Give and Inch; Take a Mile

[Gunny2862]

Merlyn, I'm open to education.

 

But I thought that was the point. What they could do.

 

Am I in this instance confusing it with a slippery slope argument/camels nose under the tent argument then? There's definitely a fallacy somewhere in that argument.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Without getting too far off topic (too late), my reply was just an example of how an Iraqi scouting organization could "buy into the scout oath and law" in a way that could be considered "bad." You did ask "how can that be bad..."

[Gunny2862]

Merlyn,

I'm sorry, what I meant was more along the line of how could it be bad if "for instance" everyone followed the Scout Oath and Law. Not necessarily referring to any discriminatory policies.

 

The religious or atheist or sexual preference/identity arguments aside was more of the idea I was thinking.

 

Or allowing the perceived Religious(or other but I wasn't thinking that at the time) differences to sublimate somewhat in the context of the Scouting relationship.

 

Sort of a "Why can't we all just get along?" approach with in the framework of Scouting.

[CalicoPenn]

I wasn't commenting on anyone's replies to the original posting, only questioning what the point of the posting itself was. However, it seems to me that many of the replies bear out the validity of the question. Even the title of the thread leads me to the thought that this posting is part of the politics of the divisive, the politics of the "angry (read neutered) white man".

 

Why is it that only "Male Muslims" are pointed out to be possibly hypocritical in not asking for "male only" time, and not all males? Why, in fact, are "Male Muslims" even mentioned at all - because the folks who requested some female-only time happen to be Muslim too? I see nothing in the article that states that non-Muslim females can't use the gym during the female only hours - do you?

 

Why is it that when we accomodate peoples religious and cultural traditions, it makes them somehow "special" yet we fail to recognize that when we accomodate the primary religious and cultural traditions in this country, it's somehow "normal and not special"? The United States pretty much shuts down on Christmas Day - don't tell us that we aren't making accomodations for non-Muslim religions.

 

Why is it that we're so willing to accept ignorance of other traditions and cultures as having any validity in advancing an argument (Female Muslims can exercise????) when one of the most discussed points of the Scout Law is a virtual roadmap to guide us in learning about, understanding, and tolerating others?

 

That's my only point.

 

Calico

 

 

[Gold Winger]

I don't expect special treatment for my customs and traditions. If you want to come here, learn English and don't expect me to deal with your "customs." It's all pretty simple.

[TheScout]

"Why is it that when we accomodate peoples religious and cultural traditions, it makes them somehow "special" yet we fail to recognize that when we accomodate the primary religious and cultural traditions in this country, it's somehow "normal and not special"? The United States pretty much shuts down on Christmas Day - don't tell us that we aren't making accomodations for non-Muslim religions."

 

Wow, I didn't know that Christmas observance was an "accomodation." Oh wait, this is the heritage of the country, the beliefs that made this country great. America is a European/Christian country; and a very successful one too.

 

If you change the character of this country religiously/racially, you change what this country is.

 

I like America how it was. The European/Christian thing worked pretty damn well.

 

[Gold Winger]

Oh, oh. . . now you're going to get it. You've used the "r" word.

[hops_scout]

Sorry Calico, didn't realize I needed your approval before I posted something. Can I please have your cell pone number so I can call at any moment so we can discuss a topic?

 

Moving on..

 

-We have the Harvard article posted in the initial thread.

-We have Michigan-Dearborn http://media.www.themichiganjournal.com/media/storage/paper255/news/2007/06/19/News/UmDearborn.Awash.In.Foot.Bath.Controversy-2916347.shtml

-We have Normandale Community College http://www.startribune.com/featuredColumns/12551256.html

 

 

I could probably go on if I felt like digging some more. Why do they get special treatment?

 

Merlyn, I'll bet other groups can reserve it. But I'll also bet that they have to pay to reserve it when it would completely close the facility to other students and members. At least that's the way it is around here at our Rec Center.

 

 

[Gold Winger]

Oh, oh. Sarcasm. Careful or Gunny might come after you.

[CalicoPenn]

I never requested that I be given any kind of heads up before someone posted something. I only asked what the point of the posting was. Fred often posts things blind in the Politics section but what he posts is generally related to Scouting, or to some subject that might impact Scouting. This posting doesn't appear to do either. Women only hours at a gym in Harvard don't seem to have any impact on Scouting at all, unless you would like to bolster Scouting's policies by making a point about free association, and the rights of private organizations to make rules that discriminate against a segment of the population because they have the right to do so.

