Tuesday, December 27, 2005

Family Groups Call for Boycott of the Entire World

These Family Blah Blah groups provide a real service to their community. They identify sources of evil and then spread the word so their millions of followers will, y'know, avoid it. Boycott the company, vote against a particular politician, whatever.

You know that the school system in Dover Pennsylvania just had a one-two eyeopener. First they had this nutty school board who told the teachers to teach creationism in classes. Some parents filed a lawsuit, saying it was not right to bring religion into the classroom. Then there was an election, and the people voted out the entire school board and replaced them with more science-minded folks. Then the judge ruled on the lawsuit, and in no uncertain terms explained that the school board's idea was a very dumb one, and illegal, too.

You know how the Family Blah Blah groups are going to be, right? We'll hear something about "activist judges," and liberals in the teaching profession and the National Education Association is all run by socialists with direct ties to Kinsey. Because these groups think it's a good idea to teach their particular version of Biblical mythology as fact in the schools.

Now, the most horrible person in the world, objectively speaking, is Rick Santorum. He's a fringe rightwing Senator from Pennsylvania who is running for office again, and things are not really looking that good for him. It's almost as if the people of Pennsylvania don't want their state to be represented by kooks and nuts, not that I can explain why they'd feel that way. I mean, other states don't seem to mind.

Santorum is on the side with the Family Blah Blah guys, he's for the family, y'know, and the Bible, and he's against homosexuality, which to his mind is about the same as having sex with animals and should not be permitted. So he sees what's going on in Dover, and suddenly it dawns on him, maybe he's on the wrong side of the fence on this creationism thing. As soon as the judge's ruling comes out, Santorum announces that yeah, he agrees with that judge and those voters, you shouldn't be teaching creationism in the public schools. In fact he loves evolution, keeps a picture of Darwin on his desk. Something like that.

Santorum had been an affiliate of the Thomas More Law Center, which had defended the Dover school district in the lawsuit. But as soon as the judge's decision came out, Santorum cut his ties to the Center. "I thought the Thomas More Law Center made a huge mistake in taking this case and in pushing this case to the extent they did," Santorum said.

So now listen to the Family Blah Blah guys:
Dec 25, 2005 — A conservative organization that touts itself as a supporter of traditional values blasted Sen. Rick Santorum for his withdrawal of support for the Dover Area School District's unconstitutional intelligent design policy.

"Senator Rick Santorum's agreement with Judge John Jones' decision ... is yet another example of why conservatives can no longer trust the senator," the American Family Association of Pennsylvania said in a news release Friday.

The association's president, Diane Gramley, said Santorum - who is expected to face a tough re-election challenge next year from state Treasurer Robert P. Casey Jr. - should heed her organization's remarks.

"It's a warning that he needs to be careful," Gramley said. "That he's beginning to lose his conservative base."

A year ago today, an editorial by Santorum praising Dover's intelligent design policy appeared in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. "I commend the Dover Area School District for taking a stand and refusing to ignore the controversy," he wrote.

Dover school officials were so pleased that they printed the piece in a newsletter sent out to district residents.

But last week, one day after Judge John E. Jones III sharply criticized former Dover board members and ruled that intelligent design could not be included in the science curriculum as unconstitutional, Santorum said he was troubled by former board member's actions. Group accuses Santorum of switch: Conservative association says senator made '180-degree turn' on intelligent design

The thing that always kills me is how they turn on those who almost, but not quite, agree with them on everything. This guy hates gays, talks all the time about the traditional family, all the stuff they like -- but disagree on this one thing, and the dog-pack attacks.

