DanKroh

Thanks for the Boston plug, CalicoPenn. You should get a job with the local tourism board! The one I immediately thought of if you are willing to travel up to this area is the Battleship Massachusetts in Fall River. It is a decommissioned battleship turned into educational museum. However, the really cool thing is that the scouts can sleep overnight on the ship, in what my back agrees are the original bunks used by the sailors. There is also a Russian submarine and a PT boat in the harbor, which I believe can also accomodate sleepovers for smaller groups. Within walking distance are several museums and displays, most of which are free if you are staying at the battleship. Having grown up in the Harrisburg area, I also second Gettysburg and Valley Forge.

Well, since we've had, by my count, four threads so far with articles condemning the Philadelphia City Council, I thought it would be nice to throw one in that shows the other side of the coin. Just to be fair and balanced. A bit heavy on the sarcasm and overly harsh for my tastes, but the writer does bring up some valid points. http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/news/local/15169030.htm Ronnie Polaneczky | Boy Scouts in a jam - this calls for a merit badge! I THINK THE Boy Scout's Cradle of Liberty Council needs a new merit badge: the Weasel Badge! It would be awarded to Scouts who act in opposition to admirable qualities, like honor, that the Council tries to instill in its 64,000 local members. For guidance, Scouts can look at the Cradle's actions regarding its potential eviction from the city-owned property it occupies, rent-free, at 22nd and Winter. What would they observe? Caginess! The Cradle non-discrimination statement says that the group is opposed to "any form of unlawful discrimination." Sounds honorable, right? But what the statement is really saying is that the Supreme Court has ruled that the Scouts, as a private organization, have the right to discriminate against whomever they want, just as other private organizations do. So it's the Cradle's right to forbid gays from holding leadership positions in the organization. The statement is so well-worded, it actually makes the Cradle's anti-gay policy sound noble. If that's not Weasel-like behavior, I ask you, what is? Backpedaling! Hold on, says Liberty spokesman Larry Ceisler: The Cradle's non-discrimination statement is worded exactly as the city demanded it be, back in 2004, when both sides were debating how the Cradle could stay at 22nd and Winter rent-free, without it looking like the city supported an anti-gay stance. But along came new city solicitor Romy Diaz, who said the policy wording was wrong, because the city can't subsidize "lawful" discrimination any more than it can "unlawful" discrimination. So the Cradle, he said, either has to pay fair-market rent, change its policy language or move out of the building altogether - which was the city's original demand in 2003, when this issue first arose. "This is an outrageous reversal!" Cradle rockers are crying. But they forget that the Cradle itself backpedaled in 2003, when it opposed the national Scouts' anti-gay stance - then reversed itself when the Scouts threatened to revoke the Cradle's charter and replace its board. To be a Weasel is to decry all backpedaling but your own. Obfuscation and Hysteria! To distract us from its lawful right to discriminate, the Cradle has actually linked its rent rant to - get this - murdered kids. "With an epidemic of gun violence taking the lives of Philadelphia children every day," Liberty's other spokesman, Jeff Jubelirer, told the Inquirer, "it is ironic the administration chose this time to destroy programming that services 40,000 children in the city." That's quite a charge. So I asked Jubelirer, how much rent does the city want? He couldn't say. Nor could he say what it might cost the Cradle to rent comparable square footage elsewhere. Nor, for that matter, could he say which programs would be "destroyed" by charging rent. Unless the Cradle knows for sure, it seems pretty cynical - and Weasel-like - to link murdered kids to a rent squabble. Buck-passing! Most Weasel-ish about the Cradle's stance is how it demands that the city keep the Scouts' national discrimination policy from having ill effects on local Scouting - instead of forcing Scouting to suffer the consequences of its own behavior. Yesterday, Ceisler told me, "For the city to evict the Cradle from 22nd and Winter would send a terrible message - it would say the city doesn't want Scouts in Philadelphia." Actually, it would say that the city has embraced principal - albeit clumsily and tardily - in a way the Cradle couldn't. To muddy that fact, well, it's kind of weasly.

