Boy Scouts ditched by popular singers for being homophobic.

Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15762
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Boy Scouts ditched by popular singers for being homophobic.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline

Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I've been happy reading

I've been happy reading about this. They advertise to kids that entertainment is coming then have to explain why it isn't.
Unfortunately the BSA's response was simply "everyone's entitled to an opinion". Ignoring the fact they are being oppressive, not merely opinionated. It'll be awhile yet before they change.
But not too long. They are losing sponsorships and members. They have to change or die.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15762
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:I've been happy

Vastet wrote:
I've been happy reading about this. They advertise to kids that entertainment is coming then have to explain why it isn't. Unfortunately the BSA's response was simply "everyone's entitled to an opinion". Ignoring the fact they are being oppressive, not merely opinionated. It'll be awhile yet before they change. But not too long. They are losing sponsorships and members. They have to change or die.

Yep.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
  I like the band Train ,

  I like the band Train , never heard of the other singer, though.  If they want to boycott the BSA then let them, who cares ?  

I'm tired of political grandstanding about the BSA.  If these critics really were just looking for a scouting organization that didn't exclude gays, atheists etc all they have to do is join an organization called Scouting For All.  www.scoutingforall.org

 

  I believe that all groups should be able to discriminate based upon their personal beliefs, identities, etc.   If someone wanted to establish a pro-atheist organization that excluded theists from its membership then they should do it without interference.  If someone wanted to establish a pro gay rights organization that excluded all non-gays then they should be allowed to do it.  

  Hell, there are plenty of gyms that only offer memberships to women simply because there exists a market for women who don't want to work out with men around.   I'm a man and it doesn't bother me at all that these women would prefer such a workout environment.   My girlfriend was a member of such an establishment, it didn't hurt my feelings nor should it.

 

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:  I

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

  I like the band Train , never heard of the other singer, though.  If they want to boycott the BSA then let them, who cares ?  

I'm tired of political grandstanding about the BSA.  If these critics really were just looking for a scouting organization that didn't exclude gays, atheists etc all they have to do is join an organization called Scouting For All.  www.scoutingforall.org

 

  I believe that all groups should be able to discriminate based upon their personal beliefs, identities, etc.   If someone wanted to establish a pro-atheist organization that excluded theists from its membership then they should do it without interference.  If someone wanted to establish a pro gay rights organization that excluded all non-gays then they should be allowed to do it.  

  Hell, there are plenty of gyms that only offer memberships to women simply because there exists a market for women who don't want to work out with men.   I'm a man and it doesn't bother me at all that these women would prefer such a workout environment.   My girlfriend was a member of such an establishment, it didn't hurt my feelings nor should it.

 

 

Agree 100%.

I do think it is kind of shitty for the musicians to agree and then back out though, it isn't like the BSA's discriminatory policies is something new that we just discovered. If they don't want to be associated with it they never should have agreed to do it in the first place. I think it speaks more that this isn't a case of these artists being political idealists defending gay rights, more that they got a bunch of petitions and thought that pulling out would upset fewer fans than performing.   

For other non-discriminatory scouting organizations you have 

 

www.campfire.org

www.bgca.org

www.fourhcouncil.edu

http://bpsa-us.org/

http://www.yar.org/

http://www.jfwa.ca/

http://navigatorsusa.org/

The great thing about freedom of association is that people can be as inclusive or discriminatory as they desire and the result is a wide range of organizations that cater to peoples various preferences. If BSA remains discriminatory, their membership will drop if current trends continue and they will either change, or become a much smaller organization catering to a smaller bigoted part of the population. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
  Yes, freedom of

  Yes, freedom of association is the term I was just reading about.   People should be able to associate or not associate based upon their personal beliefs, if others don't like it then let them start their own group that embodies their own beliefs and stop trying to morph everyone into an amalgamated blob where no one is allowed to be themselves or live their lives as they choose. 

  Really, should MENSA be forced to allow people without genius IQ's to enter into their elite status ?

