Merlyn_LeRoy 72 Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 Do you not think your constitutional rights as an atheist are in jeopardy' date=' Merlyn?[/quote'] Not seriously, no. Why do you not feel that mine are not as well? I wasn't referring to your rights as an individual; I was referring to how you apparently consider people and corporations, when they stop giving money to the BSA to be somehow threatening the protection of someone's rights. It isn't. It's people refusing to give the BSA money. Link to post Share on other sites
qwazse 4342 Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 ... It's people refusing to give the BSA money. ... What makes this, and the Disney case, more interesting is that it's people refusing to allow equal stewardship of a corporate charitable trust. On one level that makes perfect sense. Carnegie said, "I'm building libraries." And, in the day no purchaser would say, "I'll buy from your competitor unless you build wildlife preserves instead." A corporate trust would pick it's charities, the consumer would have little say, and that would be that. If they happened to pick a charity that tugged at a consumer's heart strings, they could maybe buy a little good will while the executives jockeyed for golden parachutes. On another level, Amazon promotes itself as "the merchant of everything", so showing it can manage a charitable trust as broad as its customers' interests is merely an extension of that model. The problem is, every customer is bound to be offended by at least one of the interests of some other customer. Of course, BSA blogging about Amazon Smile, as it does about every large revenue source, made it easy for those who oppose its policies to pick their next "soft target." What makes this really interesting: the core business of the corporation is not a focus of attack. For example, Amazon was never petitioned to cease vending What is Marriage?: Man and Woman: A Defense.* Because there is this sense that doing so would smack of limiting commerce as well as freedom of expression. Moving to curb corporate charity, on the other hand, is seen as the ideal field in which to fight a crusade. *P.S. - One of the authors is a relative, so pardon the shameless plug. Link to post Share on other sites
JasonG172 244 Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 I am so frustrated with these groups, if it isnt the Gay LBGT then its the Atheist Groups Link to post Share on other sites
Merlyn_LeRoy 72 Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 What makes this, and the Disney case, more interesting is that it's people refusing to allow equal stewardship of a corporate charitable trust. As far as I've seen, the recent corporate cut-offs are due to corporations finally following their own published policies on qualified charities, instead of ignoring their own existing nondiscrimination requirements on sexual orientation and religion. I am so frustrated with these groups, if it isnt the Gay LBGT then its the Atheist Groups Yeah, well, that's what the BSA gets for everything they've done against gays and atheists. Link to post Share on other sites
Stosh 3452 Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 Every individual discriminates in one form or another as do groups. Get over it. Disney discriminates against BSA, BSA discriminates against atheists and homosexual leaders. So everything negative said about BSA can correctly be leveled against Disney. If someone or group doesn't want to contribute to BSA, no problem. If someone or group wants to boycott Disney, no problem. Everyone who buys local and only products "Made in America" are not bigots and members of any hate group against foreigners. Of course there are those out there that would like you to think that. Stosh Link to post Share on other sites
qwazse 4342 Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 ... I am so frustrated with these groups' date=' if it isnt the Gay LBGT then its the Atheist Groups[/i'] Yeah, well, that's what the BSA gets for everything they've done against gays and atheists. ... And girls. Please, everyone, don't forget the girls! Link to post Share on other sites
Merlyn_LeRoy 72 Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 Every individual discriminates in one form or another as do groups. Get over it. What would we do without equivocation? Hey, there's no reason to protest whites-only clubs anymore, all discrimination is interchangeable. Disney discriminates against BSA' date=' BSA discriminates against atheists and homosexual leaders. So everything negative said about BSA can correctly be leveled against Disney.[/quote'] Yep, and Disney is the same as the KKK, since they both discriminate, and all discrimination is interchangeable. Everyone who buys local and only products "Made in America" are not bigots and members of any hate group against foreigners. Of course there are those out there that would like you to think that. Your equivocation fails you here. The way you've stated it, anyone who buys local and only products "Made in America" cannot be a member of any hate group against foreigners. I say it's possible for someone who buys local and only products "Made in America" to be a member of a hate group against foreigners, as these acts are not mutually exclusive. But what's wrong with being a member of a hate group against foreigners? Isn't all discrimination interchangeable? Link to post Share on other sites
