Israeli vs American pluralism

[sharonbn]

Atheist Scout given a week to declare belief

PORT ORCHARD, Washington (AP) -- Eagle Scout Darrell Lambert has earned 37 merit badges, worked more than 1,000 hours of community service and helps lead a Boy Scout troop in his hometown.

But the 19-year-old has another distinction that may lead to his removal from the Boy Scouts: He's an atheist.

[...]
On membership applications, Boy Scouts and adult leaders must say they recognize some higher power, not necessarily religious. "Mother Nature would be acceptable," Farmer said.

As a private organization, the Boy Scouts are permitted to exclude certain people from membership. The organization bans gays and atheists.

--- end of qoute ---

I was in Isaeli boy scouts for four years. I never heard of such a discriminatory policy in Israel youth organizations (or any other non religious organization for that matter.)

Moreover, the article states that American private organizations are allowed to declare and enforce a discriminatory policy. In Israel, such a policy is illegal by law and owners and leaders of such an organization are exposed to criminal and civil charges.

... and remember, Israel does not have a constitution...

[Miriam]

I don't know about the US, where I am now, any explicitly religious organisation, including youth groups, may demand proof of religious affiliation from its members (I guess you wouldn't have qualified for membership in some Haredi institution, would you? ). It would normally hinge on whether or not it receives aid from public funds and has a social function: for example, state-subsidized Catholic-run kindergardens must accept non-Catholic children. The bizarre aspect of this story is IMO the acceptable declaration of faith, such as "Mother Nature"

[Mediocrates]

No in the US it winds up in court predicated on religion's freedom to impose whatever values it wishes. This is how the Boy Scouts attempted to remove a Gay scout master - on the basis that being Gay flies violates the religious tenets in part that the organization is founded.

So they won't ask you if you believe - but if you're behavior contradicts that then they can take action.

[sharonbn]

Originally posted by Miriam
I don't know about the US, where I am now, any explicitly religious organisation, including youth groups, may demand proof of religious affiliation from its members (I guess you wouldn't have qualified for membership in some Haredi institution, would you? )

Well, we are talking here about Boy Scouts, not "some haredi institution". In Israel (and I believe worldwide as well) boy scouts organization is not affiliated with any specific religion.

It sould also teach youth the virtues of tolerance and pluralism - which is hardly the case here.

[sharonbn]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
So they won't ask you if you believe - but if you're behavior contradicts that then they can take action.

Well, Mediocrates, you need to re-read the article. This case is about a boy who is a role model boy scout in his behaviour.
The sole demand from him is a statement - not an action or cease thereof.

[minusthejihad]

Well, talking about the differences between America and Israel:

Maybe in Israel, it is a different honor or pupose to be involved in the Boy Scouts.

But in America, most people (excluding middle American dimwits that follow outdated traditions) think that the Boy Scouts are a bunch of pansies WITH a religious affiliation (mostly Christian - don't ask me what sects). There was actually a law introduced in California recently, restricting government funds to the Boy Scouts BECAUSE of their religious affiliation and requirements (Seperaion of Church and State clause?).

I was in the cub scouts, but about the same time I could have gone out to join the boy scouts, I realized several things:

1. I didn't like saying ANY oathes.
2. I didn't like spending money for friends (ie. my aversion to Fraternities)
3. I thought uniforms were for soldiers and nuns
4. Girls don't like Boy Scouts, girls like Individuals
5. Individuality is compromised within groups such as these
6. Boy Scouts were called pansies and were assaulted for their "righteousness"
7. And my roommate only rememberred how to tie a noose from Boy Scouts
8. Oh, and a lot of Boy scout den leaders turned out to be pedophiles too.

Sharonbn, all I'm saying is that the Boy Scouts in Israel probably have a more honorable dimension or belief system than here. we don't have to serve in the army and it allows us to have more of an aversion to joining groups. Plus, the Boy Scouts in Israel are probably comprised of mostly Jews anyway, hence no need for a religious oath. Jews always seem a little bit more tolerant anyway.

