Freethought & Rationalism Archive

christ-on-a-stick · 03-11-2003, 11:35 AM

To to respond to some more of the replies...

Hi Never,

Quote:

So I guess I'm saying that the parent should decide when to discuss subjects like religion and sexuality not a stranger in the store.

I agree completely, which is why I didn't (and *wouldn't*) discuss such issues with a child/young person I don't know; however, I don't feel that merely saying the words "atheist" and "bisexual" qualifies as inappropriate in the context of explaining why I was not going to buy the cookies. If the girl didn't already know what these words meant and asked her mom or dad about them, it would at that point be fully up to them how or if to discuss the actual *issues* of religion and sexuality.

simian,

Quote:

While it should be done in a respectful manner, the children involved do need to be informed they are part of an organization that descriminates. Letting them remain ignorant (or worse yet, agreeing with the bigotry) is not something that can be allowed.

This was my thought process exactly. IMO the manner in which I stated my objection was about as respectful as could be; in addition, it's not as though I run around unbidden telling kids what I don't like about whatever organization they are a part of. It was somewhat out of character for me to even stop and say *anything* to a solicitor, but once in a while it occurs to me (and I had been thinking about it the previous day after seeing the GS's at another store) and I feel that if I am approached by someone soliciting for an organization, it is perfectly appropriate for me to decline and state, simply, why.

Godless Dave,

Quote:

And in this case I feel Ms. Stick made an even greater mistake: making a self-righteous speech without having all the facts

Hey, I must have missed my own "self-righteous speech"! I coulda sworn I just made a few simple statements and moved on

Kidding aside, I take your point seriously (about not having all the facts). It does seem upon further investigation (I love Google!) that I was mistaken about the degree to which GS tolerates discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and I am in fact heartened to read that the GSUSA has a National Policy of non-discrimination which includes sexual orientation. However, from the link Mageth provided:

Quote:

...unlike the BSA, it does not require its local councils to follow such policies. At least when it comes to the issue sexual orientation, the GSUSA says �it lets each of the 317 local councils decide for itself

and

Quote:

While the national policy claims to prohibit discrimination against homosexuals, a spokeswoman for the national organization, Ellen Christie Ach, concedes that local councils are not automatically dechartered if they do.�

Referring to a Newsweek article:

Quote:

The article also relates the story of an adult leader whose membership was terminated by a Rhode Island council, when it learned she was a lesbian. �After consulting a civil-rights lawyer, she found she had no legal recourse - neither the local council, the national organization nor the state had laws or regulations prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.� This sounds odd, as she was expelled by the local council nine years ago, which would have been at least two years after the GSUSA had issued its Statements on GSUSA Membership Policies, which clearly stated it�s prohibition on discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. This is an excellent example of how GSUSA�s �nondiscrimination policy� is not enforced across the country.

While I think it's great that many of the local chapters *have* adopted their own non-discrimination policies - a wonderful step forward - it is disturbing to me that the GSUSA is able to claim having adopted a policy against non-discrimination when each chapter is free to say "nope, not us. We don't like gays" - and the GSUSA will do nothing about it.

More in a bit...

Never · 03-11-2003, 01:32 PM

WOW! This thread has grown. Some responses....

quoting The Other Michael:
"The important thing is that their cookies aren't worth eating."
Certainly a matter of taste. I've been addicted all my life. mmmmm...Thin Mints.

quoting myself and lisarea:

"The almost 13 year old is more immature. I had to force her to discuss puberty (had to lay on her and hold her down while I talked) cause she didn't want to hear about it (imagine trying to discuss sexuality at this point)."

"You're kidding, right?"

Believe me, I wish I was. I went to such great lengths because she has reached the age where mother nature is going to catch her ready or not. She was covering her ears and running from me every time I tried to bring up the subject.

lisarea again:

"I'll say it again, though: They should not be initiating conversations with strangers if said strangers are supposed to keep their comments within some prescribed range of suitability."

I guess I just expect polite responses from adults to children when the children are polite and that those not interested will just say "no" or avoid the kids. (Note: not implying that christ-on-a-stick was not polite just confusing and not appropriate to the situation.)

quoting JCS:

"If children are to immature to hear a response concerning their organizations policy, are they then by default to immature be a part of the organization?"

They start Girl Scouts in kindergarten. We painted and played games and they had fun. Should there be no organizations for children who are too young to understand the policies?

JCS again:

"Adults that send their children to my door have absolutely no right whatsoever to decide how I should respond to unsolicited bell ringers. If you don't like the possibilities then keep them away from anyone you don't know. It isn't my job to look out for the issues you don't want your child exposed to, especially when said child shows up at my door."

