Northern Star Council - Inclusive

[SeattlePioneer 144]

Packsaddle,

 

 

Please don't put your words in my mouth.

 

Just propose taking away from African Americans the race discrimination they benefit from in affirmative action programs and you will see a motivated constituency for race discrimination.

 

"To govern is to choose" is a common axiom of politics. One could restate it as "To govern is to discriminate."

 

To be opposed to "discrimination" is to be foolish. One has to look at the content of what is being done to determine if "discrimination" is wise or foolish, just or unjust.

 

 

[packsaddle 753]

Then I'll use YOUR words.

You began with the statement,

"The fact is there are often plenty of good reasons for "discrimination.""

and then you proceeded to list several examples, all related to racial segregation, presumably demonstrating the "good reasons for discrimination."

What else is the reader to conclude?

 

Edit: I guess I should give you credit for acknowledging the direct analogy between inclusiveness with regard to race and inclusiveness with regard to sexual orientation.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[SeattlePioneer 144]

I'll add that there are plenty of lousy reason for discrimination, too.

 

But "discrimination" itself is a rather content free issue. It tells you very little about what may be happening.

 

This is illustrated by the extreme political campaign being waged against Chick Fill A and BSA over homosexuality and the lack of interest in discrimination against girls by BSA and boys in GSUSA.

 

 

[Oak Tree 15]

There are all kinds of discrimination. The ones that we tend to find acceptable are those that are related directly to the mission of an organization. The ones that we find unacceptable are largely those that are unrelated to the organization.

 

So, for example, religious organizations do discriminate on the basis of religious beliefs. No one has an issue with that. Church members have to indicate that they agree with a basic set of beliefs or else they can't be members. Church leaders are even more subjucted to this sort of thing.

 

But other organizations can't discriminate on the basis of religious beliefs and look at all credible.

 

Single gender universities or high schools can say that their mission is to educate that particular gender, and they can say that there is some research to back up the idea that it works better.

 

Basketball teams can discriminate on the basis of one's ability to play basketball. You can get cut from the team if you aren't good enough. You can't get cut from the basketball team because of your religious beliefs. Your church doesn't kick you out due to a lack of physical fitness.

 

The BSA clearly states that it is a boy-oriented organization (from the very name of the organization) and it lists its religious beliefs quite prominently. Nowhere in the mission or any of the program materials are anything that says anything about sexuality, though. This total lack of rationale for why gays should be excluded is something that causes people to think the discrimination is unfair.

[shortridge 184]

nldscout wrote:

 

"Try and change them all you want, be my guest, however BSA has said they are not changing. So that leaves you 2 choice, stay within the present rules or leave. Do not disrupt the program because you don't like the rules.

 

"If the day comes and BSA changes its rule, then I and a lot of other souters will have to deceide if we can live with the new rules or if we will just leave."

 

I'm kind of astonished by the number of people on this board who hold to this viewpoint. "We won. BSA isn't changing. So either go away or shut up." It's very similar to the "America - love it or leave it" line used against the antiwar protestors in the 1960s.

 

Just because I choose to fight from the inside does not mean I waive my right to speak out. Just because the current policy is something I oppose does not mean I must leave.

 

I keep coming back to Roe v. Wade. People outside and inside government have been fighting to change that ruling for decades now. Yet I doubt many of the people who agree with nldscout on the BSA's gay ban would say that those groups must stop lobbying, proposing amendments and working to educate the public about their point of view. Nor would they agree that those activities are disrupting anything. (nldscout, was the Northern Star Council's board disrupting Scouting when it approved its policy? Should they all be forced to resign because they disagree with National's policy?)

 

Working to change policies and laws is a fundamental part of being an American. I'm sorry that a judge fails to understand that.

 

As for the issues that some have brought up about letting in girls and atheists: One thing at a time. We'll get there.

[Beavah 205]

Yah, shortridge, I reckon there's a difference between public governance and private association, eh?

 

You are conflating the two inappropriately.

 

In terms of public governance, of course our system encourages and protects freedom of speech, freedom to peaceably assemble and petition da government. I'll even buy into da notion that in many ways we try to recreate a bit of that experience within scouting to help teach the kids about it. If we're honest, though, we also do a lot of stuff in Scoutin' that bears no resemblance to the representative democracy of da nation, includin' given citizens ranks.

 

In terms of private association, things are different. Da ethic and norms of private association in a civil democratic society are to leave folks alone to do their own thing, not to lobby from without or within to get 'em to change. Fundamentalist Christians could, I suppose, sign up for membership in various LGBT organizations and then lobby from within for a change in policy to declare all LGBT activity sinful and direct da organization's resources to fighting LGBT influences in society. We would consider that obnoxious.

