When will National realize this *IS* affecting membership

[packsaddle]

Thanks Eagle92 and Vol_scouter,

I frequently confront the confusing topic of biological species so I'm always collecting these little anecdotes to keep them from going to sleep.

Having grown up in some of the dark days of the deep South, I'm aware of all the arguments regarding eugenics and so-called racial superiority. I was treated to a barrage of this from my peers, some of my family, and from the pulpit at my Presbyterian church (nod to Moosetracker). But I was unfamiliar with the preposterous claims that black people were different species. I'm now doing the necessary reading.

[vol_scouter]

Moose,

 

I have worked in the Girl Scouts in the past but not recently. There is not right for me to join the Girl Scouts or any other group. You must be too young to understand that pedophiles/hebephiles are going down the same course as homosexuals did starting in the 1950's. I clearly stated that the intelligentsia of the 1800's considered blacks to be an inferiorspecies which is what they said - I did not say or immply that they were not human. The point is that the left intelligentsia are not right just because they say so. As far as churches, will your church allow someone to join who does not agree with their beliefs? Maybe the UU will but most religions require that you agree to certain fundamental beliefs.

[moosetracker]

Whenever I joined a church, I chose because I liked the minister and the congregation of. I was protestant, husband Catholic.. We both became members if we so chose, no one asked us to sign some documents of belief.. You want to be a member here.. Welcome! Never asked if we believed, just figured we found something to our liking, and if at whatever time we did not, we would move on.

 

Most churches work on the basis that while a member you will learn and grow and your belief will grow with the association, then that you must conform and abide and follow some sort of strict set of rules, before being accepted as a member.

 

Hmmmmm.. I guess I misunderstood you coupling in one paragraph, my statement that the Southerners were pulling quotes from the bible to prove their right to own slaves, with the statement about the Scientific theory of a different species to state that they did not try to prove their right to own slaves using the bible as their source of proof..

 

Instead you are trying to prove that science can be wrong.. Especially science that is all theory with no attempt to test to validate.. Sort of like the following incorrect scientific theory with no conclusive evidence:

1) Almost all sex crimes against children are committed by men.

2) Up to one-third of all sex crimes against children are committed against boys.

3) Gays make up a tiny minority of the population. (Anti-gay opponents typically cite a figure somewhere between 1% and 3%.)

4) Therefore, gay men are committing a disproportionate share of sexual crimes against children.

 

Well sounds good.. Except pedophiles is about the age not the sex. And most pedophiles are not hetero or homo, but simply have formed neither type of relationships.. And the remaining case studies and experiments have prove that there is no higher percentage of homo to hetero..

 

Now maybe the case studies and experiments that are summarized in my last paragraph are not 100% sound, but they are a whole lot more reliable, then wild theory that doesn't have any case studies or experiments to offer for proof.. They are just that, made-up theories to feel justified in your beliefs. Both the theories dated to around the time of slavery and the holocaust and the theories made up by anti-gay activists in the recent past, which even now they are letting go of because it is just making them look foolish..

(This message has been edited by moosetracker)

[packsaddle]

Vol_scouter, I've checked through that extensive list of names from the Wikipedia site. Most of them do not support a difference at the species level. Of the ones who do support that idea, most of those are strictly European, and unlikely to be the ones you think of as Southern intelligentsia.

Of the ones mentioned from the South and associated with support of slavery, two are actually followers of the ideas of one other, Dr. Morton. There is only one other Southern promoter of the idea of separate species, Dr. Knox, and his ideas actually equate 'species' with 'race' so he's out of the picture. That leaves Morton who evidently is a large figure in American anthropology. One person from that entire list.

 

Moreover, after reading further, it seems that Morton's ideas were themselves influenced or at least constrained by his interpretation of the Bible. In this manner, he believed that that a literal interpretation of the Bible supported multiple creations, polygenism, the only way to explain the multiple so-called 'species' of man. The Bible was even here, influential on the idea. At any rate, that is only ONE person.

 

One 'wild card', Richard Furman (for whom Furman University is named), is worth considering but so far I have not been able to establish that he believed in a species-level difference. However, since I may have unique access to his work I will try to clear that matter. Nevertheless, it is evident that Furman's primary work was a tome in which he attempted to reconcile slavery for his Baptist fellows. The Bible again had its influence.

 

I haven't pressed you to describe in more detail how you define "THE intelligentsia" so that question remains for now as well. But I think that it will be difficult, regardless of who the 'intelligentsia' are, to separate their devout religious beliefs from their rationale in support of slavery. I doubt that you can find a single instance of support for the idea of separate species of man which is NOT influenced by some interpretation of the Bible. However, I'm open to more suggestions.

[vol_scouter]

Pack,

 

I never said Southern intelligentsia or even implied it. You said: "Most of them do not support a difference at the species level. Of the ones who do support that idea, most of those are strictly European, ..." which would be the intelligentsia of the time.

 

Moose,

 

Argue with the many studies of the CDC which have showed the percentage of homosexuals to be

[moosetracker]

Vol_scouter - I will not argue that homosexuals are less then

[John-in-KC]

Eammonn,

 

Please allow me to clarify:

 

I will agree with you that individual units would continue to do Scouting no matter what happens to the National Council and the Local Councils.

 

When I said "Follow the money", I am talking to the $$$ remitted to the institution and corporation of the Boy Scouts of America, not to Scouting.

 

That make sense?

[shortridge]

A few pages back, jrush made an excellent point that I'd hate to get lost in debate over percentages and race:

 

My point is, a moral objection to homosexuals is going to be damned hard for the BSA to own when an openly gay DSC or MOH awardee is told he lacks the moral character to be a good role model to scouts.

 

I'll say it again: That is an excellent point.

