Gay-Friendly God Smites Boy Scouts

[fgoodwin]

Ed, with all due respect, I think I've explained why I posted the article.

 

And as far as "not reading it" goes, that might just as well be directed to those who complained of my posting the article in the first place.

[Gags]

To be honest, I was a little disappointed in the quality of the satire. I was almost wishing it would have been written by "The Onion" staff.

 

I have to admit, though, that the part about God working out at the YMCA is pretty funny. Goes well with the bit part that Jesus is playing on recent episodes of "Rescue Me" (not a show for the easily offended, btw).

 

--Gags

[Gags]

To be honest, I was a little disappointed in the quality of the satire. I was almost wishing it would have been written by "The Onion" staff.

 

I have to admit, though, that the part about God working out at the YMCA is pretty funny. Goes well with the bit part that Jesus is playing on recent episodes of "Rescue Me" (not a show for the easily offended, btw).

 

--Gags

[NJCubScouter]

Fgoodwin, rail away at a silly parody if you wish, but I think you are missing an important sign that your argument has failed, and will forever fail, to catch on in this forum. When you are complaining about some perceived slight against the BSA, and you can't get Ed OR Bob to agree with you, I think it's time to give it up.

[fgoodwin]

NJCS: it doesn't matter whether my "argument" catches on or not. The article is posted and will remain in the archives indefinitely.

 

If we'd had this discussion without my posting the actual text, someone could come along a year from now (long after the actual article is gone and links to it are broken), read the discussion and claim no one would ever make up such an outlandish post, even as a joke.

 

Well, its here, and unless a moderator deletes it, it will stay here.

 

But thanx for your comments.

[packsaddle]

Well I would like to welcome Trail Pounder back. Where were you? I hope the fam and weiner dog (s?) are doing well.

Back to topic. I read a lot. I talk to all sorts of people of all political leanings. But this forum is almost the ONLY place where I've read mentions of the idea that the recent tragedies were God's wrath (or something along those lines) upon the scouts. Come to think of it, it IS the only place. I vote to kill this thread.

[Zahnada]

"I could always respond that if one doesn't like the post, one is perfectly free to skip it. But that would be too easy a cop-out."

 

Well, you got me on that one. I really should have stopped reading. But the title really left me so perplexed that I had to read.

 

"Had the article been written by Hans Zeiger as a "satire" praising the BSA and condemning gays, atheists, liberals, etc., it would certainly have been held up as a typical example of hate-speech by the religious right."

 

I just want to make a quick clarification. "Hate Speech" is speech that is meant to incite violence. This article has no hate speech in it. And although I haven't read Hans Zeiger, I assume he also does not commit hate speech because it is illegal. Although many unkind things have been said in this forum, none of it is hate speech. If I were to start arguing that all gays need to be shot, then it would be hate speech.

 

"So obviously, bashing BSA and its conservative policies is OK, because its just "satire", but bashing gays, atheists and liberals is wrong because that's hate-speech, right?

 

Bringing out that dichotomy through the posts that reflect the truth of it, is one of the reasons I posted the article."

 

I think the above quote is the primary point of your argument. But I feel you start from some false premises, false generalization, and false victimization. Attacking BSA because of its conservative policies is fine. Sure, I don't agree with it, but it's not against the law. I think reading any thread between Rooster, Ed, Merlyn, and TJ shows that people can disagree. But I've never seen one side afforded more rights in the argument.

 

Bill O'Reilly attacks liberals all the time, and he's criticized by the liberals. The LA Times attacks conservatives all the time, and they're criticized by the conservatives. But one side isn't getting special treatment.

 

It's very common for a person to feel that the other side is getting preferential treatment although the treatment is the same. I think there's actually a psychological term for that. Let's say it's an election year and you are reading a completely bipartisan newspaper. Let's say you're conservative. If the paper is giving equal coverage to conservatives and liberals, you will preceive it to be a liberal paper. This is because, mentally, you have not afforded equal treatment to both sides (naturally, because most people are partisan) so equal treatment is out of balance. I think the same is happening with your perception of BSA coverage.

 

Anyway, I apologize if my train of thought has been hard to follow. Long day. Just ask if something doesn't make sense.

 

But let me make one point. It's important that we, as scouters, not act as victims. We need to continue to deliver the program and concentrate on the youth we serve. Once we feel victimized by the media or other groups, then we become defensive. We see conspiracies. We close into ourselves instead of keeping our wonderful program out in the open. We start attaching labels to scouting. Labels like "conservative." We're only victims if we act like it.

 

[johndaigler]

Fred, You hit it hard, but it went foul. No big.

 

You're giving this piece too much power, and people who disagree with you, too little respect. They (We) are not all a bunch of crazed lunatics who would gleefully disrespect God, grieving families or the President. Well, OK, I can be fairly gleeful mouthing off about GWB, but I don't want to minimize my point. A "cheap-shot" article of this type represents no one but the author.

 

At first, I considered closing the thread; in fact, I briefly considered bringing out Molnir, the Sledgehammer of Thread Deletion. But I realized the responses to your first post help to prove my point; and in truth, they ought to bring you a bit of peace. Apparently, you worry more than you need to. The BSA is not at risk from poor humor . . . poor internal decision making perhaps . . .

 

jd

 

 

Only those willing to go too far ever know how far they can go

[Fuzzy Bear]

Deadbrain features news, satire, spoof, parody, humor and Hillary Clinton. It is obvious they missed on all six points.

 

Alfred B. Newman lives.

[evmori]

NJ,

Please don't lump me in with Bob.

 

Fred,

It's humor. Nothing more. Just like everything else at deadbrain.com. Preserving the article really serves no purpose.

 

Oh and thanks for the link. I now have it in my favorites! I love satire!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

 

[fgoodwin]

JD: I'm OK closing the thread -- I'd prefer it not be deleted but that's your call.

 

Thanx to all who responded.