Eric Holder attacks BSA policy before LGBT pressure group

[JoeBob 606]

Just reviewed the entire thread. Nobody wants to talk about Eric Holder.

Good.

[Rick_in_CA 401]

You guys do know that secular humanism is not the same as atheism? While many atheists are secular humanists, not all secular humanists are atheists (though there are some secular humanist organizations that are explicitly atheist). So it's very possible for Charles Schultz to have been a secular humanist that also believed in God.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Yes, I know; that's why I've only said Schulz said he was a secular humanist.

[packsaddle 753]

OK, someone please explain how someone can be a secular humanist who believes in god.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

People don't always use words the same way as other people.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

I hate to interrupt the completely off-topic discussion about the crucial subject of a deceased cartoonist's religious beliefs or lack thereof, and I also hate to disappoint JoeBob who apparently thinks it's good that nobody is talking about the original topic, but hey, here's something about Eric Holder, and about this thread.

 

AZMike started this thread by pasting an article from USA Today -- except for the headline. In USA Today, the headline on the article was: "Holder: Boy Scouts gay ban preserves worst stereotypes." AZMike deleted that headline, which was an objective headline (as one would usually expect from USA Today, which is about as middle-of-the-road when it comes to journalism as you can get) that summarizes, in one sentence, what the headline-writer thought was the most important thing about what Holder had said. (After reading Holder's quotes, I probably would have chosen a different one for the headline, but that's just me.) In place of that headline, AZMike titled this thread "Eric Holder attacks BSA policy before LGBT pressure group." I find that to be an interesting choice. It "slants" the thread right from the beginning. It also includes something that is not in the article itself. Holder did not "attack" the BSA. He criticized one policy that has been maintained by the current leadership of the BSA. (I will leave aside whether Lamda Legal is a "pressure group"; I think that what AZMike means by "pressure group" is a group that advocates policies that he doesn't like.)

 

I also found it interesting that when I got past the "revised" headline and actually read the article, I found myself in agreement with virtually everything that Holder was quoted as saying. What is in italics below is taken verbatim from the article, with the actual quotations in quotation marks. (Where they should be.)

 

Holder said, of the current policy on adult leaders, "It's a relic of an age of prejudice and insufficient understanding,''

 

I am sure that those who agree with the policy don't like that description, but I think it's completely accurate.

 

Holder said that "too many organizations, policies and practices that discriminate against LGBT individuals remain persistent concerns.''

 

I have a bit of a grammatical issue with that, which makes it less than 100 percent clear what he is saying, but that may be because the reporter cut off the beginning of the sentence of what he actually said. But he seems to be basically saying that there is too much discrimination against people solely because they are gay, and discriminating against people solely because they are gay is a bad thing. I agree.

 

"Unfortunately, the continuation of a policy that discriminates against gay adult leaders – by an iconic American institution – only preserves and perpetuates the worst kind of stereotypes,'' he said.

 

Interesting. First of all it is notable that he calls the BSA "an iconic American institution," which does not sound like what you'd call an organization when you are "attacking" it. Second, he makes a point that we seldom discuss in this forum when we are talking about the "gay issue." Usually we just talk about the impact on the BSA itself. Some of us, like me, believe that adopting local option would automatically make the BSA a better organization, simply by ending a policy that forces local CO's and units to discriminate when they don't want to. (Those CO's who do want to discriminate would not be affected by the local option.) Others, who favor the current policy, speculate about other impacts. But we rarely discuss what a local-option policy would mean for the rest of society. The BSA is, in general, a well-respected organization - iconic, as the Attorney General puts it. By changing the policy, the BSA would set a good example for others to follow. And maybe that is part of what the supporters of the current policy are afraid of. (Though I do realize, at this late stage of the game the BSA would look more like a "follower" than a "leader" on this subject.)

 

Yet Holder said that just as gay men and women "put their lives on the line as members of America's armed services...then then surely they are fit to mentor, to teach, and to serve as role models for the leaders of future generations.''

 

Well, some are fit to mentor, serve as role models, etc. Some aren't. Just as some heterosexuals are fit to mentor, serve as role models, etc., and some aren't. The point is, being straight or gay is not the determining factor in whether one is a good role model. And there is a bit of a nuance here that Holder doesn't deal with, which is that under a local option policy, it would be up to each CO to decide who is a good role model and who isn't - which is the way it works now in choosing unit leaders, for every characteristic other than sexual orientation, belief in a higher power and past conviction of a serious crime. As I have said many times before, some people don't think obese people are good role models, yet a unit can have an obese Scoutmaster if it wants to. Or a Scoutmaster who visits the local bars too often. Or a Scoutmaster who is known to have had an affair. Or, I guess, a Scoutmaster who is a Communist, if there are any of those left. BSA National does not prohibit any of these people from being leaders. But the den mother who is known to live with her same-sex partner, she's out, regardless of what the pack CO wants. Even if she were legally married to her same-sex partner, which you can be in about 10-15 states now, she's out. Makes no sense.

[Peregrinator 85]

I dunno, the original headline sounds pretty slanted to me.

 

Holder did not "attack" the BSA.

Right, he attacked the policy.

[Brewmeister 132]

Biblical themes and references occur frequently in Peanuts comic strips. Examples are pretty easy to come by. Correlation does not necessarily equal causation, but...

[SSScout 1615]

Peanuts: ""Born a slave around JULY 12, 1864, George Washington Carver became a scientist of international renown.

On January 21, 1921, Carver addressed the United States House Ways and Means Committee on behalf of the United Peanut Growers Association on the use of peanuts to improve Southern economy.