"Start a similar group that teaches these skills & values." Ah, a new record in speed for trotting out the "start your own group" pat response. And be sued by the BSA for trying to muscle in on their goverment-granted monopoly? No thanks. Not everyone has the money, time, and resources to start such an organization from scratch. So I guess your only remaining response to the atheist or homosexual youth (if their family is not rich enough to start a brand new youth organization or pay legal fees to defend themselves from the BSA if they do try) is "too bad"? How very.

Ed says "It doesn't matter if they have the only pool table. To play on their table you have to become a member and if your aren't a vet of a foreign war, you can't become a member." Yes, Ed, and if people fell strongly that pool playing was something that everyone should have access to, I'd be very surpised if there wasn't a push to change that requirement (in our hypothetical world). My point is, some people feel strongly that the skills, activities, and yes, even the values (when not viewed with a Christian bias) of scouting are valuable enough that they should be available to ALL boys. Furthermore, my counterpoint to Hunt's analogy was that there is no where else (contrary to what his analogy implied) that those skills, activities, and values can be had. There is no comparable, competing organization (at least in my area).

Hunt says "The Veterans of Foreign Wars may have the nicest pool table in town, but I can't play there unless I'm a veteran of a foreign war--that's not unfair." Except that the VFW doesn't just have the nicest pool table. They have the ONLY pool table. And no one in town is willing to sell pool tables to anyone else. The BSA sues groups that try to start scouting organizations that look too much like the BSA. "As to your second question, I think your beef is not with ICF, but with the school. I don't think the fact that the military likes Eagle Scoutsmakes it unfair for BSA to have membership limits--it is arguably unfair for the military to give special consideration." And yet, when steps are taken to try to prevent the special consideration given to the BSA by schools and government agencies, you complain. Which way is it going to be? Again, the problem with your analogy is that, except for the BSA, there is NO OTHER GAME IN TOWN (at least, in my town, or any of the surrounding towns that would be within reasonable traveling distance). To make your analogy accurate, the town would have to disband their Little League and not allow any other baseball leagues to form except the Christian one. There is NOWHERE else for my son to do the same things that he does or get the same advantages as he gets in scouting. And there is not likely to be because the BSA has a government-granted monopoly on scouting. Luckily, for the moment, my pagan sons and I are considered good enough to be allowed to be in the BSA. But I step into the shoes of my atheist neighbors, and I understand their gripe. "I would add that I think it's a mistake to think that BSA was more populist in the past and that the religion and sexual orientation "litmus tests" are new. What is new is a measurable number of people willing to self-identify as atheists or openly gay." Yes, I agree that we live in a time when people feel more free to be honest about themselves (even if they don't feel completely safe still). And that's a bad thing? Edited because a paragraph ended up in the wrong place.(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

Wow, all 40 beltloops AND pins. That's quite an accomplishment. Definitely should be recognized! I wonder if you could find suspenders the right width that the beltloops would fit on them (only they'd be sideways, of course).... I'd say get them one of the A&S trophies.

Hunt, here's my problem with your analogy. What if Intervarsity Christian Fellowship, which meets on my college campus, is the only place where I can learn orienteering, a skill I am highly interested in, and which has nothing to do with being a Christian (i.e. scout skills and activities do not inherently require religious belief)? What if participation in ICF is the only thing that will ensure I get a better GPA when I gradutate (i.e. Eagle scouts getting higher pay grade in the military)? Is it still fair to limit participation to Christians only?

"I don't think a council can go against national policy." They tried to in 2003. I found some of the details of the story I was trying to remember. "Just weeks after Philadelphia's Cradle of Liberty Council of the Boy Scouts of America had adopted a policy in May of not discriminating against gays, the council kicked a Scout leader [Greg Lattera] out for publicly declaring that he is gay. Facing threats from the national BSA office to revoke its charter, the council, file nation's third largest, issued a new mission statement just days after the scout's expulsion, saying the anyone who acknowledges being gay may not participate in the Scouts."

