Question for Disparagers, etc.

[OldGreyEagle 5]

The question is Ed, once the footbaths are installed, may only Muslims use them? If you and I are comming back from Philmont and are in that airport on a layover and wish to cool our aching feet in a foot bath, are we prohibited from using the foot bath because we are both Christians?

 

If the answer is yes, then there is an issue. But, if anyone can use the footbath, then its not an issue. Well, one could question why a footbath was installed when there are other places to spend public money, but look at the sport edifices built in Pa with public money

[evmori 11]

Point is the foot baths were installed with public money for religious reasons. The pool example is totally different since it seem all the money was from a donation.

 

So looks like we are back to the beginning. Taxes, which are public monies, are used to support all types of religious groups yet the the BSA is depicted as being the only bad guy. Sounds like selective prosecution to me.

[skeptic 992]

So Beavah gets back to the broader point of this thread. Over almost a hundred years the BSA has contributed untold hours, likely well into the tens of millions at this point, to various public improvements and assistance. So, as recognition for these contributions, most government entities have given them some special consideration on fees on public property and services. The contributions of the BSA have far out weighed the pittance of so called unfairness. What have the Atheists of America, or whatever given over the same period? What has the ACLU or the Gay organizations given in comparison?

 

I am sure that Merlyn will claim the ACLU has given service by its law suits in various forms. And there is some truth to that; but many of those suits ended up with them getting huge payouts as well that went to them directly. The scales are badly out of balance when you look at the broader picture.

 

Still, this point will be ignored or made light of, as it reflects too clearly on the obvious bias and lack of community in the "disparagers'" camp.

 

And now back to the repetitive harangues.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Skeptic, it doesn't matter how many public services works the BSA does; that cannot justify violating the civil rights of other people. Your entire argument is a red herring along the lines of "we're nice, they aren't, so shouldn't we (the good guys) get preferential treatment, even if it infringes on the rights of those undesirables over there?"

 

The answer is no, you cannot do that.

[CalicoPenn 729]

"And, Calico, if a public park gives the BSA a discounted rate over another group, the issue is with the park, not the BSA."

 

I agree, Ed - the problem is with the park. BUT, when someone points it out to the park authorities and insists that everyone be treated equally, some people say it's an attack on the BSA and not on the park's policies. If folks expect fairness and equitablity in public accomodations, they aren't attacking the organizations that are being treated better simply because they're pointing out that the organization is being given preferential treatment - they're still attacking the park's policies. Yet the strident among us still see it as an unwarranted attack on the BSA.

 

The same thing happens when churches want to expand parking lots and the neighbors insist that zoning regulations be followed. Inevitably, the church insists that the neighbors are attacking the church when that isn't the case at all.

 

Can't we agree that folks have good intentions to assure equal access for all when they challenge these policies, and aren't out to "get the BSA'?

 

 

Oh, and the idea posited by Beavah that the BSA, or any group, may deserve preferential treatment because of all the hours it puts into service to communities is absolutely abhorent to me, and should be to any Scout, Scout Leader, and especially any Arrowmen. We don't do service to communities or organizations with the expectation that we will get something in return, whether it's a free lunch, a t-shirt, a mention in the newspaper, a medal to hang on our shirt, or reduced pricing at a picnic pavillion. We do it because it's the right thing to do. It's one thing to have the use of a picnic pavillion free of charge on a day when the unit is doing actual service at the park on that day and are using the pavillion as a staging point, and a gathering point at the end for a post service project party. It's quite another to expect that the unit should get a discount for the pavillion rental fee because the unit did some service project at a park sometime in the past.

[Beavah 205]

Beavah, sounds like you'd agree with the ACLU, and insist that the government not finance programs that discriminate on the basis of religion. But somehow, your platitudes keep whitewashing the BSA's discrimination and you think it's unfair if the government refuses to fund their "private" discriminatory program. You just aren't consistent.

 

Yah, must be my funny accent, eh? You're just not gettin' it.