Another Blah Blah group, Focus on the Family, has a list HERE that "provides an overview of companies leading the charge to re-engineer society and bring about the normalization of homosexuality, bisexuality, transgenderism, and a fundamentally redefined family structure." Uh, yeah, I get what they're saying there. A blogger, MercuryX23, has taken the list and broken it down into categories for us. I am going to reproduce their list here, just to give you a feel for how terrible the pro-homosexual menace is. Or, to look at it another way, how very very paranoid these crazy groups are.
Corporations, Industry & Legal
  • AT&T
  • SC Johnson and Son
  • Dow Chemical
  • Johnson & Johnson
  • Procter & Gamble
  • Owens Corning (Home exterior products)
  • Northrop Grumman Corp.
  • DuPont
  • International Paper Co.
  • Corning
  • Booz Allen Hamilton Inc.
  • Heller, Ehrman, White & McAuliffe
  • Morrison & Foerster
  • Alston & Bird
  • Air Products & Chemicals
  • Mohawk Industries
  • McKinsey & Co.
  • Cargill
  • Reynolds American
  • Jenner & Block
  • Visteon Corporation

  • Levi Strauss
  • Nike
  • Federated Department Stores (includes Macy’s and Bloomingdale’s, May Department Stores, Lord & Taylor, Marshall Field’s)
  • The Gap
  • Bausch & Lomb
  • Nordstrom
  • Colgate-Palmolive
  • Target Stores
  • Borders Group
  • Best Buy
  • Staples
  • Reebok Intl
  • Sears Holding Companies (includes K-Mart)
  • Walgreen’s
  • Limited Brands (includes Bath & Body Works, Victoria’s Secret, White Barn Candle Co., The Limited, Express, and Henri Bendel).
  • Estee Lauder Companies
  • Amazon
  • Barnes & Noble
  • Office Depot
  • Home Depot
  • Liz Claiborne
  • Hannaford Brothers

  • Northwest Airlines
  • Volkswagon of America.
  • California State Automobile Association
  • Union Pacific
  • The Boeing Co.
  • Delta Airlines
  • Continental Airlines
  • Ryder System Trucks
  • Subaru of America Inc.
  • Daimler Chrysler
  • U.S. Airways
  • General Motors
  • Toyota
  • American Airlines
  • Ford (includes Volvo and Hertz)

Lodging, Food, Entertainment and Media
  • Molson Coors
  • Kraft Foods (Alltria Group)
  • Cendant (Cendant is the parent company of Avis, Budget, Days Inn, Knights Inn, Fairfield, Howard Johnson, Ramada, Super 8, Travelodge, Wingate Inns, Wyndham Worldwide, Century 21, Coldwell Banker, Cheap Tickets, Galileo International and other holdings)
  • Walt Disney
  • Viacom
  • Miller Brewing
  • Starbucks
  • General Mills
  • Time-Warner
  • Pepsi (includes Quaker Oats and Frito Lay)
  • Anheuser-Busch (includes Sea World, Discovery Cove, and Busch Gardens)
  • Avaya
  • Ben & Jerry’s (Unilever)
  • StarcomMediaVest Group
  • Brinker Intl Inc. (Chili’s Restaurant, On The Border)
  • Campbell Soup
  • Starwood Hotels & Resorts (Sheraton, Four Points, St. Regis, Westin)
  • Carlson Companies (includes TGI Friday’s, Radisson, Regent International, Park Plaza, Park Inn, Country Inn & Suites).
  • Dole Food
  • Comcast
  • Kimpton Hotel & Restaurant
  • MGM Mirage
  • Electronic Arts Inc.
  • Sara Lee Corporation
  • McDonald’s
  • Applebee’s Intl, Inc.
  • Marriott International
  • Hilton Hotels
  • Darden Restaurants (Olive Garden, Red Lobster)
  • Hasbro Inc.
  • Scholastic Corporation
  • Global Hyatt, Hotels.com
  • Wyndham International
  • CMP Media
  • The Olivia Companies
  • McGraw-Hill Companies
  • Compass Group North America
  • New York Times
  • Gannett Co, Inc.
  • BellSouth
  • Cox Communications

  • Eastman Kodak
  • IBM
  • Cisco Systems
  • Microsoft
  • Xerox
  • Hewlett-Packard
  • Sun Microsystems
  • Intel
  • Lucent Technologies
  • Agilent Technologies
  • Motorola
  • Dell
  • Apple
  • Cingular Wireless (owned by AT&T/SBC Communications—60%; and BellSouth—40%)
  • Genentech
  • Lexmark International
  • Verizon
  • Gateway Inc.
  • Oracle Corporation
  • Worldspan Technologies
  • Earthlink Inc.
  • Honeywell Intl Inc.
  • Freescale Semiconductor
  • Sprint-Nextel
  • Adobe Systems
  • Qwest Communications Intl
  • Aramark Corp.
  • Texas Instruments, Inc.
  • Affiliated Computer Services
  • Intuit
  • Polaroid Corporation
  • Seagate Technology
  • NCR
  • Keane Inc.

