Future BSA President Intent to Eliminate the Ban on Gays

[Peregrinator]

The issues with Ayn Rand go far, far beyond her atheism (which, in any case, was not modern tolerant patronizing atheism but dogmatic atheism).

[packsaddle]

"...far, far beyond her atheism..."

OK, please explain.

[Peregrinator]

Rand taught that people do not have claims on others, not even family members. (For an example of this, simply consider the portrayal of Lillian Rearden and Mother Rearden in Atlas Shrugged.) I don't think that's necessarily a logical consequence of atheism.

[moosetracker]

I see it this the way perceive it. Peregrinator may see it differently.

 

Ranking people between saint and scum of the earth.. This is a popular ranking among many. Merlyn don't shoot me. I am not saying this is my opinion, just a popular opinion.

 

Saint:

Religious who truely cares for their community and mankind.

 

Average:

Religious who doesn't care for community and mankind. (self-serving)

Atheist who truely cares for their community and mankind.

 

Scum-of-earth:

Religious who doesn't care for community and mankind. (self-serving).

 

Now of course this is simplified. People will put in other prejudices.. Race, sexual orientation etc.

 

Anyway, whether Ryan can change public opinion of him from a Rand follower to that of a Catholic, means the difference between him being Ranked "Average" or "scum-of-the-earth".

 

 

[packsaddle]

Is that all it takes to go "...far, far beyond her atheism..."?

Do conservatives think she is incorrect, that we DO have claims on others? I was hoping to be surprised to find out that she had eaten children or something. But other than being atheist, her philosophy of individual freedom seems well-suited as a conservative philosophy. Is prejudice against atheism THAT powerful in politics, really?

 

Moosetracker, I'm not sure HOW you got THAT out of a question about Ayn Rand.

[Peregrinator]

Do conservatives think she is incorrect, that we DO have claims on others?

 

I don't know whether so-called "conservatives" think she is correct or not. There is an awful strain of individualism in modern conservative thought. But the atomic unit of society isn't the individual but the family.

 

I was hoping to be surprised to find out that she had eaten children or something. But other than being atheist, her philosophy of individual freedom seems well-suited as a conservative philosophy. Is prejudice against atheism THAT powerful in politics, really?

 

I readily admit that I am biased against atheists holding public office, but as far as Rand is concerned her atheism is the icing on the cake (but then, it is hard to see how someone can claim selfishness is a "virtue" and not be an atheist). Do you think that wives and husbands don't have a claim one another? Does that strike you as something "conservatives" believe?

 

Maybe conservatives are attracted to Rand's views on homosexual behavior. ;-)

[BartHumphries]

And he's an Eagle Scout with the world's 9th largest company behind him. AT&T could shore up BSA from lost Mormon financial contributions without even blinking. They make more in net income than BSA has total assets.

 

Not just the LDS church, there's the LDS, Catholic, and Methodist churches, whose websites say that they don't support homosexuality. That's 39.32% of registered Scouts, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chartered_organizations_of_the_Boy_Scouts_of_America Now add in the remaining churches who have split stances (some of the remaining churches support homosexuality, some don't, some don't care, some are split congregation by congregation in support/opposition). Over 50% of registered Scouts would appear to be members of charter organizations which don't support homosexuality (at least according to what the websites of those churches say about how many of their congregations support it and theorizing a roughly even split in registered Scouts among the different types of congregations).

 

Sure, the new President could change this policy. AT&T could make up the financial difference. It would definitely make things easier as far as public land use, etc. Losing such a big hunk of Scouts, though, wouldn't just hurt finances. That'd be a lot of Scouts leaving (not that many would have a choice, as a kid you often join whatever organization your parents tell you to join).

 

Would the LDS church leave? Probably -- the LDS Church (or at least its members) already created both Varsity and Venturing. The current head of the LDS church is very proud of having been a Scout and really supports the organization, but openly homosexual people aren't usually allowed to work with youth, so it would probably stop chartering units.

 

Would the Catholic church leave? Probably -- The Catholic church already actively promotes Camp Fire (USA) over the Girl Scouts USA precisely because of that star by the word God and allowance of openly homosexual leaders in Girl Scouts, so it would probably stop chartering units.

