Tod Zudenrich

What are peoples' thoughts on this:

http://purdueexponent.org/?module=article&story_id=7344

Since when do private groups like the Boy Scouts have to admit people whose personal lives or beliefs conflict with the fundamental principles of said groups? Religion is an important part of being a scout - it's not the ONLY part of being a scout, but I don't understand why an atheist would want to join an organization which has always emphasized the importance of religious faith. As for the homosexuality thing, I know a lot of parents who don't want openly gay scout leaders because they believe this will have a negative effect on the morals of younger scouts. Others are worried about predatory child molester types. I don't know. I believe homosexuality is immoral, my parents and my church taught me that it's immoral, and so I know they wouldn't have wanted me to join the scouts if my scout leader were a man who was openly and unapologetically committed to a lifestyle they (and I) find morally repugnant. Parents have a right to protect their children from negative influences. If they're going to allow gay scout leaders, they might as well allow little kids to watch R rated movies in the theaters. Just my opinion.

Also, this guy seems to overlook the fact that United Way contributes to a LOT of groups, not just the Boy Scouts. A lot of these groups do very good things. Seems like he's trying to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

xero

Sloothaak is a dick, and he's been sending this same letter every year for the past 3 years. He's a guy in his 30s who has achieved the mighty rank of 'Departmental Aide' and resides in the basement of the Physics building.

So really, he has nothing better to do with his time.

__________________
Ron Paul for president in '08

Tod Zudenrich

LOL. That doesn't surprise me. Seriously, though, I have a feeling this guy was never in the scouts. If he was, he'd realize how difficult it would be for BSA to stay alive if they changed their policies about homosexuals and atheists. BSA is a vital American institution; it would be a tragedy if it fell apart because of obsessive civil libertarian types.

By the way, "Sloothaak" sounds like the name of a villain from Star Wars or Harry Potter or something. (Sorry, I'm a dork.)

Mothrog

There's actually good reason for it in this case. Purdue had actually been forcing some employees to aid the United Way campaign. When Sloothaak tried to protest that and the unversity's support of United Way, he almost lost his job. I don't blame him.

map

I see nothing wrong with his letter.

__________________
They say to live everyday like it's your last. So why the hell did I go to class today?

kamikaze21

since when has tieing random knots they will never use, and building fires two twigs an essential American institution.

PwrRngr

I got an idea, how about you think before you say something. That's not the main thing BSA teaches kids. You can dumb down anything to that level if you want to.....

Since when has gathering 40,000 young adults together so they can get drunk and party ever help our nation? Oh wait, I'm sure college has another purpose....I think

agorzals

Kamikaze never thinks.

xero

I'm pretty sure Purdue employees can opt out of the United Way donations.

__________________
Ron Paul for president in '08

Mothrog

I'm not talking about donations.

SeaWolf

Can't spell either...


and even forgets words sometimes, and correct punctuation.

Its the engineers who suck at English, though.

kamikaze21

yes, I just like to bust your little minded conservative minds here. I was in conservative hell while at Purdue and now I am in liberal paradise in Ann Arbor.
I save my thinking when for when it matters when I am in my lab.

I was in boy scouts up until I hit the seventh grade, when I quit because I thought the entire organization was gay as fuck. It took up too much of my time doing stupid crap like knot tying, camping, and getting other stupid little merit badges. The physical requirements were a joke and were the main reason I quit to focus on playing hockey and track and field. You should have seen my scout masters face when I told him i quit to join my town's travel hockey team.

kamikaze21

getting drunk is alot more fun than 30 young boys and a couple older men getting together in the woods. Sounds like a NAMBLA meeting to me.

CoolHandLuke

Now THAT is gayer than any Boy Scout event I ever attended.

Must be that liberal paradise in West Detroit...

whimdriven

I date an Eagle Scout. He USES all those knots.

Just saying.

PwrRngr

Kamakaze is a moron. If he doesn't understand something it's automatically a conservative mindset. I just don't see how being a conservative or a liberal matters at all in this conversation. Also, I'm sure when you quit in the 7th grade your main goal was to "see the look on your scout masters face." We're talking 7th grade! I bet you didn't even tell him you quit. You prolly stopped going or had your parents tell him.

