Jump to content

angler

Members
  • Content Count

    6
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by angler

  1. Adamcp I hope I would have half the integrity and intellectual courage that you demonstrate here. I don't fault you at all for the apparent contradiction - you truly want what is good for scouts, whether in BSA or Trail Life. You say above that your hopes should not affect your principles; from the other side of the divide, I understand and sympathize brother. But it's no sin for your hopes to be free of your principles, when those hopes are for the good of others. Clear principles unavoidably lead us to positions of absolutism one way or another; sometimes it's hard to balance those pr
  2. Thanks Moosetracker for a fresh perspective on the question and a thought that challenges the position I've taken. Merlyn_LeRoy and I aren't going to agree, but if there is an area where the words "separate but equal" have been interpreted in a legal opinion unrelated to race, it would probably be some kind of Title IX case. I'll still contend that the common meaning of the term is the now-discredited legal doctrine of racial segregation in American government, regardless of where the term is used. I suspect a google search on the term would confirm my position. But continued dispute ab
  3. The 14th Amendment does not include the term “separate but equal.†“Separate but equal†was ratified into American law with the Plessy decision of 1896, which was about race, and properly expelled from American law with the Brown decision of 1954, which was about race. The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment provided the basis for the latter decision. So not only is “separate but equal†*not* from the 14th Amendment, the 14th Amendment was the righteous instrument of its destruction as an acceptable policy of American government. Yes the Equal Protection Clause has be
  4. I can't take seriously your argument that "separate but equal" carries no insinuation of racism. The term has a long and well-established context in the legal and social history of the United States. But I'll consider that your use of the term was merely naive rather than ill-intentioned, and I accept your quite reasonable argument that a separate scouting program would not be as effective as BSA. I'm not convinced that would be a permanent condition, but it would certainly be true at the start. Yes, I disagree with you on the fundamental that private organizations can't exclude people,
  5. Thank you packsaddle for your kind welcome. I generally prefer to introduce myself with a courteous-but-firm knock on the door and a handshake, rather than a battering ram and a flash bang. But sometimes the latter is more appropriate to the situation. I appreciate that political forums can get a bit rough; I don't relish antagonism. In the proper spirit of scouting among scouters I'd like to speak the truth as best I understand it, without personal insult but also without apology or dilution, and be open to fair persuasion and education from others. You probably won't see me here very
  6. Separate but equal was properly struck down as a policy of government in the United States. That decision has no relevance to the proposal within scouting to repeal the ban against homosexual adult leaders. Insinuating that those whose values you reject are racists is an intellectually dishonest argument. Do you seriously contend that organizations cannot maintain membership standards which exclude some people? That is the implication of your statement.
×
×
  • Create New...