Health & Insurance
  • WellPoint (Blue Cross/Blue Shield)
  • Aventis Pharmaceuticals
  • Harvard Pilgrim Health Care
  • Medtronic, Inc.
  • Bright Horizons Family Solutions Inc (workplace child care)
  • Quest Diagnostics (medial lab tests)
  • Bristol-Myers-Squibb
  • Novartis Pharmaceutical
  • GlaxoSmithKline
  • Vision Service Plan
  • Allianz Life Insurance Co of NA
  • GlaxoSmithKline
  • Aetna
  • MetLife
  • Kaiser Permanente
  • Merck & Co
  • Nationwide Mutual Insurance
  • Prudential
  • Chubb
  • Allstate
  • Amgen, Inc.
  • Schering-Plough Corp.
  • Kimberly-Clark
  • Guidant Corporation
  • Hoffmann-La Roche Inc.

  • Northeast Utilities System
  • Edison International (Southern California Edison)
  • Sempra Energy
  • Siemens Energy & Automation
  • Xcel Energy
  • BP America/BP Amoco
  • Shell
  • PG&E
  • Chevron
  • Cummins
  • Dominion Resources
  • Raytheon
  • KeySpan

Financial Institutions
  • ABN AMRO Holding NV (includes La Salle Bank and Standard Federal Bank)
  • Master Card
  • E* Trade
  • Bank of New York
  • SLM (Sallie Mae)
  • Providian Financial Group
  • Countrywide Financial
  • Lincoln National
  • Hartford Financial Services
  • Wainright Bank & Trust
  • Harris Bank
  • Sun Trust Banks
  • Washington Mutual
  • Deutsche Bank
  • US Bancorp
  • John Hancock Financial
  • Morgan Stanley
  • HSBC
  • Mellon Financial
  • Merrill Lynch
  • Northern Trust
  • Credit Suisse First Boston
  • Bank of America
  • Goldman Sachs Group
  • Fannie Mae
  • Capital One
  • Charles Schwab
  • Citigroup (includes SmithBarney, Primerica, and Banamex)
  • JP Morgan Chase
  • Wells Fargo
  • Ameriprise Financial/American Express
  • Lehman Brothers
  • Deloitte & Touche
  • Wachovia
  • Pricewaterhouse Coopers International Ltd.
  • KPMG
  • Ernst & Young
  • UBS AG

  • Replacements, Ltd.
  • Mitchell Gold & Bob Williams
  • United Parcel Service
  • ChoicePoint
  • Pitney Bowes
  • Hewitt Associates
  • Waste Management, Inc.
  • CH2M Hill Companies, Ltd.

Can you believe they left TeachTheFacts.org off that list? I'm so disappointed.

I think if I were one of the Family Blah Blah guys, I would look at that list and say, man, we're not really winning, are we? It really looks like a lot of companies are accepting differences among people.

The fact is, the world is changing. Some norms have changed -- women's role in society is entirely different from a hundred years ago, civil rights are extended now to a range of people who were denied them in recent memory. People tend to be kind, no matter what these radical groups tell them. If somebody is doing something and it doesn't hurt them, they tend to give that person the benefit of the doubt. There's a little Golden Rule mixed in there with a pinch of judge-not-lest-ye-be-judged. Lessons these groups need to learn.


Blogger andrea said...

Ooh, Procter and Gamble- remember when eveyone said their corporate symbol represented Satan?

I need to carry this list with me- and shop wherever they boycott. I guess places like Barnes and Noble and Amazon don't have to worry much- these folks don't read much outside the Bible(and then only the "selected" passages).