Tod Zudenrich

I still am in the boy scouts even though I am in college. Furthermore, when I was in high school I had no problem balancing sports and other extracurricular activities with my participation in BSA. It's obvious you didn't spend very much time in the scouts, as scouts learn a lot more than just how to tie knots and camp. I think the most important things a scout learns are moral rather than practical. Surely you remember the boy scout oath? Since when is it a bad thing to teach young boys to be respectful, honest, loyal, patriotic, etc.?

ides

I think the point of the letter was to illuminate the hypocrisy of the university in its simultaneous support for discriminatory organizations and equal rights. The author seemed most upset about the fact that the university (a publicly-supported institution) is using its resources to support organizations that discriminate against certain segments of the public (here, atheists and gays).

I agree in principle that private organizations are entitled to be selective in their membership. I also understand where you're coming from with the line: "I don't understand why an atheist would want to join an organization which has always emphasized the importance of religious faith." Personally, I don't see why anyone, atheist, gay or otherwise, would want to be part (or have their kids be a part) of a discriminatory organization that doesn't seem all that useful in the first place. But that's beside the point.

However, we're not talking about private discrimination here; the BSA and United Way are both getting support from public institutions. This means that we (the tax payers) are being forced to support them indirectly. This matters not just because some of us disagree with these organizations, as taxpayers are forced to pay for things they might disagree with all the time (the military, public education, congress, etc), but these things are in principle open to all citizens on an equal basis. The BSA and such organizations are not.

As for your position on gays, how are any of these statements morally distinguishable from other forms of bigotry in centuries past that we now decry as intolerable affronts to human dignity and civilized society?

"I know a lot of parents who don't want openly gay scout leaders because they believe this will have a negative effect on the morals of younger scouts."

Think about how this would sound if you replaced "openly gay" with "jewish" or "black" or "Catholic" or "Muslim".

"Others are worried about predatory child molester types."

What evidence is there to suggest that homosexual men are more likely to abuse children that straight men?

"I believe homosexuality is immoral, my parents and my church taught me that it's immoral"

But what is the basis for these teachings? Do they ever explain why its immoral? Who does it harm? How does it hurt society?

If the only basis for this belief is the Bible, then you should really take another look at the situation. The Bible is a great and culturally significant book, with a lot of good stuff between its covers (especially from that Jesus fellow with the love and forgiveness messages). But there are also a lot of terrible things, most of which modern readers ignore and recognize as relics of an obsolete moral code which said slavery was OK, women were subordinate to men, and people who work on Sunday should be stoned to death. The idea that 'homosexuality is an abomination' is just another one of these relics that some of us haven't tossed aside yet.

ccb056

This whole argument boils down to the taxpayers not wanting their money to go to something they don't like.

Well, I've got a solution, stop making people pay taxes.

__________________
- Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.

ides

Not really, as I mentioned above it is not that people shouldn't have to pay for things they don't like (we really need a military, and public education, and yes even congress serves a purpose). Rather, the point is that public money should be used to the reasonably equal benefit and use of the public and society. Putting public resources toward organizations that actively exclude significant portions of the public is unacceptable from this standpoint.

ccb056

So, using public money to pay the unemployed is unacceptable because less than 5% of the population is unemployed.

I like you logic ides. Let's get rid of social security and welfare.

__________________
- Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.

ides

Haha, well I'm glad you like my logic.

But I think you might be misinterpreting what I mean by 'significant' (if I understand your post correctly). I do not mean to imply that to be eligible for consideration in our society a group needs a majority (> 50% of the population) or a plurality (the most numerous group, but < 50%). I would certainly consider 5% (or .5% even) to be significant. By significant I meant a group of people in society with meaningful concerns, not just a tiny group of contrarians or a individuals in special circumstances that cannot be dealt with broadly.

ccb056

Your notion of significant is retarded.

__________________
- Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.

ides

What a well-reasoned and thoughtful response.

I submit that your radically Libertarian political ideology might be coloring your view of my statments.

Dictionary definition of significant:

1.important; of consequence. 2.having or expressing a meaning; indicative; suggestive: a significant wink.
I think the 'notion' I outlined above was more or less consistant with #1, if not #2.