Hello, Alan:
As one of the people who chastised the Boy Scouts, I
have to admit we agree on several points. Everyone
discriminates and every agenda has its exclusionary
aspects. If we were to apply the inclusiveness litmus
test fairly to every group, we'd conclude that either
all or no programs should receive public funds.
Either people would vote privately with their own
money, or we'd all agree to disagree. Since neither
of these options will become the norm any day soon, we
are left to struggle with relative norms.
However, I do not see opposition to current BSA policy
as a PC uprising. I can't buy into the BSA's claim
that being gay is un-Christian (or that being an
atheist is immoral, but that's another debate). If
more and more modern Christian scholars can make room
for gay Christians, then I'd be inclined to think that
the BSA's moral concern over homosexuality is more
likely a cultural choice based in misguided stereotype
rather than a religious choice based in faith. I'd
still disagree with faith-based homophobia, but at
least they'd have an alibi then.
We can also agree that reverse discrimination is an
equally damaging problem: tolerance should extend in
all directions. The Girl Scouts can agree to
disagree, i.e., they choose not to divide members on
issues of faith and sexual preference. But BSA
leadership chooses to stick to its message without
reconsidering what stands behind it. And that's where
my tolerance for the BSA as a publically supported
group ends. I'll still see Boy Scouts as basically
good kids doing basically good things, but I also hope
each council will reconsider the thinking behind its
mission.
- Dana Bacon
Hale neighborhood
--- Alan Shilepsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Political correctness reigns surpreme in
> Minneapolis, as everyone piles
> on the Boy Scouts. Even Nazi references have come
> up! Really. And a
> mother whose children have benefited from Scout
> participation will cut
> the Scouts off from public resources--resources that
> are more and more
> important now because taxes and government mandates
> consume so much of
> our national income.
>
> I suppose people would prefer we close down the
> Scouts until they think
> exactly like us. Maybe it would be better for our
> kids to stay home and
> build their characters by watching WWF.
>
> (Gay teenagers as well as straight could lose--the
> Scouts take all. As
> I understand it the no-gay policy only pertains to
> adult leadership.)
>
> The thing about this firestorm of outrage that
> bothers me is the
> unsymmetric response of the PC'ers to other
> exclusionary messages that
> are broadcast in out society. Am I the only one who
> hears and is
> concerned about the "identity studies" professors
> who promote
> victimization and anger (if not hatred) to their
> students. Two weeks
> ago I was preached to that this country is morally
> corrupted (beyond
> peaceful redepmtion?) because of its sexism and
> racism. I wonder where
> the idyllic utopia is that these people are
> comparing us to.
>
> You pick up the identity press and see columns that,
> if you exchanged
> "white" and "black", or "men" and "woman", you would
> demand they be
> pulled out of the free paper bins at the libraries,
> schools, and
> Capitol. (Hate speech. Hostile environment.) But
> promoting anger
> against white males and American history is
> progressive.
>
> No, I don't subscribe to the self-serving, morally
> and intellectually
> bankrupt idea that only whites can be racists and
> males sexist. I
> believe in ethical symmetry--what is good for the
> goose is good for the
> gander (sorry about sexual reference in that
> aphorism)--and that power
> relationships are ever changing and very contextual.
>
>
> If you turn to the back of some of the identity
> newspapers you will see
> that they are supported by public money in the form
> of public agency
> advertising. I doubt that Hennepin County
> advertises for employees alot
> in newspapers written by morally-conservative
> Christians.
>
> I am saddened by the intellectual blindness and
> disproportate unfairness
> exhibited by the piling onto a worthwhile
> organization. It all smacks
> of group think, and of a totalitarian expectation
> that you must agree
> with the shunning or be the next target of the
> righteous mob.
>
> What Welch said to McCarthy in '54 applies to some
> of the current
> posts--"have you no shame."
>
> Alan Shilepsky
> Downtown
> Who has probably been discriminated against at
> times, but also does not
> expect public coersion--law--to make people like him
> or even always
> treat him fairly. Which is why he hates to see
> coersive power
> concentrated. The Founders had the right idea.
>
> And by the way--how different is the Scouts policy
> from Clinton's "don't
> ask, don't tell." I don't remember Minneapolis
> PC'ers cutting off
> Clinton in the 1996 elections.
>
>
>
>
> >
> > Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 18:24:30 EDT
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Boy Scouts
> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > I never heard anyone demanding restrictions on the
> Boy Scouts until they
> > went all the way to the Supreme Court in order to
> ban 10 percent of the
> > population from its ranks. And I don't hear anyone
> wanting to "erase" the
> > Scouts. Let them go about their nasty business; I
> just don't want my property
> > tax dollars legitimizing their bigotry.
> > But the Boy Scouts issue is an easy one. How do
> people feel about DARE in
> > the Minneapolis public schools?
> >
> > Britt Robson
> > Lyndale
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > End of MPLS-ISSUES Digest 805
> > *****************************
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos - 35mm Quality Prints, Now Get 15 Free!
http://photos.yahoo.com/
