|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 174 responses total. |
mcnally
|
|
response 25 of 174:
| 
Sep 29 00:31 UTC 2000 |
I was listening to NPR the other day while stuck in traffic and they
had a call-in show devoted to the issue of religion in the schools..
One of the guests was a preacher from Oklahoma who kept talking about
how, due to the decision forbidding school-sponsored prayer before
football games, his "rights" were being taken away.. When pressed
by the host to name the rights he was talking about, the guest sputtered
something about how "we've always done this.."
That may (or more likely, may not) be true, but he was missing the
point (it seemed to me like he missed the point quite a bit, actually,
and I would not have chosen this particular person to speak for his
point of view unless I were setting out to stack the deck, but this
was NPR, so who knows..) As public opinion in this country shifts
(as it IS slowly shifting towards more tolerance of homosexuality..)
behaviors which have "always been" practiced are being re-examined by
a public that doesn't necessarily feel the same way about them anymore.
Some organizations are changing their positions to reflect the new reality
of public opinion. Depending on which side of the issue you personally
stand on, this is either graceful acceptance of the will of their membership
or craven catering to political correctness. Other organizations, including
the Boy Scouts, are sticking fast to their positions (or at least some of
them.)
The thing is, that though I believe the leadership of most of these
organizations know on which side of public opinion they stand, the
rank-and-file of many seem to be feeling completely blindsided by some
of the changes that have come about. Many are reacting with the "you're
taking away our rights" defense, founded upon the "but we've always done
that" reasoning, not realizing that "we've always done that" isn't a
guarantee that the rest of society won't change their minds about whether
they're "always" going to go along..
--
As far as my personal opinions are concerned, I think that the upper
leadership in the Scouts organization are fighting the wrong battle.
I think this is actually an issue that is not much of a practical threat
to Scouting and is also not an issue on which Scouts and their parents
are solidly behind the leadership. By taking a very hardline stance on
the issue, the organization may be costing itself goodwill and prestige
that it will take years and years to rebuild..
|
anderyn
|
|
response 26 of 174:
|
Sep 29 01:05 UTC 2000 |
Mcnally and brighn had some great points. I do think that the Boy Scouts,
as a private organization, does have the right to formulate its own
entrance requirements, even for adult volunteers, although this particular
requirement does seem hurtful. I also think that it has to deal with the fact
that some sources of funding will not support their views. I don't know that
I think that the public schools should *ban* the Boy Scouts, given that the
organization does do good, but they also don't have to be associated with
them.
Oh. Yeah. Bruce does *not* think that homosexuals are pedophiles. I know this.
I am, after all, married to him, and can thwak him if I think he's being too
Neanderthal.
|
richard
|
|
response 27 of 174:
|
Sep 29 01:12 UTC 2000 |
The city of new york has an ordinance prohibiting discrimination against
anyone on the basisof race, sex, sexual orientation,or religious beliefs.
What this means is that if you work for the city of new york orusecity
facilities yoiu cannot discriminate. Therefore, regardlessof whether the
supreme court has saidits legal for the boy scouts to discrminate agailnst
gays, they cannot under thelocal law discrminate in acity facility.
The city treats homosexual discrimination exactly like racism. Therefore
if it would not condone a racially exclusive organization organizing
initsschools, it cannot condone a group that is exclusive asto sexual
orientation.
They would get sued otherwise and rightfully be accused of hyporcisy.
|
birdy
|
|
response 28 of 174:
|
Sep 29 01:15 UTC 2000 |
Pardon me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the Supreme Court override local courts?
Civics class was a loooooong time ago. =)
|
mcnally
|
|
response 29 of 174:
|
Sep 29 01:51 UTC 2000 |
re #28: They do when they choose to (I guess that's what makes them
so Supreme) but only overrule to the extent that they say.
What was suggested at the beginning of this article (#0 or #1, I can't
recall offhand) was that the Supreme Court has ruled that the Scouts
"do not discriminate." Actually, what the Court said was more along
the lines of "yeah, they discriminate, but that's their prerogative,
they are not discriminating *illegally*", underscoring the Scouts'
rights, as a private group, to freely associate (or not) with whomever
they choose. Essentially what the Court said is that it would be wrong
for the government (any government) to compel a private organization
like the Scouts to accept members or leaders that they didn't want.
As much as I think the Scouts are being boneheaded about this, I couldn't
agree more with the Court's decision that the government should keep its
nose out of who can and can't be a member of private organizations.