 

Would other denominations leave? Who knows, I don't really know anything about them, but the Methodists at least and some of the other organizations don't allow openly homosexual leaders to work with their children.

[moosetracker]

SELF-SERVING.. You don't need to answer to anyone but YOURSELF. Therefore, Romney & Ryan will force through that which benefit themselves. If you are a one percenter (like them) then you may ride on their coat tails.

 

This may be the radical right. The tea party philosophy. But some republicans still care about conservative values like looking after their own families. Others may care that their families will suffer if they are not a one percenter and have to pay more in their taxes to carry the loss of the millionaires and billionaires not paying anything in taxes, stocking it away in accounts or opening businesses in other countries where they can get slave labor so they can make more of a profit.

 

If your family depends on more than the man as the bread winner, you may want fair wages for your wife, so that your family can be self-supporting, or maybe if something happens to you an accident that is disabling or your death. You might want to see her have a fair income so that she can continue to take care of the family..

 

I have heard even as a state bill in the most conservative states, this personage bill that Ryan is trying to push through as a national bill is not passed.

 

You may be conservative enough to support it. But most people when their wife or daughter become sick or hurt where it becomes a choice of saving the woman or letting both the woman and the fetus die, they will choose to save at least one life. If Ryan gets his personage bill then your wife/daughter will die if she is unfortunate enought to be pregnant when needing medical attention.

 

If you are a businessman hopefully you may survive if your business is building yachts or luxury cars. Most businesses rely on a strong middle class. If we return to the upper class and the lower class with no middle class. Then even if you use to be a one percenter, you wont be if you are not simply living by making the money you have work for you, or can survive on a business from just the ultra rich.

 

Self sufficiency needs someone to allow you a fair playing field at least.

 

 

(This message has been edited by moosetracker)

[packsaddle]

Bless you Bart, you actually are trying to stay on topic. If the argument was reversed; if those denominations were threatening to leave because BSA was refusing to allow membership to gays, would it really be an argument to allow gays in? The question of what the 'right thing' is - is not affected by the reactions of folks to the membership decision. If the decision was made on the basis of maximizing membership (and $$$), it would be a marketing decision or something like that, and not something necessarily based in moral compass.

 

Peregrinator, what is "awful" about individualism, whether it's in conservative or any other kind of thought? Why is individualism incompatible with 'family'? Husbands and wives have a contract with each other, on many simultaneous levels. But I could argue that awareness of 'individual' actually strengthens this contract we call marriage. Keep in mind that Rand married young and remained with her mate until he died. I realize this is largely because of O'connor's devotion...does that minimize the fact that remains?

 

Moosetracker, can you even consider the possibility that altruism is an illusion that you and others have? Can you consider the possibility that individual enlightened self-interest CAN lead to a structured and ordered society? Do you not realize that this is precisely the economic system that we live in and it is possible that society is structured and ordered as a result of related or similar interactions? What is so wrong about individualism?

[AZMike]

packsaddle: "It's kind of like that question I asked AZMike in the other thread which he seems not to want to answer, the one related to health care and eugenics. I get that people don't like certain ideas. I'd just like to understand the reasoning for their dislike. "

 

packsaddle, I gave up on answering your question, convoluted as it was, as you refused to answer mine, since you got upset when I asked you how you squared your views with the Scout Oath and Law, declaring that you didn't have to explain your religious views to me (a post you have since edited, I note, to remove that comment, presumably to drop that inconsistency down the ol' Memory Hole) and to amend your comments about Buddhism. Fair enough, but if you want to shut down dialogue, don't be surprised if I'm not interested in responding to your questions, either.

 

In point of fact, unlike many people on the Internet who are experts and knowledgable about all manner of things (at least, so long as they can get to Wikipedia or Google and start cutting and pasting before responding), I have to admit that I don't have much knowledge about the welfare system or how it operates, so I really can't give you a good answer on how I would operate a model system or apportion the funds. Sorry. I understand this might be an important topic for you, based on your comment about the social security system, but what can I say?

