?
*Brava!
;)
Personally, I think this was just PP’s way of gloating over the contraception mandate without actually saying anything. But, maybe I’m just a conspiracy theorist who reads into stuff way too much. /shrug
Basically, when old man Potter offers you a cigar — don’t take it.
When the con artist offers you a drink — don’t take it.
When butchers of children hand you a sop — leave it in their hand.
“Thank you for acknowledging, by your offered gift, our evident reputation for good work among the poor. We’re sure you can find another group doing similar work, willing to take your blood money.”
“Personally, I think this was just PP’s way of gloating over the contraception mandate without actually saying anything. But, maybe I’m just a conspiracy theorist who reads into stuff way too much. /shrug”
Gloating? By donating to a food pantry?
It’s too bad more people don’t gloat that way, huh?
Don’t feed the troll, y’all…
If you need the comparison…..the largest donations to the policemen’s Santa for children fund are topless bars, in my town. I know this b/c I knew a bar manager, not because it was trumpeted. It was kept very quiet. The police didn’t publicize it. The bars did not publicize it. It really was done out of the goodness of the bar employees hearts: they’d been those homeless, foster, abused, neglected kids. Their patrons were men who weren’t in a position to give gifts to particular children- but they wanted to share, somehow. It turned out- this was the largest donation to the fund, every single year it was done. The bar absolutely got no publicity about it at all. Nobody in the wider community knew, either.
that’s how a from the heart donation is done, when the originator is problematic.
Ex-RINO,
Please provide an example where Craig Robbins of Paul’s Pantry ‘threw dirt in the face of sinners’, by not accepting pp’s offer of a donation.
Robbins suggested several other organizations whom pp could approach.
Only an artificial flower with a chip on their shoulder would even attempt to fein offense.
Ex-RINO,
Please provide us with some evidences of your ‘christianity’. Give us a sampling of your ‘good’ fruit. How have you ‘demonstrated your love’ for your fellow members of the body of Christ. How have you laid down your life for your friends. To what stranger have you offerred a cup of water, visited in prison, comforted in their illness? To whom have you been a ‘neighbor’?
Or are you the same kind of ‘comitted’ christian as mr. bo-jangles?
“These are hidden reefs (elements of danger) in your love feasts, where they boldly feast sumptuously [carousing together in your midst], without scruples providing for themselves [alone]. They are clouds without water, swept along by the winds; trees, without fruit at the late autumn gathering time — twice (doubly) dead, [lifeless and] plucked up by the roots; wild waves of the sea, flinging up the foam of their own shame and disgrace; wandering stars, for whom the gloom of eternal darkness has been reserved forever.”
“…the lawless and unruly, for the those who strike and beat and [even] murder fathers and strike and beat and [even] murder mothers, for manslayers, [For] impure and immoral persons, those who abuse themselves with men, kidnapers, liars, perjurers — and whatever else is opposed to wholesome teaching and sound doctrine as laid down by the glorious Gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.”.
For people will be lovers of self and [utterly] self-centered, lovers of money and aroused by an inordinate [greedy] desire for wealth, proud and arrogant and contemptuous boasters. They will be abusive (blasphemous, scoffing), disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy and profane.
[They will be] without natural [human] affection (callous and inhuman), relentless (admitting of no truce or appeasement); [they will be] slanderers (false accusers, troublemakers), intemperate and loose in morals and conduct, uncontrolled and fierce, haters of good.
[They will be] treacherous [betrayers], rash, [and] inflated with self-conceit. [They will be] lovers of sensual pleasures and vain amusements more than and rather than lovers of God.
For [although] they hold a form of piety (true religion), they deny and reject and are strangers to the power of it [their conduct belies the genuineness of their profession]. Avoid [all] such people [turn away from them].
Ex-RINO,
If you were accused of being a ‘christian’ could the prosecution present enough evidence to prove his case?
Ken -
Please see the following posts:
Feb 11th at 6:53 – where I say I’m not responded specifically to this example with Paul’s Pantry
Feb 12th at 5:28 – where I questioned if PP even had a donation on this.
If I need to repeat it – I don’t believe Paul’s Pantry did anything wrong, and they certainly can deny anything sent their way.
In regards to my quote on the dirt – my only contention is that as Christians, we have to look for opportunities to influence the world around us. If, at any time a person affiliated with planned parenthood comes within 15 feet of us – if we plug our ears and run away screaming, we can’t make much of a difference in their lives can we?
“I don’t believe telling a starving kid they can’t have food because they didn’t like the source of where the food came from – I don’t believe that makes much sense.”
I missed the part of the story where the “starving kid” was told he/she couldn’t have food by the food bank, I guess because it never happened.
It looks like this food bank is doing an excellent job, and I, for one, thank God for them. Others may choose to peck them out of service on behalf of Planned Parenthood, but they’ll have to do it without me.
This reminds me of a scene in GONE WITH THE WIND: Belle the ‘business woman’ (READ: Madam) wanted to donate money for the cause during the Civil War. Her money was refused because of who she was/how she earned her money. Post Civil War: she met secretly with Melanie Wilkes who wanted to call on her to thank her for ‘saving’ her husband when he and a group of men were ‘cleaning out the undesirables outside of Atlanta. Melanie had wanted to call on Belle to thank her her for her kindness. Belle came to her–said it would ruin Melanie’s reputation to be seen with a woman like Belle.
Anyway, the drift here is: do we refuse help (however ill-intentioned/good intentioned it might be) from those with whom we morally disagree? If yes, then refuse quietly–don’t let the opposition carry the day. Move on….
I have wondered this: how many of us do the due diligence to check on the support of PP and similar organizations that corporations support and boycott these very same corporations/companies and their products? That would be a very powerful boycott!