 

I don't like da notion of any big government denying funding to programs based on da beliefs of the people running or choosing those programs. I think it's dangerous. Yah, there are always extreme fringe group exceptions, but those are rare, tiny minority exceptions eh?

 

It's even more dangerous when it comes to youth programs, because it's such an effective way of indoctrinatin' youth to the viewpoints preferred by the government.

 

So me, I'm perfectly fine with da government financing any program that serves a secular purpose, even if it discriminates to serve a target audience. If yeh want to help African-American Baptist kids in urban areas, sendin' 'em homosexual leaders isn't the way to do it. Yeh won't accomplish your purpose. You'll waste government dollars and not accomplish anything, because da people you're tryin' to reach won't accept your program. If yeh really care about da secular purpose of improving urban poverty, yeh work through the urban churches which are the only trusted anchors in those communities. Even though those churches discriminate in their membership, that's the only effective way to achieve your secular purpose.

 

Just depends what yeh want more: caring for kids, or holding on to your extreme version of church/state separation. Me, I care about kids, and government effectiveness more than ideology.

 

I'm left to conclude that you're a George W. Bush fan, eh? Your approach is to go into some area convinced your own philosophy and view is da right one, and refuse to work with da Sunni Tribal Councils or the moderate Shiite imams or the remnants of the old Baathist Army or da African-American Baptists or da Latino Catholics or the western LDS. That can appear noble. Yeh can look like you stuck by your beliefs and get patted on da back at dinner parties with your friends.

 

Problem is it just doesn't work on da ground.

 

Beavah

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Beavah, you're still dismissing the rights of those excluded, just like any number of past situations where Jews, or blacks, or Catholics, etc were excluded, but that didn't matter because the Protestant kids were happy.

 

(the white Protestant kids, of course)(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

[Beavah 205]

Oh, and the idea posited by Beavah that the BSA, or any group, may deserve preferential treatment because of all the hours it puts into service to communities is absolutely abhorent to me.

 

I don't reckon dat's what I posited, eh?

 

I said that whether it's vouchers for parochial schools or scholarships for Catholic Universities or discounts for youth groups, it's a good business decision for government when it gets the job done.

 

Public/private partnerships are a good thing. They reinforce citizenship and loyalty in the contributing group while accomplishing the public purpose for a fraction the cost da government would otherwise pay. It's not granting an entitlement, it's encouragin' citizenship.

 

I was out with a church group doin' a big cleanup of da public park near the church a couple weekends ago. The city sent out their representative who brought some tools and told us what needed to be done. City provided free drinks and snacks, we brought lunch. At da end of the day, city rep. gave out a bunch of other free park stuff, includin' some T-shirts for the kids.

 

My church group discriminates in its membership. We're a bunch of dem silly Christians. Probably why we were out helpin' in da first place. So da city used public funds to give a bunch of free stuff to a discriminatory organization. As a result, they maintained a good partnership and I assure you that some of those church folk who live near by go more out of their way to maintain the park. They feel "ownership". They're likely to keep contributing time. When Mrs. Farnswaggle our sweet widow organist who lives next to da park dies, she might just donate that parcel the park has wanted for years because they gave her snacks and drinks, and the park manager gave her a few surplus tulip bulbs for her garden.

 

Da city did not give free snacks and lunch to non-discriminatory groups who did not participate in a park cleanup. I'm sure we have some Atheist group somewhere 'round about, but no free T-shirts for those atheist kids because they didn't participate in da park cleanup.

 

Did our church group feel entitled to free stuff? No. If there were budget cutbacks or whatnot, we'd understand. Is it a good use of public funds? ABSOLUTELY!

 

But here's da kicker: If da city discontinued it just because we were a Christian church would we be miffed? Yah! Of course! Especially if they said "well, we can give yeh drinks at our work day, but only if you agree to let some non-Christians into your congregation." Odds are we'd tell 'em to go pound sand, and go out of our way never to help da city again.

