The Press and discriminatory story writing.

[OldGreyEagle 5]

I think the "media" whomever they are, like to tag any entity with a tag, how many people in the Chicagoland area remember serial murderer John Wayne Gacy, who was forever identified in the newspapers as John Wayne Gacy, former Clown, and often shown in that picture with Nancy Regan. Of course the picture was taken long before Gacy had been arrested, but that didnt stop the "media" from trotting that picture out as many times as possible.

 

I think it was John Lennon or it may have been Paul McCartney or Ringo or George Harrison, I dont for sure, who commented in an interview that no matter what they did, they would always be an Ex-Beatle. If Paul found the cure for cancer tomorrow, the headline would read "Ex-Beatle Paul finds Cure for Cancer"

 

So the BSA is tagged as discriminating against Atheists and Gays, at least they have it right, we do discriminate against Atheists and Gays, just as Augusta National discriminates against women. They make no bones about, its legal and so is the postion that the BSA takes.

 

Now, whether or not its the right choice is another matter, legal and right do not equal each other. Now if the media said the BSA espoused violence towards gays or Atheists, then we could get up in arms, but this time, they actually got it right

[GernBlansten 10]

Calico: "In a sense, the Press is saying that the BSA is no longer part of the American equation, but is now a relic of a by-gone era."

 

Well said. Sometimes one needs to evolve or become a fossil.

[Lisabob 13]

Well I must say, Gunny, that this is the first time I have seen the BSA compared (in any manner) to the Nation of Islam. If that's the one example you have of an organization that formally limits membership on the basis of race then I think you'll agree that it isn't the most apt comparison point for the BSA. And by the way I venture to say that the NoI gets less desirable mainstream media coverage than the BSA, by and large.

 

As for an example tossed out there by Eric - Whites *are* welcome to join the NAACP and always have been; don't let the name throw you. I notice that there is no question about race on the NAACP's membership application on their web site. Just as men can support women's rights and heterosexuals can support gay rights, whites can support minority rights.

 

Part of the problem for the BSA is that the organization teaches brotherhood, respect for others, and a host of other desirable values on one hand, while excluding people on the other hand, sometimes in ways that seem to be exactly the opposite of what the organization teaches. Such contradictions are noteworthy.

[Oak Tree 15]

I can think of many religious organizations that discriminate on the basis of religion. There are various groups that discriminate on the basis of gender.

 

But I can think of very few organizations other than religions that discriminate on the basis of religious belief, and only religions and the military that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Those are politically incorrect positions to take, and mainstream American values, even more so among the educated elite, are to be non-discriminatory. Because the BSA insists on discriminating on these bases, they really set themselves outside the great majority of social organizations. And the press remembers and remarks upon this fact, partly because it sits outside of their idea of what a "normal" organization would do.

 

Oak Tree

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

The NAACP not only allows white members, they didn't have a black chairman of the board for the first 25 years; most of the people who started it were white.

 

fgoodwin writes:

In the context of this thread, I wonder why the "MSM" (mainstream media) aren't all over Muslim leaders about this treatment of women, especially here in America (according to the woman being interviewed, second class status is typically how Muslim women are treated, even in the US)? Where are the NOW protesters marching in front of mosques across America?

 

Probably the same place they're protesting Orthodox Judaism's separation of sexes -- mostly it's only members of that particular religion that protest. Of course, that begs the question of why you yourself aren't protesting.

[DanKroh 11]

erickelly writes: "Although I dont have a definative list of groups who are exclusionary but arent the PC presses "whipping boy", one that springs to mind immediately is Girl Scouts of America. They have no program for boys at any age, even supporting programs for male siblings. While men can technically be adult volunteers they are, in my opinion, extremely limited in role and not typically welcomed. It is also my understanding they can not hold certain leadership positions."

 

I think that if the BSA's exclusionary policy that the public mainly objected to was about girls, then you would see a lot more flak being given to the Girl Scouts for the same reason. But when people castigate the BSA for "exclusionary policies", it is generally not over gender, but religion and sexual orientation. But, unlike the BSA, the Girl Scouts have eliminated both of those exclusions.

