[Vision2020] Anti-discrimination Ordinances

Fri Jun 7 12:40:58 PDT 2013

You nailed it in one line, Joe.

On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>wrote:
...
But now I've moved onto a much broader issue, Darrell! You might be as
perplexed by it as I am.

>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Darrell Keim <keim153 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I've got a few comments interspersed with yours below, Joe.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks Darrell. I guess it was the explicit nature of the ban against
>>> gays that makes me scratch my head.
>>>
>> I believe it is due to who their largest chartering organizations are
>> (LDS and Catholic churches are the top two.)
>>
>>>
>>> Suppose a scouting franchise was owned by a church the members of which
>>> didn't consider (say) LDS to be a Christian religion, and also considered
>>> all non-Christians to be atheists. By your reasoning it would be fine for
>>> that troop to ban Mormons, which seems wrong.
>>>
>> To be clear-A Scout doesn't need to be Christian.  They need to believe
>> in a god (or gods), not God. And, in reality, any troop can choose not to
>> accept any boy or adult for membership at the local level.  As I used to
>> tell people, if the troop or its chartering org. want to prohibit blondes,
>> that is their right.  At a practical level, when I was a pro I would've
>> freaked out if I had heard about a troop doing such...
>>
>>>
>>> That strikes me as an appropriate analogy with the gay scout case. It
>>> isn't as if all Christian denominations are equally opposed to
>>> "homosexuality." There are gay bishops in both the Episcopal and Lutheran
>>> churches, for instance. And of course there are non-Christian denominations
>>> that are tolerant of gays and lesbians as well.
>>>
>> Correct.  It has been a huge debate within the program.  National took a
>> vote prior to the recent policy change.  About 60% favored the change.  Not
>> a huge margin!  But, again, look at who charters the troops.
>>
>> On the local level our council had "fireside chats" prior to the vote.
>> The top local exec polled local volunteers opinions, and answered
>> questions.  I went to one in Lewiston.  Out of about 30 people present-a
>> room full of people I know, and some I consider friends-I was the only
>> person to speak in favor of changing the policy.
>>
>>>
>>> It seems wrong to ban scouts based on their religious views and if one
>>> of the local franchises did so I'm sure there would be an uproar. I see no
>>> difference in the case of sexual preference.
>>>
>> Again-to be clear-the Scouts wouldn't ban one because of their religious
>> views.  Only their nonreligious views.
>>
>>>
>>> By the way I was a Boy Scout so I'm not opposed to scouting in general.
>>> I'm proud of you for your service to the community and I'm sure the boys
>>> whose lives you've influenced are happy for your services as well.
>>>
>> Thanks for the kind words Joe.  You made me smile!
>>
>>>
>>> On Jun 7, 2013, at 10:16 AM, Darrell Keim <keim153 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> "What I don't understand is that there are a lot of "immoral" activities
>>> besides "homosexuality" and atheism (neither one of which I consider to be
>>> genuinely immoral). Why not explicitly list them all? You could apparently
>>> be a thief, a liar, a rapist, etc. and the scouts don't give a damn. That's
>>> why the restrictions are/were prejudicial in my view."
>>>
>>> Joe:
>>>
>>> When you join the Scouts you take an oath to "Do Your Best" to abide by
>>> a code described in the Scout Oath and Law.
>>>
>>> The twelve points of the Scout Law would seem to implicitly preclude
>>> membership for rapists, thieves, etc.  I will concede that is not explicit
>>> exclusion, as their current stance against homosexual leaders is.
>>>
>>> Having spent nearly 10 years as a Scouting professional, and now serving
>>> as one of the top local district leaders, I could go into great amounts of
>>> detail about many Scouting related topics, but I will graciously save you
>>> from the boredom.  Suffice it to say that most of their stances have to do
>>> with how they are structured.  They are essentially a franchise, and they
>>> license out the rights to use their program to local organizations.  Like
>>> all franchises, those organizations own the local group, but agree to abide
>>> by Scouting policies.  Once you realize that most (75-80%) Scouting groups
>>> are "owned" by churches (Some of the largest users of the program are the
>>> Catholic, LDS, Methodist and Lutheran churches), it becomes clear why they
>>> take certain stances.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 9:56 AM, Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> It is funny that you ask that, Wayne! Here is the BSA's statement on
>>>> the matter:
>>>>
>>>> The BSA maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen
>>>> without recognizing an obligation to God. In the first part of the Scout
>>>> Oath or Promise the member declares, "On my honor I will do my best to do
>>>> my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law."
>>>>
>>>> So technically, you can't be an atheist and a boy scout.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What I don't understand is that there are a lot of "immoral" activities
>>>> besides "homosexuality" and atheism (neither one of which I consider to be
>>>> genuinely immoral). Why not explicitly list them all? You could apparently
>>>> be a thief, a liar, a rapist, etc. and the scouts don't give a damn. That's
>>>> why the restrictions are/were prejudicial in my view.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 9:24 AM, Wayne Price <bear at moscow.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Tom,
>>>>>
>>>>> I hate to admit this, but we agree!   Now comes the question of why
>>>>> this sponsorship was afforded to a private organization in the first place
>>>>> by a branch of government, like the Sheriff's department, subsidized by
>>>>> taxes?
>>>>>
>>>>> I seriously run into 1st amendment issues, with a government agency,
>>>>> supported by tax dollars, sponsoring ANY group who's basic principles
>>>>> require an oath to " do my duty to God".
>>>>> Does this mean that those who, for what ever reason, do not believe in
>>>>> "God" are not welcome as they cannot take such an oath in good conscience?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Wayne
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jun 7, 2013, at 9:07 AM, Tom Hansen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Wayne Price inquires:
>>>>>
>>>>> "And before some of the so called liberals on the list accuse me of
>>>>> advocating one way or the other, does a sponsor (who ever that sponsor is)
>>>>> have the right to bow out of a program that doesn't share it' s core
>>>>> beliefs?"
>>>>>
>>>>> NOT if that sponsor is publiclly subsidized, like a county sheriff's
>>>>> office by taxes.
>>>>>
>>>>> If a private entity wishes to withdraw its support for ANYTHING . . .
>>>>> so what!
>>>>>
>>>>> Seeya at the Wingding, Moscow, because . . .
>>>>>
>>>>> "Moscow Cares" (the most fun you can have with your pants on)
>>>>> http://www.MoscowCares.com
>>>>>
>>>>> Tom Hansen
>>>>> Moscow, Idaho
>>>>>
>>>>> "There's room at the top they are telling you still
>>>>> But first you must learn how to smile as you kill
>>>>> If you want to be like the folks on the hill."
>>>>>
>>>>> - John Lennon
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jun 7, 2013, at 8:57 AM, Wayne Price <bear at moscow.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> And before some of the so called liberals on the list accuse me of
>>>>> advocating one way or the other, does a sponsor (who ever that sponsor is)
>>>>> have the right to bow out of a program that doesn't share it' s core
>>>>> beliefs?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> =======================================================
>>>>>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>>>>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>>>>                http://www.fsr.net
>>>>>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>>> =======================================================
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> =======================================================
>>>>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>>>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>>>                http://www.fsr.net
>>>>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>> =======================================================
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20130607/30a32415/attachment-0001.html>