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
The BSA isn't just some club

The BSA isn't just some club for people to hang out in. It has had federal support. It is considered a national educational institution of repute. It has no business discriminating.
It is an independent organisation, and therefore is allowed to, and it does, and it is starting to pay the price. Nothing wrong with any of it, legally speaking. If you want to be a bigot then you have to face the consequences when you can't do what you want because you've alienated other commercial entities who exclude you the same way you exclude others. Whether the celebrities are bowing to pressure or even set the whole thing up just to make a point later, they are as much within their rights as the BSA is.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:The BSA isn't

Vastet wrote:
The BSA isn't just some club for people to hang out in. It has had federal support. It is considered a national educational institution of repute. It has no business discriminating. It is an independent organisation, and therefore is allowed to, and it does, and it is starting to pay the price. Nothing wrong with any of it, legally speaking. If you want to be a bigot then you have to face the consequences when you can't do what you want because you've alienated other commercial entities who exclude you the same way you exclude others. Whether the celebrities are bowing to pressure or even set the whole thing up just to make a point later, they are as much within their rights as the BSA is.

You won't find me arguing against cutting funding. I don't think the government has any role funding any organization. Unfortunately, modern American politics means that money is spewed everywhere without control and any organization that wants some is going to get it ranging from the Cowboy Poetry Festival to Planned Parenthood to Focus on the Family to Acorn to BSA and everything in between. It really isn't even noticeable to point out that a particular national group is receiving federal funding either directly or indirectly- what would be extraordinary would be to point out a national sized organization that doesn't receive a dime of federal funding. We should cut funding to all of them and allow them to sink or swim on their own. Unfortunately, that is never going to happen. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Lol. Scouts Canada

Lol.

Scouts Canada reaffirms gay members welcome, invites Jepsen to their jamboree

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/scouts-canada-reaffirms-gay-members-welcome-invites-jepsen-to-their-jamboree-1.1184446

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: You

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

You won't find me arguing against cutting funding. I don't think the government has any role funding any organization. Unfortunately, modern American politics means that money is spewed everywhere without control and any organization that wants some is going to get it ranging from the Cowboy Poetry Festival to Planned Parenthood to Focus on the Family to Acorn to BSA and everything in between. It really isn't even noticeable to point out that a particular national group is receiving federal funding either directly or indirectly- what would be extraordinary would be to point out a national sized organization that doesn't receive a dime of federal funding. We should cut funding to all of them and allow them to sink or swim on their own. Unfortunately, that is never going to happen. 

   The US government uses its funding as a form of extortion.

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:If you want to

Vastet wrote:
If you want to be a bigot...

  I am quite bigoted towards Abrahamic religions, ...no apologies will be forthcoming.

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Considering they were bigots

Considering they were bigots first, that's the exact same response the BSA has engendered.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Everyone is a bigot toward

Everyone is a bigot toward people or institutions they disagree with.  Embrace your inner bigot.

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Everyone is a bigot toward people or institutions they disagree with.  Embrace your inner bigot.

I disagree with your opinion but that doesn't make me a bigot.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:I

digitalbeachbum wrote:

I disagree with your opinion but that doesn't make me a bigot.

 

   Perhaps "disagreeing" sets the bar too low.  Do you feel prejudiced against theists based upon their beliefs and practices ?  I do.  That is a type of bigotry.

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

I disagree with your opinion but that doesn't make me a bigot.

 

   Perhaps "disagreeing" sets the bar too low.  Do you feel prejudiced against theists based upon their beliefs and practices ?  I do.  That is a type of bigotry.

No prejudice against them or their practices.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15762
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum

digitalbeachbum wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

I disagree with your opinion but that doesn't make me a bigot.

 

   Perhaps "disagreeing" sets the bar too low.  Do you feel prejudiced against theists based upon their beliefs and practices ?  I do.  That is a type of bigotry.

No prejudice against them or their practices.

I think we should be careful with words and context here. I get what you are saying, but do not say you don't have a bias to a position, everyone does, they do and we do. The only real argument is who has the objective evidence outside personal bias that can be universally demonstrated.

To say you don't have prejudice against them would be false. What you mean is that you value their human rights. But that is not the same as valuing everything a person might utter on any given subject. Have you agreed with everything I have ever posted here?

