This is topic A Landmark of Sorts - Returning My Eagle Badge in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=059056

Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
 
Recently the Boy Scouts of America reaffirmed a policy of expelling members who are openly gay. I joined a number of Eagle Scouts, returning our badges in protest and passing the accompanying letters around facebook.

The image is available here.

For ease of reading, the text is here:

quote:
To Bob Mazzuca, Chief Scout Executive:

My name is Raymond Arnold. I earned my Eagle badge eight years ago.

I'm not writing this for you. Or even for the internet, really. And to be honest, I'm not even writing it for the young people you are trying to shame into secrecy, as awful as that is. This is just for me.

Giving back my Eagle badge is a personal little ritual. Months of frustration, pressed into a small, cheap icon that only has meaning because I decide it does. I’m holding it in my hand for the first time in a while, and it feels a lot heavier than it should. Like there's a whole person inside it - somebody I used to be.

My moral outlooks have evolved. I've spent the last year grappling with worldscale problems that most people don't even think of as solvable. Any attempt to fix them feels like a pointless drop in the bucket. I'm trying to make my drop bigger, maybe big enough that it ripples a bit. But even that is exhausting, and it's breaking me, and I probably only have a few more years before I’ve changed into yet another person, burnt out and cynical.

I think it might take me longer than usual - in part because of a commitment to self-improvement that scouting instilled in me. I hope I can find a balance, and keep going as long as possible. I went on a camping trip a few weeks ago, the first in years. I was proud to be able to share a beautiful, relaxing experience with close friends, some of whom had never camped before. We slept under the stars. It was the most peace I've had in months.

Then I came home, and learned that the BSA have reaffirmed an official policy of discrimination.

I'm not even angry. Just… so very tired. And sad.

There are many ways to be moral. There's day to day, interpersonal morality - being courteous and kind to the people you come across, loyal to your friends. There’s personal morality - being thrifty, clean, and cheerful even when you’re on your own. There's obedience to rules, people and organizations that you have chosen as authorities. But also the bravery necessary to speak out against them, when they are truly wrong.

And there's a kind of deeper morality - a reverence for something vast and true and powerful and important.

I'm an atheist, but I believe in humanity. We have big problems, but I believe we can beat them.

But it’s hard, sometimes, to imagine a better future. When my own brethren seem to struggle with the simplest of moral concepts - that love is a good thing. The most important thing in all the world, that makes every drop in the bucket worth it, and you are deliberately trying to destroy it. So that’s it. I’m done. Take this little icon. It doesn’t mean anything to me anymore. I wonder if it’ll mean anything to you when it arrives.

On my honor, I will do my best, to do my duty to humanity. To help other people at all times. To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.


Sincerely,

Raymond Arnold

My feelings about this are rather complex, although not for the reasons one might expect. I'm still sorting them out, but it seemed worth sharing.

[ July 30, 2012, 01:15 PM: Message edited by: Raymond Arnold ]
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Good on you, man. Respect.

Am I imagining things, or did I read elsewhere about someone returning an Eagle badge on this matter elsewhere? Was that you?
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
 
There's been a number of instances lately, possibly triggered by BSA kicking out a lesbian leader. http://www.wtov9.com/news/news/boy-scout-leader-has-membership-revoked-due-sexual/nMbyz/
 
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
 
Rakeesh, Raymond also posted something about it on his facebook.
 
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
 
Are there no descrimination laws on the books that cover this?

I think it's good that you're doing something to show your disapproval.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
I was a boy scout too! A pretty damn good one at that. I loved my troop, too. I have nothing but happy memories about being a scout. So it sucks a little to watch them do this, because

1. whether they realize it or not, there is no better way for them to turn the institution into a mostly defunct, withered relic over the course of a single generation. This is essentially a great way to destroy themselves, and
2. I can't be arsed to care, because as much as I liked them, they're ultimately doing it to themselves and they're doing it by clinging onto ugly, bigoted discrimination.
 
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
 
Good for you Raymond.
 
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
Good for you Raymond.

It makes me sad, because I have two young sons, and I think scouting would be good for them. But we won't be joining.
 
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
 
I never got my Eagle Scout badge (my merit badge stamina petered out shortly before the Life Badge), but I would do the same as you if I had. I had many wonderful years in Scouts and have many incredible memories (as is the case I'm sure with many others, it played a huge role in my life), but it pains my heart to see they'd continue to make it impossible for other people to have the same opportuniy to build such memories simply because of the way they are.

This is not the Boy Scouts which molded me as a child, and, in some ways, I'm ashamed to be associated with the program now.

The Boy Scouts I thought I was in would have been one of the first programs to open their arms to everyone with equal opportunity.

Edit:

Also, what makes your feelings on the issue complex, Raymond? If you don't mind sharing.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
Gosh Raymond. I'm an Eagle Scout too, and now I'm forced to consider if I should do what you've done, and if I have the guts to do it.

I very much want scouting to be a part of my son's upbringing.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Good for you, Raymond. That must have been a hard thing to do. It is inspiring when people like you do the right thing when it costs them something. Thank you.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
I very much want a non-homophobic secular analogue to the scouts to be a part of my hypothetical son or daughter's upbringing, but even if I were willing to look past affirmation of blatant discrimination and exclusion of gays (which I'm not even remotely) it means that said hypothetical son or daughter won't even really have the scouts by the time they get to the appropriate age. They'll just have a withered, conservified outdoorsy church group already declining to irrelevance, going through the self-imposed death of a once common american tradition.
 
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
 
quote:
Good for you, Raymond. That must have been a hard thing to do. It is inspiring when people like you do the right thing when it costs them something. Thank you.
This is actually the kind of thought that has me conflicted... because honestly this *didn't* cost me anything. I'm not currently involved in scouting, there are no repercussions for this for me. It was just an obviously right thing to do, probably the most good my badge could accomplish at this point.

Giving away my badge was emotionally intense, but it wasn't hard or costly, and in fact left me feeling a lot better about other things. It became a sort of personal coming of age ritual. It coincided with a difficult week where I had to take responsibility for several unrelated things. By the time I was done, I felt like I had finished shedding a younger, weaker version of myself. I spent last feeling "almost" an adult, despite having my own apartment and job. I don't feel like I'm pretending anymore.

I went through several drafts of the letter, some of which went on rants similar to Samp's ("seriously guys, this fight is over. This particular form of bigotry has lost and it's just another few decades before the monster finishes it's deathspasm"), some of which attempted to move the fight further, expressing concern for transexuals and other groups that don't have as much public support as the gay community.

By the time I was done, I realized that the letter was really more about me, my own frustrations and my own growth than having any particular impact on the BSA. I added the disclaimer to the top because it felt disingenuous to pretend otherwise. It's original intended purpose IS still important, and I think I would have done it even if that was the only reason. It feels a bit weird to get praise for something that ended up benefiting me a lot.

This guy is actually being brave and potentially costing himself something. If the Boy Scouts are to continue being a relevant organization, it'll depend on people like him.

[ July 30, 2012, 01:24 PM: Message edited by: Raymond Arnold ]
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
The cost I was talking about was the emotional "effort" (for lack of a better word). Even (maybe especially) if you end up better off, it still counts.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
I very much want a non-homophobic secular analogue to the scouts to be a part of my hypothetical son or daughter's upbringing...
It's funny, my own scouting experience as a boy and adolescent was actually quite secular, at least in comparison to what I later learned was much of scouting. We met at the local elementary school, rather than a church, and while we did pray, I think, we never went further than saying 'God' and I don't recall it being mandatory, though memory is hazy.

Our camp activities weren't religious, our service projects weren't, and our focus was pretty thoroughly on the outdoors and simply being good, helpful people. A lot of attention was paid to ordinary decencies that later turned out not to be so ordinary, like 'campsite cleaner than when we arrived' for example, rather than simply 'don't litter'.

It wasn't until quite a lot later when I heard scouting meetings being announced in church, with a nod to 'tell the others who aren't here' but with the knowledge that most of them were that I came to think it wasn't a very secular group after all, in spite of my own local experience. Our scout leaders were engineers and contractors and airmen, and if we had any clergy, I never knew about it. Perhaps quite odd when you consider my troop numbered in the dozens.
 
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
The cost I was talking about was the emotional "effort" (for lack of a better word). Even (maybe especially) if you end up better off, it still counts.

Ah. Yes.
 
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:
I very much want a non-homophobic secular analogue to the scouts to be a part of my hypothetical son or daughter's upbringing...
It's funny, my own scouting experience as a boy and adolescent was actually quite secular, at least in comparison to what I later learned was much of scouting. We met at the local elementary school, rather than a church, and while we did pray, I think, we never went further than saying 'God' and I don't recall it being mandatory, though memory is hazy.

Our camp activities weren't religious, our service projects weren't, and our focus was pretty thoroughly on the outdoors and simply being good, helpful people. A lot of attention was paid to ordinary decencies that later turned out not to be so ordinary, like 'campsite cleaner than when we arrived' for example, rather than simply 'don't litter'.

It wasn't until quite a lot later when I heard scouting meetings being announced in church, with a nod to 'tell the others who aren't here' but with the knowledge that most of them were that I came to think it wasn't a very secular group after all, in spite of my own local experience. Our scout leaders were engineers and contractors and airmen, and if we had any clergy, I never knew about it. Perhaps quite odd when you consider my troop numbered in the dozens.

That was my experience as a scout as well.
 
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
 
In many countries, Guiding and Scouting is very secular-- despite them all maintaining the original religious spiritual aspect (Canada and South Africa seem to be traditional but non-denominational). Groups only meet in churches sometimes because they happen to have a room. We sometimes prayed when I was in Guides but I feel that is dying out as an older generation of leaders is replaced with a new one. Certainly my atheist mother who was a Guider for many years never prayed! "God" in the oath is replaced (if you wish) with "my faith" in at least the Canadian Guiding oath.

I believe it's the same or very similar in the UK. Certainly you can be any religion and I'm pretty sure it's "any religion or none".

Scouting UK has released its own, non-discriminatory press release emphasizing that it is open to everyone.

America's choice is nothing to do with worldwide Scouting.

(I didn't enjoy Guides at all but I did enjoy being a Cub in the UK and so I respect it hugely as an organisation where it's done well.)
 
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
 
quote:
If the Boy Scouts are to continue being a relevant organization...
In my opinion, they lost their relevance years ago. The scouting program is a shadow of its former self. I look at my granddad's and dad's eagle scout awards and they mean something because they took honest effort and commitment to earn. Back then I would have been proud to have earned it, even put such an accomplishment on my resume. But when I was in scouting, none of the boys my age really earned their eagle. The award should have been given to the parents and leaders who did 95 percent of the work. 9/10 of the boys I know who received their eagle badge award did the absolute minimum required and avoided the "hard" merit badges when possible. If scouting ended tomorrow I wouldn't consider it a big loss. It would probably be replaced by something more relevant and specific to this century.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
As much as the reward has been diminished by merit badge mills, I think the activities and values that are hammered in by repetition are invaluable. I did scouting in Malaysia, and Hong Kong and so had both secular and religious sponsored troops. They were both wonderful. The scout leaders were busy men and women who took time out of their day to run the program. So many different backgrounds, but all of them dedicated to the ideals of scouting. My brother in-law is a scout master through our church and he does fantastic work. I think of what I gained personally in scouting and I want to share it with others. If that means the imperfect vehicle of BSA and I try to reform it while there that might be what I need to do. If we all abandon it there's nothing left to salvage, and a program with so much good work has to be completely remade.