Then there is this inaccuracy in the article: "The national Boy Scouts require scout leaders, not members, to be straight." Yes, youth members can be kicked out for being gay. Not just adults, youth. I also seem to recall something a while ago about the Cradle of Liberty Council being coerced by National to enforce the "no gay leaders" policy when the council was NOT going to kick out a gay leader (can't remember his name, but it was fairly recently). If I recall correctly, the council was basically threatened to have their charter yanked by national unless they enforced the policy. Anyone with more details (and a better memory), please feel free to correct or support this story....

Maybe it has more to do with how the term is used. When flung at me as an epithath, I have a problem with it. Perhaps because in the past, "left" or "leftie" has usually been preceeded or followed by "commie pinko". Also, I have more of a problem when the term is used to pigeonhole an entire group (i.e. "O'Reilly's success stings the left"), versus when it is used to describe individual people or ideological positions. When it is used to describe my ideology, it is only semi-accurate, since I have many positions that could be considered paleo-conservative (as opposed to neo-conservative). I have no problem with being called a liberal, athough that is also not completely accurate. When viewed overall, yes, my ideology is on the left, and also liberal, and yes, I am rather proud of that.

Brent: "Kind of like when I watch Media Research Center and NewsBusters to see how ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC and NPR twist the news to favor the left." Actually, the nice thing about Media Matters and Crooks and Liars is that they report on inaccuracies by ALL media outlets, not just FNC. But there certainly seems to be on overabundance of stories about FNC compared to the other outlets. "Tell me one thing - please point out one instance where O'Reilly did anything half as bad as using forged documents to try to influence a national election. Or anything half as bad as falsly accusing the US of using nerve gas on American defectors in Laos. Can you point out anything O'Reilly has done that even comes close to falling in those neighborhoods?" As someone else pointed out, have I said anywhere that what Rather did was right? (And as someone else pointed out, Rather WAS FIRED for what he did.) Actually, I don't tend to watch any of the network news shows either. I watch CNN Headline News, and if there is a story that catches my attention, I look that story up in print. I tend to read most of my news in print, and I often read from several different sources to try to get multiple viewpoints. But if you want some examples of O'Reilly's awful behavior, how about his insistence that American soldiers in WWII slaughtered a group of German prisoners, when in fact, it was the other way around? How about O'Reilly continually making comments about various leaders/people he doesn't like that suggest that it would be a good thing for them to come to harm? Just the continual name-calling while denying that he makes personal attacks is digusting. And the almost constant stream of misinformation about things that would be verified with a quick fact check on his part I just find way too annoying. But what really kicks it for me with FNC is the love affair they seem to have with Ann Coulter, who I consider to be a hate-monger of the highest degree. "I never knew how much O'Reilly's success stung the left." I've found that pigeonholing people into the categories of "left" and "right", particularly by painting them with a broad brush over issues that really cross ideologic lines (how many other "righties" are critical of FNC here?), often completely shuts down meaningful dialog.(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

Actually, after watching Fox News once or twice, I wouldn't be caught brain-dead watching it. I get my information about their antics from websites like Media Matters, Newshounds, and Crooks and Liars, which often include video/audio clips, which I often watch just to see how badly they really are mangling the "news". You know, those "smear merchants" that actually document the way that Fox News twists the news, by presenting what was said on Fox along side the real facts.