[ibrodsky]

I can't believe the garbage I am reading in this thread.

The Boy Scouts are a private organization. They are free to accept or reject whoever they wish. Unless, of course, you think synagogues should be forced to accept Muslim members who come to use the facilities and eat the food while opposing their core values.

But there's more. The Boy Scouts are founded on a very clear commitment to morality, patriotism, citizenship, and loyalty. One would be hard pressed to think of another organization that is as welcoming to people of all faiths.

The Boy Scouts do not demand members belong to specific faiths. Nor do they even demand members be active in congregations.

The real issue here is that the Boy Scouts demand that their members believe in absolute morality, i.e., that one's actions are judged by a higher authority. You could easily be a deist -- i.e., believe in the concept of a higher authority without belonging to any specific religion -- and be accepted in the Boy Scouts.

What the Boy Scouts oppose are members who openly declare that they don't believe in a higher authority.

I have served in two different Cub Scout Packs (in different cities) and the leaders have always been among the finest people in their communities.

To force them to accept a member that openly opposes their liberal and tolerant definition of faith is, in reality, to support a belligerent and purposely disruptive agenda.

If you reject the Pledge of Allegiance, then the Cub Scouts/Boy Scouts aren't for you. Go do something else and stop trying to impose your values on others.

[sharonbn]

Originally posted by ibrodsky
The Boy Scouts are a private organization. They are free to accept or reject whoever they wish. Unless, of course, you think synagogues should be forced to accept Muslim members who come to use the facilities and eat the food while opposing their core values.

As I said in the first post, in Israel, a private organization that has no affiliation with a specific religion is not allowed to exclude membership based on belief and lifestyle.

Originally posted by ibrodsky
I have served in two different Cub Scout Packs (in different cities) and the leaders have always been among the finest people in their communities.

The article describes the atheist boy scout as "earned 37 merit badges, worked more than 1,000 hours of community service and helps lead a Boy Scout troop in his hometown." I think that qualifies as "among the finest people in their communities."

Originally posted by ibrodsky
To force them to accept a member that openly opposes their liberal and tolerant definition of faith is, in reality, to support a belligerent and purposely disruptive agenda.

Liberal and tolerant? you make me laugh
First of all, atheism is a belief. It is the belief that there is no god and it is no second to other beliefs.
Second, regarding the "liberal" label you put: What about alternative lifestyles? what is this PRIMITIVE approach that excludes gay persons from membership? where are we? in the 19th cent?? This apraoch of discriminatory membership promotes ignorance and hate towards alternative lifestyles.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by sharonbn
As I said in the first post, in Israel, a private organization that has no affiliation with a specific religion is not allowed to exclude membership based on belief and lifestyle.

A bad law. Private organizations should not be required to have their ordinary affairs (membership, budgets, events, and so forth) supervised by government.

What don't you understand about the word "private"?

The article describes the atheist boy scout as "earned 37 merit badges, worked more than 1,000 hours of community service and helps lead a Boy Scout troop in his hometown." I think that qualifies as "among the finest people in their communities."

The issue is not whether he earned merit badges, but whether he met a private group's criteria for membership. You feel that government must determine who can be rejected for membership by a private group. I consider that an extreme and unnecessary form intrusion.

Liberal and tolerant? you make me laugh
First of all, atheism is a belief. It is the belief that there is no god and it is no second to other beliefs.
Second, regarding the "liberal" label you put: What about alternative lifestyles? what is this PRIMITIVE approach that excludes gay persons from membership? where are we? in the 19th cent?? This apraoch of discriminatory membership promotes ignorance and hate towards alternative lifestyles.

Your idea of "liberal and tolerant" is that you get to impose your values on others -- that they are not permitted to form private groups to socialize with like-minded individuals who may not share your values.

You still don't get the basic point. The Boy Scouts are a private group and should not be required to establish membership rules that are to your or anyone else's liking.

