Hunt

"Other sexual deviants don't have a publicly stated agenda that includes the intent to educate children to accept homosexuality even against the wishes of parents. When people are pushed they tend to push back. Accept that and quit whining about discrimination." This statement made me wonder about a few things. Do you think that schools should be teaching children that homosexualilty is "abnormal," a form of sexual deviancy, and/or immoral, or do you think the school should be neutral on the subject. If you think the school should be teaching your point of view, I suggest that you shouldn't complain about people pushing back when they are pushed. And why wouldn't people who are being discriminated against "whine" about discrimination? You may think the discrimination is justified, but there is no question that the laws discriminate against gay couples. You expect them to stop "whining" to spare your feelings? Maybe they're just "pushing back."

This discussion led me to think about at what point a person's desire to engage in socially unacceptable behavior rises to the level of mental illness. For example, society frowns on nudism, but most of us probably wouldn't necessarily think that a person who frequented a private nudist colony was mentally ill (we might think the person is a "nut," which is, I think, something different). On the other hand, a person who insisted on practicing nudism in public might make us think he had a mental disorder. I can think of many things that the vast bulk of society deplores (ie, incest, being a Nazi, defending the 9/11 terrorists, denying the Holocaust, burning the flag, etc.) and yet, there are people who do all of these things. Where does such a person cross the line between being a "nut" or a "zealot" or a "nonconformist" into being mentally ill? For many of these people, their actions severely affect their ability to function in society--is that the standard? It's also interesting to me that people respond differently to behavior that they find unacceptably deviant--some would rather ascribe the behavior to mental illness, and others would prefer to ascribe it to moral depravity--I think, for example, of the case of Andrea Yates, the woman who drowned her children. Personally, I prefer to see her actions as the result of mental illness, but others seemed offended by that idea, and wanted her punished as an evildoer. To bring this back to the topic, it strikes me as odd that people who oppose equal rights for homosexuals would want to argue that it is the product of mental illness, rather than a chosen form of moral depravity. If it really is a mental illness--and one that has proven extremely difficult, if not impossible to cure--doesn't that lead to an argument for more rights, rather than less? If being gay is like being deaf, say, why not let gay people get married as long as nobody else is hurt? Indeed, if it's a mental illness, it's even less likely to be contagious than if it is a moral choice.

I looked up the "Disability Rights Law Center," and it appears to simply be a private law firm, not a non-profit as its name suggests. While it's true that you can sue over anything, this particular case seems to me to be particularly weak. Maybe the troop leaders could offer to hand over all the money they've been paid to lead the troop over the past year...

I'm perplexed at how this can be a claim under the ADA. Will they claim that the troop is a business, or maybe a place of public accomodation? Even if they succeed in having the ADA apply, they would then have to prove that the accomodation the troop offered was unreasonable. Depending on the facts, that could be really hard to do.

But getting back to the action figure vs. doll issue... The issue really goes back to the introduction of G.I.Joe. The developers of that toy were afraid that boys would not want to play with "dolls," so they came up with the term "action soldier" to describe what he was. Clearly, he wasn't really all that different from Barbie--although I will say that boys played with G.I.Joe in a manner different from how girls played with Barbie...boys' play is more likely to be parallel (or competitive), as opposed to girls' play, which is more likely to be cooperative.

"I was not there at the meeting. In 1973, I was happily playing with my Star Trek dolls." Hey, those were action figures, not dolls!

I suspect that most of the people who spend time on this forum are those who spend a lot of time on Scouting--it's because they're very interested in all aspects of the program, and are looking for ideas as well, that they participate here. Second, once you've been active on a forum for a while, you begin to regard the other regulars on the forum as friends, and it's fun to chit-chat with your friends about topics that interest you, even if they're not all that important. Imagine if you were standing around at a neighborhood party chatting about the weather, and somebody you barely knew barged in and told you that you were wasting your time discussing inane topics and should be doing something more important--what would be your reaction? Finally, this is not even a contentious topic, and it served the purpose of letting people know about these new pants. Regulars here know that the issue of BSA pants is one of the burning topics of our time.

"Does this tactic sound familiar?" Yes, it reminds me of the tactic the FDA used to stall the approval of Plan B. (How's that for changing the subject, but to another hot-button topic?)