 

I have prejudice against naked assertions. I don't see why it would be wrong to hate claims ON ANY SUBJECT, when the claim is unfounded and unproven. That is not the same as being bigoted.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:I think we

Brian37 wrote:

I think we should be careful with words and context here. I get what you are saying, but do not say you don't have a bias to a position, everyone does, they do and we do. The only real argument is who has the objective evidence outside personal bias that can be universally demonstrated.

To say you don't have prejudice against them would be false. What you mean is that you value their human rights. But that is not the same as valuing everything a person might utter on any given subject. Have you agreed with everything I have ever posted here?

 

I have prejudice against naked assertions. I don't see why it would be wrong to hate claims ON ANY SUBJECT, when the claim is unfounded and unproven. That is not the same as being bigoted.

Based on the definition of "prejudice" I do not have such opinions against them.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
  The term "bigot",

  The term "bigot", "prejudiced" and even the word "hate" have become very politicized in western culture and are used mostly a pejorative against those who are deemed as being right wing.  That is one usage.  Then there remains the more academic use of the concept.

  I am very bigoted against humanity itself because I find that typical human nature is extremely repugnant to me.  I suppose that means I am prejudiced,  which I freely admit.

 

   digital do you possess any attitudes that you would consider as being prejudiced ?

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15762
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:  The

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

  The term "bigot", "prejudiced" and even the word "hate" have become very politicized in western culture and are used mostly a pejorative against those who are deemed as being right wing.  That is one usage.  Then there remains the more academic use of the concept.

  I am very bigoted against humanity itself because I find that typical human nature is extremely repugnant to me.  I suppose that means I am prejudiced,  which I freely admit.

 

   digital do you possess any attitudes that you would consider as being prejudiced ?

We are a fucked up species, but we can also show compassion and cooperation as well, there is a dark side to our species but I don't think all of it is bad.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:  ....there

Brian37 wrote:

  ....there is a dark side to our species but I don't think all of it is bad.

       We are in agreement regarding the dual aspects of human nature.  Nevertheless,  you and I draw different conclusions regarding the end product and how it should be viewed.

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15762
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

  ....there is a dark side to our species but I don't think all of it is bad.

       We are in agreement regarding the dual aspects of human nature.  Nevertheless,  you and I draw different conclusions regarding the end product and how it should be viewed.

I don't know how more simply I can put it than "It is both and is what it is". But just because bad happens in life does not mean we have to assume that room for improvement cant happen.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: But just

Brian37 wrote:

 But just because bad happens in life does not mean we have to assume that room for improvement cant happen.

 

    Again, I agree with your general premise that there is room for improvement however I have the impression that what you might consider improvement to me would be insignificant.   I fear that the only way that I would relinquish my misanthropic view of humanity would be for there to be an internal reboot of human nature itself and that isn't going to happen.  A wolf is a wolf.

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
We wouldn't want it to

We wouldn't want it to happen. We wouldn't be any more remarkable than cows if not for our capacity for violence, and our extinction would be guaranteed.
Which is not to say that attempting to limit the damage we can do to our own is a bad thing.
Guns will never stop crime. No threat will. The best way to stop crime is a happy, productive, and educated society. Ours is none of these anymore.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
digital do you possess any attitudes that you would consider as being prejudiced ?

For the last 18 years I've been focusing on removing my ego from my life. I have moments when it interferes with a situation but usually I rationalize why I am suffering and I am able to quiet my mind. Sometimes it is very quick and other times it takes longer.

Humans down to the bacteria are all battling the same issues. We fight to stay underwater while we are drowning.

I am often reminded of a tale about a Bodhisattva who came upon a mother tiger and two cubs. There had been a drought and the many deer were gone and the cubs and the mother were dying of starvation. The Bodhisattva saw their suffering as the mother tiger started to circle the Bodhisattva. He realized they were suffering and laid down, baring his throat to the mother tiger.

This story makes sense to me.

