Honorary president of the BSA comes out in favor of gay marriage

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Beavah writes:

Merlyn, in gettin' charters moved from public schools to churches, guaranteed that the BSA would maintain its current policy. That's what we call "poor strategy."

 

No Beavah, I've explained to you a number of times and you still can't understand. Religious discrimination against atheists by public schools is absolutely unacceptable, and I helped stop it, no thanks to the dishonest BSA. You still operate under the delusion that it would be legal.

[Beavah]

Quite right, Merlyn. It's poor strategy if your goal is societal acceptance of gays or atheists or whatnot. If instead your goal is ideological purity in government institutions, then it is a perfectly reasonable strategy. The Constitutional question has never been argued, so all either of us can do is speculate, eh? I choose to speculate differently than you.

 

Pure speculation. Show us some evidence that such a thing could realistically have happened.

 

Packsaddle, all yeh need to do is the same homework the Ron Paul people are doin', eh? Read the bylaws, and articles of incorporation, and know the NFP corporate law for each state. CORs can determine da makeup of council representatives to the BSA annual meeting. The representatives can determine the makeup of the BSA's decision-making corporate board. A quick check will show yeh there are far more public schools than there are current BSA units, so they'd have the numbers.

 

What's hard is that this requires the extra effort of actually buildin' youth programs and convincing others of your viewpoint. Yeh can't just get a judge to smack 'em over the head, yeh actually have to spend time reasoning with fellow citizens and scouters and bring 'em around to your way of thinking. But that's what we're supposed to do in a democracy, eh?

 

Beavah

 

[packsaddle]

The critical term was 'realistically'. If there's ANYONE in these forums who think that public schools across the country would 'realistically' get themselves organized to the point that they could do what Beavah just suggested...in order to make such a change in BSA..I'd really like to know who else has gone into la-la land.

Beavah, I think you're delusional if you count THAT as realistic.

[Beavah]

Yah, well, that's da nature of democracy too, eh?

 

The challenge that you'd have is that public schools are represented by public school boards, who are elected officials that represent their constituencies. So that requires convincin' the public, eh?

 

Do I think that would happen? Well, no, because I think it's a poor idea and I reckon most Americans would agree. So in that way, no, I don't think it's realistic. But it's more realistic than the current approach, eh?

After all, who would have thought Ron Paul takin' the state of Maine was realistic?

 

What I'm advocatin' is the same thing I always advocate in issues of public policy. To change public policy, yeh should expect that yeh have to convince people. Yeh have to do the hard work of changin' hearts and minds. Yeh should not expect that da court system act like a tin pot dictator and shove your desired policy down others' throats. That's not what courts are for.

 

Same with changin' a private membership corporation. Do the hard work of convincing the members.

 

When yeh convince others, yeh get the sound public policy of the Civil Rights Act, which has stood the test of time. When yeh use the courts, yeh get mandatory school busing, one of the most disastrous policies of the last 50 years.

 

B

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Beavah writes:

Quite right, Merlyn. It's poor strategy if your goal is societal acceptance of gays or atheists or whatnot.

 

No, fighting for equal rights is about the best way to gain respect. The BSA's reputation has been going downhill since Dale, but atheism (and acceptance of atheism) is growing.

 

If instead your goal is ideological purity in government institutions, then it is a perfectly reasonable strategy. The Constitutional question has never been argued, so all either of us can do is speculate, eh?

 

No, you can "speculate" all you like, but reasonable people know that public schools can't practice religious discrimination.

 

Yeh should not expect that da court system act like a tin pot dictator and shove your desired policy down others' throats. That's not what courts are for.

 

And that's not what they do, you ignorant hick. Courts strike down laws that violate the constitution, they don't make up laws, they apply laws that are legal and throw out laws that aren't legal.

[Beavah]

And that's not what they do, you ignorant hick

 

Yep, there are things that da courts properly should do. That's the ideal, eh? Like any ideal, the reality is more complex and subject to human frailties. So courts and judges sometimes aren't as wise or prudent as we hope they'd be in the ideal.

 

No different from hopin' that people who claim to be rational atheists can formulate an argument without callin' people names or other childishness. Sometimes yeh just get disappointed.

 

Beavah

 

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Beavah writes:

Like any ideal, the reality is more complex and subject to human frailties.

 

Hasn't been an issue in any BSA cases.

 

No different from hopin' that people who claim to be rational atheists can formulate an argument without callin' people names or other childishness.

 

Like phony hick accents.

[OldGreyEagle]

Hey Merlyn, Knock it off

 

Beavah is no phony Hick...

[fred8033]

Merlyn_LeRoy: : "you ignorant hick" ... "Like phony hick accents"

 

... and thus clarifying the source of the real ugly hate spawning rhetoric.

 

Merlyn_LeRoy - Shame on you. You should observe the scout law in this forum even though you are not a scouter and don't plan to become a scouter. Society needs a degree of civility to discuss ideas and exist together.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

fred8033 writes:

Merlyn_LeRoy - Shame on you. You should observe the scout law in this forum

 

Ah, so I'm limited to insults by saying gays are "unclean" and "immoral", and atheists can't be the best kinds of citizens? That kind of scout law?

[fred8033]

Merlyn_LeRoy wrote: "so I'm limited to insults by saying..."

 

Why are you limited to insults? Civility and tolerance is avoiding insults. State points. Debate ideas. Extend the discussion. You've done enough insulting and demeaning of others.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

By "limited to insults", I mean that I can only use the insults that BSA national uses against gays and atheists. That's certainly "scoutlike," I trust.

[NJCubScouter]

On the issue of "might makes right", Packsaddle is correct; Beavah's notion of what this means is completely upside-down. Obviously a majority may be the "might" that makes "right," and that is true in this case. If people want to argue that the exclusion of openly gay people is the right policy, that's fine. Obviously I disagree. But to say, essentially, that the policy is right because it was adopted by a majority of those who get to vote, there I really disagree. The process for devising and preserving a bad policy is somewhat beside the point. It would still be a bad and wrong policy even if it were adopted unanimously.

 

As for the name-calling... sure, people shouldn't be doing it. However, I do think that there have been a few forum members (not mentioning any names) who have (by conduct such as repeatedly making ridiculous assertions and adopting an air of superiority while doing it; again, not mentioning any name here, really) pushed things past the point where they may no longer be entitled to the "usual courtesies." I have occasionally been tempted to let loose with a colorful adjective or two, or more frequently, to give my honest opinion of someone and their mode of "debating" issues. However, I remind myself that although the person in question might "deserve it", it is not really courteous to the rest of the forum members who would see it. (And I also give some consideration to guys like OGE and Packsaddle, getting home after a long day at work and seeing a "borderline" post that they then have to decide whether to delete or not, and I don't want to make them do that, so I refrain.)

[Peregrinator]

Seems to me that an ignorant hick would have a real hick accent! It can't be both.

[NJCubScouter]

Peregrinator, the funny thing about the "accent" is that I always thought that accents applied to written language, not to spoken language. There was that novelist (whose name I forget) whose work included some writing with an accent (not just "quoting" characters speaking in an accent, but actually written in the author's voice, with an accent.) Of course, that was fiction. (There is a next sentence that is almost bursting out of my keyboard to get into this post, but I am refraining per my previous post.)