NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/misc/consumer/21316

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-30 | 3.5 KB

Xref: sparky misc.consumers:21316 soc.men:21909 misc.misc:4193
Path: sparky!uunet!noc.near.net!hri.com!spool.mu.edu!umn.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!strnlght
From: [e-mail] (David Sternlight)
Newsgroups: misc.consumers,soc.men,misc.misc
Subject: Re: Levi Strauss DEFUNDS Boy Scouts
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 30 Dec 92 21:08:42 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Lines: 64


Michael Bohl raises Levi Strauss' defunding of the Boy Scouts because
"they discriminate against athiests and homosexuals".

The following is my opinion and thus I won't enter into a discussion
of the sort designed to "prove" it is right or wrong. In this
arena, unless courts rule specifically, all we have is opinion,
informed by personal ethics. I'm responding because Michael asked
for views, not an argument, and that's what I'm giving. (Gad, I hate
to write this paragraph, but after some experience on the Net,
it's necessary.)

Premises:
Levi Strauss is a private company, owned by stockholders. They
are free to fund or defund anyone they wish, within the law,
as long as their stockholders (pick one) agree/don't object.

The Boy Scouts are a private organization. They are free to set up
standards for membership of any sort they wish, within the
law, as long as their charter doesn't forbid.

O.K. I think it's just fine for the Boy Scouts to refuse membership
to athiests if one of their purposes is to encourage belief in God.
I see it as no different than a Catholic Church refusing membership
to those who profess a religion other than Catholicism and refuse
to adopt Catholic practices/beliefs (pick one). I see it as no
different than a private "Boys' Club" refusing to accept female members.

The issue of homosexuals is somewhat more difficult and turns on two
different points. The first is whether the Boy Scouts has a principle,
analogous to their other principles such as belief in God or honesty,
about heterosexuality. Note that one can get kicked out of the Boy
Scouts for dishonesty, not because it's illegal but because it
violates the principles: "Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly,
Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Brave, Clean, and
Reverent" (from memory after about 45 years). Analogously, one may get
banned for homosexuality if there's a principle about that (though it
may not be included in the Boy Scout Oath, except by implication).

What do I mean by "by implication". (Fasten seat belts: even more
controversial material ahead. Note that I'm reporting, not
advocating.) Well, "reverent" and a belief in God is part of the
Boy Scout ethos. If the Boy Scouts interpret that to include what
God said in the Bible (dunno if they do or not), then the God of
the Bible unequivacally forbids male homosexuality as "an
abomination". (Reminder-just reporting, here. Whew!). Thus
it may be that the Boy Scout prohibition is justified by them
in this way.

Others may have radically different views on this subject; that's their
right. Please state YOUR views, rather than attacking mine, for those
tempted to flame this post.

Finally, I'm responding to the post of his message in the consumers
newsgroup. The only issue in that newsgroup is whether to boycott Levi
Strauss or not for their decision. Though I disagree with their
decision, I say not, because I believe as a private company they have
as much right to make that decision as the Boy Scouts have to make
theirs.

David
--
David Sternlight
RIPEM Public Key on server  --  Consider it an envelope for your e-mail