 

To get back to Gunny's initial question, I think that Oak Tree and CalicoPenn have hit it pretty close. Discriminating on the basis of religion and sexual orientation, while legal for the BSA to do, is becoming less and less acceptable to society in general, and there are fewer and fewer organizations out there who still practice it. So that the BSA does is noteworthy.

 

Which brings up another good point; why is pointing out a fact (the BSA is exclusionary) automatically a castigation of the organization? If so many people in the BSA are so darned proud of those exclusionary policies, wouldn't it be a matter of pride to bring them up? Or could it be that the policy is really the elephant in the middle of the room that no one wants to look at or acknowledge?

 

And Lisabob's points are very valid, too. I think the BSA comes off as a bit hypocritical when they tout "diversity" and "respect of others" on the one hand, and then exclude people who would otherwise be considered part of a "protected class".

 

Finally, I think another reason the BSA receives bad press for discriminating is that, despite the Supreme Court ruling that they are a private organization, they are still seen by much of the public as a "public" organization (public accomodation in legal terms). Joe Average Non-Scouter probably doesn't know about the Dale ruling.

 

 

[erickelly65 10]

Personally, I think the BSA has it right on Religion and needs to rethink its stance on sexual orientation.

 

I agree with the BSA's stance on religion. My view has nothing to do with keeping "atheists" out but to keep faith in the program. The belief in a higher-power is a central and explicit part of the BSA program included in elements of both Scout Oath and Scout Law. I personally don't want the program to consider dropping the Scout Oath's "Duty to God" nor the Law's "Reverent" components. There are a plethora of youth organizations that are comletely secular in nature. Why can't the BSA retain this element of ecumenical faith without being vilified as "hate mongerers" or religated to having no-access to public resources as other youth programs that do far less good and have far less impact. As a side bar, I think the courts and the ACLU view of seperation of church and state and what implications that has on access to civil resources and the public forum are dead wrong.

 

As for sexual orientation, I think the BSA should never have taken such a strong stance in the first place and that a more inclusive policy should be implemented. There is no explicit component of the program that has any view of sexuality and the policy stance is built on morality of a subset of the faith's involved in the BSA program. My particular faith believes that homosexuality is a sin but also it teaches that is not an acceptable reason to ostracize or descriminate against people of that inclination.

[TheScout 10]

Dan, I do not think the BSA is necesarily hypocritical.

 

The BSA does not think certain people are good moral characters to serve as examples for the Scouts.

 

They can still respect peoples differences. They just do not want to associate. That is their right.

 

Many other groups discriminate against people who they deem immoral. I don't think the Girl Scouts lets people they think are immoral be leaders?

 

The BSA just has a different standard of morality. Today's society wants a one size fits all morality, and the BSA doesn't comply. They do what they think is right. Thats what Scouts should do.

[GernBlansten 10]

Erickelly,

If the scout oath is the reason we exclude athiests, should we also use the scout oath to exclude the obese?

I don't see how dropping the exclusion would change the oath. Its an ideal the members of the organization strive to achieve, not a list of traits a scout must have to be a member.

[packsaddle 753]

Bravo, Calico...also Oak Tree and Lisa! Well said. One reason that the statement of fact might seem to be, well, unsavory, is that the reader understands its negative connotation to so many in the public.

If the exclusionary policies of BSA are the wonderful things that some of us think they are, then we should shout them to the world with pride, not cringe when these truths are repeated by others.

In the marketplace of ideas, discreetly hiding these policies from popular public view doesn't give them the opportunity to prevail in competition with the evolving values of the marketplace. And it doesn't preserve them in the eye of the public either if they are subsequently viewed in terms of hypocrisy. If we're so proud of the policies, we ought to put them out front so everyone can share their benefit. It might even boost membership.

 

GSA in our area welcomes male leaders. The comparison of BSA to Nation of Islam is...wow! Got any more examples like this?

 

Edited part: Gern (and Dan) I agree as well. TheScout, I'm curious as to what you think would constitute hypocrisy regarding BSA policy, if this doesn't already.

What are the qualifications for hypocrisy?

And I'm still interested, as well, in your thoughts on local option versus central authority.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[erickelly65 10]

GernBlansten

If a person is willing to say the scout oath and law and subscribe to the precepts of the BSA Declaration of Religious Principle and comply with the Bylaws of the BSA they should be admitted to membership. The BSA does not nor should it entertain conducting a deeper assessment of whether or not a person is one of faith (Truth be told that is only known in our own hearts).

