DanKroh

Gern: "Would your opinion be altered/softened if homosexuality can be demonstrated to be a genetic condition instead of a pure behavioral choice?" Unfortunately, Gern, while some people will "accept" that the attraction to the same-sex (i.e. the orientation) may be genetic, they will argue with their last breath that actually expressing or acting on that attraction is a pure behavioral choice, and therefore, they shouldn't do it, at least, if they have any "self control", they should be able to "resist" those impulses. But if anyone ever suggested that they should never express/act on the love they felt for another consenting adult, they think that's different, of course.

"Only if they break discipline by opening their mouths about their preference. Most any other sexual deviant can have a successful military career if they are discreet. Serving in the military is not a right, as a matter of fact all members of the military agree to give up some of their constitutional rights to be a member." Unless they are outed by someone else. And just because you call a homosexual a sexual deviant doesn't make it so, no matter how many times you say it. However, it does definitely leave me with the impression that any civil discussion of this issue with you is impossible. "Just because there isn't a law against something doesn't mean there should be. I am certain that there is no such law in my state and yet homosexuals seem to be employed and living quite comfortably. " And in my state, despite such a law, homosexuals are being denied housing and employment opportunities by bigots. Now what was that about flawed logic equating to baloney? I see quite a lot of both among the "arguments" of the anti-gay crowd in my line of work.

In addition to the marriage right (and all the rights that go along with that) that Gern mentioned, gays also are denied the option to serve in our country's armed forces. Also, not every state has anti-discrimination laws for sexual orientation that guarantees their right to fair employment, housing, etc. But there will always be those that try to spin every instance of discrimination into something else.

"There is no right that I have that a homosexual does not also have." Speaking of pure baloney....

Hunt: "I make no apologies for having that view of my own religion." Nothing wrong with having that view, if it works for you. However, I was just trying to make you aware that not all religions claim to be "ultimate truth".

"I meant not on the list." Refering to atheist. Maybe I'm missing something, but I thought this is covered by "Nontheist".(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

Hunt: "if the parents believe that their faith is actually true, they should raise their children in that faith" Again, this statement presupposes that the parent believes that their faith is somehow "better" than other faiths (i.e. "true"). My faith does not have as part of its doctrine that it is "better" than other faiths, just that it is better FOR ME. I recognize that all faiths are "true" to those people who believe in them, even if they do not represent "truth" for me. Just because Wicca/Paganism is the best religion for me, and represents truths about the universe in a way that resonate best with me, doesn't mean that it will be the best religion for my children (or anyone else, for that matter). If by "raising them in my faith", you mean share beliefs and celebrations with them, I certainly do that. However, I do not intend to try to convince them that they must follow those beliefs because they are "true". And since I don't believe in hell, I don't believe that any sort of punishment awaits my children for following the "wrong" faith. I'm not saying that my way of thinking or spiritually raising my children is better than anyone else's, just that it is not driven by the same doctrine of "being true" as other religions (such as Christianity).

Beavah: "Yah, sorry, that's not legal there, DanKroh. PTA's are separately incorporated and not under da direction of the elected school board, eh? If your district allows the PTA fliers, but doesn't allow Scoutin' flyers, they're acting illegally. Anybody who wants to can bring a complaint and win. And an honorable school system would act in accord with the law, eh?" Huh, I didn't know that about PTAs. I wonder if it makes any difference that our "PTA" is not actually called that (can't remember what they are called right now, since it's been almost three months since I've even looked at a backpack). I know the SPEDPAC (Special Education Parent Advisory Council) sends stuff home in the backpacks. Wonder if they fall under the same category. Eh?

Because they are violating equal access, which is the law for public schools.

Fred: "But I know that won't stop you from thinking that people of faith are brainwashing our kids." Well, I'm not packsaddle, but I would like to address this comment for a moment. I don't think all people of faith brainwash their kids. However, I certainly do think that SOME of them do (although brainwashing is probably a stronger term than I would use). I was at a function recently with some friends who were Evangelical Christians (not sure what specific denomination). The father got up during dinner and made a very proud announcement that his three year old daughter had "accepted Jesus into her heart as her Savior". Three years old.... Do you really believe that a three-year-old has any real concept of what she is saying when she "accepts Jesus" other than that this is something that Mommy and Daddy expect her to do and it makes them happy? That is the level of indoctrination that I find disturbing among some people of faith.

Chippewa: "What bothers me is that a new Scout comes to one or two meetings, then decides that Scouts aren't what he thought they would be, and quits." So, would it be better to have this scout feel obligated to keep coming for six months, and be miserable the entire time? I don't think any boy joins scouts intending to quit after a couple of meetings. I'm sure if you asked all of them when they joined if they thought they would be around for at least six months, they'd all say yes. However, you know what they say about the best laid plans... Perhaps a better strategy would be be very specific in your recruiting about what your troop does, so that the scout (and their parents) can better decide if it is something little Johnny will be interested in. But even then, you never know until they try. For instance, even though I love camping, my DW was not the camping type, and thus, we never ended up doing any family camping. My older son and I went on the Webelos Woods overnights, but he still wasn't sure when he joined Boy Scouts if camping was something he would enjoy. But he gave it a shot, and he loves it. However, if he had decided he hated camping, I wouldn't expect him to go on troop campouts as part of a "commitment" to the troop if it was going to make him miserable to go.