[ July 31, 2012, 03:30 AM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
 
Posted by Happy Camper (Member # 5076) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Gosh Raymond. I'm an Eagle Scout too, and now I'm forced to consider if I should do what you've done, and if I have the guts to do it.

I very much want scouting to be a part of my son's upbringing.

Indeed. Scouts was a pretty big part of my childhood, and I'd have wanted any hypothetical son of mine to be a part of it too, but I just don't see that being in line with my moral compass right now.
 
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
 
Nice letter Raymond. Well done.

I think I'm going to return my Eagle Scout badge to the local Chik-fil-A, and send the BSA a half eaten chicken sandwich.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:
I very much want a non-homophobic secular analogue to the scouts to be a part of my hypothetical son or daughter's upbringing...
It's funny, my own scouting experience as a boy and adolescent was actually quite secular, at least in comparison to what I later learned was much of scouting. We met at the local elementary school, rather than a church, and while we did pray, I think, we never went further than saying 'God' and I don't recall it being mandatory, though memory is hazy.

Our camp activities weren't religious, our service projects weren't, and our focus was pretty thoroughly on the outdoors and simply being good, helpful people. A lot of attention was paid to ordinary decencies that later turned out not to be so ordinary, like 'campsite cleaner than when we arrived' for example, rather than simply 'don't litter'.

It wasn't until quite a lot later when I heard scouting meetings being announced in church, with a nod to 'tell the others who aren't here' but with the knowledge that most of them were that I came to think it wasn't a very secular group after all, in spite of my own local experience. Our scout leaders were engineers and contractors and airmen, and if we had any clergy, I never knew about it. Perhaps quite odd when you consider my troop numbered in the dozens.

That was my experience as a scout as well.
This was my experience as well. I went through all the junior scouting stuff and dropped out after Tenderfoot, if I recall correctly, mostly because it wasn't particularly enjoyable, we didn't do enough outdoors stuff, but we never really had any of the religious stuff.

For that, I was in Awanas, which I also dropped out of when I hit my teen years.

Good on you Raymond.
 
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
 
Being female, I obviously wasn't an Eagle Scout, but my son is a Cub Scout. I'm am VERY morally torn over this. I hate BSA's policy on this, it's the opposite of the inclusive attitude I want to teach my son. On the other hand, Cub Scouts has been absolutely wonderful for my son. I cannot imagine what taking him out of the program would do to him.

How can I teach him that this type of discrimination is wrong without denying him something that is so important in his life? I mean, he's 8! While he knows that homosexuality exists, it's far from having any true relevance to his life.

:-(

quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Gosh Raymond. I'm an Eagle Scout too, and now I'm forced to consider if I should do what you've done, and if I have the guts to do it.

I very much want scouting to be a part of my son's upbringing.


 
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
 
quote:
my son is a Cub Scout. I'm am VERY morally torn over this. I hate BSA's policy on this, it's the opposite of the inclusive attitude I want to teach my son. On the other hand, Cub Scouts has been absolutely wonderful for my son. I cannot imagine what taking him out of the program would do to him.

How can I teach him that this type of discrimination is wrong without denying him something that is so important in his life? I mean, he's 8! While he knows that homosexuality exists, it's far from having any true relevance to his life.

My son just turned 8 and we live in a tight Mormon community. My wife and kids have been visiting family out of the country and they just came back today.

A few days ago I got a voice mail from the den mother (I think that is what they are called). It was a courtesy call to let me know what I needed to do to get my son ready to start scouts. I was surprised at the disgust the call caused me.

I have no nostalgia for scouts. I had a miserable experience and never made it to the arrow of light award. I recognized then and now that my bad experience was an anomaly caused by a hateful woman who started my scouting off by using the fact that I didn't have a dad to try and stop me from getting badges because I needed BOTH parents to sign off.

I do believe in many of the values of scouts and want my son to be a part of our community. My nightmare was caused by a woman who had issues other then me or scouts. I get that and don't hold the organization responsible.

However they are actively discriminating, and I don't want to endorse discrimination. My son is half Japanese and suddenly I am mindful of the internment camps of WWII. It is important to me to stand up when I can.

But...I really wouldn't be the one standing. It will be my son who misses out. He will miss out on friendships and positive experiences.

I am not equating the policy of a private organization with the internment camps of a world war, but it does sensitize me to the need to live my values.

I'm leaning toward letting him enjoy scouts, but I plan to read with him the policy and explain why it is wrong. Maybe if enough members accept homosexuality it will naturally evolve.

I am really interested in hearing what other parents'experiences and thoughts are.
 
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
 
For the record, my position on having your kids enjoy scouting is:

Look in your area for an alternative to scouting (such as Camp Fire USA). I don't know if they're as good on average, but ultimately what matters is the quality of an individual troop, which depends on the organizers more than anything.

If such an organization doesn't exist, get to know your local Boy Scout troop, talk to them about the issues that concern you. If the leaders seem prone to discrimination, my personal choice would be to stay away, but I wouldn't begrudge those who didn't. It's a hard choice.
 
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
 
My feeling on this is that the BSA program (even in it's current state) is an excellent program that any boy can benefit from, greatly, and I would encourage them to, if they can honestly say they meet the membership requirements. As has been pointed out, your local troop can be very different from the policies at the national level. And I think the Boy Scout program is worth saving, but I think it will only happen from the inside.

An addition to Raymond's comment about not being active in the scouts, so turning in his badge doesn't really impact him: Raymond and I aren't welcome in scouting, since we are both atheists. The timing of the scouts solidifying their position on atheism was at about the same time Raymond was finishing his Eagle. At the time, he was still somewhat unsettled in his religious beliefs, having been raised by a Catholic mother and an Atheist father, so he wasn't being dishonest when he completed the requirements for Eagle, but he was very cognizant that I was no longer welcomed at the professional (especially national) level of scouting. Since then, he's made up his mind as to his religious beleifs, and as I said, is no longer welcome. I can't know how much this affects Raymond emotionally, but I can say that it hurts me terribly. I struggled at the time with my own sense of honesty, and signed the DRP even though I knew that council would call me a liar if they found me out. I think I would still be involved in scouting if this hadn't become an issue.

But as I read some of the comments above, (and especially Dana's) I want to argue with you: If you're not gay, and if you believe in God, then the BSA will still accept you. Please join. By doing so you could make a difference.

I haven't heard of someone being kicked out merely for disagreeing with the policies (only in cases where the policy is *disobeyed*, and troops had notified council that they allowed gays or atheists to be members). And again, I believe the program is fantastic, and deserves to survive.
 
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
 
Looking at some films from the 1950's I see scout-like groups being used as a US Nazi Youth program--creating "Real Americans" that the heroes of the movies have to stop.

It makes sense that if you take the best youth in the country, and those wanting to join scouts have been some of the best in the past, and indoctrinate them while they are in scouts, you could create a uniformed dangerous army.

But the BSA doesn't work like that, any more than the GSA promotes promiscuity or lesbianism, as was recently claimed.

Each level of the BSA is run either by the scouts themselves, or at younger ages, by the parents. While parents who become leaders are required to take training courses, the level of indoctrination feared is impossible.

Basically, it boils down to the individual leaders. If you get a @#$#$# like Lem mentions, then the problem isn't with the Scouts, its with that Den leader. My den leaders were mediocre, and I didn't stay past my Arrow of Lights. I did rejoin the Adventurers in High-school for a special project we put aboard the space shuttle, but that was only for 6 months or so.

My son has had a great experience with scouts, and is in his first year as a Boy Scout. My wife has had an issue or two with the leadership--internal politics--so she became a leader.

My wife is strongly pro-Gay Rights, but that hasn't stopped them from accepting her.

Basically, ones religion or lack there of, and ones view on homosexuality is something you should be helping your children with, not relying on outside organizations like the Boy Scouts. However, the Boy Scouts can teach many character skills to go with what you teach at home, such as hard work, patience, independence, and more.
 
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Darth_Mauve:
Basically, ones religion or lack there of, and ones view on homosexuality is something you should be helping your children with, not relying on outside organizations like the Boy Scouts. However, the Boy Scouts can teach many character skills to go with what you teach at home, such as hard work, patience, independence, and more.

This. I respect those that do not want to participate in scouting due to their difference in beliefs. During my time as a scout I never once heard anything about homosexuality, religion, politics, etc. There were some merit badges that had requirements such as writing a letter to a public official or learning about the way the government worked, but it never went into political beliefs.

The merit badges and activities I participated in helped me learn skills that a city boy like me probably wouldn't have learned otherwise. I learned how to make shelters, identify edible and poisonous plants, tie knots, navigate in the wilderness, horse riding, even how to weave a basket. Some of the skills I learned literally helped me save a life.

There are many organizations that have policies that I don't agree with, but still support. It is an individual choice. If I boycotted every company that has a policy I disagreed with though, I'd probably be living in one of the huge sewer pipes under Las Vegas right now. Well, unless I disagreed with a Water district policy. [Razz]

Is there another organization out there like the Boy Scouts that may not be as well known? It may be a good alternative if one does not want their kids to participate in scouting. I really feel the skills kids learn in scouting are worth learning.

I told one of my brothers when he went into Boy Scouts "Pay Attention, Boy Scouts will teach you all you need to know to survive a zombie apocalypse."
 
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
 
quote:
I told one of my brothers when he went into Boy Scouts "Pay Attention, Boy Scouts will teach you all you need to know to survive a zombie apocalypse."
I'm tempted to start a scouting organization that is explicitly branded as "Zombie Apocalypse Survival Training."

Not unlike this Penny-Arcade concept.
 
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lem:
quote:
my son is a Cub Scout. I'm am VERY morally torn over this. I hate BSA's policy on this, it's the opposite of the inclusive attitude I want to teach my son. On the other hand, Cub Scouts has been absolutely wonderful for my son. I cannot imagine what taking him out of the program would do to him.

How can I teach him that this type of discrimination is wrong without denying him something that is so important in his life? I mean, he's 8! While he knows that homosexuality exists, it's far from having any true relevance to his life.

My son just turned 8 and we live in a tight Mormon community. My wife and kids have been visiting family out of the country and they just came back today.

A few days ago I got a voice mail from the den mother (I think that is what they are called). It was a courtesy call to let me know what I needed to do to get my son ready to start scouts. I was surprised at the disgust the call caused me.

I have no nostalgia for scouts. I had a miserable experience and never made it to the arrow of light award. I recognized then and now that my bad experience was an anomaly caused by a hateful woman who started my scouting off by using the fact that I didn't have a dad to try and stop me from getting badges because I needed BOTH parents to sign off.

I do believe in many of the values of scouts and want my son to be a part of our community. My nightmare was caused by a woman who had issues other then me or scouts. I get that and don't hold the organization responsible.

However they are actively discriminating, and I don't want to endorse discrimination. My son is half Japanese and suddenly I am mindful of the internment camps of WWII. It is important to me to stand up when I can.

But...I really wouldn't be the one standing. It will be my son who misses out. He will miss out on friendships and positive experiences.

I am not equating the policy of a private organization with the internment camps of a world war, but it does sensitize me to the need to live my values.

I'm leaning toward letting him enjoy scouts, but I plan to read with him the policy and explain why it is wrong. Maybe if enough members accept homosexuality it will naturally evolve.

I am really interested in hearing what other parents'experiences and thoughts are.

This is really interesting to me, because while my scouts experience wasn't tinged with any homophobia (or religious overtones at all), that is not in any way to say that my scouts experience was good. It was a horrendous nightmare, due in large part to the other kids. I eventually quit, after a particularly humiliating and painful weekend camp thing.

