What do you say?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

 

FOG, just for another example, discriminating against someone who is single is discrimination on the basis of marital status.

[buffalo2]

Give it a rest boys

[KoreaScouter]

While we may not agree with his motives, the backpack owner is perfectly within his rights to decline donating it to us, if he disagrees with our principles as an organization. Now, I'm a company man all the way and think the guy's dead wrong on the issue, but I also think it's a little disingenuous to criticize an individual for exercising his freedom of association, while demanding we be allowed to exercise ours without restriction.

 

I think Bob and Laurie offer the best solutions -- a strident "pushback" isn't going to change his mind. Some of you know the Bible much better than I do; doesn't Luke discuss "the salt of the earth" and "turning the other cheek"?

 

KS

[NJCubScouter]

Paradoxically, in this thread I will disagree with someone who, so far, I have always agreed with (Shell), and I will agree with one post by someone who I frequently disagree with (Bob White.) Those who are afraid of the Earth spinning out of its orbit due to disturbances such as the latter may wish to skip to another thread.

 

First of all, Shell, since this is the first time I am disagreeing with you about anything in this forum, and this tends to be a hot-button issue that sets tempers flaring, I want to say that I admire your attitude about Scouting and, so far as is indicated by your posts, about life in general. You have been nothing but positive in your dealings with other forum members and your reactions to various issues. In fact, so far your posts have been almost exclusively in the "non-controversial" parts of this forum. A search indicates that your first post in this thread was your first post ever in "Issues and Politics," which is admirable enough in itself. Your only "Issues and Politics" post outside this thread has been a non-controversial post listing your governor as a "famous Boy Scout." (By the way, it may interest you to know that Governor Locke has publicly criticized the BSA's anti-gay policy. See http://www.scoutingforall.org/aaic/2003102102.shtml)

 

So in other words, Shell, nothing personal. I think your heart is in the right place -- something I can't say about everybody in this forum.

 

So here are the facts as I understand them. Someone posted an offer of some personal equipment, and you tried to accept that offer on behalf of your sons, who are in Scouting. However, when the person learned that the equipment would be used in Scouting, he declined on the basis that "the Boy Scouts" "discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation and religious beliefs." You then wrote back and said, among other thing, "Scouting is not that way." (I'll get to the rest of what you said in a minute.)

 

Shell, with all respect, Scouting is "that way." Meaning, when this gentleman said that the BSA "discriminate(s) on the basis of sexual orientation and religious beliefs," he was correct (at least as far as sexual orientation.) I believe he is also correct as far as religious beliefs, but I will leave for others to debate the philosophical issue of whether exclusion of atheists falls into that category, and as I have said in the past, given the choice between maintaining that policy and crossing out portions of the Scout Oath and Law, I have to go with the Scout Oath and Law.

 

That issue aside, the BSA clearly does discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. (Or more specifically, avowed sexual orientation.) Even some people who support the policy will tell you that, though others tend to shy away from the word "discriminate." Prospective leaders who have declared, even outside the context of the Scouting program, that they are gay, will be denied membership, and if they are already in, they are kicked out. (The process for youth members, according to what it says (or once said) on the BSA web site, is not quite as clear or simple, but it appears that the ultimate result would be the same.)

 

Shell, your examples of a female leader wearing inappropriate clothing and flirting with boys, while certainly examples of behavior that would (and should) get you booted out, are really not comparable to the anti-gay policy. Nobody, regardless of orientation, should be discussing or displaying their sexuality with Scouts. But that is not what the anti-gay policy is "about." Under that policy a person will be removed regardless of what he has or hasn't said within the unit, and even regardless of whether any of the boys or adults in the unit are aware of his orientation. The example there is the often-discussed James Dale, whose case is the one that was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. The facts of that case tell us only that the council executive became aware of Mr. Dale's participation in a conference about issues facing gay youth, and his identification as president of a college gay rights organization, in a newspaper. The next thing that happened was that Dale was terminated.

 

So in other words, a gay person could follow all the same standards of propriety in dealing with the boys and leaders that you (and I) follow, and still be booted out because they have acknowledged an orientation different from ours. You may agree with that result, or you may disagree with it. A number of people within Scouting who I consider to be "people of good will," including my father, agree with the policy. But the one thing I can't let go by is an apparent misunderstanding of what the policy is -- it is one of discrimination based on sexual orientation.

 

Oh, I did say I was going to agree with BobWhite about something, so here it is: Like him (and Laurie), my response to the backpack-offeror would have been "OK, Thank you", or words to that effect.

 

Shell, you also mention people who raise this issue with boys. I think almost everybody, regardless of "side," agrees that that is inappropriate. The policy in question was made by adults, it is an "adult subject," and it should be discussed by, and with, adults. As ProudEagle suggests, that does not mean that youths do not sometimes discuss it among themselves. But to go up to a boy, especially one you don't know, and start arguing with him about this, is just wrong for any number of reasons.

[Shell in WA- USA]

I admit I have a pretty naive point of veiw on all of this. I meant no disrespect, I was just asking the question. I've usually just said "thanks anyway" and moved on. I was simply looking for a more intellegent way to respond given the circumstances again. It wasn't meant to stir up anger. Sorry I asked an innocent question...