Stosh 3452 Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 What would we do without equivocation? Hey, there's no reason to protest whites-only clubs anymore, all discrimination is interchangeable. Okay, so I'm assuming you are actively engaged in going after the Sons of Norway, Sons of Union Veterans, etc.? Yep, and Disney is the same as the KKK, since they both discriminate, and all discrimination is interchangeable. Yep, we finally agree on something. Omission of information, white lies, flat out lies, half-truths, are all the same in the eyes of the law. Only political bigots and hypocrites draw spin definition distinctions. Your equivocation fails you here. The way you've stated it, anyone who buys local and only products "Made in America" cannot be a member of any hate group against foreigners. I say it's possible for someone who buys local and only products "Made in America" to be a member of a hate group against foreigners, as these acts are not mutually exclusive. But what's wrong with being a member of a hate group against foreigners? Isn't all discrimination interchangeable? As I have stated before, discrimination does not automatically mean hate as so many rush to point out as you have as well. All it means is people are awaree of differences and make personal allowances for it. That freedom of choice is a constitutionally protected right. Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness. You pick your friends, you pick where you live, you pick what activities you participate in, you pick what religion you wish to follow, etc. Just because I DON'T pick something doesn't make me evil incarnate. "But what's wrong with being...." So now you are into judgmental distinctions. Eventually, you will be able to spin the conclusion that because I think in a certain way, I'm am evil incarnate. Fortunately, I don't think anyone other than you need to worry about what you deem right and wrong. I for one don't lay awake nights worrying about what you think is right or wrong. Stosh 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Merlyn_LeRoy 72 Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 Okay' date=' so I'm assuming you are actively engaged in going after the Sons of Norway, Sons of Union Veterans, etc.?[/quote'] Why? They haven't defrauded public schools. As I have stated before' date=' discrimination does not automatically mean hate as so many rush to point out as you have as well.[/quote'] I don't know why people would point that out to me, as I've never said discrimination automatically means hate. All it means is people are awaree of differences and make personal allowances for it. I disagree that that is ALL it means. It certainly can be due to hatred. Eventually' date=' you will be able to spin the conclusion that because I think in a certain way, I'm am evil incarnate.[/quote'] No, that's just you lying about what I "would" do. Link to post Share on other sites
TAHAWK 1420 Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 I hope we can distinguish between statements that we think are wrong and "lying." Let's say BSA decided to officially tolerate atheists as members - anyone who cannot honestly take the Oath or subscribe to the Law. Would these Scouts take a different Oath and recite a different Law? That seems problematic, at least to me, on several levels. According to my understanding, discrimination is largely lawful and ethical. Discrimination on the basis of prejudice is sometimes unlawful, sometimes unethical, and usually irrational. Prejudice against people of color is our national classic example of prejudice (In prejudice against the "different" we are hardly alone. ) Those who feel that some sort of spirituality is essential to Scouting can, and I suspect almost always do, discriminate against Atheists not because of prejudice - some overgeneralized assumption about what all Atheists believe -- but because of what Atheists actually say about what they actually believe - and do not believe. Link to post Share on other sites
Merlyn_LeRoy 72 Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 I hope we can distinguish between statements that we think are wrong and "lying." Whenever anyone tells me what I think before I've given my opinion on a subject, or tells me what I would do in some situation that I likewise haven't referred to, and get it wrong, I tell them that they're lying. Because that's exactly what they're doing. I've done it before in this forum. Let's say BSA decided to officially tolerate atheists as members - anyone who cannot honestly take the Oath or subscribe to the Law. Would these Scouts take a different Oath and recite a different Law? That seems problematic' date=' at least to me, on several levels.[/quote'] That's what they do in the UK now. Link to post Share on other sites
AZMike 173 Posted May 22, 2014 Author Share Posted May 22, 2014 Another proud scout who wants to hurt the organization in order to help the organization, or destroy the village in order to save it, or something: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/local-teen-calls-on-amazon-to-end-support-for-boy-scouts-over-policy-on-gay-leaders/2014/05/19/0620ee48-df74-11e3-810f-764fe508b82d_story.html Link to post Share on other sites
Peregrinator 85 Posted May 23, 2014 Share Posted May 23, 2014 I’m trying to change a fine point in their policy. We’re not trying to break it down or influence the gay agenda. We’re trying to make it a better place where everyone can feel safe. What does that even mean? Link to post Share on other sites
chrisking0997 35 Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 What does that even mean? not sure, but from what I can tell it has nothing to do with the goal of getting Amazon to remove BSA from their list. Unless, somehow someway somebody feels unsafe by the choice of donating money to scouting. Link to post Share on other sites
qwazse 4342 Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 ... Unless' date=' somehow someway somebody feels unsafe by the choice of donating money to scouting. ...[/quote'] Safety: I think, for this young man means that one doesn't lose standing with a prestigious organization just because one's personal ideals and lifestyles, although sanctioned in society at large, are deemed unacceptable to leading members of the organization. It could also mean to imply that, by the organization rejecting particular ideals and life-choices sanctioned by society at large, members and admirers of the organization are more likely to harass and abuse those who adhere to said ideals and lifestyles. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now