I think that letting your son know about all the things you don't like about the Scouts is a good idea. You should also let him know the reasons many people love being a scout. Then let him decide, and try not to pressure him one way or the other. [Smile]
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
I think that letting your son know about all the things you don't like about the Scouts is a good idea. You should also let him know the reasons many people love being a scout. Then let him decide, and try not to pressure him one way or the other. [Smile]

I disagree. And I speak as one of the converted: my ex had to push REALLY hard to initially convince me to let our son sign up for Scouts.

IMO, the best way to find out what your local troop is like is to attend an event or two and SEE. Many troops have an annual "come take a look" event, usually in September. And I don't know any that won't let you attend one or two meetings to get a feel for it.

There is SO much variety, depending on troop leadership, which local council you are in, etc., etc.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
This comes from my own personal scouting experience, but a parent not being permitted to check out a meeting or three (though if they were to want to attend them regularly, they would've been invited to an adult role) would be surprising, and a distinct turn-off.
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Definitely.

(I actually meant for the KID to try out a meeting or two, but I would expect the parent to be welcome as well. And would consider it a huge red flag if they were not.)
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
 
quote:
I think that letting your son know about all the things you don't like about the Scouts is a good idea. You should also let him know the reasons many people love being a scout. Then let him decide, and try not to pressure him one way or the other.
Well, there's also the the religion thing. While many(most?) troops are DADT about it, you officially can't participate in the organization as a leader or youth if you don't believe in God.
 
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MattP:
quote:
I think that letting your son know about all the things you don't like about the Scouts is a good idea. You should also let him know the reasons many people love being a scout. Then let him decide, and try not to pressure him one way or the other.
Well, there's also the the religion thing. While many(most?) troops are DADT about it, you officially can't participate in the organization as a leader or youth if you don't believe in God.
Really?

Weird. That also wasn't an issue when I was a scout. I was explicitly raised in a Buddhist household, and neither I nor my parents were shy about acknowledging it. It never came up one way or the other, that I can recall. I guess our troop was more than DADT about it, they were Don't Ask and We Don't Care if You Tell.
 
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Geraine:
Is there another organization out there like the Boy Scouts that may not be as well known? It may be a good alternative if one does not want their kids to participate in scouting. I really feel the skills kids learn in scouting are worth learning.

Several. YMCA has a program that (I think) is currently called Y-Adventure Guides. (I did the female version when I was a kid for a few years. Pretty fun.) I've heard good things about Campfire USA. And depending on your state, there's probably a couple non-nationwide programs that will teach similar skills.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:
Originally posted by MattP:
quote:
I think that letting your son know about all the things you don't like about the Scouts is a good idea. You should also let him know the reasons many people love being a scout. Then let him decide, and try not to pressure him one way or the other.
Well, there's also the the religion thing. While many(most?) troops are DADT about it, you officially can't participate in the organization as a leader or youth if you don't believe in God.
Really?

Weird. That also wasn't an issue when I was a scout. I was explicitly raised in a Buddhist household, and neither I nor my parents were shy about acknowledging it. It never came up one way or the other, that I can recall. I guess our troop was more than DADT about it, they were Don't Ask and We Don't Care if You Tell.

I doubt the troop members could honestly have said whether they understood Buddhism to be a religion that doesn't specifically acknowledge the existence of a god.
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:
Originally posted by MattP:
quote:
I think that letting your son know about all the things you don't like about the Scouts is a good idea. You should also let him know the reasons many people love being a scout. Then let him decide, and try not to pressure him one way or the other.
Well, there's also the the religion thing. While many(most?) troops are DADT about it, you officially can't participate in the organization as a leader or youth if you don't believe in God.
Really?

Weird. That also wasn't an issue when I was a scout. I was explicitly raised in a Buddhist household, and neither I nor my parents were shy about acknowledging it. It never came up one way or the other, that I can recall. I guess our troop was more than DADT about it, they were Don't Ask and We Don't Care if You Tell.

They've grown pretty wishy washy about non-theistic religions. They seem to be generally OK with "spiritual" but the national organization is unambiguous about atheists and agnostics. I don't recall much explicitly religious when I was in scouts and I did serve as a leader as an atheist adult, but the topic of my religion never came up. 'round these parts people just know that I'm "not LDS" and that's as far as it goes.

Still, the official policy is no religion, no Scouts.
 
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
 
We live in a pretty rural area, there's no such thing as Camp Fire USA. Finding a Cub Scout pack was hard enough and it's not even actually in my town. I'm planning on having him join 4-H as well, but they are not completely analogous organizations. Besides, part of what he loves about Scouts are the friendships he's made. These aren't boys he goes to school with (driving out of town), so really dropping Scouts would essentially remove him from any sort of regular contact with him.

As for the leadership - I wouldn't say our leadership is at all discriminatory. That's what so strange about all of this. I mean, I'm sure there are some of our leaders who don't believe in allowing gay marriage. There are more than a dozen of them after all, it would be weird for them not to. But, honestly, I couldn't tell you which those were because it isn't something we regularly discuss at scouting (or leader) events since it has absolutely no bearing on anything related to the boys. That's what sort of threw all of us - why does the issue even need to be addressed? I agree that homosexuality has no place in Scouting - but that includes discriminating based on it! Heterosexuality has no place in Scouting either! These are, for the most part, children. Even once they get older and into their teen years, sex isn't exactly a topic that really needs to be covered!

The whole Scout program, and out pack especially, is so inclusive about almost everything else. Alot of boys who struggle other places really manage to come out of their shell in Scouts. We have kids with all sorts of disabilities, and most of the time you wouldn't even notice it. Our Pack is sponsored by an American Legion post, so it's not even associated with a church (though I suppose it is indirectly associated with DADT) - so I just don't get why we even have to think about the issue at all.

I guess that's part of why I'm so disgusted. It's just so completely unimportant to Scouting that I feel like taking a "stance" is doing nothing more than providing some random executives a way to pat themselves on the back for nothing!

quote:
Originally posted by Raymond Arnold:
For the record, my position on having your kids enjoy scouting is:

Look in your area for an alternative to scouting (such as Camp Fire USA). I don't know if they're as good on average, but ultimately what matters is the quality of an individual troop, which depends on the organizers more than anything.

If such an organization doesn't exist, get to know your local Boy Scout troop, talk to them about the issues that concern you. If the leaders seem prone to discrimination, my personal choice would be to stay away, but I wouldn't begrudge those who didn't. It's a hard choice.


 
Posted by Marek (Member # 5404) on :
 
I loved the use of the scout law
 
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
 
Raymond Arnold, you just may be able to get that Eagle badge back!

From NBC: -boy-scouts-close-to-ending-ban-on-gay-members-leaders
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
I'm not so sure. They are still affirming the ban on atheists.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
It wouldn't really matter in the practical sense anyway. The LDS leadership has its financial claws dug deep into scouting- they sponsor thousands of troops. And the Mormons are about the last group of people in America I would expect to, as an organization, stop discriminating against gays, atheists, and really any other group that is not them and is not enfranchised enough to fight them. The only reason they haven't fully absorbed the scouts is because they haven't been able to- not because they don't want to.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
I don't know if I would go quite that far-much of the BSA's slow, inching crawl towards greater tolerance on religious and sexuality lines doesn't need anything so centralized and nefarious-it simply requires, as you say, large numbers of troops founded or substantially peopled by active, observant members of the LDS church. The numbers and perhaps more importantly the level of activity in wider activities within the BSA carry a weight all their own.
 
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
 
Yes, the LDS church will likely not change their policy towards gays in the troops sponsored by Mormons.

Still, the main reason BSA will change their policy is to maintain funding. Besides the acceleration of protests by local troops, corporate benefactors are bailing. In addition to several companies who quit giving in earlier years, in just the last half of 2012 some pretty big names pulled out.

INTEL (one of BSA's biggest corporate sponsors)
UPS
MERCK

I'm sure BSA realized the hemorrhaging would only get worse.

A little surreal, though, how abruptly the change is going down. Only last summer BSA reaffirmed their policy banning gays.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
And it was (as they really ought to have expected), a public relations nightmare for them. As it should have been. It is an inexcusably backwards, indefensibly arbitrary policy. But as I say, they have a serious problem having the hackles of the LDS church so deep into their organizational structure. If they change this policy, they also risk the Mormons pulling their financial backing. Of course, this whole situation could have been avoided if they hadn't tailored their policies and public outlook to court Mormon investment in the first place. But that's mainly why I think this organization is now irredeemable- they are in bed with one of the great remaining deniers of equality.

Interestingly- the "Anti-Mormonism" entry on Wikipedia seems to be caretaken by Mormons. Zero reference to the words homosexuality and gay, and zero references to the words black, or African-American. Two of the more recently prominent areas of Anti-Mormon criticism.
 
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
 
Does it not mention at all that the church has a long history of total racism and is very much so anti-gay? Those are two things the church is rightfully infamous for.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
The article is written mainly from an LDS perspective on criticism- focusing on types and instances of opposition to LDS activities and organizations- never on specific criticisms of policy. The word "racism," never appears, nor the word "gay," nor "black," nor "race" (with the exception of its use in the sense of a political race).

It's pretty much Mormon propaganda. This is one thing you really need to be wary of with Wikipedia.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
I'm probably totally stepping in it, and let me preface things by saying I completely agree that Mormonism's banning of blacks from having the priesthood was racism.

But if one was discussing racism, Mormonism does not belong on the same page with the KKK, or White Supremacy in general.

The church loudly reversed course when directed to back in the 70s in regards to the priesthood. There is not some residual faction that thinks that revelation was a mistake. The church did not have a history of opposition to the civil rights movement, there was no segregation in the church, the church was also anti-slavery from its inception.

There are some interesting studies though on the presence of slave owning Mormons in Utah when it was founded, and accommodations the leadership made for those Mormons.

Long history of racism, I'll grant, because for over a hundred years they did not allow black people to hold the priesthood. But "long, total history" is an exaggeration, and it's not true.

As for the church having it's claws all up in Boys Scouts business. The church loves scouting, and rightfully so, it's a great program. I won't be surprised if the ban is lifted and the church simply continues to enforce policies for its own sponsored troops, without trying to make other group sponsored troops follow suit.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
You're quite right that the LDS church didn't match, say, the KKK. Not in the habit of burning churches down or staging lynchings, so on and so forth.

I have to disagree when you reject the segregationist label, though, because I think it certainly did fit with a qualifier-that it wasn't nearly as bad as many segregationist notions, but it DID institute more or less two churches with respect to its male members-one for the whites and one for the blacks. I don't think that's an unfair criticism to level.

Anyway, I expect you might be right about what will happen with respect to BSA troops. I have a feeling that if church officials do feel strongly about exercising ideological control over the entire BSA, they might not be as eager for another PR fight as they were say six or seven years ago.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
there was no segregation in the church

Point of fact, there was segregation in the LDS church. Blacks were not allowed the priesthood. You are pointing out that congregations may not have been, by policy, segregated according to race. But the membership was in fact segregated.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
I can't say the church was totally not segregated as blacks could not perform temple ordinances sans priesthood. But that's hardly different than the current practice of not allowing women to hold the priesthood.

There were some pernicious justifications for why blacks could not hold the priesthood, but many of them in large part seemed to break down to, "God deemed it that way, and we don't know why." There wasn't a general belief that blacks were worthy of contempt or should be ashamed of being black. Though some probably did come to that conclusion as one particularly common explanation was that blacks were the fence sitters during the war in heaven that occurred prior to the earth being created.