 

Da BSA is in the second group, eh? In civil democratic society, if yeh don't agree with a group, yeh don't associate with that group but yeh let it be. Not a Sikh? That's fine. Go join a Presbyterian Church, but it's obnoxious to join da Sikh congregation and insist they become more Presbyterian. Interested in airplanes? That's fine, go join da local aviation club, but it's obnoxious to join da model railroad club and then insist they include airplanes.

 

That's the issue here, eh? And it's fundamentally different from da issue of public governance.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Peregrinator 85]

As for the issues that some have brought up about letting in girls and atheists: One thing at a time. We'll get there.

 

It strikes me that there are many more girls (approximately 50% of the population) and even more atheists (2-9% in the United States) than there are gays (2-4% of the population). Why is the gay issue paramount?

[shortridge 184]

Still spinning the legal language hard and fast, are we?

 

Of course there's a difference between private groups and public government. I just can't see how an organization that declares that it builds good citizens can turn around and assert that those basic, fundamental principles don't apply to itself. That is simply hypocrisy.

 

Our boys have the right and ability to speak up and lobby the PLC to change if something isn't going right in a troop. But the Shut Up And Sit Down crowd here would apparently tell those boys to hush it, punks, the rule is in place and we're not changing, so put up with it or quit.

 

Do y'all see how silly you sound?

[Peregrinator 85]

I just can't see how an organization that declares that it builds good citizens can turn around and assert that those basic, fundamental principles don't apply to itself.

 

What if a Scout or Scouter wanted to express his opinion that scouting should not be about building good citizens? Does free speech apply then?

[nldscout 18]

"Our boys have the right and ability to speak up and lobby the PLC to change if something isn't going right in a troop"

 

There is nothing against advocating for a change, however once the PLC or in this case the BSA says, This is the final decision, then thats the final decision. You either live with it or move on.

 

In your example if a PL advocated for Troop cooked meals instead of in the patrols and the PLC said nope we are staying with Patrols then I would expect the PL to salute and moveout and run his patrol, not keep bringing the same tired subject up every day.

 

So in this case, BSA says they looked at the issue, that they are not going to change and thats that. So you as a member should deceide, well if thats the rules of the BSA either I should follow them as long as they are not illegal or maybe I should join another group.

 

So if they ever did, God forbid, implement a local option and you move and the local troop says we won't accept gays, then what do you do? Disrupt them, or move on to another group?

[Beavah 205]

Yah, shortridge, there's no "spin", legal or otherwise.

 

I was simply makin' a distinction that you were (accidentally or deliberately) ignorin'. And for da record that was my first post on this thread, so please don't lump me in with da group.

 

Da issue within a private organization is not the citizenship issue, eh? It's the courtesy issue. Much as I disagree with much of what nldscout has written in the thread, I think he got his last post right, eh?

 

Would it be OK as a fundamentalist Christian to join an LGBT support group, and then every week agitate that da support group should be open to all straight people? And then, when they said "No", they preferred it remain an LGBT support group because they felt it was important to have a safe environment where people would be comfortable discussin' those personal issues, da Christian brings it up again? And again? And again the next week? And posts how da organization is bigoted and exclusive? And then da LGBT group sets a bunch of its members to consider the issue, and they come back and say "No" again. So da fundamentalist Christian brings it up again, and again, and again, week after week?

 

I think we'd all agree that would be obnoxious.

 

So from my perspective, da citizenship issue here is courtesy to our fellow citizens with whom we disagree. You join your club, I'll join mine, and we can live in harmony without tryin' to undermine each other's organizations. The BSA is tryin' to do that, eh? We haven't called for de-funding LGBT programs, or limiting LGBT access to public lands, or joined LGBT groups in the hope and intention of changin' their policies to embrace monogamous heterosexuality. We've just quietly said "this is our position and we respect yours". A good citizen would extend da same courtesy in return, don't yeh think?

 

Beavah

 

[CalicoPenn 729]

"Da ethic and norms of private association in a civil democratic society are to leave folks alone to do their own thing, not to lobby from without or within to get 'em to change."

 

Interesting notion and one I might agree with if we weren't talking about the BSA which defines one of its 12 points of the Scout Law as "A Scout is obedient. A Scout follows the rules of his family, school, and troop. He obeys the laws of his community and country. If he thinks these rules and laws are unfair, he tries to have them changed in an orderly manner rather than disobeying them."

 

I just can't find anything in the BSA's definition of Obedient as "leave folks alone to do their own thing" or "if you don't like it, leave".

