To prejudge other men's notions...

[tjhammer 10]

EdMori: Who beside you see the Boy Scout as bigots? Names, please. Got any non-atheist or non-gay people who side with you?

 

OK, well, it's been a while... I'm ready to wade back into the morass... let me take a crack at answering you Ed:

 

NYTIMES Poll, June 27, 2007: 44% of people aged 19 to 27 think gay marriage should be legal. 68% think if not marriage, at least civil unions should be allowed. Pretty much every poll of the American public reveals similar, and increasing opinion on gay couples, gay parenting and recognizing that gay people are just normal folks like everyone else.

It's probably clear to most Scouters that people aged 19 to 27 are the likely parents of kids entering Cub Scout age, and it doesn't take much of a leap to extrapolate at least a coorelation to the dramatic drop in new kids entering our Scouting program.

Since young Americans are far more relaxed about homosexuality than their elders -- three-quarters of 18-34-year-olds think it is OK to be gay, whereas half of those over 55 think it is not -- this trend is likely to continue. This year was also the first since Gallup started asking the question that a majority of Americans have not said that homosexual relations are morally wrong.

 

Households with gay couples living normal, everyday lives just like most of the people in this forum increased more than 30% in five years following the 2000 census... most pronounced in places like Wisconsin (showing an 81% jump in the number of same-sex couples)... among the ten fastest-growing states for coupled, gay households: Minnesota, Nebraska, Kansas, Ohio, Iowa, Missouri and Indiana.

 

"The gays" are not just distant flames in far off cities... we're increasingly the boring couple with the porch light next door to you in suburbia and middle America.

 

Fellow Scouters, this is not a "battle" the the BSA or prejudice will win against time and reality. It's easy to prejudge someone as evil or duplicitous or radically different when you don't actually know them... but large bunches of the younger generation has grown up around openly gay, normal (whatever that means) people, and just aren't apoplectic over the issue.

 

To prejudge other men's notions before we have looked into them is not to show their darkness but to put out our own eyes. - John Locke, some dude who used to think a lot about Enlightenment

 

 

[packsaddle 753]

Wow, TJ, it's good to hear from you again. PM me sometime, I'd like to get back in touch.

I'll add to the post...my neighborhood is an older one with quite a few retirees (I guess I teeter-totter on that threshold as well), and some widows. The younger residents are about a 50-50 split between gay couples and other types of arrangements (students, families...married and not). I think there might be one or two people out of hundreds (maybe none) who react badly to the gay couples, the local kids just take it as the way it is, no big deal.

My old neighborhood was the same way and that was in the rural South. Wow, have things changed in a very short time!

So I agree, that particular type of prejudice and fear is on the decline, at least around here.

I continue to state that gays ARE in Boy Scouting. The ones I know of pose no threat whatsoever to the boys and there is no reason for the kind of fear and prejudice that I see driving the policy.

To answer the original question, YES, I do know some scouters - both volunteers and professionals - who have expressed prejudiced and bigoted views regarding gays (and certain religious beliefs and certain ethnic groups as well). It's not that I automatically see a BSA leader and think of them as bigoted. It IS that I see a bigoted leader and think, "what a shame" for all of us.

[Hunt 11]

Do you think that an honestly held belief, based on religious teachings and traditions, that homosexual sexual behavior is morally wrong is "bigotry?" I think using this kind of loaded term makes it difficult to discuss the issue in a civil manner, because it simply labels the person who disagrees with you--it prejudges his notions, in other words. If one side of the debate is composed of "bigots," and the other side is composed of people pushing the "gay agenda," it's very difficult to reach any kind of understanding or compromise.

Here's the compromise: Both sides need to recognize there there are people of good will on the other side who have rational reasons for believing as they do. They need to accept that there is room in the world (and in Scouting, I think) for people who disagree, even on major questions. This is why I think that Chartering Organizations should have the authority to decide whether they will allow openly gay members and leaders (just as they have the right to allow or exclude female leaders, or to limit membership to members of their own organization).

 

[GernBlansten 10]

A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from their own.

 

Whether the opinion is based on religious teachings or some internally manifested self conclusion, the result is the same.

[packsaddle 753]

Hello Hunt, I'm not sure to whom you addressed your post but I'll take a crack at it.

Here's what I just got from Webster:

"Main Entry: bigot

Pronunciation: 'bi-g&t

Function: noun

Etymology: French, hypocrite, bigot

: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance."

 

I see no mention of religion in this but even if a religious belief is the basis for the above, if such a person fits the definition the basis for their bigotry changes nothing. However, what I sometimes observe seems to be the other way around. The prejudice is there already and the religious scripture is subsequently used to confirm that bigotry. People do this all the time...it is one of the mechanisms that makes prejudice so difficult to overcome.

 

Another way for you to think about this is to substitute another term instead of 'gay', perhaps 'black' or some ethnic slur, maybe the 'N' word. I know people who have equally honestly held beliefs (prejudices?) regarding these groups, not to mention Catholics, Jews, Moslems, etc. Are you ready to argue that these individuals are NOT bigots, simply because it is their honest belief, supported by scripture?

[3EaglesDad 10]

In this day and age, if I have a parent that is wanting to be involved in their sons lifes and be a volunteer, I will not be asking for their sexual orientation. First of all I don't need to know and second I don't ask anyone their sexual orientation. If they follow BSA rules and procedures they won't be a problem to the boys or to me. Kinda like the military "Don't ask Don't tell."