December 29, 2005 10:46 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I rarely participate in these boycotts but I still think Target has earned some public scorn. Last year, they forbade the Salvation Army from setting up Christmas kettles in front of their stores because they have the audacity to believe in something.

Salvation Army is the most effective relief organization in the world. They were the first and most reliable agency working in the Gulf Coast.

Letting them collect in front of their stores would cost Target nothing. Target isn't a community friendly organization.

December 29, 2005 11:58 AM  
Blogger Orin Ryssman said...

Interesting bit of news...I just can't see it working very well. I know I would not support it because I believe a company has the right to hire and fire within guidelines established by the law. I have long supported laws banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation with regards to employment and housing (with exceptions narrowly included to protect religious freedom). Frankly, in this global marketplace a company that wants to compete cannot afford to discriminate, hence possibly cutting off a stream of more qualified candidates.

andrear wites,

I need to carry this list with me- and shop wherever they boycott. I guess places like Barnes and Noble and Amazon don't have to worry much- these folks don't read much outside the Bible(and then only the "selected" passages).

Orin replies,
Could you be a little more clear about that last sentence? It appears as if you are attempting to insult those that believe in a transcendant moral order via the Bible...is it people that work, or people that shop at these spots? I've heard that Amazon is not an easy work place...Barnes and Noble...who knows?

I shop where I like, where I can get the best price and selection and where they have the best service.

Then again, I don't boycott actors whose politics I don't agree with in this and that...I intend to see Syriana just as soon as I can feel better (I have had a cold..flu..streep..since Christmas eve, and I am getting tired of it...off to the doctor to get a diagnosis and maybe some anti-biotics).

Be well,

Orin Ryssman

December 29, 2005 12:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I have long supported laws banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation with regards to employment and housing (with exceptions narrowly included to protect religious freedom)."

I've got to disagree with you here, Orin. Why should only religious people be afforded the right to associate with whom they please? If we disagree with someone's moral lifestyle, any of us should be free to refrain from becoming economically involved with that person.

As a practical matter, making something like this a law could eventually put a tremendous burden on society. Since sexual orientation is only self-evident, what would stop any person from saying he's gay whenever he's unhappy he didn't get a job or apartment? This is burden enough with racial discrimination laws (which I think are worth the social benefit) but throwing this in could place a much greater and dubiously worthy drag on economic activity. Honestly, in our society, money usually talks anyway so this is really unnecessary.

December 29, 2005 12:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon said, "forbade the Salvation Army from setting up Christmas kettles in front of their stores because they have the audacity to believe in something."

Yes, the Salvation Army leaders have some strong beliefs, and they never change their mind about those beliefs in the face of political pressure.(wink wink)

"2001-NOV-5: The Salvation Army offered Domestic Partner Benefits:

The Salvation Army's Western Corporation decided to extend health-care benefits to domestic partners of its employees. This would have brought them into compliance with a San Francisco ordinance that prohibits a company from doing business with the city if it discriminates against the homosexual and common-law heterosexual partners of its employees. Col. Phillip Needham, chief secretary of the Western Corporation said: "This decision reflects our concern for the health of our employees and those closest to them, and is made on the basis of strong ethical and moral reasoning that reflects the dramatic changes in family structure in recent years." Some responses to their decision:

-The gay-positive Human Rights Campaign called it a "prudent decision" and a "welcome development."

-Fundamentalist Christian groups were unanimous in their opposition:

-Dr. Dobson, president of Focus on the Family, responded negatively. He expressed the belief that extending health care to the children of partners of employees adversely affects the long-term welfare of children. Dobson said: "Needham's statement reveals that the decision to accommodate homosexual employees is based on cultural considerations, rather than on what is right and ethical — and of course, on the impact of federal money. We are not talking about hatred for individuals; we are talking about policies that will affect generations to come. What is at stake here is an agenda that involves the welfare of children, the definition of marriage, the constitution of the family, and credentials for pastors and priests." Dr. James Dobson continued: "The Salvation Army is the first evangelical church, that I am aware of, to cave in on this contentious issue. This decision will have enormous influence on other Christian organizations and entities that have tried to hold the line on moral and family policies. The Salvation Army has (also) confirmed that this policy will apply, not only to the 13 Western states as the media has reported, but also to the entire organization." There seem to be a number of factual errors in this statement: The money issue is not over federal grants, but over municipal money. The policy did not affect all of The Salvation Army, but only the 13 Western states.
-Ed Vitagliano, a spokesman for the American Family Association, said: "I think that all evangelical Christians who love God's Word and who have trusted The Salvation Army to be faithful to the clear indications ... and clear principles of God's Word about same-sex relationships [are] very, very sad that this has happened."
-Scott Lively, spokesperson for the American Family Association of California, said: "This is driven by the gay-activist movement. It has no other purpose but to legitimize homosexuality in American society."
-Karen Holgate, legislative director for the Capitol Resource Institute in Sacramento, CA, said: "Every time another Christian organization falls or bows to this kind of pressure, it just applies that much more to others."
-Peter LaBarbera, associate director of the Culture and Family Institute in Washington, D.C. said: "Homosexual activists are keen on seeing everybody embrace homosexuality. If they see that a major Christian organization with a Bible-based mission is willing to swallow the gay agenda, then they will be more encouraged to go after every other Christian organization in this nation." 2,3

In response to a massive outpouring of opposition, The Salvation Army reversed its decision. On NOV-12, they abandoned what they called their "concern for the health of our employees and those closest to them," and once more withheld health benefits from their employees unmarried partners and their children."

From: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marl1.htm

We wouldn't want those children of same-sex couples and non-married heterosexual couples to be covered by health insurance, no sir-ee. You never can tell what harm unmarried people and kids with health insurance coverage might do to the sanctity of marriage.

Aunt Bea

December 29, 2005 12:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You have a right to associate with whomever you please. You don't have to welcome me as a friend. But you cannot prevent me from entering your restaurant, or treating me as a patient, or being my insurance adjuster, or refusing me medication as my pharmacist, etc."

Why not? If I have a restaurant, why can't I decide who I want to serve. Why can't people segregate themselves on the basis of desires and beliefs?

"It's interesting that you feel anti-discrimination on the basis of race is unacceptable, I suppose because all those scenes of colored water fountains and separate lunch counters still have resonance with the American people."

It's interesting that you don't see how insulting it is to racial minorities that you equate their racial status with someone who indulges impulses. This can all work itself out fine. We don't need the government to make sure we treat all impulses the same.

"But EMTs leaving a trans woman to die on the street because of their "moral indignation" does nothing to your good Christian heart, right? That should be permitted behavior for municipal or even private EMTs, right?"

Obviously, no one should be left to die. There are already laws insuring that. No one needs to make any specification about orientation.

December 29, 2005 2:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Aunt Bea (Jim):

Your comment is unfair. The Army is well known for their good works. The group struggled with how to be a positive force in a decadent culture. They may have made the wrong decision in California, but they corrected that.

They were banned from Target because of their Christian beliefs. Why are we up in arms if a group suggests boycotting corporations but fine with it if corporations boycott charities?

Apparently, protecting the sacred right to bugger precedes any other cause.

December 29, 2005 2:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Aunt Bea (Jim):

Anon is telling us all another paranoid thought in that anon thinks Jim is everywhere and everybody.

Too funny anon

snow white

December 30, 2005 12:51 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon said "Aunt Bea (Jim): Your comment is unfair."

I won't judge your comment as you are entitled to your beliefs, but I will tell you what I think is unfair. The Salvation Army's policy of denying health insurance coverage to the children and mates of unmarried employees is unfair.

Apparently the Salvation Army believes health insurance "salvation" is for only those American children and mates whose parents and partners are able to obtain license legalizing their living arrangement.

Aunt Bea

December 30, 2005 8:03 AM  
Blogger andrea said...