But I would ask you this, why would an atheist want to or even be willing to state they will strive to live by the tenants of the scout oath and law as they currently are written?

I agree with you that the list of beliefs and standards outlined in the scout oath and law are principles to strive to achieve in our lives. However, there is a difference in not living up to each of these principles and refusing to accept them as valid.

[DanKroh 11]

erickelly writes: "Personally, I think the BSA has it right on Religion and needs to rethink its stance on sexual orientation."

 

Eric, I was once where you are now.

 

"The belief in a higher-power is a central and explicit part of the BSA program included in elements of both Scout Oath and Scout Law. I personally don't want the program to consider dropping the Scout Oath's "Duty to God" nor the Law's "Reverent" components. There are a plethora of youth organizations that are comletely secular in nature. Why can't the BSA retain this element of ecumenical faith without being vilified as "hate mongerers" or religated to having no-access to public resources as other youth programs that do far less good and have far less impact."

 

As an aside, ecumenical means unity of Christian denominations. The BSA is non-sectarian.

 

One can be reverent without being theistic. One can also feel a sense of duty to something higher than themselves without being theistic.

 

Here's why my stance on atheists in the BSA changed. Realistically, a six-year old (Tiger age) has no real internalized concept of religion. Although he probably professes a belief in the religion of his parents due to indoctrination, he will quite likely question, and maybe even change his religious belief during his formative years. What if, at 16, he decides that there really is no God? He has been in Boy Scouts for 10 years, but suddenly, he is no longer eligible to stay a member. What changed in the young man's character from the day before his decision to be an atheist? Does he now act any differently? Does he now treat others differently? Most likely, not. But the BSA has decided that yesterday, he was acceptable, and today he is not. What an incredible blow to the self-esteem of a 16 year old. That is why I cannot in good conscience support the BSA policy on atheists.

[TheScout 10]

packsaddle,

 

Like I said, I do not think the policy is hypocracy. The BSA has standards of what it thinks is immoral. It exludes people that it judges to be immoral.

 

Many other organizations do the same. I am sure the Girl Scouts don't allow child molestors or murderers to be leaders. They violate their standard of morality.

 

Please note I am not equating homosexuality or atheism with murder or molestation. Simply stating that they are among traits different groups think are immoral. Not wanting to associate with people who you think are immoral does not mean one is not tolerant.

 

Hypocracy would be saying one is diverse and tolerant then discriminating for no rationale reason.

 

As for the local option. I say there has to be standards. I think we all would. You have to keep some minimum set of standards to be used across the BSA.

 

Again, for an extreme hypothetical, if there were no national standards, a council could allow released sex offenders to be leaders. Clearly not acceptable. This proves there needs to be some minimum standards.

 

I think the standards the BSA have no are good. I would support the current CO based local option when COs can restrict their membership even more.

 

I honestly believe one of he things that makes the BSA great and so respected among many parts of this country is its perceived stand for traditional values.

 

I think you correctly point out that decentralization is a traditional value. The BSA is quite decentralized. Councils have significant responsibilities as I understand it. However, any decentralized organization must keep a set of standards to unite all.

 

Do you think that would be a bad thing?

As it is, the local memberships are dictated to by a central authority. H'mm maybe that IS a traditional value.

 

 

[erickelly65 10]

DanKroh

While often used to refer to relationship among various Christian denominations, Ecumenical's definition is "involving or promoting friendly relations between different religions" (Encarta) and that is the definition to which I was refering.

 

As for the boy in your example that grows up to not believe in a higher power, why would he want to remain a group that had that belief as part of its tenants? Why would he want to keep an affiliation with such a group as Boy Scouts (because they camp) or Fellowship of Christian Atheletes (Becuase they have fun events) or his local Church (because the sermons are entertaining?) I never looked at this a punishment being meated out by the BSA but rather a statment of "We believe in X, if you believe in X great, but if not why would you want to affiliate with this group"

 

And what would we tell the other members of the group? That originally we said faith is a critical element in life but we were wrong and now it doesnt matter one way or the other?

[OldGreyEagle 5]

I think we all know there is no GSA, but an GUSA so we dont have to mention it