In any case, I don't think we really disagree. I am waiting to see what the church does with this development. I need to remind myself to contact the BSA and tell them that I as a Mormon and Eagle Scout support lifting the ban.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
I can't say the church was totally not segregated as blacks could not perform temple ordinances sans priesthood. But that's hardly different than the current practice of not allowing women to hold the priesthood.

I absolutely agree with you. And though I would find the LDS church to be irredeemable for its views on the nature of the universe in general, and its actions against the institutions of democracy in particular regardless of how it treated its members, this, in my view, justifies calling it a backwards institution in its own right.


quote:
There wasn't a general belief that blacks were worthy of contempt or should be ashamed of being black. Though some probably did come to that conclusion as one particularly common explanation was that blacks were the fence sitters during the war in heaven that occurred prior to the earth being created.
I don't disbelieve that this is your honest impression of the community (though you weren't alive then), but it rather stretches credulity to imagine that the church's membership, were it wholly or even mostly forward thinking and indisposed to prejudice, would tolerate such a policy for any period of time. As it happened, outward pressure upon the Mormon leadership to fall in line with mainstream society in its treatment of black members precipitated the change.

The fact that, as you say, members took a "gee whiz... what are you gonna do?" approach to outright segregation based on race indicates that they were not particularly critical of the foundations of their church's philosophy, nor particularly disposed to voice disagreement with its interpretation of the "mission," that god had supposedly ordained, when and if it did not agree with their own internal moral compasses.

If we follow that kind of reasoning to its logical end, we can suppose that Mormons can be induced to do *anything* contrary to their personal moral standards, if the church were to instruct them to do so. We know, without need of a practical test, that this would not be the case for most. So I put it to you: if you cannot credit the church with entirely controlling the actions and opinions of its members as concerns what is morally right, then how can you dismiss the membership's wholesale acceptance of segregation? There must have been culpability among the membership viz a viz, racial prejudice. This is of course not a *surprise*, but I just want to challenge this notion that it was somehow a question left entirely to the leadership, and to "revelation." That rather neatly ignores the clear correlation of the Church's change in attitude with the social pressure for it to change- which is a nice way of saying that the "revelation," story is questionable, at best. Church members were culpable in the furtherance of the segregationist policy, just as church members should *also* be credited with making the change. It was for the benefit of keeping those who no longer wished to be seen as racists that the policy was changed in the first place. It was realized, among many other things, that no Mormon could ever be politically influential on the national stage, if he or she adhered to a racist church policy. And it was realized that the church would begin to lose members and new memberships for the same reason- and the policy changed. Just like with BSA.


quote:
In any case, I don't think we really disagree. I am waiting to see what the church does with this development. I need to remind myself to contact the BSA and tell them that I as a Mormon and Eagle Scout support lifting the ban.
I am positive that from all we have shared over the years, and all that you have said, that you are not a bigot or a liar. And I think you have a good moral compass. I am just engaging with you on what I think is something you don't really want to believe about people- that they are not all like you.

[ January 29, 2013, 02:50 PM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:

I need to remind myself to contact the BSA and tell them that I as a Mormon and Eagle Scout support lifting the ban.

Good for you, BlackBlade.
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
The thing that bothers me about the ban is by the time someone is old enough to know what sex is and that they'd rather have it with people of their own gender, they're too old to be joining scouts for the first time anyway. Rather they've been scouts for years.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
quote:
There were some pernicious justifications for why blacks could not hold the priesthood, but many of them in large part seemed to break down to, "God deemed it that way, and we don't know why." There wasn't a general belief that blacks were worthy of contempt or should be ashamed of being black. Though some probably did come to that conclusion as one particularly common explanation was that blacks were the fence sitters during the war in heaven that occurred prior to the earth being created.
My understand was that there was a pretty common belief that they were the descendents of Cain. And official church doctrine that blacks could be excluded from auxiliary activities (like the Boy Scouts) unless the local leaders decided to let them in.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:
There were some pernicious justifications for why blacks could not hold the priesthood, but many of them in large part seemed to break down to, "God deemed it that way, and we don't know why." There wasn't a general belief that blacks were worthy of contempt or should be ashamed of being black. Though some probably did come to that conclusion as one particularly common explanation was that blacks were the fence sitters during the war in heaven that occurred prior to the earth being created.
My understand was that there was a pretty common belief that they were the descendents of Cain. And official church doctrine that blacks could be excluded from auxiliary activities (like the Boy Scouts) unless the local leaders decided to let them in.
I have heard the former belief mentioned as a theory, the latter one is completely news to me.

What I'm trying to describe is that at least for the church, the feeling was, "A prophet of God (Brigham Young) said blacks could not hold the priesthood because of the curse of Cain (according to him)."

The speech was made before the Utah legislature, and Joseph Smith made no mention of this principle. Even the speech itself is an exercise in saying blacks cannot have the priesthood, but they are no less children of God than the whites, just can't have the priesthood. Young doesn't know why, it's just what God has said.

So you have a group of people denying blacks the priesthood because a prophet said that needed to be the case, but there wasn't any attendant animosity or hatred towards blacks. Just unwillingness to go against another doctrine (The prophet speaks for God when he says he is). You can find plenty to criticize that somebody didn't come along sooner and theologically point out why that doctrine doesn't make sense, or couldn't be from God, but it wasn't as if the church wanted Young to take away the priesthood from blacks, and there was no resistance when Kimball gave it back. The belief was (I believe) divorced from public opinion. As in, certain leaders in the church (Young for example) believed it's what the scriptures demanded. When the church reversed course there were apostles who still subscribed to the scriptural doctrine that blacks could not hold the priesthood. They immediately reversed course when informed about the revelation.

I will admit these things happened before I was born, but I've spent a great deal of time studying it because I did want to understand why the church was so hopelessly wrong on this.
 
Posted by Tittles (Member # 12939) on :
 
Blackblade - You're taking the racism from the past, and then saying that it wasn't really that bad because it's not too different from the sexism of the present.

Okay then.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
No, I'm not. But I'm not really interested in discussing it with you at present. We haven't even been formally introduced.
 
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
 
Hmm, maybe BSA's plan to eliminate the national policy banning gays and leave it to local groups to decide is not so clean a solution legally.

quote:
The new policy would, however, undermine the rationale the Supreme Court voiced in 2000 when it affirmed the right of the Scouts to discriminate against gay people. The 5-to-4 ruling turned on the court’s acceptance of the Scouts’ claim that being antigay was a “core” part of its mission and that its freedom of association right trumped any state nondiscrimination rules.

Now that the group is on the verge of making discrimination optional, it can no longer claim that discrimination is a “core” purpose — and therefore state nondiscrimination rules should apply to the Scouts. The halfway policy change would inevitably invite litigation.

Article.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
It would be a nicer world, I think, if it were truly credible that someone could make such a proclamation-God has told me that blacks cannot hold the priesthood, but they are still equal children of God in His eyes-and be not only sincere but honest. That is to say, having really examined their feelings and truly purged any attendant notions of racial inferiority and chalked it all up to one of the impenetrable mysteries of God.

But I cannot see how such a proclamation can pass that sort of muster by anyone who didn't start out with the assumption 'Young was a good guy, and not a racist,' and then in subsequent consideration discover that surprisingly what they believed going in is what they believed going out.

It's simply a fundamental disconnect. If blacks were truly no less children of God in God's eyes, then why is God denying them the right to no less membership and participation in His Church? It seems to me there's really only one way this square can be circled, and that is if God can say the square is a circle and even if it isn't actually a circle, by virtue of God saying so it becomes one.

Which begs a whole lot of other difficult and frankly (in my opinion, of course) absurd questions, but reality being what God says it is, independent of what it actually is, isn't an uncommon religious belief.

It's just...one of the things I admire, or perhaps appreciate with respect to other religions, is Mormonism's take on that level of divine omnipotence-namely that it doesn't actually exist. That was my understanding anyway-there are rules of existence which even God must abide by. Well, it seems to me that that teaching cannot coexist in the same mind with 'blacks cannot hold the priesthood, but are none less equal Children of God'.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
I can't say the church was totally not segregated as blacks could not perform temple ordinances sans priesthood. But that's hardly different than the current practice of not allowing women to hold the priesthood ...

Made me quizzical too, although Orincoro basically addressed it.
The fact that your church *is* segregated by sex doesn't seem to conflict with the question on whether your church *was* segregated by race [Wink]
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by theamazeeaz:
The thing that bothers me about the ban is by the time someone is old enough to know what sex is ...

$
$
$
$ Warning for joke that might be "too soon"
$
$
$
$

In fairness, sex is often something they discover with their scout leaders.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
You'd have to first understand why Young felt the way that he did. It's a complicated topic, I tend towards he misunderstood the certain passages in the scriptures, particularly the Old Testament, and Book of Mormon. Not that he believed blacks were some inferior race and it was the white man's burden to oversee them. If he did in fact believe that the scriptures were clear on this point, then it's a simple matter to get to the next place where you say, "It is not man's place to question God's decrees".

While black's were not permitted to participate in temple ordinances, there was never a belief that this would stop them from going to heaven, which I think allowed the state of affairs to last as long as it did. Mormonism places great importance on the concept that anybody can make it back to God. Unbaptized infants, those who live and die ignorant of the gospel, women are not hampered by not having the priesthood, and nor were black males who were not ordained to the priesthood in this life.

Honestly, I think the greatest obstacle to black's getting the priesthood back after Young took it away, was Young's proclamation that this was God's will, coupled with another prophet's (Wilford Woodruff) statement that God would not permit the prophet to lead the people astray. Without dealing with the vagueness of that statement, people wanted it to be true, and so it became concrete.

It's easy to believe that if a prophet says something, it must be true. And yet, the scriptures have examples of prophets being wrong about things. Peter and circumcision for gentile converts, Moses striking the stone with his staff instead of just speaking as God commanded. But this belief was endlessly repeated and hammered into the members beliefs.

Now, I'll be honest, I *do* believe that the prophet is the only man on earth God has authorized to speak for him to his people. But I simply believe anything he says must be confirmed by God to me before I'll believe it's of God and hence true.

quote:
It's simply a fundamental disconnect. If blacks were truly no less children of God in God's eyes, then why is God denying them the right to no less membership and participation in His Church?
Like I said, salvation was not affected, which ultimately is what matters to most Mormons. There are so many questions like that that remain unanswered. Why did an earthquake kill those people in that country? Why can't men have babies? Why don't women have the priesthood, why does God let children be born into bad families?

Why can't blacks have the priesthood is about at that level.

Look I'm not saying it was wrong/foolish/stupid that people didn't press for it sooner, but the concept of pressing the leadership to reconsider a former prophet's words was not something the church had a tradition of, and it was actively discouraged and cautioned as what one did if they were on the road to apostasy.

Heck, I am still told I am on the way out routinely by my family because of the things I believe.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Racism and segregation and discrimination without animosity are not all that different, in the end, than racism, segration, and discrimination with animosity. At least at the ballot box.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
Like I said, salvation was not affected, which ultimately is what matters to most Mormons. There are so many questions like that that remain unanswered. Why did an earthquake kill those people in that country? Why can't men have babies? Why don't women have the priesthood, why does God let children be born into bad families?
The problem here-though I do see where you're going with the similarities-is that only one of these things is affirmed and enforced by the words of one human being or one group of human beings to multitudes. Attributing a given perceived injustice in the world or irrationality or what have you is one thing when it's a matter that simply is, regardless of what humans may say and quite another when it is accompanied-indeed, exists only in the physical world because of-human beings.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
So you have a group of people denying blacks the priesthood because a prophet said that needed to be the case, but there wasn't any attendant animosity or hatred towards blacks.

