Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

[Jake Greene <jakegreene AT gmail.com>]

That's an interesting conspiracy theory, to be sure, but you'd be hard
pressed to prove your assertion that what "many voters just recently
voiced" was a "willing(ness) to attack anything connected to
Christianity in this country."  Instead, and what is easy to prove, is
that a vocal contingent was willing to define what they expected of a
President, and that they didn't support the sitting one.  To believe
your assertion one has to believe that the Right can legitimately
claim ownership of all Christians in the country, and that the Left is
peopled only with godless heathens.  That might be the easy thing to
believe, Pat Robertson, but that doesn't make it true.

It might also make sense to remember that Target didn't supplant the
Salvation Army bell ringers with a different, secular charity.  And it
isn't that they couldn't have, your local Rotarians would have loved
the gig.  Most likely Target simply felt it wasn't in their interest
to do it anymore.  They weren't getting any crossover traffic, nobody
was going to Target so that they could get their donate on, and they
probably weren't getting any kind of tax-deduction either.  From a
business standpoint, if you're annoying your customers and not getting
anything out of it, you're failing.

As for preaching tolerance and being intolerant, I don't think you're
proving your case here either.  We're supposed to tolerate intolerance
to prove we mean what we say when we say you should be tolerant?  That
just don't make no sense.

Jake


On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 22:12:00 -0500, Don Rua <rua AT mindspring.com> wrote:
> > http://www.dailyherald.com/business/business_story.asp?intid=38305293
> 
> >Another good reason to shop at Target.  The Salvation Army's #1 goal
> >.according to their web site is "to make known the good news about Jesus
> >Christ and to persuade people to become his followers.", which they
> >have a perfect right to do, but I don't see why corporations should
> >have to participate in converting people to Christianity.
> 
> Part of me feels like this topic belongs in the thread that was asking "what
> policies of the Left deny anyone's rights?", because...
> 
> I'm drawn to the last line above, "...why corporations should have to
> participate in converting people to Christianity". I wouldn't be surprised
> if in fact Target has no problem with supporting the Salvation Army, a
> charity based on Christian faith. The corporation didn't 'have' to
> participate, I think they've been happy to support it for years. The
> Salvation has been around a long time, and done great work, but Target
> realized what so many voters just recently voiced, that there is a very
> vocal contingent willing to attack anything connected to Christianity in
> this country. Target's dilemma is that other people would not be tolerant of
> their right to be selective about charity choices. I would not be surprised
> if they received threats of suits, which are not dependent on having a
> winning legal case, but rather extorting Target with bad PR for opposing one
> cause or another, and thus push Target to settle. It is the PC mentality
> that forced Target's hand I believe.
> 
> If Target wants to only serve the SA, or only serve Muslim Mothers, or Toys
> for Tots, or Lesbians of Lebanon, I don't give a darn, but it seems many who
> preach tolerance have a visceral intolerance for the choices of others.
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> Come and play at the InterNetWorkers Web site!  
> http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/
> You are currently subscribed to InterNetWorkers mailing list
> To unsubscribe visit 
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/internetworkers
>