Here's an article on the whole thing: http://www.syracuse.com/news/poststanda ... 106644.xml
------------------
Kitty Trauma Victim #123

[This message has been edited by Shadowcat (edited March 28, 2002).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by darvangi:
My favorite was when the one politician acused the bank of discriminating against the Boy Scouts - as if chrisitan boys are an oppressed minority. Please.

---

First, we have the boy scouts ... a "private" (and I say private because I still haven't been totally convinced they're a private organization, but ... the SC has ruled that they are, so we'll go with that for now) that Very Publically has excluded a particular group.

Then we have certain private entities - like this bank - and public entities (I seem to recall certain cities disallowing use of their facilities to the Boy Scouts because now they're legally a "private" organization and have to pay up like everyone else to use their stuff ... heh) that, because of the Boy Scouts' stance, decline to deal with that "private" organization.

Yay!

Then we have more people piping in and saying that if so-and-so won't deal with the Boy Scouts, then they won't deal with so-and-so.

Y'know what? Still "yay" For two reasons. First, it legitimizes the initial stance that these people won't deal with the Boy Scouts ... because that's the way things work in the US ... we can deal, or not deal, with anyone we damn well please.

Second, it lets us know who the idiots are *G* Because frankly, I want to know who's going to stand up and side with the Boy Scouts on this one, so I can stop dealing with them entirely.

And yeah ... ideally, this bank will get business from groups that support their stand, and it will all even out in the end.

Unfortunately this doesn't really work very well because the forces that could balance it must contend with far stronger inertia and self-interest. Far more people can believe the discrimination is wrong than are willing to personally sacrifice to make the statement. People might find it wrong (for a hypothetical example) that the only restaurant in a small town excludes gay couples, but when they want to go out to eat with their own opposite-sex partner, a large fraction of them will probably still go to that restaurant (especially if the food is really good), so even if only 30-40% of the town actually agrees with the exclusion, it might not be strong enough to pressure for a change.

Similarly it is far easier for the Boy Scouts to exclude gays than for gays and supporters of gay rights to pressure for change by merely refraining from joining the Boy Scouts (the Scouts say, "So what, not everyone joins Scouts anyway."). Pressure can only really come from someone the Boy Scouts is dependent on such as this bank, or a public school or a church that lets them use their facilities for meetings. Even then many who strongly disagree with the Boy Scouts' national policy realize that the local troops do not necessarily agree with and enforce that policy and choose not to hurt the local troop(s) just to make a futile gesture of opposition to the national organization. And when they do (as in this case), they get opposed for their "discrimination" by people who support the only real discrimination going on but who think "discrimination" is when it happens to them, and not every entity that might take a stand against the Boy Scouts' policy would be able to withstand the backlash.

Some religious conservatives believe that freedom of religion means they are free to impose their religious beliefs on others, and we are not free to impose anti-discrimination laws upon them because it violates their religious beliefs to accept such things as homosexuality. But that is not freedom of religion, that is government support of one type of religion over other types (for example, many subsets of Christianity do not condemn homosexuality) and that is exactly what the spirit of the First Amendment says has no place in government.

The only way to have freedom of religion is for the government to set laws rationally without basing them on religious beliefs; no religion has the right to impose its beliefs on people who do not choose to adopt those beliefs. That is freedom of religion. It's ironic that to truly have freedom of religion the government has to be atheist.

Both the Libertarian and religious-conservative approaches result in a constant war between people who feel some measure of self-worth by exerting power over others' lives and various minority populations whose small numbers make them convenient targets for such bullies, and that is ultimately destructive to society and quality-of-life for everyone. And that's why I am not a Libertarian nor a conservative. The only way people really get along fairly peacefully is to leave each other alone to live their lives and stop getting irrationally upset about other people living their lives and leaving others alone. It'd be nice if a lot more people got that.

Now under normal circumstances my choices would be clear. "Oh you don't deal with people of a certain color/age/sex/religion/sexual identification? Well you also won't deal with me."

But I was a boy scout for years. I loved it, it was great and I learned a lot of things that I find useful today. Sure, I was then, as I am now, an atheist and all my friends (devout friends really) knew it. They asked me if there was a contradiction, beign a boy scout and an athesist. But I never saw it. Eventually it was more than I could tolerate, and I left. But it was not a bad break up. (see I thought they were te crazy ones.)

Today, I look at the situation and really just makes me sad. Not sad in a crying way, just a profound blues or meloncholia that this one more thing from my youth that I thought was one way, but it really was another.

I don't really know what to think.

I was walking into a Wal-Mart last fall and there were some Cub Scouts out in front selling popcorn, like they do every year and like I did 20+ years ago. And then as in now the Cub Scout would ask, "would like to buy some popcorn to support our pack?" and this guy goes off on this little kid about this whole issue. The little guy looked so hurt and was close to tears. For what reason? Can this kid change anything? Was he even aware of what choices adults in his organization have made? No. He knows that scouts was getting together with his buddies, going camping, learning about animals, plants and other cool things to a ten year old. He knowes that if he sells more popcorn they might be able to afford to get rid of that old tent his pack has been using for the last twenty years.

Look. I will suport fully equal rights for everyone, regardless of race, gender, identity, what have you. But I draw the line at children. I don't care what you think of their parent's politics, you NEVER take it out on a child. A simple no thank you would have been fine.
For those not in the know, Cub Scouts are aged 7 to 10.

Will I put my son into scouts? I would like to. But I can't as long as they feel the need to disobey their own creeds. If they can't extend the same basic human decency that will alot to their own god-fearing, straight humans, then, well they can do it with out me or my son.

My dad was one of my scout masters. I told myself, maybe when I was 10 or 11, that one day I would do that for my son. Those were some of my best pre-teen memories.

Again. This whole situation just makes me sad.

Warlock.

You're right about not taking it out on the kids, Web Warlock. I was a girl guide (similar to scouts) for about a year, and to this day have no idea if they have a similar discrimination policy.