BSA = Homophobic pricks. Like the Red Cross, they cover an underlying evil with a veneer of good. Don't support them.

agedgruel wrote:

Dan, do not doubt my sincerity when I say go fiddlesticks yourself.

I don't doubt your sincerity. I don't doubt your ignorance, either.

As an Eagle Scout (and for a couple of years, an adult leader), I can understand Aged's position. I learned a LOT from scouts, including stereotypical scout stuff and some more general interpersonal skills. I had the fortune of being in a troop that was fairly liberal, so I did not personally experience (or even really know) about the greater issues the national council had with atheists or homosexuals.

Then came Dale. The more I examined the overarching structure and policies of the Boy Scouts, the more appalled I became. I can understand the frustration Dan has towards scouting; I myself am frustrated that Boy Scouts receive a great deal of indirect governmental support and yet advances the views it does.

If I have a son, I will see if he is interested in joining scouts. If he does, I too, will be involved. Right up until the point I get expelled for refusing to toe their line.

considering how much the mormons have dominated the BSA, I would not be surprised if they did such.

agedgruel wrote:

Shnicky-Poo wrote:

agedgruel wrote:

Dan, do not doubt my sincerity when I say go fiddlesticks yourself.

Maybe they should go back to refusing to admit black people. Keep scouting ... you know, pure.

You're not helping, Shnicky.

When Dan starts channeling XYZ someone needs to call him on it in terms with which he is familiar.

So it would be bad if they banned black people, but it's okay if they ban gay people?

agedgruel wrote:

Because that is clearly what I am advocating.

Yes.

Let's ban them all.

You haven't actually expressed an opinion on this except for wishing Dan would shut up. Which by the way might be viewed as not helping.

Ug. :sour nasty face:

Shnicky-Poo wrote:

agedgruel wrote:

Dan, do not doubt my sincerity when I say go fiddlesticks yourself.

Maybe they should go back to refusing to admit black people. Keep scouting ... you know, pure.

When did they do that?

Geesie wrote:

Shnicky-Poo wrote:

agedgruel wrote:

Dan, do not doubt my sincerity when I say go fiddlesticks yourself.

Maybe they should go back to refusing to admit black people. Keep scouting ... you know, pure.

When did they do that?

Segregation.

I remember hearing that the "separate but equal" troops were often not even allowed to wear their uniforms.

Geesie wrote:

They were segregated in states that mandated segregation by law. They weren't segregated in states that did not mandate segregation by law. The founder of the BSA was insistent on allowing boys to join regardless of creed and color.

They had no problem with violating those ideals on a state basis, though, did they? I've never heard of them trying to do anything about it.

But if it makes you feel any better, I'll say their stance on gays is merely equivalent to banning people based on race. Or religion. Or whatever.

The only difference is that in America it's not culturally or legally acceptable to discriminate against anyone but gays.

It's worth noting that Scouting Canada doesn't have a problem with gays. And according to Wiki, even America's girl scouts are better, taking a "don't ask, don't tell" approach.

Geesie wrote:

Nuance, thanks.

I appreciate your help on this.

Quote:

In the South, with the "separate but equal" mindset of the times, black troops were not treated equally. They were often not allowed to wear scout uniforms, and had far smaller budgets and insufficient facilities to work with. The BSA on a national level was often defensive about its stance on segregation. "The Boy Scouts of America] never drew the color line, but the movement stayed in step with the prevailing mores."

Geesie wrote:

Actually, I'm pretty sure this doesn't help your "Boy Scouts didn't let blacks in" line.

Quote:

It is telling that an organization like the Boy Scouts of America, dedicated from its inception to raising men of high moral strength and conviction supported racism. But at the same time, on a national and local level, the Scouts did have certain leaders that pressed against the grain of society for racial change. In the end, though, our most valuable insight is into the minds of these young black men who wrote of an equal chance for distinction and success in their Eagle Award essays. This relatively small achievement may have helped and inspired them to push on in their fight for liberty.

It's almost as if reality is more complicated than "they're racists", and that national organizations in divided nations have difficult and complex issues with maintaining unity, promoting ideals, etc.

So your point is that blacks were often excluded and mistreated, but it was only partly because of the national organization?

I'm not sure what makes that an important point.

There's nothing wrong with looking back at things that were wrong and acknowledging that they were wrong.

Any more than it's wrong to do that with things happening today.

Excusing immoral policies, whether in the past or the present, is pathetic.

They receive federal funds? I didn't realize that.

Shnicky-Poo wrote:

There's nothing wrong with looking back at things that were wrong and acknowledging that they were wrong.

Any more than it's wrong to do that with things happening today.

Excusing immoral policies, whether in the past or the present, is pathetic.

Should I get you going on what a monster Abraham Lincoln was?

Geesie wrote:

Shnicky-Poo wrote:

There's nothing wrong with looking back at things that were wrong and acknowledging that they were wrong.

Any more than it's wrong to do that with things happening today.

Excusing immoral policies, whether in the past or the present, is pathetic.

Should I get you going on what a monster Abraham Lincoln was?

What an odd response. It's as though I sullied a sacred totem of some sort.

I believe you just repeated my post.

LLEVIATHANN wrote:

C'mon really? There are so many organizations out there with membership rules.

I can't join AARP (yet). I don't think the Black Panthers, NAACP or Urban League would be very welcoming. Not to mention Country Clubs that would turn me away at the gate. Each his own. Live and let live.

AARP is a lobbyist group. You can, in fact, pay dues if you'd like. And the NAACP is not a blacks-only organization. You're welcome and even encouraged to join. Country clubs would turn you away because you don't have money, not for any other reason. Your assumptions are based on ignorant misconceptions.

There is no excuse--none--for a discriminatory group to exist in the first place, let alone receive government money and tax breaks. Just face it: the BSA covers its evil hatred with a veneer of good. It's not something anyone should support.

I am too, but I'm learning not to be surprised.

People have been trained over many years to see the scouts as wonderful examples of morality.