So I figure the best thing to do is to check the wikipedia article out that talks about the controversies. Pretty much the first thing that comes up is that they don't allow atheists or homosexuals to be members. Honestly, that is enough for me, that reason alone would keep me from giving them any of my money, I don't want to support a bigoted organization in any way. This is the part where I am glad to have been contacted and I am glad to contribute, apparently the boy scouts sell Christmas trees all over the place. So if you are going to buy a Christmas tree, buy it from someone other than the boy scouts. Don't give money to a bigoted organization.
That's pretty much all I had, so I thought to myself "how can I spice this up a little? Oh I know, add some math puns!" It turned out pretty cringe-worthy, but it made me laugh anyway so I figured I'd share.
1. The boy scouts need to integrate.
Since they don't allow some people to be members, the English meaning of this applies perfectly. But the math meaning works too. You might know that the integral of a function f(x) is the area under the curve. But you can also use the integral to make a new function g(x)=∫x0f(s)ds which is the area under the curve so far. Wake up! The point is, the new function is a smoothed out function, See it in action below, the red function is the original function, and the blue one is it's integral. By integrating, we have gotten rid of the rough edges, and that's exactly what the boy scouts need to do.
As terrible as that was, it was really all I had that worked, I had a couple of other ideas that never really went anywhere. There's a normal subgroup, which is a group that is invariant under conjugation. So if you move it around the larger group it can get back where it started unchanged, can I use that? Are boy scouts the larger group and a subgroup within them is normal? Is society the larger group and the boy scouts the normal subgroup, that's the opposite of the joke I want. No good there. There's ideals in ring theory, but they have the same problem. I guess I could do something with lie theory, except it's pronounced lee, not lie, so any puns based on them being liars would bother me. I could try to do something with Christmas trees as mathematical trees, which are simple graphs with no loops, but how do I bring that back to the boy scouts? Shit.
Oh well, can't win 'em all.
Other people who are blogging about boy scouts today: (let's do reverse alpha sort)
skeptically left
Rippere, Always Evolving
Reason Being
Ramblings of Sheldon
My Humorous Agenda
Martin Pribble
Left Hemispheres
Laughing in Purgatory
Kriss the Sexy Atheist
Incredulous
Incongruous Elements
Friendly Atheist
Emily Has Books
Dispatches from the Culture Wars
Deity Shmeity
Deep Thoughts
Debunking Christianity
De Avanzada
Daylight Atheism
Dangerous Talk
Camels with Hammers
Bitchspot
Barrel of Oranges
Avante Garde
Atheist Revolution
Atheist Pig
Atheist, Intermarried
Arizona Atheist
A Voice of Reason
It's a shame that you didn't do more research.
ReplyDeleteIf you had, then you would have learned that the BSA national organization doesn't sell Christmas Trees. So when you see scouts out selling trees, that is just a local thing. 100% of that money goes to support those kids trying to go to camp or do service in your neighborhood. Not a dime goes to the BSA national organization that you feel is bigoted. In fact, many of those boys and their parents might agree with you, but they don't get a vote in the BSA's policies.
So if you really want to support change in the Boy Scouts, do your research. Depriving kids of experience with the outdoors only makes them less likely to be supportive of environmentalism in the future. Find a way to actually affect the BSA national organization instead of the kids.
supporting the local organization inherently supports the national organization. If those kids agree with me then they shouldn't want to be part of a bigoted organization. You can do camping and service without being part of BSA.
DeleteI would add that by not speaking out against the organization you are a part of doing awful things, it's almost like you are saying that you don't have a problem with those practices. People might be against it in an individual level, but if no one is challenging the authority from within then they probably just assume that their members don't really care.
DeleteCome now, surely we can be more rational than that.
ReplyDeleteIs it truly necessary for every individual to speak out against (or quit) any time any organization they might be a part of does something they personally feel is wrong? In that case, what are we all doing still living in America? Certainly none of us should be employed.
What you propose would leave us with a society of survivalists, all shunning each other on mountain tops. Being denied an opportunity to go camping with kids wearing goofy looking uniforms who want to swear an allegiance to God and Country hardly seems worth the fuss.