Hunt says "I generally agree with this (are they really representing Phelps?--ugh), but if ACLU really took that approach, it would have been on BSA's side in the Dale case, in which BSA's rights of association were threatened. That case had nothing to do with public schools, but involved an attempt to use a New Jersey law forbidding discrimination in places of public accomodation to force BSA--a private organization--to stop discriminating--this should have been anathema to a civil liberties group, but they took the opposite side." Yep, the ACLU is representing the Phelps in their fight of the Missouri law that is trying to limit their right to picket. Now while I think that Phelps and his ilk are the vilest creatures to walk the earth, I can see that the law does infringe on their civil liberties. While I don't always agree with the groups/people that the ACLU represents, I'm not willing to demonize the ACLU for being willing to represent those that I personally find offensive. That's why I'm still a card-carrying supporter. I guess that makes me part of their "ilk", as Fred puts it. Hunt, I think you are looking at the circumstance of the Dale case through a perspective colored by today's definition of the BSA. At the time of the Dale case, the BSA was acting as a public accomodation, not a private religious organization. How many other private religious organizations are chartered by Congress? And if any other public accomodation started practicing discrimination, I would want the someone to yell loudly and take them to court. Now that the BSA has been ruled to officially be a private organization, yes, the ACLU works to hold them to the rules of what a private organization can and can't do. Again, I think the agenda to allow gays and atheists in the BSA belongs to the people being represented, not the ACLU itself. It's the difference between saying "you must let in gays and atheists" and "you must let in gays and atheists OR stop being supported by public funding". But those who are hard-core ACLU demonizers are not going to let their views be influenced by trying to look at the other side of the coin.

Fred writes: "If the goal of the ACLU is to open BSA to gays and atheists..." Actually, I never thought the goal of the ACLU was to open the BSA to gays and atheists. I thought their goal was to fight violations of civil liberties. So now that they've decided to fight for the freedom of speech of the Phelps clan, is the goal of the ACLU now to promote hatred of homosexuals? Don't confuse the goals of the ACLU with the goals of the people/groups they represent.

Beaver, I think your assessment of Fox News is spot on, as is your comparison of the differences between the news entertainment they provide and the journalism of the real news networks. And you aren't even one of those "lefties" (or should that be "us lefties"?) that have it out for Fox News! Bill O'Reilly certainly seems to be the worst offender on the misinformation without correction, retraction, or apology hit parade. Of course, let's not forget that anyone who points out his misinformation is a "smear merchant". But any publicity is good publicity when you are hawking your books, mugs, t-shirts, and "holiday ornaments", isn't it?

Wow, it's not often you see that much spin in one place without a tornado warning being issued (outside of D.C. and Fox News, that is).(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

Well, Hunt, first let me say thank you for using a different example of what you consider an innapropriate role model. However, I am struck by this phrase: "Whether I will pull my kid out of his unit depends on several factors..." So, even though the SM is leading an immoral lifestyle (and therefore, by definition, not a good role model/leader), you would not automatically pull your kid from his unit. Interesting. Would you give the same consideration to a gay SM? "If a Southern Baptist wants a Scoutmaster to be a man who doesn't drink, smoke, or cuss, I think that's understandable." Yes, exactly. And if a Unitarian Universalist thinks there's nothing wrong with a gay SM, shouldn't that be understandable, too?(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

