[Vision2020] Anti-discrimination Ordinances

Fri Jun 7 12:20:17 PDT 2013

Thanks for making things clearer, Darrell. But I just wanted to clarify my
example a bit.

There is a local, Protestant pastor who holds these beliefs: (a) LDS are
not Christians, and (b) all non-Christians are atheists. There is also a
local, Protestant pastor who believes (b) and (c) Catholics are not
Christians. Thus, there are plenty of local religious leaders, who could
sponsor boy scout troops, and who could (in accordance with their beliefs)
classify some religions as nonreligious views and ban folks on that basis.
If they were true to their beliefs -- in the way that say the CdA sheriff
reports to be true to his beliefs -- that is precisely what they should do.
Likely they wouldn't do it because it would cause them trouble. Or perhaps
it is because of respect for differing viewpoints.

What I'm getting at is, why don't religious groups simply take the same
attitude about "homosexuality" as they do about other religious groups?
According to many religions, it is sinful to believe in false Gods. This is
explicitly stated in the Ten Commandments, for instance. (Although there is
some issue about Biblical support of the TC.) Yet folks overlook this all
the time. They are not actively trying to pass laws that persecute
violators of this commandment; they don't have policies forbidding
membership by folks who believe (according to their own views) in false
Gods, and thus are committing sin (by their standards). In fact, the BSA
seems to have worked consideration of this very point into their policies,
given that they accept belief in gods, not any particular God or religion.

I guess I don't see much difference in believing in a God who thinks that
"homosexuality" is not sinful and believing that "homosexuality" is not
sinful. So it perplexes me why so many folks seem to see an important
difference; why they are willing to forget about most transgressions
(according to their views) yet not "homosexuality."

But now I've moved onto a much broader issue, Darrell! You might be as
perplexed by it as I am.

On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Darrell Keim <keim153 at gmail.com> wrote:

> I've got a few comments interspersed with yours below, Joe.
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Thanks Darrell. I guess it was the explicit nature of the ban against
>> gays that makes me scratch my head.
>>
> I believe it is due to who their largest chartering organizations are (LDS
> and Catholic churches are the top two.)
>
>>
>> Suppose a scouting franchise was owned by a church the members of which
>> didn't consider (say) LDS to be a Christian religion, and also considered
>> all non-Christians to be atheists. By your reasoning it would be fine for
>> that troop to ban Mormons, which seems wrong.
>>
> To be clear-A Scout doesn't need to be Christian.  They need to believe in
> a god (or gods), not God. And, in reality, any troop can choose not to
> accept any boy or adult for membership at the local level.  As I used to
> tell people, if the troop or its chartering org. want to prohibit blondes,
> that is their right.  At a practical level, when I was a pro I would've
> freaked out if I had heard about a troop doing such...
>
>>
>> That strikes me as an appropriate analogy with the gay scout case. It
>> isn't as if all Christian denominations are equally opposed to
>> "homosexuality." There are gay bishops in both the Episcopal and Lutheran
>> churches, for instance. And of course there are non-Christian denominations
>> that are tolerant of gays and lesbians as well.
>>
> Correct.  It has been a huge debate within the program.  National took a
> vote prior to the recent policy change.  About 60% favored the change.  Not
> a huge margin!  But, again, look at who charters the troops.
>
> On the local level our council had "fireside chats" prior to the vote.
> The top local exec polled local volunteers opinions, and answered
> questions.  I went to one in Lewiston.  Out of about 30 people present-a
> room full of people I know, and some I consider friends-I was the only
> person to speak in favor of changing the policy.
>
>>
>> It seems wrong to ban scouts based on their religious views and if one of
>> the local franchises did so I'm sure there would be an uproar. I see no
>> difference in the case of sexual preference.
>>
> Again-to be clear-the Scouts wouldn't ban one because of their religious
> views.  Only their nonreligious views.
>
>>
>> By the way I was a Boy Scout so I'm not opposed to scouting in general.
>> I'm proud of you for your service to the community and I'm sure the boys
>> whose lives you've influenced are happy for your services as well.
>>
> Thanks for the kind words Joe.  You made me smile!
>
>>
>> On Jun 7, 2013, at 10:16 AM, Darrell Keim <keim153 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> "What I don't understand is that there are a lot of "immoral" activities
>> besides "homosexuality" and atheism (neither one of which I consider to be
>> genuinely immoral). Why not explicitly list them all? You could apparently
>> be a thief, a liar, a rapist, etc. and the scouts don't give a damn. That's
>> why the restrictions are/were prejudicial in my view."
>>
>> Joe:
>>
>> When you join the Scouts you take an oath to "Do Your Best" to abide by a
>> code described in the Scout Oath and Law.
>>
>> The twelve points of the Scout Law would seem to implicitly preclude
>> membership for rapists, thieves, etc.  I will concede that is not explicit
>> exclusion, as their current stance against homosexual leaders is.
>>
>> Having spent nearly 10 years as a Scouting professional, and now serving
>> as one of the top local district leaders, I could go into great amounts of
>> detail about many Scouting related topics, but I will graciously save you
>> from the boredom.  Suffice it to say that most of their stances have to do
>> with how they are structured.  They are essentially a franchise, and they
>> license out the rights to use their program to local organizations.  Like
>> all franchises, those organizations own the local group, but agree to abide
>> by Scouting policies.  Once you realize that most (75-80%) Scouting groups
>> are "owned" by churches (Some of the largest users of the program are the
>> Catholic, LDS, Methodist and Lutheran churches), it becomes clear why they
>> take certain stances.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 9:56 AM, Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> It is funny that you ask that, Wayne! Here is the BSA's statement on the
>>> matter:
>>>
>>> The BSA maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen
>>> without recognizing an obligation to God. In the first part of the Scout
>>> Oath or Promise the member declares, "On my honor I will do my best to do
>>> my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law."
>>>
>>> So technically, you can't be an atheist and a boy scout.
>>>
>>>
>>> What I don't understand is that there are a lot of "immoral" activities
>>> besides "homosexuality" and atheism (neither one of which I consider to be
>>> genuinely immoral). Why not explicitly list them all? You could apparently
>>> be a thief, a liar, a rapist, etc. and the scouts don't give a damn. That's
>>> why the restrictions are/were prejudicial in my view.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 9:24 AM, Wayne Price <bear at moscow.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Tom,
>>>>
>>>> I hate to admit this, but we agree!   Now comes the question of why
>>>> this sponsorship was afforded to a private organization in the first place
>>>> by a branch of government, like the Sheriff's department, subsidized by
>>>> taxes?
>>>>
>>>> I seriously run into 1st amendment issues, with a government agency,
>>>> supported by tax dollars, sponsoring ANY group who's basic principles
>>>> require an oath to " do my duty to God".
>>>> Does this mean that those who, for what ever reason, do not believe in
>>>> "God" are not welcome as they cannot take such an oath in good conscience?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Wayne
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Jun 7, 2013, at 9:07 AM, Tom Hansen wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Wayne Price inquires:
>>>>
>>>> "And before some of the so called liberals on the list accuse me of
>>>> advocating one way or the other, does a sponsor (who ever that sponsor is)
>>>> have the right to bow out of a program that doesn't share it' s core
>>>> beliefs?"
>>>>
>>>> NOT if that sponsor is publiclly subsidized, like a county sheriff's
>>>> office by taxes.
>>>>
>>>> If a private entity wishes to withdraw its support for ANYTHING . . .
>>>> so what!
>>>>
>>>> Seeya at the Wingding, Moscow, because . . .
>>>>
>>>> "Moscow Cares" (the most fun you can have with your pants on)
>>>> http://www.MoscowCares.com
>>>>
>>>> Tom Hansen
>>>> Moscow, Idaho
>>>>
>>>> "There's room at the top they are telling you still
>>>> But first you must learn how to smile as you kill
>>>> If you want to be like the folks on the hill."
>>>>
>>>> - John Lennon
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Jun 7, 2013, at 8:57 AM, Wayne Price <bear at moscow.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> And before some of the so called liberals on the list accuse me of
>>>> advocating one way or the other, does a sponsor (who ever that sponsor is)
>>>> have the right to bow out of a program that doesn't share it' s core
>>>> beliefs?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> =======================================================
>>>>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>>>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>>>                http://www.fsr.net
>>>>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>> =======================================================
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> =======================================================
>>>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>>                http://www.fsr.net
>>>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>> =======================================================
>>>
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20130607/f7b82094/attachment.html>