I was not saying anything against the Bible or reading the Bible. I was suggesting that the organization that is promoting this boycott probably doesn't believe in a wide range of reading materials outside of their selected portions of the Bible(since it seems they like to pick and choose what they accept in the Bible and also like to ban books)- therefore, bookstores that they are boycotting don't need to worry about losing business -as the followers of this group probably don't buy many books. I boycott Walmart- because of their so-called pharmacist moral stance- they allow their pharmacists not to fill birth control prescriptions if they so choose. So I choose not to shop there. I sometimes make an effort to shop at non-chain book stores or coffee shops(when they can be found)- not to boycott Starbucks(I sometimes think I should have an allotment from my paycheck go directly to Starbucks) or Borders but because I think independent businesses need to survive. I also boycotted stores that sold goods made in Burma -but now Burmese goods are prohibited from being sold in the US.

December 30, 2005 11:04 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

both a.f.a. and f.o.f. have urged
boycotts of target for offering
health insurance coverage to
employees' family members the
salvation army would rather
discriminate against.

if the target stores are all empty
due to this boycott, then why
would they want to waste salvation
army soldiers at their doors?

it sounds to me like target did
the salvation army a favor by
returning the "good will" offered
by groups who support the hateful
practices of the salvation army.

December 30, 2005 4:04 PM  
Blogger andrea said...

"re-engineeer society"?- I thought the US was already as commercialized as it could get. Oh, that is not what these people mean. They aren't suggesting we "use it up, wear it out, make it do or do without" at all.

I bet before Christmas(cause I'm pretty sure the folks behind this do not celebrate Chanukah, Kwanzaa, Diwali or the Solstice) you would have found the heads of these groups and their family members at a great many of these stores spending away.

January 01, 2006 8:24 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Because these groups think it's a good idea to teach their particular version of Biblical mythology as fact in the schools."

Antipathy toward religious belief coming through loud and clear.

January 03, 2006 2:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anon-inane, you have still have yet to make one rational comment on why you believe that keeping religion from public schools somehow shows antipathy towards religion."

It's the same reason keeping blacks out of public schools would be showing antipathy to blacks. Christians have the same free speech rights as everyone else. Saying it has to be hidden away is a bias. You're fond of saying we need to teach kids about gays because they exist. Religion exists too. Kids need to know. Not just learn it on the street.

"Is it calling religion "mythology"? Well, since there are hundreds if not thousands of religions, there is no way any given religion can be taken as fact. "Mythology" covers a multitude of sins."

Yes, calling the Bible "mythology" is an attack. There are millions of stories in the world. Doesn't mean there aren't any true ones.

"Still, if you are so protective of your personal religion, you would do yourself a favor and just support the separation of church and state."

That's a little difficult when the state is slowly trying to take over every facet of life leaving no room for religion to fulfill it's role. The government should make sure education is available not cleanse it of spiritual life. Can anyone fail to appreciate the failure of the government to address poverty after the trillions of tax dollars spent since the 60s. The money should have gone to faith-based organizations.

January 04, 2006 9:34 PM  
Blogger andrea said...

It is just another lie that Christianity is kept out of our schools. Someone wrote a letter to the Post that said in MCPS all other holidays are honored except Christmas in the school winter concerts. Well, at Einstein HS this year, 4 of the songs played were Oh, Holy Night(can't get much more Christian,can you?), Hark the Herald Angels Sing, African Noel and Carol of the Bells.

Kids study the deveopment of many world religions in world history(and Christianity is not left out). My daughter has learned about less common(than Easter or Christmas) Christian(I guess largely Catholic)observances in her Latin American history class. Religion is not absent from public school- but teaching students your brand of Christianity as the one true way- well, that isn't taught

January 05, 2006 7:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dana and Andrea-

Could you get together and decide on a line? Dana says:

"particular religious beliefs should be kept private."

and Andrea says:

"It is just another lie that Christianity is kept out of our schools."

What do you two actually think is happening? Personally, I think they should shut public schools down and farm the job out to whoever has demonstrated they can get the job down.

You're wrong, Dana. No one is obligated to keep their religious beliefs private. Students, teachers, principals, janitors, et al should all be free to discuss their beliefs at will.

January 06, 2006 4:12 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home