I am hoping you'll stop, read my post, and take the time to examine whether you really find this to be consistent thinking.

How do you convince a group with *no* animosity towards blacks to overtly discriminate against them? Is their faith, as I asked before, really strong enough that the church may tell them *anything*?
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:

While black's were not permitted to participate in temple ordinances, there was never a belief that this would stop them from going to heaven, which I think allowed the state of affairs to last as long as it did.

Not for a hot second do I buy this reasoning. It went on for as long as it did because the membership of the church didn't care enough to want it changed. And those who wanted it changed, weren't brave or influential enough to stand up to those who didn't.

This idea that the priesthood was *not a big deal,* and that it was just some sort of technicality and the people didn't really have anything against blacks. Honestly, I think it's ridiculous. And you never responded to my detailed explanation of why.


quote:
I tend towards he misunderstood the certain passages in the scriptures, particularly the Old Testament, and Book of Mormon. Not that he believed blacks were some inferior race and it was the white man's burden to oversee them. If he did in fact believe that the scriptures were clear on this point, then it's a simple matter to get to the next place where you say, "It is not man's place to question God's decrees".
How often man speaks his own will in the words of God.

The incredible convenience of his interpretation fitting current racist attitudes of the time, and then the amazing convenience of the reversal *also* fitting trends in race relations is amazing. Even more so it is amazing that this had *nothing* to do with bigotry. And how incredibly lucky for the church and for Young that his decree, and the reversal of that decree, both came at time in which the *opposite* decree would have damaged the standing of the church.
 
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
 
BlackBlade: according to mormon theology, why exactly were the blacks denied priesthood then but not now?
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
Orincoro: I do apologize for not responding to your posts earlier. I was already talking to Rakeesh, and only so many hours in the day. I will try to do so today or tomorrow.

Parkour: There isn't really a short answer, and I just tried to type one out. I'll try to address it later. It's not a very complete doctrine, which is typically characteristic of wrong ideas.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
Orincoro:
quote:
I absolutely agree with you. And though I would find the LDS church to be irredeemable for its views on the nature of the universe in general, and its actions against the institutions of democracy in particular regardless of how it treated its members, this, in my view, justifies calling it a backwards institution in its own right.

You must believe as you feel you must. For Mormons they are doing the same.

quote:
I don't disbelieve that this is your honest impression of the community (though you weren't alive then), but it rather stretches credulity to imagine that the church's membership, were it wholly or even mostly forward thinking and indisposed to prejudice, would tolerate such a policy for any period of time. As it happened, outward pressure upon the Mormon leadership to fall in line with mainstream society in its treatment of black members precipitated the change.

You say I can't know what the dynamic was having not been born yet, but then you proceed to say it was outside pressure that in whole facilitated the change.

I can speak from that community because I was raised in the church. I have spoken with members of the church many times who lived through the pre and post-revelation periods.

Again, you have to consider the belief that the prophet speaks for God. I mean nobody raises an eyebrow that for Jews, they cannot eat pork or shrimp. Or that women should cover their hair. Men should be circumcised.

There is a strong belief amongst Mormons that as the sexes are segregated in what reproductive and social functions they perform, so too are they segregated in church matters. It is as God designed it. Women are good at this, men are good at that. They don't look at it through the lens of, this is a construct of men, and God doesn't like it.

As far as ethnicity is concerned, the Jews revealed the law to the gentiles, that was their role. The gentiles will restore the knowledge of Jesus to the Jews in this day and age, that is their role. In this context, it's not as hard to believe that for black people, that is just a feature of that race, they are descendents of Cain. It's not principally a matter of being racist, it's what God has described is their heritage. At least that is largely the justification, and why you can't just look at it and say, "Why aren't all the raises treated exactly the same by God?" "Why wasn't Joseph Smith born in China or India, they have more people there than they do in the US."

quote:
The fact that, as you say, members took a "gee whiz... what are you gonna do?" approach to outright segregation based on race indicates that they were not particularly critical of the foundations of their church's philosophy, nor particularly disposed to voice disagreement with its interpretation of the "mission," that god had supposedly ordained, when and if it did not agree with their own internal moral compasses.
Yes, I have said this multiple times. During Joseph Smith's time there was a lot of room for dissension and debate. After he was murdered, for better or worse it was incumbent on Brigham Young to hold the church together and get them to a new headquarters intact. To accomplish this, he clamped down on the institution, and over the years brought it firmly under his control. Prophets after him largely followed that way of doing things because it was so successful. During Joseph Smith's time you had many leaders of the church apostatize. During Young's tenure that all but stopped. This mindset got the Mormons across the plains, and settled in a place so baron nobody wanted it. They thrived there, it was this concept of loyalty and unquestioned obedience that helped them create civilization in the desert. But it also created an institutionalized obedience, where questioning the prophet was frowned on and discouraged in many instances. Not all mind, there are a multitude of instances where there was dissension in the leadership about topics such as evolution, or whether church leaders should take political positions. But by and large for the membership, it was firmly said that they should seek advice from the brethren they should not seek to advise them, it was not their role to do so.

quote:
If we follow that kind of reasoning to its logical end, we can suppose that Mormons can be induced to do *anything* contrary to their personal moral standards, if the church were to instruct them to do so.
Abraham was commanded to murder his own son, he is commended for having been willing to do so, though ultimately it was just a test of his obedience. This is hardly a belief germane to Mormonism.

quote:
It was for the benefit of keeping those who no longer wished to be seen as racists that the policy was changed in the first place. It was realized, among many other things, that no Mormon could ever be politically influential on the national stage, if he or she adhered to a racist church policy.
And how many Mormons flew into the political stage in the 80s after that policy was reversed? The church has never been interested in getting members into positions of political power. Look at the Romney campaign, there was not one church announcement even mentioning his campaign or he was supported by the church.

You are also ignoring the possibility that maybe outside pressure got the leadership to reconsider that ill-advised policy, they took it up with God, and God gave them the answer they would have had if they had asked years ago. Again there was no official revelation that took the priesthood away, there was only Young's speech to the legislature, and people inferring from that that this protocol should be reinstated because it hadn't been observed while Smith was in charge.

quote:
I am positive that from all we have shared over the years, and all that you have said, that you are not a bigot or a liar. And I think you have a good moral compass. I am just engaging with you on what I think is something you don't really want to believe about people- that they are not all like you.
I appreciate that. I do. I also understand that my position in the church make me liable to havea bias where I give members too much the benefit of the doubt.

But I see the churches attitude about gay marriage, and it's in stark contrast to blacks and the priesthood. There are members very much opposed to allowing homosexuals to marry in this country. That they are trying to ruin the country. It's a whole different vibe than what I have experienced with blacks and the priesthood. Where nobody said, "Well if they can't have the priesthood, they must be bad people." Totally different dynamic.
 
Posted by Tittles (Member # 12939) on :
 
You're not quite right when you say nobody raises an eyebrow over the eccentricities of other religions. I know I do, and I'm probably not alone.

Just because their story was made up a long time before yours, doesn't make it any less ridiculous.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tittles:
You're not quite right when you say nobody raises an eyebrow over the eccentricities of other beliefs. I know I do, and I'm probably not alone.

Just because their story was made up a long time before yours, doesn't make it any less ridiculous.

I feel like I should know you from somewhere, but I'm still drawing a blank. It's odd, you would think if somebody was going to call my beliefs ridiculous, and made up that we would have at least gone through the niceties of introducing ourselves to each other. But I guess common courtesy, and the rules of polite conversation are just made up too.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
... I mean nobody raises an eyebrow that for Jews, they cannot eat pork or shrimp. Or that women should cover their hair. Men should be circumcised.

What. Seriously?

I think there's a number of youtube videos where white people go around China and tell them what religious people think. In particular, there's one where a Jew goes around telling people what he has to do and they're all WTF.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
... I mean nobody raises an eyebrow that for Jews, they cannot eat pork or shrimp. Or that women should cover their hair. Men should be circumcised.

What. Seriously?

I think there's a number of youtube videos where white people go around China and tell them what religious people think. In particular, there's one where a Jew goes around telling people what he has to do and they're all WTF.

That's kinda funny. I'd like to see some.

Can't really say the Chinese are in any position to laugh at other people's strange traditions.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
Well, there aren't as many religious Chinese people, so religious traditions earn a special place of mockery. (BTW, new Stephen Chow Journey to the West movie coming out!)

I'll search my history.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
Oh my gosh! Stephen Chow was born to make a comedy Wu Xia movie about Journey to the West.

I need to tell my brother immediately. Thanks for the heads up!
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
Man, you would not believe how useless Google searches for "white people/student/laowai talk to Chinese people about religion" are. This is really going to annoy me since there was this super hilarious one with a black student that was talking to random Chinese passer-by about black people and he pulled it off with no malice or anything, just a respectful exchange of ideas.

Current searches for this make me sad.
 
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
I feel like I should know you from somewhere, but I'm still drawing a blank.

You mean from how you've already banned him?
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
"We believe God says so" is not some kind of get-out-of-moral-jail-free card. It does not excuse us. We are just as responsible for our beliefs, our actions, and our votes whether or not we think that God has commanded us to believe, act and vote and certain way than if we do so out of our own cussedness. After all, we do have the choice to believe in a God that isn't a racist, misogynistic, arbitrary jerk.
 
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
 
There is a pretty awesome timeline on this site:

http://www.blacklds.org/history

The truth is there was never really any official ban on blacks and the Priesthood. Brigham Young denied some requests for the Priesthood to some black members of the church, and it sort of just went on from there. Sort of like the "Mormons can't drink Coke" myth that so many members still believe.

It doesn't make it right by any means, and serves as an example that one person's personal beliefs, when in a position of power, and affect generations to come.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
One might almost say that when the one person is the prophet of god, and claims that a 'not-ban but not allowed but...', and then that statement is backed up by generations of following prophets and leadership...yeah, it's official.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
Depends on what you mean by official. Yes the church enforced a ban on blacks and the priesthood. No, God never commanded the church to keep the priesthood from blacks. It's an extremely common principle historically speaking. Moses rolls up and gets rid of the idols. Jesus kicks out the money changers. The Book of Mormon mentions infant baptism creeping into the church, and needing to be dispelled. There are a handful of other places where "points of doctrine" are debated and clarified.

One thing that is very clear in the Bible is that though a group is given the gospel by God via a prophet, false doctrine can creep in, and sometimes mass apostasy happens.

One preventative measure/remedy for that is constant willingness to evaluate, and progress based on whatever truth we obtain from any source. The other is recognition that if an organization latches onto a false belief long enough then it stops being God's church and needs to be reorganized.

Nobody can argue that the Mormon church never had an enforced policy of barring blacks from having the priesthood. But nobody can argue that the LDS church has not repudiated that policy, and recognized it as wrong. It would be nice if racism and Mormonism was relegated to its proper place, past history.

Or should we continue to act like Mormonism still belongs in the current discourse about racism?
 