My sons' school has had the policy of no non-school related flyers in the backpacks for as long as they've been in school. Personally, I think it's a good policy, as it should not be the job of the teachers to stuff flyers for non-school related information. However, our PTA group isn't labeled an "outside group", since it is school related. Ed, the way they were doing it was unconstitutional because it was not giving equal access to all groups who wanted to distribute flyers.

Beaver: "If religion doesn't play a part in her life, why does she see a need to get her children religious training? To what end? Is it kind of like teaching your kid how to do the waltz on the outside chance that he might be invited to a state dinner and ball someday?" I think the answer has to do with the difference between trying to educate about religion and trying to indoctrinate into a particular religion. For parents that believe that their faith is the "only way", their goal is to indoctrinate the children into their faith. However, if the parents are willing to let the children choose their own religious path, then their goal is to educate. And I think that can be independent of how important religion is or isn't in the parent's life. For example, my faith is extremely important in my life. However, it does not dictate that I must raise my children to follow my faith. In fact, since they come from a multi-faith family, my desire is to educate them about those faiths, to the best of my ability, and let them choose when they are capable of making that choice. But they have lost the major Jewish influence in their lives. I've tried to fill in the gaps as best I can, but I'm not Jewish. I could see myself taking them to Shul so that they could learn more about the Jewish faith. Judaism is not what I practice at home, but I do want my children to know about the practice, to honor that part of their heritage and give them an informed choice. As far as what gets modeled for them at home, while I don't specifically model Judaism or Christianity, I do try to model moral and ethical behavior that is compatable with either faith, which also happens to be compatable with MY faith. At 12, my older son seems to be leaning toward Paganism, but he understands why we celebrate Hannukah and Passover when we are visiting one set of grandparents, and why we celebrate Christmas and Easter with the other set. My younger son (at 7) still considers himself a "seeker" (his term) still deciding on his religious path. My goal is to give him the education he will need to eventually make the decision that's right for him.

All hail the Belief-O-Matic, for it is wise and true: 1. Neo-Pagan (100%) 2. Unitarian Universalism (87%) 3. Liberal Quakers (82%) 4. New Age (80%) 5. Mahayana Buddhism (75%) 6. Reform Judaism (71%) 7. Jainism (68%) 8. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (64%) 9. Secular Humanism (62%) 10. Theravada Buddhism (59%) 11. Bah�'� Faith (58%) 12. Hinduism (55%) 13. Scientology (54%) 14. New Thought (54%) 15. Sikhism (51%) 16. Taoism (49%) 17. Orthodox Judaism (44%) 18. Orthodox Quaker (44%) 19. Islam (40%) 20. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (37%) 21. Nontheist (36%) 22. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (21%) 23. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (21%) 24. Seventh Day Adventist (20%) 25. Eastern Orthodox (17%) 26. Roman Catholic (17%) 27. Jehovah's Witness (14%) It even got the order for the first two correct, since I consider myself a Pagan who worships at a UUC. Also, the Quaker influence of my childhood shows a bit, too.

Ed: "Actually, the high school I attended still has a bible study club. "Student Christian Fellowship Student Christian Fellowship is a group of young Christians who meet weekly to study God's Word, pray together, and fellowship with one another in God's name. In the past, the group has worked through Bible Study programs such as The Purpose Driven Life, but this year we intend to focus on using the Bible to answer the tough questions that teens face." I'm not going to give the name of the high school, but I would bet if you searched high schools all over the country, you would find these type of clubs exist. Remember, it is the freedom of religion not from religion." As ManassasEagle already pointed out, these groups are allowed to exist within a public school as long as they do not try to deny membership to ANYONE who wants to join. So yes, if a young atheist wanted to join the group to study the Bible, they could not legally be denied membership. Furthermore, as soon as a public school has ONE religious club, they cannot deny the same access to any other religious club that wants to form. So if your high school's Student Christian Fellowship is actually restricting their membership to Christians only (and if it is a public school), then they are, in fact, doing so illegally.