"I'm a little perplexed with the idea that discussing morality in public is somehow improper." Nope, nothing wrong with *discussing* morality in public. But there is a big difference between *discussing* morality and *preaching* about it. Most of the people I have seen speak against homosexuality in public are not so much interested in the discussion part as they are in the preaching about how it's immoral and evil part. "My point is that the term "homophobia" has some bite when applied to people who exhibit over-the-top revulsion, but it loses its meaning if it simply means anybody who has any moral objections to any aspect of homosexual behavior." And I don't feel the need to apply it to just anyone who has moral objections (as I said). It's when they use those moral objections to fuel a political agenda and to set policy that I find the term most applicable. And that includes setting a policy to deny a child access to a group like scouting. Remember that it's not just gay adults who are denied membership, but gay youth as well. Gay youth who are 2 to 3 more times likely to commit suicide (vs. non-gay youth) because of the alienation they feel in our society today. Do you think the BSA is currently contributing to that sense of alienation or ameliorating it? As far as the good role model thing, I know lots of heterosexual adults that wouldn't make good role models, for lots of different reasons. But unless I'm expecting a leader to role model heterosexual behavior (NOT!), I see an essential disconnect between a person's sexual orientation and their ability to model behaviors that would be appropriate in the scouting setting. See, this is where the discussion breaks down. I ask for an example (other than their sexual orientation) of what behavior a homosexual leader can not role model in the scouting setting. And I am never given an answer that fulfills the caveat because the opposing side can't get past the sexual orientation thing. "They can't role model morality", you say. But why? Name one aspect of "moral behavior" other than who they love that they cannot adequately role model for a scout? Do they not treat others with respect? Do they not serve their community? Do they not engage in charity? Do they not go to church and show reverence? Are they not honest and trustworthy? What exactly is it that they can't do? "And by the way, are you OK with not teaching MY children that homosexuality is moral?" I sure am. Because I am living proof that someone can be inundated with anti-gay bigotry as a child and still grow up to make up their own mind about what they feel is moral. See, Trev, I used the "b" word. But I generally try to reserve it for behavior I have personally experienced rather than the hypothetical behavior of others. Edited to add: And actually, a phobia can also indicate a strong dislike (i.e. loating) or aversion, not just a fear.(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

Brent and Ed, Since the context of my quote was Hunt's opinion of what makes the label "homophobic" warranted, I thought it was obvious that I was speaking about what kind of behavior leads me to consider someone homophobic. You are, of course, perfectly entitled to be "in my face" about your homophobia, but then I will, of course, feel free to label it as such.

Hunt says: "Several people seem to assume that if a particular sexual orientation is genetically determined, that it thus can't be morally wrong to engage in actions consistent with that orientation." Actually, genetic determination has nothing to do with morality in my book. I think it can't be morally wrong because I've seen the looks of love, the tender touches, the respect and uplifting between partners that occurs in homosexual relationships. I've seen such relationships heal the souls of those who have been lost all their lives. I've seen such relationships create families with children who grow into responsible, loving, wonderful adults in their own time. Forgive me if I wax poetic, but in my work and in my life, I have the seen the love, and I can't for the life of me label it immoral. I agree with you (and with Beaver and his diabetes analogy) that not all genetic predispositions are automatically right and good. However, my point is that it has as much of a bearing on morality as other genetic predispositions. Is someone who has Type I diabetes "immoral" just because they deviate from the "norm" (norm here meaning "majority")? Is someone with brown hair somehow morally superior to someone with blonde hair? If you are using the Bible as your justification, there are a lot of things that our society tolerates that are admonished more frequently and more vehemently than homosexuality. Things that are very obviously a choice, like divorce, lying, greed, yet we don't, as a society, try to abridge the rights of those who make too much money or who choose to get divorced. Why have we fixated on this one thing that harms no one and gets only passing mention in the Bible? Because they are a conveniently small minority (10% or so) that are easy to scapegoat. Hunt, you don't think that this obsession with gays as potential child molesters who are unable to control their sexual urges fits your definition of homophobia? I have no problem with someone who thinks homosexuality is immoral, but doesn't shout about it from the rooftops. It's those people who beat the wardrum to limit the rights of homosexuals to marry, to raise children, to be involved in our society as equal human beings because of the actions of someone else that causes no harm and does not affect them personally in any way. I think that fits your definition of homophobia pretty well. If you want to think homosexuality is immoral, fine. If you even want to preach about it from your church pulpit or teach it in your Sunday school, go for it. But don't do it in my face (i.e. in public), or teach it to MY children, and don't try to use your idea of morality to codify discrimination into our laws. And since the BSA is NOT a Christian church, I personally think it has no place here, either.