 

I grew up as a white female christian and raised to love and be accepting of all people. I don't dislike Gay people, I may not agree with their choice but I don't dislike the people. From my Christian point of veiw, God has no degree of sin, we are all sinners. I am no better that a gay person in God's eye. Christ died to save a gay person just as he died to save me. And we all have the ability to be forgiven by God. When I join God in heaven, who knows, I may be sitting next to Hitler! (Nobody attack me for that, it's my belief.)

 

BTW, when I brought up the boy, I was refering to an adult who chastised my own son for wearing his uniform in a grocery store when we stopped after a scout meeting. We just smiled and moved on, but I shouted prayers to heaven in the car for that person who would come at a 13 year boy with so much anger and that God would take away his anger and heal his heart.

 

Ducking back to my little corner now..... sorry for the trouble I caused.

[Shell in WA- USA]

BTW NJCubScouter;

Gary Locke is that way with all the issues, he whimps out on every issue he thinks he'll lose supporters. But I'm not going to get into that here.I don't really care for him much, can't wait until he moves out!

[Fat Old Guy]

"FOG, just for another example, discriminating against someone who is single is discrimination on the basis of marital status. "

 

Gee, the federal government does that all the time and I haven't heard you complaining.

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Because in many cases the government CAN discriminate on the basis of marital status.

 

I notice you didn't comment on the actual point I was making. I guess you're just an intellectual coward.

[Shell in WA- USA]

I'm really sorry now I asked the question. I really was just searching for some honest answers that I thought I could find here. I guess I can't, I'll just stick to the "yes, Ma'm" and "Yes, Sir" responses.

 

You know, if we start turning on each other, I can see why the public is starting to have a questionable opinion about scouting. What happened to the Scout Oath and Scout Law that we say we uphold? Sometimes the best way to show the good in something is to just "live it." (Hey, maybe there's the answer I'm looking for too!)

 

Come on now, group hug!

[Fat Old Guy]

"I notice you didn't comment on the actual point I was making."

 

I had no idea that you had a point. You just constantly blather about this and that but make no sense.

 

By the way, the Feds also discriminate on the basis of sex and race. Why? Because the laws don't apply to the governement unless they want them to.

 

 

[OneHour]

ShellinWA, what a coincidence ... we just had a scouting for food drive and I decided to place a box at work to collect. I got a very awkward response from a fellow whom the whole office knows his sexual preference. He told me out loud, "I'm not supporting the boy scout." I simply replied, "then won't you support those who are in need?" He responded, "I already did that and I do not believe in boyscout!" I simply responded, "On the behalf of those who need help, I thank you. You are a gentleman with a good heart."

 

 

[Fat Old Guy]

He responded, "I already did that and I do not believe in boyscout!"

 

Can a person who doesn't believe in Boy Scouts be a member of the Unitarians?

[Proud Eagle]

OK. Somehow I must have missed on of Shell's posts until now. I don't know quite how that happened, but it did. Therefore, I did not properly understand the context of this situation until now. Sorry for any trouble that may have caused.

 

I would agree that everything in this particular case seems perfectly legal. The website involved was simply providing information. The person giving the pack away was the one engaging in discrimination, and was within their rights to do so.

 

I still, however, maintain the argument that if this had been a company giving away the backpack, it would not have had the right to discriminate against someone for being a BSA member.

 

Now FOG, I feel certain the Unitarians would let them in. They don't seem to mind if their members are reality challenged.

 

Speaking of being reality challenged, how precisely does someone not believe in the Boy Scouts? That is sort of like not believing in trees or fish. It doesn't really make much sense, but I guess people are free to think whatever they want.

 

On the other hand, if he doesn't believe in the values of the BSA, or he doesn't believe in the policies of the BSA, that would at least be a rational position.

 

However, I really can't see how it hurts the Boy Scouts to refuse to donate to a canned food drive. The only people that hurts are the hungry.

[fotoscout]

The man is entiltled to his belief.

 

The respectful response is, "Thank you for your consideration, I'm sorry you feel that way." End of discussion.

 

 

Some of you guys need to move onto less polarized tuff.

 

Foto

[NJCubScouter]

Shell, you have nothing to be "sorry" for, and you didn't make any "trouble." You started a discussion in "Issues and Politics" and it provoked some debate and disagreement. That is what is supposed to happen. That's what this section of the forum is here for, so that hopefully the controversies remain confined here and do not spill out into the other sections. (Or at least that is what I think the forum owner means in the "introduction" to this section on the main index page.)

 

As for Gov. Locke, I only mentioned him because I thought you were an admirer of his from your post under "Another Famous Boy Scout" and because his statements about the "gay issue" provide another perspective on the speech that you provided a link to. I assumed your opinion of him incorrectly, for which I apologize. Actually though, it seems to me that almost any politician risks "losing supporters" by saying anything on either side of this issue. I also think that many governors, including yours, have a better reputation outside their own state than inside, I guess on the theory that "familiarity breeds contempt." Nationally, I believe he has a good reputation -- certainly better than my own governor whose appointees (and sometimes his own actions) seem to get him into some potential scandal or near-scandal or gaffe or some other problem just about every other week.