Do you think that groups that oppose medical experiments on animals must accept members who support them?

Do you think that when you go out to dinner with friends that I get to tag along and sit at your table? Of course, I will pay for my meal and I am a wonderful dinner table conversationalist. Therefore, you have no case for excluding me -- it doesn't matter that you find me an obnoxious and unwanted guest.

That's right, sharonbn. I oppose laws that persecute people for being gay. But I also oppose laws that require me or others to accept in-your-face gays in our private organizations.

I might also oppose laws that persecute people who have sex with barnyard animals. But does that mean I have to expose my children to people who like to talk about such things?

You don't seem to understand that people who don't share your values also have rights. If I start a club so that I can get together with people who like to read Great Books I shouldn't be forced to admit a bunch of people who read drugstore romance novels. By excluding them, I am not infringing on their rights -- I am simply exercising my rights. But when you insist that I must let them join so that they can change the basic nature and purpose of my private club then you are clearly trampling on my rights.

People are free to start groups for gays and/or atheists. Do you think they should have to accept members who merely come to lecture them about how wrong they are?

[L@mplighterM]

I consider myself an atheist but I can’t deny that something makes the plants grow. I would refer to that something as Mother Nature and all the guy has to do is acknowledge that fact.

[sharonbn]

Originally posted by ibrodsky
A bad law. Private organizations should not be required to have their ordinary affairs (membership, budgets, events, and so forth) supervised by government.
What don't you understand about the word "private"?

Private does not mean you can do whatever you want - this is anarchy.
Democracy defends itself in undemocratic means - first lession in civil studies.
Democratic governments passes rules that restrict the freedom of expression of individuals and groups, so these individuals and groups will not be able to abuse the freedom given to them to inflict pain upon others.

For example,
the KKK is a private group. yet it was outlawed some 50 years ago. Same goes for the rest of the "white power" facsist groups.
What happenned to the word "private" here?

The question is, of course, where do you draw the line between freedom of expression and freedom of organization and protecting democracy from subversive "private" groups. Clearly, In israel the line is drawn on a different place than the US.
As I understand, nazi and racist groups are allowed in the US (or at least were, see the Skokie incident in the 70s.) These groups would be outlawed in Israel - rightfully so, I might add.

Originally posted by ibrodsky
The issue is not whether he earned merit badges, but whether he met a private group's criteria for membership. You feel that government must determine who can be rejected for membership by a private group. I consider that an extreme and unnecessary form intrusion.

The government sets the guidelines as to what is allowed by private groups and what is not. Like I said, otherwise you'd have anarchy, not democracy. I believe the US government acknowledges this threat and poses some restrictions as well. The question is where do you draw the line.

Originally posted by ibrodsky
Your idea of "liberal and tolerant" is that you get to impose your values on others -- that they are not permitted to form private groups to socialize with like-minded individuals who may not share your values.

NO.
if a group of friends meet together "to socialize" they can say whatever they like. However, we are talking about an organization who sees one of its goals as educating young men and women. Education is indeed a matter for fedral and state supervision.
I would like to know that when I send my kid to the boy scouts or any other educational organization - that the state verified that this organization does not promote ignorance and hate towards others.

Originally posted by ibrodsky
Do you think that groups that oppose medical experiments on animals must accept members who support them?

First of all, the law of the coutry regulates what is allowed and what is not.
Second, you are mixing belief with social and political point of view. These are two different things. with different sets of restrictions.
Of course there are restrictions on both issues. but belief is more protected then different political views.

Originally posted by ibrodsky
Do you think that when you go out to dinner with friends that I get to tag along and sit at your table? Of course, I will pay for my meal and I am a wonderful dinner table conversationalist. Therefore, you have no case for excluding me -- it doesn't matter that you find me an obnoxious and unwanted guest.