Ed: "Schools support all kinds of internal clubs. I would bet some of those clubs don't allow certain people to be members. But the school is still allowed to support them. What's the difference between an internal school club & chartering a BSA unit?" Gern, Ed is talking about an internal school club, which IS operated by the school, usually led by a faculty advisor. Different from an organization not affiliated with the school who might happen to meet on their grounds. However, Ed, those clubs are NOT allowed to restrict their membership by excluding a "protected class" (i.e. on the basis of sex, race, religion, etc.). That's why public schools are not allowed to have a "Bible study" club (endorses on particular religion), which was a hot issue when I was in school in the late '70s. I knew of NO internal clubs in my school that had any sort of restricted membership. Unless you are considering sports to be "clubs", and I suppose the band could be considered a "club". But in both of those cases, not having athletic or musical talent is not a "protected class". Could you provide an example of a student club (at a PUBLIC school) that restricts membership from a protected class of individuals?

ManassasEagle, "DanKroh- oops, I forgot the smiley." Well, I've never been of the mentality that as long as you add a smiley, name calling is ok. "All I was trying to do was to point out the irony of the fact that the article (from the side that you apparently agree with) calls the BSA "weasel-like" and "cagy" for stating "we won't illegally discriminate" by comparing it to your statement that the BSA will sue you if you start your own group. Sticking the word "illegally" in there is "weaseling" on the part of the BSA similar to your not mentioning that you'll only get sued if you try to call your group "something scouts something"." I do understand irony, really I do. And while I agree with some of the points of the article (such as the fact that the council backpedaled from it's non-discrimination policy in 2003 due to pressure from national), I did say right up front that I didn't agree with the level of sarcasm and harshness of the author. However, it was a current article that mentioned the 2003 incident that I had been trying to remember for a couple of days. Also, although you seem to think that the BSA was suing based on the use of the name "scouting", I'm not sure that is the case. Since I can't find the Lifescouts site anymore, where they had posted a pdf of the legal documents submitted by the BSA, I can't reference it to refresh my memory. However, I believe that the BSA had issue with the organization as a whole, not just the name they chose. But like I said, since the site has since disappeared, I can't verify that anymore.

Hmm, the article (that Merlyn references) says "only heterosexual males and non-atheists". The way I read it, I took that exclusionary "only" to refer to heterosexual, not to male. As in only heterosexual, but not homosexual, males. Of course, there ARE units that do not allow women to hold leadership positions, but that is not national policy.

Eamonn, I will pray for your wife and your family, and light a candle for you all to find the strength to fight this fight. Six years ago, I was there, my friend. Please let me know if there is anything I can do that would be a help.

ManassasEagle, I'm not sure why using ellipses makes me weasel-like and cagy. Actually, I was only using them to provide a pause in the statement. But I guess it is easier to call names than to ask about intent or for clarification.

Well, the BSA has felt comfortable enough that they have a monopoly that they have sued on that basis both the Spiral Scouts and an organization I think was called Lifescouts, but which I can't find anymore on the Internet. And these are the one's I know about, I wouldn't be surprised if there were others. So yeah, start your own group...and be sued by the BSA. Kudu, have you ever had this sort of thing happen with the Baden Powell Scouts?

Well, I agree that there is a problem is the city is offering $1/year leases to other private groups that practice discrimination. Those groups should also pay fair market rate or be evicted. It is not clear to me from the news articles; it says the city leases space to other groups that discriminate. It doesn't say if those groups pay fair market rate or $1/year.

Well, Fred, whether or not the BSA changed is up for debate. They set out an explicit policy of discrimination a couple of decades ago. Before that, they claim, such an explicit statement wasn't needed. But that IS a change. But for the sake of argument, let's say the BSA hasn't changed. Nope, indeed, they haven't changed at all, despite the fact that the society around them has. And in Philadelphia, that society has said, discrimination against gays is unacceptable. But nope, the BSA doesn't change. And if I'm reading the news sources correctly, Philly didn't change the terms of the lease. The terms were always that they could cancel the lease with a one year notice. Which is what they are doing. I agree that it would be very interesting to see the exact wording of the lease, to see if there is any outline of the terms under which the city can cancel the lease (like, oh, say, not complying with city policies), or if they don't have to give any reason at all, as long as they give the one year notice. While "in perpetuity" may mean forever in the veracular, such terms often have much more specific, even different, meanings in legalese. If the scouts accepted a lease that said "in perpetuity" expecting that to mean forever, despite the inclusion of a clause of how to cancel the lease, then they should have been more careful about reading the "fine print".

Hunt, sorry, but I thought I was clear that it is in the present day that so many consider the policy unethical, not in 1928. Society changes, and there are many things that would have horrified 1928 society that are considered perfectly acceptable now. And on the flip side, many things considered part of "polite society" in 1928 would horrify people today. The city's policies have changed to include non-discrimination policies that reflect the will of its citizens. That the BSA can't abide by those policies could not have been anticipated by the city fathers in 1928.

Fred, perhaps back in 1928, the city did not anticipate that the local council would be forced by the national organization to continue a discrimination policy found to be unethical by so many members of not only the local council (who voted UNANIMOUSLY in 2003 to buck the national policy) but also by the local populace in general? If anything, perhaps the BSA changed the rules when they went explicit with their formal denouncement of homosexuals in the 1980's.