However, athough they're safe from being forced to admit members whom
they do not consider "morally straight", this still leaves the Scouts
with a problem. To a much greater extent than many other private
organizations, Scouting is dependent on public support for its continued
existence. If this were a case about one of those reprehensible country
clubs which doesn't allow black or Jewish members, the Court's decision
would be enough to more or less settle the matter because the club would
not be dependent on public facilities or private charity so it wouldn't
matter to them what the officials who oversaw the facilities or the
private citizens and foundations who donate money thought.. However, in
many places, Scouting *is* very dependent on the use of public facilities
and they're very, very dependent on funds from charitable organizations
like United Way, so even though they're not going to be compelled directly
by the state to accept members they don't want, they still have to face
the music when it comes to the other parties they may have alienated by
making a stand on this issue.
I personally find it troubling when groups are included or excluded from
meetings in public or public-owned facilities (schools, parks, libraries,
community centers, etc..) based on the political characteristics of the
group. I think that kicking the Scouts out of NYC school facilities is
a bad decision and that what schools faced with this issue should do is
to either allow no outside groups to use their facilities or else offer
them on the exact same basis to anyone who asks, but that's not the way
it's done in most places.
What's going to be particularly hard for the Scouts to get over is that
in many places, thanks largely to a long history in many communities,
they've enjoyed preferential treatment unavailable to many other groups
and now they're going from having very cozy relationships with schools
and cities all over the country to being an awkward embarrassment to many
of those same schools and cities. In a few places people are overreacting
pretty substantially and treating the Scouts like some sort of pariah
organization.
Any disinterested observer who's watched the accusations and allegations
fly in other recent high-profile discrimination battles could have predicted
this as an inevitable outcome of the Scout's decision to take a stand but
I'm not sure that the Scouts really truly understood what they were getting
into when they chose to fight this battle.. I suspect that most Scouting
leaders were counting on decades of goodwill and a squeaky-clean image to
protect them from the inevitable mudslinging -- if so, they were foolishly
overconfident and overreliant on the relationships they had built over the
years, especially when the people they're most dependent on, local
government officials and corporate leaders, are so averse to divisive
controversy. They probably also didn't count on the added backlash that
springs from public loathing of hypocrisy, real or perceived. I doubt that
an organization that didn't spend a lot of time promoting its diversity
would have faced the same public backlash. Try imagining people getting
indignant upon finding that the junior DAR auxiliary doesn't accept
everyone and you'll understand what I mean..
|
richard
|
|
response 30 of 174:
|
Sep 29 03:30 UTC 2000 |
just becuase the supreme court says boy scouts can discriminate against
homosexuals,doesnt mean they can force state and local governments to let
them in their facilities/domains. That is a state issue,and if the new
york boy scouts want to go to the new york state supreme court and
challenge the city ordinance they can. That ordinance was voted onby city
voters and is not a constitutional issue. It is not unconstitutionalin any
way to have laws that ban discrimination in public facilities. They wont
let the boy scouts in public schools in nyc now for the same reason they
wont allow the KKK to hold meetings there.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 31 of 174:
|
Sep 29 04:28 UTC 2000 |
Would they let ACT-UP meet there?
|
flem
|
|
response 32 of 174:
|
Sep 29 04:51 UTC 2000 |
I don't have much of a feeling for the status of Scouting on a national scale,
but I can't escape the impression that the group of Scouts I've been
associated with has significantly changed its emphasis in the time I've known
them. When I was a kid, the troop had a wide range of ages. A fairly
high standard of discipline was maintained *by the older kids*, who
pretty much were in charge of things, within reason. Emphasis was
on (friendly) competition, athletics, and occasionally education. It was
very much like what I'd imagine a relaxed sort of junior paramilitary group
would be like. Now, it's pretty much a social club for Christian kids.
There's a lot less diversity in age. There is basically a small group
of early high-school aged kids and a bunch of much younger kids.
The older kids kind of loaf around and do their best to avoid any kind
of responsibility or work, leaving the business of running the troop
to the adults, who are very active. (I'd go so far as to say too active.)
The adults, good Christians to a man, are careful to keep a religious
overtone to just about everything that happens, and the kids who stay
are the ones who are comfortable with this.
