800 Pound Gorillas

[NJCubScouter]

Speaking of nonsense, Beavah, your post is a prime example. Blame the victim. How original.

 

Nobody should care if the troop in the next neighborhood or the next town has a gay Scoutmaster, if that is what the CO of that unit wants. As far as I know, nobody in this forum is advocating that LDS or Catholic or any other COs be required to accept gay leaders. We just want all COs and all religions to be treated equally. Not like the current situation where some religions (mine, for example) are treated like second-class religions and basically leave the program because they believe it is wrong (I guess that would be ''morally'' wrong) to exclude people based on sexual orientation.

[Beavah]

Yeh lost me, NJCubScouter. What "victim" are yeh talking about? Victims are people who have been harmed by a criminal act. We're just talkin' about leadership rules in a childrens' program.

 

This reminds me of condo or neighborhood association disputes, eh? There's always someone who wants to turn their front yard into a child care facility or paint their house camouflage. They claim that it's their property, why should anyone else care? But in fact, what they do does affect the perception of the neighborhood and da value of other people's property.

 

No different here.

 

So if yeh don't like da few rules of the neighborhood association, yeh can encourage like minded folks to buy into the neighborhood and change the rules, or yeh can buy or build a house somewhere else.

 

Of course none of that means that some association rules aren't a bit over the top, eh? . Or that a few homeowners don't push the envelope. But that's just da nature of having neighbors, ain't it? And having neighbors is often more attractive for other reasons than goin' it alone.

 

Beavah

[NJCubScouter]

Beavah, denying there is a victim is part of your blame-the-victim approach.

[GernBlansten]

I see this as just an extension to allowing women leaders. COs may decide that they do not want female leaders. So be it. They may also decide that they do not wish to associate with units that allow female leaders. Ok. They may not want their scouts to have MB councilors who are female leaders. All that is fine. If that is how the CO wants to run their unit, who am I to disagree.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Beavah writes:

That's why I always felt the hacks who insisted on pulling public school charters were some of da worst policy strategists I'd ever met.

 

Beavah, civil rights aren't a "game," as much as you appear to want to treat them as such. Public schools CANNOT practice religious discrimination, period, end of sentence. NO public school can charter a BSA unit that requires atheists to be excluded.

 

Glad to see removing 10,000 public school charters still galls you, though.

[Beavah]

 

Glad to see removing 10,000 public school charters still galls you, though.

 

Doesn't gall me in da least, Merlyn, as I've said before. It didn't affect the practice of scouting much at all. Just created a temporary paperwork shuffle.

 

What it did do was greatly reduce the likelihood that the BSA will change its leadership expectations, by greatly reducing the voice and voting power of the dissenters. So as a strategy for getting da BSA to change its practice, or to adopt "local option" it was inept.

 

We've been round on da other stuff before, eh? You continue to overstate your case, no matter how many periods or ends of sentences you type out. SCOTUS, after all, just came within one vote of requiring public schools to accommodate and sponsor religious groups on an equal basis, so da notion that optionally doing so is illicit is quite a stretch.

 

Beavah

 

 

[TenBears]

How can you take a person who types with an affected accent seriously? Can't decide if I'm reminded more of Forrest Gump or Madonna. lol

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Beavah writes:

Government-recognized marriage is not a "right."

 

Hey, again Beavah shows his ignorance of US legal decisions:

 

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=388&invol=1

...

The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

...

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.

...

 

 

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=434&invol=374

...

the classification created by the statute infringed upon a fundamental right, the right to marry

...

 

 

Under US law, marriage IS a "right." You might not agree with that, or you might not like it, but stating Government-recognized marriage is not a "right" is, flatly, wrong.

[Beavah]

Ooops, sorry NJ. Missed yeh in da temporary Merlyn interruption. (edited to add: which seems not to be so temporary ).

 

Please identify the "victim" that you claim. I'm not being obtuse, I genuinely have no idea what you are talking about. For most of this thread, our LDS colleagues seem to be da victims of people's misperceptions or prejudices. Is that what yeh mean? And in my world, "blame the victim" is often an admonishment against zealous defense attorneys in rape cases, eh? But I fail to see anything resembling rape in this context.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Beavah writes:

So as a strategy for getting da BSA to change its practice, or to adopt "local option" it was inept

 

No, you STILL DON'T GET IT.

 

Civil rights violations aren't "strategies." They are violations that have to cease immediately. Any fallout from that has to be dealt with on a separate basis. What you (and everyone else) cannot do is allow it for some political gain.

 

SCOTUS, after all, just came within one vote of requiring public schools to accommodate and sponsor religious groups on an equal basis, so da notion that optionally doing so is illicit is quite a stretch.

 

Sorry, your ignorance of US law is showing. Again.

 

I assume (since you're still too gutless to offer your actual opinion) that you're referring to Martinez. Even if the court ruled the other way, that doesn't resemble a BSA charter. The school would not be selecting the leadership of the Christian Legal Society, as they would as the chartering organization of the BSA unit, for one thing. Plus the school would not be entering into an agreement to practice religious discrimination, in contrast to a BSA charter agreement. All Martinez would do is require that schools offer equal financing to every group, even groups that discriminate, NOT own & operate discriminatory groups.

 

 

(fix phrasing)(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

[NJCubScouter]

Beavah, forget it. I'm not playing your games anymore. Go play with someone else.

[GernBlansten]

NJ, you can come crawl under the rock with me. Beavah don't like me or my rock either.

[Beavah]

Ah, Gern, I like yeh just fine. Same with NJ. Agree with yeh on some things, disagree with yeh on others. Never met your pet rock, though .

 

Yeh all come on back when yeh want to continue a discussion with folks who have a different perspective.

 

Enjoy da echo chamber in the mean time!

 

B

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[BrentAllen]

packsaddle writes: Brent, reality check. You think those 'unavowed' gay persons don't already interact across those CO and district boundaries? Really?

 

pack - how do you know they do? How do you know they exist? In my district? Curious.

[GernBlansten]

"pack - how do you know they do? How do you know they exist? In my district? Curious."

 

Well, they are the ones in crisp, neat uniforms, decorated to the nines, silly.

 

 

Sorry, I couldn't resist.