Besides, I know many scouts and families who are indeed actively voicing their opinions in opposition to the BSA's policies. Those are the people your Christmas Tree boycott would defund, not the bigwigs in Texas.
"What are we still doing in America?"
ReplyDeleteYou have a point, however, on election day, I made my voice heard and I vote. When a bill comes up that I think is important, I will write to my congressman. I also wouldn't work for a company if I thought that they were doing morally reprehensible things. If I worked for a company that was dumping sewage in the local river, I would report them. I try to rely on my conscience to make decisions.
I think it's a slippery slope you propose when you say that we'd all be a society of survivalists and that we'd all shun each other. I believe that when someone is doing something we find to be awful, we should point it out and discuss it. I don't think anyone is going out and shunning individual boy scouts. People are standing up to the organization's leaders. I've heard the same arguments in defense of the Catholic Church's inaction against preventing child molesting by some priests. "You are just attacking Catholics." Just ridiculous. The church doesn't have enough people from within standing up to what they've been doing, so they don't persue action until they absolutely have too.
I was a cub scout as a child and went up to boy scouts, but didn't continue due to changing schools districts in High School. I enjoyed it for the most part and think it's a great experience for a kid. Part of the boy scout law says that you should be "helpful, friendly, courteous and kind." It just seems so hypocritical to exclude one group of people based on what they don't believe, and another by the way they were born. I hope that an all inclusive organization pops up. If one does, I will be happy to support them.
As a private organization, they are free to do whatever they want. I just choose to not support them.
Just my two cents.
Good heavens, I would certainly not be making the same argument as those who defended the Catholic Church's prelates. What I'm suggesting is more along the lines that defunding Catholic Charities, which is an important lifeline for the poor in many areas, is not a very good way to express displeasure with the prelates.
DeleteSimply put, boycotting Christmas trees is not "standing up to the organization's leaders" at all. It doesn't affect them in the least.
You certainly should spend your money wherever you're comfortable. It's a slightly different choice to go out and encourage a boycott, though. One is just a personal preference; the other is a choice to try to coerce another with economic force. I'm simply suggesting that the target of such force in this case is poorly chosen.
You mention the catholic charities, I wouldn't give them a dime either. Whatever good is done at the local level can be done through other charities which are not associated with an organization that I find abhorrent.
DeleteAs for the boy scouts, it would be nice to be able to help the kids without also supporting the national organization, but I don't see how that is possible. Supporting the local inherently supports the national. And by the way, the fact that they do help kids makes their discrimination all the worse.
"Being denied an opportunity to go camping with kids wearing goofy looking uniforms who want to swear an allegiance to God and Country hardly seems worth the fuss."
I've seen this type of argument on other bloggers posts on this topic, it seems a bit much to claim we are taking away those kid's ability to go camping. You can go camping without the boy scouts, hell, if you are gay or an atheist you have to.
Alas, there's very little that can be said to that. It's been the mantra of regressive thought for millenia. I refuse to associate with those people no matter what good they're doing. Jews, Moors, Blacks, Atheists, Religious. More recently the Tea Party: whatever good is done by the guvmint can be done by private organizations that I don't find abhorrent.
DeleteYour approach is in line with the modern Catholic position, sadly. No matter the millions who can be helped by health care reform, we won't have any part of it even if a tiny fraction of it goes toward birth control by non-Catholics. No matter any of the good done by millions of volunteers for more millions of kids, I won't have any part of it if some tiny fraction goes to overpaid twats of BSA executives (who don't actually set the policy either).
Really?
One wonders that you are able to buy internet service (supporting corporations colluding in Patriot Act surveillance), or gasoline for your car.
Even if you really felt that boycotting was a proper course, I would humbly suggest that a more productive approach would be to look to who is on the BSA's board, and boycott those corporations, rather than the little kid who just wants to go camping and earn his Geology merit badge.
not buying their christmas trees is hardly the same as refusing to associate with them.
Delete"Good heavens, I would certainly not be making the same argument as those who defended the Catholic Church's prelates. What I'm suggesting is more along the lines that defunding Catholic Charities, which is an important lifeline for the poor in many areas, is not a very good way to express displeasure with the prelates."