It's probably a useful group, and a positive influence on the kids, but
it sure ain't what I remember from the good old days. :)
|
birdy
|
|
response 33 of 174:
|
Sep 29 06:18 UTC 2000 |
I've been getting that feeling, too. My brother was a Cub Scout but elected
not to join the Boy Scouts since it was "too much like church youth group".
He enjoyed youth group, but he felt the Scouts should be more about general
life lessons and the practical things they earn badges for. He wanted to
learn how to be a lifeguard and go camping and use a compass, but without
referring to Bible passages first. (his quote) He believes in God but also
believes God has a time and place. If the Boy Scouts want to take that route,
then they need a slightly different name. People wouldn't be so shocked if
they were renamed "God's Little Campers" or something. ;-)
|
scg
|
|
response 34 of 174:
|
Sep 29 06:27 UTC 2000 |
I was in the cub scouts for a year. They met in my elementary school lunch
room after school, had their bigger meetings in the cafeteria of the local
middle school, and recruited by having teachers hand out flyers in class.
If they weren't school affiliated, they sure fooled me. I enjoyed it at
first, going through the activities to get the merit badge for the year.
There was stuff about learning how to grocery shop, some stuff on bike safety,
a bunch of nature study stuff, stuff about doing good deeds for other people,
and so forth. Then they got to the religious section, where some of the
requirements included getting information from people at whatever church you
went to, and not going to any church, I felt completely lost there. I didn't
return the next year.
|
bru
|
|
response 35 of 174:
|
Sep 29 13:52 UTC 2000 |
If it bears a christian overtone, is it because the unit you see is sponsored
by a church? Admittedly, I haven't been involved with boy scouts for ten
years, but it is hard to believe they could have changed at the national level
that much. There have always been religious badges, but they were for every
religion. Yep, they even had one for lutherans.
|
scott
|
|
response 36 of 174:
|
Sep 29 13:59 UTC 2000 |
"...brave, clean, reverent."
I suspect religious content is at the whim of the leadership, most of whom
are the parents. The troop I was in met in a church, but we spent most of
our time camping.
|
brighn
|
|
response 37 of 174:
|
Sep 29 14:52 UTC 2000 |
When I was a Boy Scout, the emphasis was on dorking around, going camping,
and playing dodge ball.
Personally, I see a lot more usefulness to the Cub Scouts than to the Boy
Scouts, and it's too bad that this controversy affects the Cubs as well.
And here's a sentence you won't see often: I agree with Richard. The SC's
decision doesn't infringe on local schools (or any public resources)
restricting BSA use of facilities. IF anything, the BSA have positioned
themselves as a pseudo-church, and should be treated as such... meaning no
school grounds in areas with bans on letting churches use schools grounds.
That DOES affect the Boy Scouts more than the Cub Scouts, since (in my
experience) the latter tend to meet in homes, while the former meets in
schools -- at least, that's the way it worked in my neck of the woods when
I was a kid. I think it's because the Cubs tended to be run by Den Mothers,
who (in the little conservative dreamworld) are more comfortable in the home,
and the Boy Scouts tended to be run by fathers, who (in that same dreamworld)
are more comfortable outside the home.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 38 of 174:
|
Sep 29 16:04 UTC 2000 |
So much disinformation, so little time. Sigh. Anyway, I can speak from
direct recent knowledge as the father of sons in both Cub scouts and Boy
scouts. Go to the scout web site if you want to know exactly what it is that
scouting stands for.
First: Schools do not "sponsor" scout packs/troops. The sponsoring
organizations are churches and service groups (e.g. Kiwanis). Scouts *do*
of course meet frequently *at* schools, because, duh, most of the scouts in
the particular group attend those schools. Scouts also meet at churches and
elsewhere, depending on what is most convenient.
Second: Scouting definitely does contain an explicit religious component.
The founder was a Christian, so in the USA, most groups will be largely
composed of Christians. But all religions and denominations that believe in
[a] God are welcomed. If you want to form a militant atheist scout group,
then yes, you're out of luck. Part of the scout oath is "doing one's duty
to God and one's country". Scary stuff, that. :-p How much emphasis is
placed on religious activities will depend on each group's leadership.
But characterizing most scout groups as little more than Christian youth
groups is a ridiculous distortion.
Third: That most Cub scout packs are led by women is flatly inaccurate. And
it is non sequitor anyway.
Fourth: The United Way branches that no longer support scouting are led by
morons.