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
 
I know I said I was leaving the forum...but I just have to point a few things out here...

quote:
After all, we do have the choice to believe in a God that isn't a racist, misogynistic, arbitrary jerk.
I consider it to be incredibly arrogant to look at a being who has a complete view of the universe and the flow of time and then say, as a human with a horribly limited view of that universe, "God...I won't believe in you unless you adhere to my principals." That's exactly what you are suggesting I do when you suggest I have a "choice" about what version of God I decide to worship. I have my own experiences and evidence that have convinced me that the LDS church is true. It would be the definition of delusional to then turn around and say, "I don't care if what I've seen and experienced suggests that this is the truth. Because it doesn't fit some other specific ideal or attitude, I will ignore those things I've seen and choose to believe something different."

quote:
One might almost say that when the one person is the prophet of god, and claims that a 'not-ban but not allowed but...', and then that statement is backed up by generations of following prophets and leadership...yeah, it's official.
The church never made an official statement on the subject until the 1950s. It was never a major issue of concern until the church started spreading around the world and particularly into Africa. There were fewer than 100 black members when the church stopped asking converts to move to Utah. You should also realize that we do not believe our leaders are infallible. The prophet can be mistaken due to a lack of knowledge or understanding. The church's leaders are not omniscient.

And here's something you should probably consider. Every worthy black member of the church holds the priesthood *now*. That includes every black member who has *ever* been a member of the church.

Everyone who looks at this particular subject seems to gloss over the idea that we believe people can be baptized, given the priesthood, or whatever else we feel is necessary even *after* they are dead. So please explain to me how whether or not someone was given the priesthood during a span of 110 years (on the top end) has any real significance given an existence that spans *eternity*.

In the end, before you go criticizing our beliefs, please spend some time actually *learning* our beliefs.
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
 
quote:
Or should we continue to act like Mormonism still belongs in the current discourse about racism?
Well, I think that discussing what happened with racism is relevant to the ongoing discussions about sexism and homophobia so it's bound to keep coming up as the church continues to diverge from the popular social conscience in these areas. (well, as the social conscience diverges from the church's position)

It's natural to wonder if, as was the case with blacks and the priesthood and the ending of plural marriage, that some sea change in the church will occur coincidentally with the current doctrines ("official" or otherwise) becoming socially untenable.
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
 
quote:
So please explain to me how whether or not someone was given the priesthood during a span of 110 years (on the top end) has any real significance given an existence that spans *eternity*.
As long as you are willing to grant that what happens during our time on earth is irrelevant, then sure it has no real significance. But my understanding is that the LDS view is that having a body and an earthly life is pretty darn important, regardless of how fleeting an experience that may be in light of eternity.

And do you likewise condemn any praise of the church in these terms - that they've only done such and such good thing for a 100+ years, which really is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things? Or do you reserve that calculation only for criticisms?
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
Matt: There's nothing wrong with looking at blacks and the priesthood for context on the current debate about homosexuality.

It's frustrating though when we talk about racism in general and the Mormon church gets pulled into that conversation. As if it is still an active player in the debate.
 
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MattP:
quote:
So please explain to me how whether or not someone was given the priesthood during a span of 110 years (on the top end) has any real significance given an existence that spans *eternity*.
As long as you are willing to grant that what happens during our time on earth is irrelevant, then sure it has no real significance. But my understanding is that the LDS view is that having a body and an earthly life is pretty darn important, regardless of how fleeting an experience that may be in light of eternity.

And do you likewise condemn any praise of the church in these terms - that they've only done such and such good thing for a 100+ years, which really is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things? Or do you reserve that calculation only for criticisms?

I'll try to clarify my meaning, but it's going to be very difficult to explain what I mean here considering it involves my own understanding of church teachings that has taken my whole life to obtain.

The fact that a person didn't get the priesthood during their life has little to no bearing in the context of eternity. Whether we have received all of the ordinances of the church in this life does not matter from an eternal perspective. Those ordinances will be given to all who lived eventually. What we do in this life is significant only in how it prepares us for the things we'll be doing after this life ends.
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
 
quote:
The fact that a person didn't get the priesthood during their life has little to no bearing in the context of eternity.
It may for that person as exercise of the priesthood is a faith-strengthening exercise for many people. And imagine the many people, particularly blacks, who were turned off from the church in the first place because of the policy.

quote:
What we do in this life is significant only in how it prepares us for the things we'll be doing after this life ends.
Exactly, so being pushed one way or another in this life will have eternal consequences.
 
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boris:
The church never made an official statement on the subject until the 1950s. It was never a major issue of concern until the church started spreading around the world and particularly into Africa. There were fewer than 100 black members when the church stopped asking converts to move to Utah.

What was not a major issue of concern? And why exactly?
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
WB!

quote:
I consider it to be incredibly arrogant to look at a being who has a complete view of the universe and the flow of time and then say, as a human with a horribly limited view of that universe, "God...I won't believe in you unless you adhere to my principals." That's exactly what you are suggesting I do when you suggest I have a "choice" about what version of God I decide to worship. I have my own experiences and evidence that have convinced me that the LDS church is true. It would be the definition of delusional to then turn around and say, "I don't care if what I've seen and experienced suggests that this is the truth. Because it doesn't fit some other specific ideal or attitude, I will ignore those things I've seen and choose to believe something different."
In fact, everyone does this so the arrogance and delusion perhaps ought to be reconsidered-or perhaps not. Or does your own judgment factor *nothing* in your perception of God? Or perhaps this gets pivoted back to 'if a speaker for God gets something wrong, the human speaker may be fallible', etc. etc. If God asked of you what is told He asked of Abraham or Christ, would you be able to obey? Well, maybe-I certainly hope not, but maybe. I suspect like just about every other human being outside of stories told in religious texts your own feeble (God given, but tremendously feeble) judgment would begin to interfere.

It's difficult to react without incredulity to the necessary disconnect in this thinking: God has given me a mind/soul/conscience/what-have-you-terms-vary with which to think and perceive myself and the world around me; I am commanded to obey the instructions of God, which can be difficult to correctly perceive in this mortal world; my one God-given tool becomes worse than useless if it begins to return results different from what this other God-given source is telling me. But it's an extremely common way of thinking, unfortunately.

quote:
The church never made an official statement on the subject until the 1950s. It was never a major issue of concern until the church started spreading around the world and particularly into Africa. There were fewer than 100 black members when the church stopped asking converts to move to Utah. You should also realize that we do not believe our leaders are infallible. The prophet can be mistaken due to a lack of knowledge or understanding. The church's leaders are not omniscient.
Never a major issue of concern until the 1960s. Well, you've got my applause for stating it so baldly. I guess those millions of African-Americans weren't as urgently important to bring into the Church? You sort of address this (hugely troubling but also highly relevant) thought later in your post, though, so-

quote:
Everyone who looks at this particular subject seems to gloss over the idea that we believe people can be baptized, given the priesthood, or whatever else we feel is necessary even *after* they are dead. So please explain to me how whether or not someone was given the priesthood during a span of 110 years (on the top end) has any real significance given an existence that spans *eternity*.
Oh, I see. Eternal timespan, therefore injustices such as systematic racism are immaterial here and now...in the Church we are told is God's church whose leaders often speak His words and guide as He would guide.

Do we need to go through the litany of evil that is now trivial thanks to this eternal frame of reference, or is it coming to your mind already?

quote:
In the end, before you go criticizing our beliefs, please spend some time actually *learning* our beliefs.
Since you're speaking in defense of your church: please don't insist on a degree of respect and consideration you don't give. This part of the conversation began as one discussing how the LDS addresses itself to homosexuality in society. It has hardly comported itself as an icon of respect and consideration in that discussion, and the truth is-I suspect you know this better than I do-there is little doubt that within the next couple of generations, new received wisdom will be shared by the leadership. Precisely as happened with African Americans and the priesthood, and other older issues for that matter.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
The fact that a person didn't get the priesthood during their life has little to no bearing in the context of eternity. Whether we have received all of the ordinances of the church in this life does not matter from an eternal perspective. Those ordinances will be given to all who lived eventually. What we do in this life is significant only in how it prepares us for the things we'll be doing after this life ends.
Why have a priesthood at all, then? Or if you must have it, why is it gender exclusive and formerly racially exclusive? If a mistake is made, it will be rectified, yes? This talk of comparative importance becomes much less persuasive when you consider that it was important enough to deny. The United States Congress had a better feel for racial equality earlier than did the LDS Church. I suppose that is in a sense a sign that it wasn't viewed as very important, on second thought.

---------

BlackBlade,

Initially the tie-ins to past racism were interesting (to me) largely because of their similarities with current events. I do agree that to treat the LDS church as though its racial record was as bad or close to it as the late 1980s would be unfair, with one possible qualifier: what proportion of the total LDS membership do white Americans comprise, versus their representation in senior overall leadership positions? Though if there were serious disparity there, that could be due to a sort of nationalism, or even just slowly evolving centralized institutions. I suppose to get a better handle on that question, one would need to compare leadership role percentage growth to overall membership growth between different groups, and see what if any disparities there are, and if so the rate at which they're changing.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
I won't be surprised if the ban is lifted and the church simply continues to enforce policies for its own sponsored troops...
Frankly, I think it is only because the Boy Scouts are owned by the Mormons that they're talking about letting individual troops choose whether or not to set policies. Because up to this point, one thing that distinguished the Boy Scouts from the Girl Scouts was that individual troops did not generally have that freedom.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boris:
I know I said I was leaving the forum...but I just have to point a few things out here...

quote:
After all, we do have the choice to believe in a God that isn't a racist, misogynistic, arbitrary jerk.
I consider it to be incredibly arrogant to look at a being who has a complete view of the universe and the flow of time and then say, as a human with a horribly limited view of that universe, "God...I won't believe in you unless you adhere to my principals." That's exactly what you are suggesting I do when you suggest I have a "choice" about what version of God I decide to worship. I have my own experiences and evidence that have convinced me that the LDS church is true. It would be the definition of delusional to then turn around and say, "I don't care if what I've seen and experienced suggests that this is the truth. Because it doesn't fit some other specific ideal or attitude, I will ignore those things I've seen and choose to believe something different."


We also have God-given brains and hearts and conscience and the Holy Spirit. We know when we are embarrassed by our various Churches. When we know they are wrong. Ultimately, we are responsible for our own beliefs and we are answerable to our own consciences. "Every judgement of conscience, be it right or wrong, be it about things evil in themselves or morally indifferent, is obligatory, in such wise that he who acts against his conscience always sins." Thomas Aquinas

Church leaders do get it wrong. It is not only okay but essential to say so when they do. I know; I am Catholic.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Re-reading what I'd written, I thought I ought to clarify something. When I said this: "I suspect like just about every other human being outside of stories told in religious texts your own feeble (God given, but tremendously feeble) judgment would begin to interfere," that wasn't an attack on your mind, Boris, rather a criticism of the idea that human judgment should be held as so inferior to received wisdom. But it certainly could've read as a direct personal attack, because I communicated poorly, so that was my mistake.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Following Rakeesh's example. It was not my intention to imply that the LDS Church was the only one that sometimes posited a God that is a racist, misogynistic, arbitrary jerk. Did I mention that I am Catholic?
 
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
 
Rakeesh:
quote:
Initially the tie-ins to past racism were interesting (to me) largely because of their similarities with current events. I do agree that to treat the LDS church as though its racial record was as bad or close to it as the late 1980s would be unfair, with one possible qualifier: what proportion of the total LDS membership do white Americans comprise, versus their representation in senior overall leadership positions? Though if there were serious disparity there, that could be due to a sort of nationalism, or even just slowly evolving centralized institutions. I suppose to get a better handle on that question, one would need to compare leadership role percentage growth to overall membership growth between different groups, and see what if any disparities there are, and if so the rate at which they're changing.
I would say the makeup of the church's senior leadership (1st and 2nd Quorums of the Seventy, Quorum of the 12, First Presidency) reflects length of time with the church established in the area as well as total membership in that area. There are a number of men from Mexico, Central America, and South America (where the church has grown quite significantly in the past 60 years) in the 1st and 2nd Quorums of the Seventy and a sprinkling of men from Asian, African, and European countries, although the majority still appears to be North American white men.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_general_authorities_of_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints

With photos: http://www.lds.org/church/leaders?lang=eng

I would say more men in the U.S. mountain west have the kind of in-depth church leadership experience under their belts that general authorities tend to have, hence the higher percentage of them called to these positions. However, the church in Latin America has been established long enough that there are more and more men with that kind of experience and steadiness in the church, and the number of men from Latin America has increased over the past 20 years in the general authority ranks.