Am I prejudice? No.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4198
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote: I am

digitalbeachbum wrote:

 

I am often reminded of a tale about a Bodhisattva who came upon a mother tiger and two cubs. There had been a drought and the many deer were gone and the cubs and the mother were dying of starvation. The Bodhisattva saw their suffering as the mother tiger started to circle the Bodhisattva. He realized they were suffering and laid down, baring his throat to the mother tiger.

 

stories like this are precisely why, were i a practising buddhist, i would almost certainly be a theravadin.  i find the bodhisattva ideal romantic but upon closer examination a dangerous extreme, contrary to the buddha's doctrine of the middle way, that has caused some harm throughout history.  pretty much the only thing i like about mahayana is its scholastic tradition, particularly madhyamika.   

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15762
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

  I like the band Train , never heard of the other singer, though.  If they want to boycott the BSA then let them, who cares ?  

I'm tired of political grandstanding about the BSA.  If these critics really were just looking for a scouting organization that didn't exclude gays, atheists etc all they have to do is join an organization called Scouting For All.  www.scoutingforall.org

 

  I believe that all groups should be able to discriminate based upon their personal beliefs, identities, etc.   If someone wanted to establish a pro-atheist organization that excluded theists from its membership then they should do it without interference.  If someone wanted to establish a pro gay rights organization that excluded all non-gays then they should be allowed to do it.  

  Hell, there are plenty of gyms that only offer memberships to women simply because there exists a market for women who don't want to work out with men.   I'm a man and it doesn't bother me at all that these women would prefer such a workout environment.   My girlfriend was a member of such an establishment, it didn't hurt my feelings nor should it.

 

 

Agree 100%.

I do think it is kind of shitty for the musicians to agree and then back out though, it isn't like the BSA's discriminatory policies is something new that we just discovered. If they don't want to be associated with it they never should have agreed to do it in the first place. I think it speaks more that this isn't a case of these artists being political idealists defending gay rights, more that they got a bunch of petitions and thought that pulling out would upset fewer fans than performing.   

For other non-discriminatory scouting organizations you have 

 

www.campfire.org

www.bgca.org

www.fourhcouncil.edu

http://bpsa-us.org/

http://www.yar.org/

http://www.jfwa.ca/

http://navigatorsusa.org/

The great thing about freedom of association is that people can be as inclusive or discriminatory as they desire and the result is a wide range of organizations that cater to peoples various preferences. If BSA remains discriminatory, their membership will drop if current trends continue and they will either change, or become a much smaller organization catering to a smaller bigoted part of the population. 

Oh my pink unicorn, really? So you'd rather they stick up for homophobia and do the concert? They did the right thing, maybe losing the support will straighten the BSA bigots out.

Life is not the bubble you want it to be. Knowing that those bands were pro gay advocates, you could also ask why did the BSA invite them, are you trying to tell me the BSA didn't know that?

THE BSA is fractured much like the Catholic Church is. It is only the few old schoolers in leadership clinging to the bigotry, if the average members of either had their way the wouldn't be run by nuts. This backing out is sending a message to the leadership that times have changed and they better adapt or die.

Same with the NRA, it isn't controlled by the collective membership, it is controlled by wingnut lobbyists.

And if we are going to go by guilt by association then I shouldn't be a member of this board because I sure as hell hate much of your stances you take.

 

 

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Oh my pink

Brian37 wrote:

Oh my pink unicorn, really? So you'd rather they stick up for homophobia and do the concert? They did the right thing, maybe losing the support will straighten the BSA bigots out.

But why did they agree to do it in the first place? They knew when they initially scheduled the concert that BSA was homophobic. I just think as a general rule a person should be honest and when they say they are going to do something, they should do it. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

Life is not the bubble you want it to be. Knowing that those bands were pro gay advocates, you could also ask why did the BSA invite them, are you trying to tell me the BSA didn't know that?

Because the BSA doesn't care what their political beliefs are, they discriminate against homosexuals not against political positions. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

THE BSA is fractured much like the Catholic Church is. It is only the few old schoolers in leadership clinging to the bigotry, if the average members of either had their way the wouldn't be run by nuts. This backing out is sending a message to the leadership that times have changed and they better adapt or die.

