I’ve read a couple of times about the Salvation Army’s cooperation with the Bush Administration to overturn partnered benefits for gays and lesbians. So I’m thinking of carrying these during the holiday season, and putting them in the pot of every bell-ringing Santa I can find.
Want to get even with the Salvation Army for discrimination in Jesus’ name?
Click here to find out how!
No, you’re pretty much being a dick, at that point. No real two ways about it.
Which is OK if you don’t mind being a dick, but it kind of inhibits your ability to claim some kind of moral high ground, which would seem to be the point.
A dollar bill printed of paper is an idea; a penny of copper a thought. These are a guarantee that they are worth some value according to the federal bank. By offering a piece of paper with our thoughts into the pot that holds a multitude of ideas, are we not enriching the pot?
Moreover, we’re not talking about simply choosing not to donate to them (which is a fine and wonderful response, say I), but actively going out of your way to impede them doing … whatever it is they do. Which one suggests, obsessive religiosity or not, includes a fair amount of good.
So, doesn’t that mean that active actions to impede whatever quality of good they do brings some degree of moral culpability? And if not … doesn’t that open up a whole lot of activities targeting things you actually hold dear which you’d rather not open up to free targeting for impediment by those who disagree with their means?
Unlike most charities, the Salvation Army is not a non-profit, which in the case of the US branch (I’m told by folks in Canada that it’s considerably less fundy-controlled and does more good up there) they do a whole lot more preaching than actually helping people. They’ve been a fairly dubious organization in the US long before Shrub took office.
That is a fairly hefty accusation to be throwing around without at least the most casual of links to support an extraordinary claim. (“Bush Administration,” indeed. Why does every time I hear that, my brain substitutes “military-industrial complex” and make crazed, conspiracy-theory tinfoil-hat wearing gestures? Its as if the idea that the government isn’t one big, homogenous octopoid evil gets lost in the shuffle. And you, of all people, should know better.)
But beyond that, is throwing fake money into the pot of a group who gives to children, et al, so they have to spend more time picking out your crufty crap instead of doing what bit of good they do in the world so morally big of you? As I recall, I’m supposed to be the emotionally-stunted, self-indulgent bastard here, not you. I resent your encroachment on my space.
Am I the asshole here, or the Salvation Army, though?
Probably both.
Man, is EVERYBODY an asshole?
Man, is EVERYBODY an asshole?
Am I the asshole here, or the Salvation Army, though?
Probably both.
That is a fairly hefty accusation to be throwing around without at least the most casual of links to support an extraordinary claim. (“Bush Administration,” indeed. Why does every time I hear that, my brain substitutes “military-industrial complex” and make crazed, conspiracy-theory tinfoil-hat wearing gestures? Its as if the idea that the government isn’t one big, homogenous octopoid evil gets lost in the shuffle. And you, of all people, should know better.)
But beyond that, is throwing fake money into the pot of a group who gives to children, et al, so they have to spend more time picking out your crufty crap instead of doing what bit of good they do in the world so morally big of you? As I recall, I’m supposed to be the emotionally-stunted, self-indulgent bastard here, not you. I resent your encroachment on my space.
Unlike most charities, the Salvation Army is not a non-profit, which in the case of the US branch (I’m told by folks in Canada that it’s considerably less fundy-controlled and does more good up there) they do a whole lot more preaching than actually helping people. They’ve been a fairly dubious organization in the US long before Shrub took office.
Moreover, we’re not talking about simply choosing not to donate to them (which is a fine and wonderful response, say I), but actively going out of your way to impede them doing … whatever it is they do. Which one suggests, obsessive religiosity or not, includes a fair amount of good.
So, doesn’t that mean that active actions to impede whatever quality of good they do brings some degree of moral culpability? And if not … doesn’t that open up a whole lot of activities targeting things you actually hold dear which you’d rather not open up to free targeting for impediment by those who disagree with their means?
A dollar bill printed of paper is an idea; a penny of copper a thought. These are a guarantee that they are worth some value according to the federal bank. By offering a piece of paper with our thoughts into the pot that holds a multitude of ideas, are we not enriching the pot?
No, you’re pretty much being a dick, at that point. No real two ways about it.
Which is OK if you don’t mind being a dick, but it kind of inhibits your ability to claim some kind of moral high ground, which would seem to be the point.