Look one level below the general authorities at the area seventies and you'll see nationalities much more evenly represented right now based on membership numbers. IMO this is indicative of the future composition of the senior church leadership.

Incidentally, by my count 14 of the 25 countries experiencing the highest percentage membership growth in 2011 were African countries. By sheer numbers, the U.S. still leads, but 8 of the 10 countries on that list are Latin American countries.
http://ldschurchgrowth.blogspot.com/2012/04/membership-by-country-statistics.html

[ February 05, 2013, 12:40 PM: Message edited by: advice for robots ]
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
I won't be surprised if the ban is lifted and the church simply continues to enforce policies for its own sponsored troops...
Frankly, I think it is only because the Boy Scouts are owned by the Mormons that they're talking about letting individual troops choose whether or not to set policies. Because up to this point, one thing that distinguished the Boy Scouts from the Girl Scouts was that individual troops did not generally have that freedom.
I'm still chewing on this because there's an inherent contradiction. The church presently allows homosexuals to attend church and accept callings so long as they follow the law of chastity (I'm ignoring the can of worms that follows that rule). But they might continue to ban homosexuals from church scouting troops.

I don't grasp how it makes sense to let an out and proud homosexual serve say in the deacon's quorum, and pass the sacrament, but he can't also attend scouting activities with his fellow deacons.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
It doesn't, but the reasoning if growing less and less acceptable to express publicly is still pretty well known. In fact, if I'm not mistaken for a long time in the BSA's so-called 'Perversion Files', consensual adult homosexual behavior was included.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
I believe the reasoning in the past was that the BSA had a organization wide policy, so the church was in compliance with it. With the BSA now possibly making it troop specific, I really can't see how the church could argue its troops will continue to enforce that ban.

At least, that's where I'm at right now.
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
 
S.L. council: Boy Scouts should uphold no-gays policy

I know they aren't a mouthpiece for the church, but this is the way things are going in their home town.
 
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
 
Why don't Mormons just get out of the scouts and run their own mormon-theology-OK'ed camping group? They can exclude the queers all they like then. I don't want them bringing the scouts along with them.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Parkour:
Why don't Mormons just get out of the scouts and run their own mormon-theology-OK'ed camping group? They can exclude the queers all they like then. I don't want them bringing the scouts along with them.

Because the church and the BSA have a long positive history together, and it's a great program. You don't break things like that off lightly.

Getting my Eagle Scout was one of the proudest moments of my life. I will be sad if my son has to go through an entirely different program, even if it's exactly as hard, and very similar. Traditions are long in the forming, easy in the breaking.
 
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
 
I guess. And if the church sticks with the scouts, and the scouts change not to have a homophobic policy, that just adds another point where they are being pressured to change.
 
Posted by Tittles (Member # 12939) on :
 
I think it's pretty obvious how this is going to end. The rest of the country is going to stop picking on gay people, and about ten to fifteen years later a very important Mormon will hear a voice in his or her(haha just kidding) head that says that they should also stop picking on the gays. And all will be well and missionaries can finally start making inroads in Gayistan.
 
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
 
Tuesday, before this postponement of a decision, my wife as a Boy Scout leader went to the district meeting. Out troop is out of a local VFW hall, so there is no heavy Religious requirements. A discussion with in the troop concluded that we would accept any gay scouts as the churches could not, and remain faithful to their church. Unfortunately at the district meeting, where all the troops from the area met, the overwhelming majority of leaders--from various churches--wanted the district as a whole to ban any gay scout or leader. It was a bit sad.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tittles:
I think it's pretty obvious how this is going to end. The rest of the country is going to stop picking on gay people, and about ten to fifteen years later a very important Mormon will hear a voice in his or her(haha just kidding) head that says that they should also stop picking on the gays. And all will be well and missionaries can finally start making inroads in Gayistan.

Tittles: I'm not especially impressed with how frequently you mock things on this board.

I would advise you change your post of your own volition, before I do it for you. Many people have expressed similar feelings on this topic, without resorting to being offensive.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Parkour:
I guess. And if the church sticks with the scouts, and the scouts change not to have a homophobic policy, that just adds another point where they are being pressured to change.

I don't see how that's a bad thing. If accepting homosexuals in this way is a good thing, then pressure on the church to adhere to that principle is a good thing.
 
Posted by Phillyn (Member # 12597) on :
 
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865572421/Boy-Scout-board-delays-decision-on-gay-Scouts-leaders.html
Interesting, particularly the stuff about not speculating what the church's position is/should be.
 
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Darth_Mauve:
A discussion with in the troop concluded that we would accept any gay scouts as the churches could not, and remain faithful to their church.

This is not true for many churches.
 
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
What is going to happen when there are some glaring incidents involving pedophilia in the new gay-tolerant Boy Scouts? Will there be a great effort to sweep it under the rug? Or will we have a round of exposés like we have been having with Catholic priests for the past three decades?

I always thought that the Roman Catholic Church was asking for it by holding to its tradition of celibacy for the priesthood, especially since it demonstrably goes against the explicit teaching of Scripture that elders, bishops, and other church leaders should each be "the husband of one wife." But likewise now the Boy Scouts. You would think common sense would count for something. Must whatever is currently deemed "PC" overthrow everything else? Is society that stupid?
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
I wouldn't normally start a conversation this harshly even with you, Ron, but since you promptly brought pedophilia into it and labeled those who dispute you stupid, I'll have at it!

If you knew a tinker's damn about the Boy Scouts of America and troubles with sex scandals-and I say that as someone who very much enjoyed it and am proud of my time in it-you would know that sex scandals are hardly a new territory for the organization. Not unlike many an institution, for some strange reason, which deals so much with adults interacting with children and young people.

Second, your likening of consenting adult homosexuality to pedophilia is stupid and offensive and would do you shame if you had any on these topics.

Third, even as a strictly logical exercise, your comparison is deeply stupid and showcases just how disconnected and irrational your thinking is on this topic. The BSA is not considering allowing homosexual membership of homosexual men and requiring their celibacy, you silly man, and so the comparison between potentially homosexual troop leaders and mandated-by-the-church celibate priests doesn't hold water any better than a colander.

There we go, that about does it. I'll take the whistle if anyone gives it, and I'll stand by my words. Bigoted, homophobic attitudes such as yours cannot be held up to the light and exposed as laughable too soon, and one of the many good aspects of this story is the way in which people such as yourselves are so eager to help it be done.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
What is going to happen when there are some glaring incidents involving pedophilia in the new gay-tolerant Boy Scouts? Will there be a great effort to sweep it under the rug?

And how would be different from what currently happens?

Plus, what Rakeesh wrote.
 
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
What is going to happen when there are some glaring incidents involving pedophilia in the new gay-tolerant Boy Scouts? Will there be a great effort to sweep it under the rug?

And how would be different from what currently happens?

Plus, what Rakeesh wrote.

The roles will be switched. Different people will be doing the sweeping and the conservatives will be outraged. There will also be complaints about MSM bias.

Other than that the outcome will probably be about the same.
 
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
Rakeesh, I don't think that is harsh by half. Good job expressing some of the points I wanted to make, in a less harsh manner that I was tempted to use.


Ron.....keep posting please. You own posts and predictions are by far a better example of why rational people should disagree with you than any stand-alone argument I could make myself.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
The roles will be switched. Different people will be doing the sweeping and the conservatives will be outraged. There will also be complaints about MSM bias.

Other than that the outcome will probably be about the same.

About the same? Because attitudes about sexual abuse by members of trusted institutions charged with the welfare of children has remained about the same?
 
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:
The roles will be switched. Different people will be doing the sweeping and the conservatives will be outraged. There will also be complaints about MSM bias.

Other than that the outcome will probably be about the same.

About the same? Because attitudes about sexual abuse by members of trusted institutions charged with the welfare of children has remained about the same?
Sorry, I don't follow...
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
In the last couple of generations or so our attitude towards the problem of sexual abuse of children has begun to change pretty dramatically from what it had been before, I think you'll agree, yes? Still a long ways to go but we're at least just about done (at least I hope) with the notion that it simply doesn't happen and that the scandal is more important than the crime. At least, almost done in terms of the pace of social change.

Anyway, so attitudes about sexual abuse of children and young people has been changing, quite a bit. Given that, why would it be likely that reaction to openly homosexual* troop leaders victimizing Scouts would be mostly the same as the reaction has been historically?

There hasn't *been* much public reaction historically, period.

*Which, again, the supposed equivalence between homosexuality and pedophilia. Odd how when a man molests a young girl, it's not a story of 'heterosexual man molests child'.
 
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
 
I think there is a disconnect here.

I was just pointing out that currently, when there is a sexual abuse by a heterosexual male in the BSA liberals are scandalized and outraged while conservatives try to downplay or sweep it under the rug.

When gays are allowed to be leaders again and a gay man abuses a kid conservatives will be outraged while liberals try to downplay or sweep it under the rug.

I think you read too much into it.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
When gays are allowed to be leaders again and a gay man abuses a kid conservatives will be outraged while liberals try to downplay or sweep it under the rug.
Why do you think so? I'm not aware of many liberals who're downplaying the sexual abuse committed by homosexual priests in the Catholic church.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
I think he's saying that liberals, as supporters of homosexuals or their agenda or whatever, will be eager to minimize the scandal when it happens as it will over time, as conservatives are willing sometimes to do with priests.

Of course the truth is it's quite a lot more complicated than that, but we're on this topic now because of Ron's amusing irrational and homophobic rant. But to stay on that topic, it's no longer politically acceptable to attempt to downplay child abuse scandals. It's politically suicidal on the one hand, and on the other it's advantageous to be tough on the matter.

Now what I'm certain WILL happen is that there will be scandals that break, which will be blamed on homosexuals, equating them to pedophiles. Those will be objected to, and strongly, by many liberals and even moderates since thankfully it is becoming clear to everyone over time just how stupid and wicked that argument is.
 
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
 
Yeah it was meant to be a tongue in cheek jab at hypocrisy. Then it crashed and burned.
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
My big problem with the BSA not wanting gay people* in the troops is that no one knows whether or not they are gay when they first sign up for scouts.

*or atheists
 
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
My point was perfectly reasonable, despite the hysterical bile Rakeesh habitually pours out. Where would a homosexual man most like to have free entry, if not to the Boy Scouts? If there are scandals involving pedophilia already, when gays are not openly welcomed into BSA leadership, what must inevitably happen when all restraints are removed?

The comparison I made to priests being convicted of pedophilia is exactly to the point. What connection are you unable to make?

It has been said that the ability to draw valid analogies and recognize them is one of the hallmark indicators of high intelligence. Too bad that Rakeesh (and Kwea, et. al.) evidently fall so far short.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
Ron: There is no link between pedophilia and homosexuality. The BSA could have a policy of *only* homosexuals can be scout masters, and instances of pedophilia would not change because of it.
 
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Ron: There is no link between pedophilia and homosexuality. The BSA could have a policy of *only* homosexuals can be scout masters, and instances of pedophilia would not change because of it.

