Loss of Charter

[Hunt 11]

"Just as it's kind of hard to say it's better to be Christian than Jewish without denegrating Jews. Or better to be white than black without denegrating blacks."

 

These two examples demonstrate my point--Christians think it's better to be a Christian not because Jews are innately inferior, but because the beliefs of the Christian religion are true--indeed, the Christians would be delighted if the Jews would become Christians. Somebody who thinks whites are better than blacks isn't basing this opinion on the differing beliefs of the two groups. (Although if somebody said that, because of rampant racism, it's better to be white than black in America today--who would that denigrate?)

 

To give a different (and better) example, I think it's better to be a (Democrat/Republican) because the other party is so profoundly wrong on many issues. This denigrates the VIEWS, perhaps, but not the people.

 

And to take this back to my point--your example suggests that you would criticize any religious organization for limiting its membership to religious people, because that would somehow "denigrate" people of different beliefs. Is that what you think? You think my friend who believed you had to be baptized to go to heaven was "denigrating" me when he told me this? (If so, he was simultaneously denigrating and proselytizing me.)

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Hunt writes:

your example suggests that you would criticize any religious organization for limiting its membership to religious people, because that would somehow "denigrate" people of different beliefs.

 

No, it's the combination of both:

 

1) You have to be X to join our group; if you are not-X, you can't join.

 

2) Only people who are X can be the best kinds of citizens.

[evmori 11]

Since this IS America we ARE allowed to associate with whom we want without retribution. So the BSA won't let atheists join. The Notre Dame club won't let USC grads join. The University Club won't let non-college grads join. The He-Man Women Haters club won't let girls join. Great country, America!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[packsaddle 753]

I think I see Merlyn's point though. They are short easy steps that connect the various levels of isolation.

 

Level 1. We: believe X, They believe Y. OR are white, they are not. OR are straight, they are gay.

 

Level 2. We disagree with Them. More importantly, They disagree with Us.

 

Level 3. Our ideas are correct, Theirs must be wrong. Worse, They think Their ideas are correct and therefore They must think Ours are wrong.

 

Somewhere along this progression, jokes are made at various degrees of insult.

 

Level 4. Our ideas are better (superior, more moral), Theirs must be (are) flawed (inferior, immoral). They must think Their ideas are superior to Ours.

 

Anywhere along here, discrimination may be applied.

 

Level 5. We are superior. They are inferior. But They must think They are superior to Us.

 

Level 6. They must not like (respect) Us so We can't like (respect) Them.

 

Level 7. They are bad, We are good. They must think the opposite.

 

Level 8. They must be Our enemy and They must think We are Their enemy.

 

Level 9. They must be sick (and possibly have criminal tendencies) and must be healed or isolated somehow. Their resistance to this must be evidence of a conspiracy to subvert Us.

 

Level 10. Kill them.

 

Facilitated by our freedoms and some of our associations, perhaps, but at every step we make the choice and we bear the responsibility.

[Hunt 11]

I think packsaddle's continuum makes a good point, but I think up through level 4 is basically OK. I see nothing wrong with thinking that one's views are correct, and that somebody else's views are wrong, and further, that those wrong views lead to real-world effects that are undesirable. You can certainly have such an opinion without insulting anybody, without thinking that you are somehow innately superior, or that the other person is an enemy. Again, a good example is political views--I hold some political views pretty strongly, and I think that people with contrary views are seriously wrong, and that their views would harm the country. I see nothing wrong with this at all, nor do I have any problem with them thinking the same thing about my views. I think this becomes denigration only when I call them names, or when I ascribe their views to evil motives or to stupidity, etc.

To bring this back to the point, at least somewhat--when BSA first included religious elements in the program, it was not designed to put anybody down--it was because the designers of the program really believed that duty to God was important.

[stlscouter 10]

9a.enlist allies to spread only negative images of your enemy.

 

9b. file class action suit against them and try to finacially ruin them. Make sure your attorney can parse even the word "it.