This issue of family camping for the Camping merit badge has been hashed out before on the Advancement forum, but I would just point out that the MB requirements don't specify, and thus the counselor has the discretion to decide what camping counts. In my personal opinion, camping in the backyard with an extension cord to run the TV shouldn't count, but backpacking on the Appalachian Trail with Dad should count. In between the two, the counselor should use reasonable discretion.

To try to avoid another round on the "sham marriage" argument, try this: If homosexuality were generally and widely accepted as a normal and appropriate lifestyle, there would be less reason for homosexual persons to take actions to hide their sexual orientation--including such actions as sham marriages. It is obvious that there has been a significant change in the social acceptance of homosexuality in recent years, and recognition of gay marriage would be a significant additional step in this direction. It seems to me that the above is obviously true, whether you think that homosexuality is wrong or not. I should add that "normal" doesn't mean average, typical, or predominant--it simply means within the accepted norms. Thus, for example, it is "normal" to have red hair, although relatively uncommon. It is not "normal" to be an albino. The issue of whether homosexual orientation is "normal" is not simple--the APA has been on both sides of the question. But you can't decide whether something is "normal" by counting how many people are like that.

"When will homosexuals begin to treat those who disagree with them with the respect they wish to have shown them." You mean those who call them "sexual deviants" and think that they should be denied the rights that others have? This is a silly argument, even if you think that homosexuality is a sin. What, you think they should be MORE polite than you? This is like saying that Martin Luther King Jr. was intolerant of Bull Conner. The truth here is that some people think that homosexuality is not only a bad sin, but a sin that has the capacity to poison society. As a result, these folks think that it is appropriate for society to use laws to restrict homosexuality. I would like to say that it is possible to think that homosexuality is a sin, but a sin like many others (gambling, drinking, adultery, etc.), with no special reason to single it out for special legal attention. The fact that it involves consenting adults is an important distinction between it and sins that have victims--it is typically sins with victims that we treat as crimes.

When my son was a Cub, a guy from NASA came to give a presentation to the Pack--he had a mock-up space suit, some pictures, etc. At one point he asked, "Does anybody here want to be an astronaut when he grows up?" All the dads in the audience raised their hands.

I'd bail out if I were you. I suspect it would take too much time to correct the situation, and the boys currently in the troop would lose out in the interim.

These can now be seen on Scoutstuff.org, and they do appear to be official uniform pants. But gosh, the shorts seem awfully short, almost like hot pants. My son won't wear really short shorts--I wonder how these will go over with the youth?

I read something useful in a parenting book that I may have mentioned before, but it's relevant here. It reinforces the idea of having young people have adult associations other than their parents--one of the methods of Scouting. The book points out that when a parent talks to a child, it might go like this: "When are you going to finish that merit badge? If you don't do it soon, you won't get Star this year, and then when will you get Life, and remember, you only have until you're 18 to get Eagle--and you really want to get Eagle sooner so it can help you get into college, and if you don't get into a good college, you won't get a good job blah blah blah blahbitty blah blah." Whereas the adult leader who is not the boy's parent can say, "When do you want to finish that merit badge? I'm available if you want to do it this week."

"Both of these men share the same trait of believing they were smarter and better than others." I resent the implication that those of us who are smarter and better than others are also prone to violence.

"To suggest that denominations share common truth is to invite anything other than toleration. They write whole theological libraries and build seminaries to house and discern the differences no matter how small. They won't even share the same building, so the competition becomes one of size and facility for the varied activities." I might agree with this statement if you had used the word "religions" in the first sentence. If by "denominations" you mean Protestant denominations, not so much. I can tell you as a Methodist that essentially zero time is spent by the clergy distinguishing the theological beliefs of Methodism from other Protestant denominations. Most church members probably couldn't tell you what the differences between Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, and others are--they tend to be fairly arcane (such as the Presbyterians' belief in predestination--which doesn't affect anybody's actual behavior). They might be able to tell you that Baptists don't practice infant baptism, and are "more conservative," but that's about it. At the other end of the spectrum, they might tell you that Episcopalians are "more like Catholics," but probably wouldn't be too clear on what doctrinal differences that involves. The distinctions between Protestants and Roman Catholics are more clear-cut, and remain controversial, but even there there is agreement on many key beliefs.

My advice would be to back off, especially if he is just in his first year or so of Scouts. If the troop has a good program, he'll advance. If he needs urging, talk to the adult leaders of the troop--they and the youth leaders can encourage him in ways that he won't resist as much as what comes from you. I suggest that you just encourage him to stay in Scouts and to attend as many meetings and events as he can.