ReplyDeleteThe problem I've had in the past with christian, not dismissing the good work they do, is that often they have strings attached. At my last job I did case management with people with mental health issues, many of them homeless. The only homeless shelter in the area, which was an hour away, only kept people on the condition that they attended church services. I don't think its right to hold a sandwich hostage from someone who is hungry until they pray. If a Muslim community soup kitchen or shelter opened up that only let people stay on the condition of praying five times a day, Christians would be going nuts.
"Alas, there's very little that can be said to that. It's been the mantra of regressive thought for millenia. I refuse to associate with those people no matter what good they're doing. Jews, Moors, Blacks, Atheists, Religious. More recently the Tea Party: whatever good is done by the guvmint can be done by private organizations that I don't find abhorrent."
This is a straw man and kind of a red herring. It's great when these organizations do good, but any organization that does bad things should be called out. It doesn't dismiss the wrong that they did. I'm sure Jeffery Dahmer was a sweet boy to his mother. Does that excuse what he did? Hell no!
You also make it sound like the children are being attacked. I haven't heard of anyone, to my knowledge that is directly insulting the children. They are a private organization and can discriminate all they want. They could exclude African americans. While I would find that as equally disgusting as the current discrimination, that would be their business. The problem is that they are allowed to use government property like schools to hold their meetings. Those are my tax dollars at work. I could care less if they want to hold those meetings at someone's house. That's fine.
"I don't think its right to hold a sandwich hostage from someone who is hungry until they pray."
ReplyDeleteAs a Christian, I would agree. Now, to be fair to the Salvation Army, that practice got started back when they were dealing with a lot of alcoholics and others who had lost a sense of purpose in depression. It was intended as a way to begin them on a road to recovery. Not an irrational approach by any means, given the psychology of addiction and depression.
For the rest, I think you misunderstood the point I was trying to make, for which I will ask your tolerance and forgiveness. I should be better at explaining.
I'm suggesting that perhaps not everything has to be as black and white as you would make out. It should be possible for us to treat the child in front of us as a child who just wants to sell a tree to make someone happy and to get a few bucks to go camping. It should be possible for us to respond as a fellow human being to that child's intent, without getting all wrapped up in his group membership.
The argument you have is not with that boy, it's with a few dozen corporate board members in Texas. We should be able to make that distinction rather than lumping them into one group to shun.
When it comes to groups, I'm also suggesting that perhaps for most things it's possible to not be judgmental in a single-issue way. I don't know about you, but there isn't any organization that I'm a part of with which I agree on all points. Each has its failings and failures; and I expect in their eyes I have my failings and failures. Perhaps we can be part of communities and support each other without always agreeing on all points.
I do not agree with an atheist perspective, but I would have no problem with an atheist group meeting on public school grounds supported by my tax dollars. Public lands should err on the side of openness to multiple perspectives. I would not wish my atheist neighbors be confined to their houses when they expressed or shared their beliefs.
Why would you wish such things on others?
"I don't know about you, but there isn't any organization that I'm a part of with which I agree on all points."
DeleteThat's true, but there are a few issues which will keep me from supporting an organization. I absolutely will not let my money go toward an organization that is bigoted. I'm sure that the kids are not bigoted (for the most part), but they are part of a bigoted organization. If they want my money, they can lobby their leaders to change.
"I would not wish my atheist neighbors be confined to their houses when they expressed or shared their beliefs.
Why would you wish such things on others?"
what are you talking about? No one says people should be confined to their homes, govt resources just shouldn't go toward a private organization like this. Ed Brayton's article on this has more details
"I could care less if they want to hold those meetings at someone's house. That's fine. "
DeleteIn other words, people can express their views or engage in their right of free association only if it's done in their homes. They should not be allowed to use the public facilities financed by their own tax dollars.
If our threshold for the use of public, shared facilities is that they can only be used when no one else objects to "their tax dollars" being used in that way, then we will have no public spaces. Christians will object to atheists and vice versa, environmentalists to big industry, democrats to republicans, cats to dogs.
Trying to force people of one belief out of public facilities to confine their ideas and practices to their homes is just a form of coercion. It's the sort of thinking that led to Jewish ghettos in the middle ages. You can be here, as long as none of the rest of us have to see you.
