Glimmerjim wrote:It's simply because that is an exclusive rather than an inclusive policy, ohio. Why should we have to have separate groups for members of every affilliation? Let's try to find similarities rather than concentrate on differences. I do, absolutely, disagree with the "black group of...." I sold Real Estate for a while. There was a "Black Realtors Association". Total crap in my opinion. Attempt to assimilate, not differentiate. Rascism could be a vaguely remembered shadow in a generation if everyone would man up, take responsibility for themselves, prove those that are critical of them wrong, feel either empathetic or sympathetic for those of racial bias, and attempt to elevate themselves to a position of pride and excellence. God I wish a man would come along that could unite the "oppressed" and spur them to drag their asses out of a perception of lesser ability and opportunity and use every resource at their disposal to prove to everyone that they are as good as every one else. And even, as all groups do, have abilities that make them excel over others. We could then accept everyone for their strengths. We are all going to be one race someday.......who will we denigrate then? By the way, in my opinion after having viewed a limited number of interviews ....Muhammad Ali was a naturally intelligent man that had the right idea in mind. He TOLD the black man that THEY have to fight and prove themselves, and that they were a disgrace that should not expect respect for the lifestyle they lived. You may not agree with some of his political stances, but he blamed the black man for the black man's problems, and attempted to urge the black man to earn his respect, not consider it as an affront if not earned.
Exclusive is not necessarily bad. I would not let my son go to a rap concert, no matter how bad he wanted to go. I won't allow him to be exposed to that crap while he's in my house. I don't let him hang out with boys that use conversational cussing. I have flat out told the parents of two of his 7th grade buddies that their sons are welcome to come to my house and play, pitch tents and camp out in the yard in the summertime, etc., but I will not allow my son to go to their house as long as they have pot plants growing in their garden. I don't care if they have a 215 card or not...that's also something I'm not going to allow my son to be exposed to in a casual, 'drugs are ok' atmosphere.
You and I might disagree on how you think I should be raising my son; but as his father, I get to make that call. Exclusive? You bet. Discriminatory? Maybe, but it's my call on how he's raised. Slow can raise his kids to think that any behavior Slow is ok with is ok, and we shouldn't judge people 'not like us'. He's his son's dad, he gets to make that call.
The BSA does not allow openly gay leaders. Up until 6 months or so ago, they did not allow gay youth. Some parents do not want their kids exposed to that kind of behavior, some parents don't care, and yet others glorify that kind of behavior. If your faith tells you that a certain act is immoral, then why in the hell would you promote it? Why would you want your kids exposed to it? Because the government says you have to be tolerant? Because a bunch of liberals think it's a good thing???
Is that discriminatory? No. Gays are free to start their own organization anytime they wish. Heck, they can mandate that all gay scouts have fabulous silk uniforms and rhinestone tiaras if they wish. They could just as well require all the gayscouts to wear all leather uniforms with a$$less chaps if they wish. After all, they're a PRIVATE organization. They can have merit badges on how to run gay massage parlors, build glory holes in the bathrooms, put on a condom in the dark while upside down with a blindfold on and a ball gag in... if that's what they deem important to teach their boys. They also have a right to be able to tell the westborough baptists to go pound sand when they demand the Gayscouts of America (TM) change their ways, since they're a PRIVATE organization.
Most importantly, if a private organization does not condone a certain lifestyle, and you happen to engage in that behavior, why would you want to be there in the first place, if not to destroy the organization from within? The homosexuals have been trying to tear down any and all organizations that teach that what they do is immoral and wrong for as long as they have been out of the closet.
As far as the rest of your comments about lamenting the lack of a charasmatic black leader to lead the blacks out of the "trapped in entitlement land"...the race baiters like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson (et al) won't allow it, they make too much money off racial divisiveness. Anyone trying to actually teach self reliance and individual responsibility to the black community would be the target of character assasination on a scale like Sarah Palin endured in 2004 a the hands of the liberals. I'd be willing to bet that if Martin Luther King could come back to life today, as soon as he saw what Al and Jesse were up to, he would denounce both of them for being the race hustlers they are, and then MLK would immediately be attacked as an 'Uncle Tom' by the modern liberal version of the NAACP, who need the divisions to keep themselves relevant.