You have a point here. My children do sell door to door in our neighborhood because I've lived here for 40 years and know that the people are all nice and who likes cookies and who doesn't. We don't bother those who don't. Of course this thread was not refering to door to door.

quoting Simian:
"So if the KKK youth group comes door to door, I should either not buy the products, or if they taste really good buy them anyway? But not discuss my viewpoint that ethnic discrimination is wrong?"

In my opinion, if it was a child (like under 12), I would simply not buy the product. Someone older, yes, I would say why.

quoting christ-on-a-stick:

"I did not *discuss* atheism or sexuality with the girl, I did not *lecture* the girl on atheist or sexuality, and I certainly didn't "rant and rave"."

I know that comment was for everyone, but just to be clear I never thought that for a second.
I agree that the title of the thread could have been better. It does imply that you were having fun turning them down.

To Aqua Vita - you got my point. They're just children trying to have fun.

Bree · 03-11-2003, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JCS
If the parents want to discuss this with me why aren't they knocking on my door instead of their kid. It ain't my discriminatory. policy, and I have every right to refuse and state the reason for that refusal no matter how much you argue.

:notworthy :notworthy :notworthy

A little off-topic (bear with me): how is stating one's opinion suddenly "preaching" - ? Did I miss something here? I haven's seen an example of a person trying to actively sway an opinion one way or another (as far as the examples having been presented by various participants in this thread).

I had no idea that the GSA were open-minded as far as atheism and sexual orientation went. When I was in the Girl Scouts we wove paper placemats, made cookies, rode horsies, and said grace, saluted the flag with an "AMEN!" after the pledge, and sang some stupid song that ended with "God is nigh" - however, I was a Christian then and it did not seem strange to me.

christ-on-a-stick · 03-11-2003, 01:44 PM

Sorry, just trying to keep my thoughts organized here...

Hi AquaVita,

Quote:

That's my point...for the love of logic, these are just children! Yes they should be educated on pitfalls of their organization if there are any. But it is not up to anonymous strangers to do so. It is up to the parents and also anonymous people to try and work to change the system from within. Leave the kids out of the rants and raves, something of which they don't understand.

I agree that it is not up to me as an anonymous stranger to "educate" them on the potential pitfalls of their organization... however, I don't think that simply stating the words "atheist" and "bisexual" in reference to myself is attempting to do so. If the girl questions one of her parents about what that means, it is fully within their discretion to "educate" her about what they mean. I don't think what I said comes anywhere near being a "rant and rave".

With regard to the "these are just children" thing....

Firstly I think you are underestimating the capacity of a 9 or 10 year old to understand certain concepts (or ask about them and understand the explanation). Perhaps in generations past, children were more naive to a later age; this is no longer the case IMO. I strongly believe that pre-teens (ages approx. 9-12) should not be somehow sheltered from the realities of life when in today's society and puberty being right around the corner, issues of sex etc. are going to be affecting them peripherally no matter what (through the media, friends, etc.) and the more they are educated and communicated with about these things, the better. Young people aren't stupid, and are usually intensely curious. At that age (9-10) I was extremely curious about the world and remember getting really mad at my grandfather when he took away a book that he thought was too "adult" (it was a lady's biography in which she talked about being raped). I wrote in my diary something to the effect of "why is he treating me like a little kid?"

Quote:

Please folks...bear with me. Think like she would. We are talking about children.

While I may well have been a bit unusually inquisitive as a child, by the age of 9-10 I would have responded to the same statements by asking my mom what the person meant. I would have been extremely curious about it. If my mom had explained to me that "atheists are people who don't believe in God, and bisexuals are people who like both males and females", I probably would have had even more questions and a lot of thinking to do! As far as how it related to my organization discriminating against these people, I probably would have questioned that as well... in my case my mom would have told me "it's okay because those people are sinners and we're not supposed to associate with them" which I would have accepted at the current time. Perhaps another girl wouldn't/won't. Would that be a bad thing? Is it ever too young to encourage awareness of these issues in our children, provided we explain things to them in terms that they can fully understand?

Mageth · 03-11-2003, 02:07 PM

I missed this bit:

If the parents want to discuss this with me why aren't they knocking on my door instead of their kid.

Umm, I don't think the kids are knocking on the door wanting to discuss it with you either.

It ain't my discriminatory. policy, and I have every right to refuse and state the reason for that refusal no matter how much you argue.

