ohadam

Johnson understands the legalities. He also understands his position has no legs, so he spins it. Don't confuse spin with misunderstanding.

Johnson with his faulty logic isn't helping us.

Daniel Boone once said he'd never been lost. "I've been confused for weeks at a time, but never lost."

When I was in law school a professor of constitutional law said something I took to heart: "Civil discussion is the hallmark and sine qua non (without which, not) of American society. The importance of a party's position on an issue under discussion is always secondary to the importance of the discussion itself." He demanded civility. I try to remember that when engaged in a discussion with a person who disagrees with me (and is therefore wrong--lol!). So I try not to use words that carry pejorative connotations, even if the strict meaning of the word would apply (e.g., the always-tempting "ignorant," which strictly means "without knowledge," but connotes worse) because the other party cannot quickly tell whether the strict meaning or broad connotation is intended. I failed to follow my normal practice when I said fear of the risk presented by homosexuals is homophobia by definition. I meant it only strictly, responding to the (illogical, I thought) statement that "even the least homophobic" individuals fear (or abhor) the risk presented by homosexual leaders. The word bigotry is similar. It is a fine old word meaning unbending adherence to personal views. But because it now connotes worse, I fear the word can no longer be used in civil discussion. Let us remember that we are serving the discussion, here, not the issue. And let us fore-think what we will lose if we close off discussion. And if we find some views expressed here to be reprehensible, and some people to be abusive or of bad faith, let us remember we can take our business elsewhere, and in the meantime do our part by speaking with honesty and reason. (Which we've done pretty well, I think.)(This message has been edited by ohadam)

If you see gay leaders as a risk, you're homophobic by definition.

Thanks for the info, bob--the websites and titles. I'm pretty well educated in the area, but am always looking for new stuff. And I've found a UU church nearby and am going to check it out. I'm not so concerned about my own spirituality conflicting with BSA rules--I just don't think it's fair or sensible to declare that people with differnt views cannot be "the best kind of" citizens. Adam

"The Boy Scouts of America maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God and, therefore, recognizes the religious element in the training of the member . . . . The [bSA's] policy is that the home and the organization or group with which the member is connected shall give definite attention to religious life. Only persons willing to subscribe to the Declaration of Religious Principle and to the Bylaws of the Boy Scouts of America shall be entitled to certificates of leadership. [] . . . . The applicant must . . . subscribe to the Declaration of Religious Principle, and abide by the Scout Oath or Promise and the Scout Law." Hmm. I'll have to consider whether subscribing to the Declaration of Religious Principle means I have to agree that "no member can grow into the best citizen without recognizing an obligation to God", or whether I can get away with acknowledging that BSA believes it and promising to "give definite attention to religious life." If I decide it requires me to agree, then you're right, Ed, I'll have to give up my leadership position, because I don't agree and I won't lie.

The leader application said I have to agree? Uh oh.

"Because all things being equal, a mother and father provide a healthier environment for raising kids than any of the other parental options, which is supported by plenty of experts and studies." I have heard multiple times, including from a couple of sociologists on Penn & Teller's episode examining the concept of the "traditional family", that there is no evidence of this at all. "The DRP states what is needed to be the "best kind of citizen", and if you're an atheist, you can't be the "best kind of citizen". * * * Other than atheists with an agenda, no one else cares!" Ed., I'm not an athiest and I don't have an agenda, and I find this "best kind of citizen" language to be very disturbing. I'm actually pretty dismayed that this sort of language still exists in our society at all, and stunned that it exists in the BSA.

I've been thinking lately that sometimes a nonsensical stance only seems nonsensical because you don't know all the facts. On its face, BSA's gay policy is nonsensical: We gratuitously take a moral stance not mandated by our religious beliefs (which are universalist, nonsectarian), the basis of which is our unsubstantiated and unsupportable secular rationale that a certain group of people cannot be morally straight. No explanation has ever been given. (Look at the BSA legal website--Why do you discriminate against gays? We have the constitutional right to do so.) (The "they can't be morally straight" argument is patently a post-facto fabrication.) The position makes no sense . . . until you know more. The "more," I think, is that BSA, like any proselytizing, membership-driven organization, sacrifices values at the organizational level in order to maintain membership and serve the greater good. I think we've pretty well accepted in these forums that a professional scouter's motives aren't a volunteer's, and that while we all say it's about the kids first and last, for the professional scouter it just ain't true no matter how many posters you see in the scout office. For them, they serve the program first and the kids second. This not an unreasonable thing to do--it's reasonable to think that the greater good the program provides is worth a little hypocrisy and a few lost kids. How would the program suffer if we got rid of the hypocrisy? Massive membership loss. Soon as we admit gays, all the conservative Christian groups will drop out. After receiving lots of letters from councils and districts and units indicating the policy should change, BSA studied these problems, concluding in 2002 that policies did not need to change. I might've done the same, were I in charge. My 2 cents.

In the months running up to his bid for re-election, each of the last 3 Republican Presidents proposed a constitutional amendment. Reagan: prayer in schools Bush I: flag burning Bush II: marriage I don't pay much mind, anymore.

Eamonn don't be a big twit taking Scouts to the handbook is an idiotic thing to do and you need to have your head examined. [/irony]

Ed, I don't know how you ask it, and don't know the relationship you have with your scouts, but I'd probably pull my boys from the troop of a SM who was controntational about belief in God because he wouldn't be able to help them as much as someone else might. I want my four boys to grow up to be spiritual beings. Confrontation from an authority figure would be more likely to alienate them than help them, in my opinion. "If it's true, you don't need to belabor it. If it isn't, no amount of belaborment will help." Adam

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL): "If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime -- Pol Pot or others -- that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners."

Ditto.