 

Thinking about it, I have to change my potential agreement with the original notion - forget about not agreeing because we're talking about the Boy Scouts - I'll take it further - I might agree except I was a Boy Scout - it doesn't matter if its the Boy Scouts, the Government, the Audubon Society, the NRA that I disagree with, because I was a Boy Scout, if I think any of these groups rules are unfair, I have an obligation, as one who takes the Scout Law seriously and who still tries to live it even at age 50, to try to have them changed in an orderly manner, even if that means taking them on from the outside.

[moosetracker 132]

Beavah there is a difference between joining an organization then trying to turn it into what it is not is one thing (Yes it would be weird for someone to join BSA to make it into a Senior Citizens group and try to change the age of membership to be no one under the age of 65 should be allowed to be scouts. And bingo and shuffleboard should be the new rank requirements.

 

Debating within a private organization to be closer to what they proclaim to be is not the same thing.. We debate change because they try to teach inclusiveness, state they respect all religions and yet we disagree that that are practicing what the preach..

 

Maybe you should not join a church that is Jewish and try to change it to be Catholic.. But ask the Baptist church who welcomed in new members includeing a black couple and state they are open to all races, yet when the couple wanted to marry at the church that they had become members of, they were denied the right to marry there on the grounds that they were black.. That has a internal disagreement going on.. The changes in church view over accepting black members, women and now homosexuals as church members has been a source of internal debate within churches for a long time.. Why not, churches teach loving they brother, some members don't get the "Except for those guys over there."

 

In an earlier forum someone said the organizations first did not accept chiropractors.. I would imagine it was changed through internal disagreement of it's members as to if they were medical professional or not that got it changed. Now if someone wanted to join to debate allowing clowns into the organization that would be strange, but a debate over who is a valid Doctor or not is not..

 

In BSA you now have a debate over if homosexuals is the most sinful sinner around (over that of adulters or strippers) that they have to be plucked out, without the CO having a choice as to accept.. We aren't asking for BSA to change into a Senior Citizens group, we are simply asking for the fair treatment of some youth who are homosexuals, some parents who are homosexuals and some great worthwhile adult citizens (who may or may not have been scouts in their youth) who the CO would approve to be good adult leaders..

 

We have an internal disagreement on what is inclusive, and what is non-sectarian, and what is meant by CO's having the ability to control over their units..

 

[shortridge 184]

Sure, Beavah, I suppose I was deliberately ignoring your point, because I see it as ridiculous and hypocritical.

 

"You join your club, I'll join mine, and we can live in harmony without tryin' to undermine each other's organizations."

 

That's really the crux of the matter, Beav. The BSA is not your club. It's not my club. It's an organization for the youth we serve. I have been a member and volunteer for years, and was a member for years before I heard about the policy in question. No leader or supervisor has ever told me that this is the policy. No handbook has ever included it. I certainly have never agreed to it the thousands of times I said the Oath and Law. As far as we program peons go, the policy does not exist. So I have never been given the chance to agree or disagree with it.

 

But then one day I hear in the press that this organization's national governing body has put this policy in place. If I disagree, is it not my obligation to speak against it? Is it not my right to complain? Is it not part of basic citizenship to seek an end to a policy I regard as flawed and bigoted and utterly counterproductive, one that will ultimately lead to the decline of this organization?

 

You say no, it's been decided and this isn't a democracy, so hush up.

 

So I now say to all of you who want peoplelike me to quit: Follow your own principles. Do not speak out about the red wagon ban, the uniform change or any other policy or practice of the BSA or your local council with which you disagree. Stop posting here about complaints about your local camp program, or FOS practices, or changes in the MB lineup, or modifications to the Oath. Irving or your local HQ has made that decision, and it will not change. So either stop disrupting the program with your complaints, or else leave.

 

Again: See how silly you sound?

 

 

[Oak Tree 15]

"Da ethic and norms of private association in a civil democratic society are to leave folks alone to do their own thing, not to lobby from without or within to get 'em to change."

 

I think I'm going to have to disagree with this to some extent. Since private associations do in fact change over time, it's got to be that someone somewhere is lobbying to get them to change.

 

It used to be more the case that people didn't view it as all that seemly to publicly advocate for change - if you are on the U.S. Olympic team, you aren't supposed to complain about the way the team is run. But nowadays with Twitter and Facebook and everything else, it's much easier to see what's going on inside organizations. So now they can tweet about the ridiculous bus ride, and they don't have to come off looking quite so petty at some news conference.

 

And I do want to reserve the right to complain about wagon bans. Sometimes you just have to say that some things are stupid.