 

I think you answered that question quite well - given your political viewpoint, the answer fit in with what I thought it might be, but I did not want to assume anything. I really wonder if you would have posted this article if it didn't involve the "boogy monster" religion of the day. If it was just a group of women, with no other qualifier, would it have been something that piqued your interest enough to post on the forums?

 

If anyone fully supports the BSA in their lawful discrimination against gays, lesbians and athiests, then I dare say you should be coming out and saying you fully support Harvard in this part-time discrimination against men on behalf of women. After all, Harvard is a private organization with a right to free association as well. And if taxpayer dollars are being used to help fund the operations of the gym, then it shouldn't matter, at least if folks are going to be true to the argument that there is an overall good to be gained even if the end result is some discrimination.

 

I would suspect, then, that we should all be in common agreement, that Harvard is doing a good thing by setting aside times for women-only workouts, even if our various reasonings may be different.

 

I suspected, however; and believe I was ultimately proven correct, that the real purpose was to provide a launching pad for the expression of misogynistic and xenophobic views common to many euro-centric white males who seem to cower in fear over any changes in society that just might make our society stronger but at the expense of a tradition of being seen as in charge. The mantra of "special rights" and "special treatment" is utter bullpuckey and is the last refuge of a dying breed of backwards thinking bigots (which is my opinion, of course).

 

Calico

 

 

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

hops_scout, I didn't see any indication that other groups could reserve the gym, and if there already was such a reservation system set up, nothing new would need to be set up for a group of Muslim women to reserve it. So I'd bet there is no such system.

[Gold Winger]

" The mantra of "special rights" and "special treatment" is utter bullpuckey and is the last refuge of a dying breed of backwards thinking bigots (which is my opinion, of course)."

 

Now, that's not very Scoutlike unless Gunny agrees with you and then it will be okay.

[CalicoPenn]

You're absolutely right, it might not be very Scout like.

 

Lisa recently posted a question about what we do for a living. I hadn't answered but now would be a good time to do so. I am a counseling psychologist for a non-profit organization. I specialize in counseling gay and lesbian youth, and their families, as they come to grips with their sexual orientation.

 

Over the last 3 months, I've been counseling a young man, 17 years old, who tried to take his own life. He was a Boy Scout, earned the Eagle Rank, and was an honors student in school, as well as a respected student athlete, who also happens to be gay. After he confided in his pastor that he might be gay, word got out to his Scoutmaster and the Troop Committe (sponsoring organization is the church) who held a "ceremony" in front of this young man's troop where his uniform was "ceremoniously stripped" of his badges of rank and honor, utterly humiliating the lad. His father's reaction to this affront was that the boy deserved what he got. Word spread of this little stunt of an SOB Scoutmaster beyond the Troop into school. Things snowballed from there to the point where this fine young man felt the only way out was to end his own life. Fortunately, he survived, though he came pretty close to succeeding.

 

So given this, you'll have to forgive me if I'm refusing to be more "Scout like" when I take umbrage at the kind of bigoted claptrap that is becoming increasingly common on this forum. Or don't forgive me, I really don't care. I will stand here and continue to point out the bigotry that is infusing some of these posts. Frnakly, I can't think of anything more Scout like than taking people to task for their bigotry, can you?

 

Calico

[Gold Winger]

Oh dear, a liberal inclusionist. I notice that you don't denouce the Muslims for being misogynistic or xenophobic. Nah, that wouldn't be PC would it.

 

That said, I don't agree with that boy's pastor blabbing nor do I agree with the "stripping of honors" ceremony because under BSA policy, once granted an award cannot be revoked. So that boy is still an Eagle Scout.

 

However, I do wonder why he went along with it. It not the military where they cut off your buttons. Maybe he wanted the attention.

[funscout]

CalicoPenn,

 

That is horrible what happened to the young man you are counseling! Those scout leaders who perpetrated AND condoned what was done, should be removed from scouting. They are the ones who should be stripped of their patches!

 

I don't see any relationship to this topic, however. I agree with the fact that if Muslim women are following their faith by exercising away from the eyes of men, then why are the Muslim men not following their faith by making sure they don't put themselves in the presence of women in skimpy outfits?

 

Personally, I would prefer to have ALL men and women segregated by sex when they exercise, but that's just me, with my old fashioned morals. Women's libbers would have a huge fit if anyone suggested that, so I believe the men are justified in claiming that Harvard's policy is sexist.

 

I, too, don't understand why the U.S. is expected to change policies for people with differing cultures, when the countries that those people come from would not change for us. As a matter of fact, I would be jailed if I dressed like an American woman in some of those countries. I'm not saying that we are justified to act as intolerant as they do, but then why do the Muslims believe they can force us to change for them, when they would never return the favor?