Please ibrodsky, try to maintain some level of seriousness and rational in the discussion, otherwise it becomes futile.
You know I could answer you on the same stupid level and ask you what do you think if the boy scouts were forcing new recruits to sign a paper saying all atheists and gay persons must be killed on the spot. They are still a private org, right?
Lets keep this discussion dignified and serious.

Originally posted by ibrodsky
That's right, sharonbn. I oppose laws that persecute people for being gay. But I also oppose laws that require me or others to accept in-your-face gays in our private organizations.

I didn't say anything about in-your-face gay. I'm saying such a question should not be asked at all. Boy scouts should be measured according to their contribution to society. gay boy scouts should not be singled out at all.

Originally posted by ibrodsky
I might also oppose laws that persecute people who have sex with barnyard animals. But does that mean I have to expose my children to people who like to talk about such things?

Well, depends what you mean by "talk about". The issue of sexuality is delicate but it should be discussed, because ignorance is worse than the uncomfortable one might feel talking about these issues.
The issue of sexulaity and sexual preferences SHOULD be discussed. IThe discussion should be supervised by teachers and psychologists.

Can you remember a time when no one talked about condoms?

Originally posted by ibrodsky
You don't seem to understand that people who don't share your values also have rights. If I start a club so that I can get together with people who like to read Great Books I shouldn't be forced to admit a bunch of people who read drugstore romance novels. By excluding them, I am not infringing on their rights -- I am simply exercising my rights. But when you insist that I must let them join so that they can change the basic nature and purpose of my private club then you are clearly trampling on my rights.

First of all, we are not talking about my values. they are irrelevant here. I'm talking about the protection of the rights of minorities from ignorance and prejudice (I'm not going to answer the book reading group example. again, you attempt to drag the discussion down)

Maybe this will make my pov clear:
I'm not saying the boy scouts should explicitly allow (or restrict) gay and atheist persons to become members.
I say the boy scouts, as an educating organization, is not allowed to ask its members for their belief and sexual lifestyle. At list not in the context of membership appliance.

Originally posted by ibrodsky
People are free to start groups for gays and/or atheists. Do you think they should have to accept members who merely come to lecture them about how wrong they are?

Aha. So you prefer if there were separate groups for gay, straight and animal-sex persons?
a group that promotes gay interests is NOT allowed to upfront exclude straight persons or persons having sex with animals. They are allowed to be kick out a person if the group finds them harmful for the cause.

[elke]

It seems to me that the courts are the proper venue for decisions on these types of questions.

The fact of the matter is that this is one of those "gray" areas: there are valid arguments that can be made for either accepting this gentleman or not, depending on what is valued more - freedom of association, or freedom from discrimination.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by sharonbn
Private does not mean you can do whatever you want - this is anarchy.
Democracy defends itself in undemocratic means - first lession in civil studies.
Democratic governments passes rules that restrict the freedom of expression of individuals and groups, so these individuals and groups will not be able to abuse the freedom given to them to inflict pain upon others.

No, you are confusing two unrelated issues. We are not talking about "doing whatever you want." We are talking about private parties making private decisions.

For example,
the KKK is a private group. yet it was outlawed some 50 years ago. Same goes for the rest of the "white power" facsist groups.
What happenned to the word "private" here?

Again, you are confusing two issues. Paramilitary groups may be banned because they promote and perpetrate violence -- not because they refuse to admit Jews, Catholics, or blacks.

The question is, of course, where do you draw the line between freedom of expression and freedom of organization and protecting democracy from subversive "private" groups. Clearly, In israel the line is drawn on a different place than the US.
As I understand, nazi and racist groups are allowed in the US (or at least were, see the Skokie incident in the 70s.) These groups would be outlawed in Israel - rightfully so, I might add.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the Boy Scouts.

BTW, I grew up in Skokie and went to Village Hall the day the Nazis were planning to appear...

The government sets the guidelines as to what is allowed by private groups and what is not. Like I said, otherwise you'd have anarchy, not democracy. I believe the US government acknowledges this threat and poses some restrictions as well. The question is where do you draw the line.?