I am not in any position to know one way or the other as I don't think I even know anyone who is part of the group. I thought the members had the power to elect the leaders, am I wrong in that belief? 

 

Brian37 wrote:

Same with the NRA, it isn't controlled by the collective membership, it is controlled by wingnut lobbyists.

I know the NRA is controlled by the membership, I used to be a member and have voted in the elections for people to the board which in turn elects the President. I have since left the NRA because I do not agree with everything they do. Anyone who has been a member for 5 consecutive years or who pays for a high level membership ($1000+ I think) gets a vote, the ballot comes with the magazine. Very few of the eligible members bother to vote. If they are so upset with leadership, they should vote or leave.   

 

Brian37 wrote:

And if we are going to go by guilt by association then I shouldn't be a member of this board because I sure as hell hate much of your stances you take.

I think who you choose to associate with says a lot about you. If this site ever started actively censoring people I would cancel my membership in a heartbeat. I am a member here because I value the ideals of free speech and free debate. Very few forums on the internet allow speech to be as unrestricted as it is here. I also think it is quite obvious that being associated with RRS does not imply support for any political position since RRS is officially neutral and even the mods and core members have had extremely different political views.   

I fail to see the logic of associating with a private organization that has practices you find extremely objectionable. I would not associate with BSA because I don't want to be around that kind of bigot. I fully support your right to associate or not associate with them as you see fit. I think it makes a lot more sense to simply choose not to associate with them rather than get all upset at an organization and try to force them to change. If they want to be bigots, let them be bigots. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15762
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Yea so since I am talking to

Yea so since I am talking to you I must hate myself then too. Gotcha, guilt by association works. Ok, so since the Vatican still condemns homosexuality officially then I have to disown my Catholic mother.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Yea so since I

Brian37 wrote:

Yea so since I am talking to you I must hate myself then too. Gotcha, guilt by association works. Ok, so since the Vatican still condemns homosexuality officially then I have to disown my Catholic mother.

No, but you probably shouldn't be a member of the Catholic church if that is important to you. Where did I ever suggest you should shun people because of their political views? I just suggested that you should choose which associations you belong to based on your beliefs. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Meh, I don't see any reason

Meh, I don't see any reason that the two groups had to know about BSA policies. The average person thinks mother theresa was a saint, that peta does good things, and that all members of bin ladens family are terrorists.
I didn't know about the BSA until the last few years. I imagine the ones most likely to find out are those who get booted for being gay. I doubt very much that the BSA actually sets assemblies to inform all the scouts that their friend got the boot for being gay.
I find it perfectly conceivable that the groups were informed after accepting the contract.
That said, the opposite is still a possibility.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Meh, I don't

Vastet wrote:
Meh, I don't see any reason that the two groups had to know about BSA policies. The average person thinks mother theresa was a saint, that peta does good things, and that all members of bin ladens family are terrorists. I didn't know about the BSA until the last few years. I imagine the ones most likely to find out are those who get booted for being gay. I doubt very much that the BSA actually sets assemblies to inform all the scouts that their friend got the boot for being gay. I find it perfectly conceivable that the groups were informed after accepting the contract. That said, the opposite is still a possibility.

10 years ago certainly. I suppose it is possible that the artists have been living in a bubble and were somehow completely unaware but the BSA has been making headline news over the issue for the last 5 years or so. Maybe I am giving them too much credit. Sometimes I assume people are less ignorant than they actually are, something the internet probably should have cured but I still persist in giving people too much credit.  We all have our pet irrationalities.

Although if I was going to bet on it, I would still put my money on them not giving a shit about BSA's anti-gay stance until fans started sending them hate mail. I think very few musicians care who they perform in front of and really there is no reason they should. Anyone who would assume that Train is anti-gay rights or somehow supporting that viewpoint if they did decide to perform in front of BSA is an idiot. There is no reason that Train should limit their performances to be only in front of audiences that agree with them politically, they are past their prime anyway and in a few years will probably be happy if they can get in front of fair crowds that have a handful of people who recognize them. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X