Fifth: As far as homosexuality not violating any of the 10 commandments:
"Thou shall not commit adultery." Adultery is any sex that does not occur
between husband and wife. That includes premarital sex (sometimes referred
to as fornication), and "cheating". If someone could be "legally" married
to a family member and/or someone underage, then in those cases incest and
pedophilia wouldn't technically be adultery, I suppose. But in the biblical
view there is no way for homosexuals to be married, so any sex they have must
necessarily be adultery. You don't have to agree with it, but you can't try
to dodge around the definition to say no commandment was broken.
Sixth: Given that scouting includes godliness, and there is no religion that
can condone practicing homosexuality, then trying to be a practicing
homosexual is incompatible to participation in scouting. Sure, there are
undoubtedly scouts and leaders that are not "out". That is true of other
situations (clergy, military, etc.), and is a matter between the individual
and his conscience.
|
brighn
|
|
response 39 of 174:
|
Sep 29 16:22 UTC 2000 |
First: Whatever. I didn't see this claim, but then, I may have missed it.
Second: For my part, I characterized the BSA as a pseudochurch, which is
different from a "Christian youth group." I'm not sure whose comments you were
responding to, though.
Third: Every Cub Scout troop in my neighborhood when I was growing up was run
by women. Every one. The Webelos troop and all the Boy Scout troops were run
by men. *shrug* I don't know what the national averages are. And if it's a
non-sequitor, why comment on it?
Fourth: That's opinion, not fact. Unless you have IQ tests on file...?
Fifth: That's opinion, too, actually. Do we really want to go into the
hackneyed conversation of, "The Bible wasn't written in English, and all the
translations are faulty in some way"? Also, cite where in the bible it says
that two men (or two women) can't be married... I'm interested in where that
could be found. Sure, we COULD have a biblical discussion on the Sin of
Homosexuality, but that's hackneyed too. In short, one MAY make an argument
that homosexual acts (but not homosexuality itself) violates one of the
Commandments. Of course, if you go back and read your bible carefully, you'll
find that adultery isn't in the final set of Commandments that Moses receives
anyway... those are the dietary laws, mostly. ;}
Sixth deserves a couple of spaces.
OH MY GOD! How can ANYONE be so BLINDERED as to say "There is no religion that
can condone practicing homosexuality"? You want a few? first off, there's a
growing contingent of Christians who believe that homosexuality is not a sin.
Second off, *MY* religion (Wicca) says that not only is there nothing WRONG
with homosexuality, it's perfectly 100% okiedokie acceptable.
So sod off with your fundie bias, dude.
|
jazz
|
|
response 40 of 174:
|
Sep 29 17:36 UTC 2000 |
Re #38:
As simply as I can put it, the definition you're offering, while it
may be currently valid, wasn't valid at the time of writing and doesn't fit
with the concept translated in most versions of the bible as "adultery", which
concerns only the violation of the marital bond. That definition of adultery
also includes re-marrying after abuse or abandonment (neither of which is
covered in scripture as a valid reason for breaking the marriage covenant)
or anyone who happens to marry a non-Christian (2nd Corinthians). The
Biblical concept of adultery doesn't apparently cover (in some cases),
extramarital sex with non-Jewish (and one would then presume non-Christian)
women, nor does it cover polygamous marriage! (Genesis)
The old Biblical concept of adultery doth seem a might strange to my
eyes.
There are prohibitions outside of the TCs against homosexuality (and
apparently only male homosexuality, and not female) but they appear in a
context which, if used to prohibit something, would open a floodgate of other
potential prohibitions, including Kashrut law.
I believe it's also safe to say that the majority of the people on this
Earth don't believe in the Baal-El-YHVH-Jehovah diety, so the statement that
the Scouts accept anyone who "believes in a god" doesn't sit terribly well
with me as an example of tolerance and open-mindedness.
All of which is fine. If you wish to have a group that teaches these
values, then all of the power in the world to you, especially if you include
a healthy ration of community service, as the Scouts do. However, you're not
welcome to any of my tax money if a part of your community service is teaching
discrimination or prejudice.
|
tod
|
|
response 41 of 174:
|
Sep 29 17:42 UTC 2000 |
Why does religion have to be involved with BSA?