Beaver: "For those who want to allow gays, how would you counsel a scout who has been hit on or molested by that 1 in 1,000 leader.........after the fact? How would you justify your stance to him? Gee Timmy, I'm sorry that Scoutmaster Bruce molested you, but you need to keep in mind that God made him attracted to other men and it is just as normal as you being attracted to the girls at school. He shouldn't have done what he did to you, but it is normal for him. How consoled will Timmy be that adults who are supposed to look out for him actually argued to allow people in leadership who could hurt him." Ok, how are you going to console Venture Scout Tanya when she is molested by (heterosexual) Scoutmaster Bruce? Or Timmy when he is molested by Scoutmaster Brenda. Or Timmy when he is molested by Scoutmaster Butch, a heterosexual man? Statistically speaking, all of these situations have a MUCH higher chance of happening than Timmy being molested by a gay scoutmaster. And molestation is not normal, no matter what one's sexual orientation. Ok, one more time here.... gay does not equal pedophile. Gay does not equal molester (of adults or children). Gay does not equal rapist (of adults or children). Gay equals loving, consentual relationships between adults of the same gender. Why are you more likely to control your "unnatural" urges toward a 16 year old young woman (who may be a scout under your charge if you are a Venturing leader) than a gay man is to control his "unnatural" urges (assuming he has any) toward a 16 year old young man in his charge? And while a SM may go out of sight of the scouts to smoke, do you think they really can't tell what he was just off doing, when he comes back to them smelling of tobacco smoke? Do you really think it isn't running through their heads "Well, SM Cooldude does it, so it must be cool..."? Smoking is an addiction, which some people have trouble controlling (or more people would quit). Sorry, but I think the analogy is rather apt, given your parameters concerning homosexuality.

Hey Trev, In Wicca (depending on one's tradition), Litha (the Celtic term for Midsummer, actually an old Germanic word that means "summer") is one of the "lesser Sabbats", as are the winter solstice and the equinoxes. Since it corresponds to the height of the Sun's power (longest day, highest position in the sky), it is considered a day of great power. It is usually celebrated with a bonfire the night before (does the bonfire at our COH last night count? and traditionally, is a time to harvest herbs and flowers to make medicines for the coming year. In neo-pagan practice, it is a time to celebrate the fertility of the Earth, be thankful for the plenty of summer, and pray for a good harvest. In the Celtic tradition, it also represents the passing of reign from the Oak King (the waxing Sun) to the Holly King (the waning Sun), so acknowledging the turning point when the days begin to grow shorter again.

Ed, as long as you continue to support this fallacious viewpoint "Homosexuality is a choice made by humans", then I'm afraid we have no common ground on which to base this discussion. This also begs the discussion from earlier of if homosexuality is a choice made by humans, why is it present in the lower animals as well? Or do penguins, swans and rams make that choice, too? I am, however, further curious about this view of what comes from God vs. what is OK with God. Does everything that comes from God have God's stamp of approval in the Bible? What about genetic-based diseases (Down's syndrome, diabetes, Huntington's chorea)? Since they are encoded in the DNA, one presumes they come from God, or not? Are they OK with God?(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

And for those of the Wiccan persuasion, Happy Midsummer/Litha!

Hunt, The only one of your examples of "immoral behavior" that the BSA has made a national, blanket policy about is homosexuality. If an unmarried heterosexual leader living with someone is considered immoral by so many, why doesn't the BSA issue a blanket policy banning them as leaders, as well? Same goes for smokers and heavy drinkers. Instead, they allow the units to decide on the fitness of these "immoral" individuals (assuming they pass the CORI) as leaders based on their individual merits and the level of comfort that the unit COR and parents have with that individual. Why can't the BSA do the same with homosexuals who want to be leaders? Leave it up to the unit. You can be dismissive of the term "homophobia" as an unwarranted label, but it doesn't change the fact that homosexuals are the ONLY group that national has singled out to ban as a group for a characteristic that a great deal of evidence points to being a genetic predisposition.