In one of the articles about Philadelphia, it said that BSA and Dennis St.Jean have settled his lawsuit out of court. St.Jean, you may recall, was the manager of Seabase who was fired after a disgruntled employee apparently "outed" him as gay.

It seems to me that the Sea Scouts are in a weaker position in this case than in some of the others. They don't have a lease, it seems, just this deal in which they get a free berth--something for which other groups, apparently, have to pay. Although, as I look again at the article, it appears that the berth isn't actually "free," but is paid for with riprap. So maybe they do have an argument, if there is an agreement to accept the riprap in lieu of payment.

"A lot of mainstream Christians seem to be fairly fluid in denominational affiliation; as long as the key elements of theology are met (trinity, salvation, etc.), it does not really matter if they attend a Presbyterian, a Lutheran, a Methodist, or one of the increasingly popular generic Bible churchs." That's certainly true--but as you suggest, there isn't a lot of theological difference between many of the Protestant churches--the differences are often at the margin, and aren't central to a person's beliefs. On the other hand, just how important doctrine is is something that distinguishes different churches.

"Nothing wrong with having that view, if it works for you. However, I was just trying to make you aware that not all religions claim to be "ultimate truth"." I'm well aware of that...but it seems to me that the author of the article doesn't have much sense of what religion means to many, if not most, seriously religious people. It's really not about what "works for you." If you look at the history of new and splinter religions, they were generally not about what works better for people and meets their needs better--they reflected the founder's insights about spiritual truths. The "works for me" model of religion is, to me, similar to choosing an exercise regimen--it supposes that "spiritual health" is like physical health, and can be achieved through a variety of methods. This is a pretty common idea these days, it's only one way of looking at what religion is all about. Let me make a distinction here--I'm not claiming that I or anyone else can prove that their beliefs are closer to ultimate truth than others, and that's where toleration of other beliefs comes in. Let me also say that I recognize that when searching for a faith community to join, it certainly is important to find one that's a good fit personally--but the article implies that the the actual religious beliefs of the community are secondary to the other factors, and to me that's backwards.

"Again, this statement presupposes that the parent believes that their faith is somehow "better" than other faiths (i.e. "true")." Well, sure. This is the case for many religions--adherents to such religions would argue that the "best" religion is the one that most closely approximates ultimate truth. I make no apologies for having that view of my own religion. The attitude in the article, to my eye, presupposed the contrary: that religion is just therapeutic, and the best religion is what "works" best for the individual. I can certainly see that what kind of religion you have will affect what you teach your children about it. I would add that it's impossible not to "indoctrinate" your children with your own views, except perhaps by actively hiding what they are.

In the assumption that Ed is not deliberately refusing to understand this, let me try putting it a different way. BSA is a private organization, and thus can legally discriminate against atheists. A public school is a public entity, and thus cannot legally discriminate against atheists. When a public school actually charters a BSA unit, that particular unit is no longer entirely private--it is owned and operated by a public entity, the school. That is what makes it different from BSA itself, and from a BSA unit chartered by a private entity. Thus, because that particular unit is actually owned and operated by a public entity, it is subject to the laws that apply to the public entity, and it can't discriminate against atheists. It has nothing to do with whether BSA can discriminate. As to school clubs, it is essential to distinguish between clubs actually sponsored by the school, and those that are simply allowed to meet there as a part of equal access. Clubs actually sponsored by the school (i.e., meet during class time, get school funds, have a faculty sponsor, etc.) cannot discriminate based on a protected class, like race or religion. They can discriminate based on unprotected characteristics--ie, you can't get on the tennis team if you can't play tennis well. To restate this, the problem is that the SCHOOL can't discriminate against atheists, and when it actually owns and operates a club or group that doesn't allow atheists, the SCHOOL is illegally discriminating.

I agree with SR540 Beaver on this--if the parents believe that their faith is actually true, they should raise their children in that faith--there will be other people later on to promote other beliefs. I will say that children should also be educated about various religions--I don't think any child in the fifth grade should be ignorant of what a Bible is, for example. Another thing I didn't like about the attitude in the article was the concept that choosing a "faith community" was all about what would be of the most benefit to you--sort of like choosing a health club--rather than about finding a place where you can serve and worship.