It should be about the kids and having them get involved and some
adult attention.
|
jazz
|
|
response 42 of 174:
|
Sep 29 17:55 UTC 2000 |
Good question. If they had a religiously blind BSA, I'd be all behind
it.
|
brighn
|
|
response 43 of 174:
|
Sep 29 18:03 UTC 2000 |
Then form a group about the kids and having them get involved and some adult
attention, tod.
No group HAS to be involved with anything. The BSA chooses to have religion
as a major focus.
Judaism has always made a distinction between Jews and Gentiles for the
purposes of law. Typically, the policy is that the Gentiles, being
less-than-Jewish, can do many things that aren't kosher, and some acts with
Gentiles don't necessarily count as "breaking the rules."
My understanding of the OT concept of "adultery" was similar to John's... all
it means is that a married person can't have sex with someone they're not
married to. Unmarried people can have sex with each other (while following
the Commandment) all they want -- whether that violates OTHER Judaic law is
a different matter.
Because women were "lesser" beings, Judaic (especially OT) law was usually
written only in terms of men. In short, a Jewish man had the most strictures
to follow, and a Gentile woman the fewest. Of the handful or so (four, I
believe) *direct* references to homosexuality in the Bible (including Romans
1, which is Christian, not Jewish), I only recall one mentioning females.
the Romans 1 reference, for instance, can be construed to a Jewish-like
stricture: CHRISTIANS can't have homosexual sex (actually, "unnatural sex"),
but homosexuality isn't an added sin if you're a non-Christian. If you'r enot
a Christian, you're already damned. That may be the one that refers to women
(I don't have a Bible handy) as well. For that matter, the Romans reference
could be construed as a loss of will/discipline issue, and not be a specific
ban on homosexuality (as part of "unnatural sex"), since the relevant part
is that the committing of unnatural acts against their wills is a punishment
for heresy (Paul's saying, in essence, that heretics will be tortured like
lil marionettes at God's will ... nice guy, Paul ... see why I don't use that
name much myself? ;} ).
The upshoot: There's no Commandment which cut-and-dry bans homosexual
behavior, certainly none that bans homosexual thoughts or orientation, and
yes, Virginia, Old Testament rules about who you could have sex with were
weird.
(On the polygamy note: There's some degree of scholarly opinion that Joseph,
Jesus' "father", had more than one wife. This would account for Jesus'
references to siblings, possibly older ones, and would not be inconsistent
with the time period. the plus: Fundamentalists can have an excuse for Jesus'
references to siblings without shaking MAry's claim to Immaculate Conception;
the minus (for fundies): It justifies polygyny and (by extension) poygamy.)
|
mdw
|
|
response 44 of 174:
|
Sep 29 18:04 UTC 2000 |
Re "no religion condones homosexuality" -- the ancient greeks not only
believed and practiced homosexuality as a matter of routine, but in some
cases appear if anything to have considered heterosexuality to be more
aberrant. 'Course, that was mostly just the upper (literate) class.
|
birdy
|
|
response 45 of 174:
|
Sep 29 18:14 UTC 2000 |
The Episcopalian church is still discussing allowing homosexual marriages.
Way cool.
|
ric
|
|
response 46 of 174:
|
Sep 29 18:15 UTC 2000 |
Bruce incorrectly states in response 0 that the supreme court said that what
the boy scouts do is not discrimination.
In fact, it is discrimination. The supreme court actually ruled that the Boy
Scouts, as a private organization, are allowed to set their own membership
requirements.
|
gull
|
|
response 47 of 174:
|
Sep 29 18:25 UTC 2000 |
The church I went to as a child actually did not approve of the Boy Scouts.
The reason is that they engaged in group prayers, and my church felt that
praying with people who may not share the same beliefs was suggesting a
level of agreement and communion that wasn't there. They object to the
Masons for the same reason. My church also felt that the Boy Scouts tended
to teach salvation by works, instead of by faith.
So not even all Christian churches feel the Boy Scouts' use of religion is
appropriate.
|
brighn
|
|
response 48 of 174:
|
Sep 29 18:57 UTC 2000 |
Why is this noteworthy? There are plenty of Christian churches who feel that
other Christian churches are inappropriate. That's kinda the point of sects.
|
anderyn
|
|
response 49 of 174:
|
Sep 29 23:01 UTC 2000 |
Hey, gull, were you a Wisconsin synod Lutheran by any chance? (That's really
weird. Bruce is Wisconsin synod, and he wasn't allowed to join the Boy Scouts
either, same reasoning. He was a Boy Pioneer. )
|