Doug, now that you put it that way... I never thought of it like that! I think I just discovered that I'm an incorrigible fop, perhaps even one with inconstancy and consumption, further plagued by the ague, and too big for my breeches! :-D

Sorry about the poke at the Forefathers. I just think it's kind of funny talking about normal human beings as if they are like demi-gods. "Forefathers" is just such an imperial term, like "Fatherland" and "Our Dear Leader". Most people in the States are not even related to those men (notice no "Foremothers", not even a term for that). It's like an anachronism from a Golden, Pastoral Age where the leaders could do no wrong and everything was pure. Why not "Our Early Leaders"? You can still have reverence, but still keep them down on earth.

I believe in all-out equality, down to the last person, and reaching all the way back to all our beginnings. No elevation to blinding pedestal status.

Edited by butuki on 10/07/2011 19:53:09 MDT.

"I believe in all-out equality, down to the last person, and reaching all the way back to all our beginnings. No elevation to blinding pedestal status."

I completely agree. Except, of course, for Jennifer Anniston.....

Looks like a bunch of you guys should read "How Evil Works" by David Kupelian. The attacks on BSA are another prime example of the book's premise of how the left cannot tolerate anything that is wholesome, moral, or good. Why don't you pick on Norman Rockwell paintings next;)

Discourse and discussion is a good thing. My point was that the original topic seems to be forgotten, and the discussion veers out of control.
Everyone is paying nice here which is cool

And Kat my comment was a generalization, obviously which you knew.... I just needed to clarify :)

Carry on

+1 James.

It is amazing how a few vocal folks 'infiltrate' clubs, media and society in general to paint average Christians and parents as racist, bigots, and homophobes because we want a traditional, moral place to allow our young men to learn outdoor and leadership skills. It reminds of a bunch of spoiled kids who don't really want a toy, but don't want 'Johnny' to have it either, so they work to wreck the toy for 'Johnny' instead of getting their own. I know I will get lambasted over my subjective use of the word moral, but contrary to what some believe, there is still a lot of Americans that are not in the vocal minority that still believe in God, family, country and many of the tenants that the Boy Scouts hold to. As happens everyday in our 'left-leaning' media, the silent majority are the ones made out to be the 'bad guys'.

I am not here to debate the issue of homosexuality, but if you want to join a group, join one that you can be a proud part of and make it a success, don't join one under false pretenses just to 'infiltrate' as another person stated. You know the guidelines going in, if you go in to make a change, your going in for all the wrong reasons.

Edited by rp3957 on 10/08/2011 13:15:53 MDT.

The attacks on BSA are another prime example of the book's premise of how the left cannot tolerate anything that is wholesome, moral, or good.

Like anyone else, homosexuals, atheists, and agnostics... again, I say, "like anyone else... are also "noble, wholesome, and good". Unless you disagree and maintain that they are evil people. And yet the BSA officially singles them out. There isn't anyone here who has said the BSA is "evil" or that they should be eliminated. If you believe so, please point their statements out. We are saying that the BSA should remove that clause from their hiring rules, and treat all people like equals. ALL people. Because that, above all denominations, is "noble, wholesome, and good".

Ken, when talking about something like bigotry, which is the focus of this thread and the criticisms of the BSA, we are necessarily going to have to address causes and effects of the bigotry, and that necessarily means going on related tangents. But the reasons are still the same. Many of us here are trying to explain why we are criticizing the discriminatory practices of the BSA, not the good that the group does, which it certainly does do, too.

Edited by butuki on 10/08/2011 00:48:11 MDT.

I didn't mean "infiltrate" to change BSA. I explained that an open-minded individual would be beneficial for boys who are told "we want a traditional, moral place to allow our young men to learn outdoor and leadership skills" and gays and athiests do not "belong". I think it's immoral to teach children to isolate and reject "others".

It's funny because in HS I was discriminated against by my Jehovah Witness' friend's mothers because I was an atheist yet I dressed more conservatively and was raised by the same "tenants". After HS one of the mothers was forced by her church to disown her daughter (my bff's 18 y.o. little sister) for being with a boy out of town. So she kicked her out and stopped talking to her yet it was okayed by the church that she could stay married to and visit her husband in prison that was sent to prison for raping her daughter (from a previous marriage mind you). That was okay because he didn't become a witness until after he was a rapist.

I only came back in to this thread to say I'm watching the doc "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" on demand (hbo). So far it's really good and coincides with the BSA debate.

"Looks like a bunch of you guys should read "How Evil Works" by David Kupelian. The attacks on BSA are another prime example of the book's premise of how the left cannot tolerate anything that is wholesome, moral, or good. Why don't you pick on Norman Rockwell paintings next;)"

I don't know which "left" you're referring to, but the bases of socialism were ideas like the universal franchise and human rights - which I would suggest are implicitly wholesome, moral and good.

The "attacks" on the BSA's are in respect of the current leaderships position on religion and gays, which are bigoted and discriminatory - and anything but "wholesome, moral or good".

Except, of course, for Jennifer Anniston.....

Jennifer, Jennifer, Jen... OH! HER!

I can see where you might disagree with her... ;-)

I'm more of a Yuki Uchida fan. She's the one wearing the read kimono.

"...to paint average Christians and parents as racist, bigots, and homophobes because we want a traditional, moral place..."


Sometimes it's too easy.

Edited by DaveT on 10/08/2011 04:07:58 MDT.

Miguel I completely understand your point, and agree

I love your taste Miguel, that pack and that trekking pole totally do it for me...mmmm

Here are my thoughts on this issue.

I'm guessing the BSA policy is based on, at least partly, fear.

Fear that godless gaaas might tempt the god-fearing heteros to go godless or gaaa? (possible)
Fear that godless gaaas might harm the god-fearing heteros? (unlikely)
Fear that god-fearing heteros might harm the godless gaaas? (likely) Religion allows people to do some strange things.

Godless gaaa humans are OK in my book. So what fears do I have that might be similar to the fears I've listed above? Well I wouldn't want my kids (if I had any) to go to camp with gang members. The gang members might hurt my kids or tempt them to perform criminal acts.

So I can wrap my head around the BSA policy intellectually.......but I still don't agree with it.

"gaaas" used to get around profanity detector

"gaaas" used to get around profanity detector

Just capitalize the first letters, so you can write Gays and you'll be fine.

Though I think this censoring of words such as Gay is yet another example of the discrimination that shouldn't be on this site either. You might as well censor the words "men" and "women", while you're at it.

I love your taste Miguel, that pack and that trekking pole totally do it for me...mmmm

I love your dedication to the buoyantly burdened, Adam. All else cometh before romance, eh?

""gaaas" used to get around profanity detector

Just capitalize the first letters, so you can write Gays and you'll be fine.

Though I think this censoring of words such as Gay is yet another example of the discrimination that shouldn't be on this site either. You might as well censor the words "men" and "women", while you're at it."

+1

"G@y," at least in America, is not simply used to refer to man to man orientation but also as a slang that probably wouldn't be viewed as complimentary by certain people. So maybe censoring it for that reason is appropriate.

"but also as a slang that probably wouldn't be viewed as complimentary by certain people"

neither would dumbass or idiot or jerk, but they're not censored....

"neither would dumbass or idiot or jerk, but they're not censored...."

True, but I think using "Gay" in derogatory sense can be quite a bit more hurtful than those colorful words. Similar to some racial slangs that I'm assuming are also censored.

Ryan

Edited by ViolentGreen on 10/10/2011 17:49:05 MDT.