I agree, you have the right. Similarly, the BSA/GSA have the right to set up and enforce their membership policies, if you want to get down to brass tacks.

I don't think I've ever questioned anyone's rights on this matter. The question, I reckon, is whether you should (and also whether the BSA/GSA should have discriminatory policies). That's what I think we've been discussing here. Ultimately, of course, your action is your choice.

BTW, I agree that the "preaching" and "haranguing" stuff, on my part, was perhaps uncalled for, and used in the heat of discussion. Perhaps "confront" is a better term, or is that also offensive?

christ-on-a-stick · 03-11-2003, 02:41 PM

Hi Mageth,

Quote:

BTW, I agree that the "preaching" and "haranguing" stuff, on my part, was perhaps uncalled for, and used in the heat of discussion. Perhaps "confront" is a better term, or is that also offensive?

I don't find "confront" offensive - although I don't think I'm a very "confrontational" person in the commonly-used sense of the word (people usually mean aggressive), I can see how in this case it might be construed as such. I would call my response assertive, though, and I can see how some people would think it more assertive than either a) necessary or b) productive.

wonkothesane · 03-11-2003, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by christ-on-a-stick
All right, since my first attempted reply got wiped out I am giving this another shot.

Firstly, I apologize for (what I feel was) my mistake in titling the thread "Fun with Girl Scouts!!!" and the lighthearted nature of the OP. This is actually a very serious issue to me and I fear that I misrepresented *myself* and my feelings about the issue by making appear that it was just a matter of "haha, I dissed that girl and then walked away!" I should have titled the thread "My Issues with Girl Scouts" or something along those lines and left the (attempted) humor out of the OP. What can I say, I was feeling devilish!!! However, that in no way reflects the fact that I do in fact have strong feelings on this topic and think it's a subject worth discussing.

Yes, well, I object to the "misleading" title as well!

I thought that a thread entilted "Fun with Girl Scouts" was about
something else entirely, and boy was I disappointed when I found out what it really was about!

Be more carefull next time!

- bryce
'Last night my girlfriend called me a "pervert", and I turned to her and said "That's an awfully big word for a nine year old!"'
- Emo Phillips

AquaVita · 03-11-2003, 02:51 PM

I believe the "preaching" bit was my own device. I apologize to everyone involved for not using more level-headed words instead. Christ-on-a-stick, I shall reply to your post probably later tonight. Thanks for your reply!

Mageth · 03-11-2003, 02:53 PM

I can see how some people would think it more assertive than either a) necessary or b) productive.

That's my view, really. I don't think it's necessary, and not particularly productive. IMO, in this case, the asserting appears to be exercising one's "right" to assert to a child one's opinion on the organization he or she represents rather than an attempt to productively affect change.

That's why I say, if you're truly interested in affecting change, talk to the parents (who knows; maybe they're unaware of the BSA/GSA's membership policies), contact the organization(s), write letters to the newspaper, write your congressperson, bring it up as a concern at a local church that sponsors a troop, etc. Or even go so far as to allow your child to join a GS or BS troop and both of you can work for change from the inside!

viscousmemories · 03-11-2003, 05:04 PM

I just went to the grocery a couple nights ago, and when the little girl scout asked me if I wanted to buy some cookies I smiled at her and said, �No thank you.� This is the first time I have ever responded in that way. Usually I would either A. Buy cookies because I feel guilty about rejecting the plea of a little girl, or B. Say �Nope� in a dry monotone and keep walking. I like to think that my ability to respond honestly without so much shame that I can�t be kind to the girl is a sign of emotional growth.