Actually, a private group can be treated much like a private individual or family. If parents decide they want their children to recite a prayer before meals that is their right and their business. If they want to go out and lynch black people that is completely different.

NO.
if a group of friends meet together "to socialize" they can say whatever they like. However, we are talking about an organization who sees one of its goals as educating young men and women. Education is indeed a matter for fedral and state supervision.
I would like to know that when I send my kid to the boy scouts or any other educational organization - that the state verified that this organization does not promote ignorance and hate towards others.

Now you are introducing yet another argument.

You are suggesting that the Boy Scouts are an integral part of universal education. That is clearly not true. Though it sounds like a great segue to another argument: forcing the Boy Scouts to accept girls!

As a parent, you should take responsibility for not sending your children to join organizations that preach hate.

The Boy Scouts don't teach anyone to hate. They do promote specific values that they feel are undermined by vociferous atheism and in-your-face homosexuality, though. The Scouts don't check to make sure you aren't secretly atheist or gay, they just don't want to have to change their charter, mottos, etc. to accommodate conflicting lifestyles.

And it is quite reasonable for parents to be concerned about sending their young boys camping with an openly gay boy or den leader.

Consider this: you can force the scouts to admit a gay member, but are you going to force the other parents to send their boys camping with him? What if the other parents organize private camping trips? Would this justify a government ban on private camping for Boy Scout-age children?

First of all, the law of the coutry regulates what is allowed and what is not.
Second, you are mixing belief with social and political point of view. These are two different things. with different sets of restrictions.
Of course there are restrictions on both issues. but belief is more protected then different political views. ?

The above seems quite muddled. The question is where is such regulation appropriate and where is it meddling. Not being accepted to a private club does not infringe one's right to believe as they see fit. They are perfectly free to form competing clubs for those who share their beliefs.

Demanding that others be forced to accommodate them rather than putting the onus on them to organize alternative groups that share their values is grossly unfair.

Please ibrodsky, try to maintain some level of seriousness and rational in the discussion, otherwise it becomes futile.
You know I could answer you on the same stupid level and ask you what do you think if the boy scouts were forcing new recruits to sign a paper saying all atheists and gay persons must be killed on the spot. They are still a private org, right?
Lets keep this discussion dignified and serious.

Huh? I could also say that by suggesting the Boy Scouts are essential to your child's education that you are not being serious.

I think the basic disagreement is that you feel once people create an organization that they are no longer acting as private parties. Whether it is unserious of me to believe that groups can still be "private" or arrogant of you to assume they cannot is the crux of the debate.

I didn't say anything about in-your-face gay. I'm saying such a question should not be asked at all. Boy scouts should be measured according to their contribution to society. gay boy scouts should not be singled out at all.

I don't think this is a fair description either. The problems I've heard about involved atheists who made a public scene about their unwillingness to recite the entire Pledge of Allegiance and participate in events they found "offensive" because of non-denominational religious content.

In the case of gays, I have heard of scouts (or their parents) not wanting to go camping with someone who was openly gay at school. I can understand this. If my child feels uncomfortable sleeping next to a gay person of the same sex... doesn't my child have any rights?

We send our youngest child to a Jewish day school. They have their own Cub Scout Pack. Do you think they should be forced to dissolve their Pack and integrate with one at the public school? Then who gets to decide whether weekend activities are on Saturdays or Sundays?

Well, depends what you mean by "talk about". The issue of sexuality is delicate but it should be discussed, because ignorance is worse than the uncomfortable one might feel talking about these issues.
The issue of sexulaity and sexual preferences SHOULD be discussed. IThe discussion should be supervised by teachers and psychologists.

Like at the high school in our former community? Literally, they had gay speakers who told 16-year old kids that if you are frustrated by your relationship (!) or lack thereof you should consider the possibility that you are gay and haven't yet faced up to it.

To me, this is a sales pitch and not an attempt to combat "ignorance."