If they do make me know, then I will have to handle the situation on a case by case basis. I will not turn any "Parent" down who is wanting to volunteer and help. Its hard enough finding parents who are willing to give up the idiot box and every other excuse for not raising their own kids.

Now having said that, if I have an individual with no connection to Scouting, no son, no history, no family here. I will look at his application very closely and make sure that I have some very good local references for them. I would do this no matter what their "leanings" where.

 

3ed

 

 

[mtm25653 10]

tjhammer said:

It's probably clear to most Scouters that people aged 19 to 27 are the likely parents of kids entering Cub Scout age

 

Uh, no. Cubs have to be in 1st grade, so they are 6 yo or older. The average age to have your first child in the US (2003 stat, most recent I could find) is 25 - so most Cub parents are at least 31.

 

I'm a lot older, and I've come around to the belief that gay marriage isn't a bad thing - better than serial relationships where kids don't live with both parents. But I still think it's the right thing to not have gay leaders in boy scouts.

[packsaddle 753]

mtm25653,

1. There are gay leaders in boy scouts.

2. You don't know who they are.

3. There's nothing you can do about it.

4. It's not a big deal, don't worry, be happy.

The BSA policy, more and more as suggested above, is becoming irrelevant to all except those for whom the policy makes them comfortable with their prejudices.

[Beavah 205]

Yah, I usually stay away from these threads, eh? But what the heck.

 

Hunt was gentle, I'll be blunt. I think callin' Christians, or Muslims, or Buddhists who believe homosexuality is disordered "bigots" is itself the worst kind of bigotry. It slurs others by ethnicity and religious belief. It's no different than anti-Semitism or any similar ugly prejudice.

 

I personally believe homosexual activity is disordered and sinful, and that's consistent with my faith, eh?

 

I've gotta admit, though, I've not yet met a sinless Scouter. I've known some good men and women, but they've all had their struggles. Drinking, infidelity, tax cheats, unfair labor practices, lies, pornography, whatever. We are all sinners and sons of sinners. Yeh can't make being sinless a criteria for leadership.

 

Da real issue is unrepentant and open sinfulness bein' a bad example for the kids. A Scouter who drinks too much on his own time is fine; but not a Scouter who is arrested for DUI and who claims drinking to excess is an OK lifestyle choice. I think most of us are "don't ask, don't tell." It's only been when someone takes a public advocacy position that there's a more serious issue. Doesn't matter whether it's homosexuality or heterosexual promiscuity or tax evasion or smoking weed.

 

And that's the missin' side of tjhammers poll numbers. A plurality of Americans are willin' to be compassionate about the government not interferin' in a personal ethical choice about sexuality. But a large majority of Americans don't want that choice advocated to their kids as an example of something "right."

 

Beavah

 

[tjhammer 10]

For what it's worth... I agree that blindly "labeling" people is wrong. If you look at my post, I've called the BSA Inc. position prejudicial... I, personally, didn't use the epithet.

 

However, do I think there are bigots in the BSA, and within this forum... yes.

 

But do I think everyone that's willing to prejudge gay boys and men as unfit for membership in the organization is colloquially a bigot? No, that was sort of my point. I think prejudice is often less sinister and deliberate. But when prejudice goes unchecked, denied and defended as rightuous, it's a pretty slippery slope to Rev. Fred Phelps and evil bigotry.

 

 

 

 

[packsaddle 753]

H'mmm. Perhaps Merriam-Webster is a secret component of a vast 'left-wing conspiracy'. Hey man, I didn't 'invent' the definition, I just quoted it for everyone. If you think the result is that religious believers are thereby defined as bigots, that's your interpretation - but I admit it IS an interesting interpretation.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

The earliest use of the word "bigot" appears to have referred to (usually female) religious hypocrites; I don't think bigotry based on religion should get a pass compared to bigotry based on ignorance, upbringing, etc. It's another example of what some of the prominent atheist authors have pointed out -- something that is criticized is supposed to NOT be criticized if it's the result of religion. That's irrational.

[packsaddle 753]

If you read my posts, you will know that I agree with TJ's comment about labels.

But Merlyn caused me to remember something to add:

While I am familiar with the authors to whom Merlyn refers, care should be taken in the interpretation. They do not conclude that reluctance to critically examine ideas based on religious belief is a form of political correctness although it might seem that way to some of us - and although political correctness certainly seems to have caused some politicians to modify their public views in matters of faith. It isn't the same thing.

Rather, these authors advocate that ALL ideas (religious or otherwise) be equally available to open, critical examination without fear of recriminations or worse. As it happens, we, as a society do seem to give matters of faith special treatment in comparison, say, to matters of economics, or other controversial aspects of society. Why do we do that?

 

My answer to them is, "Grow UP!" They obviously already have the freedom that they advocate because they ARE openly, critically examining religious faith and they're still alive. We ALL have that freedom. So what if people call them mean names. OK, Rushdie's days might be numbered...h'mmm maybe they have a point.

But what I wish is that EVERYONE personally engaged in the same freedom that they enjoy. Better to have the David Dukes and Fred Phelps out there in the open than have them meeting in secret to hatch who-knows-what plots. Plus, it's really entertaining to watch.

"Always look on the bright side of life...."

Just a glass-half-full kind of guy, I guess.

[LongHaul 10]

Just so I'm clear here. If I were to declare that I hold that buying and selling human beings is unacceptable and that no possible justification for said action could be made, would that make me a bigot?

LongHaul

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Possibly, to someone who thinks the old testament is the word of god.

 

If someone thought blacks were intended to be slaves by god under the curse of Ham, would that be bigoted?