If your ideas are better, convince people of that. Don't attempt to ban them from the public square that we all share.
As for the rest, organizations are not bigoted, people are. Organizations are just places where different people come together for a shared purpose. Sometimes we disagree with that purpose, like instilling the values of the Scout Oath. That's fine, and a personal choice.
It's a different thing, though, when we incite others to boycott or shun a group of people. That is no longer just a personal choice, it is a choice to try to coerce the other group to convert to your beliefs, or to harm. I'm not sure we ever want to be advocates of forced conversion.
The problem isn't so much that they are using the govt property at all, it is that they are getting preferential treatment. If any other group had the exact same access as anyone else that would be fine. If any other group could pay the same price to rent the space, or jump through whatever paperwork hoops are necessary to have the same kind of access to the same public facilities then there would not be a problem on that front. It is not equal, other groups could not do the same thing as the BSA, they get preferential treatment. Level the playing field and the problem goes away. Would you be happy if the government payed $8million for a party for the secular student alliance? I'm guessing no.
Delete"organizations are not bigoted, people are"
This organization has bigoted policies, hence it will not get a dime of my money.
"we incite others to boycott or shun a group of people. That is no longer just a personal choice, it is a choice to try to coerce"
How is this coercive? We made a statement that the boy scouts are a bigoted organization and gave our reasons. We also said that given these reasons we are not going to give them money and we urge anyone who agrees with us to join in. Don't agree with me? Go buy 100 trees, be my guest.
You don't think that economic pressure is coercive? If you were to tell all your friends and neighbors to boycott a small business so as to deprive a family of its livelihood, that's not coercive? That was a common enough tactic with black businesses in the civil rights era.
ReplyDeleteWith respect to all of the public parks or lands I have ever used, the same facilities are open to all youth groups. Of course, like any business, some preference is going to be given to the largest customers. A group willing to book an entire facility for years in advance is a customer worth holding on to. A group willing to build and maintain an entire facility in exchange for free use of it for three months a year is great deal that serves a legitimate secular purpose, because everyone else benefits for the remaining 9 months.
I would be simply delighted with the military spending $8 million for a training exercise which also assisted the secular student alliance's party every four years, if the secular student alliance was an excellent recruiting opportunity for the military which typically resulted in a disproportionately high level of high-quality enlistments. I think it would be a steal of a deal if the secular student alliance also spent years training those students to backpack and camp and improvise shelter and handle firearms. It would save me far more than $8 million in screening and training costs.
So would you argue that boycotts are inherently coercive? No matter the situation it's wrong to vote with your wallet and refuse to support an organization who has beliefs that are wildly offensive to you?
DeleteThis seems like a crazy position to take, as voting with your wallet seems to be one of the simplest things a regular person can do. If a place you like to shop turned out to be owned by a person who was horribly racist, would it be wrong for you to stop shopping there? What if he wasn't just racist, but he donated a lot of his extra money to racist organizations, would it then be okay for you to stop shopping there as you don't want any of your money to support those groups? Would it be wrong for you to also tell your friends to stop shopping there?
Of course boycotts are coercive.
ReplyDeleteAre there times when coercion or more direct force are called for? It depends on your personal values, of course. While I do respect the Quaker tradition, I think we can allow for the use of force in limited circumstances when necessary to prevent a worse ill, and when collateral damage on innocent people is strictly limited.
On that basis, this proposed boycott doesn't pass muster. It targets the innocent, rather than the board members making the decisions you find ill.
I think as well that I'm uncomfortable with coercion to get another person or group to change their beliefs. Forced conversion is hard to sanction on any grounds. If you want to get people to change their beliefs, the proper action is to persuade them through friendship, example, and argument.
There's an elderly couple that lives across the street from me. Old-school racists; they just grew up in that environment. I shovel their snow in the winter as an act of kindness to two elderly neighbors who otherwise would have difficulty.
I suppose one might argue that by doing that I'm freeing up their time and money to pursue racist stuff. To my mind, I'm just being neighborly, and offering an example of kindness which is far more likely to change their mind than if I were to shun them.
Each case must be evaluated fairly and rationally according to the circumstances, of course. All I am suggesting is that in this particular case, a boycott of local scouts selling Christmas trees is ill-advised.