 

I know you want some kind of answer to try to tie this to Eugenics, so I guess all I can tell you is that government funds shouldn't be used for abortion, in my opinion, or to murder or sterilize members of other races or classes that the government finds undesirable, in the hopes of creating a stronger "race." I would presume you also find eugenics deeply objectionable. If not, we really don't have the same set of social references to carry on a discussion. Is that what you are looking for?

[AZMike]

My best recollection, from a biography of Ayn Rand I read a long time ago, was that she had an "open marriage," or partially-open marriage, and insisted on the right to have sex with her acolytes. I can't remember if she offered the same privilege to her spouse.

 

Not my choice of a philosopher, and I understand Ryan picked some parts of her philosophy while discarding the others. Rand was about as objectionable as Alinsky, I guess.

[Peregrinator]

Rand had a long-term affair with Nathaniel Branden, her protege, apparently with the knowledge, if not the approval, of both of their spouses (Frank O'Connor and Barbara Branden, respectively). Rand later severed all ties with the Brandens and denounced them after Nathaniel Branden's affair with Patrecia Scott came to light.

 

Why is individualism incompatible with 'family'?

 

Because the needs and wants of the individual are subordinate to those of the family. I'm actually surprised I have to explain that. The family as the atomic unit of society avoids the errors of individualism on the one hand and collectivism on the other. (As an aside, although Rand stressed individualism, her original group of followers was about as collectivist as you can get -- at least prior to 1968 when she broke with the Brandens.)

[packsaddle]

AZMike, You asked how I could reconcile my atheism with the Scout Law. And I answered that question. There is nothing to reconcile. The question was prejudicial in nature and I told you so.

If anyone can suggest how a non-atheist can give a better answer to that question, please let me know and I'll give it another shot.

 

I asked you YOUR question and if you think it was convoluted, then blame yourself. But you didn't answer it. Until now you didn't even reply. If you'd like to continue the dialogue, the other thread is still available. But given your claim of ignorance, well, there's always that trusty VIC20 and Wikipedia. See you on the other side.

[AZMike]

Merlyn: "There's one OUT atheist in congress (Rep. Pete Stark of CA), but according to the Secular Coalition's poll of congress, there are 28 members of congress "who do not personally believe in a higher power" (a little over 5%)."

 

So you have 28 members of Congress who don't have the courage to announce their convictions?

 

This is according to the Secular Coalition, who claims they did a secret poll and won't announce their names as they don't want to "out" any secret atheists. As only 6 members of Congress refused to respond to respond to a request to identify their religious beliefs or didn't know what their religion was, and as packsaddle claims that some Buddhists don't believe in God (there are 2 Buddhists that we'll give the benefit of the doubt as possibly "not believing in a Higher Power," not even Karma), 2 simply identified as belonging to "other" (non-Protestant) religions (which could include Starks, who officially identifies as a Unitarian), and as there are no religiously unaffiliated members (http://www.pewforum.org/government/faith-on-the-hill--the-religious-composition-of-the-112th-congress.aspx), that still leaves 18 members of Congress who are atheists, but lie about their true beliefs to their constituents. Perhaps this is considered justified out of a hitherto unknown atheist Taqiyya dispensation from Richard Dawkins.

 

The fact that there are only 18 members of Congress who are Godless Lying Cowards is a little surprising... (Just kidding. I kid the godless, lying, cowards out of love...)

 

Pete Stark probably wouldn't be my first choice of an atheist role model. I can't repeat some of the crazy things he says on a family forum, but feel free to look under "Controversial Statements" on his Wikipedia page .

[packsaddle]

Peregrinator, an open marriage is, nevertheless, a marriage. As long as it doesn't affect us, who are we, outsiders, to question a relationship that other people agree on? It might not be what WE have decided for ourselves but that is OUR individual choice, right? Why deny that freedom to others?

 

As for family, there is no doubt in my mind about the emotional bond between, for example, parent and child. I can't explain instinct but I sense that it exists. But your answer doesn't really explain an incompatibility between individualism and family. What you describe is how the individual 'relates' to or 'fits in' with family - in your ideal world.

You refer to 'errors' of individualism. That's what I'd like you to explain. What are those errors and, if possible, how do they explain the incompatibility of individualism with family?