 

And I doubt it'll take that long at all for an openly gay veteran, decorated on the field, to retire from our armed forces and want to put his experience to volunteer in the Scouting movement, in which he earned his Eagle Scout rank as a youth. That will be a firestorm.

[moosetracker]

Your right Shortridge, that is a very good point that jrush made.. And one I don't remember reading. I will have to go back to look for it, maybe we cross posted and I missed reading something above the last post I made..

 

Goes along with what I have said, the more open they become, the less anti-homosexual groups can spin false rumors to maintain a fear factor about a secretive group of people.

 

[Oak Tree]

Steven Spielberg resigned from Boy Scouts due to this policy.

 

The Fortune 500 company I work for will not give matching donations to Boy Scouts (or to any discriminatory organization, for some definition of discriminatory).

 

There is clearly *some* effect, but there could be a counter-effect as well, and as Eamonn points out, it's hard to know the overall impact.

 

I don't believe the Catholics would jump ship, and I'm not so sure about all of the others that are confidently predicted as leaving. I think most troops would continue one way or another.

[packsaddle]

Vol_scouter, remember..this was YOUR source. I was trying to be generous. Of all the Europeans listed, only ONE considered humans in terms of different species, Charles White. And his ideas were influenced by the Bible as well.

There might be more out there but that's the only one outside of the ones I mentioned before. Now if you think that one English physician carried more weight than the likes of Voltaire, Linnaeus, Buffon, Kant, and Cuvier, your point is well-taken. I doubt it.

Nevertheless, why don't you sift through your own source and see if I've missed something. I might have and if so, I'd like to know.

[acco40]

Unfortunately, both sides of the equation will use the BSA position for political gain. As a program that claims to be absolutely nonsectarian, I find their stance on homosexuality troubling.

 

Keep in mind that the Supreme Court case was only secondarily concerned with homosexual behavior - the primary issue debated was if the BSA was a private or public institution. The supreme court decided that he BSA was a private institution and as such, could set their own admission standards. I think that was the correct call but the fact that the BSA is chartered by the USG, received funds from the USG, etc. complicates things immensely.

 

Now, the BSA does happen to state that, an avowed homosexual is not a role model for the values espoused in the Scout Oath and Law. I think that is repugnant. Someone please tell me what part of the Scout Oath and Law one may not be a role model for if one is an avowed homosexual? The BSA claims that the values declared by "morally straight" and "clean" are not represented by homosexual behavior. That is the crux of the issue and I can see why a large portion of society has a beef with that reasoning. The BSA feels that if it endorsed an avowed homosexual as a Scout leader that they would not be a desirable role model.

 

What the BSA does not state is what exactly is "unclean" or "morally crooked" about being an avowed homosexual. I challenge them to do so. Lay the cards on the table!

[packsaddle]

Acco, I join you in your feelings. However, the way I understand it, is that the lack of 'cleanliness' or 'moral straightness' is based on moral absolutes derived from Biblical interpretations. It is a strictly religious derivation from a particular form of religion. I could be wrong but that's what I've gotten from listening to the explanations repeated over the years.

[acco40]

Yes, but that then makes the BSA claim of nonsectarian false. We don't claim those that eat lobster unacceptable role models. We don't claim those that cut their hair unacceptable role models. We don't claim those that drive automobiles as unacceptable role models. All of those behaviors are "frowned upon" by certain "sectarian" religions.

 

 

[vol_scouter]

Pack,

 

I do not have the time to delve into this now (I work a full-time and part-time job). I will try to find the time in the future but will withdraw my claim that the intelligentsia of the time said that blacks were another species. Many did believe in polygenism which has been definitely proven wrong by mitochondrial DNA. From their belief in polygenism, they concluded that some races were inferior. The gist of my point is that just because the learned folks have a particular view (consensus) does not make it correct. If I find my evidence (I read some article about it many years ago which makes me concerned about the validity of the article), you will hear from me about it. Until that time, consider my claim as very overstated and withdrawn

 

Moose,

 

As I recall in previous discussions, I found 3 or 4 papers that had been published in peer reviewed journals. Articles that were not peer reviewed were ignored. Those papers were consistent in their findings. To try to explain it to you, if a group makes up X percent of the population, then, if they are the same risk for some behavior, they will be found to account for the same percent of the population exhibiting those characteristics. If they are found to be 3X instead of X, then they are three times as likely than the rest of the population to exhibit that behavior. So in the present discussion, if the percentage of homosexuals in the population is 2% according to the CDC and the studies show that they make up 2-6% of the prison population for hebephilia, then they are 1-3 times as likely to commit the crime as the rest of the population. Obviously, if that number is 2%, then they are no risk but if they are 6% then they are 3 times as likely to commit the crime. The studies are flawed and no scientific conclusions can be drawn although those studies indicate that there could be an increased risk. Many more and better studies would have to be done to determine the truth. It is not likely that high quality, non-biased studies will be performed because of the political ramifications for all concerned. It would be best that the studies be carried out, I just don't believe that they will.

 

You keep saying things about pedophiles which I cannot understand. Pedophiles have sex with only pre-pubertal children and are not what we are discussing.

 

Your point about adults who were abused as children being more likely to be a pedophile. If the BSA required a thorough psychological profile, then maybe we could screen out those folks who would a risk to our children. Pedophiles are fortunately not very prevalent in society so the screening would be very expensive to find very few people. The screening would likely drive away volunteers and could have significant legal issues for false positives. So while a good idea, it does not seem to me to be workable.

 

You must have odd churches in New Hampshire that allow you to believe anything that you wish and be a member. I am not familiar with churches that do not recite creeds or ask new members if that believe in the basic tenets of the church. If you say that is the case, since you are a Scouter, I do not doubt your word.