Worth reading

[Lythops]

http://www.meridianmagazine.com/ideas/030630freedom.html

 

Obviously not all will agree with the thesis statement of this article, but so be it. As Scouters, we have a responsibility to understand what is going on beyond the campfires. Whether we agree with the article or not, we should understand it. The article helps to frame the argument of homosexual membership in Scouting in a clearer light.

 

Other examples of similar issues facing our world are given. Additionally, the same logic and arguments are applicable to the other, now longstanding issues (although, at least for the time being, more settled) confronting Scouting; girls and God.

 

[acco40]

I thought the article was mostly rubbish.

[Lythops]

"Obviously not all will agree with the thesis statement of this article,..."

 

OK acco40, so you find it to be mostly "rubbish". Care to point out what you consider to be erroneous?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

 

I will:

Because of this love for freedom, some civil libertarians take more extreme positions such as opposing any public religious expression at all. The ACLU is one of these groups.

 

This is false; the ACLU is not against "any public religious expression", it's against governmental religious promotion.

[Lythops]

Agreed. I'm not a big fan of most of what the ACLU does, but they were misrepresented.

 

If we can agree that the ACLU is not anti-religious we should also be able to agree that the BSA is not anti-homosexual.

[Rooster7]

From what I've read, it appears to be right on target.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Lythops writes:

 

If we can agree that the ACLU is not anti-religious we should also be able to agree that the BSA is not anti-homosexual.

 

I can name quite a few cases where the ACLU has defended the rights of religious people; what has the BSA done for gays?

[evmori]

While I'm not an ACLU fan, I will agree with that statement.

 

Merlyn,

Please define for use what you understand "freedom of religion" to mean.

Thanks

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

evmori writes:

Please define for use what you understand "freedom of religion" to mean.

 

1) That you are free to hold whatever religious opinions, free of government coercion (including no "playing favorites" by the government, for or against).

 

2) That you are free to practice your religion, free of government coercion.

 

Note that 1) means the government is to be neutral; having the ten commandments in front of city hall is not neutral and constitutes coercion. Having a government agency owning and operating a youth group that excludes atheists is not neutral and also constitutes coercion. Putting up the ten commandments on your own property, or owning and operating a genuinely private organization with your own money that practices religious discrimination, is not coercion by the government.

 

Note that 2) still allows the government to narrowly outlaw or regulate practices (like human sacrifice) if the state can show a compelling state interest.

 

Also note that laws that only have religious reasons for existing don't pass the coercion test; if you can't find a nonreligious reason to support a law, it has no reason to be enforced by the state (religions can "enforce" their own laws, but not with the help of the government).

 

Since you've advocated governmental religious discrimination, you probably don't like my definitions.

[Bob White]

"what has the BSA done for gays?

 

For one thing the BSA has been honest with them. Something that many gays not been when it comes to how they treat the BSA and its members.

 

The BSA said that they would not seek out homosexuals in the organization and they haven't.

They said if you make public your homosexuality it interfers with our mission and your membership will be revoked, and they have been.

 

They have not done anything outside of membership controls to defame, chastise, limit the rights, or reduce the funds of homosexual groups, members or supporters.

 

The BSA has in fact dealt with this conflict with for more character, honesty, dignity and responsibility than have most of those that have worked in opposition to the BSA.

 

And that, I believe, is the biggest hurdle that the political action groups confronting the BSA has in front of them and they created it through their own behavior.

[Yak_Herder]

Am I the only one who noticed that by taking the position Merlyn has, he has given evidence in support of the article being correct in its assertion?

[Lythops]

Well, other than an unsubstantiated character slur against the ACLU and the misquote I read of the Declaration of Independence, no one has lodged any other specific complaint.

 

Rooster7, turn about is fair play. Why do hold the opinion you do supporting the viewpoints of the article?

[Rooster7]

Rooster7, turn about is fair play. Why do hold the opinion you do supporting the viewpoints of the article?

 

Simply put, I agree with all of its assertions. I think the article expresses my viewpoints on a wide array of issues pretty accurately - In fact, I'd like to meet the author. If you've read the article, then you have a good idea as to what I believe about today's culture. What else can I say?

 

Furthermore, I'm not willing to concede that the ACLU is not ant-religious. They pick and chose their fights pretty carefully. While on a rare occasion or two, they actually seem to be on the right side of the argument; I'm not convinced. I think its merely a clever front, a ploy to gain some creditability, a feeble attempt to convince fence sitters that they are unbiased. They are posturing to gain public support. Sadly, it seems be effective.

 

[Twocubdad]

I'm not sure what the point of the article is, except to throw red meat to the faithful. People who believe as the author does are nodding in agreement. Those who see things differently are shaking their heads no. I can't imagine that this article is going to change anyone's mind.

[Lythops]

For the record, I said "unsubstantiated", not "untrue".

 

The world isn't black and white. As effectively as the BSA's detractors are at asserting the contrary, holding a pro-heterosexual viewpoint does not make you anti-homosexual.

 

I'll give the ACLU an equal allowance. Though they may not be pro-religion, I can be open-minded enough to allow them another option other than anti-religion. If they truly are anti-religion, facts should be brought forward to substantiate that position. Fair is fair.

 

The article doesn't really allow for more than two diametrically opposed positions. I don't fully invision the degree of entropy the author suggests, but I see the potential. I agree that an opposition exists working for change, but sense it is more a natural result of the will of a growing segment of the population rather than an organized conspiracy.

 

The assertion that an individual basically relies on their own intellect or tries to understand God's will rings true. People I know do both, but to varying degrees of each. Some really impressive folks have a srongly developed ability to do both at the same time.

 

The steps outlined to create social change are evidenced in history and worthy of note.