Takei Reacts to Boy Scouts Announcement
- Thread starter TrekToday
- Start date
The topic is political by its very nature and was started by the 'TrekToday' bot or poster.
If you guys don't want comments on these posts then someone should be locking the threads.
Yeah exactly what else is there to talk about in this topic which was posted by Trek Today? Sulu and his botany?
Doesn't amaze me in the slightest. People can also be drawn to a show and like simply because it's entertaining. Nobody has to buy into the messages. I'm sure lots of racists like Star Trek. Sadly, racism and bigotry aren't going anywhere. People will stand behind words to protect themselves from backlash, but what matters is what people really believe in their hearts. People don't change the way they think because society says it's wrong. They have to believe it. And humans have a history of being stubborn jackasses.
This will be resolved, eventually, but the organization is going to take some big hits on the way.
Last edited:
I think many get into it because of the spaceships and weapons. It feeds their war fantasies.
I wear the uniform - I get that. You would think though, despite all the 'military' aspect of Star Trek, once people have been exposed to the other messages - specifically the ones they don't agree with, like tolerance - that they would stop watching.
To be honest, as a kid, all of the messages sailed way over my head. When it comes to prejudice, they had maybe one or two episodes that touched on it (one blatantly) and the rest of the time McCoy was ragging on Spock's pointy ears and green blood.
And Star Trek wasn't "all about the messages." It wasn't an hour long sermon; it was primarily an intelligent sci-fi adventure show trying to bring in a large enough audience to stay afloat. I personally find the "morality play" aspect of the series to be overinflated. Sure, a person would watch Trek for years and never get past it being a fun show with good stories and engaging actors.
And Star Trek wasn't "all about the messages." It wasn't an hour long sermon; it was primarily an intelligent sci-fi adventure show trying to bring in a large enough audience to stay afloat. I personally find the "morality play" aspect of the series to be overinflated. Sure, a person would watch Trek for years and never get past it being a fun show with good stories and engaging actors.
Waitaminute - what about tolerance for the rights of the Boy Scouts to associate - or not associate - with whomever they choose?
What about the right to be prejudiced? To be bigoted? To have one's own opinions and the freedom to associate as one will?
Let's remember, the Boy Scouts is not a government agency or in any other way affiliated with the government. Now, it has received certain perqs from the government, and those have been challenged (and often defeated) on the basis of the Establishment Clause.
But let's not lose sight of the fact that it is a cherished (if eroding) right in this country for private entities to engage in what more enlightened minds deem "wrong-think."
As for Star Trek, it had as much to say in favor of individual thought as it ever said about bigotry. Did you breeze over those messages, or did you stop watching at that point?
To tar all Christians with Jerry Sandusky is just as judgmental and short sighted as the OP about the Boy Scout leaders.
Sort of hypocrtical to deign to be offended at one while you so casually do the same to another group.
You totally missed the point.
They associate the gay lifestyle as being deviant yet they have a ton of deviant behavior going on right under their noses. A child growing up in a Christian home is just as likely to engage in deviant behavior when they become an adult as a child growing up in a household headed by gay parents.
I mean how many James Holmes', Jerry Sandusky's, Catholic priests and good Christian soldiers being caught in men's rooms does it take before people understand that it's about the character of people imparting the wisdom. The Boy Scouts do not teach children about sex, so having a ban on Gay members is a non-starter to begin with. Why does being Gay make someone less capable of teaching a young person to survive in the wild, why does it make them less capable of teaching kids about brotherhood and community?
It's silly to ban someone from an activity based on who they choose to love and spend their free time with.
Just so someone doesn't try to paint my views with a broad brush, I'm straight.
You'll have to point me to the episodes where they said it's okay to exclude folks from organizations because of color or sexuality or because they didn't think exactly like everyone else around them...
You totally missed the point.
They associate the gay lifestyle as being deviant yet they have a ton of deviant behavior going on right under their noses. A child growing up in a Christian home is just as likely to engage in deviant behavior when they become an adult as a child growing up in a household headed by gay parents.
I mean how many James Holmes', Jerry Sandusky's, Catholic priests and good Christian soldiers being caught in men's rooms does it take before people understand that it's about the character of people imparting the wisdom. The Boy Scouts do not teach children about sex, so having a ban on Gay members is a non-starter to begin with. Why does being Gay make someone less capable of teaching a young person to survive in the wild, why does it make them less capable of teaching kids about brotherhood and community?
It's silly to ban someone from an activity based on who they choose to love and spend their free time with.
Just so someone doesn't try to paint my views with a broad brush, I'm straight.
Fair enough, your other post read to me like you were going after Christians for the actions of one deviant. So my pardon then for being mistaken about that. Every social, ethnic, and sexual group is going to have it's deviants and misfits. History shows that.
I was in Boy Scouts myself, so they -are- heavily Christian influenced for whatever that is worth. My group met in a Methodist church and I can never once recall Mormonism being an issue there.
This does strike me just as the religion wanting to prevail in the organization. But according to the Bible at least 60% of the world's population is automatically going to burn in hell, and the rest remains to be seen.
If it was they were concerned somehow that homosexuals might be more interested in little boys than straight people, that might be a bit better arguement but even I'd call that lacking in substance. A sexual preditor can just as easily lie about being gay or straight.
Times are changing and becoming more tolerant. If the Boy Scouts wants to be a Christian boys organization that's fine. But put that forth as the public face then. Claiming to be all inclusive with one hand, while supplanting people with the other is flawed at the best. If they continue as they are, I'm sure they'll splinter or another boys group will form.
Despite all this, the Boy Scouts really is a good thing for young men. The people at the top just need to stop pontificating and/or politicizing their views.
I punched my ticket to hell a long time ago. As long as I get some beachfront property on the lake of fire, I'm good.
I punched my ticket to hell a long time ago. As long as I get some beachfront property on the lake of fire, I'm good.
Thank you, that comment made me lol and made my day.
But that's exactly what's happening here-- there's a virtual lynch mob mentality because the boy scouts don't embrace what we deem "rightthink".
The BSA is a private organization and is free to set it's own standards for admission.
George is free to create his own private scouting organization modeled on his vision rather than force an existing private organization to bend to his will, but it doesn't sound like that's the stance he's taking.
George is free to disagree with the BSA, and the BSA is free to disagree with George. This is how freedom works in America. Maybe George and others simply forgot.
George is free to create his own private scouting organization modeled on his vision rather than force an existing private organization to bend to his will, but it doesn't sound like that's the stance he's taking.
George is free to disagree with the BSA, and the BSA is free to disagree with George. This is how freedom works in America. Maybe George and others simply forgot.
Bubbles McGee
Lieutenant Commander
I hear that, but isn't calling into question the fairness of an organization's practices (whether public or private) and petitioning others to do likewise part of "how freedom works in America?"
I'm sure some businesses would love if that was true. Chick-fil-A would probably live to kick out gays and probably color folks as well.