First of all, we are not talking about my values. they are irrelevant here. I'm talking about the protection of the rights of minorities from ignorance and prejudice (I'm not going to answer the book reading group example. again, you attempt to drag the discussion down)

No one has a "right" to join a private group. There is nothing in the US Constitution that could in anyway be construed to guarantee such a right. Like it or not, being allowed to join the Boy Scouts, a local congregation, or a private baseball team is a private matter.

Maybe this will make my pov clear:
I'm not saying the boy scouts should explicitly allow (or restrict) gay and atheist persons to become members.
I say the boy scouts, as an educating organization, is not allowed to ask its members for their belief and sexual lifestyle. At list not in the context of membership appliance.

I have never heard anyone suggest the Boy Scouts are an essential part of a child's education. My sons are not participating this year. Should they be required to participate?

Aha. So you prefer if there were separate groups for gay, straight and animal-sex persons?
a group that promotes gay interests is NOT allowed to upfront exclude straight persons or persons having sex with animals. They are allowed to be kick out a person if the group finds them harmful for the cause.

Yes, I would most definitely prefer this.

The fact that you feel Big Brother must force groups to admit as members people whose values clearly conflict with theirs is scary.

I can understand why public institutions paid for by taxpayers must not discriminate. I can understand why a society might choose to generally outlaw religious, racial, or ethnic discrimination in jobs and housing. (Though there are obvious legitimate exceptions).

But I cannot understand why private groups that organize around shared beliefs or interests should be forced to violate those same interests or beliefs -- particularly when those with conflicting interests or beliefs are free to form alternative groups to serve them.

As Elke pointed out, there is something called "freedom of association." I believe the US Constitution explicity guarantees this right. And certainly the spirit of the Constitution is on the side of freedom of association. Because our Founding Fathers understood that an overbearing government -- not private clubs -- is the greatest threat to individual liberty.

[sharonbn]

Originally posted by ibrodsky
No, you are confusing two unrelated issues. We are not talking about "doing whatever you want." We are talking about private parties making private decisions.

I still don't see the difference. "private parties making private decisions" without authoritarian supervision is the same as "doing whatever you want".

Originally posted by ibrodsky
Again, you are confusing two issues. Paramilitary groups may be banned because they promote and perpetrate violence -- not because they refuse to admit Jews, Catholics, or blacks.

and if the KKK didn't promote violence and marched peacefully in the streets saying Negros and Jews are inferior - then they would become legitimate?

Originally posted by ibrodsky
This has absolutely nothing to do with the Boy Scouts.

What a long, thoughtfull, explanation.
It has everything to do with the discriminatory boy scouts. Both organizations discriminate persons based on their belief or lifestyles. In Israel hate-promotion and discriminatory selection is illegal. In Israel, minorities such as atheists and gay persons are not excluded and finger pointed at.

Originally posted by ibrodsky
Actually, a private group can be treated much like a private individual or family. If parents decide they want their children to recite a prayer before meals that is their right and their business. If they want to go out and lynch black people that is completely different.

If a person goes out and lynch black people because of the education he received at home, or at school or at the boy scouts - its the educator's responsibility as well.

Originally posted by ibrodsky
You are suggesting that the Boy Scouts are an integral part of universal education. That is clearly not true. Though it sounds like a great segue to another argument: forcing the Boy Scouts to accept girls!

I am not suggesting any such thing. The fact remains that the boy scouts attempt to teach certain values its young members.
The educational character of the boy scouts is a self declaration of the organization. As such, it should come under supervision of the government.

Originally posted by ibrodsky
As a parent, you should take responsibility for not sending your children to join organizations that preach hate.

This is true. I am responsible for my own children. But it is the responsibility of the government on all children to make sure that no such body, private or not, will operate in the country.