Initially given ten minutes to speak, the committee was so captivated, his time was extended. Explaining the many products derived from the peanut, including milk, mock beef and mock chicken, George Washington Carver stated:

“If you go to the first chapter of Genesis, we can interpret very clearly, I think, what God intended when he said ‘Behold, I have given you every herb that bears seed. To you it shall be meat.’ This is what He means about it. It shall be meat. There is everything there to strengthen and nourish and keep the body alive and healthy.â€Â

After nearly two hours, the chairman asked: “Dr. Carver, how did you learn all of these things?â€Â

Carver answered: “From an old bookâ€Â

“What book?†asked the Chairman.

Carver replied, “The Bible.â€Â

The Chairman inquired, “Does the Bible tell about peanuts?â€Â

“No, Sir†Dr. Carver replied, “It tells about the God who made the peanut. I asked Him to show me what to do with the peanut and He did.â€Â

 

http://beltoftruth.wordpress.com/2009/07/13/does-the-bible-tell-about-peanuts/

 

[Scouter99 265]

This all becomes an exercise in irony as a gay scout leader and his boyfriend get hauled into jail for molesting teenagers.

Gay people preserve the worst stereotypes about gay people, which are rooted not in fear from normal people, but because sex with boys was the central tenet of gay activism from the 1800s until the 1970s. Forgive us for believing what they said about themselves and their desires before they realized it wasn't working for public opinion.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Scouter99, you might have a point were it not for all of the straight people who have engaged in predatory sexual activity with underage persons of the opposite sex over the years, and all of the "openly straight" people ("He was such a good family man," neighbors said - This latest guy being a very rare exception, where neighbors suspected something was wrong) who have engaged in predatory sexual activity with persons of the same and/or the opposite sex. Do those people perpetuate the "worst stereotypes" about straight people? I don't think so. All of us, gay, straight, or whatever, are capable of doing bad things. If we judge all people of a particular sexual orientation (or "avowed" orientation) by the behavior of those who act the worst, then NONE of us can be a Scout leader.

 

I will let your use of the phrase "normal people" speak for itself, except to say that it sure does show where you are coming from.

 

As for your point about what "gay activists" were seeking until the 1970's, I have to say that I cannot challenge you on your knowledge of gay history. From your past posts on the subject, you do seem to be an expert on it. I know very little about it. Like last week when you referred to "Quentin Crisp" and I had to look up who that was, because I had never heard of him. What I know about "gay activists" is that, today, most of them seem to be seeking equality with the rights that straight people have.

[Scouter99 265]

Yeah, I'm very comfortable calling 97% of the population normal.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Yeah' date=' I'm very comfortable calling 97% of the population normal.[/quote']

 

I guess it depends on how you define "normal." Your 97% includes people like Kim Kardashian, Justin Bieber, Charles Manson, Reverend Jim Jones, the "Son of Sam" killer, and Joseph Stalin. Heterosexuals, every single one of them. Plus a lot of people who live their lives peacefully and never do anything wrong. On the other hand, I have known gay people who live their lives peacefully, never do anything wrong, wouldn't hurt a fly, and live in apparently monogamous relationships. Some, now, are even married in the eyes of both their religion and the laws of their state. And then, of course, there are some gay people who do bad things. My point is, I think your method of breaking down society into normal and abnormal, or good and bad, just doesn't work, and that is why the current BSA policy also doesn't work. It is built on the false premise that whether you are considered a good role model or not is determined entirely by your sexual orientation.

 

(By the way, I decided not to quibble with your figure of 97%. I believe the studies show the percentage of gay people in the population is probably between 2 and 5%, and even that is just an estimate. My personal observations of life lead me to believe that around 4 or 5% is probably accurate. So your 97% could be correct, or it could be a little higher or lower, but it doesn't really matter for purposes of this discussion.)

[RememberSchiff 3663]

Side effect of this article, Vermont scouts may not be permitted to sell bottled water at July 4th celebration. I wonder if Montpelier is turning down Eagle projects too?

 

"The Montpelier, VT Scouts’ request to be a licensed vendor (selling bottled water) in the July 3 celebration, expected to be an easy approval, was taken off the council’s consent agenda Wednesday at the request of Councilor Thierry Guerlain.

 

Guerlain said he does not want any organization that discriminates to get the city’s endorsement  even if it means banning local Boy Scouts from selling at the parade.

 

Guerlain found fast support for his stance, which objects to the Boy Scouts’ national policy of not allowing homosexual troop leaders. However, some councilors did not agree that jeopardizing the local Scouts’ fundraising efforts for a camping trip  or whatever their fundraising goal may be  was the right way to get the message to the Washington, D.C.-based organization.

 

In raising the issue, Guerlain distributed a USA Today article printed Tuesday, in which Attorney General Eric Holder, speaking to an advocacy group for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people’s rights, Lambda Legal, was critical of the Scouts’ refusal to drop its ban on gay adult leaders.

 

Guerlain said he was a Boy Scout growing up. “It was the best thing that ever happened to me as a kid, far and away,†he said, calling the experience “transformative.â€Â

 

However, the organization’s continuing ban on gay leaders “perpetuates the worst kind of stereotypes,†said Guerlain" ....

 

“I hope that we don’t approve (the vendor requests), and I hope that it makes national press, and I hope that the message gets to Washington (?? Irving ) that we said no,†said Guerlain. “We’re not going to let a group that openly discriminates against gays sell water at our parade. ... It’s difficult, it’s uncomfortable, but I think it’s our chance to do the right thing.†...

 

http://www.timesargus.com/article/20...STIN/706169942

[Huzzar 39]

 

I will let your use of the phrase "normal people" speak for itself, except to say that it sure does show where you are coming from.

 

 

It also shows exactly where you are coming from when you want to redefine the English language to suit your politics. By definition, male homosexuality is an abnormal sexual proclivity.