So from everything I've found this is true, but it also seems a little disingenuous to me. I've always thought pedophilia had to do with little children. It turns out that it is children under 11 or some say 13 according to the wikipedia article.

So those who are arguing against homosexuals are thinking of much more developed teenagers (i.e. 13-18) and thinking in their mind that well of course homosexuals are more likely to be attracted to them. Then the opposition comes along and says homosexuals are no more likely to have pedophilia than the average person except attraction to 13-18 year olds isn't pedophilia.

For the record I lean towards ending the ban but it seems a little disingenuous to me.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
My point was perfectly reasonable, despite the hysterical bile Rakeesh habitually pours out. Where would a homosexual man most like to have free entry, if not to the Boy Scouts? If there are scandals involving pedophilia already, when gays are not openly welcomed into BSA leadership, what must inevitably happen when all restraints are removed?
Alright, try and follow along with me: pedophiles are much, more more 'closeted' than homosexuals. Pedophilia is a vastly riskier and more dangerous (if caught) behavior than homosexuality. So, what, you think the BSA will just be able to screen out pedophiles because of screening out openly gay behavior?

Your argument is, it comes as no surprise, profoundly foolish. Homosexuals aren't pedophiles, despite your shamefully ignorant direct comparison. Get thee to Westboro.

quote:
The comparison I made to priests being convicted of pedophilia is exactly to the point. What connection are you unable to make?
You discussed *celibate* priests, not just priests. That (and other reasons) is why your objections were offensive and foolish. The lift in the ban wouldn't just permit celibate homosexuals.

quote:
It has been said that the ability to draw valid analogies and recognize them is one of the hallmark indicators of high intelligence. Too bad that Rakeesh (and Kwea, et. al.) evidently fall so far short.
Even if i and others hadn't demonstrated how deeply, hopelessly flawed your analagies were...oh. Called me stupid again. Ouch! You didn't do so by presenting reasoned arguments, though-you simply reiterated your initial ignorance and asserted it was true, clearly.

Again: enjoy your rapidly shrinking market share of the American cultural experience. Continue to proudly speak out your laughably ignorant homophobia, since it shames the moderate towards your end of the spectrum into silence, lest they become figures of fun as well.

And while you're at it, could you make some more predictions and then when they are proven false, lie about it?
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by stilesbn:
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Ron: There is no link between pedophilia and homosexuality. The BSA could have a policy of *only* homosexuals can be scout masters, and instances of pedophilia would not change because of it.

So from everything I've found this is true, but it also seems a little disingenuous to me. I've always thought pedophilia had to do with little children. It turns out that it is children under 11 or some say 13 according to the wikipedia article.

So those who are arguing against homosexuals are thinking of much more developed teenagers (i.e. 13-18) and thinking in their mind that well of course homosexuals are more likely to be attracted to them. Then the opposition comes along and says homosexuals are no more likely to have pedophilia than the average person except attraction to 13-18 year olds isn't pedophilia.

For the record I lean towards ending the ban but it seems a little disingenuous to me.

Heterosexual relationships between adults and 13-17 year old children are already illegal. We call it statutory rape. Scouts can't earn their Eagle Scout once they are older than 18. So...I guess there is that one year of super vulnerability where we will have to do something like say pass a rule that forbids scout masters from having relationships with their scouts. Wait we already have that too.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
So those who are arguing against homosexuals are thinking of much more developed teenagers (i.e. 13-18) and thinking in their mind that well of course homosexuals are more likely to be attracted to them. Then the opposition comes along and says homosexuals are no more likely to have pedophilia than the average person except attraction to 13-18 year olds isn't pedophilia.

There might be something to this, but stiles, to ask a candid question in hopes of a precise answer: in your opinion, are the arguments against permitting open* homosexuals into the BSA really that nuanced? Are the arguments in your experience commonly so statistical? That is to say, when you hear people speaking against homosexuals in the BSA, is it because they say 'well people of any sexual preference will have a range of ages and physical developments they will be sexually attracted to, and in any population there will be some for whom the attraction exists for more youthful members of their gender preference. Therefore, by permitting homosexuals into the BSA, we will be increasing the pool of people which necessarily increases, through no additional deviance on the part of the pool, who are attracted to younger people?'

Or in your experience are the arguments not much more often open or subtle direct links between homosexuals and pedophiles, such as we have here with Ron?

*Open, how galling. Heterosexuals are never 'openly' heterosexual.

[ February 08, 2013, 10:50 PM: Message edited by: Rakeesh ]
 
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:
Originally posted by stilesbn:
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Ron: There is no link between pedophilia and homosexuality. The BSA could have a policy of *only* homosexuals can be scout masters, and instances of pedophilia would not change because of it.

So from everything I've found this is true, but it also seems a little disingenuous to me. I've always thought pedophilia had to do with little children. It turns out that it is children under 11 or some say 13 according to the wikipedia article.

So those who are arguing against homosexuals are thinking of much more developed teenagers (i.e. 13-18) and thinking in their mind that well of course homosexuals are more likely to be attracted to them. Then the opposition comes along and says homosexuals are no more likely to have pedophilia than the average person except attraction to 13-18 year olds isn't pedophilia.

For the record I lean towards ending the ban but it seems a little disingenuous to me.

Heterosexual relationships between adults and 13-17 year old children are already illegal. We call it statutory rape. Scouts can't earn their Eagle Scout once they are older than 18. So...I guess there is that one year of super vulnerability where we will have to do something like say pass a rule that forbids scout masters from having relationships with their scouts. Wait we already have that too.
I don't see how this addresses anything. Pedophilia (or acting on it) is illegal too.

So what you are saying is that since statistics say homosexuals are no more likely to be attracted to 0-11 year olds than heterosexuals they will not have any attraction to 13-18 year olds.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
Why do you feel homosexuals would be more attracted to a 17 year old boy, than a heterosexual male would be attracted to a 17 year old female?

I mean, yes it's ultimately going to happen. There absolutely will be a gay scout master who will misuse their relationship of authority and seduce a boy. I suspect it will likely be at the same rate male teachers have sex with their female students in high schools.
 
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Why do you feel homosexuals would be more attracted to a 17 year old boy, than a heterosexual male would be attracted to a 17 year old female?

I feel that a homosexual will be exactly as attracted to a 17 year old boy as a heterosexual male would be attracted to a 17 year old female.

I just reread your post and I'm conflating your argument with other arguments I've seen. You were addressing pedophilia only because Ron brought it up. So in fact you didn't conflate the two.

What I find disingenuous is when someone says they don't want their 15/16/17 year old son camping with a gay leader and the counter argument is that gay people are pedophiles so they won't be more attracted to the kid than a heterosexual man. To me that counter argument is invalid.

A valid argument would be that the BSA has 2 leader rules in place to avoid that.

Do you think that homosexual men will not be more attracted to teenagers than heterosexual men?
 
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
I mean, yes it's ultimately going to happen. There absolutely will be a gay scout master who will misuse their relationship of authority and seduce a boy. I suspect it will likely be at the same rate male teachers have sex with their female students in high schools.

On a side not it seems that every occurrence of teacher to student sex scandal that I've seen in the last 4 or 5 years has been female teacher with male student. Just throwing that anecdote out there.
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
Will that many gay men lead scouts? I assume leaders happen in two ways: lifelong scouts go on to become leaders or parents take on the role of leader because someone needs to. Both of those categories can include gay men, and I would be inclined to trust a parent, or someone who has been a scout nearly forever.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by stilesbn:
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
I mean, yes it's ultimately going to happen. There absolutely will be a gay scout master who will misuse their relationship of authority and seduce a boy. I suspect it will likely be at the same rate male teachers have sex with their female students in high schools.

On a side not it seems that every occurrence of teacher to student sex scandal that I've seen in the last 4 or 5 years has been female teacher with male student. Just throwing that anecdote out there.
One of my teachers was dismissed from school for soliciting a female student for sex.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
Where would a homosexual man most like to have free entry, if not to the Boy Scouts?

The Catholic church I would have thought does a better job of cover-up, protection, and relocation.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Centuries of practice.
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
Throwing another thing out there: the Boy Scouts don't have the same incentives to cover up child abuse as Catholic churches or universities with creepy football coaches. While individual leaders are useful assets, no one leader controls hundreds of members who could lead the flock, they aren't anointed as representatives of God, nor do they pull in irreplaceable amounts of dollars as an individual.
 
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:
Originally posted by stilesbn:
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
I mean, yes it's ultimately going to happen. There absolutely will be a gay scout master who will misuse their relationship of authority and seduce a boy. I suspect it will likely be at the same rate male teachers have sex with their female students in high schools.

On a side not it seems that every occurrence of teacher to student sex scandal that I've seen in the last 4 or 5 years has been female teacher with male student. Just throwing that anecdote out there.
One of my teachers was dismissed from school for soliciting a female student for sex.
Recently when I was chatting with an old friend from high school she mentioned that our science teacher hit on her friend the summer after graduation. To my knowledge he probably still teaches and coaches girls volleyball. Perhaps the creepiest detail of all is that he was young fit and social, add the social prestige of his profession and education and there is no reason why he would resort to hitting on a petite eighteen year old.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
My point was perfectly reasonable, despite the hysterical bile Rakeesh habitually pours out. Where would a homosexual man most like to have free entry, if not to the Boy Scouts? If there are scandals involving pedophilia already, when gays are not openly welcomed into BSA leadership, what must inevitably happen when all restraints are removed?

The comparison I made to priests being convicted of pedophilia is exactly to the point. What connection are you unable to make?

It has been said that the ability to draw valid analogies and recognize them is one of the hallmark indicators of high intelligence. Too bad that Rakeesh (and Kwea, et. al.) evidently fall so far short.

My point was perfectly reasonable, despite the hysterical bile Rakeesh habitually pours out. Where would a black man most like to have free entry, if not to the Boy Scouts? If there are already issues with theft already, when blacks are not openly welcomed into BSA leadership, what must inevitably happen when all restraints are removed?

It has been said that the ability to draw terrible, homophobic analogies and not recognize them or what they are actually saying is one of the hallmark indicators of being Ron Lambert. Too bad that Rakeesh (and Kwea, et. al.) evidently fall so far short.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
Just so that the point isn't lost on you as easily as usual, Ron, just to make sure that we understand that I am saying about your reasoning why the gays shouldn't be allowed to be in the boy scouts is because keeping them out protects children from pedophiles.

It is a line of reasoning about as offensive and bogus as if you had said "the blacks shouldn't be openly allowed to participate in the boy scouts because it will protect them from criminal activity." You could draw up superficial trend comparisons and say that because blacks are on average more associated (somehow, doesn't matter if we're talking about valid statistics here, we're talking bigotry) with a bad thing that their exclusion apparently protects us from.

It is literally as offensive, bigoted, and horrific a thing in either form, and it relies on catches of bigotry and homophobia that haven't caught up with how readily we admonish and dismiss the same offensive statements when it comes to race.
 
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
It would interest me to know stats on non-closeted gay men an pedophilia because my gut says that non-closeted gay men would actually be less likely to be pedophiliacs compared to straight men. If you have examined your sexuality and openly declared yourself to be outside te mainstream, it seems unlikely that you would then be hiding your real sexual interest. If you are going to hide yourself, why not pretend you are mainstream?
 
Posted by Misha McBride (Member # 6578) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kwea:
Rakeesh, I don't think that is harsh by half. Good job expressing some of the points I wanted to make, in a less harsh manner that I was tempted to use.

Agreeing with this and I have nothing to add, because if I did it would get my post whistled. That post of Ron's gave me a rage headache.
 


Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2