I did wonder at the time if the Girl Scouts had the same discriminatory policies as the Boy Scouts, and thought, �I�ll have to look into that later�. Not that it would really matter. As much as I�d like to say I declined on moral grounds or because Girl Scout cookies are unhealthy, the truth is I said �No� because I�m broke, daughterless, and not an active part of my local village, so donations to support the Girl Scouts of America are as non-essential to me as the cookies are.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-11-2003, 01:32 PM	#82
Never Talk Freethought Staff Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: OH Posts: 5,266	WOW! This thread has grown. Some responses.... quoting The Other Michael: "The important thing is that their cookies aren't worth eating." Certainly a matter of taste. I've been addicted all my life. mmmmm...Thin Mints. quoting myself and lisarea: "The almost 13 year old is more immature. I had to force her to discuss puberty (had to lay on her and hold her down while I talked) cause she didn't want to hear about it (imagine trying to discuss sexuality at this point)." "You're kidding, right?" Believe me, I wish I was. I went to such great lengths because she has reached the age where mother nature is going to catch her ready or not. She was covering her ears and running from me every time I tried to bring up the subject. lisarea again: "I'll say it again, though: They should not be initiating conversations with strangers if said strangers are supposed to keep their comments within some prescribed range of suitability." I guess I just expect polite responses from adults to children when the children are polite and that those not interested will just say "no" or avoid the kids. (Note: not implying that christ-on-a-stick was not polite just confusing and not appropriate to the situation.) quoting JCS: "If children are to immature to hear a response concerning their organizations policy, are they then by default to immature be a part of the organization?" They start Girl Scouts in kindergarten. We painted and played games and they had fun. Should there be no organizations for children who are too young to understand the policies? JCS again: "Adults that send their children to my door have absolutely no right whatsoever to decide how I should respond to unsolicited bell ringers. If you don't like the possibilities then keep them away from anyone you don't know. It isn't my job to look out for the issues you don't want your child exposed to, especially when said child shows up at my door." You have a point here. My children do sell door to door in our neighborhood because I've lived here for 40 years and know that the people are all nice and who likes cookies and who doesn't. We don't bother those who don't. Of course this thread was not refering to door to door. quoting Simian: "So if the KKK youth group comes door to door, I should either not buy the products, or if they taste really good buy them anyway? But not discuss my viewpoint that ethnic discrimination is wrong?" In my opinion, if it was a child (like under 12), I would simply not buy the product. Someone older, yes, I would say why. quoting christ-on-a-stick: "I did not discuss atheism or sexuality with the girl, I did not lecture the girl on atheist or sexuality, and I certainly didn't "rant and rave"." I know that comment was for everyone, but just to be clear I never thought that for a second. I agree that the title of the thread could have been better. It does imply that you were having fun turning them down. To Aqua Vita - you got my point. They're just children trying to have fun.

03-11-2003, 02:07 PM	#85
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	I missed this bit: If the parents want to discuss this with me why aren't they knocking on my door instead of their kid. Umm, I don't think the kids are knocking on the door wanting to discuss it with you either. It ain't my discriminatory. policy, and I have every right to refuse and state the reason for that refusal no matter how much you argue. I agree, you have the right. Similarly, the BSA/GSA have the right to set up and enforce their membership policies, if you want to get down to brass tacks. I don't think I've ever questioned anyone's rights on this matter. The question, I reckon, is whether you should (and also whether the BSA/GSA should have discriminatory policies). That's what I think we've been discussing here. Ultimately, of course, your action is your choice. BTW, I agree that the "preaching" and "haranguing" stuff, on my part, was perhaps uncalled for, and used in the heat of discussion. Perhaps "confront" is a better term, or is that also offensive?

03-11-2003, 02:51 PM	#88
AquaVita Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Dallas Posts: 4,351	I believe the "preaching" bit was my own device. I apologize to everyone involved for not using more level-headed words instead. Christ-on-a-stick, I shall reply to your post probably later tonight. Thanks for your reply!

03-11-2003, 02:53 PM	#89
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	I can see how some people would think it more assertive than either a) necessary or b) productive. That's my view, really. I don't think it's necessary, and not particularly productive. IMO, in this case, the asserting appears to be exercising one's "right" to assert to a child one's opinion on the organization he or she represents rather than an attempt to productively affect change. That's why I say, if you're truly interested in affecting change, talk to the parents (who knows; maybe they're unaware of the BSA/GSA's membership policies), contact the organization(s), write letters to the newspaper, write your congressperson, bring it up as a concern at a local church that sponsors a troop, etc. Or even go so far as to allow your child to join a GS or BS troop and both of you can work for change from the inside!

03-11-2003, 05:04 PM	#90
viscousmemories Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Austin, Texas Posts: 1,387	I just went to the grocery a couple nights ago, and when the little girl scout asked me if I wanted to buy some cookies I smiled at her and said, �No thank you.� This is the first time I have ever responded in that way. Usually I would either A. Buy cookies because I feel guilty about rejecting the plea of a little girl, or B. Say �Nope� in a dry monotone and keep walking. I like to think that my ability to respond honestly without so much shame that I can�t be kind to the girl is a sign of emotional growth. I did wonder at the time if the Girl Scouts had the same discriminatory policies as the Boy Scouts, and thought, �I�ll have to look into that later�. Not that it would really matter. As much as I�d like to say I declined on moral grounds or because Girl Scout cookies are unhealthy, the truth is I said �No� because I�m broke, daughterless, and not an active part of my local village, so donations to support the Girl Scouts of America are as non-essential to me as the cookies are.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.