Originally posted by ibrodsky
The Boy Scouts don't teach anyone to hate. They do promote specific values that they feel are undermined by vociferous atheism and in-your-face homosexuality, though. The Scouts don't check to make sure you aren't secretly atheist or gay, they just don't want to have to change their charter, mottos, etc. to accommodate conflicting lifestyles.

Again, go re-read the article, the boy in question was anything but "vociferous":
From the article: "The issue arose about three weeks ago when Lambert got into an argument with a Scout leader at a Boy Scout leadership training seminar over whether atheists should be expelled from the organization. Farmer's office soon contacted him to talk about his nonbelief."
and by discriminatory selection, the boy scouts indirectly plant the idea that atheists and gay persons are inferior in the minds of their members.

Originally posted by ibrodsky
And it is quite reasonable for parents to be concerned about sending their young boys camping with an openly gay boy or den leader.

What, you fear the gay boy will make your boy gay? or will try to fondle him? this is what I call ignorance and prejudice. you should fear the child molestor teacher before looking at the gay boy.

Originally posted by ibrodsky
Consider this: you can force the scouts to admit a gay member, but are you going to force the other parents to send their boys camping with him? What if the other parents organize private camping trips? Would this justify a government ban on private camping for Boy Scout-age children?

I feel I'm repeating myself - what people teach their own children is different to what people teach other people's children

Originally posted by ibrodsky
The above seems quite muddled. The question is where is such regulation appropriate and where is it meddling. Not being accepted to a private club does not infringe one's right to believe as they see fit. They are perfectly free to form competing clubs for those who share their beliefs.

Again, you support the idea that every religion and lifestyle should have a youth movement and organizations of its own. That's what you call pluralism?

Originally posted by ibrodsky
I think the basic disagreement is that you feel once people create an organization that they are no longer acting as private parties. Whether it is unserious of me to believe that groups can still be "private" or arrogant of you to assume they cannot is the crux of the debate.

No. Private organizations must operate under the law. period.
In this thread I was pointing out the difference between Israeli and American law. It seems to me Israeli law is more sensitive to discrminatory policy against minorities.

Originally posted by ibrodsky
In the case of gays, I have heard of scouts (or their parents) not wanting to go camping with someone who was openly gay at school. I can understand this. If my child feels uncomfortable sleeping next to a gay person of the same sex... doesn't my child have any rights?

The same gay boy might sit next to your boy in class, or be a member of the same football team, etc. - it is not only wrong to wrap your children in protective sheilds - it is also impossible.

Originally posted by ibrodsky
Like at the high school in our former community? Literally, they had gay speakers who told 16-year old kids that if you are frustrated by your relationship (!) or lack thereof you should consider the possibility that you are gay and haven't yet faced up to it.

SO WHAT?? Now you are talking out of conext. So there are some gay persons who say stupid things. SO WHAT? there are enough WASPs there who say much more stupid and harmful things SO WHAT?? Does this means all gay person are blant and aggressive? These examples don't mean anything about gay people - they say more about your prejudice towards this community.

Originally posted by ibrodsky
I have never heard anyone suggest the Boy Scouts are an essential part of a child's education. My sons are not participating this year. Should they be required to participate?

Stop putting words in my mouth - I never said the boy scouts are "essential" to anything. They boy scouts are, by own declaration, an educational organization, with the prime goal of educating certain values to young people - do you dispute that statement?? - this does not merit them "universal" or "esssential". This does mean that they attempt to mold and shape at least part of the personality and character of their members - as such, they should be regulated to avoid abusing this power they have over the innocent minds of young people.

Originally posted by ibrodsky
As Elke pointed out, there is something called "freedom of association." I believe the US Constitution explicity guarantees this right. And certainly the spirit of the Constitution is on the side of freedom of association. Because our Founding Fathers understood that an overbearing government -- not private clubs -- is the greatest threat to individual liberty.

Elke also pointed out another thing: "freedom from discrmination". Most democracies who fell, fell not because they were "overbearing", but because they failed to see the threat in subvesive private and political groups.

[Mediocrates]

Which democracies fell?