 

That's da point, eh? If da BSA has had a long track record of public/private partnership which has achieved and continues to achieve a public purpose, do we give 'em a discount? OF COURSE. Just good business sense.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[skeptic 992]

Merlyn says:

"Skeptic, it doesn't matter how many public services works the BSA does; that cannot justify violating the civil rights of other people. Your entire argument is a red herring along the lines of "we're nice, they aren't, so shouldn't we (the good guys) get preferential treatment, even if it infringes on the rights of those undesirables over there?"

 

First, I have "never" said any of these various groups were undesirable; that is your misconception. I choose to generally disagree with many of them, but they are not undesirables in my view, simply self centered and individuals with whom I choose to not associate if possible.

 

Second, lets change the "preferential" requirement. What if the government entity or program said something along the lines of this.

"Any group who gives x amount of service to improve the facilities, will get a discounted rate of"? Or some other similar stipulation. Speaking in terms of people hours, at a minimum wage comparison, most likely the stipulation would more than cover this reduced cost. Would that then be okay? Or do you still see it as unfair somehow?

 

Calico states;

"Oh, and the idea posited by Beavah that the BSA, or any group, may deserve preferential treatment because of all the hours it puts into service to communities is absolutely abhorent to me, and should be to any Scout, Scout Leader, and especially any Arrowmen."

 

Again, no one has suggested BSA, or any other group given these preferences should expect them, or at least that was not the intent of the comment. But, if the agency or whatever feels this is appropriate based on a very long history of contributions to it or other elements of community, it is then their decision based on factors they see as important or whatever. Again, it is in the balance of the longer and broader view. Still, as noted in the question to Merlyn above; would it still be abhorrent to you then?

 

 

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Well Beavah, what if the city discontinued allowing your group because the city decided to ONLY allow atheist groups to do it from now on? Would you say the city was acting within its legal powers?

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

skeptic writes:

First, I have "never" said any of these various groups were undesirable

 

I didn't say you said that literally, but your attitude is clear.

 

"Any group who gives x amount of service to improve the facilities, will get a discounted rate of"? Or some other similar stipulation.

 

That would be fine, assuming it's open to all groups.

[evmori 11]

Skeptic, it doesn't matter how many public services works the BSA does; that cannot justify violating the civil rights of other people.

 

Who's civil rights are being violated? And how are they being violated? Are atheists denied public access to something?

[Beavah 205]

you're still dismissing the rights of those excluded, just like any number of past situations where Jews, or blacks, or Catholics, etc were excluded, but that didn't matter because the Protestant kids were happy.

 

Yah, Merlyn, dat's exactly da problem I have with your approach. You're assumin' that what works for white suburban secularists is goin' to work for everybody else. So you're willing to dismiss the black Baptists, and da Catholics, and the Evangelical Protestants, and the Muslims and the LDS. As long as white suburban secularists are happy, da rest don't matter.

 

Besides, if da rest want any of da share of their tax dollars, all they have to do is convert to da white suburban secularist way of thinkin'!

 

Me, I'm more in favor of pragmatic respect for diversity.

 

And yah, to answer your question, if da Secular Humanists who Kiss Da Feet of Green Martian Lesbians have a long-standing tradition of volunteering in the park and keepin' it up so Mrs. Beavah and I can take an evening stroll, I don't mind in da least if they get discounted rent to their meeting space in da park building on the corner, even though they won't let me join. That's a good public investment. Same if they're really good at helpin' da 10% of the kids in the school system who are agnostic learn how to read, that's a good investment.

 

B

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Beavah, you're assuming the ONLY solution involves governmental support of discrimination, and that such discrimination ought to be allowed at the slightest whim of pretty much anyone.

[Beavah 205]

Beavah, you're assuming the ONLY solution involves governmental support of discrimination, and that such discrimination ought to be allowed at the slightest whim of pretty much anyone.

 

Yeh must live in da farm belt. Lots of straw lyin' around to make men out of.

 

Nope, Merlyn, I'm in favor of what works. Yah, and sure, I'm guessin' that what works is somethin' that respects families and cultures and freedom of association. Just seems a lot more practical than tryin' to convert everybody.

 

B